Self AssessmentSelf-Assessment of District Policies, Procedures, and Practices for Special Education Programs in Arkansas Public Schools

Arkansas Department of Education, Special Education Unit

Monitoring/Program Effectiveness

Updated May 2015

Table of Contents

Instructions

Introduction

Disproportionality

Significant Difference

Process for determining that a school district is identified as having significant disproportionality and is mandated to offer CEIS

Identification

Specific Disability Category

Educational Placement/Least Restrictive Environment

Discipline

Overview of the CEIS Process

PROCESS FOR DETERMINING THAT A SCHOOL DISTRICT IS IDENTIFIED AS HAVING SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES DISCIPLINE AS DEFINED IN THE SPP/APR…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8

Indicator 4A and 4B: Significant Difference – Discipline…………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………..8

Process for determining that a school district is identified as having disproportionality as defined in the SPP/APR...... 9

Indicator 9: Disproportionality – Identification...... 9

Indicator 10: Disproportionality – Six Specific Disability Categories...... 9

OVERVIEW OF THE SPP/APR PROCESS FOR INDICATORS 4A, 4B, 9, & 10

Identifying and Analyzing District Data on Disproportionality

Section A: Self-Assessment of Policies, Procedures, and Practices Effecting Disproportionality in the areas of referral, evaluation, and eligibility

Section C: SELF-ASSESSMENT OF POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PRACTICES EFFECTING Discipline

SELF-ASSESSMENT TEAM MEMBER SHEET……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………….…16

Instructions

Please read the document completely prior to completing the tables. The sections to be completed depend on the district’s status. A district may be identified as disproportionate in more than one area or IDEA program. Below is a brief synopsis of the required sections based on district’s status.

  1. Any district identified as disproportionate under the requirements of Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS)in the areas of identification or specific disability category must completeSection A. Districts may also be required to complete Section B(excluded from 2015 Self-Assessment) or Section C if there isdisproportionality is in the area of LRE or discipline, respectively.
  1. Any district identified as disproportionate under the requirements of the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report(SPP/APR) in the areas of identification or specific disability category(Indicator 9 and/or Indicator 10), must complete Section A.
  1. Any district identified for significant differences in discipline under the requirements of the SPP/APR(Indicator 4A),must complete Section C.
  1. Any district identified as disproportionate in discipline under the requirements of the SPP/APR (Indicator 4B), must complete Sections A and C.

A team of stakeholders selected by the district must participate in the self-assessment process. When assembling this team, the district should consider including regular and special educators, and team members representing administration, professional learning, parents, curriculum and instruction, school psychology, student support services, and school improvement.

Please complete all required sections and attach evidence to support responses. Team members participating in the self-assessment process should be listed, and the superintendent is required to certify the information prior to submission.

Introduction

The purpose of this self-assessment is to determine if an identified disproportionality is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures, and practices. Inappropriate policies, procedures, and practices may result in the over identification of students in a specific racial/ethnic group in the areas of identification, specific disability category, and educational placement or a significant difference in the percentage of students with greater than 10 days of out of school suspension (OSS)/expulsion. This self-assessment is also used to assist districts mandated to provide Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) under Section 618 of IDEA. Identification for mandated CEISfocuseson significant disproportionalityin the areas of identification, specific disability category, educational placement, and discipline. CEIS mandated districts must provide CEIS and review policies, procedures, and practices.

Disproportionality

The major issue surrounding the concept of disproportionality in special education is the probability of discriminating against students based on racial/ethnic group in the areas of identification, specific disability category, educational placement, and discipline. The Arkansas Department of Education Special Education Unit has long been concerned about the excessive number of students placed in special education programs. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires a state agency to collect program information on disproportionality for the state’s special education programs, specifically, Section 618 and Section 616 of the IDEA.

Section 618 of the IDEA addresses coordinated early intervening services (CEIS) and requires States to…

(A) provide for the review and, if appropriate, revision of the policies, procedures, and practices used in such identification or placement to ensure that such policies, [[Page 118 STAT. 2740]] procedures, and practices comply with the requirements of this title;

(B) require any local educational agency identified to reserve the maximum amount of funds under section 613(f) to provide comprehensive coordinated early intervening services to serve children in the local educational agency, particularly children in those groups that were significantly over-identified; and

(C) require the local educational agency to publicly report on the revision of policies, practices, and procedures described under subparagraph (A).

Section 616(a)(3) of the IDEA addresses disproportionality requirements of the state performance plan (SPP) and annual performance report (APR) and presentsthe monitoring priorities of the US Department of Education...in particularSection 616(a)(3)(C).

(3)…The Secretary shall monitor the States, and shall require each State to monitor the local educational agencies located in the State (except the State exercise of general supervisory responsibility), using quantifiable indicators in each of the following priority areas, and using such qualitative indicators as are needed to adequately measure performance in the following priority areas:

(A) Provision of a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment

(B) State exercise of general supervisory authority…

(C) Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification

Disproportionate representation means that the percentage of a racial/ethnic group in the program is larger than the percentage of that group in the educational system as a whole.

Significant Difference

In addition to the disproportionality requirements under Section 616 of the IDEA, Indicator 4A of the SPP/APR requires an analysis of discipline data by district on students with greater than 10 days of out of school suspension (OSS)/expulsion. For Indicator 4A, significant difference is determined by comparing the suspension/expulsion rate of students receiving special education/related services to the suspension/expulsion rate of general education students.

Further, Indicator 4B requires an analysis of districtsdiscipline data by racial/ethnic groups on students with greater than 10 days of out of school suspension (OSS)/expulsion. For Indicator 4B, significant difference is determined by examining the difference between the suspension/expulsion rate of students receiving special education/related services by specific racial/ethnic group and the suspension/expulsion rate of general education students.

Districts across Arkansas should be suspending or expelling small numbers of students from school each year. The percentage of special education students being suspended or expelled annually in a district should not differ significantly from the percentage of general education students in the district being suspended or expelled annually.

Process for determining that a school district is identified as having significant disproportionality and is mandated to offer CEIS

Identification

A combination of risk ratio and weighted risk ratio methodology (whichever is lowest) is used to determine if a district has a disproportionate over-representation. District enrollment and special education child count data are examined and adjusted according to the following criteria.

  1. Using the December 1 child count for the selected year, students were identified if they were receiving services in a private residential treatment program. These students were removed from the special education child count numbers and the district October 1 enrollment numbers for the selected year. The reason for excluding students in private residential treatment facilities is in the State rules governing private residential treatment facilities. These rules state that a student belongs to the district where the facility is located; therefore, enrollment of such students artificially increases the district’s special education child count and district wide enrollment.
  2. After the October 1 enrollment and December 1 child count are adjusted for private residential treatment students, weighted risk ratios are generated. Both risk ratios and weighted risk ratios are examined and the lowest value is selected as the districts risk for a particular race.
  3. Some risk ratios are considered invalid if (1) the district enrollment of a racial/ethnic group is less than 5% or more than 95% of the district’s enrollment or (2) the number of students in the district’s child count is equal or less than 40.
  4. Once adjusted under the above criteria, risk ratios greater than 4.00 are considered an over-representation.
  5. Any district identified with over-representation for three consecutive years would be required to budget and provide CEIS.

Specific Disability Category

A combination of risk ratio and weighted risk ratio methodology (whichever is lowest) is used to determine if a district has disproportionate representation within the twelve disability categories. District enrollment and special education child count data were examined and adjusted according to the following criteria.

  1. Using the December 1 child count for the selected year, students were identified if they were receiving services in a private residential treatment program. These students were removed from the special education child count numbers and the district October 1 enrollment numbers for the selected year. The reason for excluding students in private residential treatment facilities is in the State rules governing private residential treatment facilities. These rules state that a student belongs to the district where the facility is located; therefore, enrollment of such students artificially increases the district’s special education child count and district wide enrollment.
  2. After the October 1 enrollment and December 1 child count have been adjusted for private residential treatment students, weighted risk ratios were generated for each of the six disability categories.
  3. Some weighted risk ratios were considered invalid if (1) the district enrollment of a racial/ethnic group is less than 5% or (2) the number of students in a disability category was below 40. Once adjusted under the above criteria, risk ratios greater than 4.00 were considered an over-representation.
  4. Any district identified with over-representation for three consecutive years would be required to budget and provide CEIS.

Educational Placement/Least Restrictive Environment

  1. Using a combination of risk ratio and weighted risk ratio methodology (whichever is lowest), 3 educational placement categories are examined for significant disproportionality.
  2. 40% to 79% of the day in the regular classroom with their non-disabled peers.
  3. Less than 40% of the day in the regular classroom with their non-disabled peers.
  4. Separate Schools (Day Schools)
  5. Risk ratios are examined in relation to district composition and are considered invalid if
  6. the district enrollment of a racial/ethnic group is less than 5%; or
  7. the number of students in a LRE category is below 40.
  8. After adjustments, districts with risk ratios greater than 4 for three consecutive years are identified as having significant disproportionality in LRE and are required to budget and provide CEIS.

Discipline

The rate of suspension/expulsion by race/ethnicity is calculated with a percentage difference methodology to identify districts as having a significant difference in discipline.

  1. The calculation is the difference of a specific race for SWD rate of suspension/expulsion exceeding 10 days minus the rate of all general education students with suspension/expulsion exceeding 10 days. Exclusion criteria are applied after the percent difference is calculated.
  2. Exclusion is possible if the:
  3. LEA’s special education child count is less than or equal to 40 students; or
  4. a particular race/ethnicity in LEA’s special education child count for the race/ethnicity is less than or equal to 10.
  5. After adjustments, districts with a significant difference greater than 4 for three consecutive years are identified as having significant disproportionality in discipline and are required to budget and provide CEIS.

Overview of the CEIS Process

Process for determining that a school district is identified as having significant difference in discipline as defined in the SPP/APR

Indicator 4A: Rates of Suspension and Expulsion

1. The special education benchmark for suspension/expulsion (s/e) greater than 10 days out-of-school is the three-year rate difference between district s/e rates for general education students as compared to the s/e rate for students with disabilities.

2. Districts are identified as having a significant difference if special education rates are 1.364 percentage points higher than the rate for general education students. The formula is presented below:

Formula: suspension/expulsion rate for children with disabilities – suspension/expulsion rate for general education students = difference between special education studentsgeneral education students.

3. Any district identified for having a significant difference (special education rates are 1.364 percentage points higher than the rate for general education students) in a given year is required to submit a self-assessment for the review disciplinepolicies, procedures, and practices.

Indicator 4B: Rates of Suspension and Expulsion by Race or Ethnicity

1. The measurement for 4B uses a percent difference calculation.

2. The calculation is the difference between the rate of suspensions/expulsions exceeding 10 days within a school year for students with disabilities (SWD) in specific race/ethnicity categories and that of general education students. The formula is presented below:

Formula: suspension/expulsion rate for students with disabilities of a specific race/ethnic category – suspension/expulsion rate for general education students = difference between special educations students by race or ethnicity & general education students.

3. Exclusion criteria are applied after the percent difference is calculated. Exclusion is possible if the:

a. LEA’s special education child count is less than or equal to 40 students; or

b. a particular race/ethnicity in LEA’s special education child count is less than or equal to 10.

4. Any district identified for having a percentage difference greater than 4 (special education rate for a specific race is more than four (4) percentage points higher than general education rate) in a given year is required to submit a self-assessment for the review discipline policies, procedures, and practices.

Process for determining that a school district is identified as having disproportionality as defined in the SPP/APR

Indicator 9: Identification

A combination of risk ratio and weighted risk ratio methodology (whichever is lowest)used to determine if a district has a disproportionate over-representation. District enrollment and special education child count data were examined and adjusted according to the following criteria.

  1. Using the December 1 child count for the selected year, students were identified if they were receiving services in a private residential treatment program. These students were removed from the special education child count numbers and the district October 1 enrollment numbers for the selected year. The reason for excluding students in private residential treatment facilities is in the State rules governing private residential treatment facilities. These rules state that a student belongs to the district where the facility is located; therefore, enrollment of such students artificially increases the district’s special education child count and district wide enrollment.
  2. After the October 1 enrollment and December 1 child count have been adjusted for private residential treatment students, weighted risk ratios were generated. Both risk ratios and weighted risk ratios are examined and the lowest value is selected as the districts risk for a particular race.
  3. Some risk ratios are considered invalid if (1) the district enrollment of a racial/ethnic group is less than 5% or more than 95% of the district’s enrollment or (2) the number of students in the district’s child count is equal or less than 40.
  4. Once adjusted under the above criteria, risk ratios greater than 4.00 are considered an over-representation.
  5. Any district identified with over-representation in a given year is required to submit a self-assessment for the review discipline policies, procedures, and practices.

Indicator 10: Specific Disability Category

A combination of risk ratio and weighted risk ratio methodology (whichever is lowest) is used to determine if a district has disproportionate representation within six disability categories (Autism, Emotional Disturbance, Mental Retardation, Other Health Impairments, Specific Learning Disabilities, and Speech Language Impairment). District enrollment and special education child count data were examined and adjusted according to the following criteria.

  1. Using the December 1 child count for the selected year, students were identified if they were receiving services in a private residential treatment program. These students were removed from the special education child count numbers and the district October 1 enrollment numbers for the selected year. The reason for excluding students in private residential treatment facilities is in the State rules governing private residential treatment facilities. These rules state that a student belongs to the district where the facility is located; therefore, enrollment of such students artificially increases the district’s special education child count and district wide enrollment.
  2. After the October 1 enrollment and December 1 child count have been adjusted for private residential treatment students, weighted risk ratios were generated for each of the six disability categories.
  3. Some weighted risk ratios were considered invalid if (1) the district enrollment of a racial/ethnic group is less than 5% or (2) the number of students in a disability category was below 40. Once adjusted under the above criteria, risk ratios greater than 4.00 were considered an over-representation.
  4. Any district identified with over-representation in a disability category in a given year is required to submit a self-assessment for the review discipline policies, procedures, and practices.

Overview of the SPP/APR process