1 / 27

Significant Disproportionality Stakeholder Meeting

Significant Disproportionality Stakeholder Meeting. Welcome!. IDEA Regulations for disproportionality. 20 U.S.C. 1418(d) and 34 CFR §§300.646 and 300.647 Determine whether significant disproportionality based on race/ethnicity is occurring with respect to the

gumbs
Download Presentation

Significant Disproportionality Stakeholder Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Significant Disproportionality Stakeholder Meeting

  2. Welcome!

  3. IDEA Regulations for disproportionality • 20 U.S.C. 1418(d) and 34 CFR §§300.646 and 300.647 • Determine whether significant disproportionality based on race/ethnicity is occurring with respect to the • identification of children as children with disabilities, including identification as children with particular impairments; • placement of children in particular educational settings; and • incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions.

  4. Analysis Categories *Ages 3-5 by July 1, 2020

  5. Methodology – Risk Ratio

  6. Methodology – Risk Ratio Identification: ÷

  7. Methodology – Risk Ratio Placement: ÷

  8. Methodology – Risk Ratio

  9. Minimum Cell Size

  10. Minimum N-Size

  11. Alternate Risk Ratio District-Level Data State-Level Data

  12. Risk Ratio Thresholds

  13. Additional Flexibilities

  14. Stakeholder Input States must seek stakeholder (including State Advisory Panel) advice for the following:

  15. If the State Identifies Districts

  16. Comprehensive CEIS

  17. Timeline • Original date: compliance by July 1, 2018 • Proposed to delay for two years • Delay found by courts to be illegal • US ED is appealing • In the meantime, states must move forward using the new regulations for the 18-19 school year and forward This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC

  18. Note about SPP Indicators and their relation to significant disproportionality

  19. West Virginia data and previous methodology • Since 2009 • Relative Risk Ratio • Two consecutive years • Equal or exceed 3.0 • Minimum cell size: 20 • Historically only a few districts have been identified: • Prior to 2009 the number of districts identified with significant disproportionality ranged from 6 to 9 districts per year. The primary change in methodology in 2009 was an increase in the cell size to 20. Due to small cell sizes used before this change, districts with small enrollment were more likely to be identified with significant disproportionality. (OSEP’s new methodology requiring the use of an alternate risk-ratio addresses the issue of small enrollment.) • From 2010 onward, no districts have been identified as significantly disproportionate for 2 consecutive years. However, 2 districts voluntarily provided CEIS.

  20. Stakeholder discussion and data review This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA-NC

  21. Risk Ratio Thresholds: IdentificationMethodology – 2 years of data, minimum cell = 10, minimum n = 30

  22. Risk Ratio Thresholds: PlacementMethodology – 2 years of data, minimum cell = 10, minimum n = 30

  23. Risk Ratio Thresholds: Disciplinary RemovalsMethodology – 2 years of data, minimum cell = 10, minimum n = 30

  24. Questions or further discussion

  25. Tools to support districts identified • There will be multiple tools available to support districts who are identified with significant disproportionality • Identifying and addressing the factors (root causes) that may be contributing to the significant disproportionality • Identifying and tracking and reporting on students who receive comprehensive CEIS services • Tracking funds reserved for CEIS

  26. Next Steps • Consider all the recommendation from this group • Consider input of other stakeholders • Finalize decisions • Publish our decisions and move forward with preparing technical assistance and other resources for districts • Share resources and other materials

More Related