Data Calculation

Data is collected annually from Local Education Agencies (LEAs), analyzed by The Equity Project, and then posted to the Equity in Education website for school corporations to review. These data are critical in identifying racial and ethnic disparities throughout the state, and can also serve as a lens through which policies and practices can be examined, evaluated, and re-aligned in order to increase equity in schools. 

Indicators

The State of Indiana has implemented both performance and compliance indicators in order to assist in the monitoring of Special Education programs. Performance Indicators 4a and 4b measure both the rate of suspensions and expulsions of special education students totaling more than 10 days in a school year, while Indicators 9 and 10 are considered compliance indicators and assess disproportionality in special education. Examining yearly data about these indicators can assist LEAs in their review of policies and procedures regarding discipline and Special Education assessments.



Indicator 4A: Significant Discrepancy




Definition

Rate of Suspensions and Expulsions for Students with Disabilities

The relative risk ratio is computed as a ratio of the risk index of all races/ethnicities with disabilities in the LEA to the risk index of all races/ethnicities with disabilities combined in the state for out-of-school suspension/expulsion totaling more than 10 days.

The threshold of the value is 2.0 and the N size is 15 for three years in a row. The most recent three years used in this year's analysis are 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016. If the LEA exceeds the numerical criteria, the self-assessment survey and file review are administered to determine if disproportionate representation is due to inappropriate policies, practices, and procedures.







Indicator 4B: Significant Discrepancy




Definition

Rate of Suspensions and Expulsions for Students with Disabilities by Race and Ethnicity

The relative risk ratio will be computed as a ratio of the risk index of a race/ethnicity with disabilities in the LEA to the risk index of all races/ethnicities with disabilities combined in the state for out of school suspension/expulsion totaling more than 10 days.
The most recent three years used in this year's analysis are 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016. If the LEA exceeds the numerical criteria, the self-assessment survey and file review are administered to determine if disproportionate representation is due to inappropriate policies, practices, and procedures.








Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representation Due to Inappropriate Identification—Overall Eligibility



Definition


The relative risk ratio is computed as a ratio of the risk index of a race/ethnicity in LEA to the risk index of all other races/ethnicities with disabilities in the LEA for overall disability. The threshold criteria for Indiana is 2.0 or greater and the N size is 15 for three years in a row for Indicators 9 and 10..

The most recent three years were 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016. If the LEA exceeds the numerical threshold, the self-assessment survey and file review are administered to determine if disproportionate representation is due to inappropriate identification.








Indicator 10: Disproportionate Representation due to Inappropriate Identification: Specific Disability Categories



Definition


The relative risk ratio is computed as a ratio of the risk index of a race/ethnicity in each specific disability category in the LEA to the risk index of all other races/ ethnicities for each specific disability in the LEA. The threshold criteria for Indiana is 2.0 or greater and the N size is 15 for three years in a row for Indicators 9 and 10.

The most recent three years were 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016. The six disability categories monitored are cognitive disability (CD), emotional disability (ED), specific learning disability (SLD), language or speech impairment (LSI), other health impairment (OHI) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). If the LEA exceeds the numerical threshold, the self-assessment survey and file review are administered to determine if disproportionate representation is due to inappropriate identification.




Data-Driven Practices



Data-Driven Practices Tools and Resources

Tools

There are currently no additional tools listed on this topic


Resources

National Forum on Education Statistics Guide to Collecting and Using Disaggregated Data on Racial/Ethnic Subgroups Doc

Using Discipline Data within SWPBIS to Identify and Address Disproportionality Doc

School Climate and Discipline: Know the Data

Bibliography

Cooc, N. (2017). Analyzing racial disproportionality in special education using secondary data. Sage Research Methods Cases.

Bollmer, J., Bethel, J., Garrison-Mogren, R., & Brauen, M. (2016). Using the risk ratio to assess racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education at the school-district level. The Journal of Special Education, 41(3), 186-198.

Ronka, D., Geier, R., & Marciniak, M. (2010). A practical framework for building a data-driven district or school: How a focus on data quality, capacity, and culture supports data driven action to improve student outcomes. Boston, MA: PCG Education. Doc

Wellman, B.M. & Lipton, L. (2009). Data-driven dialogue: A facilitator’s guide to collaborative inquiry. Sherman, CT: Mira Via.

Kowalski, T.J., Lasley II, T.J., & Mahoney, J.W. (2008). Data driven decisions and school leadership: Best practices for school improvement. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Blink, R. (2007). Data-driven instructional leadership. New York City, NY: Routledge.


Note: Resources with a Doc are available as a downloadable file


Disproportionality

In Indiana, Local Education Agencies (LEAs) are identified as having Significant Disproportionality when their calculated risk ratio for either discipline or identification is 2.5 or more for three consecutive years. LEAs that have made reasonable progress—defined as a decrease in the risk ratio for the most recent two years and a risk ratio below 3.5 for at least the third year of data—are excused from a finding. LEAs out of compliance with respect to significant disproportionality are required to reallocate 15% of their total funds to coordinated early intervening services (CEIS). Those funds may be spent on both students with and without disabilities.



Disproportionality Tools and Resources

Tools

Questions to Ask About Data Doc

CEIS Step-by-Step Plan

Navigating Coordinated Early Intervening Services Doc

Annotated Checklist for Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Special Education


Resources

Significant Disproportionality Definitions: Indiana Definitions Doc

Center for Civil Rights Remedies Suspension Data Tool

IDEA Data Center, Methods for Assessing Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Special Education

Final Regulations on Significant Disproportionality Doc

Quick Reference Guide Doc

Bibliography

Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264-288. Doc

Skiba, R. J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Gallini, S., Simmons, A. B., & Feggins-Azziz, R. (2006). Disparate access: The disproportionality of African American students with disabilities across educational environments. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 411-424. Doc

Skiba, R. J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Simmons, A. B., Feggins-Azziz, L., & Chung, C. (2005). Unproven links: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in special education? The Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 130- 144.

Fergus, E. (2017). Solving disproportionality and achieving equity: A leader’s guide to using data to change hearts and minds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Dever, B.V., Raines, T.C., Dowdy, E., & Hostutler, C. (2016). Addressing disproportionality in special education using a universal screening approach. The Journal of Negro Education, 85(1), 59-71.

O’Hara, N., Munk, T.E., Reedy, K., & D’Agord, C. (2016). Equity, inclusion, and opportunity: Addressing success gaps white paper (Version 3.0). IDEA Data Center. Rockville, MD: Westat.
Available here

Scott, M.F.T. (2016). About F.A.C.E.: Increasing the identification of African American males with dual exceptionalities. Journal of African American Males in Education, 7(1), 98-117. Doc

Wright, B.L., Crawford, F., Counsell, S.L. (2016). The other half hasn’t been told: African American males and their success in special education. Journal of African American Males in Education, 7(1), 35-51. Doc

Reid, D. (2015, Spring). Disproportionality in special education: A persistent reality for African American students. Justice, Spirituality & Education Journal, 3:1, 2-14. Doc

Harry, B. & Klingner, J. (2014). Why are so many minority students in special education?: Understanding race and disability in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College.

McIntosh, K., Girvan, E.J., Horner, R.H., & Smolkowski, K. (2014). Education not incarceration: A conceptual model for reducing racial and ethnic disproportionality in school discipline. Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 5(2), Article 4.
Available here

Baer, R.M. & Daviso III, A. (2011). Disproportionality in transition services: A descriptive study. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46(2), 172-185. Doc

Fletcher, T.V., & Navarrete, L.A. (2011). Learning disabilities or difference: A critical look at issues associated with the misidentification and placement of Hispanic students in special education programs. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(1), 30-38.

Fergus, E. (2010). Distinguishing difference from disability: Common causes of racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education. Tempe, AZ: The Equity Alliance at ASU. Doc

United States. US Commission on Civil Rights. (2009). Minorities in special education. Briefing Report. Washington, DC: US Commission on Civil Rights. Doc

Artiles, A. J., & Bal, A. (2008). The next generation of disproportionality research: Toward a comparative model in the study of equity in ability differences. The Journal of Special Education, 42(1), 4-14.

Rueda, R., Klingner, J., Sager, N., & Velasco, A. (2008). Reducing disproportionate representation in special education: Overview, explanations, and solutions. In V. L. Graf (Ed.), Education for all: Critical issues in the education of children and youth with disabilities. (pp. 131-166). San Francisco, CA US: Jossey-Bass.

Blanchett, W. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special education: Acknowledging the role of White privilege and racism. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 24–28.

De Valenzuela, J.S., Copeland, S.R., Qi, C.H., & Park, M. (2006). Examining educational equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 425-441.


Note: Resources with a Doc are available as a downloadable file