Addressing the Disproportionate Representation of Racially and Ethnically Diverse Students in Special Education 2008-2009 SPR&I Regional Training Goals for today: Review indicators B4, 9 & 10 and the process used to determine Significant Discrepancy and Disproportionate Representation due to Inappropriate Identification Review worksheet content (9 & 10 only) Focus on data analysis Removing ambiguity in the referral eligibility process Review P to P content
Significant discrepancy versus disproportionate representation Required response if flagged for B4, 9, 10 Focus on file review compliance Articulating practice Team exercise/discussion Corrective Action Planning (CAP) Elements of an effective plan 2 Indicator B4: Discipline Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year. Significant discrepancy is defined as:
a rate of suspension/expulsion of greater than 10 days based on chi-square analysis and/or a 1% suspension/expulsion rate of special education students within a district and District must have at least 10 students in their SECC and not justified by unique district characteristics 3 Purpose of B4 Ensure FAPE for all students with disabilities by: Reducing ambiguity of discipline procedures across the district Address academic and behavior support needs to assist a student in the LRE 4 IEP Team & IEP Team Considerations and Special Factors
581-015-2210 - IEP Team (4) The regular education teacher of the child must participate as a member of the IEP team, to the extent appropriate, in the development, review, and revision of the child's IEP, including assisting in the determination of: (b) Appropriate positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies for the child. 581-015-2205 - IEP Team Considerations and Special Factors (3) In developing, reviewing and revising the IEP of children described below, the IEP team must consider the following additional special factors: (a) For a child whose behavior impedes the childs learning or that of others, consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies to address that behavior; 5
Disciplinary Removals of More than 10 School Days (Pattern or Consecutive) 581-015-2415 (3) Manifestation determination. Within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct, the school district must determine whether the child's behavior is a manifestation of the student's disability in accordance with OAR 581-015-2420. (4) Manifestation. If the determination under subsection (3) is that the child's behavior is a manifestation of the child's disability, the school district must: (a) Return the child to the placement from which the child was removed, unless AND 6 Disciplinary Removals of More than 10 School Days (Pattern or Consecutive)
581-015-2415 (cont) (b) Either: (A) Conduct a functional behavioral assessment, unless the school district conducted a functional behavioral assessment before the behavior occurred that prompted the disciplinary action, and implement a behavior intervention plan; or (B) If the student already has a behavior plan, review the behavioral intervention plan and modify it, as necessary, to address the behavior. 7 2006-2007 B4: Activities 38 Districts were flagged in 2006-2007
OSEP required revision to ODEs process for determining Significant Discrepancy As a consequence of that finding, ODE held a Policy to Practice (P to P) review with all 38 districts Following the P to P, ODE mailed a letter to each district with required actions to be addressed in a corrective action plan (CAP) 8 What Was Learned? District special education personnel need to verify discipline data submitted to ODE Districts need discipline data collection system that captures low and high level discipline data It is important to review and disseminate district policies on discipline for children with disabilities to all staff at least annually
Ensure appropriate implementation of discipline policies and procedures 9 B4:Next Steps 07-08 Flagged districts will need to verify data accuracy including access to services for students suspended/expelled beyond 10 days Flagged districts will need to complete policy to practice review After policy to practice review districts will need to complete CAP based on ODEs feedback Process: District submits Discipline Data ODE applies threshold Districts not meeting threshold
are identified with Significant Discrepancy ODE conducts policy to practice review with districts identified with Significant Discrepancy After policy to practice review, District completes Corrective Action Plan (CAP) ODE approves or rejects CAP Rejected CAPs are revised by district until approved by ODE
10 ODE required actions district must take: 1. Verify discipline data prior to submission. For indicator B4, districts will need to do a corrective action plan after completing a policy to practice review that addresses required actions from ODE. 11 General Guidelines for Corrective Action Plans Activities should be: Observable Measurable Actionable Realistic Activities should include:
Timelines Responsibility assignment Technical assistance needs Activities should align with larger districtwide improvement plan 12 Example ODE Recommendation: Ensure the accurate and timely collection, analysis, review by district special education director, and reporting of suspension/expulsion data for students with disabilities. District CAP District describes a clear process for review and approval by the special education director prior to data submission in June. Process includes: dates and names of individuals
involved in the process District provides a statement assuring that special education director reviewed and approved the data prior to submission Assures the same process is being used this year 13 Example ODE Recommendation: Ensure IEPs are developed and implemented to support the academic and behavioral needs of students eligible under IDEA. District CAP District describes process in which they use an appropriate data (that tracks and summarizes low and high level behaviors) to identify if students on IEPs demonstrate a pattern of behavioral difficulties. For those students, with both low and high level patterns of behavioral difficulty, district states that a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) was conducted
AND AND A Positive Behavioral Intervention Plan exists 14 B4:Next Steps Continued FFY 2007 APR and 08-09 data Revise measure for indicator for next APR submission due to inability to use worksheet content Striving for balance in accountability and not being overly burdensome One approach is to use a risk ratio similar to how indicators B9 and B10 are examined 15
IDEA: Regulations Require policies and procedures. The State must have in effect, consistent with the purposes of 34 CFR Part 300 and with section 618(d) of the Act, policies and procedures designed to prevent the inappropriate overidentification or disproportionate representation by race and ethnicity of children as children with disabilities, including children with disabilities with a particular impairment described in 34 CFR 300.8 of the IDEA regulations. [34 CFR 300.173] [20 U.S.C. 1412(a) (24)] Require collection and examination of data regarding disproportionality. Special education Special education by disability type Suspension and Expulsion (Discipline) LRE Establish requirements for review and revision of policies, practices and
procedures. Require States to disaggregate data on suspension and expulsion rates by race and ethnicity. Require States to monitor their LEA's to examine disproportionality. 16 IDEA: State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report 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. Indicator 10: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. 17
Purpose of B9 & B10 Reduce inappropriate referrals to special education by: Addressing general education instruction and intervention polices and practices Addressing variability in referral rates by race/ethnicity Addressing variability in evaluation process 18 Quality Instruction in General Education Gen Ed Academic Interventions: SWRTI Eligibility Disproportionality Gen Ed Behavioral Interventions: SWPBS
Evaluation Child Find, Referral 19 July 08 Districts continue to submit evidence of correction for 07-08 and 08-09 noncompliance ODE working on final determinations including correction of 07-08 noncompliance June 09 Districts continue to submit evidence of correction for 07-08 and 08-09 noncompliance July May 09 Districts continue to submit evidence of correction for 07-08 and 08-09 noncompliance Districts revise rejected improvement plans and CAPs 08-09 data populated for B5, 9 & 10 reports March 09 CC verify 08-09 PCR
submission Improvement Plan due end of month for B1-2, 3, 5, & 11 based on 07-08 data CAPs due for B4, 9 & 10 (if required) Districts to verify public report card data Feb. 09 APR due to OSEP District 08-09 PCR data due end of month August June May April 09 Districts submit evidence of correction for 07-08 and 08-09 noncompliance ODE approves/rejects district improvement plans and CAPs Aug. 08 ODE disseminates Final Determinations 2008-2009 Annual
APR Indicator and PCR Cycle April March October November February Jan. 09 Districts continue submitting 08-09 PCR data Districts begin Improvement Plan for B1-2, 3, 5 & 11 based on 2007-2008 data (if required) Districts begin Corrective Action Plans for B4, 9 & 10 based on 2007-2008 (if required) September December January Sept. 08 Districts submit evidence of correction for 06-07
noncompliance until 100% compliant Oct. 08 Districts submit evidence of correction for 06-07 noncompliance until 100% compliant SPR&I Annual Trainings ODE populates reports for B1-2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 & 11 with 07-08 data 08-09 PCR report opens for submission ODE populates B1-2 report with 07-08 data Nov. 08 Districts submit evidence of correction for 06-07 noncompliance until 100% compliant Worksheets due for B5, 9 & 10 based on 07-08 data Policy to practice reviews for B4 (if required) Districts continue submitting 08- 09 PCR data Dec. 08
Policy to practice reviews for B9 & 10 (if required) Districts continue submitting 08-09 PCR data 20 Indicator B9: Disproportionate representation in special education Measure: The percentage of IDEA eligible students disaggregated by race/ethnicity differs by +/- 20% from the percentage of all students within the district disaggregated by race/ethnicity in at least one race/ethnic category Weighted Risk Ratio analysis shows a value >2.0 or < 0.25 in the same race/ethnic category; and, There are at least 10 IDEA eligible students in the same race/ethnic category in special education. Process: District submits SECC Data ODE applies threshol
d Flagged districts complete worksheet by due date Districts not meeting thresholds are Flagged in SPR&I ODE conducts policy to practice review for unjustified districts ODE justifies district based on worksheet Districts with Disproportionate Representation complete Corrective Action Plan
Based on policy to practice review, ODE determines if Disproportionate Representation due to inappropriate identification exists Rejected CAPs are revised by district until approved by ODE ODE approves or rejects CAP 21 5.83 > 20% diff (2.60*1.20 = 3.12) = Over-representation & 5.83 < -20% diff (2.60*.8 = 2.08) Under-representation 22 B10: Disproportionate representation by disability type
Measure: The percentage of IDEA eligible students disaggregated by race/ethnicity and disability category differs by +/- 20% from the percentage of all students within the district disaggregated by race/ethnicity in at least one race/ethnic and disability category Weighted Risk Ratio analysis shows a value >2.0 or <0.25 in the same race/ethnic category and disability category; and, There are at least 10 IDEA eligible students in the same race/ethnic category and disability type. Process: District submits SECC Data ODE applies threshol d Flagged districts complete worksheet by due date Districts not
meeting thresholds are Flagged in SPR&I ODE conducts policy to practice review for unjustified districts ODE justifies district based on worksheet Districts with Disproportionate Representation complete Corrective Action Plan Based on policy to practice review, ODE determines if Disproportionate Representation due to inappropriate identification exists
Rejected CAPs are revised by district until approved by ODE ODE approves or rejects CAP 23 24 25 1.21 > 20% diff (.56*1.20 = .67)= Over-representation & 1.21 < -20% diff (.56*.8 = .45) Under-representation 26 Child Find and Referral Policies and Procedures for Child Find, Referral and Identification (34 CFR 300.111; OAR 581-015-2080)
General Education Intervention and Problem Solving Process Administrative Oversight General Education Interventions and Supports Bilingual Considerations Referral 27 Evaluation & Eligibility Evaluation (34 CFR 300.201; OAR 581-015-2105) Assessment Tools and Strategies Eligibility (34 CFR 300.301
through 300.311; OAR 581-0152120) Eligibility Decision Making Process 28 B9 & 10 Worksheet: Purpose and Expectations Focus on Data Analysis: Pre-referral, Referral, Evaluation/Eligibility Referral and placement data disaggregated by ethnicity, primary disability, socio-economic status New students to special education where were they coming from? Least Restrictive Environment Suspension, expulsion, attendance and high school completion
Transfer students 29 B9 & 10 Policy to Practice: Purpose and Expectations Focus on Compliance: Pre-referral, Referral, Evaluation/Eligibility Review Indicator reports in SPR&I. Review the worksheet submitted for Indicator. Review original files (initial referral, most recent evaluation, and IEP) for 10% of the students in special education who are included in the potentially disproportionate representation group(s). Complete step one based on district policies and procedures. Complete step two based on the sample of files reviewed. Submit these completed document(s) to the ODE
using the SPR&I upload process. 30 ODE is able actions to provide ODE required district must take: feedback and will reject 1. Collect and analyze pre-referral data by race/ethnicity. or approve CAP once it is submitted. Rejected CAPs will need to be resubmitted until approved. Districts will need to do a corrective action plan after completing a policy to practice review that addresses required actions from ODE. Revised CAP now contains separate text boxes for each content area. 31
General Guidelines for Corrective Action Plans Activities should be: Observable Measurable Actionable Realistic Activities should include: Timelines Responsibility assignment Technical assistance needs 32 Where you begin to address disproportionality... 33 Equitable use of general education prevention/intervention
efforts and accurate referral and proper identification SY ST E TA DA Supporting Staff Behavior MS OUTCOMES Supporting Decision Making PRACTICES Supporting Student Academic Achievement and Behavior 34 Data Critically examine your district data and provide
your schools with their own data to discuss Overall S.E. prevalence rate Percentage of students in S.E. by ethnic group Risk Ratios S.E. referral and placement rates Referral and placement (LRE) data disaggregated by ethnicity, primary disability, socio-economic status Discipline Graduation/Drop-Out Transfer students New students to special education where are they coming from? 35 Special Education Students and Fall Membership by Ethnicity , 2007-08 80.00% 73.97%
0.00% Native Am erican Asian Black His panic White 36 Percent of Students in each Ethnicity Receiving Special Education Services out of the Total District Ethnicity Population (B9 Example) 35.00% 30.47% 30.00% 24.47% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00%
15.00% 14.68% 13.14% 10.00% 5.88% 5.00% 0.00% Native Am erican Asian Black Hispanic White Native American Weighted Risk Ratio = 2.03. Native American students receiving Special Education services = 39/128=30.47% of all Native American students in the District. 37 Percent of Students Receiving Special Education Services Compared to Percent of Students in District by Ethnicity for Mental Retardation (B10 Example) 70.00
.00 Native American Asian Black Hispanic White Native American Weighted Risk Ratio = 2.65, Black: Weighted Risk Ratio = 3.05. 38 Percent of Special Education Students Suspended/ Expelled for more than 10 Days Compared to Percent of Students in District by Ethnicity (B4 Example) 60.00 56.99 50.00 42.55 40.00 34.04 SpEd Dis cipline
30.00 FM 19.15 20.00 16.30 14.09 10.61 10.00 2.13 2.00 2.13 .00 Native American Asian Black Hispanic White
Black Weighted Risk Ratio = 3.63. 39 INSTRUCTION: Oregon Statewide Assessment, Reading, 2006-07 100% 80% Amer Indian Asian Black Hispanic White 60% 40% 20% 0% 3rd 5th 8th 10th 40 INSTRUCTION: Oregon Statewide Assessment, Math, 2006-07
100% 80% Amer Indian Asian Black Hispanic White 60% 40% 20% 0% 3rd 5th 8th 10th 41 Systems
Admin Leadership Team-based implementation Defined commitment Allocation of FTE Budgeted support Development of decision-driven information system 42 Planning and Practices Develop a multi-year, comprehensive improvement plan that addresses all facets of disproportionality Professional development Define expectations Teach expectations Monitor Use information for decision-making 43
Use Questions and Data to Target Issues and Use Resources Most Efficiently Problem ? System s ? Loc al/Individua l ? 44 Suggested Resources
IDEA: Building the Legacy of IDEA 2004: http://idea.ed.gov/ Disproportionality Module National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt): http://www.nccrest.org/ National Center on Response to Intervention: http://www.rti4success.org/ National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS): http://www.pbis.org/main.htm State Implementation of Scaling-up Evidence-based Practices (SISEP) Center: http://sisep.fmhi.usf.edu/ Oregon RtI: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=315
Claremont School Assessment Data. 2015 - 2016 . Context . All students are assessed against Individual Learning Plan targets (ILP's). The ILP's follow long term outcomes from Education, Health, Care Plans and objectives in Statements of SEN.
Question 7. Give at least one example of an image, impression, or concept of Russian culture you may have had before signing up for this course.. Group-orientated society. Less concerned about individual rights and more focus on the entire nation...
Introduction to Intellectual Property Prof Merges ... Theory of Appropriation The famous "sufficiency proviso" Slide 17 Spoliation Proviso Locke's "Charity" Proviso 3 Lockean Provisos Labor is far from an absolute claim to title Wendy Gordon: IP's roots in restitution Philisophical...
POETIC TERMS AND DEVICES ... or tone is. DICTION Diction is a writer's or speaker's word choice. It is part of a writer's style and may be described as formal or informal, plain or ornate, common or technical, abstract or...
Prayers of imprecation are only a small part of the justice of God. Legislative Justice - must obey His law. Remunerative Justice - He rewards. Punitive Justice - God punishes. since . it is. a righteous thing with God to...
The blue bird in the tree. Cartoons on Saturday morning. Until they get back from Disney World. July is my favorite month of the year. Tennis is my favorite sport, but I also like volleyball. Jorge rode his bike all...
The cross section is a section view of the road, cut perpendicular to the centerline, looking in the direction of travel. There are two types of cross section drawings: Earthwork Cross Sections: These drawings show the existing ground line and...
Ready to download the document? Go ahead and hit continue!