Title page
Contents
Key Findings 4
MOST STATES AND DISTRICTS REPORTED BROAD EFFORTS TO FIND CHILDREN WITH SUSPECTED DISABILITIES AS ENCOURAGED BY IDEA,... 8
EFFORTS TO TAILOR EVALUATIONS MORE CAREFULLY TO EACH CHILD'S POTENTIAL NEEDS WERE EVIDENT IN MOST STATES AND DISTRICTS,... 12
DESPITE FEDERAL EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE MORE CONSISTENT DETECTION OF LARGE RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION... 16
REFERENCES 28
APPENDIX A - SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ABOUT FINDING CHILDREN WITH SUSPECTED DISABILITIES 32
APPENDIX B - SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES THAT SUPPORT FINDINGS ABOUT EVALUATIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER REFERRED CHILDREN HAVE DISABILITIES 36
APPENDIX C - SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ABOUT SIGNIFICANT DISPROPORTIONALITY IN IDENTIFICATION BY RACE OR ETHNICITY 42
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 47
Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Key activities in the appropriate identification of children with disabilities for IDEA services 5
Exhibit 2. Extent and nature of state coordination in identifying infants and toddlers with suspected disabilities 9
Exhibit 3. Extent and nature of state and district outreach to find infants, toddlers, and preschool-age children who may need early intervention or special education services 10
Exhibit 4. State adoption of the option to allow local providers to screen infants and toddlers for suspected disabilities 11
Exhibit 5. Districts' use of data for determining special education eligibility for specific learning disabilities across time 13
Exhibit 6. District policies on the use of a special assessment for school-age children suspected of having autism and dyslexia 13
Exhibit 7. District policies on using a special assessment for school-age children who are English learners 15
Exhibit 8. Challenges reported by states and districts in ensuring that referrals and evaluations were linguistically and culturally responsive 15
Exhibit 9. States' selection of parameters for risk ratio components 18
Exhibit 10. Percentage of districts flagged for significant disproportionality, by parameters states selected for each risk ratio component 19
Exhibit 11. Percentage of districts that took select actions when flagged for significant disproportionality 21
Appendix Exhibit
Exhibit A.1. Number of states coordinating with other state or local agencies to identify and determine eligibility of infants, toddlers, and preschool-age children... 32
Exhibit A.2. State outreach activities to support finding infants and toddlers and preschool-age children who may need early intervention or special education services 33
Exhibit A.3. District outreach activities to support finding preschool-age children who may need special education services 33
Exhibit A.4. State adoption of optional post-referral screening procedures at the state and local levels to determine whether infants and toddlers are suspected... 34
Exhibit A.6. How districts use progress monitoring data from tiered interventions to inform any aspect of special education services 35
Exhibit A.7. How districts use kindergarten readiness screeners to inform student referrals for evaluation for special education services 35
Exhibit B.1. State policies related to using data on performance gaps and progress in response to intervention for determining eligibility for special education... 36
Exhibit B.2. Whether state agencies have a plan to stop using data on performance gaps for determining eligibility for special education under specific learning... 36
Exhibit B.3. District use of data for determining special education eligibility for elementary students with specific learning disabilities, 2019-2020 and 2008-2009... 37
Exhibit B.4. Special assessments districts used to determine eligibility for special education for school-age children with autism 37
Exhibit B.5. Special assessments districts used to determine eligibility for special education for school-age children with dyslexia 38
Exhibit B.6. District use of special assessment approaches to determine eligibility for special education for school-age children suspected of having autism and dyslexia,... 38
Exhibit B.7. Supports districts and states provided to help staff apply IDEA's 'special rule' during the eligibility determination period 39
Exhibit B.8. Activities states perform to ensure referrals and evaluations are linguistically and culturally competent 39
Exhibit B.9. Activities or services that districts and states offered to ensure non-English speaking parents and guardians understood their role in referral and... 40
Exhibit B.10. Challenges districts and states experienced in ensuring that referrals and evaluations were linguistically and culturally competent 41
Exhibit C.1. Percentage of districts flagged for significant disproportionality in identification across states, by year 42
Exhibit C.2. State's selection of parameters for measuring significant disproportionality by race and ethnicity and relationship to rates of significant disproportionality... 43
Exhibit C.3. Actions states took when districts were required to address significant disproportionality in identification based on race or ethnicity 44
Exhibit C.4. Actions districts with significant disproportionality in identification in the past five school years took to address or prevent it, across funding sources 45