The Future of Disproportionate Representation
When students are unnecessarily placed into special education programs, their risk for poor academic outcomes increases. Students must be placed in appropriate educational settings to ensure opportunities to succeed in an appropriate and rigorous curriculum. Proper CEIS help reduce inappropriate referrals to special education. Additionally, appropriate identification procedures reduce the risk that race/ethnicity plays a role in the placement of students.
Figure 1: Data and Calculations For Disproportionate Representation and Significant Disproportionality
The mathematical formulas used to determine disproportionate representation and significant disproportionality are the same. Using input from a wide range of stakeholder groups and guidance from the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), the Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education Early Intervention Services (MDE, OSE) established methods for calculating what constitutes over and under representation for disproportionate representation and significant disproportionality. The calculations are designed to allow for the vast differences among districts regarding their racial/ethnic populations.
Collected Data
Although Michigan special education services are provided for children and students ages 3 through 25 who are eligible, federal law requires data for disproportionate representation and significant disproportionality be calculated only for students ages 6 through 21.
Data from five racial/ethnic categories are considered in calculations—African American, American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, and White.
Data from six disability categories are considered in calculations—emotional impairment, cognitive impairment, specific learning disability, speech and language impairment, other health impairment, and autism spectrum disorder.
Generally, the remaining disability categories have small numbers of students. Therefore, the OSEP does not require a review of over and under representation in these categories. However, a state is able to include any other category it believes may have problems with over and under representation.
Variations For Different Racial/Ethnic Populations
A Weighted Risk Ratio (WRR) is used to determine disproportionate representation for a particular racial/ethnic subgroup when there are at least ten students with disabilities in all other racial/ethnic subgroups (disability comparison group).
An Alternate Risk Ratio (ARR) is used to determine disproportionate representation for a particular racial/ethnic subgroup when there are fewer than ten students with disabilities in all other racial/ethnic subgroups (disability comparison group).
A Risk Ratio (RR) is used to determine disproportionate representation for a particular racial/ethnic subgroup when there are zero African American or zero White students with disabilities in the district.
The appropriate calculation is used to determine a “verified ratio” which is used to determine if a district has over or under representation. A verified ratio of 1 represents exact proportionate representation.
Districts are not required to have exact proportionate representation in order to be in compliance with the IDEA. Each state, with approval from the OSEP, sets the verified ratios that identify over representation and under representation.
Figure 2: State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicator 9 – Disproportionate Representation in Special Education and Related Services
| Indicator Component | FFY 2006 Result |
FFY 2007* Result |
FFY 2007 Target |
FFY 2007 Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. | 0.3% | 0.3% | 0.3% | Target Not Met |
| Sources: Michigan Compliance Information System (MI-CIS) and the Single Record Student Database (SRSD). *Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2007-July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 | ||||
During 2007-2008, the OSE analyzed FFY 2006 and FFY 2007 disproportionate representation data for 778 districts. Eight districts were identified for focused monitoring activities (three for over-representation; five for under-representation). Two of the districts with over-representation of African American students were found to have inappropriate identification policies, procedures, and/or practices as represented in the table above. There were no districts with under representation due to inappropriate identification.
Figure 3: State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicator 10 – Disproportionate Representation in Specific Disability Categories
| Indicator Component | FFY 2006 Result |
FFY 2007* Result |
FFY 2007 Target |
FFY 2007 Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. | 3.2% | 1.7% | 0% | Target Not Met |
| Sources: Michigan Compliance Information System (MI-CIS) and the Single Record Student Database (SRSD). *Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2007-July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 | ||||
During 2007-2008, the OSE analyzed FFY 2006 and FFY 2007 disproportionate representation data for 778 districts. The FFY 2007 data analysis identified 63 districts as potentially having disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification (35 with under representation). Thirteen districts were found to have over representation due to inappropriate identification. There were no districts found to have under representation due to inappropriate identification.
