Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) Solving Disproportionality: Examination of Statewide Data on CEIS Plans

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

Abstract

Objectives or purposes.
IDEA’s 2004 reauthorization required state education agencies (SEA) to identify districts found with “significant disproportionality” and required those districts to set aside 15% of IDEA funds for coordinated early intervening services (CEIS). The federal guidance allows for professional development for teachers and other school staff and for direct provision of educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and supports. The policy to practice question is, how are school districts translating the guidance on CEIS funds utilization into strategies for remedying racial/ethnic disproportionality?

Perspective(s) or theoretical framework.
This paper uses a policy to practice equity lens. Multiple disciplines approach conversations of educational equity with a focus on varying dimensions, such as culturally relevant pedagogy and teaching (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995), the patterns of enrollment and segregation in schools (Orfield and Frankenberg, 2014), the distribution of resources, patterns of racial bias and interactions between students and practitioners (Steele and Aronson, 1995; Sue, 2010), etc. Despite these varying dimensions a universal set of constructs surrounding educational equity includes examination of proportional outcomes by race/ethnicity, and examination and inclusion of social interactions, learning and behaviors as multi-dimensional involving constructs of culture and race/ethnicity.

Methods, Data Sources and Analysis Techniques.
This paper is based on CEIS plans submitted by districts to an SEA in 2011-2013. The dataset includes both type of disproportionality (identification, placement, disciplinary actions); and CEIS funded activities. We describe a two-step thematic examination of CEIS funded activities: 1) organizing the activities into the two major categories of allowable activities (professional development and additional interventions and supports); and 2) identifying how often districts describe equity and/or proportional activities. The final step of analysis involves organizing the themes according to district size in order to understand whether there is a potential pattern between district size and CEIS funded activities.

Results and/or substantiated conclusions or warrants for arguments/point of view.
One of the important preliminary findings in this paper is the overwhelming pattern of districts identifying “research-based” interventions and/or supports for the population in the citation. These interventions primarily focus on literacy and behavioral supports. Finally, only a small proportion of districts identify activities in which equity and/or proportional examination was included as a descriptor. This last finding raises questions as to whether CEIS funded activities will lead to substantive reductions in racial/ethnic disproportionality.

Scientific or scholarly significance of the study or work. These findings raise various research questions and areas of inquiry, such as what is the understanding districts maintain about racial/ethnic disproportionality? Does this understanding complicate how districts approach utilizing CEIS funds?

Author

• Edward Fergus, New York University