Illinois Special Education Directors Conference

1
How New Federal Monitoring Requirements Impact
Special Education Policies, Procedures and
Practices in the Area of Disproportionality
Illinois Special Education Directors
Conference August 1, 2007 Sue Gamm, Esq. Public
Consulting Group SueGamm_at_aol.com
2
Todays Discussion

• Brief overview
• IDEA requirements
• Policies, procedures practices
• Model forms and protocols
• Designs for strategic change and resources

3

• Brief Overview

4

• 2 Types of Disabilities
• Obvious
• Judgmental

5
Obvious Disabilities


Usually identified by medical personnel before a
child begins school.
6
Judgmental Disabilities


Children are almost always identified as having a
disability after starting school.
7
Judgmental Disabilities

• Most common areas of disability eligibility based
  on some aspect of judgment
• Learning Disabilities
• Mild Mental Retardation
• Emotional Disturbance

8

Academic Performance

• Most students are referred for special education
  eligibility because of academics
• AAs/Hispanics average NAEP scores are
  significantly less than whites in reading,
  writing, math science

9
Poverty Doesnt Explain

• Why the largest gender gap is between African
  American girls and boys
• There are relatively little or no racial/ethnic
  differences among students with medically
  diagnosed disabilities

10
Research Importance of Context


In practice, it can be difficult to distinguish
internal child traits that require the ongoing
support of special education from inadequate
opportunity or contextual support for learning
behavior.


11
Almost 40 Years Later

African American (AA) students increasingly
overrepresented MR/ED MR incidence increased
by 3 AA increased by 7 but risk
increased by 38 Hispanic/Asian
incidence increased but risk increased slightly
generally underidentified

12
Almost 40 Years Later

ED incidence increased by 83 AA
incidence increased by 71 and risk increased by
41 Hispanic/Asian/American Indian incidence
increased substantially and somewhat for whites
but neither had much of an increase in risk.

13

• IDEA
• Requirements

14
Significant Disproportionality

• All students with IEPs at least 6 disability
  areas (LD, MR, ED, Speech, OHI, autism)
• Educational settings

15
Significant Disproportionality

• No national method to analyze disproportionality
  or significance
• What may be significant in one state may not be
  significant in another.

16
Illinois Risk Ratio of 3



SwDs from 1 subgroup (i.e., black) all black
students in district All other SwDs (i.e.,
white, Hispanic, etc.)
students enrolled Result shows the extent to
which the targeted subgroup is at risk of
having a disability compared to all other
subgroups. Repeat analysis for all other
subgroups



17
Example of Analysis

18
Illinois Risk Ratio

• Repeat analysis for
• Regular class setting
• Separate class setting
• Separate schooling
• All subgroups compared

19
IL Significant Disproportionality

• Limited analysis to non-white racial/ethnic
  groups
• As did 14 other states
• OSEP Noncompliance - Must also include white
  student comparison
• Under and over representation

20
If Significant Disproportionality

• Reserve 15 IDEA funds for early intervening
  services
• Review (if appropriate) revise policies,
  procedures practices
• Publicly report on revisions until eliminate
  significant disproportionality USDE Comments
  

21
Suspension Expulsion

• SEA examines data by race/ethnicity for
  significant disproportionality
• If So
• Review/revise policies, procedures practices
  re
• IEP development
• Use of PBIS
• Procedural safeguards

22

Priority Monitoring





SEAs must identify LEAs with disproportionate
representation of racial/ethnic groups with IEPs
and 6 disability areas resulting from
inappropriate identification No comparable rule
for LRE
23

Definitions




Many states are using the same criteria for
significant disproportionality disproportionate
representation.

24

Illinois Monitoring




Self Monitoring with NCCREST Rubric

25

• Reviewing Revising
• Policy
• Procedures
• Practice

26

State Requirement

• State must have policies
• procedures designed
• to prevent inappropriate overidentification
  disproportionate representation

27
Review Revise PPP

LEAs/SEAs with significant disproportionality
review (if appropriate) revise policies,
procedures practices LEAs publicly report on
revisions until eliminate significant
disproportionality
USDE Comments




28
Considerations for P P

• Standards lack of appropriate instruction,
  PBIS, fidelity, eligibility District
  school-based racial/ethnic data to collect
  analyze intervention, referral, eligibility
  rates, LRE, etc.
• Criteria for TA/monitoring
• Consequences
• Monitoring approach
• Compliance standard

29
The Perfect Storm

New IDEA regulatory framework for LD eligibility
Lack of attention to systemic
fidelity-based general education interventions
progress monitoring May lead to more
disproportionality

30
Potential LD Pool

31
1st Requirement

• Student doesnt
• Achieve adequately for age
• or
• Meet grade-level standards with learning
  experiences instruction thats age or
  grade-level appropriate

32
2nd Requirement

• Insufficient progress to meet age or grade-level
  standardswith response to scientific
  research-based intervention (RTI)
  
• or
• Pattern of strengths weaknesses in performance
  or achievement
• Age, Grade-level standards or
• Intellectual development

33
3rd Requirement

Eligibility isnt primarily result of
Visual, hearing, or motor disability MR ED
cultural factors environmental or economic
disadvantage LEP or lack of appropriate
instruction in reading or math



34
Lack of Appropriate Instruction

• Data showing prior to/part of referral process,
  student given
• Appropriate instruction in regular education
  settings
• Delivered by qualified personnel

35
Lack of Appropriate Instruction

• 2. Data-based documentation of
• Repeated assessment of achievement
• At reasonable intervals
• Formal assessment of student progress
• During instruction
• Provided to parents

36

• Model for Reviewing Data

37
A Model for General Ed Analysis

• Appropriate general ed instruction
• Interventions (process, academic, behavioral
  progress monitoring)
• Analyze results

38
General Ed Analysis

• Student file review
• Interviews
• Observations
• Compare results to expected practices

39

• Sample
• Protocols

40

• Designing
• Change

41
Strategies for Change

1. Use data from analytical review 2. Target
specific areas of need 3. Identify population
of students impacted



42
Strategies for Change

• Active leadership ownership of general,
  supported by special educators those involved
  with ELL students
• Unified system that collaboratively addresses
  needs of all students