## Resources

{{CurrentPage.Topics.DisplayName}} {{CurrentPage.Subtopic_x0020_Level_x0020_1}}

# {{CurrentPage.Title}}

SPP Indicator 9: A compliance indicator that measures the percentage of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. Indicator 9 compares the enrollment of all students to those students with IEPs by race/ethnicity at a school, district and state level.

SPP Indicator 10: A compliance indicator that measures the percentage of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. Indicator 10 compares the enrollment of all students to those students with IEPs by race/ethnicity at a school, district and state level.

Goal
The goal of Indicators 9 and 10 is to decrease the disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.

Measurement
9. Percent = [(# of districts, that meet the state-established n and/or cell size (if applicable) for one or more racial/ethnic groups, with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in the state that meet the state-established n and/or cell size (if applicable) for one or more racial/ethnic groups)] times 100.

The state-specific calculations are:

• The current year being examined, plus the previous two years, is included in the calculation.
• If there are fewer than 10 students in the district for a particular race in any of the three years, no calculation is performed.
• The comparison group is the number of students not in the race being examined.
• If there are 10 or more students in the comparison group a Weighted Risk Ratio is computed.
• If there are fewer than 10 students in the comparison group an Alternate Risk Ratio is computed.
• For the races that qualify for the Alternate Risk Ratio calculation:
• The district level risk ratio for a race is calculated as: total IEP students from the district for that race divided by the district enrolled student count for that race.
• The state risk for the comparison group is calculated as: total number of IEP students minus the number of IEP students in that race divided by the total state enrollment minus the total student enrollment for that race.
• ​The Alternate Risk Ratio for a race as: the district level risk ratio for a race divided by the state risk for the comparison group.
• For races that qualify for the Weighted Risk Ratio calculation:
• The district level risk ratio for each race is calculated as: total IEP students from the district for that race divided by the district enrolled student count for that race. Perform and save this for each race.
• The statewide race proportion for each race is calculated as: the total enrolled for that race divided by the total statewide enrollment count.
• The comparison weighted risk for each race as: statewide race proportion for a race times the district level risk ratio for that race. Do this for each race.
• The Weighted Risk Ratio for a race as: (1 minus the statewide race proportion for that race) times the district level risk ratio for that race divided by the sum of the comparison weighted risk for each of the other races.
• A district will need to complete a self-assessment for disproportionate representation if the calculated weighted or alternate risk ratio is 3.0 or higher for three consecutive years for a particular racial/ethnic group in which there are at least 10 students in the special education population.

10. Percent = [(# of districts, that meet the state-established n and/or cell size (if applicable) for one or more racial/ethnic groups, with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in the state that meet a state-established n and/or cell size (if applicable) for one or more racial/ethnic groups)] times 100.

The state-specific calculations are:

• The current year being examined, plus the previous two years, is included in the calculation.
• Only six major disability categories are examined. The major categories are:
• Intellectual Disability (A)
• Specific Learning Disability (D)
• Speech and/or Language Impairment (I)
• Emotional Disability (K)
• Other Health Impairment (L)
• Autism (O)
• If there are fewer than 10 students in the district for a particular race and Disability Category in any of the three years, no calculation is performed.
• The comparison group is the number of students not in the race being examined.
• If there are 10 or more students in the comparison group, a Weighted Risk Ratio is computed.
• If there are fewer than 10 students in the comparison group, an Alternate Risk Ratio is computed.
• For the race/disability category that qualify for the Alternate Risk Ratio calculation:
• ​The district level risk ratio for a race is calculated as: total IEP students from the district for that race divided by the district enrolled student count for that race.
• The state risk for the comparison group is calculated as: total number of IEP students minus the number of IEP students in that race divided by the total state enrollment minus the total student enrollment for that race.
• The Alternate Risk Ratio for a race as: the district level risk ratio for a race divided by the state risk for the comparison group.
• For race/disability category that qualify for the Weighted Risk Ratio calculation:
• The district level risk ratio for each race is calculated as: total IEP students from the district for that race divided by the district enrolled student count for that race. Perform and save this for each race.
• The statewide race proportion for each race is calculated as: the total enrolled for that race divided by the total statewide enrollment count.
• The comparison weighted risk for each race as: statewide race proportion for a race times the district level risk ratio for that race. Do this for each race.
• The Weighted Risk Ratio for a race as: (1 minus the statewide race proportion for that race) times the district level risk ratio for that race divided the sum of the comparison weighted risk for each of the other races.
• A district will need to complete a self-assessment for disproportionate representation if the calculated weighted or alternate risk ratio is 3.0 or higher for three consecutive years for a particular racial/ethnic group in which there are at least 10 students in the special education disability category in question.

Data Source
The federal data source is state child count data collected under IDEA Section 618 (Report of Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education under Part B of IDEA, as Amended). This includes FS002 Children with Disabilities (IDEA) School Age (ages 6-21 served under IDEA). The ISBE data source is I-Star special education 12/1 counts and SIS 9/30.

Targets for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2020-25
SPP 9 - FFY20-25 target of 0%
SPP 10 - FFY20-25 target of 0%

Findings of Noncompliance
SPP/APR data for this indicator is verified by the SPP coordinator, data manager, and SPP team leader around April 1. Self-assessments are distributed to districts that meet ISBE’s criteria for disproportionate representation around May 1 and are returned to ISBE for review no later than July 1. Written findings of noncompliance are issued annually around September 1 to districts that have disproportionate representation that is found to be the result of inappropriate identification.

## Indicator 9 & 10 Self-Assessment Documents

• Weighted and Alternate Risk Ratios
• Disproportionality Assessment Tools
• FY23 District ​Self-Assessment
In order for ISBE to determine if disproportionality is due to inappropriate identification, each district identified as having disproportionality is required to review and analyze student data at the district and individual building levels and to complete a district self-assessment using a template provided by ISBE (see link above). The purpose of this self-assessment is to examine policies, procedures and practices that may impact the disproportionate identification of students in specific racial/ethnic groups.
• FY23 Disproportionality ​- Status Report
The Status Report template is to be used by those districts that have been determined to have the same continuing issue(s) of disproportionality as those identified in the preceding year and for which an in depth self-assessment was already completed. The purpose of the Status Report is for such districts to provide an update on their implementation of the improvement activities identified in the “Next Steps” section of the preceding year’s self-assessment. Districts with newly identified issues of disproportionality for the current year should not use this template.​​​​