Significant Disproportionality Overview of New Regulations and - - PDF document

▶
significant disproportionality
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Significant Disproportionality Overview of New Regulations and - - PDF document

Jun 30, 2023 579 likes •687 views

2/27/2017 Significant Disproportionality Overview of New Regulations and Preliminary Results March 2 0 1 7 Disproportionality Disproportionality exists when students in a racial or ethnic group are more likely to be identified as a

slide-1
SLIDE 1

2/27/2017

Significant Disproportionality

Overview of New Regulations and Preliminary Results

March 2 0 1 7

Disproportionality

2

Disproportionality exists when students in a racial or ethnic group are more likely to be

  • identified as a student with a disability
  • identified as a student with a particular disability
  • placed in more restrictive settings
  • suspended or expelled

than students in other racial or ethnic groups

Race/ Ethnicity Categories

  • Race (one or more)
  • American Indian or Alaska

Native

  • Asian
  • Black or African American
  • Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacific Islander

  • White
  • Ethnicity
  • Hispanic/Latino (Yes/No)
  • Race/Ethnicity
  • Hispanic/Latino
  • American Indian or Alaska

Native

  • Asian
  • Black or African American
  • Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacific Islander

  • White
  • Multi-Racial

3

Districts Collect: Districts Report to DESE:

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2/27/2017

Disproportionate Representation Significant Discrepancies in Discipline Significant Disproportionality ( current)

SPP Indicators 9 & 10 SPP Indicator 4B Not an SPP Indicator Annual review process Annual review process Annual required 15% for CEIS and review process All IEP and 6 disability categories OSS > 10 days consecutively or cumulatively Identification Placements Discipline Removals 2 years 2 years 3 years Minimum cell size of 20 for group and comparison group Minimum cell size of 10 OSS Higher Risk ratio > 2.5 Risk ratio > 4.0 Higher

4

Disproportionality Data Sum m ary of new regulations

5

(1) establish a standard methodology States must use (2) clarify that States must address significant disproportionality in disciplinary actions (3) clarify requirements for the review and revision of policies, practices, and procedures when significant disproportionality is found; and (4) require that LEAs identify and address the factors contributing to significant disproportionality as part of comprehensive coordinated early intervening services (comprehensive CEIS) and allow these services for children from age 3 through grade 12, with and without disabilities.

W hen identified as SD

6

  • State must provide for the annual review and, if

appropriate, revision of the policies, practices and procedures used…

  • Require the LEA to publicly report on the

revision of p/p/p

  • Require the LEA to reserve 15% of funds under

section 613(f), to provide comprehensive coordinated early intervening services to address factors contributing to the significant disproportionality

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

2/27/2017 Tim eline

7

  • Identified LEAs will need to reserve 15% of

federal IDEA funds for comprehensive CEIS in the 2018-19 school year

  • For identification and placements, will use

data from 2017-18 and prior years

  • For discipline, will use data from 2016-17

and prior years

  • “Warning letters” to districts ASAP
  • Official notification letters to districts in

spring 2018

Current vs. New

8

Area Current New Identification All disabilities and six disability categories; ages 6-21 Same categories (ages 3-5 included by July 2020) Placements Inside Regular Class 40-79% Inside Regular Class < 40% Separate Placements Inside Regular Class <40% Separate Placements Discipline OSS > 10 days, consecutively or cumulatively OSS > 10 days OSS ≤ 10 days ISS > 10 days ISS ≤ 10 days Total removals Calculation Risk Ratio > 3.5 for Id and placements, > 5.0 for discipline Risk ratio and alternate risk ratio N-sizes 30 for numerator for Id and placements, 20 incidents for discipline 10 for numerator, 30 for denominator of risk calculations Years 3 consecutive years Up to three consecutive years Progress Not evaluated Can evaluate

9 8 W ays…

9

  • Seven racial/ethnic groups
  • Fourteen areas
  • All disabilities
  • Six disability categories (ID, ED, LD, AU,

OHI, Sp/L)

  • Two placement categories
  • Five discipline groups
  • A district has ninety-eight “opportunities”

to be identified as being significantly disproportionate

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

2/27/2017 Definitions

10

  • Risk: Risk tells us how likely a certain outcome is (i.e.

being identified as having a disability)

  • Comparison group: All other racial/ethnic groups
  • Risk ratio: The risk ratio tells us how the risk for one

racial/ethnic group compares to the risk for a comparison group of all other races/ethnicities

  • Minimum cell size: Risk numerator
  • Minimum n-size: Risk denominator
  • Alternate risk ratio: Compares the district level risk for

racial/ethnic group to the state level risk for the comparison group. Used if the comparison group does not meet the minimum cell or n-size.

Risk Ratio Calculation

11

A comparison of risks: likelihood of outcome for one group vs.

  • utcome for all others in the LEA.

Example: 40 Hispanic children identified out of 160 total Hispanic children in LEA 200 other (Non Hispanic) children identified out of 2,000 other (Non Hispanic) children in LEA Risk ratio: 2.5 (40/160) / (200/2,000) = 0.25/0.1 = 2.5 Meaning that Hispanic children are 2.5 times as likely to be identified as all other children

Alternate Risk Ratio

A comparison of risks: likelihood of outcome for

  • ne group vs. outcome for all others in the State.

Because sometimes the comparison group won’t meet the minimum cell or n-size.

12

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

2/27/2017

Cell sizes and n-sizes

13

RISK RATIO (compares LEA to itself) vs ALTERNATE RISK RATIO (compares LEA to State) If # < 10

  • r if # < 30, then do not evaluate LEA

If # < 10

  • r if # < 30, then use state comparison grp

Risk Ratio Threshold

14

What is significant disproportionality? A risk ratio or alternate risk ratio greater than the selected risk ratio threshold for a number of consecutive years = significant disproportionality States can choose to use up to three consecutive years

Reasonableness

15

  • States required to set
  • reasonable risk ratio thresholds
  • number of years to consider
  • reasonable minimum cell sizes
  • reasonable minimum n-sizes
  • and standards for measuring reasonable

progress

  • All with input from stakeholders (including State

Advisory Panels), subject to the US DOE’s oversight

  • Cell size of 10 and n-size of 30 are considered

presumptively reasonable by US DOE

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

zywvutsrponmlkihgfedcbaYWUTSRPONMLIEDCA

2/27/2017

Risk Ratio Thresholds > 3 .5 for 3 Years I D and Placem ents

16

District Area Progress? Alternate RR Low est RR A Black ID 4.34 B Black ID Maybe 1 of 3 5.01 C Hispanic LD 4.20 D White OHI Maybe yes 3.63 E White SP/Lang Maybe yes 3.86 F White SP/Lang yes 3.70 G White LD yes 3.79

Three LEAs are component districts of Special School Districts. Total enrollment for the seven LEAs is approximately 24,000 students (one large, two medium, four very small LEAs).

Risk Ratio Thresholds > 3 .0 for 3 Years I D and Placem ents

17

District Area Progress? Alternate RR Low est RR H Black ID 3.49 I Black ID Maybe 3.12 J Black ED 3.08 K Black ED Maybe 3.29 L Black ID 3.13 M White SP/Lang yes 3.30 N White LD yes 3.14 O White SP/Lang yes 3.05 P White LD 3.11 Q White SP/Lang yes 3.29 R White LD Maybe yes 3.32

Seven LEAs are component districts of Special School Districts. Total enrollment for the 18 LEAs is approximately 62,000 students (two large, six medium, 10 small to very small LEAs).

Significant Disproportionality Discipline

18

  • Review five categories separately
  • OSS > 10 days
  • OSS ≤ 10 days
  • ISS > 10 days
  • ISS ≤ 10 days
  • All removals
  • Comparison group
  • Currently use all nondisabled students
  • Will change to “all other races” for students

with disabilities

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

2/27/2017

Risk Ratio Thresholds > 4 .0 for 3 Years Discipline ( All Other SW D)

19 District Area Progress? Alternate RR Low est RR A Black OSS <=10 4.13 B Black All Disc 4.64 C Black ISS<=10 4.46 D Black OSS<=10 4.68 E Black OSS<=10 Maybe Yes 6.24 F Black All Disc 4.34 G Black OSS<=10 4.72 H Black All Disc 4.17 I Black OSS<=10 4.43 J White ISS<=10 Yes 4.18 K Black OSS<=10 Yes 9.49 L Black OSS<=10 Yes 5.39 M Black OSS<=10 Yes 7.49

Three LEAs are component districts of Special School Districts. LEAs includes both SSDs. Total enrollment for the LEAs is approximately 152,000 students.

Risk Ratio Thresholds > 3 .5 for 3 Years Discipline ( All Other SW D)

20

District Area Progress? Alternate RR Low est RR N Black All Disc 3.83 O Black ISS <=10 3.95 P Black ISS <=10 3.71 Q Black ISS <=10 3.90

Does not add additional student enrollment to prior list.

Risk Ratio Thresholds > 3 .0 for 3 Years Discipline ( All Other SW D)

21 District Area Progress? Alternate RR Low est RR R Black ISS <=10 3.08 S Black ISS <=10 3.33 T Black OSS <=10 2 of 3 3.11 U Black All Disc 3.46 V Black ISS <=10 3.05 W Black All Disc 3.07 X Black ISS <=10 3.15 Y Black OSS <=10 3.46 Z Black All Disc 3.30 AA Black OSS <=10 Yes 3.21 BB Black OSS >10 Maybe 3.22 CC Black OSS <=10 3.34

Eight LEAs are component districts of Special School Districts. LEAs includes both SSDs. Total enrollment for the LEAs is approximately 204,000 students.

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

zywvutsrponmlkihgfedcbaYWUTSRPONMLIEDCA

2/27/2017 I nput: Risk Ratio Thresholds

 Identification

  • Recommend 3.0 for 3 consecutive years
  • Input?

 Placements

  • Recommend 3.0 for 3 consecutive years
  • Input?

 Discipline

  • Recommend 3.5 for 3 consecutive years
  • Input?

22

Reasonable Progress

23

  • If LEA is above risk ratio threshold, but has lowered risk

ratio for the two prior consecutive years, State need not find significant disproportionality

  • Specific details of how much risk ratio must be lowered

is determined by State in consultation with stakeholders, including Special Education Advisory Panel

I nput: Reasonable Progress

24

Area Risk Ratio Year 1 Risk Ratio Year 2 Risk Ratio Year 3 Change Yr 1 to 2 Change Yr 2 to 3 Identification 10.62 5.64 5.01

  • 4.98
  • 0.63

Identification 4.85 3.86 3.63

  • 1.00
  • 0.22

Identification 4.78 4.48 3.86

  • 0.30
  • 0.63

Identification 3.69 3.32 3.12

  • 0.37
  • 0.20

Identification 4.32 4.22 3.29

  • 0.10
  • 0.93

Identification 4.27 4.11 3.32

  • 0.16
  • 0.78

Discipline 5.61 3.51 3.22

  • 2.09
  • 0.29

Discipline 6.65 6.30 6.24

  • 0.35
  • 0.06

How much improvement is enough to remove SD requirements? 0.1, 0.2, more?

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

2/27/2017 Additional I nput

 Number of years to use (up to 3)

  • Recommend 3 consecutive years
  • Input?

 Minimum cell size (numerator)

  • Recommend 10
  • Input?

 Minimum n-size (denominator)

  • Recommend 30
  • Input?

25

Contact Us

Em ail: m ary.corey@dese.m o.gov Phone: 5 7 3 - 7 5 1 - 8 1 6 5

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, or disability in its programs and activities. Inquiries related to Department programs and to the location of services, activities, and facilities that are accessible by persons with disabilities may be directed to the Jefferson State Office Building, Office of the General Counsel, Coordinator – Civil Rights Compliance (Title VI/Title IX/504/ADA/Age Act), 6th Floor, 205 Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 480, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480; telephone number 573-526-4757 or TTY 800-735-2966; email civilrights@dese.mo.gov.

9