Significant Disproportionality Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Overview

Methodology

Indicator Review Process

Review of Policies, Procedures and Practices


Overview

    What is significant disproportionality?
    Disproportionality is one measure of educational equity. It occurs when students from a racial or ethnic group are identified for special education, placed in more restrictive settings, or disciplined at markedly higher rates than their peers. The federal government considers disproportionality “significant” when the overrepresentation exceeds a threshold defined by each state.

    Back to Top


    Why have federal requirements changed?
    National and state longitudinal data show significant racial inequities in the educational experiences of students with disabilities. Compared to their peers, Black students in Ohio are:

    • More than twice as likely to be identified with intellectual disabilities, placed in restrictive settings or removed from educational settings for discipline; and
    • More than three times as likely to be identified as having an emotional disturbance.

    The federal government revised its regulations to establish a standard method of analysis across states, so it can more accurately identify and address significant disproportionality nationwide. All states now must use the risk-ratio method for calculating disproportionality. This method compares the likelihood that students of a racial or ethnic group will be identified as having disabilities to the likelihood that students of all other races will experience the same outcome.

    Back to Top


    How have federal requirements changed?
    In December 2016, the United States Department of Education announced new regulations to further address equity in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Changes require states to use a standard approach to identify significant disproportionality, expand the categories of analysis related to discipline and compare racially homogenous districts to the state.

    In July 2018, the United States Department of Education postponed the date for states to comply with the new regulations by two years to July 1, 2020. In March 2019, the United States District Court, District of Columbia, in the ruling on Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates Inc. v. DeVos, vacated the decision to delay compliance with the new regulations. As of the date of that ruling, the 2016 regulations are in effect and states are required to come into compliance.

    Back to Top


    How will changes to the federal requirements affect districts and schools in Ohio?
    • Ohio will require more districts than ever to address inequities by redirecting funds.
    • Ohio is likely to identify more districts for being disproportionate in discipline due to the expanded number of categories.
    • Ohio may flag many districts of predominantly one racial group based on the new alternate risk-ratio calculation, which compares the experiences of students in a district to the state.
    • These changes will equally affect community schools and traditional districts, including urban, suburban, rural and small-town districts.
    • Districts will receive additional supports to ensure equitable access to high-quality academic experiences for all students.

    Back to Top


    How were stakeholders engaged in making decisions about meeting federal requirements?
    In August of 2017, the Department convened a group of stakeholders to discuss the new disproportionality requirements. Representatives from the national IDEA Data Center served as facilitators to provide a national perspective in the process of gathering consensus input from Ohio’s stakeholders.
     
    Stakeholders represented the following groups:  Advocates for Educational Equity and Excellence, Bowling Green State University, Cleveland Metropolitan Schools, Dayton Public Schools, Disability Rights Ohio, Educational Service Center of Lake Erie West, Groveport Community school, Northwest Local Schools (Hamilton County), Ohio Association of Elementary School Administrators, Ohio Center for Autism and low incidence, Ohio Civil Rights Commission, Ohio Division for Early Childhood, Ohio Education Association, Ohio Federation of Teachers, Shaker Heights City Schools, and Springfield City Schools. 
     
    Participating State Support Team Regions: 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14.

    Back to Top


Methodology

    What is the standard methodology states must use to identify significant disproportionality in districts and community schools?
    The new regulations require that states use a standard methodology for calculating significant disproportionality in 14 categories of analysis. The standard methodology includes a risk ratio, an alternate risk ratio, and minimum cell and n-sizes. States are allowed flexibility in the risk ratio threshold, in the number of years used to determine significant disproportionality and in considering progress toward the threshold. All decisions that led to Ohio’s methodology reflect stakeholder input.

    Back to Top


    What are the 14 categories of analysis?
    The new regulations require states to calculate disproportionality in 14 categories for each of the seven racial groups: American Indian, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Multiracial, Pacific Islander, and White. Each district has the potential for up to 98 calculations, if it enrolls enough students in each racial category to complete the calculations. Here are the 14 categories of analysis:
    • Identification
    1.  All Disabilities
    2. Intellectual Disabilities
    3. Specific Learning Disabilities
    4. Emotional Disturbance
    5. Speech or Language Impairments
    6. Other Health Impairments – Minor
    7. Autism
    •  Placement
           8. Inside a regular class for less than 40 percent of the day
           9. Inside separate schools and residential facilities
    • Discipline
           10. Out-of-school suspensions and expulsions of 10 days or fewer
           11. Out-of-school suspensions and expulsions of more than 10 days
           12. In-school suspensions of 10 days or fewer
           13. In-school suspensions of more than 10 days
           14. Total disciplinary removals

    Back to Top


    What are the seven racial or ethnic groups?
    The new regulations require states to calculate disproportionality in 14 categories for each of the seven racial and ethnic groups identified in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: American Indian, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Multiracial, Pacific Islander and White.

    Back to Top


    What is a risk ratio?
    Risk ratios analyze disparities for seven racial groups, comparing each to all other students in the district across all 14 categories of analysis. A risk ratio is a numerical comparison, expressed as a decimal, between the risk of a specific outcome for a specific racial or ethnic group in a district and the risk of that same outcome for all other students in the district.

    Risk measures the likelihood of students in a racial group to receive a given educational outcome. This is expressed as a percentage or proportion. For example, districts will calculate risk by dividing the number of White students who are identified as students with disabilities by the number of all White students enrolled in the district, then multiplying by 100. If there are 40 White students in the district who are identified as students with disabilities, out of a total of 200 White students in the district, the risk of a White student being identified as a student with a disability is 40 ÷ 200 x 100 = 20 percent.

    A risk ratio compares the likelihood that students in a given racial group will experience a given outcome compared to the risk that students of all other races will experience that outcome. For example, the risk of a White student being identified as a student with a disability is 40 ÷ 200 x 100 = 20 percent, according to the calculation above. If 200 of the 2,000 non-White students—the comparison group—in the district are identified as students with disabilities, the risk of all other students being identified as students with disabilities is 200 ÷ 2,000 x 100 = 10 percent.

    The risk ratio is calculated by dividing the risk of a White student being identified as a student with a disability by the risk of all students of all other races being identified as students with disabilities. The risk ratio for White students in the district being identified as students with disabilities is 20 ÷ 10 = 2.00. Generally, a risk ratio of 1.00 indicates that students from a given racial group are no more or less likely than students from all other racial groups to experience a particular outcome. A risk ratio of 2.00 indicates that one group is twice as likely as all other students to experience that outcome. In this example, a White student in this district is twice as likely to be identified as a student with a disability as students of all other races in this district.

    Back to Top


    What is a risk ratio threshold?
    A risk ratio threshold is the point at which the risk ratio in each category indicates significant disproportionality. If a district’s risk ratio exceeds the threshold set by the state, the district has significant disproportionality. Ohio’s risk ratio threshold is 3.50 for all 14 categories of analyses. In the earlier example of White students being identified as students with disabilities, the risk ratio was 2.00. This district would not be flagged for significant disproportionality in this category. However, if, in the same district, Black students are four times more likely than all other students to be identified as students with disabilities, the risk ratio for Black students being identified as students with disabilities is 4.00. That disproportionality is significant. A risk ratio threshold is considered within the multi-year flexibility provision described below.

    Back to Top


    What is the multi-year flexibility provision?
    States are required to examine districts annually for significant disproportionality. However, states are not required to identify a district with significant disproportionality until the district has exceeded the risk ratio threshold for up to three prior consecutive years. The multi-year flexibility was designed to account for small changes in district enrollment that could cause large changes in a risk ratio. Ohio considers risk ratios for the three most current years when identifying districts with significant disproportionality.

    Back to Top


    What is reasonable progress?
    Allowances for reasonable progress are intended to prevent state disruption in meaningful, district efforts to reduce significant disproportionality. A district has demonstrated reasonable progress when its risk ratio has exceeded the threshold of three consecutive years but still has fallen by an increment, set by the state, for two consecutive years. Ohio has set reasonable progress at 0.25. For example, if a district has a risk ratio greater than 3.50 for three consecutive years but the risk ratio has decreased by at least 0.25 for two consecutive years, the district has demonstrated reasonable progress. It will not be flagged for significant disproportionality. This means the risk ratio for the second year must be at least 0.25 less than the first year, and the risk ratio for the third year must be at least 0.25 less than the second year.

    Back to Top


    When will the reasonable progress provision go into effect?
    Immediately. Reasonable progress is considered when calculating disproportionality for each category of analysis. If a district meets the reasonable progress provision for a category of analysis, it will not be identified with significant disproportionality in that category. The district will not be required to redirect funds or complete monitoring activities for disproportionality.

    Back to Top


    How many risk ratios does the state calculate for each district?
    States will calculate up to 98 risk ratios per district. For each district, the state must calculate risk ratios in 14 categories of analysis for each of seven racial groups. However, states do not need to calculate risk ratios for populations that fall below the minimum cell sizes or minimum n-sizes set by the state.

    Back to Top


    What is a minimum cell size?
    The minimum cell size is a minimum number of students experiencing a particular outcome. In risk ratio calculation, minimum cell size applies to the numerator in the fraction for calculating the risk for a racial group. Ohio’s minimum cell size is 10. For example, if two out of 20 Asian children are identified with emotional disturbances, that is a risk of 2 ÷ 20 x 100 = 10 percent. However, the risk numerator of two is less than the minimum cell size of 10, so the state would not calculate this district’s risk ratio for Asian students identified with emotional disturbances.

    Minimum cell size also applies to the numerator in the fraction for calculating risk of the comparison group, which is students in all other racial groups. For example, if 30 out of 1,500 White students in a district are identified with autism, that is a risk of 30 ÷ 1,500 x 100 = 2 percent. If only five of the 500 students in other racial groups are identified with autism, a risk ratio would not be calculated for White students because the risk numerator of five for the comparison group is less than the minimum cell size of 10.

    Back to Top


    What is a minimum n-size?
    The minimum n-size is comparable to minimum cell size. It is a minimum number of students enrolled in a district to be used as the denominator when calculating either the risk for a racial group or the comparison group, which is students in all other racial groups. Ohio’s minimum n-size is 30. For example, a district has 490 White students enrolled out of 500 total students. In any of the 14 risk ratio calculations for White students, the number of students in the comparison group is 10, which is smaller than Ohio’s minimum n-size of 30. The state cannot calculate risk ratios for White students in this district.

    If a district does not meet the minimum cell or n-size for the comparison group, disproportionality regulations require than an alternate risk ratio be calculated.

    Back to Top


    Why are minimum cell sizes and minimum n-sizes necessary?
    Small changes in small populations can result in large changes in risk ratios. These large changes do not necessarily suggest systemic problems causing significant disproportionality. Using minimum cell sizes and n-sizes reduces the possibility of districts inappropriately being identified as having significant disproportionality.

    Back to Top


    What is an alternate risk ratio?
    The alternate risk ratio is very similar to the risk ratio, which compares the likelihood that students in a given racial group will experience a particular outcome compared to the risk that students of all other races will experience that outcome in a district. The alternate risk ratio compares the risk of a racial group experiencing a particular outcome in a district to the risk of all other racial groups experiencing that outcome in the state. The alternate risk ratio uses the district-level risk for the racial group in the numerator and the state-level risk for the comparison group in the denominator. Ohio has set the minimum cell size at 10 and the minimum n-size at 30. If the racial group being analyzed meets the minimum cell and n-sizes but the district’s or state’s comparison group does not, the state will not calculate the alternate risk ratio.

    Back to Top


    When is an alternate risk ratio used?
    States are required to use an alternative risk ratio whenever the comparison group in a district does not meet the minimum cell size or minimum n-size setby the state.

    Back to Top


    Why is an alternate risk ratio necessary?
    Risk ratios can produce volatile results when applied to small populations. Setting an appropriate minimum cell size or minimum n-size is one way of addressing this limitation when there are too few students in the racial group of interest. However, when a district has too few students in the comparison group, the alternate risk ratio allows for a similar comparison, only the state population replaces the district population for the comparison group and produces results that are less volatile. Also, in racially homogenous districts and those with demographic characteristics markedly different from the state, there is a possibility that students in a racial group are identified, placed or disciplined at markedly higher rates than their peers. In these cases, the absence of a comparison group should not excuse either the state or the district from its responsibility under IDEA section 618(d) to identify and address significant disproportionality.

    Back to Top


    Under what circumstances are states not required to calculate either a risk ratio or an alternate risk ratio in a district?
    States are not required to calculate a risk ratio or alternate risk ratio for a racial group being analyzed in a district, unless that group meets the minimum n-size and minimum cell size requirements and the comparison group for the racial or ethnic group being analyzed, either in the district (for risk ratios) or state (for alternate risk ratios) meets the minimum n-size and cell size requirements. In instances where the racial group being analyzed meets the minimum n-size or minimum cell size but the district’s or state’s comparison group does not meet the minimum n-size or cell size, states are not required to calculate the alternate risk ratio.

    Back to Top


    When do risk ratios include students in the district of residence versus district of service?
    For identification and placement categories, students are counted with their districts of residence. For discipline categories, students are counted at the district that administered the discipline, which is the district of service.

    The identification and placement calculations include students attending the legal district of residence, with enrollment calculated based on full-time equivalency, or FTE). The legal district of residence is responsible for providing a free and appropriate public education for these students. If a student is enrolled, is attending and has a full-time equivalency with a community school, the community school becomes the district responsible for providing a free and appropriate public education for the student. Students are included if the educational relationship between the student and district reported on the EMIS Student Standing record is (1), indicating the student is receiving instruction, in whole or in part, from the reporting district, and the student has not been withdrawn with a withdrawal code of 81 (i.e., student reported in error).

    Students who are attending another district under an open enrollment program are reported by both the district of residence and district of service. The district of residence will report a district relationship of (3), meaning that the district is responsible for reporting the student but is not educating or providing services to the student. The district of residence will point to the district educating and serving the student. The district of service for the student will report the student in EMIS, as normal.

    Back to Top


    Is economic data included in the calculation of significant disproportionality?
    The focus of the new significant disproportionality requirements is racial equity. Currently, these requirements include only the identification, educational placement and discipline of students with disabilities who identify with one of the following racial groups: American Indian, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Multiracial, Pacific Islander or White.

    Back to Top


    Are all students included in the calculations for each category of significant disproportionality?
    No. All students are only included in the calculations for Identification, while only students with disabilities are considered in the calculations for Placement and Discipline.

    Back to Top


    When do in-school suspensions count as removals toward a manifestation determination review?-
    A manifestation determination review is required when a student’s educational placement is changed because of discipline. A change of placement occurs if a student is removed from his or her regular, individualized education program-defined placement for more than 10 consecutive days or for a series of removals that constitute a pattern that totals more than 10 cumulative days in a school year. Out-of-school suspensions always count as “removals.” In-school suspensions are defined as instances in which a school temporarily removes a student from his or her regular classroom or classrooms for disciplinary purposes, but the student remains under the direct supervision of school personnel.

    According to federal regulations, in-school suspensions do not count as “removals” toward a disciplinary change of placement under these three circumstances:
    1. The student is given the opportunity to continue to participate in the general curriculum;
    2. The student continues to receive the services that are on his or her individualized education program (IEP); and
    3. The student continues to participate with nondisabled students to the extent he or she would have in his or her current placements.
    If any one of these circumstances occur, the in-school suspension counts as a “removal” toward the 10 cumulative or consecutive days. School personnel decide case-by-case whether one of these circumstances exists.

    Back to Top


    When do in-school suspensions count as removals for data reporting?
    In-school suspensions always count as “removals” in state and federal discipline data reporting.

    Section 618 of IDEA requires states to provide data regarding discipline of students with disabilities. For this data collection, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs requires districts to count and report all in-school suspensions, including those that would not count as removals when determining if a manifestation determination review is required. The U.S. Department of Education collects data on all in-school suspensions to determine the extent to which schools remove students from their IEP placements for disciplinary reasons.

    Back to Top


    What are the new categories of disproportionality for discipline?
    The U.S. Department of Education has revised the IDEA regulations to further address significant disproportionality, which occurs when students in a specific racial or ethnic group are identified for special education, placed in more restrictive settings or disciplined at markedly higher rates than their peers. The new regulations expand the discipline categories states must calculate for significant disproportionality, to include:
    1. In-school suspensions of 10 days or fewer;
    2. In-school suspensions of more than 10 days; and
    3. Total disciplinary removals.
    In-school suspensions count as “removals” for each of these disproportionality categories. Other categories measured for disproportionality include out-of-school suspensions and expulsions.

    Back to Top


    What EMIS codes are included in total removals? Are emergency removals included?
    Total cumulative days of discipline removals include in-school and out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, in-school alternate discipline class, program or building, emergency removal by district personnel, and removal by hearing officer. Discipline Element (GD070) codes included are: 
    • 1 – Expulsion 
    • 2 – Out-of-school Suspension 
    • 3 – In-school Suspension 
    • 4 – In-school Alternate Discipline Class/Program/Building 
    • 6 – Emergency Removal by District Personnel
    • 7 – Removal by a Hearing Officer 

    Back to Top


    What if our district or school uses a different term for “in-school suspensions”?
    All disciplinary removals that meet the definition of in-school suspensions must be reported as such in Ohio’s Education Management Information System (EMIS), even if a local district or school refers to them by a different name or term. The EMIS Manual defines in-school suspensions this way:

    In-school suspension is the suspension of the student’s normal instructional activities by the superintendent or a school principal due to discipline reasons. The student attends school but is assigned a special placement that allows him or her to do schoolwork but does not specifically address the behavior that resulted in discipline.

    Back to Top


    Are there resources available to help our district lower our discipline rates for all students?
    Ohio’s strategic plan for education, Each Child, Our Future, explicitly recognizes the need for a positive climate in every school to support student well-being, academic achievement and future success. Most recently, Ohio enacted the Supporting Alternatives for Fair Education (SAFE) Act, House Bill 318. It is one of the strongest state laws in the country addressing multi-tiered behavioral supports in the interest of reducing disciplinary referrals, especially for prekindergarten through grade 3 students. This bill strengthens support for school districts to implement Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), social-emotional learning supports and trauma-informed practices.

    The Ohio Department of Education continues to build and support statewide capacity to implement PBIS.
    • Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports is a framework that guides districts and schools in in developing policies and practices that proactively define, teach and support appropriate behavior.
    • Schools implementing PBIS actively teach behavioral expectations across all environments, promote positive behavior through encouragement and reinforcement, and provide correction of inappropriate behavior through prompting, re-teaching and opportunities to correct behavior.
    • • PBIS creates consistent, predictable learning environments that increase positive behavior and academic outcomes for each student.
    • Ohio schools implementing PBIS with fidelity have demonstrated noteworthy reductions in their rates of office discipline referrals, suspensions and expulsions. With these reductions, administrators and teachers have more time to focus on academic progress, students who previously were removed from the academic environment now spend more time receiving direct instruction, and decreased behavior distractions in the classroom increases academic instruction time for other students in the classroom.
    For more information on PBIS, including Ohio’s resources, network and assistance from state support teams, see http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Student-Supports/PBIS-Resources.

    Back to Top


    What if a district is flagged for significant disproportionality this year but not next year?
    The new methodology requires a risk ratio threshold of higher than 3.50 in the same category of analysis for three consecutive years. If a district is flagged this year, its risk ratio would have been above 3.50 for each of school years 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. This district will be required to redirect 15 percent of funds to Comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services and undergo a review of student records with the Office for Exceptional Children.

    If this same district is not flagged for significant disproportionality next year, either its risk ratio for the 2019-2020 school year did not exceed 3.50 or its risk ratio for the 2019-2020 exceeded 3.50 but the district met the reasonable progress provision by reducing its risk ratio by at least 0.25 from 17-18 to 18-19  and again from 18-19 to 19-20. In either case, the district will not be required to redirect funds or undergo a review of student records with the Office for Exceptional Children.

    Back to Top


    Will the new significant disproportionality regulations affect the annual Special Education Rating?
    Historically, significant disproportionality for identification (indicators 9 and 10) has been considered part of the overall calculation for compliance in a district’s Special Education Rating.

    Additionally, districts that have made data reporting errors and whose data appeals are approved by the Office for Exceptional Children will receive a lower score for timely and accurate data on the Special Education Rating.

    Back to Top


    Will the new significant disproportionality regulations affect Ohio’s annual determination from the Office of Special Education Programs?
    Not this year, though significant disproportionality likely will be considered in the future.

    Back to Top


    How will superintendents be notified of the changes to the significant disproportionality regulations?
    State Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction John Richard presented the new requirements to all five meetings of the Buckeye Association of School Administrators in 2019. The Ohio Department of Education also published a link to a two-page overview of significant disproportionality to administrators in its weekly e-newsletter, EdConnection.

    The Department will notify in December 2019 the superintendents of districts with significant disproportionality in identification. These superintendents will receive the rest of their districts’ data in the January 2020 release of the Special Education Profile.

    All other superintendents will receive their districts’ data for identification, placement and discipline, along with all other indicators, in the Special Education Profile of January 2020.

    Back to Top


Indicator Review Process

    What specific actions are required under IDEA when a district is identified with significant disproportionality?
    According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, districts with significant disproportionality must:
    1. Review their policies, procedures and practices related to identification, placement, and discipline of students with disabilities.
    2. Identify the factors that may be contributing to the significant disproportionality.
    3. Redirect 15 percent of their federal special education funds toward services designed to address the contributing factors, including professional development, educational and behavioral evaluations, services and supports

    Back to Top


Review of Policies, Procedures and Practices

    How often must a district review and, if appropriate, revise policies, practices and procedures?
    A district must do the review and, if appropriate, revision every year it is identified as having significant disproportionality. Each district is notified of required action steps on its Special Education Profile.

    Back to Top


    What is the scope of the review and revision of policies, practices and procedures?
    All districts identified with significant disproportionality will undergo a review of student records with the Office for Exceptional Children. Districts will receive a Records for Review Excel file via the Special Education Profile that lists all the students included in the calculation for the category in which there is significant disproportionality. Districts must review the student records and provide documentation of student records specific to each category to the Office for Exceptional Children.

    Any district that made a data reporting error may submit a Data Appeals Form. Once the data appeal is approved, the district will complete a portion of the Self-Review Summary Report and an Improvement Plan for data reporting. If the Office for Exceptional Children approves the data appeal, the district will not be required to redirect 15 percent of its funds to Comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services.

    All other districts flagged with significant disproportionality will complete a Self-Review Summary Report and Improvement Plan and are required to redirect 15 percent of funds to Comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services. Districts will submit records to document individual and systemic correction.

    All documents and deadlines for submission will be available on the Special Education Profile.

    Back to Top


    Can districts appeal their disproportionality data?
    Yes. Districts may appeal their disproportionality data for any of the three years included in the calculation. A district must submit a Data Appeals Form and student records documenting the data reporting errors. If the Office for Exceptional Children approves the data appeal, the district will submit Section A of the Self-Review Summary Report. Once the office approves the report, the district will submit an Improvement Plan for data reporting. The district will be required to submit documentation showing it has completed all Improvement Plan activities. Every district with data reporting errors will lose one point on its Special Education Rating for Timely and Accurate Data.

    All documents and submission deadlines will be available on the Special Education Profile.

    Back to Top


    What are the requirements for districts that are flagged with significant disproportionality and have compliant records?
    All districts identified with significant disproportionality will undergo a review of student records with the Office for Exceptional Children. The districts each will receive a Records for Review Excel file via the Special Education Profile that lists all the students included in the calculation for the category in which there is significant disproportionality. Each district must review the student records and provide documentation of student records specific to each category to the Office for Exceptional Children.

    If the Office for Exceptional Children notifies the district that its records are compliant, the district must complete Section B of the Self-Review Summary Report for the category that was flagged with significant disproportionality. The Office for Exceptional must approve the Self-Review Summary Report before the district takes further action.

    If the Office for Exceptional Children approves the Self-Review Summary Report, the district will complete an Improvement Plan to address the factors contributing to significant disproportionality. The district will implement the activities in the Improvement Plan using its redirected funds. The activities in the Improvement Plan must align to the allowable use of funds for Comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services.

    All documents and deadlines will be available through the Special Education Profile.

    Back to Top


    What are the requirements for districts flagged with significant disproportionality with noncompliant records?
    All districts identified with significant disproportionality will undergo a review of student records with the Office for Exceptional Children. The districts each will receive a Records for Review Excel file via the Special Education Profile that lists all the students included in the calculation for the category in which there is significant disproportionality. Each district must review the student records and provide documentation of student records specific to each category to the Office for Exceptional Children.

    If the Office for Exceptional Children notifies the district that its records are compliant, the district must complete Section B of the Self-Review Summary Report for the category that was flagged with significant disproportionality. The Office for Exceptional must approve the Self-Review Summary Report before the district takes further action.

    If the Office for Exceptional Children approves the Self-Review Summary Report, the district will complete an Improvement Plan to address the factors contributing to significant disproportionality. The district will implement the activities in the Improvement Plan using its redirected funds. The activities in the Improvement Plan must align to the allowable use of funds for Comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services.

    Districts with noncompliant records are required to demonstrate individual and systemic correction. Districts will provide documentation of student records demonstrating that each individual student’s records on which the calculation was based has been corrected to demonstrate individual correction. Districts will submit additional student records to demonstrate systemic correction.

    All documents, deadlines and additional details will be available through the Special Education Profile.

    Back to Top


    Will the deadline for the Corrective Action Plan be delayed a result of the later release of the Special Education Profile?
    Yes, the deadline for Corrective Action Plans, now called Improvement Plans, will be later than usual because of the later release of the Special Education Profile. The Department will notify districts of these deadlines on the Special Education Profile.

    Back to Top


Last Modified: 1/23/2020 3:08:01 PM