AUGUST 2009 (Voume #7, Issue #3) - Packet #15, Article 2

PDF Version

When students from a particular racial/ethnic background who receive special education services are over or under represented, when compared to the overall student population, this is referred to as “disproportionate representation.” Disproportionate representation is identified by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as a great concern.

Over and under representation is often the result of improper identification of students in need of special education services. Improper policies and procedures could result in racial/ethnic subgroups being more likely or less likely to be determined eligible for special education services or a specific disability category. The students could also be at higher risk for lack of access to the general education classroom and a higher rate of discipline.

Through legislation, the U.S. Congress requires states and school districts to address over and under representation. The IDEA outlines two separate sets of requirements for state education agencies (SEAs) regarding over and under representation. One set of  requirements is known as “disproportionate representation as a monitoring priority area” and the other is known as “significant disproportionality.”

Though both terms are concerned with over representation of racial/ethnic subgroups, the primary differences relate to the areas of special education that are examined and the actions required of districts when reaching the thresholds for disproportionate representation as a monitoring priority and significant disproportionality.

This FOCUS on Results article reviews and defines both disproportionate representation as a monitoring priority area and significant disproportionality. This article also offers guidance and technical assistance about the actions that are required of the Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services (MDE, OSE-EIS) and local school districts in response to existing disproportionate representation and significant disproportionality.

Disproportionate Representation as a Monitoring Priority Area—20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C); 34 CFR §§300.173 and 300.600(d)(3)

Each state education agency created a six-year State Performance Plan (SPP) in response to the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA and established goals and strategies for 20 performance indicators. These areas are called “monitoring priority areas” or “indicators.” Two indicators highlight disproportionate representation:

• Indicator 9 (disproportionate representation in special education and related services due to inappropriate identification).
• Indicator 10 (disproportionate representation in a specific disability category due to inappropriate identification).

Verified ratios are calculated to determine over and under representation (see Figure 1). Districts with a verified ratio of greater than 2.5 (over representation) or less than 0.4 (under representation) for a particular racial/ethnic group for two consecutive years are selected for focused monitoring (FM). Focused monitoring includes the following:

1. The MDE, OSE-EIS completes a desk audit or an on-site monitoring visit.
2. The OSE-EIS determines if the disproportionate representation is the result of inappropriate identification.
3. In cases of inappropriate identification, districts receive technical assistance from the state. They are required to correct non-compliance, including verification from the OSE-EIS, within one year.

To view Michigan’s performance on disproportionate representation as a monitoring priority (SPP Indicators 9 and 10), see Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Significant Disproportionality— 20 U.S.C. 1418(d) and 34 CFR §300.646

As a separate obligation, the IDEA 2004 requires states to collect and examine data on an annual basis to determine whether “significant disproportionality” based on race or ethnicity is occurring in a district with respect to four different areas. The four areas are:

1. Identification for Eligibility: States determine if significant disproportionality exists among students with disabilities. This analysis does not consider if the identification is appropriate or inappropriate.
2. Identification for a Particular Category: States determine if significant disproportionality exists among students in particular eligibility categories. This analysis does not consider if the identification is appropriate or inappropriate.
3. Educational Settings: States determine if there is significant disproportionality among students with disabilities in particular educational settings, such as the general education classroom.
4. Discipline: States determine if there is significant disproportionality among students with disabilities receiving discipline, including the number of incidences, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, such as suspensions and expulsions.

Significant disproportionality is based solely on data analysis. The district’s policies, procedures, and practices are not factored into the determination. If a district’s verified ratio for the area of discipline is more than 3.0 for a particular racial/ethnic group in one year, the district is determined to have significant disproportionality. In the areas of identification for eligibility, identification for a particular category, or educational settings, the district’s verified ratio must be more than 3.0 for two consecutive years before being identified as having significant disproportionality. When a district has significant disproportionality, the IDEA requires three courses of action:

1. State Review—The state must review (and, if appropriate, revise) the policies, procedures, and practices used in some or all of the four areas monitored for significant disproportionality.
2. Public Reporting—The IDEA requires districts to publicly report on the results of its revision of policies, practices, and procedures used in identification, placement, or discipline of students with disabilities.
3. Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) Funding—The district is obligated to reserve 15 percent of the flow-through funds received under the IDEA for CEIS. To reserve the funds means the funds may only be used for approved CEIS. This is in contrast to districts without significant disproportionality, which may use up to 15 percent of the flow-through funds for CEIS, but are not required to do so. It is important to note that even if further analysis indicates all identification is appropriate, 15 percent of the funding must still be reserved for CEIS.

The district must maintain a database of the students who benefit from CEIS for three years. The district must also report to the OSE-EIS any students subsequently identified as eligible for special education services.

Early intervening services address the needs of all students before they are identified as needing special education services, and in some cases can prevent the need for special education services. Appropriate CEIS combined with proper identification procedures help ensure the best possible placement for students. The CEIS should include students in significantly over-represented groups as well as students from all racial/ethnic groups.

Considerations for Determining Significant Disproportionality for Identification in Special Education and in a Particular Category

The data collected for disproportionate representation is also the data used for significant disproportionality. The five racial/ethnic categories are African American, American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, and White. The six disability categories are emotional impairment, cognitive impairment, specific learning disability, speech and language impairment, other health impairment, and autism spectrum disorder.

Considerations for Determining Significant Disproportionality for Educational Settings

States are required to examine racial/ethnic representation for the following:

1. Students who receive special education and related services in the general education classroom for 40-79 percent of the day.
2. Students who receive special education and related services in the general education classroom for less than 40 percent of the day.
3. Students who receive special education and related services in separate schools and residential facilities.

States are not required to examine data for children who receive special education and related services in the general education classroom for more than 79 percent of the day.

Considerations for Determining Significant Disproportionality for Discipline

States are required to examine racial/ethnic representation of students receiving special education services for discipline. The calculations account for a variety of factors in discipline, such as:

Incidence: The number of times students with disabilities are subject to disciplinary actions.

Duration: The length of suspensions or expulsions.

Type: In-school and out-of-school suspensions and expulsions and other actions as determined by the district (e.g., exclusion from extracurricular activities).

The Future of Disproportionate Representation

When students are unnecessarily placed into special education programs, their risk for poor academic outcomes increases. Students must be placed in appropriate educational settings to ensure opportunities to succeed in an appropriate and rigorous curriculum. Proper CEIS help reduce inappropriate referrals to special education. Additionally, appropriate identification procedures reduce the risk that race/ethnicity plays a role in the placement of students.