Questions Related to 2009-2010 District Identification of Significant Disproportionality

May 2010

General Questions:

  1. We were flagged for disproportionality in SPRI for07-08 and 08-09 and it was justified. We have never been asked to complete an improvement plan. Why thejump to these sanctions instead of an improvement plan?

[Our district has certain unique variables that we believe contribute to our finding; these variables were explained in our justification for findings of B9 and/or B10 in SPR&I. In light of this, the sanction under Significant Disproportionality appears to be an error.]

[I am wondering why we were flagged for the significant disproportionality and funds required under CEIS. Our disproportionality worksheet for SPR&I was accepted by ODE.]

  • Significant Disproportionality (SDp) as defined by 300.646 is a different obligation from Disproportionate Representation (DpR).
  • The two primary differences between the expectations related to SDp and DpR are (1) data only; (2) justification will not override the need to demonstrate a response.
  • The move toward addressing SDp requires an improvement plan that is linked to a prescribed funding source.
  • See for more comparisons between SDp and DpR
  1. Can you please provide an example of evidence based practices that resolve disproportionality for African American students?
  2. The answer to the issue of “disproportionality for African American students” is not easily resolved.
  3. There are a variety of resources that can be accessed try the Reducing Disproportionality Webinar Series
  4. View the work and resources provided by the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems
  5. How do we count the number of children receiving CEISunder IDEA?
  6. This information is available at:
  7. Is it still significantly disproportionate if we were only triggered for White students?
  8. Yes. Significant Disproportionality was intended to monitor issues inherent to minority populations, but does not delineate among races. Significant disproportionality in White students warrants the same level of attention.
  9. What if we have a weighted risk ratio of 4.01 is that still significant?
  10. According to the guidance posted, districts triggered at > 4.0 were considered identified. With rounding, a district triggered at 4.01 is not considered greater than 4.0 (>4.0) and would not be required to reserve 15% CEIS funds, however districts on the border may want to maintain an awareness of their risk status and may elect to voluntarily focus on the area identified.
  11. Since the area of concern for us is emotional disturbance will our CEISfocus be required to be in the area of behavior only?
  12. The finding of SDp in a district warrants a thorough and intentional review of a district’s policies, practices, and procedures. Both the area of concern (category triggered) and the race implicated in the finding should be addressed/remedied by any activities that are selected. However, because SDp is calculated for districts annually, services that address the issue triggered as well as any potential areas of SDp will provide the most comprehensive approach to early intervening services (…particularly, but not only, for children
    in those groups significantly overidentified.)
  13. The students who triggered our finding were all from one family and are no longer in our district. Our numbers for this racial and disability category are now different.

[We were flagged for African American students, six of these students were identified as special education students when they moved into our district.]

  • Despite the dynamic nature of all data, as with many data-based decisions, the finding of SDp is based on data taken at a given moment in time and will not be able to take into account changes that occur after the collections have closed. SDp at any point in the school year is considered worthy of review/remediation.

Fiscal Questions:

  1. How will our expenditures be monitored?
  2. ODE will use the services of an independent auditing agency to monitor the expenditures related to this obligation.
  3. How much time will we have to spend the reserved funds?
  4. These funds are available for obligation from July 1, 2010 through September 30, 2012. The funds must be used during the period of their availability for obligation and must be used for comprehensive CEIS regardless of whether the Significant Disproportionality is resolved during the time that the funds are available.

Process Questions:

  1. What is the intent of the term “evidence-based” as used in the letter we received?
  2. USDE has a document that goes into great detail about evidence-based interventions. You will see some overlapping reference to Scientifically-based, but the guidance in general is extremely helpful
  3. The letter we received from ODE indicates that we should submit a: Summary of any CEIS activities planned for the 2010-2011 school year and their evidence-based link to student outcomes including any outcomes related to the review and/revision of district policies.What should our plans look like? Can you provide more detail around the plans that we should submit?
  4. The plans that you will be submitting by June 30th are a brief indication that you have received the message that your district was flagged for SDp, and that your district is engaging in activities toward a plan to address the issue in your district. ODE understands that by June 30th, many districts will not have a detailed picture of their full district action plan. This plan can include reference to a district’s intent to conduct a Policy to practice review, or it may be a consequence of the district’s review.
  5. Each district’s plan will be different based on the unique features of the district, but will identify some minimum features such as: the issue; some possible areas for investigation into the issue; possible areas for remediation; how funds will be expended to address the issue; how success in the issue will be measured; and how any revisions to policies, practices, or procedures will be publicly posted or reported.
  6. At this time, ODE will not be evaluating plans and providing an efficacy score for the district’s plans. The soundness of the district plan is a district decision. While ODE may provide individual guidance to interested districts, the efficacy of a district’s plan will be based on outcomes of the CEIS activities and not on the format of the plan. These plans would ideally be evaluated by individuals appointed by your district.
  7. ODE will monitor CEIS expenditures and outcomes according to the existing guidance and SDp will be evaluated again the following school year.

District Questions 2009-2010 Significant Disproportionality_DC

Page 1