When students from a particular racial/ethnic background who receive special education services are over or under represented, when compared to the overall student population, this is referred to as “disproportionate representation.” Disproportionate representation is identified by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as a great concern.

Over and under representation is often the result of improper identification of students in need of special education services. Improper policies and procedures could result in racial/ethnic subgroups being more likely or less likely to be determined eligible for special education services or a specific disability category. The students could also be at higher risk for lack of access to the general education classroom and a higher rate of discipline.

Through legislation, the U.S. Congress requires states and school districts to address over and under representation. The IDEA outlines two separate sets of requirements for state education agencies (SEAs) regarding over and under representation. One set of  requirements is known as “disproportionate representation as a monitoring priority area” and the other is known as “significant disproportionality.”

Though both terms are concerned with over representation of racial/ethnic subgroups, the primary differences relate to the areas of special education that are examined and the actions required of districts when reaching the thresholds for disproportionate representation as a monitoring priority and significant disproportionality.

This FOCUS on Results article reviews and defines both disproportionate representation as a monitoring priority area and significant disproportionality. This article also offers guidance and technical assistance about the actions that are required of the Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education (MDE, OSE) and local school districts in response to existing disproportionate representation and significant disproportionality.

Disproportionate Representation as a Monitoring Priority Area—20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C); 34 CFR §§300.173 and 300.600(d)(3)

Each state education agency created a six-year State Performance Plan (SPP) in response to the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA and established goals and strategies for 20 performance indicators. These areas are called “monitoring priority areas” or “indicators.” Two indicators highlight disproportionate representation:

• Indicator 9 (disproportionate representation in special education and related services due to inappropriate identification).
• Indicator 10 (disproportionate representation in a specific disability category due to inappropriate identification).

The U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) set an expectation for all states that no district shall have disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification for indicators 9 and 10. The phrase “due to inappropriate identification” is included to make sure that agencies with disproportionate representation whose identification process is appropriate are still considered in compliance with the IDEA. States are required to monitor both over representation and under representation in their districts and report findings to the OSEP for both Indicators 9 and 10 in the Annual Performance Report (APR).

Verified ratios are calculated to determine over and under representation (see Figure 1). Districts with a verified ratio of greater than 2.5 (over representation) or less than 0.4 (under representation) for a particular racial/ethnic group for two consecutive years are selected for focused monitoring (FM). Focused monitoring includes the following:

1. The MDE, OSE completes a desk audit or an on-site monitoring visit.
2. The OSE determines if the disproportionate representation is the result of inappropriate identification.
3. In cases of inappropriate identification, districts receive technical assistance from the state. They are required to correct non-compliance, including verification from the OSE, within one year.

To view Michigan’s performance on disproportionate representation as a monitoring priority (SPP Indicators 9 and 10), see Figure 2 and Figure 3.