Technical Assistance for Part B, Indicator 4

The following information should be available when using these questions to guide TA decisions:

• The State Performance Plan
• The Annual Performance Reports
• Letters of Determination with accompanying Tables
• Suspension and expulsion data collected on each district, including any behavioral data available in addition to the exceeds 10 days data
• Definition of significant discrepancy, including the formula or calculation method and the cut point for significant

Data Collection

• How does the State define significant discrepancy?
  • What does the State use as the “n” size in order to include or exclude a district in the determination of significant discrepancy?
  • What does the State use for comparison (i.e., rates for nondisabled students, rates among LEAs)?
  • What does the State use as the cut point for determining significant?
• Describe the approach used to collect the state and local district data, including the definition of suspension and expulsion?
• What steps are used to ensure accuracy and reliability of your data?
  • Do you review district data to examine reliability?
  • What efforts have been made to assure that suspension and expulsion definitions are used consistently across the state?
• Are there missing data? If so, why?
  • Have you tried any strategies to improve your data collection? If so, what?

Data Reporting

• Describe the approach used to report the required data and information.
  • How often does the local district receive reports from the State on suspension and expulsion data?
  • What format does the State use to report data?
  • Does the report format support the ability to disaggregate data for drill down purposes? If not, what implications does this have for improvement planning?

Data Analysis

• Describe how the state and local district analyzed the suspension/expulsion data.
• Describe the process used to review, and if appropriate, revise or required LEAs found to have significant discrepancy to revise policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards to ensure compliance with the IDEA.
  • What evidence is used to determine if it is necessary for the LEA to revise policies, procedures or practices?
  • What is the result of the reviews?
  • How are the results shared with the LEA?
• What variation exists across districts (e.g., geographic regions, district/program size, etc.) in our state? What variation factors might influence the data?
• In looking at the data, how does the data vary across districts in the state?
  • What variation do we notice when looking at suspension and expulsion data?
  • What variation do we notice when looking at results of the review of policies, procedures and practices?
• What factors might contribute to this variation?
• Have the data shown any changes over time? Can we say why?
• What conclusions can be drawn from this data analysis?
  • What are the areas of strength?
  • What additional information do we need in order to better understand our results?
  • What areas seem to be the areas of concern?

Data Use & Improvement Planning

• How does the State and local district use the data to improve or ensure compliance?
  • Policies, Procedures and Practices
    • What process is in place to inform LEAs of non-compliance with any policy, procedure or practice?
    • What is the timeline with which the LEA must demonstrate compliance the requirement to revise, when necessary, policies, procedures and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the sue of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedures safeguards?
    • What steps, if any, do you take to follow-up with LEAs to ensure that the revisions have been implemented and are being followed consistently?
  • Systemic Correction
    • How is the State and LEA using the data to determine if there are any systemic problems?
  • How do you differentiate individual IEP correction from systemic correction?
  • If you are looking at systemic problems at the state or local level, what steps or actions are you taking to address those systemic problems?
  • What resources have been allocated to address the systemic problems (at the state and local level)
• How does the State and local district use the data to improve results?
  • Describe your improvement plan and the improvement strategies used to date, specifically including the activities/strategies and resources used.
  • Do you have a plan to suspension and expulsionresults at both the local and state levels? If no, why not?
  • Does this plan include activities addressing both individual IEP corrections and systemic problems?
  • Does this plan include improvement activities that specify action steps, timelines, responsible parties and resources? If no, why not?
  • Did the development of this plan include a variety of stakeholders including local teachers and administrators, parents, students, adult agency representatives? If not, why not?
  • How has the State and local district evaluated the impact of the improvement efforts taken to date?
  • How is this information and the data collected used to identify or modify improvement activities?
  • Based upon any previous efforts to improve suspension and expulsion results, identify what has worked and what has not worked.
  • Explain why you believe those efforts did or did not work.
  • Explain what you plan to do to continue efforts that worked and change efforts that did not work
  • What might be the barriers to improved performance?
    • State and district policies
    • State and district funding
    • Lack of understanding of the requirements for disciplining students with disabilities
    • Lack of understanding about the relationship of behavior and academics
  • How do your improvement activities for Indicator 4A relate to improvement activities for achievement, disproportionality, secondary transition planning, graduation and dropout?
• Given your responses to the above questions, what areas of focus are needed to best improve performance on Indicator 4a?
  • Do you need to improve collection or use of data?
    • Data collection process, including ensuring consistent understanding and application of definitions?
    • Data analysis process?
    • Data reporting process?
    • Data use process?
  • Do you need to improve implementation of discipline requirements and procedural safeguards?
    • Understanding and implementation of IDEA discipline requirements?
    • Procedural safeguards?
    • Use of functional behavioral assessment in IEP development?
    • Development of behavioral intervention plans?
• What strategy(ies) might be used to improve performance on Indicator 4A?
  • Provide targeted TA and/or training?
    • To targeted districts
    • By question or data source
  • Produce and disseminate or post (on the web) guidance documents, reference materials, forms, training modules and/or other tools?
  • Develop or expand statewide initiative to implement School-wide Positive Behavioral Supports (SW_PBS), especially focusing on implementation at the secondary level.
  • Develop and promote model sites?
  • Develop new inter- or intra- agency agreements, plans and communication protocols, especially related to wrap-around services for students most in need?
  • Conduct efforts to strengthen parent-community relations?
  • Extend marketing/public relations efforts to ensure broader understanding of the relationship between behavior and academics?
  • Re-allocate/re-structure resources and staffing?
  • Other (specify)
• What, if any, assistance do you need to demonstrate improvement with indicator 4A?

Original Word Document

Requirement of the Indicator

For information on what must states report in Indicator 4

For a checklist describing measurement information, reporting progress and slippage, and considerations for improvement activities

Data

For an updated Q&A document on table 5 discipline data collection including additional information on policy Part B Table 5 - Discipline Data Collection Q & A (2007).

For instructions to Table 5: Report of Children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary Removal, 2007-2008 School Year Part B Table 5 – Instructions (2007-2008)

To get more information on file specifications for reporting on this indicator reference EDFacts Guidance for SY 2007-08. After linking to this site, click on “N006 – Children with Disabilities (IDEA) Suspension/Expulsions File Specifications” to access the document.

Tools

For links to future training opportunities the Beach Center on Disabilities has developed this web page with information on Positive Behavioral Supports

Blueprints is a large-scale prevention initiative from the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence,  identifying 19 model programs effective in reducing adolescent violent crime, aggression delinquency and substance abuse, and providing training and technical assistance to help sites choose and implement a set of demonstrated effective programs with a high degree of integrity.

Optional B4 APR Template from OSEP (Posted 10.14.09)
 

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports The Center provides capacity-building information and technical support about behavioral systems to assist states and districts in the design of effective schools.

Data Accountability Center The Center provides guidance on reporting data about children with disabilities served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Regional Resource Centers for Special Education (RRCs) These centers offer consultation, information services, technical assistance, training, and product development.

Research

For a practitioner brief including recommendations for reducing disproportionate exclusionary practices the National Center for Culturally Responsive Education Systems (NCCRESt) has developed Racial Disproportionality in School Disciplinary Practices (2006).

For an example of implementation in a school and the impact on programs and practice NCCRESt has developed Proactively Culturally Responsive Discipline (2006).

For a discussion of discipline and race, this article and presentation suggest it is time to consider more comprehensive approaches to behavior and more effective alternatives to suspension and expulsion.  The author notes that Indiana's work in this area has placed them a tthe forefront in school safety-  Article and Presentation (2007).

For a model demonstration and technical assistance project dedicated to enabling schools and school districts to develop a broader perspective on school safety, stressing comprehensive planning, prevention, and parent/community involvement the Indiana Education Policy Center operates the Safe and Responsive Schools Project.

For the IES document on collecting and using discipline data to impact change in schools reference Safety in Numbers (2002).

For an approach to community-based treatment for children with emotional and behavioral disorders and their families reference National Wrap-Around Initiative

Project EASE Educational Alternatives to Suspension and Expulsion) (2003) The main goals of Project EASE were to identify, study, and implement promising strategies toward the reduction of suspension and expulsion rates in North Carolina’s public schools with regard to the disproportionate number of minorities being suspended and expelled.

DisMISS Project (Disproportionate Minority Involvement of Suspended Students) (2005). Funded by the North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission, the DisMISS (Disproportionate Minority Involvement of Suspended Students) Project focused on the reduction of students, specifically minority students, being suspended and expelled statewide, thus reducing the number of lost instructional days.

Ten Alternatives to Suspension presents strategies  many schools are beginning to incorporate into their school discipline policies with an eye to making them both more effective and less reliant on traditional exclusionary consequences. These changes may also help schools to better serve students with EBD.  
 

State Examples

For State Examples of behavioral intervention initiatives

For an update on past research, survey from data of States, and an analysis of six Statewide .Behavior Initiatives

For a State Example of Suspension/Expulsion Greater than 10 Days: 4A. This is a 2 page document for districts to use in responding to Indicator 4 A and provides: Measurement for 4A; Calculation with example; Collection Methods (collection dates, district submission dates); Strategies to Analyze Data; and Resource and Improvement Activities.

Two research studies (Project EASE and DisMISS) formed the basis of North Carolina’s Tool-Kit to assist Communities and Schools in Establishing Alternative-to-Suspension Programs. The Tool-Kit website includes implementation materials, financing information, evaluation design information, and more.

Colorado's Expelled and At-Risk Student Services is a statewide initiative involving mini grants for LEAs to support specific improvement strategies.  Examples of high scoring applications are offered, site program summaries, evaluation reports, and handouts to use with stakeholders and LEA personnel.