A paperwork change proposed by the U.S. Department of Education would end an important accountability measure that helps ensure states adequately identify and address racial inequities in special education, disability rights advocates say.
The agency said in an Aug. 21 proposal that ending the requirement that states report changes to their methods for calculating “significant disproportionality” on their annual federal applications under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act would ease paperwork burdens for state education departments.
But comments on the proposal, which the agency accepted until Oct. 21, overwhelmingly oppose the plan. Those advocates contend the change would save states little time and come at the cost of important transparency.
“This is part of the Trump administration’s pattern” of eliminating key data collections about students and schools, said Ivy Morgan, the director of P-12 research and data analytics at EdTrust, an organization that advocates for educational equity. “It’s another chisel mark in their process of chipping away all of the data we need to be sure that states and districts are doing right by students.”
The proposal coincides with the Education Department’s decision to lay off 460 employees, virtually wiping out the office of special education and rehabilitative services, which holds states accountable for properly serving students with disabilities. Though a federal judge has paused those plans, disability rights advocates remain concerned about a broader lack of oversight for a vulnerable student population.
Here’s what you need to know about significant disproportionality and the Education Department’s proposal.
What is significant disproportionality?
Data show that Black, Latino, and Native American students are often more likely to be identified for special education services, more likely to be taught in alternative settings like separate classrooms, and more likely to be disciplined than their white and Asian American peers.
To address these concerns, the IDEA law requires that states identify and address “significant disproportionality” in the placement, identification, and discipline of students with disabilities. Congress reauthorized the law in 2004, adding a requirement that districts with significant disproportionality must commit 15% of their funds to remedy those imbalances through efforts like increased early intervention services.
Why are states’ methods for measuring disproportionality in special education so important?
While the 2004 amendment required states to identify school districts with significant disproportionality, it left it up to state agencies to set criteria for making that determination. Some states subsequently set the bar so high that few or no districts were ever identified, noted a February 2013 investigation from the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan public watchdog agency.
“In Nebraska, one of 21 states that did not require any districts to provide services in 2010-11, racial and ethnic groups must be identified for special education at a rate three times higher than for other groups for two consecutive years,” that report said.
Based on widely varying state criteria, just 356 districts out of more than 13,000 in the United States were required to address racial imbalances in special education that year, the GAO found.
“Half of these districts were clustered in five states, and 73 were in Louisiana alone,” the agency said.
Without more consistent criteria, states could easily dodge accountability, disability rights advocates warned.
When did the Education Department require more details on their significant-disproportionality formula?
The Education Department released new regulations in 2016 that created a standardized approach, giving states more limited discretion.
Under that regulation, states must calculate the statistical likelihood that students from various racial and ethnic groups will be identified for special education, taught outside of a general education classroom, or subject to exclusionary discipline, like suspensions. States must then set a “risk ratio” that determines how much overrepresentation is necessary to flag a district for significant disproportionality.
Under the first Trump administration, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos pushed to delay that rule, which was created by former President Barack Obama’s administration, arguing that it amounted to setting harmful race-based quotas. But a federal judge ordered the Education Department to implement it.
Why do advocates want states to continue to report their methodology?
Because the 2016 rule still gave states some discretion in their methodology, the Education Department also required them to report any changes to their methodology on their annual IDEA applications, allowing the agency to check for “reasonableness.”
States must report changes to “n size,” or how they determine when there are too few students in a particular racial or ethnic group to perform a statistical analysis without violating the privacy of individual students. They must also document any changes to their risk ratio.
Under the Trump administration’s proposed rule change, states would no longer be required to include that information in their IDEA applications, which are subject to public review and comment before they are submitted.
All states would still be required to collect data on disproportionality and take steps to address it. But the public may not be aware of changes to how they calculate it—and how that calculation could identify more or fewer students.
The equity regulation amounts to a “check engine light” to ensure states are appropriately responding to inequality and bias, wrote Denise Marshall, the CEO of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, an advocacy group, in a comment on the proposed rule change.
“The absence of public reporting would defeat one of the benefits of the Equity in IDEA regulation, which was to promote transparency and allow parents and stakeholders, including COPAA, the ability to compare the methodologies used by various states,” she wrote.
The other 94 comments on the proposed rule included similar concerns.
“Removing data collection requirements will not make this persistent issue go away, it will only serve to cut off transparency and accountability,” 25 special education researchers wrote in a joint comment.
Without clear disclosure about changes to methodology, “the public loses the ability to understand whether changes in significant disproportionality over time are due to changes in methodology or genuine improved policies and practices,” a coalition of 11 education groups, including Ed Trust, wrote.
What happens next?
Public comments on the proposal are now closed, and the Education Department will review all submissions and incorporate responses into a final proposal for White House review.
