Self Assessment of District Policies, Procedures, and Practices for Special
Education Programs in Arkansas Public Schools
Arkansas Department of Education, Special Education Unit
Monitoring/Program Effectiveness
Updated May 2015
Table of Contents
INSTRUCTIONS.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
DISPROPORTIONALITY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
PROCESS FOR DETERMINING THAT A SCHOOL DISTRICT IS IDENTIFIED AS HAVING SIGNIFICANT DISPROPORTIONALITY AND IS MANDATED TO OFFER
CEIS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
SPECIFIC DISABILITY CATEGORY .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENT/LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
DISCIPLINE .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
OVERVIEW OF THE CEIS PROCESS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
PROCESS FOR DETERMINING THAT A SCHOOL DISTRICT IS IDENTIFIED AS HAVING SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES DISCIPLINE AS DEFINED IN THE
SPP/APR…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8
INDICATOR 4A AND 4B: SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE – DISCIPLINE…………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………..8
PROCESS FOR DETERMINING THAT A SCHOOL DISTRICT IS IDENTIFIED AS HAVING DISPROPORTIONALITY AS DEFINED IN THE SPP/APR ............................ 9
INDICATOR 9: DISPROPORTIONALITY – IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
INDICATOR 10: DISPROPORTIONALITY – SIX SPECIFIC DISABILITY CATEGORIES .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
OVERVIEW OF THE SPP/APR PROCESS FOR INDICATORS 4A, 4B, 9, & 10 ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
IDENTIFYING AND ANALYZING DISTRICT DATA ON DISPROPORTIONALITY ........................................................................................................................................... 10
SECTION A: SELF-ASSESSMENT OF POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PRACTICES EFFECTING DISPROPORTIONALITY IN THE AREAS OF REFERRAL, EVALUATION,
AND ELIGIBILITY ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
SECTION C: SELF-ASSESSMENT OF POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PRACTICES EFFECTING DISCIPLINE ................................................................................................. 14
SELF-ASSESSMENT TEAM MEMBER SHEET……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………….…16
2
Instructions
Please read the document completely prior to completing the tables. The sections to be completed depend on the district’s status. A
district may be identified as disproportionate in more than one area or IDEA program. Below is a brief synopsis of the required
sections based on district’s status.
1. Any district identified as disproportionate under the requirements of Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) in
the areas of identification or specific disability category must complete Section A. Districts may also be required to
complete Section B (excluded from 2015 Self-Assessment) or Section C if there is disproportionality is in the area of LRE or
discipline, respectively.
2. Any district identified as disproportionate under the requirements of the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report
(SPP/APR) in the areas of identification or specific disability category (Indicator 9 and/or Indicator 10), must complete
Section A.
3. Any district identified for significant differences in discipline under the requirements of the SPP/APR (Indicator 4A), must
complete Section C.
4. Any district identified as disproportionate in discipline under the requirements of the SPP/APR (Indicator 4B), must
complete Sections A and C.
A team of stakeholders selected by the district must participate in the self-assessment process. When assembling this team, the district should
consider including regular and special educators, and team members representing administration, professional learning, parents, curriculum and
instruction, school psychology, student support services, and school improvement.
Please complete all required sections and attach evidence to support responses. Team members participating in the self-assessment process should be
listed, and the superintendent is required to certify the information prior to submission.
3
Introduction
The purpose of this self-assessment is to determine if an identified disproportionality is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures, and practices.
Inappropriate policies, procedures, and practices may result in the over identification of students in a specific racial/ethnic group in the areas of
identification, specific disability category, and educational placement or a significant difference in the percentage of students with greater than 10
days of out of school suspension (OSS)/expulsion. This self-assessment is also used to assist districts mandated to provide Coordinated Early
Intervening Services (CEIS) under Section 618 of IDEA. Identification for mandated CEIS focuses on significant disproportionality in the areas of
identification, specific disability category, educational placement, and discipline. CEIS mandated districts must provide CEIS and review policies,
procedures, and practices.
Disproportionality
The major issue surrounding the concept of disproportionality in special education is the probability of discriminating against students based
on racial/ethnic group in the areas of identification, specific disability category, educational placement, and discipline. The Arkansas
Department of Education Special Education Unit has long been concerned about the excessive number of students placed in special education
programs. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires a state agency to collect program information on disproportionality for
the state’s special education programs, specifically, Section 618 and Section 616 of the IDEA.
Section 618 of the IDEA addresses coordinated early intervening services (CEIS) and requires States to…
(A) provide for the review and, if appropriate, revision of the policies, procedures, and practices used in such identification or placement
to ensure that such policies, [[Page 118 STAT. 2740]] procedures, and practices comply with the requirements of this title;
(B) require any local educational agency identified to reserve the maximum amount of funds under section 613(f) to provide
comprehensive coordinated early intervening services to serve children in the local educational agency, particularly children in those
groups that were significantly over-identified; and
(C) require the local educational agency to publicly report on the revision of policies, practices, and procedures described under
subparagraph (A).
Section 616(a)(3) of the IDEA addresses disproportionality requirements of the state performance plan (SPP) and annual performance report
(APR) and presents the monitoring priorities of the US Department of Education...in particular Section 616(a)(3)(C).
(3)…The Secretary shall monitor the States, and shall require each State to monitor the local educational agencies located in the State
(except the State exercise of general supervisory responsibility), using quantifiable indicators in each of the following priority areas, and
using such qualitative indicators as are needed to adequately measure performance in the following priority areas:
(A) Provision of a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment
(B) State exercise of general supervisory authority…
(C) Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation
is the result of inappropriate identification
Disproportionate representation means that the percentage of a racial/ethnic group in the program is larger than the percentage of that group in
the educational system as a whole.
4
Significant Difference
In addition to the disproportionality requirements under Section 616 of the IDEA, Indicator 4A of the SPP/APR requires an analysis of
discipline data by district on students with greater than 10 days of out of school suspension (OSS)/expulsion. For Indicator 4A, significant
difference is determined by comparing the suspension/expulsion rate of students receiving special education/related services to the
suspension/expulsion rate of general education students.
Further, Indicator 4B requires an analysis of districts discipline data by racial/ethnic groups on students with greater than 10 days of out of
school suspension (OSS)/expulsion. For Indicator 4B, significant difference is determined by examining the difference between the
suspension/expulsion rate of students receiving special education/related services by specific racial/ethnic group and the suspension/expulsion
rate of general education students.
Districts across Arkansas should be suspending or expelling small numbers of students from school each year. The percentage of special
education students being suspended or expelled annually in a district should not differ significantly from the percentage of general education
students in the district being suspended or expelled annually.
Process for determining that a school district is identified as having significant
disproportionality and is mandated to offer CEIS
Identification
A combination of risk ratio and weighted risk ratio methodology (whichever is lowest) is used to determine if a district has a disproportionate
over-representation. District enrollment and special education child count data are examined and adjusted according to the following criteria.
1. Using the December 1 child count for the selected year, students were identified if they were receiving services in a private residential
treatment program. These students were removed from the special education child count numbers and the district October 1 enrollment
numbers for the selected year. The reason for excluding students in private residential treatment facilities is in the State rules governing
private residential treatment facilities. These rules state that a student belongs to the district where the facility is located; therefore,
enrollment of such students artificially increases the district’s special education child count and district wide enrollment.
2. After the October 1 enrollment and December 1 child count are adjusted for private residential treatment students, weighted risk ratios are
generated. Both risk ratios and weighted risk ratios are examined and the lowest value is selected as the districts risk for a particular race.
3. Some risk ratios are considered invalid if (1) the district enrollment of a racial/ethnic group is less than 5% or more than 95% of the
district’s enrollment or (2) the number of students in the district’s child count is equal or less than 40.
4. Once adjusted under the above criteria, risk ratios greater than 4.00 are considered an over-representation.
5. Any district identified with over-representation for three consecutive years would be required to budget and provide CEIS.
5
Specific Disability Category
A combination of risk ratio and weighted risk ratio methodology (whichever is lowest) is used to determine if a district has disproportionate
representation within the twelve disability categories. District enrollment and special education child count data were examined and adjusted
according to the following criteria.
1. Using the December 1 child count for the selected year, students were identified if they were receiving services in a private residential
treatment program. These students were removed from the special education child count numbers and the district October 1 enrollment
numbers for the selected year. The reason for excluding students in private residential treatment facilities is in the State rules governing
private residential treatment facilities. These rules state that a student belongs to the district where the facility is located; therefore,
enrollment of such students artificially increases the district’s special education child count and district wide enrollment.
2. After the October 1 enrollment and December 1 child count have been adjusted for private residential treatment students, weighted risk
ratios were generated for each of the six disability categories.
3. Some weighted risk ratios were considered invalid if (1) the district enrollment of a racial/ethnic group is less than 5% or (2) the number
of students in a disability category was below 40. Once adjusted under the above criteria, risk ratios greater than 4.00 were considered an
over-representation.
4. Any district identified with over-representation for three consecutive years would be required to budget and provide CEIS.
Educational Placement/Least Restrictive Environment
1. Using a combination of risk ratio and weighted risk ratio methodology (whichever is lowest), 3 educational placement categories are
examined for significant disproportionality.
a. 40% to 79% of the day in the regular classroom with their non-disabled peers.
b. Less than 40% of the day in the regular classroom with their non-disabled peers.
c. Separate Schools (Day Schools)
2. Risk ratios are examined in relation to district composition and are considered invalid if
a. the district enrollment of a racial/ethnic group is less than 5%; or
b. the number of students in a LRE category is below 40.
3. After adjustments, districts with risk ratios greater than 4 for three consecutive years are identified as having significant
disproportionality in LRE and are required to budget and provide CEIS.
Discipline
The rate of suspension/expulsion by race/ethnicity is calculated with a percentage difference methodology to identify districts as having a
significant difference in discipline.
1. The calculation is the difference of a specific race for SWD rate of suspension/expulsion exceeding 10 days minus the rate of all general
education students with suspension/expulsion exceeding 10 days. Exclusion criteria are applied after the percent difference is calculated.
6
2. Exclusion is possible if the:
a. LEA’s special education child count is less than or equal to 40 students; or
b. a particular race/ethnicity in LEA’s special education child count for the race/ethnicity is less than or equal to 10.
3. After adjustments, districts with a significant difference greater than 4 for three consecutive years are identified as having
significant disproportionality in discipline and are required to budget and provide CEIS.
Overview of the CEIS Process
State’s Review of Data for Over-Representation
State makes identification of districts with significant disproportionality
Identification
Disability
LRE
Discipline
Significantly Disproportionate districts MUST complete the following tasks:
Complete the
disproportionality selfassessment of policies,
procedures, and practices;
7
Develop the CEIS program and
address in the Arkansas
Comprehensive School
Improvement Plan (ACSIP)
Required use of 15% of
IDEA funds to provide
CEIS for students at risk
for special education
Publicly report
revisions to policies,
procedures, and
practices
Track and report
CEIS students
and activities in
APSCN
Process for determining that a school district is identified as having significant difference in
discipline as defined in the SPP/APR
Indicator 4A: Rates of Suspension and Expulsion
1. The special education benchmark for suspension/expulsion (s/e) greater than 10 days out-of-school is the three-year rate difference
between district s/e rates for general education students as compared to the s/e rate for students with disabilities.
2. Districts are identified as having a significant difference if special education rates are 1.364 percentage points higher than the rate for
general education students. The formula is presented below:
Formula: suspension/expulsion rate for children with disabilities – suspension/expulsion rate for general education students = difference
between special education students & general education students.
3. Any district identified for having a significant difference (special education rates are 1.364 percentage points higher than the rate
for general education students) in a given year is required to submit a self-assessment for the review discipline policies, procedures,
and practices.
Indicator 4B: Rates of Suspension and Expulsion by Race or Ethnicity
1. The measurement for 4B uses a percent difference calculation.
2. The calculation is the difference between the rate of suspensions/expulsions exceeding 10 days within a school year for students with
disabilities (SWD) in specific race/ethnicity categories and that of general education students. The formula is presented below:
Formula: suspension/expulsion rate for students with disabilities of a specific race/ethnic category – suspension/expulsion rate for general
education students = difference between special educations students by race or ethnicity & general education students.
3. Exclusion criteria are applied after the percent difference is calculated. Exclusion is possible if the:
a. LEA’s special education child count is less than or equal to 40 students; or
b. a particular race/ethnicity in LEA’s special education child count is less than or equal to 10.
4. Any district identified for having a percentage difference greater than 4 (special education rate for a specific race is more than
four (4) percentage points higher than general education rate) in a given year is required to submit a self-assessment for the review
discipline policies, procedures, and practices.
8
Process for determining that a school district is identified as having disproportionality as
defined in the SPP/APR
Indicator 9: Identification
A combination of risk ratio and weighted risk ratio methodology (whichever is lowest) used to determine if a district has a disproportionate
over-representation. District enrollment and special education child count data were examined and adjusted according to the following
criteria.
1. Using the December 1 child count for the selected year, students were identified if they were receiving services in a private residential
treatment program. These students were removed from the special education child count numbers and the district October 1 enrollment
numbers for the selected year. The reason for excluding students in private residential treatment facilities is in the State rules governing
private residential treatment facilities. These rules state that a student belongs to the district where the facility is located; therefore,
enrollment of such students artificially increases the district’s special education child count and district wide enrollment.
2. After the October 1 enrollment and December 1 child count have been adjusted for private residential treatment students, weighted risk
ratios were generated. Both risk ratios and weighted risk ratios are examined and the lowest value is selected as the districts risk for a
particular race.
3. Some risk ratios are considered invalid if (1) the district enrollment of a racial/ethnic group is less than 5% or more than 95% of the
district’s enrollment or (2) the number of students in the district’s child count is equal or less than 40.
4. Once adjusted under the above criteria, risk ratios greater than 4.00 are considered an over-representation.
5. Any district identified with over-representation in a given year is required to submit a self-assessment for the review discipline
policies, procedures, and practices.
Indicator 10: Specific Disability Category
A combination of risk ratio and weighted risk ratio methodology (whichever is lowest) is used to determine if a district has disproportionate
representation within six disability categories (Autism, Emotional Disturbance, Mental Retardation, Other Health Impairments, Specific
Learning Disabilities, and Speech Language Impairment). District enrollment and special education child count data were examined and
adjusted according to the following criteria.
1. Using the December 1 child count for the selected year, students were identified if they were receiving services in a private residential
treatment program. These students were removed from the special education child count numbers and the district October 1 enrollment
numbers for the selected year. The reason for excluding students in private residential treatment facilities is in the State rules governing
private residential treatment facilities. These rules state that a student belongs to the district where the facility is located; therefore,
enrollment of such students artificially increases the district’s special education child count and district wide enrollment.
2. After the October 1 enrollment and December 1 child count have been adjusted for private residential treatment students, weighted risk
ratios were generated for each of the six disability categories.
9
3. Some weighted risk ratios were considered invalid if (1) the district enrollment of a racial/ethnic group is less than 5% or (2) the number
of students in a disability category was below 40. Once adjusted under the above criteria, risk ratios greater than 4.00 were considered an
over-representation.
4. Any district identified with over-representation in a disability category in a given year is required to submit a self-assessment for
the review discipline policies, procedures, and practices.
Overview of the SPP/APR process
State Review of Data for Over-Representation
State makes identification of districts with disproportionality
Identification
Disability
Discipline
Disproportionate districts MUST complete the following tasks:
Complete the disproportionality selfassessment of policies, procedures, and
practices and submit to the SEU
If inappropriate policies, procedures, and
practices led to the disproportionality, correct
all findings within one- year of being notified.
Publicly report all revisions made to district
policies, procedures, and practices due to
inappropriate policies, procedures, and
practices.
Identifying and analyzing district data on disproportionality
In order for interventions to be effective, it is necessary to know why over-representation is occurring. To discover why disproportionality is
occurring, districts must look at data with regard to school policies, practices, and procedures currently in place in the district. Relevant data to
examine may include (1) the most recent and previous year district October 1 enrollment by race, (2) special education December 1 child count by
race, (3) special education December 1 child count by disability and race, (4) special education December 1 child count by LRE and race, (5)
referrals and placements by race, (6) special education discipline - greater than 10 days out of school suspension/expulsion, (7) Monitoring/ ACSIP
Profile, (8) LEA Annual Performance Report, and (9) other data deemed necessary by the district. The District’s October 1 (and previous years)
enrollment by race can be downloaded from ADE Data Center website at https://adedata.arkansas.gov/ .
10
Section A: Self-Assessment of Policies, Procedures, and Practices Effecting Disproportionality in
the Areas of Referral, Evaluation, and Eligibility
Please respond to the questions below and describe or provide evidence of your district’s policies, procedures, and
practices effecting disproportionality in the areas of referral, evaluation, and eligibility.
Questions:
Does the district keep data that furnishes the following
information related to referrals:
 Number of referrals made by school and individual
teacher;
 Number of referrals made according to student age,
grade, gender and ethnicity/race;
 Number of referrals made versus number of placements
made;
 Number of students transferring into the district that are
receiving special education services?
Does the district randomly review referrals to detect any pattern
that might indicate a problem with disproportionately, such as
large numbers of children of one race or small numbers of
children of one race?
Does the district identify all tests and other educational
materials currently used in the evaluation process? Has each
been validated for the specific purpose for which it is used?
Are tests and other evaluation materials administered by trained
personnel in conformance with the instructions provided by
their producer?
Are multidisciplinary team members knowledgeable about the
meaning of evaluation data?
Has the person(s) responsible for interpreting assessment data
11
If yes, please describe or provide evidence.
Please respond to the questions below and describe or provide evidence of your district’s policies, procedures, and
practices effecting disproportionality in the areas of referral, evaluation, and eligibility.
Questions:
received training concerning the interpretation and use of
assessment results?
Does the comprehensive evaluation involve information from
an assortment of sources (classroom teachers, parents,
counselors, others) and utilize a variety of evaluation
techniques (observation, interviews, informal and formal
testing, etc.)?
Are assessments and other evaluation materials provided and
administered in the child’s native language or other mode of
communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate
information on what the child knows and can do academically?
Are materials and procedures used to assess a child with
limited English proficiency selected and
administered to ensure that they measure the extent
to which the child has a disability and needs special
education, rather than measuring the child’s
English language skills?
Prior to determining that a child is eligible for special
education, does the district ensure the determinate factor was
not
 A lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including
the essential components of reading instruction; or
 A lack of appropriate instruction in math; or
 Limited English proficiency?
Does the multidisciplinary team address the areas of exclusion
under 34 CFR 300.309 in the criteria for determining the
existence of a specific learning disability, paying particular
12
If yes, please describe or provide evidence.
Please respond to the questions below and describe or provide evidence of your district’s policies, procedures, and
practices effecting disproportionality in the areas of referral, evaluation, and eligibility.
Questions:
attention to 34 CFR 300.311(a)(6) which addresses
environmental, cultural or economic disadvantages?
Does the multidisciplinary team consider cultural/ethnic, as
well as dialectal variations in selecting assessment procedures
and analyzing evaluation data, especially for culturally and
linguistically diverse students suspected of having a
disability?
Does the district ensure that no single procedure is used as the
sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a
disability and for determining an appropriate educational
program for the child?
Is the child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected
disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing,
social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic
performance, communicative status, and motor abilities?
Is the evaluation sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of
the child’s special education and related services needs,
whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in
which the child has been classified?
Do evaluation program conference decisions indicate the
presence of a specific disability(s) and the basis for that
determination?
13
If yes, please describe or provide evidence.
Section C: Self-Assessment of Policies, Procedures, and Practices Effecting Significant
Differences in Discipline
Please respond to the questions below and describe or provide evidence of your district’s policies, procedures, and
practices effecting significant differences in the area of discipline.
Questions:
Are teachers and administrators trained in the techniques of
positive behavioral interventions and supports?
Do psychological and educational examiners, and counselors
employed by, or contracted with, the district receive training
concerning best practices in positive behavioral interventions and
supports?
Does the district have graduated discipline procedures in place?
Does the district keep the following data related to disciplinary
referrals:
 reason(s) for the referral;
 action(s) taken;
 number of referrals made by school(s) and individual
teacher(s);
 number of discipline referrals made according to student
age, grade, sex, and race;
 number of discipline referrals made vs. number of
suspensions/expulsions made; and
 number of students placed into alternative settings?
14
If yes, please describe or provide evidence.
Please respond to the questions below and describe or provide evidence of your district’s policies, procedures, and
practices effecting significant differences in the area of discipline.
Questions:
When a child with a disability is removed from the child’s
current placement, does the child receive, as appropriate, a
functional behavioral assessment, and behavioral intervention
services and modifications?
Does a multidisciplinary team of professionals, with knowledge
in the area of disabilities and behavior, conduct behavioral
assessments?
Does the district provide staff training for developing and
implementing appropriate behavior intervention plans?
In the case of a child whose behavior impedes his or her learning
or that of others, does the district consider the use of positive
behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to
address that behavior?
Does the district provide mental health services for those students
in need of them?
15
If yes, please describe or provide evidence.
Self-Assessment Team Member Sheet
District:
Click here to enter text.
Address:
Click here to enter text.
Superintendent:
Click here to enter text.
Special Education Director:
Click here to enter text.
Contact E-mail Address:
Click here to enter text.
Contact Phone:
Click here to enter text.
Team Members Who Participated in the Self-Assessment Review Process:
A team of stakeholders selected by the district must participate in the self-assessment process. When assembling this team, the district should consider including
regular and special educators and team members representing administration, professional learning, parents, curriculum and instruction, school psychology,
student support services, and school improvement.
Name:
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Title:
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Summary of Verification of Accuracy
The superintendent is required to certify the information prior to submission.
I verify that the information submitted in this report is accurate and is based upon the findings from the Self-Assessment of District Policies, Procedures, and
Practices.
Superintendent Signature: __________________________________________________
16
Date:____________________________________________