FFY	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
Target	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%

########## FFY 2020 SPP/APR Data Has the state established a minimum n and/or cell size requirement? (yes/no)

YES If yes, the State may only include, in both the numerator and the denominator, districts that met the State-established n and/or cell size. Report the number of districts excluded from the calculation as a result of the requirement. 80

Number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups in specific disability categories	Number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification	Number of districts that met the State's minimum n and/or cell size	FFY 2019 Data	FFY 2020 Target	FFY 2020 Data	Status	Slippage
7	0	76	0.00%	0%	0.00%	N/A	N/A

########## Were all races and ethnicities included in the review?

YES Define 'disproportionate representation.' Please specify in your definition: 1) the calculation method(s) being used (i.e., r isk ratio, weighted risk ratio, e-formula, etc.); and 2) the threshold at which disproportionate representation is identified. Also include, as appropriate, 3) the number of years of data used in the calculation; and 4) any minimum cell and/or n-sizes (i.e., risk numerator and/or risk denominator). Disproportionate representation is defined as a final risk ratio of 3.00 or above. For Indicator 10, 156 LEAs were included i n the analysis for school year (SY) 2020 - 2021. Of these 156 LEAs, 76 LEAs met the minimum n- and cell size requirements to receive a final risk ratio. Using SY 2020 - 2021 data, the USBE calculated a weighted risk ratio for every racial/ethnic group and disability category combination in each LEA in the State based on identification rates in each LEA. (For each LEA, in theory, 42 risk ratios could be calculated - one for each of the seven racial/ethnic groups times the six primary disability categories.) Many LEAs in Utah have between zero and five students with a particular disability of a particular race/ethnicity. Thus, very small numbers prevent reliable and meaningful risk ratios from being calculated. Each LEA's highest weighted risk ratio became the final risk ratio if, in the target group, there were 10 or more students with disabilities (cell size) and 30 or more total students enrolled (n-size) in the LEA, and if, in the comparison group, there were also 10 or more students with disabilities (cell size) and 30 or more total students enrolled (n- size) in the LEA. Describe how the State made its annual determination as to whether the disproportionate overrepresentation it identified of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories was the result of inappropriate identification. For SY 2020 - 2021, seven LEAs were flagged as having a final risk ratio above 3.00. A review was conducted by the State to verify there was no disproportionate representation of any racial/ethnic groups in specific disability categories due to inappropriate identification. Utah Program Improvement Planning System (UPIPS) monitoring data were also reviewed during this process. This included reviews of student records and evaluation and identification procedures, as well as interviews with teachers, administrators, parents, and students. Each identified LEA was required to conduct an internal review of student data as well as LEA policies, procedures, and practices. They were required to submit a letter to the State including justification for the identified students (Rules VIII.I.7.). No disproportionate representation was found to be occurring in these LEAs based upon this review of policies, procedures, and practices, as required in 34 CFR § 300.600(d)(3).

########## Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)

In FFY 2019 and 2020, the USBE did not issue any findings of noncompliance to LEAs for Indicator 10. LEAs flagged for potential disproportionate representation were provided a letter of identification from the USBE requiring the LEAs to conduct a review of internal policies, procedures, and practices. The LEAs were also required to review files for the students included in the flagged group(s). The LEAs provided the USBE with justification letters explaining the results of their internal reviews including specifics regarding the students in the flagged group(s). If noncompliance was discovered in policies, procedures, or practices, the LEA would have been issued a finding of noncompliance. The finding would have identified specific regulations and required the LEA to revise policies, procedures, and practices related to development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards (34 CFR § 300.173; USBE Special Education Rules VIII.B.12.). Although the USBE considers LEAs substantially compliant when the data indicates a very high level of compliance (generally 95% or above), the USBE accounts for all noncompliance and ensures 100% correction of all noncompliance. If the USBE had found any noncompliance for this indicator, within one year of identification, all corrections would have been verified through individual student files to ensure 100% compliance and a USBE review of LEA policies, procedures, and practices. Systemic understanding would have been verified through a review of additional student files. The USBE has worked directly with the IDEA Data Center (IDC) to improve and update the Indicator 10 process. We will be piloting a comprehensive self-assessment in 2022-2023. This process will increase the ability to identify and issue findings of noncompliance where appropriate. During the APR Summit, a review of baselines for Indicator 10 was conducted to determine if baselines should remain or be updated to correlate with changing targets. Consideration was given for the impacts of COVID-19 and State needs for consistency. Stakeholders reviewed historical data and projections for where the State would be in 2025 - 2026 if all things stayed the same. Choosing a baseline from a year prior to COVID-19 reflects Utah in a typical school year and was determined to be appropriate.