AASA Analysis of IDEA Significant Disproportionality Regs
Last week, in the waning hours of the Obama Administration, the U.S. Department of Education released the final regulation on the calculation of
significant disproportionality under IDEA. Here is a press release that
summarizes the reg from ED: http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-equity-idea
States and districts are not required to comply with these regulations until
July 1, 2018. It is our hope that the Congress will delay the implementation of
this regulation and address the important issue of significant
disproportionality through the reauthorization of IDEA rather than through a
Department regulation.
AASA appreciates how many school leaders took the time to
comment on the IDEA regulation, and as we read through the 500+ pages of
response and clarifications from ED we see that your comments forced the
Department to address many of our objections with the proposed regulation.
Unfortunately, while ED has been forced to contemplate and respond to our many
criticisms of their proposal (albeit somewhat flippant responses at times),
they did honor five of our of our requests:
- States have flexibility not to identify
significant disproportionality in an LEA that exceeds a risk ratio threshold if
they make reasonable progress in lowering the applicable risk ratio or
alternate risk ratio in each of the two consecutive prior years.
- They eliminate as a category of analysis
children with disabilities ages 6 through 21 inside a regular class more than
40 percent of the day and less than 79 percent of the day
- Provide more flexibility around the n-size and cell-size
that states must use. States need not calculate risk ratios for any racial or
ethnic group that does not meet minimum cell or n-sizes set by the state.
- Allowing States to set different risk ratio
thresholds in order to reasonably identify significant disproportionality for
categories with different degrees of incidence rates, and, therefore, different
degrees of disparity.
- Not mandating districts be held responsible for significant
disproportionality for students with the seven low-incidence impairments under
IDEA.
What does this mean for districts? The final regs contain
the following:
- A rebuttal presumption that a minimum cell size
of no greater than 10 and n-size of no greater than 30 are reasonable. We
believe ED does not have the authority to put pressure on states to adopt a
certain n size or cell-size and this aspect of the regulation is wholly
inappropriate.
- ED has significantly expanded the focus on
significant disproportionality in the discipline context. The regs clarify that
States must address significant disproportionality in the incidence, duration,
and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions, using
the same statutory remedies required to address significant disproportionality
in the identification and placement of children with disabilities.
- ED has refused to grant critical flexibility to
districts that are found to have significant disproportionality that would allow
these LEAs to be excused from setting aside 15% of IDEA funds for CEIS for the
following reasons: 1) an exceptionally low student population where the
addition or subtraction of a few students results in meeting/not meeting the
State’s risk ratio, 2) a school serving a specific subgroup of students with
disabilities, 3) a highly regarded program for students with disabilities that
attracts students from across the State or region, 4) residential facilities or
group homes within the district, 5) a recent environmental catastrophe specific
to the region that has substantially impacted the health of children throughout
the district, 6) very low rates of special education identification,
restrictive placements or exclusionary discipline for all students and 7) a highly mobile student population.
- Districts can use funds for
CEIS for students currently enrolled in special education. While we appreciate
this flexibility, it is not authorized in the statute.
- The Department estimates that districts will
have to transfer between $298.4 and $552.9 million that they use under Part B
to provide direct services for students with disabilities to early intervening
services.We believe these estimates are quite low.