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 9:  Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services 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 special education and related services 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 in special education with the percent of total enrollment of all other race/ethnic groups in special education 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, and the minimum numbers of students. (The State’s definition of significant disproportionality is the same as its 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 special education. 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  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/9selfreview-Oct12.pdfPDF document. 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 notified through written findings of noncompliance that they must correct all issues of noncompliance immediately, but not later than the prescribed due date in the district’s notification (always within one year).
  • 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 that indicate inappropriate identification 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 monitoring reviews submitted are entered into the PD web-based data collection system.

NYS uses data collected and reported to the United States Department of Education (USDOE) 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 special education and related services was the result of inappropriate identification.  These data are also provided to USDOE 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 special education.  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.  All districts are included in the denominator.

Disproportionate Over-representation in Special Education:

  • At least 75 students with disabilities enrolled on the first Wednesday in October;
  • A minimum of 30 students (disabled and nondisabled) of particular race/ethnicity enrolled on the first Wednesday in October;
  • At least 75 students (disabled and nondisabled) of all other race/ethnicities enrolled on the first Wednesday in October;
  • At least 10 students with disabilities of particular race/ethnicity enrolled in district on the first Wednesday in October; and
  • Either:
    • Both the relative risk ratio and weighted relative risk ratio for any race/ethnic group is 2.5 or higher; or
    • All students with disabilities in special education 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 2012
(2012-13 school year)
The percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification will be 0.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2012

Districts with Disproportionate Representation in FFY 2012 of Racial and Ethnic Groups that was the Result of Inappropriate Identification

The percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification is 0.6 percent.

The State included 564 school districts in the calculation of disproportionality for this indicator because they met the minimum ‘n’ size criteria.  A total of 118 school districts were excluded from the calculation because of the State’s minimum n size criteria.  All 682 districts are included in the denominator.

  • Twelve (12) school districts were identified based on data as having disproportionate representation by race/ethnicity in the identification of students with disabilities.
  • Of these districts, four were found to have disproportionate representation that was the result of inappropriate identification according to the review of policies, procedures and/or practices.

The following table displays trend data for this indicator since FFY 2007. 

     

    Year Total Number of Districts Number of Districts with Disproportionate Representation
    (Step One)
    Number of Districts with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups that was the Result of Inappropriate Identification (Step Two) Percent of Districts
    FFY 2007 (2007-08 data) 682 13 8 1.2%
    FFY 2008 (2008-09 data) 682 17 8 1.2%
    FFY 2009
    (2009-10 data)
    682 12 7 1.0%
    FFY 2010 (2010-11 data) 682 14 6 0.9%
    FFY 2011
    (2011-12 data)
    682 10 3 0.4%
    FFY 2012
    (2012-13 data)
    682 12 4 0.6%

Step One - Identification of Disproportionate Representation by Data

NYS used its October 3, 2012 enrollment of all students and October 3, 2012 child count of students with disabilities for this FFY 2012 APR submission.  Based on the criteria described in the Measurement section above, 12 school districts were identified as having 2012-13 data that was disproportionate based on the criteria described above, and therefore required reviews of their policies, procedures and practices.  Consistent with 34 CFR §300.646(b), all 12 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 (CEIS).

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

In FFY 2012, NYS determined that of the 12 school districts whose data indicated disproportionate representation and therefore required reviews of their policies, procedures and practices, four school districts were found to have disproportionate over-representation in special education that was the result of inappropriate identification policies, procedures and/or practices.  The State’s compliance rate on this indicator is based on these school districts as a percentage of all school districts in the State.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2011:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

Of the 12 school districts identified in FFY 2012 as having disproportionate representation, four school districts (0.6 percent of all NYS school districts (682)) were found to have one or more inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices that contributed to inappropriate identification.  This is an increase of one district compared to the number of districts identified in FFY 2011.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2012-13

  • Monitoring staff provided targeted technical assistance for each district with identified noncompliance under this indicator and/or those at risk for identification under this indicator.  For districts with noncompliance, routine contact was made at three-month intervals to check on the status of each district’s correction of inappropriate policies, practices and/or procedures regarding the placement and/or identification of students with disabilities.
  • During the Fall of 2013, monitoring staff in the western part of the State conducted a total of five presentations for regional special education leadership regarding the special education referral process.
  • The State’s funded Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality sponsored a 2013 Summer Institute for schools identified as needing support to address issues of disproportionality.  The Institute focused on how to develop and maintain equitable school systems.  Additional information pertaining to this event can be found at: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/metrocenter/tacd/events/videosexternal link.
  • The State’s technical assistance center on Response to Intervention (RtI) provided resources to districts on students with limited English proficiency.  See http://www.nysrti.org/page/lep-ell/external link
  • Four regional contracts were awarded to provide professional development and technical assistance to districts to scale up implementation of RtI from Pre-K through grade 8.
  • During 2012-13, the Intensive Teacher Institute in Bilingual Special Education (ITI-BSE) provided tuition assistance for 211 candidates seeking the certification required to provide bilingual special education, bilingual related services and English as a second language instruction to English language learners (ELLs) with suspected or identified disabilities.  Of these participants, 75 completed the requirements for the certificate or extension that they were seeking.  Over 90 percent of New York City employees who completed an ITI-BSE program between 2009 and 2012 were still working for New York City public schools in June 2013.
  • The State’s Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Center  Bilingual Specialists provided training to personnel from school districts and approved private special education programs on cultural and linguistic diversity and appropriate evaluations for ELLs.

Correction of FFY 2011 Findings of Noncompliance (if State did not report 0 percent):

  1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2011 (the period from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012)
 33 findings 1
(8 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2011 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the local educational agency of the finding)
33 findings (8 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2011 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
0 findings
(0 school districts)
Correction of FFY 2011 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance):

  1. Number of FFY 2011 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above)
0 findings
(0 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2011 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”) 
0 findings
(0 school district)
  1. Number of FFY 2011 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
0 findings
(0 school districts)

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Found in FFY 2011 Is Not Corrected:
All noncompliance found in FFY 2011 has been corrected.

Verification of Correction of FFY 2011 Noncompliance (either timely or subsequent):
To verify the correction of noncompliance, the State verified that each noncompliant district (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) corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the district, consistent with Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Memo 09-02.

Describe the specific actions that the State took to verify the correction of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2011:

To verify the correction of noncompliance identified through onsite monitoring, the State followed up with each district to ensure that the compliance assurance plan was fully implemented, and 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 2010 or Earlier (if applicable):

NYS does not have any uncorrected noncompliance related to this indicator from FFY 2010 or earlier years.

Additional Information required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator (if applicable)

Statement from the OSEP Response Table State’s Response
Because the State reported less than 100 percent compliance for FFY 2011 (greater than 0 percent actual target data for this indicator), the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2011 for this indicator.
The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2012 APR, that the districts identified in FFY 2011, with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that was the result of inappropriate identification [is/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.  In the FFY 2012 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction.
All districts identified in FFY 2011 are in compliance with the requirements in 34 CFR §§300.111, 300.201, and 300.301 through 300.311.  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 collected through on-site monitoring; 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.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2013 [If applicable]:   

None


1 Findings means the number of regulatory citations found to be noncompliant.

Last Updated: July 10, 2014