Section 300.646 of Part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was designed to ensure that each state that receives funding is required to determine if there is disproportionality based on race or ethnicity occurring in the state and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) of the state concerning the identification of children as children with disabilities, the placement in particular educational settings of these children, and the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary removals from placement, including suspensions and expulsions. In part B of IDEA, each state receives funding, and the
United States Secretary of the Interior must provide the collection and examination of data to determine if significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity is occurring in the State and the LEAs of the State." In Section 300.64 of the Act, States are required to examine data for significant disproportionality in the following areas: • Identifying children with disabilities and their impairment, • The child's placement in the educational setting, and • Any suspensions or expulsions from school and for how long IDEA mandates that states collect and examine special education data on race and ethnicity at the district level.
State monitoring States have monitored and enforced disproportionality in special education through requirements set in IDEA and the Annual Performance Reports (APRs). At the district level, states are mandated to collect and examine special education data on race and ethnicity.
Measurement Analytical techniques have been used to research disproportionality in special education, including risk ratio, regression, and multilevel regression. Risk ratio includes exposure to odds,
odds ratios, relative risks, and risk indices ratios. Regression models estimate the probability of placement or special education service as a function of independent variables. Multilevel regression nests students within schools, districts, or communities to account for within- and between-cluster estimations. Study findings on disproportionality in special education vary widely across studies because of factors that include using different data sets at different levels, including samples of students at different grades and ages, and applying different analyses that may produce conflicting results. Qualitative research has involved deductive and inductive methods, including the development of codebooks focusing on the conceptual framework and existing literature on education policy and disproportionality.
Quantitative research have coded articles based on the analysis used in each study, such as risk ratio, regression or multi-regression. The federal interpretation of IDEA statutory language contradicts consistent findings in special education research. Amendments to IDEA in 1997 and 2004 acknowledged the extent of racial and ethnic disproportionality, but federal interpretations of the 2004 requirement have created confusion at the State and LEA levels. Data suggests that the federal interpretation of
IDEA 2004, regulatory guidelines, and the design of indicators for monitoring and enforcement have been ineffective in addressing racial and ethnic disproportionality. == Significant disproportionality ==