February 2009 APR - Indicator 10

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report (APR) in the Introduction section, page 1.

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

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.

Include State’s definition of “disproportionate representation.”

Describe how the State determined that disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories was the result of inappropriate identification, e.g., monitoring data, review of policies, practices and procedures under 618(d), etc.

New York State’s (NYS) Measurement:

NYS will compare the percent of total enrollment of each race/ethnic group that is identified by particular disabilities compared to other race/ethnic groups combined. NYS uses 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 disproportion is the same as the definition of disproportion.)

For Over-identification of race/ethnic groups in specific disabilities:

At least 75 students with disabilities enrolled on 12/1/07;
A minimum of 30 students (disabled and nondisabled) of particular race/ethnicity enrolled on first Wednesday in October 2007;
At least 75 students (disabled and nondisabled) of all other race/ethnicities enrolled on first Wednesday in October 2007;
At least 10 students with disabilities of particular race/ethnicity and disability enrolled in district on 12/1/07; and
Either:

Both the relative risk ratio and weighted relative risk ratio for any minority 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.

For Under-identification of race/ethnic groups in specific disabilities:

A district must meet the following criteria for three consecutive years (2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08):

At least 75 students with disabilities enrolled in the district on child count date;
Both the relative risk ratio and weighted relative risk ratio for minority group 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
District’s risk of disability by race is less than 50 percent of the Statewide risk of disability by race.

NYS will evaluate disproportionality in the identification of students by the following particular disabilities: learning disability; emotional disturbance; mental retardation, speech and language impairment; autism; and other health impairment.

FFY	Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2007 (School year 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.
Note: As reported in the February 2008 APR, beginning with 2006-07 school year data, NYS eliminated Indicator #10B from its State Performance Plan (SPP) since this indicator is not required by the United States Education Department (USED). However, NYS still implements its responsibilities described in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) related to disproportionate placement based on race/ethnicity, of students with disabilities, in particular the least restrictive environment (LRE) settings. NYS continues to require school districts to reserve up to 15 percent of IDEA funds for coordinated early intervening services when data indicate significant disproportionality in placement of students in particular settings.

The percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that was the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices was 0.4 percent for 2007-08. This represents some slippage compared to previous years. The target for this indicator is 0%.

Below are summary data on the number of school districts with significant disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification and the status of making corrections to policies, practices, and procedures.

Data Year	Monitoring Year	Number of School Districts Identified Based on Their Data	Number and Percent of Districts Reporting Inappropriate Policies, Practices, Procedures	Number of Districts that Corrected their Policies, Practices and Procedures Within One Year of Notification	Number of Districts that Corrected their Policies, Practices and Procedures After One Year	Number of Districts that have not Corrected their Policies, Practices and Procedures to Date
2004-05	2005-06	13	12 (1.8%)	3	9	0
2005-06	2006-07	7 (6 identified in previous year)	1 (0.1%)	1	0	0
2006-07	2007-08	12 (5 identified in previous year)	2 (0.3%) (Possibly 5 more after verification review )			2*
2007-08	2008-09	16 (5 identified in previous year)	3 (0.4%) (Possibly 8 more after verification review)			3**
2008-09	2008-09	18 (10 identified in previous year)	This information will be reported in next year’s APR, due on February 1, 2010.
These two districts are required to report on corrections to their noncompliance within one year of notification. There is time remaining within the year. These three districts are required to report on corrections to their noncompliance within one year of notification. There is time remaining within the year. SED began collecting special education data at the individual student level for the first time during the 2007-08 school year. USED was notified that NYS’ 12/3/07 child count and educational environments data would be submitted late (by July 1, 2008). These data were submitted to OSEP on July 2, 2008. Disproportionality calculations (including under-representation for three years (2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08) were completed and notifications sent to school districts in November 2008. Eleven school districts reported results of their self-review monitoring reviews by the end of February 2009, which was not in time to be included in the APR submitted on February 2, 2009. The results are included in this table for the April 2009 revision. Please note:** SED has informed USED in writing that it will change its child count date from December 1 to the first Wednesday in October beginning in the 2008-09 school year. This was done in order for the State to be able to complete disproportionality calculations sooner and conduct a review of school district's policies, procedures and practices in the same year and report in the next APR whether the finding of disproportionality by race/ethnicity in data is the result of inappropriate policies, practices and procedures.

Based on 2004-05 school year data, NYS identified 13 school districts as having significant disproportionality in data by race/ethnicity in the identification of students by specific disability. In compliance with 34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §300.646(b), all of these school districts were required to reserve 15 percent of their IDEA funds for coordinated Comprehensive Early Intervening Services (CEIS).

Based on 2005-06 school year data, NYS identified seven school districts as having significant disproportionality in data in the identification of students by specific disability by race/ethnicity (six of these school districts were identified in the previous year). In compliance with 34 CFR §300.646(b), all of these school districts were required to reserve 15 percent of their IDEA funds for coordinated CEIS. School districts that were identified for the first time for these issues completed the State-developed self-review monitoring protocol.

Based on 2006-07 school year data, NYS identified 12 school districts with significant disproportionality in their data for over-identification of students by specific disability (five of these districts were also identified in the previous year). In compliance with 34 CFR §300.646(b), all of these school districts were required to reserve 15 percent of their IDEA funds for coordinated CEIS.

NYS completed its analysis of 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08 school year data to determine under representation of students in specific disability categories by race/ethnicity. The criteria, which are explained under the measurement section of this indicator, were developed by the State after a lengthy review of our State’s data. No school districts met the criteria to be identified for under-representation in specific disability for any race/ethnicity category in any of the above years.

The review of 2007-08 data for over-representation in specific disability resulted in identification of 16 school districts, five of which were also identified in the previous year for the same issue. In compliance with 34 CFR §300.646(b), all 16 school districts were required to reserve 15 percent of their IDEA funds for coordinated CEIS. All school districts identified for the first time for this issue completed the State-developed monitoring protocol to determine if their disproportionality is the result of inappropriate policies, practices and procedures. NYS has updated this APR in April 2009 to report these results. Please see the note in the above table for an explanation regarding why the State could not report these results in this APR by February 2, 2009.

Beginning in 2008-09 school year, the State has changed its annual child count date from December 1 to the first Wednesday in October so that the State can complete the required data analysis of 2008-09 school year data earlier and collect the results of the review of policies, practices and procedures in time to report results in the next APR, due on February 1, 2010. NYS will report in the next APR how many school districts have significant disproportionality in specific disability categories based on 2008-09 school year data (under representation in specific disability categories will be based on 2008-09, 2007-08 and 2006-07 data) and how many report having inappropriate policies, practices and procedures.

School districts that have data that indicates significant discrepancy for two or more consecutive years will be monitored by SEQA, regardless of whether they are reported in the above table as having corrected all noncompliance reported in their self-reviews. This monitoring review, at a minimum, examines whether there have been changes to the policies and procedures since the last review; and, if so, whether those changes comply with federal and State regulatory requirements; and whether practices in these areas continue to comply with applicable requirements.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2007:

As the data above indicates, NYS did not achieve its target of 0 districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disabilities that is the result of inappropriate identification. We had some slippage on this indicator with 0.4 percent of school districts reporting some noncompliance. This slippage may be due to a change in the data reporting system compared to the previous years. The 2007-08 school year was the first year in which the State collected individual student data. We continue to track the correction of noncompliance for all school districts that report having inappropriate policies, practices and procedures until full compliance is achieved. As shown in the above table, five school districts (out of 18 in the past four years) continue to have outstanding noncompliance, and all of these districts have time remaining (within one year from notification) to report on correction of their noncompliance.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2007 [If applicable] - see Indicator 9

Beginning in 2008-09 school year, the State has changed its annual child count date from December 1 to the first Wednesday in October so that we can complete the required data analysis of 2008-09 school year data earlier and collect the results of the review of policies, practices and procedures in time to report results in the next APR, due on February 1, 2010.