Financial penalty if any one of the 98 indicators’ threshold missed; must review, and if appropriate, revise policies, procedures, and practices; must publicly report on the revision of policies, procedures, and practices
If racial/ethnic group orcomparison group MSRs not met, then PL = Not Assigned.
If racial/ethnic group MSRs not met, then SD calculation not required. However, if comparison group MSRs not met, then Alternate Risk Ratio must be used to calculate SD.
In representation indicators, exclusions were applied for Hospital Class, State Supported Living Centers, Residential Care and Treatment Facilities, and Regional School for the Deaf.
Still under review by TEA – we can only confirm today that court-ordered students placed in Residential Facilities or Group Homes can be excluded.
Although the final regulations require a somewhat different approach, our transition to disproportionality rates was a step in the right direction and provided districts with multiple years of Report Only data they could use to anticipate, and potentially avoid, being identified for significant disproportionality once the USDE regulations were finalized.
Representation Disability and Race/Ethnicity Areas:
1. Hispanic/Latino2. American Indian or
Alaska Native3. Asian4. Black or African American5. Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander6. White7. Two or More Races
1. AU2. ED3. OHI4. ID5. SI6. SLD
To address the federal regulations, we will need to make the following changes to the Representation Indicator:◦ Instead of assigning PLs based on the aggregated number of
students enrolled in special education, assign PLs based onthe disaggregated number of students enrolled in specialeducation based on race/ethnicity and disability category.◦ This disaggregation will result in 49 distinct measures of special
education representation.◦ Because this disaggregation will include disaggregating data on
African American and Hispanic students, we no longer need those two separate indicators.
These 49 different measures will identify districts that exceed the threshold for a “disproportionate” level of students of a particular race/ethnicity or disability category served in special education.
States need to set thresholds for what is consideredsignificantly disproportionate and designate any district thatexceeds that threshold as having significant disproportionality.
Step 1: 70.6 – 27.5 = 43.1Step 2: 43.1/27.5*100 = 156.7The district’s Asian Representation Rate in SPED is 156.7% higher than the rate of Asian students in the district.
Other SPED Other StudentsOther Students 4.0 100 2,506
Risk Ratio 6.3
4/12/2017
8
2 PlacementAreas
> 40% in Regular Class
% of students served in special education in separate placements
Step 1: 37.8 – 14.9 = 22.9Step 2: 22.9/14.9*100 = 153.7The district’s Asian Regular Class <40% Rate is 153.7% higher than the rate ofAllStudents in the district.
Other <40% Other SPEDOther Students 14.0 290 2,072
Risk Ratio 2.7
4/12/2017
9
This indicator measures the percent of students ages 6-21 served in special education (SPED) in separate placements.
Calculation
number of students ages 6−21 served in special education and placed in instructional settings 30, 50, 60, 70, 71, 86, 87, 96 and 97
number of students ages 6−21 served in special education
Settings –30 (State Supported Living Centers)50 (Residential Nonpublic School Program) 60 (Nonpublic Day School)70 (Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired) 71 (Texas School for the Deaf)86(Residential Care and Treatment Facility – Separate Campus)87(Residential Care and Treatment Facility – Community Class) 96 (Off Home Campus – Separate Campus)97 (Off Home Campus – Community Class)
PBMAS currently has three discipline indicators thatevaluate the placement of students with disabilitiescompared to the placement of all students in:◦ Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs (DAEP)◦ In-School Suspension (ISS)◦ Out of School Suspension (OSS)
They will be discontinued beginning with the 2017 PBMAS, and 35 new discipline indicators will be developed as a result of the final regulations.
30 – 35 Total Disciplinary Removals, Including ISS, OSS, expulsions, removals by school personnel to an interim alternative education setting, and removals by a hearing officer(for Seven Race/Ethnic Groups)
4/12/2017
10
We will be unable to develop the 35 indicators forinclusion in the 2017 PBMAS.
Instead, we plan to develop them for inclusion in the 2017 Discipline Data Validation Release, which typically occurs in November.
That release will identify:• SD Year 1 districts (based on 2015- 2016 data),• SD Year 2 districts (based on 2016-2017 data), and • SD Year 1 districts (based on 2016-2017 data).
All of those results will subsequently be incorporatedinto, and reported a second time, in the 2018 PBMAS.
States can decide whether the penalties kick in fordistricts based on one year, two years, or three years ofSD for a particular indicator.
Using just one year of SD is the most punitive option. Advantages of using multiple years of SD:◦ Less punitive to districts◦ Requires the SD to be identified beyond a single year◦ Allows certain districts to (potentially) receive the benefit of
Reasonable Progress, thereby avoiding the SD determination for a particular year
The maximum number of years available for the first roundof SD determinations is two: 2017 and 2018.
• Per the federal regulations, if the race/ethnic group MSR (N1 or D1) not met, then the district is not evaluated for SD.
• However, if N1/D1 MSR are met but N2 or D2 MSR notmet, then the STATE N2 and D2 must be used to evaluatethe district for SD. This is called the Alternate Risk Ratio.
• The federal regulations state that N1/N2 MSR of 10 and D1/D2 MSR of 30 are “presumptively reasonable.”
The threshold refers to the risk ratio number that states will use to assign SD.
Any district that exceeds that threshold will be identified as SD (either Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, etc.)
If the state decides to implement Reasonable Progress (RP), a district may avoid the federal sanctions that would otherwise kick in (or continue) for a particular year - as long as it meets RP for all indicators where it exceeded the established thresholds.
Thresholds - TEA modeling data for the Representation - Risk ratio 2.0
4/12/2017
13
Thresholds - TEA modeling data for the Representation - Risk ratio 2.5
Thresholds - TEA modeling data for the Representation - Risk ratio 3.0
For the Representation Indicator, states may set differentthreshold for different disability categories but may not setdifferent thresholds for different racial/ethnic groups.
States may also set different thresholds for the Placement Indicators and the Discipline Indicators – but again maynot set different thresholds for different racial/ethnicgroups.
Representation• (7 indicators – one for each race/ethnic
group)
1 threshold
Representation• (42 indicators – 6 disability categories x 7
race/ethnic groups)
Up to 6(1 for each disability category)
Placement• (7 <40% indicators – one for each
race/ethnic group)
1 threshold
Placement• (7 separate settings indicators – one for
each race/ethnic group)
1 threshold
Discipline• (35 indicators – 5 disciplinary removals x
7 race/ethnic groups)
Up to 5(1 for each type of disciplinary removal)
§300.647(d)(2): A State is not required to identify a district for significant disproportionality until…the district has exceeded the risk ratio threshold and has failed to demonstrate reasonable progress.
Reasonable Progress is lowering the risk ratio in each of twoconsecutive prior years.
The State does not have the option to postpone a finding of SD if the district has only achieved a decrease over a multiple year period.
• In this example, the risk ratio threshold is ≥3.0.• Both districts started at the same place two years ago (SD Year 1).• Both districts exceed the threshold in the current year (SD Year 3).• Both districts reduced their risk ratio between SD Year 1 and SD Year 3.• However, per federal regulations, District B does not get RP because
More information, including a proposal for calculating Reasonable Progress, will be shared at a future time.
We believe our PBMAS Required Improvement calculation is a valid and meaningful calculation, and we will continue to explore how/if we can incorporate it into a Reasonable Progress calculation.
Based on the parameters of federal requirements, however, it is unlikely that as many districts will receive RP as typically receive RI in PBMAS.
