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 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, Intellectual Disability, Other Health Impairment, Speech or Language Impairment and Autism.  See the definition of “Disproportionate Representation and Methodology” described below. 

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.  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 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 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.

     

    Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) Measurable and Rigorous Target
    FFY 2011
    (2011-12 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 2011:

    The State included 570 school districts in the numerator for the calculation of disproportionality for this indicator because they met the minimum ‘n’ size criteria.  A total of 112 school districts were excluded from the numerator calculations because of the State’s minimum size criteria.  All 682 districts are included in the denominator.

    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.

      • Seventeen (17) 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.
        • 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%
        FFY 2011
        (2011-12 data)
        682 17 6 0.9%

        Step One – Identification of Disproportionate Representation:

        NYS used its October 5, 2012 enrollment of all students and October 5, 2012 child count of students with disabilities for this FFY 2011 APR submission.  Based on the criteria described in the Measurement section above, 17 school districts were identified as having 2011-12 data that was disproportionate based on the criteria described above.  Consistent with 34 CFR §300.646(b), all 17 school districts identified by their data as having significant disproportionality (same definition as disproportionate representation) were required to reserve 15 percent of their IDEA funds for Coordinated Early Intervening Services.

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

        In FFY 2011, the State reviewed the policies, procedures and practices of 17 school districts whose data indicated disproportionate representation.  Six of the 17 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 2011:

        Explanation of Progress or Slippage

        In FFY 2011, six, or 0.9 percent, of all 682 NYS school districts were found to have disproportionate rates by race/ethnicity in disability categories that were the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.  This demonstrates no change from the 0.9 percent reported for FFY 2010.

        Correction of Identified Noncompliance

        Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported more than 0 percent compliance):

        1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2010 (the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011)  
        17 findings
        (6 school districts)
        1. Number of FFY 2010 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the local educational agency of the finding)
        15 findings
        (5 school districts)
        1. Number of FFY 2010 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
        2 findings
        (1 school district)
        Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance):
        1. Number of FFY 2010 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 
        2 findings
        (1 school district)
        1. Number of FFY 2010 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”)
        0 findings
        (0 school district)

        1. Number of FFY 2010 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
        2 finding
        (1 school district)

        Actions Taken if FFY 2010 Noncompliance Not Corrected:
        The Special Education Quality Assurance Regional Offices provided technical assistance and met with district leadership of the one district with two findings of noncompliance not corrected within one year on an ongoing basis, and conducted regular monitoring of enforcement actions, which included requiring the district to implement an action plan to correct overdue noncompliance.  The district was also required to redirect a portion of its 2011-12 IDEA funds to pay for a consultant and intensive technical assistance.  In addition, an in-depth investigation will be conducted to identify the systemic issues that have prevented the district from resolving its noncompliance.

        Verification of Correction of FFY 2010 Noncompliance (either timely or subsequent):
        To verify the correction of noncompliance the State verified that each noncompliant district 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) had corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the district, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.

        Describe the specific actions that the State took to verify the correction of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010:

        The State provided additional technical assistance and required the district to receive professional development on compliance issues relating to individual evaluations.  This district was notified of enforcement actions, requiring the district to develop an Action Plan to Resolve Outstanding Noncompliance and a portion of its 2011-12 IDEA funds were redirected to hire a special education consultant to assist the district in making the required changes.  A special investigation of the district and its governance structure to determine the reasons the district has not been able to resolve the noncompliance is being initiated by the Commissioner through the local District Superintendent of the Board of Cooperative Educational Services.  

        Correction of Any Remaining FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicable):

        1. Number of remaining FFY 2009 findings noted in the Office of Special Education Program’s (OSEP) September 2012 FFY 2010 APR response table for this indicator 
        4 findings
        (1 school district)
        1. Number of remaining FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected
        4 findings
        (1 school district)
        1. Number of remaining FFY 2009 findings the State has not yet verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
        0 findings
        (0 school districts)

        Actions Taken if FFY 2009 Noncompliance Not Corrected:

        NYS does not have any uncorrected noncompliance related to this indicator from FFY 2009.

        Verification of Correction of Remaining FFY 2009 findings:

        To verify the correction of noncompliance the State verified that each noncompliant district 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) had corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the district, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.

        Describe the specific actions that the State took to verify the correction of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009:

        Specifically, to verify the correction of noncompliance assured that the compliance assurance plan was fully implemented, reviewed the district’s revised policies, procedures and practices, including a sample of student records to verify correction of noncompliance, and that individual instances of noncompliance had been corrected.

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

        NYS does not have any uncorrected noncompliance related to this indicator from FFY 2008 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 2010 (greater than 0 percent actual target data for this indicator), the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance reflected in the FFY 2010 data the State reported for this indicator.

         

        The State reported on the status of correction of noncompliance for FFY 2010.

        The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2011 APR, that the districts identified in FFY 2010 and FFY 2009 with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that was the result of inappropriate identification 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. One district out of the State’s 570 districts upon which this indicator is calculated remains in continuous noncompliance with this indicator.
        In the FFY 2011 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 2011 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary to ensure compliance. The State has taken progressive corrective actions with this district as described above.

        Improvement Activities Completed in 2011-12

        See Indicator 9

        Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012 [If applicable] - see Indicator 9

        None

Last Updated: March 6, 2013