DisproportionalitDisproportionalityy

Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators

4 – Suspension and Expulsion,9 – Disproportionality in Special

Education, and10 – Disproportionality in Disability

Categories

This power point includes:This power point includes:

1. A description of each indicator;2. The SPP targets for each year and

whether our State met the targets;3. Any additional pertinent

information related to the indicator (if applicable);

4. A list of some of the improvement activities included in the State’s SPP/APR for the indicator;

5. A description of how the indicator might impact a district’s determination level (as described in WAC 392-172A-07012); and

6. Contact information for questions about the indicator.

Suspension/ExpulsionSuspension/ExpulsionIndicator 4: Rates of suspension and

expulsion:A. Percent of districts that have a significant

discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and

B. Percent of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures, or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do no comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))

Data for this indicator are submitted by districts through the annual Special Education Students Suspended/Expelled report.

State Targets – Indicator State Targets – Indicator 4A4A

Year Target Actual Met Target?

2005-06 0%* 21% No

2006-07 0%* 14% No

2007-08 8.1% 8.1% Yes

2008-09 8.0% TBD TBD

2009-10 8.0% TBD TBD

*Originally, this was designated as a Compliance Indicator, with a required target of 0%. OSEP clarified in 2007 that it is in fact a Results Indicator, and States were allowed to determine their own targets. Therefore, our targets were revised using 2007-08 data as the baseline.

State Targets – Indicator State Targets – Indicator 4B4B

Note: Since this is a Results Indicator, States are permitted to set their own targets.

Official reporting on indicator 4b is not required by OSEP (the federal Office of Special Education Programs) until the 2009-10 school year, which will be considered the baseline year.

Disproportionality in Special Disproportionality in Special EducationEducation

Indicator 9: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(C))

Data for this indicator are collected through OSPI’s general supervisory activities, including the annual Child Find and LRE reports submitted by districts, review of district policies/procedures, annual self-evaluations completed by districts, district self-studies, onsite monitoring visits, etc.

Indicator 9: Weighted Risk Ratios – State Totals

1.0 = an equal likelihood (or risk) as all other students2.0 = twice as likely as all other students (overrepresentation)0.5 = half as likely as all other students (underrepresentation)

8

Please note: This shows our State’s data alone, not whether the data are a result of inappropriate identification, which is the decision States are required to make for indicators 9 and 10 every year for all districts.

0607 0708 0809 0607 0708 0809 0607 0708 0809 0607 0708 0809 0607 0708 0809

Amer Indian/Alaska Native

Asian/Pacific Islander

Black (not Hispanic)

HispanicWhite

(not Hispanic)

All Disabilities

1.49 1.56 1.56 0.55 0.55 0.54 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02

State Targets – Indicator 9State Targets – Indicator 9Year Target Actual Met Target?

2005-06 0% 0% Yes

2006-07 0% 0% Yes

2007-08 0% 0.3% No

2008-09 0% 0.0% Yes

2009-10 0% TBD TBD

2010-11 0% TBD TBD

Note: Since this is a Compliance Indicator, States are federally-required to set the target at 0% for all years.

Disproportionality in Disability Disproportionality in Disability CategoriesCategories

Indicator 10: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(C))

Data for this indicator are collected through OSPI’s general supervisory activities, including the annual Child Find and LRE reports submitted by districts, review of district policies/procedures, annual self-evaluations completed by districts, district self-studies, onsite monitoring visits, etc.

Indicator 10: Weighted Risk Ratios – State Totals

Under-rep Over-rep Under-rep11

0607 0708 0809 0607 0708 0809 0607 0708 0809 0607 0708 0809 0607 0708 0809

Amer Ind/Alaska Native

Asian/Pacific Islander

Black (not Hispanic)

HispanicWhite (not Hispanic)

Autism 0.54 0.56 0.63 0.99 1.02 1.99 0.83 0.79 0.81 0.34 0.35 0.34 1.81 1.80 1.82

Comm Dis 1.34 1.40 1.37 0.79 0.74 0.71 0.85 0.84 0.82 0.96 0.93 0.93 1.10 1.14 1.16

EBD 1.81 1.72 1.73 0.26 0.25 0.24 2.59 2.69 2.73 0.42 0.41 0.38 1.21 1.24 1.29

Health Impaired

1.25 1.31 1.29 0.35 0.35 0.34 1.39 1.41 1.44 0.49 0.51 0.52 1.61 1.60 1.59

SLD 1.66 1.79 1.81 0.51 0.50 0.48 1.60 1.59 1.57 1.37 1.40 1.44 0.79 0.78 0.77

MR 1.97 1.93 1.97 0.61 0.65 0.66 1.60 1.65 1.71 1.27 1.25 1.24 0.78 0.77 0.76

State Targets – Indicator State Targets – Indicator 1010

Year Target Actual Met Target?

2005-06 0% 0% Yes

2006-07 0% 0% Yes

2007-08 0% 0.3% No

2008-09 0% 0.0% Yes

2009-10 0% TBD TBD

2010-11 0% TBD TBD

Note: Since this is a Compliance Indicator, States are federally-required to set the target at 0% for all years.

SPP/APR Improvement SPP/APR Improvement ActivitiesActivities

Here are some of the improvement activities included in our SPP/APR to address these three indicators:◦Disproportionality is a priority focus area

of OSPI’s program review team, including district self-studies, onsite systems analysis visits, and technical assistance;

◦Positive Behavior Intervention/Support (PBIS) trainings, aligned with the concepts of Response to Intervention (RTI) have been provided by OSPI since 2006;

Improvement Activities Improvement Activities (cont.)(cont.)

◦Regional WAC trainings, including discipline requirements, were conducted in the fall of 2007;

◦Disproportionality and discipline are focus areas in the annual federal fund applications that all districts complete;

◦Model state forms were created, including model evaluation forms to assist with appropriate identification;

◦Develop/collect technical assistance resources across all twenty performance indicators and make available to LEAs and the general public on OSPI’s website. These include resources for both overrepresentation and underrepresentation;

Improvement Activities Improvement Activities (cont.)(cont.)◦State and district-level trend data for these

indicators are posted annually on OSPI’s website: www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/data.aspx;

◦Disproportionality presentations are conducted at conferences across the state;

◦Targeted technical assistance is provided to districts identified as at risk in these indicators through the regional Educational Service Districts (ESDs);

◦AND MORE…

Impact on DeterminationsImpact on DeterminationsIndicator 4 is a results indicator, and

district performance does not currently impact their determination level. However, the timeliness of the district’s indicator 4 report will impact the district’s determination.

Indicators 9 and 10 are compliance indicators, therefore a district’s performance will impact two of the determinations criteria – criteria 2 (timely correction of non-compliance) and criteria 4 (performance on the compliance indicators).

See the next three slides for more information…

Determination Criteria 2 – Determination Criteria 2 – Timely Correction of Non-Timely Correction of Non-compliancecompliance

Description Determination Level

If OSPI determined that non-compliance existed in the district with regard to indicators 9 and/or 10, the district corrected the non-compliance in a timely manner.

1 (Meets

Requirements)

The district corrected the identified non-compliance for indicators 9 and/or 10, but did not complete the corrections within one year of notification.

3 (Needs Intervention)

The district did not correct the identified non-compliance for indicators 9 and 10 – uncorrected non-compliance still exists in the district.

4 (Needs Substantial

Intervention)Note: There are no determination level 2 criteria for this indicator.

Determination Criteria 4 – Determination Criteria 4 – Performance on Compliance Performance on Compliance IndicatorsIndicators

DescriptionDetermination

Level

The disproportionate representation that exists in the district for indicators 9 and/or 10 (if any), is not a result of inappropriate identification.

1 (Meets

Requirements)

The disproportionate representation that exists in the district for indicators 9 and/or 10 (if any), is a result of inappropriate identification.

3 (Needs

Intervention)

Note: There are no determination level 2 or 4 criteria for this indicator.

Determination Criteria 3 – Determination Criteria 3 – Timely and Accurate DataTimely and Accurate Data

If a district does not submit the annual Special Education Students Suspended/Expelled report for indicator 4 on or before the required deadline (June 30th), it will impact the district’s determination with regard to criteria 3 – Timely and Accurate Data.

This is 1 of the 7 required data reports for criteria 3.All of the required reports were on time and accurate.

1 (Meets Requirements)

4, 5, or 6 of the 7 reports were on time and accurate.

2 (Needs Assistance)

1, 2, or 3 of the 7 reports were on time and accurate.

3 (Needs Intervention)

None of the reports were on time and accurate.

4 (Needs Substantial

Intervention)

Contact InformationContact Information

For questions about indicators 4, 9, and 10 contact Leslie Pyper at: Leslie.Pyper@k12.wa.us

For information about OSPI’s disproportionality self-study, visit: www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/self_study.aspx

For disproportionality tools and resources, visit: www.nccrest.org/