Special Education

State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 - Revised February 2013 - Indicator 10

Overview of the State Performance Plan Development

See Overview of the State Performance Plan (SPP) Development preceding Indicator 1.

Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality

Indicator 10: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.

Indicator 10B: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education placements that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and practices.*

*Note: Beginning with 2006-07 school year data, New York State (NYS) no longer reports in the Annual Performance Report on the percent of school districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education placement that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and practices.   
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C))

Measurement:

Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.

NYS’ Measurement:

Step One:

NYS compares the percent of total enrollment of each race/ethnic group that is identified by particular disabilities compared to other race/ethnic groups combined.  For identification of school districts since the 2005-06 school year, the State has used the following definition of “disproportionate representation” and in subsequent years may revise the definition by lowering the relative risk ratio, weighted relative risk ratio as well as the minimum numbers of students.  The State’s definition of significant disproportionality is the same as the definition of disproportionality.

NYS uses the relative risk and weighted relative risk ratios, with minimum “n” sizes to identify school districts whose data indicate disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories of Emotional Disturbance, Learning Disability, Mental Retardation, Other Health Impairment, Speech or Language Impairment and Autism. See the definition of “Disproportionate Representation and Methodology” described below. All school districts whose data are disproportionate are required to use a State developed self-review monitoring protocol to identify the regulations with which they are not in compliance. The results from the self-review monitoring protocol are reported to the State and are used as the basis to determine the number of districts in which disproportionate representation is the result of inappropriate identification. (Clarification added January 2010)  Districts that are identified based on their data for two consecutive years receive an on-site focused review to determine if their policies, practices and procedures are in compliance with State requirements.

Step Two:

The State provides for the review of policies, procedures and practices each year a school district’s data shows a disproportionate representation based on race/ethnicity  in the disability category of students with disabilities as follows: 

  • The first year a district’s data indicates disproportionality, the State requires the district to complete a State-developed self-review monitoring protocol, which requires the review of specific policies, practices and procedures to determine whether the disproportionate representation was the result of inappropriate identification (see http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/indicators/10.htm).  A report of the results of this review is submitted by the district to the State.  At the time of submission, school districts that identify issues of noncompliance are immediately notified through written findings of noncompliance that they must correct all issues of noncompliance as soon as possible, but not later than 12 months. 
  • For subsequent years in which a school district’s data indicates significant discrepancies, the State conducts the monitoring review of the district’s policies, procedures and practices as identified above. 

Step Three: 

When calculating the results for this indicator, the State divides the number of school districts with disproportionate representation and inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices by the total number of school districts in the State.

Data Source:

Data on students’ race/ethnicity and special education classification are collected through the Student Information Repository System (SIRS), at an individual student level.  Results of self-review monitoring protocols are submitted by school districts through the PD web-based data collection system.

NYS uses data collected and reported to the United States Education Department (USED) in the Annual 618 report on Table 1 of Information Collection 1820-0043 (Report of Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education Under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), As Amended) and the State’s analysis to determine if the disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories was the result of inappropriate identification.  These data are also provided to the United States Education Department (USED) in the corresponding EDFacts files.

Definition of Disproportionate Representation and Methodology

NYS uses the relative risk and weighted relative risk ratios, with minimum “n” sizes to identify school districts whose data indicate disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories.  The minimum “n” size requirement used to compute disproportionate representation does not exclude school districts from the denominator when calculating results for this indicator, but only districts that meet the minimum “n” size are included in the numerator.  The definition of “Disproportionate Representation” and methodology for calculating it is as follows:

Disproportionate Over-representation in Specific Disability Categories (Emotional Disturbance, Learning Disability, Mental Retardation, Other Health Impairment, Speech or Language Impairment and Autism) :

  • At least 75 students with disabilities enrolled on child count date* (the first Wednesday in October);
  • A minimum of 30 students (disabled and nondisabled) of particular race/ethnicity enrolled on the child count date;
  • At least 75 students of all other race/ethnicities were enrolled in district on child count date;
  •  At least 10 students with disabilities of particular race/ethnicity and disability enrolled in district on the child count date; and
  • Either:
    • Both the relative risk ratio and weighted relative risk ratio for any race/ethnic group is 4.0 or higher; or
    • All students with disabilities in a specific disability category are of only one race/ethnic group regardless of the size of the relative risk ratio and weighted relative risk ratio.

Disproportionate Under-representation in Special Education9:
The district must meet the following criteria for three consecutive years:

  • At least 75 students with disabilities enrolled on child count date;
  • Both the relative risk ratio and weighted relative risk ratio is less than or equal to 0.25;
  • ([District enrollment of race] times [Risk of Other Races]) divided by 4 is greater than or equal to 10;
  • Minimum district enrollment of other races is 75; and
  • A district’s risk of disability by race is less than 50 percent when compared to all other race/ethnicity groups statewide.

* Note: Language regarding dates was changed to more generic terms “child count date” and “three consecutive years” to remain consistent with periodic changes in data collection rules in the Student Information Repository System (SIRS).

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process

IDEA section 618(d) requires States to collect and examine data to determine if significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity is occurring in the State and the local educational agencies of the State with respect to:

  • the identification of children as children with disabilities, including the identification of children by particular disabilities;
  • the placement in particular educational settings of such children; and
  • the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions.

In the case of a determination of significant disproportionality with respect to the identification of children as children with disabilities, or the placement in particular educational settings of such children the State shall:

  • provide for the review and if appropriate revision of the policies, procedures, and practices used in such identification or placement to ensure that such policies, procedures, and practices comply with the requirements of IDEA;
  • require any local educational agency (LEA) identified to reserve fifteen percent of funds under section 613(f) to provide comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) to serve children in the local education agency, particularly children in those groups that were significantly over identified; and
  • require the LEA to publicly report on the revision of policies, practices, and procedures related to disproportionality.

Furthermore, IDEA section 616(a)(3) requires the Secretary to monitor states and the States to monitor LEAs using quantifiable and qualitative indicators to measure disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification.

As a result of the passage of NYS legislation in 1999 (Chapter 405 of the Laws of 1999), the State has been identifying school districts for disproportionality based on race and ethnicity issues among other special education issues since the 2000-01 school year.  It has conducted three such notifications, in 2000-01, 2002-03 and 2004-05 school years. Identified school districts were assigned to one of three levels of technical assistance: “self-review”; “regional review”; and “targeted”:

  • School districts assigned to “targeted” form of technical assistance received extensive technical assistance through the Department’s staff and funded networks. They were required to receive approval of their Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) plans, which contained improvement strategies.
  • School districts assigned to “regional-review” form of assistance were required to address resolution of their problems in their CSPD plan and participate in regional training programs sponsored by the Department or through local sources.
  • “Self-review” school districts addressed the resolution of their issues in their CSPD plans with local and regional resources and documented their annual updates to the CSPD plan with support of the SETRC representative.  The CSPD development and review/approval process included a review of the identified school district policies, procedures and practices used in the identification and placement of students.

In the first two notifications (2000-01 and 2002-03), NYS used the chi-square formula with the addition of some minimum numbers of students in the total enrollment and in each expected value cell of the chi-square formula. In the third notification, after review of our methodology, we revised how the chi-square statistic was calculated and added the relative risk ratio calculation to our methodology to identify school districts that had significant disproportion.  Only school districts with significant chi-square results, relative risk ratios of 1.2 or higher (or 0.5 or lower for the "removed from regular classes for less than 20 percent of the day placement category") and minimum numbers of enrollment were identified for significant disproportion.

Because of the requirement to establish a baseline if the disproportionality is a result of inappropriate policies, practices and procedures, NYS will revise its methodology for addressing disproportionality to the following beginning in 2005-06 school year (using 2004-05 school year data).

Plan to collect baseline data

By February 2006, NYS analyzed data and sent notifications to school districts whose data indicate "significant disproportion" based on the above definition, providing them with a State developed "Disproportionality Self-Review” monitoring protocol. The notifications also required a school district to reserve 15 percent of the school district's IDEA funds to support early intervening services.

By May 2006, these school districts were required to submit their completed self-review monitoring protocols of relevant school district policies, practices and procedures to the Department.  The district was required to include community representatives from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds in the review of the policies, procedures and practices.

Based on this self-review, if a school district determines that one or more of its policies, procedures and/or practices require revision, it must revise them and publicly post such revisions and report the corrective action to the Department.  If a school district determines its policies, procedures and/or practices are appropriate and do not require revision, the Department will arrange for verification of this determination.  If the State determines that the school district's policies, procedures and practices are in compliance with federal and State requirements, the school district will not be required to complete another review of its policies, procedures or practices during the remaining period of the SPP.  However, IDEA funds will continue to be redirected if data indicates discrepancy, based on the State’s definition. Furthermore, if school district’s data do not improve, the State may conduct another review of school district’s policies, practices and procedures.

School districts that are found to have inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices through the self-reviews or Department verification reviews will be reported in the baseline data for the 2005-06 school year.

Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-06)

NYS’ baseline data (before completion of the verification procedures in 10 school districts that reported 100 percent compliance) is that six out of 684 school districts (0.9 percent) have significant disproportionate representation in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate policies, practices and procedures and four  out of 684 (0.6 percent) school districts have significant disproportionate representation in particular settings that is the result of inappropriate policies, practices and procedures.

Explanation of Baseline Data

  • 13 school districts’ data for the 2004-05 school year indicated significant disproportionate representation of students in specific disability categories based on race/ethnicity.
  • Seven school districts’ data for the 2004-05 school year indicated significant disproportionate representation of students in particular settings based on race/ethnicity.
  •  All 20 school districts completed a comprehensive self-review monitoring protocol during the 2005-06 school year.  Six of the 13 school districts identified for significant disproportionate representation in specific disability categories reported that their policies, practices and procedures related to the identification of students by specific disability categories were less than 100 percent compliant and seven school districts reported they were 100 percent in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Four of the 7 school districts identified for significant disproportionate representation in particular placements reported that their policies, practices and procedures related to the placement of students in particular settings were less than 100% compliant and 3 school districts reported they were 100 percent in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
  • During the 2006-07 school year, the State will verify the results in the 10 school districts that reported 100 percent compliance.
  • The 10 school districts that reported less than 100 percent compliance will be required to self-correct, publicly report the correction, and provide documentation of correction to the State within one year from notification of noncompliance.

Measurable and Rigorous Targets

FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target

2005
(2005-06)
The percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories or placements that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices will be 0.
2006*
(2006-07)
The percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices will be 0.
2007*
(2007-08)
The percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices will be 0.
2008*
(2008-09)

The percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices will be 0.

2009*
(2009-10)
The percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices will be 0.
2010*
(2010-11)
The percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices will be 0.
2011**
(2011-12)
The percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices will be 0.
2012**
(2012-13)
The percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices will be 0.
*Change as of FFY 2006: New York State is not required to include targets for disproportionate representation in placements in the SPP.
**In FFY 2009, USED requested states to add two additional years to the SPP, including adding two additional years of targets.

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:

Activity Timelines Resources
See Activities for Indicator 9    
Seek technical assistance from NCCRESt to assist us with meaningful data analysis and reporting for under-representation in specific disability categories by race/ethnicity. (added APR 2/08) 2008 NCCRESt

9 As of February 2013, states are not required to report on under-representation.

Last Updated:

 

March 5, 2013 ate -->