1. IDEA & Disproportionality Perry Williams, Ph.D. Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education

2. What we will cover: Extent of the Problem IDEA 2004 Policies & 2006 Regulations Related to Disproportionality  Requirements for determining disproportionate representation  Requirements for significant disproportionality

3. Why Disproportionality is a Problem

4. Risk Ratio Trends: Mental Retardation and Emotional Disturbance Disability Area YearAfrican- American % of AA Risk Increase WhiteHispanicAsianAmerican Indian MR 20023.04 38% growth from 1994 to 2001.61.60.451.10 20012.99.63.58.441.09 19942.20.66.9.341.13 ED 20022.25 41% growth from 1994 to 2001.86.52.281.30 20012.21.87.52.291.25 19921.60.99.56.14N/A

5. Impact of Disproportionality: More likely to be assigned to segregated classrooms or placements; Have limited access to inclusive and general educational environments; Experience higher dropout rates and low academic performance; Are exposed to substandard and less rigorous curricula May be missclassified or inappropriately labeled

6. May receive services that do not meet their needs; and Are less likely than their white counterparts to return to general education classrooms.

7. Post-School Outcomes Unemployed 2 years75% AA students Out of high school47% White Still not employed52% AA young adult 3-5 years out of school39% White Arrest rate40% AA w/disab. 27% Whites w/disab

8. Why?Some Hypothesis: Failure of general education to educate children from diverse backgrounds Misidentification, misuse of tests Lack of access to effective instruction Insufficient resources Teachers who are less well prepared Poverty

9. Reauthorization of IDEA 2004 and its implementing regulations

10. Priority Areas and Indicators in the SPP  Provision of FAPE in the LRE  State exercise of general supervision, including child find, effective monitoring, the use of resolution meetings, mediation, and a system of transition services; and  Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification

11. W W hat States Must Do Regarding Disproportionate Representation §300.600(d)(3)

12. Monitoring Identify LEAs with disproportionate representation, and of those, the number where the disproportionate representation is the result of inappropriate identification for: Indicator 9 - children with disabilities including Indicator 10 - children with disabilities with particular impairments.

13. Measurement Information: Definition of disproportionate representation Exam data for both over- and underrepresentation Use OSEP Child Count data Racial/ethnic data for children ages 6 through 21 Description of how DR is calculated Analyze data for each district, for all racial/ethnic groups, n size…

14. Areas for review School-wide approaches & EIS/RTI Referral practices Comprehensiveness of evaluations Validity & reliability – nonbiased – assessments Eligibility determination process Suspensions/expulsions Graduation and dropout rates Student performance

15. If Disproportionality is due to inappropriate identification, require the LEA to correct the noncompliance, including revising deficient policies, procedures, and practices.

16. R eporting  States must annually report in the Annual Performance Report on: % of districts with DR of racial and ethnic groups that results from inappropriate identification. in special education and related services in specific disability categories

17. W W hat States Must Do Regarding Significant Disproportionality §300.646

18. D D efining “Significant Disproportionality” State determines criteria for what level of disproportionality is significant State defines for LEAs and for state in general

19. What are the requirements for determining significant disproportionality and the use of IDEA funds for comprehensive CEIS? States are required to collect and examine data to determine if significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity is occurring in the state and LEAs of the state with respect to:

20. Identification of children with disabilities; Identification of children as children with a particular disability; Placement of children with disabilities in particular educational settings; and Incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions.

21. D D etermining “Significant Disproportionality” Is based on collection and examination of data -- -- and not on a district’s policies, procedures, or practices.

22. D For D eterminations of Significant Disproportionality States must:  Provide for the review and revision (as necessary) of policies, procedures, and practices used in identification or placement of children* * Do these comply with requirements of IDEA?

23.  Require LEAs to use 15% of Part B funds for Coordinated early intervening services …particularly, but not exclusively, for children in those groups significantly overidentified. D For D eterminations of Significant Disproportionality States must:

24. D For D eterminations of Significant Disproportionality LEA must:  Publicly report on the revision of policies, practices, and procedures