SECTION V.B. AL 

SIGNIFICANT DISPROPORTIONALITY REPORTING FORM 

Introduction: 

In accordance with 34 CFR § 300.647 (b)(7), Stat es are required t o report to the Secretary risk ratio thresholds, 

minimum cell sizes, minimum n-sizes, standards for measuring reasonable progress, if appropriate, and rationales for 

each. In general, these rationales must contain justifications for the choices made, including all relevant data and 

research relied upon to make an informed choice and how the State included stakeholders in that process. Additionally, 

pursuant to the authority established in Section 618(a)(3) of the IDEA, the Secretary is also requiring States to report 

the number of years of data used by your State in making annual determinations of significant disproportionality. 

Section A: Minimum N-Sizes 

1. Has the State: 

a. established a minimum n-size of 30 or less in each of the 14 categories of analysis 

described in§ 300.647(b)(3) and (4) and 

b. verified that the State does not expect to have a comparison group in any of the 

categories of analysis that meets the minimum n-size? 

If you answered YES to question 1, stop. Go to Page 14, enter the name, t itle and click "Submit". 

2. Does your State use a presumptively reasonable minimum n-size of 30 or less for each of 

the 14 categories of analysis described in§ 300.647(b)(3) and (4)? 

If you answered YES to question 2 please answer question 2a: 

2a. Does your State use the same minimum n-size for all categories of analysis? 

If you answered YES to question 2a: 

• Fill in Table 1 below by providing the minimum n-size and rationale. 

If you answered NO t o question 2a: 

Qves 

@Yes 

@ves 

• Fill in Table 2 below by providing the minimum n-s izes and rationales for each category of 

analysis. 

If you answered NO to question 2 please read below and answer question 2b: 

Minimum N-Size Detailed Rationale(s) Required 

In addition to the justification described in the Introduction, the rationale(s) must include a detailed explanation 

of why the numbers chosen are reasonable and how they ensure that the State is appropriately analyzing and 

identifying LEAs with significant disparities based on race and ethnicity in the identification, placement, or 

discipline of children with disabilities, as required by§ 300.647(b)(7). 

2b. Does your State use the same minimum n-size for all categories of analysis? Qves 

If you answered YES to question 2b: 

• Fill in Table 1 below by providing the minimum n-size and detailed rationale. 

If you answered NO to question 2b: 

• Fill in Table 2 below by providing the minimum n-sizes and detailed rationa les for each category 

of analysis over 30. 

Part B Annual State Application: FFY 2020 Section V -2 

0MB No. 1820-0030/Expiration Date - 1-31-2023 
Table 1: Minimum N-Size - Same Minimum N-Size for all Categories of Analysis -

Minimum Rationale 

Category of Analysis N-Size {detailed rationale required if minimum n-size is more than 30} 

All categories of NO CHANGE - Stakeholders (the Special Education Advisory Panel or SEAP) were provided a definition for n-size and were 

analysis calculation methods for disproportionality, including significant disproportionality in the identification, placement or disc

30 Since historical data n-sizes were not available, the SEAP were trained specifically using calculation methods for t he risk r

applying different thresholds for risk ratios and different n-sizes. The SEAP were presented with multiple scenarios that a

as a result, recommended that the State apply a minimum n-size of 30. The State accepted their recommendation as rea

Table 2: Minimum N-Size - Multiple Minimum N-Sizes 

Minimum Rationale 

Category of Analysis N-Size {detailed rationale required if minimum n-size is more than 30) 

All disabilities Autism 

Emotional 

disturbance 

Intellectual disability 

Part B Annual State Application: FFY 2020 

0MB No. 1820-0030/Expiration Date -1-31-2023 
Minimum Rationale 

Category of Analysis N-Size (detailed rationale required if minimum n-size is more than 30) 

Other health 

impairments 

Specific learning 

disability 

Speech and language 

impairments 

Inside a regular 

classroom less than 

40% of day 

Inside separate 

schools and 

residential facilities 

Total disciplinary 

removals 

Out of school 

suspensions 

<10 days 

Part B Annual State Appllcation: FFY 2020 

0MB No. 1820-0030/Expiration Date -1-31-2023 
Minimum Rationale 

Category of Analysis N-Size (detailed rationale required if minimum n-size is more than 30) 

Out of school 

suspensions 

>10 days 

In school suspensions 

<10 days 

In school suspensions 

>10 days 

Section B: Minimum Cell Sizes 

3. Does your State use a presumptively reasonable minimum cell size of 10 or less for each 

of the 14 categories of analysis described in§ 300.647(b)(3) and (4)? 

If you answered YES to question 3 please answer question 3a: 

3a. Does your State only use one minimum cell size of 10 or less for 

all categories of analysis? 

If you answered YES to question 3a: 

• Fill in Table 3 below by providing the minimum cell size and rationale. 

If you answered NO to question 3a: 

(!)ves QNo (!)ves QNo 

• Fill in Table 4 below by providing the minimum cell sizes and rationales for each category of analysis. 

Part B Annual St ate Application: FFY 2020 

0 MB No. 1820-0030/Expiration Date - 1-31-2023 
If you answered NO to question 3 please read below and answer question 3b: 

Minimum Cell Size Detailed Rationale(s) Required 

In addition to the justification described in the Introduction, the rationales must include a detailed explanation of why the n

reasonable and how they ensure that the State is appropriately analyzing and identifying LEAs with significant disparities, ba

in the identification, placement, or discipline of children with disabilities, as required by§ 300.647(b)(7). 

3b. Does your State use the same minimum cell size for all categories of analysis? Qves QNo 

If you answered YES to question 3b: 

• Fill in Table 3 below by providing the minimum cell size and detailed rationale. 

If you answered NO to question 3b: 

• Fill in Table 4 below by providing the minimum cell size and detailed rationales for each category of analysis over 10

Table 3: Minimum Cell Size - Same Minimum Cell Size for all Categories of Analysis 

Minimum Rationale 

Category of Analysis Cell Size (detailed rationale required if minimum cell size is more than 10

All categories of 10 NO CHANGE - Since the requirement to analyze disproportionality, including significant disproportionality, Alabama has used the risk ratio m

analysis to identify local education agencies ILEAs) as having significant disproportionality in the identification, placement or discipline of children w

result, historical data were used to determine the minimum cell size. The Special Education Advisory Panel ISEAP) w ere trained and presen

scenarios using the calculation methods for the risk ratio and the alternate risk ratio while applying different risk ratio thresholds and cell si

using different n-sizes. Thus, the SEAP recommended that the State change t he minimum cell size from 20 to 10. The State accepted their r

reasonable. 

Table 4-: Minimum Cell Size - Multiple Minimum Cell Sizes 

Minimum Cell Rationale 

Category of Analysis Size (detailed rationale required if minimum cell size is more t

All disabilities Autism 

Part B Annual State Application : FFY 2020 

0 MB No. 1820-0030/Expiration Date - 1-31-2023 
Minimum Cell Rationale 

Category of Analysis Size (detailed rationale required if minimum cell size is mare t

Emotional disturbance 

Intellectual disability 

Other health impairments 

Specific learning disability 

Speech and language 

impairments 

Inside a regular classroom less 

than 40% of day 

Inside separate schools and 

residential facilities 

Part B Annual State Application: FFY 2020 

0MB No.1820-0030/Expiration Date-1-31-2023 
Minimum Cell Rationale 

Category of Analysis Size (detailed rationale required if minimum cell size is more t

Total disciplinary removals 

Out of school suspensions <10 

days 

Out of school suspensions >10 

days 

In school suspensions <10 days In school suspensions >10 days 

Section C: Risk Ratio Thresholds 

4. Does your State use one risk ratio threshold for each of the 14 categories of 

analysis described in § 300.647(b)(3) and (4)? 

If you answered YES to question 4: 

• Fi ll in Table 5 below by providing the risk ratio threshold and rationale. 

If you answered NO to question 4: 

Qves {!)No 

• Fill in Tobie 6 below by providing t he risk ratio t hresholds and rationales for each category of analysis. 

Part B Annual State Application: FFY 2020 

0MB No. 1820-0030/Expiration Date-1-31-2023 
Table 5 : Risk Ratios - Same Risk Ratio Threshold for all Categories of Analysis -

Risk Ratio 

Category of Analysis Threshold Rationale 

All categories of 

analysis 

Table 6: Risk Ratios - Multiple Risk Ratio Thresholds 

Risk Ratio 

Category of Analysis Threshold Rationale 

All disabilities Since the requirement to analyze disproportionality, Alabama has used the risk ratio method to identify local educatio

4.0 disproportionality, including significant disproportionality in the identification and placement of students with disabilit 

used to determine the risk ratio threshold. The stakeholders (select LEA Special Education Coordinators and Special Ed

presented with multiple scenarios of thresholds. Thus, the stakeholders recommended that t he State change t he risk 

identification, including identification by disability category. The State accepted their recommendation as reasonable. 

Autism Since the requirement to analyze dis proportionality, Alabama has used the risk ratio method to identify local educatio

4.0 

disproportionality, including significant disproportionality in t he identification and placement of students with disabilit

used to determine the risk ratio threshold. The stakeholders (select LEA Special Education Coordinators and Special Ed

present ed wit h multiple scenarios of thresholds. Thus, the stakeholders recommended that the State change the risk 

identification, including identification by disability category. The State accepted their recommendation as reasonable. 

Emotional disturbance Since the requirement to analyze disproportionality, Alabama has used the risk ratio method to identify local educatio

4.0 disproportionality, including significant disproportionality in the ident ification and placement of students with disabili

used to determine the risk ratio t hreshold. The st akeholders (select LEA Special Education Coordinators and Special Ed

presented with multiple scenarios of thresholds. Thus, the stakeholders recommended that the State change the risk 

identification, including identification by disability category. The State accepted their recommendation as reasonable. 

Intellectual disability 4.0 Since the requirement to analyze disproportionality, Alabama has used the risk ratio method to identify local educatio

disproportionality, including significant disproportionality in the identification and placement of students with disabili

used to determine the risk ratio threshold. The stakeholders (select LEA Special Education Coordinators and Special Ed

presented with multiple scenarios of thresholds. Thus, the stakeholders recommended that the State change the risk 

identification, including identification by disability category. The State accepted t heir recommendation as reasonable. 

Part B Annual State Application: FFY 2020 

0MB No. 1820-0030/Expiration Date - 1-31-2023 
Risk Ratio 

Category of Analysis Threshold Rationale 

Other health impairments 

4.0 Since the requirement to analyze disproportionality, Alabama has used the risk ratio method to identify local educatio

disproportionality, including significant disproportionality in the identification and placement of students with disabilit

used to determine the risk ratio threshold. The stakeholders {select LEA Special Education Coordinators and Special Ed

presented with multiple scenarios of thresholds. Thus, the stakeholders recommended that the State change the risk 

identification, including identification by disability category. The State accepted their recommendation as reasonable. 

Specific learning disability 4.0 Since the requirement to analyze disproportionality, Alabama has used the risk ratio method to identify local education 

disproportionality, includingsignifiU1nt disproportionality in the identification and placement of students with disabilit

used to determine the risk ratio threshold. The stakeholders (select LEA Special Education Coordinators and Special Ed

presented with multiple scenarios of thresholds. Thus, the stakeholders recommended that the State change the risk 

identification, including identffication by disability category. The State accepted their recommendation as reasonable. 

Speech and language 4.0 Since the requirement to analyze disproportionality, Alabama has used the risk ratio method to identify local education 

impairments disproportionality, including significant disproportionality in the identification and placement of students with disabilit

used to determine the risk ratio threshold. The stakeholders {select LEA Special Education Coordinators and Special Ed

presented with multiple scenarios of thresholds. Thus, the stakeholders recommended that the State change the risk r

identification, including identification by disability category. The State accepted their recommendation as reasonable. 

Inside a regular classroom 3.0 NO CHANGE- Since the requirement to analyze dis proportionality, Alabama has used the risk ratio method to identify 

less than 40% of day having 

disproportionality, including significant disproportionality in the identification or placement of students with disabilitie

used to determine the risk ratio threshold. The Special Education Advisory Panel {SEAP) were trained and presented wi

calculation methods for the risk ratio and the alternate risk ratio. The scenarios also involved using different cell sizes a

recommended that the State change the risk ratio threshold from 5.0 to 3.0. The State accepted their recommendation 

Inside separate schools and 3.0 NO CHANGE- Since the requirement to analyze disproportionality, Alabama has used the risk ratio method to identify local 

residential facilities disproportionality, including significant disproportiona!ity in the identification or placement of students with disabilities. As 

used to determine the risk ratio threshold. The Special Education Advisory Pane! (SEAP) were trained and presented with m

methods for the risk ratio and the alternate risk ratio. The scenarios also involved using different cell sizes and n-sizes. Thus

State change the risk ratio threshold from S.O to 3.0. The State accepted their recommendation as reasonable. 

Total disciplinary removals 5.0 Alabama has used the risk ratio method to identify local education agencies {LEAs) as having significant disproporti

who experience disciplinary actions. Three years of trend data were available to determine the reasonableness of 

The stakeholders (select LEA Special Education Coordinators and Special Education Advisory Panel {SEAP)) were pre

thresholds. Thus, the stakeholders recommended that the State change the risk ratio threshold from 3.0 to 5.0 for 

recommendation as reasonable. 

Out of school suspensions 5.0 Alabama has used the risk ratio method to identify local education agencies (lEAs) as having significant disproporti

<10 days who experience disciplinary actions. Three years of trend data were available to determine the reasonableness of t

The stakeholders (select LEA Special Education Coordinators and Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP)) were pre

thresholds. Thus, the stakeholders recommended that the State change the risk ratio threshold from 3.0 to 5.0 for 

recommendation as reasonable. 

Part B Annual State Application: FFY 2020 

0MB No.1820-0030/Expiration Date-1-31-2023 
Risk Ratio 

Category of Analysis Threshold Rationale 

Out of school suspensions 5.0 Alabama has used the risk ratio method to identify local education agencies (LEAs) as having significant disproport

>10 days who experience disciplinary actions. Three years of trend data were available to determine the reasonableness o

The stakeholders (select LEA Special Education Coordinators and Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP)) were pr

thresholds. Thus, the stakeholders recommended that the State change the risk ratio threshold from 3.0 to 5.0 fo

recommendation as reasonable. 

In school suspensions <10 5.0 Alabama has used the risk ratio method to identify local education agencies (LEAs) as having significant disproport

days who experience disciplinary actions. Three years of trend data were available to determine t he reasonableness of 

The stakeholders (select LEA Special Education Coordinators and Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP)) were pr

thresholds. Thus, the stakeholders recommended that the St ate change the risk ratio threshold from 3.0 to 5.0 fo

recommendation as reasonable. 

In school suspensions >10 5.0 Alabama has used the risk ratio method to identify local education agencies (LEAs) as having significant disproport

days who experience disciplinary actions. Three years of trend data were available to determine the reasonableness of 

The stakeholders (select LEA Special Education Coordinators and Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP)) were pr

thresholds. Thus, the stakeholders recommended that the State change the risk ratio threshold from 3.0 to 5.0 fo

recommendation as reasonable. 

Section D: Reasonable Progress 

5. Does your state utilize the reasonable progress flexibility? Qves {!)No 

If you answered NO to question 5, proceed to question 6. 

Sa. Does your state utilize the same reasonable progress flexibility for each of 

the 14 categories of analysis described in§ 300.647(b)(3) and (4)? 

If you answered YES to question Sa: 

Qves Q No 

• Fill in Table 7 below by providing the State's st andard for measuring reasonable progress and rationale. 

If you answered NO to question Sa: 

• Fill in Table 8 below by providing the State's standards for reasonable progress and the rationale for each category o

Part B Annual State Application: FFY 2020 

0MB No. 1820-0030/Expiration Date -1-31-2023 
Table 7: Reasonable Progress - Same Standard for all Categories of Analysis 

Category of Analysis Standard Rationale 

All categories of 

analysis 

Tab le 8: Reasonable Progress - Multiple Standards -

Category of Analysis Standard Rationale 

All disabilities Autism 

Emotional 

disturbance 

Intellectual disability 

Other health 

impairments 

Part B Annual St ate Application: FFY 2020 

0MB No. 1820-0030/Expiration Date -1-31-2023 
Category of Analysis Standard Rationale 

Specific learning 

disability 

Speech and language 

impairments 

Inside a regular 

classroom less than 

40%ofday 

Inside separate 

schools and 

residential facilities 

Total disciplinary 

removals 

Out of school 

suspensions 

<10 days 

Out of school 

suspensions 

>10 days 

Part B Annual State Application: FFY 2020 

0MB No.1820-0030/Expiration Date-1-31-2023 
Category of Analysis Standard 

In school 

suspensions 

<10 days 

In school 

suspensions 

>10 days 

Section E: Number of Years of Data 

6. Does your state use the same number of years of data in making annual 

determinations of significant dis proportionality for each of the 14 categories of 

analysis described in § 300.647(b)(3)_ and (4)? 

If you answered YES to question 6: 

Rationale 

(!}Yes QNo 

• Fill in Table 9 below by providing the number of years of data the State uses in making annual determinations of signific

If you answered NO to question 6: 

• Fill in Table 10 below by providing the number of years of data the State uses in making annual determinations of signifi

each category of analysis. 

Table 9 : Years of Data - Same Number of Years Used for all Categories of Ana lysis 

Category of Analysis Number of Years of Data Used 

All categories of analysis 3 

Part B Annual State Application: FFY 2020 

0MB No. 1820-0030/Expiration Date-1-31-2023 
Table 10: Years of Data - Multiple Number of Years of Data Used 

Category of Analysis Number of Years of Data Used 

All disabilities 

Autism 

Emotional disturbance 

Intellectual disability 

Other health impairments 

Specific learning disability Speech and language impairments 

Inside a regular classroom less than 40% of day 

Inside separate schools and residential facilities 

Total disciplinary removals 

Out of school suspensions <10 days 

Out of school suspensions >10 days 

In school suspensions <10 days 

In school suspensions >10 days 

Name of Individual Preparing the Form: Dalee Chambers 

Title of Individual Preparing the Form: State Director of Special Education 

Date: 05/20/22 

SUBMIT 

Part B Annual State Application: FFY 2020 

0 MB No. 1820-0030/Expiration Date -1-31-2023