Unintended Consequences: Who Benefits When and If Significant Racial Disproportionality in Discipline Triggers Coordinated Early Intervening Services Funding

• In Event: Coordinated Early Intervening Services as a Solution for Significant Disproportionality: What Have We Learned?

Abstract

Objectives/Purposes: The GAO issued a report to the Senate that pointed out that the current set of formulas used by states to identify significant disproportionality in special education identification was not working because the definition allowed states to set the bar far too high. This paper analyzes an underlying problem, which is that the federal government issued regulatory guidance explicitly stating that no students currently eligible under the IDEA can receive the benefits of CEIS funding. This becomes an issue where discipline disparities trigger the funding transfer. The purpose of this paper is to examine the degree of tension in policy documents flowing from the congressional act and to propose solutions that would ensure that when triggered by significant disproportionality, CEIS funds could address the problematic disparity.

Perspectives/Theoretical Framework: This paper reviews the legal underpinnings of that interpretation of the statute alongside its practical application. Specifically, can the CEIS funds be spent to remedy the disparities in discipline that triggered the required shift? If not, is that because of the statute, or the interpretation of the statute, and is there a legally sound interpretation of the statute that would avoid this problem?

Methods, Data Sources, Techniques, Modes of Inquiry: This is a mixed method analysis of policy research. It will survey all the available state documentation on the triggering of CEIS, including the extant formulas used for discipline. We will use a straightforward description of risk and risk differences to describe the high degree of racial disparities in discipline among students with disabilities based on extant analysis of every district in the nation. Part two describes the statutory requirements and subsequent regulatory guidance and compares these interpretations to those that are viable following the canons of statutory interpretation commonly referenced and supported by Supreme Court decisions.

Results: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report pointed out that only a few states reported districts with significant disproportionality in identification, and only about 2% of all districts nationally were thus identified. To confirm whether these findings applied to discipline disparities, in 2014, the CCRR visited the website of the 16 states that the GAO report examined for “identification” and found only 26 out of 4,626 possible districts identified reported an issue with regard to discipline. That is less than half of 1 percent of all districts reviewed. A further 10 of the 16 states found zero districts.
Scholarly or scientific significance: The policy in question requires that states look for district level overidentification, not just in special education categories, but in the restrictiveness of the educational setting and in discipline. This paper will demonstrate that there are shortcomings in the application of the federal policy that may prevent its optimum application, especially with regard to discipline disparities. Analysis of the canons of statutory construction will show how this shortcoming can be remedied under a regulatory framework that aligns with the authorizing statute

Author

• Daniel Losen, University of California - Los Angeles