Special Education

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

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

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

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

New York State’s (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 notifications 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 disproportion is the same as the definition of disproportion.

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, Intellectual Disability, 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.  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.  The monitoring protocol for this review is available at 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 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 significant disproportionality 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 USED in the corresponding EDFacts files.

Definition of Disproportionate Representation and Methodology: (title added February 2010)

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 the methodology for calculating it is as follows:

Disproportionate Over-representation in Specific Disability Categories (Emotional Disturbance, Learning Disability, Intellectual Disability, 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 enrolled in the 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 Education:
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.
Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010
(2010-11 school year)
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.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:

The State included 574 school districts in the numerator for the calculation of disproportionality for this indicator because they had a sufficient minimum enrollment of a least 75 students with disabilities.  A total of 108 school districts were excluded from the numerator calculations because of the State’s minimum size criteria.

The percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification is 0.9 percent.

    • Sixteen school districts were identified based on data with disproportionate representation by race/ethnicity in specific disability categories.
    • Of these districts, six were found to have disproportionate representation that was the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.

     

    Districts with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Specific Disability categories that was the Result of Inappropriate Identification
    Year Total Number of Districts Number of Districts with Disproportionate Representation
    (Step One)
    Number of Districts with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups in specific disability categories that was the Result of Inappropriate Identification (Step Two) Percent of Districts
    FFY 2007 (2007-08 data) 683 16 5 0.7%
    FFY 2008 (2008-09 data) 682 18 11 1.6%
    FFY 2009
    (2009-10 data)
    682 11 8 1.2%
    FFY 2010
    (2010-11 data)
    682 16 6 0.9%

    Step One – Identification of Disproportionate Representation:

    NYS used its October 6, 2010 enrollment of all students and October 6, 2010 child count of students with disabilities for this FFY 2010 APR submission.  Based on the criteria described in the Measurement section above, 16 school districts were identified as having 2010-11 data that was disproportionate based on the criteria described above.  Consistent with 34 CFR §300.646(b), all school districts identified by their data as having significant disproportionality were required to reserve 15 percent of their IDEA funds for Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS).

    Step Two – Determining if Disproportionate Representation is the Result of Inappropriate Identification

    In FFY 2010, the State reviewed the policies, procedures and practices of 16 school districts whose data indicated disproportionate representation.  Six of the 16 school districts were found to have disproportionate representation by specific disability that was the result of inappropriate identification policies, practices and/or procedures.  The State’s compliance rate for this indicator is based on these school districts as a percentage of all school districts in the State (6 divided by 682 = 0.9 percent).

    Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2010:

    Explanation of Progress or Slippage

    In FFY 2010, six, or 0.9 percent, of all NYS school districts were found to have disproportionate rates by race/ethnicity in disability categories that were as a result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.  This demonstrates progress from the 1.2 percent reported for FFY 2009.

    Correction of Identified Noncompliance

    Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported more than 0% compliance):

    1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2009 (the period from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010)  
    53 findings
    (8 school districts)
    1. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the local educational agency (LEA) of the finding)
    49 findings
    (7 school districts)
    1. Number of FFY 2009 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
    4 findings
    (1 school district)
    Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance):
    1. Number of FFY 2009 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 
    4 findings
    (1 school district)

    1. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”)
    0 findings
    (0 school district)

    1. Number of FFY 2009 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
    4 finding
    (1 school district)

    Actions Taken if FFY 2009 Noncompliance Not Corrected:
    This is the same school district that was identified with continuing noncompliance for indicator 9.  The district was required to implement a compliance assurance plan (CAP).  The Office of Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) provided technical assistance on the root causes and required the district to initiate specific procedures for the appropriate identification of students with disabilities.  This district was offered technical assistance by the State-funded Technical Assistance Center for Disproportionality (TACD) and the Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (RSE-TASC), but declined the support.

    Verification of Correction of FFY 2009 Noncompliance (either timely or subsequent):
    In the State’s process to verify the correction of noncompliance identified through on-site monitoring, the State followed up with each district to assure that the CAP was fully implemented.  The State reviewed, as appropriate, a sample of student records to ensure that the districts were correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and that individual instances of noncompliance have been corrected.

    Correction of Any Remaining FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicable):

    1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings noted in the Office of Special Education Program’s (OSEP) June 2011 FFY 2009 APR response table for this indicator 
    4 findings
    (2 school districts)
    1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected
    4 findings
    (2 school district)
    1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has not yet verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
    0 findings
    (0 school districts)

    NYS does not have any uncorrected noncompliance related to this indicator from FFY 2008 or earlier years.

    Verification of Correction of Remaining FFY 2008 findings:

    In the State’s process to verify the correction of noncompliance identified through on-site monitoring, the State followed up with each district to assure that the CAP was fully implemented.  The State reviewed, as appropriate, a sample of student records to ensure that the district is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and that individual instances of noncompliance have been corrected.

    Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2007 or Earlier (if applicable):

    NYS does not have any uncorrected noncompliance related to this indicator from FFY 2007 or earlier years.

    Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator

    Statement from the OSEP Response Table State’s Response

    Because the State reported less than 100 percent compliance for FFY 2009 (greater than 0 percent actual target data for this indicator), the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance reflected in the data the State reported for this indicator.

    The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2010 APR, that the districts identified in FFY 2009 and the remaining district with noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 are in compliance with the requirements in 34 CFR §§300.111, 300.201, and 300.301 through 300.311, including that the State verified that each district with noncompliance:  (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirement(s) (i.e., achieved 100 percent compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the district, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.

    See above.

     

    The State verified the correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008.  There are no outstanding noncompliance issues for this indicator for FFY 2008 or earlier.

    There is one school district with four findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009.  This is the same district as identified with continuing noncompliance with Indicator 9. 

    In the FFY 2010 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction.  If the State is unable to demonstrate compliance with those requirements in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary to ensure compliance. The specific actions the State took to verify correction of noncompliance are identified above.  Only one district in the State continues to have continuing noncompliance for this indicator, as identified in 2008 and again in 2009. Monitoring staff are providing ongoing reviews of the district’s progress.  Because the district has refused direct technical assistance from the State’s technical assistance providers to address the findings, the State will take additional enforcement actions with the district if the findings are not corrected this year.

    Improvement Activities Completed in 2010-11

    See Indicator 9

    Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2009 [If applicable] - see Indicator 9

    None

Last Updated: April 17, 2012