INAPPROPRIATE ID State Monitoring Results State Methodologies Framework Policies & Procedures

1. Exploring Inappropriate IdentificationLeadership for Equity and Excellence ForumFebruary 16, 2010 Sue Gamm, Esq. SueGamm@aol.comPublic Consulting Group

2. INAPPROPRIATE ID • State Monitoring Results • State Methodologies • Framework • Policies & Procedures • Monitoring

3. STATE MONITORING RESULTS In 2007-08, a growing number of states reported no school districts with disproportionate rep due to inappropriate identification.

4. INDICATOR 9 Number of States with No Inappropriate ID 2005-6: 26 states (52%) 2007-8: 42 states (84%)

5. OF THE 42 STATES 13: No disproportionate representation 29: No inappropriate identification

6. No. SEAs with Various Percent of LEAS with Inappropriate ID

7. FROM FY 2006 to 2008 • States with no inappropriate ID increased by 62% (26 to 42) • States > 3% LEAs with inappropriate ID reduced by 75% (8 to 2)

8. INDICATOR 10 Number of States with No Inappropriate ID 2005-6: 6 states (12%) 2007-8: 34 states (69%)

9. OF THE 34 STATES 6: No disproportionate representation 28: No inappropriate identification

10. No. SEAs with Various Percent of LEAS having Inappropriate ID

11. FROM FY 2006 to 2008 • States with no inappropriate ID increased by 62% (21 to 34) • States > 4% LEAs with inappropriate ID reduced by 76% (13 to 3)

12. SEAs FY 06 to 08 • Increased no inappropriate ID 9. 62% (26 to 42) 10. 62% (21 to 34) • Decreased more than 3% 9. 75% (8 to 2) 10. 76% (13 to 3)

13. Celebration Time

14. SIGNIFICANT VARIANCE • Defining disproportionate representation • Monitoring LEAS • Determining inappropriate ID

15. DEFINITIONS • Cut-points range from 1.5 to 4 • Various cell sizes • Impact # targeted LEAs

16. MONITORING METHODS 26: State-level monitoring activities 25: Targeted LEAs self-assess 3: General self-assess not linked to disproportionality 17: Tool/rubric for self-study 3: Different process over/under

17. FINDING INAPPROPRIATE ID At a minimum must comply with: • Child find (300.111) • Policies, procedures & practices with SEA’s (300.201) • Assessment and eligibility (300.301-300.311).

18. RtI & PBIS in IDEA • RtI optional in LD eligibility process • Must consider PBIS for student whose behavior impedes his/her learning or that of others

19. Query

20. Is compliance with minimum OSEP requirements sufficient to reduce disproportionality?

21. LEAs with significant disproportionality must use 15% IDEA funds for EIS activities because research shows positive impact on identification of targeted racial/ethnic groups.

22. OSEP will begin to look more closely at how states decide if LEAs are disproportionally identifying students as having disabilities. In particular, will review more closely the various formulas states use in making these determinations. OSEP Monitoring Chief

23. Max & Sue’s Core Beliefs

24. SEA/LEA that restrict PP&P and monitoring to strict IDEA mandates may set students up for identification when they may may otherwise respond positively to RTI & PBIS.

25. LD Disability or ABT?

26. Eligibility decisions related to students’ poor performance in reading or behavior must be conditioned on the receipt of research-based instruction.

27. Designing Change

28. Talk About It

29. Disproportionality in Special Education: Where & Why it Occurs

30. PP&P Framework

31. Monitoring Framework

32. Let’s Talk:What is Inappropriate ID?

33. Electronic Support

34. Identify students needing support Identify students who need support

35. Are interventions implemented with fidelity?

36. Is the intervention working?

37. Which supports are working best for students?

38. School and District Dashboards