OREGON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Student Learning and Partnerships

Special Education Unit

1-12-09

Significant Disproportionality

Disproportionality of racial/ethnic groups in special education is a longstanding national issue. IDEA 2004 requires states to define significant disproportionality of racial/ethnic groups with regards to identification in special education, identification in specific disability categories, placement, and discipline. One common, statistically sound method for determining if disproportionality exists is the calculation of a weighted risk ratio (WRR). With regards to disproportionality in any of the four areas mentioned above, a weighted risk ratio provides a numeric index of the relative risk for members of a certain racial/ethnic group to be included in a category compared to the risk of non-members of that group to be represented in that category. A WRR of 1.0 across groups can be interpreted to mean that members of the group have the same likelihood of being in special education (for example) as members of the comparison group. A WRR of less than 1.0 across groups can be interpreted to mean that members of the group are less likely than members of the comparison group to be in special education (e.g., WRR = 0.5 means ½ as likely). Conversely, a WRR of greater than 1.0 means members of the group are more likely than members of the comparison group to be in special education (e.g., WRR = 2.0 means twice as likely).

In determining a threshold for Significant Disproportionality the ODE considered several factors in an effort to address the complexity of this issue. These factors included:

  • The inability to engage a district in a review of their policies and practices prior to identifying them with significant disproportionality.
  • IDEA is clear that the state cannot engage in a discussion or review of district level policies or practices in determining significant disproportionality, but must rely only on the numerical examination of their data.
  • Disparity in district size and demographics across the state that impact the use of a single measure
  • As in many states, Oregon has great variability in district size and demographics. In an effort to balance accountability and limit unduly punishing districts based on characteristics beyond their control, the ODE uses multiple measures including minimum “n” sizes, comparisons within existing district demographics, and the use of a weighted risk ratio.
  • The availability of other mechanisms (e.g. State Performance Plan (SPP) indicators) to address disproportionality
  • IDEA requires states to collect data and report annually on the identification rate for special education by race/ethnicity and by disability type as part of the SPP. These SPP disproportionality indicators have rigorous thresholds and require policy to practice reviews to determine whether any disproportionate representation is due to inappropriate identification.
  • In addition to using identification for special education services and disability type to determine significant disproportionality, states must annually report on discipline rates for special education students compared to their general education peers and the percentage of time that special education students are educated with non-disabled peers in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Although federal guidance does not require states to report on these indicators by race/ethnicity, Oregon collects these data and uses this information during required policy to practice reviews for discipline or in follow up discussions with districts that do not meet the thresholds for LRE.
  • The potential forconflicting messages to districts regarding the appropriateness of their policies and practices and findings of significant disproportionality
  • Given the use of rigorous thresholds (e.g., WRR>2) forSPP indicators and the resultant required policy to practice reviews, the ODE wants to limit the potential for sending conflicting messages to any district(s) that may be flagged.These districts may have been flaggedbased on the thresholds used within the SPP but, following the necessary policy to practice review, found to demonstrateappropriate identification practices. The conflicting message would then occur when ODE is forced to make a determination of significant disproportionality due to the district’s data alone, while finding that the district was appropriately referring, evaluating, and identifying students for special education.

After considering the factorsabove, the ODE has developed the following criteria foreach of the four areas required for review to determine significant disproportionality. ODE considers any district meeting all of the criteriain one or more of the four areas belowreason for requiring preventative measures including the required use of 15% of IDEA funds for coordinated early intervening services (CEIS).

Identification for special education by race/ethnicity:
  • Asian
  • Black
  • Hispanic
  • NativeAmerican
  • White
/
  • ≥10 students in special education by race/ethnicity category, and
  • ≥10 students in special education across other race/ethnicity categories, and
  • +20% difference in the identified special education population from the overall district population by race/ethnicity category, and
  • Weighted risk ratio of >4.0 by race/ethnicity category

Identification by race/ethnicity across 6 disability types:
  • Asian
  • Black
  • Hispanic
  • NativeAmerican
  • White
/
  • Autism Spectrum Disorder
  • Communication Disorder
  • Emotional Disturbance
  • Mental Retardation
  • Other Health Impairment
  • Specific Learning Disability
/
  • ≥10 students in disability category by race/ethnicity, and
  • ≥10 students in disability category across other race/ethnicity categories, and
  • +20% difference in the disability category from the overall district population by race/ethnicity category, and
  • Weighted risk ratio of >4.0 by race/ethnicity category

Federal placement distribution (LRE) by setting and race/ethnicity:
  • Asian
  • Black
  • Hispanic
  • NativeAmerican
  • White
/
  • Regular Class 40% to 79%
  • Regular Class less than 40%
  • SeparateSchoolor Residential Facility
/
  • ≥10 students in setting by race/ethnicity, and
  • ≥10 students in setting across other race/ethnicity categories, and
  • +20% difference in the special education setting from the overall district special education population by race/ethnicity category, and
  • Weighted risk ratio of >4.0 by race/ethnicity category

Long-term discipline including incidence, duration and type by race/ethnicity:
  • Asian
  • Black
  • Hispanic
  • NativeAmerican
  • White
/
  • Incidence = cumulative # of suspension or expulsion incidents
  • Duration = suspension or expulsion totaling greater than 10 days
  • Type = out of school suspension or expulsion
/
  • ≥10 students in special education by race/ethnicity category who received long-term discipline, and
  • +20% difference in the special education race/ethnicity population who received long-term discipline from the overall district population by race/ethnicity category
  • Weighted risk ratio of >4.0 by race/ethnicity category