SECTION V.B. 

SI
NIFICANT DISPROPORTIONALITY 
	

Introduction: 

In accordance with 34 CFR § 300.647 (b)(7), States are required to 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 ^ection 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 

ϭ͘ Has the State:

Ă͘ 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

ď͘ 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?

zĞƐ EŽ

If you answered YES to question 1, stop. 'ŽƚŽWĂŐĞϭκ͕ĞŶƚĞƌƚŚĞŶĂŵĞ͕ƚŝƚůĞĂŶĚĐůŝĐŬΗ^ƵďŵŝƚΗ͘

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)? zĞƐ EŽ

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? zĞƐ EŽ

If you answered YES to question 2a: 

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

If you answered NO to question 2a: 

x Fill in Table 2 below by providing the minimum n-sizes 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? zĞƐ EŽ

If you answered YES to question 2b: 

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

If you answered NO to question 2b: 

x Fill in Table 2 below by providing the minimum n-sizes and detailed rationales for each category

of analysis over 30.

WĂƌƚŶŶƵĂů^ƚĂƚĞƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗&&zϮϬϮϬ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶsͲϮ

KDEŽ͘ϭΘϮϬͲϬϬϯϬͬdžƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĞʹϭͲϯϭͲϮϬϮϯ

PA
Table 1: Minimum N-Size — Same Minimum N-Size for all Categories of Analysis 

Minimum 

N-Size

Rationale 

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

All categories of analysis 

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

Category of Analysis 

Minimum 

N-Size

Rationale 

(detailed rationale required if minimum n-size is more than 30) 

All disabilities Autism Emotional disturbance Intellectual disability 

WĂƌƚ ŶŶƵĂů^ƚĂƚĞƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗&&zϮϬϮϬ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶsͲϯ

KDEŽ͘ϭΘϮϬͲϬϬϯϬͬdžƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĞʹϭͲϯϭͲϮϬϮϯ

30

N size 30 determined using stakeholder input͘WĞŶŶƐLJůǀĂŶŝĂƵƐĞĚĂďůĞŶĚĞĚĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚƚŽĐŽůůĞĐƚƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌŝŶƉƵƚ͘

^ƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌŝŶƉƵƚǁĂƐƐĞĐƵƌĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚƌĞĞƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐǁŝƚŚ>Ɛ͕/hƐ͕ĚǀŽĐĂĐLJŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞƐĨĂĐŝůŝƚĂƚĞĚďLJŽƵƌdWĂƌƚŶĞƌƐ͕ƐƉĞĐŝĂůƐĞƐƐŝŽŶƐǁŝƚŚŽƵƌĚǀŝƐŽƌLJWĂŶĞůƐ͕ĂŶĚƉƵďůŝĐŝŶƉƵƚĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚǀŝĂƚŚĞǁĞďƐŝƚĞ͘/ŶƉƵƚǁĂƐĐŽŶƐŽůŝĚĂƚĞĚĂŶĚƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚďLJƚŚĞ^ƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐƚĞĂŵ͘dŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐǁĞƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚƚŽŽƵƌ^>ĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉƚĞĂŵĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŝŶĂůĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶĂŶĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶƉůĂŶ͘
Category of Analysis 

Minimum 

N-Size

Rationale 

(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 

WĂƌƚŶŶƵĂů^ƚĂƚĞƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗&&zϮϬϮϬ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶsͲκKDEŽ͘ϭΘϮϬͲϬϬϯϬͬdžƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĞʹϭͲϯϭͲϮϬϮϯ
Category of Analysis 

Minimum 

N-Size

Rationale 

(detailed rationale required if minimum n-size is more than 30) 

Out of school suspensions >10 daysIn 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)? zĞƐ EŽ

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? zĞƐ EŽ

If you answered YES to question 3a: 

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

If you answered NO to question 3a: 

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

WĂƌƚŶŶƵĂů^ƚĂƚĞƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗&&zϮϬϮϬ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶsͲρ

KDEŽ͘ϭΘϮϬͲϬϬϯϬͬdžƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĞʹϭͲϯϭͲϮϬϮϯ
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 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). 

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

If you answered YES to question 3b: 

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

If you answered NO to question 3b: 

x 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 

Category of Analysis 

Minimum 

Cell Size 

Rationale 

(detailed rationale required if minimum cell size is more than 10) 

All categories of analysis 

Table 4: Minimum Cell Size — Multiple Minimum Cell Sizes 

Category of Analysis 

Minimum Cell 

Size 

Rationale 

(detailed rationale required if minimum cell size is more than 10) 

All disabilities Autism 

WĂƌƚŶŶƵĂů^ƚĂƚĞƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗&&zϮϬϮϬ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶsͲςKDEŽ͘ϭΘϮϬͲϬϬϯϬͬdžƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĞʹϭͲϯϭͲϮϬϮϯ

10 Cell size 10 determined using stakeholder input;ƐĞĞdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽdžϭͿ͘
Category of Analysis 

Minimum Cell 

Size 

Rationale 

(detailed rationale required if minimum cell size is more than 10) 

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 

WĂƌƚŶŶƵĂů^ƚĂƚĞƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗&&zϮϬϮϬ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶsͲϳKDEŽ͘ϭΘϮϬͲϬϬϯϬͬdžƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĞʹϭͲϯϭͲϮϬϮϯ
Category of Analysis 

Minimum Cell 

Size 

Rationale 

(detailed rationale required if minimum cell size is more than 10) 

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)? zĞƐ EŽ

If you answered YES to question 4: 

x Fill in Table 5 below by providing the risk ratio threshold and rationale.

If you answered NO to question 4: 

x Fill in Table 6 below by providing the risk ratio thresholds and rationales for each category of analysis.

WĂƌƚŶŶƵĂů^ƚĂƚĞƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗&&zϮϬϮϬ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶsͲΘKDEŽ͘ϭΘϮϬͲϬϬϯϬͬdžƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĞʹϭͲϯϭͲϮϬϮϯ
Table 5: Risk Ratios — Same Risk Ratio Threshold for all Categories of Analysis 

Category of Analysis 

Risk Ratio 

Threshold Rationale 

All categories of analysis 

Table 6: Risk Ratios — Multiple Risk Ratio Thresholds 

Category of Analysis 

Risk Ratio 

Threshold Rationale 

All disabilities Autism Emotional disturbance Intellectual disability 

WĂƌƚŶŶƵĂů^ƚĂƚĞƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗&&zϮϬϮϬ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶsͲε

KDEŽ͘ϭΘϮϬͲϬϬϯϬͬdžƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĞʹϭͲϯϭͲϮϬϮϯ

3.0 Based on stakeholder input;ƐĞĞdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽdžϭͿ, PA determined that a risk ratio of greater than 3 

for Identification and Placement categories would be considered significantly disproportionate.

3.0 Based on stakeholder input;ƐĞĞdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽdžϭͿ, PA determined that a risk ratio of greater than 3 

for Identification and Placement categories would be considered significantly disproportionate.

3.0 Based on stakeholder input;ƐĞĞdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽdžϭͿ, PA determined that a risk ratio of greater than 3 

for Identification and Placement categories would be considered significantly disproportionate.

3.0 Based on stakeholder input;ƐĞĞdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽdžϭͿ, PA determined that a risk ratio of greater than 3 

for Identification and Placement categories would be considered significantly disproportionate.
Category of Analysis 

Risk Ratio 

Threshold Rationale 

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 

WĂƌƚŶŶƵĂů^ƚĂƚĞƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗&&zϮϬϮϬ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶsͲϭϬKDEŽ͘ϭΘϮϬͲϬϬϯϬͬdžƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĞʹϭͲϯϭͲϮϬϮϯ

3.0 Based on stakeholder input;ƐĞĞdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽdžϭͿ, PA determined that a risk ratio of greater than 3 

for Identification and Placement categories would be considered significantly disproportionate.

3.0 Based on stakeholder input;ƐĞĞdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽdžϭͿ, PA determined that a risk ratio of greater than 3 

for Identification and Placement categories would be considered significantly disproportionate.

3.0 Based on stakeholder input;ƐĞĞdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽdžϭͿ, PA determined that a risk ratio of greater than 3 

for Identification and Placement categories would be considered significantly disproportionate.

3.0 Based on stakeholder input;ƐĞĞdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽdžϭͿ, PA determined that a risk ratio of greater than 3 

for Identification and Placement categories would be considered significantly disproportionate.

3.0 Based on stakeholder input;ƐĞĞdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽdžϭͿ, PA determined that a risk ratio of greater than 3 

for Identification and Placement categories would be considered significantly disproportionate.

2.5 Based on stakeholder input;ƐĞĞdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽdžϭͿ, PA determined that a risk ratio of greater than 

2.5 for Discipline categories would be considered significantly disproportionate,. A lower threshold was set for Discipline because it was thought that LEAs have greater control over how they handle disciplinary events.

2.5 Based on stakeholder input;ƐĞĞdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽdžϭͿ, PA determined that a risk ratio of greater than 

2.5 for Discipline categories would be considered significantly disproportionate,. A lower threshold was set for Discipline because it was thought that LEAs have greater control over how they handle disciplinary events.
Category of Analysis 

Risk Ratio 

Threshold Rationale 

Out of school suspensions >10 daysIn school suspensions <10 days In school suspensions >10 days 

Section D: Reasonable Progress 5. Does your state utilize the reasonable progress flexibility? zĞƐ EŽ

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

5a. 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)? zĞƐ EŽ

If you answered YES to question 5a: 

x Fill in Table 7 below by providing the State’s standard for measuring reasonable progress and rationale.

If you answered NO to question 5a: 

x Fill in Table 8 below by providing the State’s standards for reasonable progress and the rationale for each category of analysis.

WĂƌƚŶŶƵĂů^ƚĂƚĞƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗&&zϮϬϮϬ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶsͲϭϭKDEŽ͘ϭΘϮϬͲϬϬϯϬͬdžƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĞʹϭͲϯϭͲϮϬϮϯ

2.5 Based on stakeholder input;ƐĞĞdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽdžϭͿ, PA determined that a risk ratio of greater than 

2.5 for Discipline categories would be considered significantly disproportionate,. A lower threshold was set for Discipline because it was thought that LEAs have greater control over how they handle disciplinary events.

2.5 Based on stakeholder input;ƐĞĞdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽdžϭͿ, PA determined that a risk ratio of greater than 

2.5 for Discipline categories would be considered significantly disproportionate,. A lower threshold was set for Discipline because it was thought that LEAs have greater control over how they handle disciplinary events.

2.5 Based on stakeholder input;ƐĞĞdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽdžϭͿ, PA determined that a risk ratio of greater than 

2.5 for Discipline categories would be considered significantly disproportionate,. A lower threshold was set for Discipline because it was thought that LEAs have greater control over how they handle disciplinary events.
Table 7: Reasonable Progress — Same Standard for all Categories of Analysis 

Category of Analysis Standard Rationale 

All categories of analysis 

Table 8: Reasonable Progress — Multiple Standards 

Category of Analysis Standard Rationale 

All disabilities Autism Emotional disturbance Intellectual disability Other health impairments 

WĂƌƚŶŶƵĂů^ƚĂƚĞƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗&&zϮϬϮϬ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶsͲϭϮKDEŽ͘ϭΘϮϬͲϬϬϯϬͬdžƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĞʹϭͲϯϭͲϮϬϮϯ

0.25 reduction in risk ratio per year

Based on stakeholder input;ƐĞĞdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽdžϭͿ, PA decided that a reduction of an LEA's risk ratio by at least 0.25 per year for two consecutive years would indicate that the LEA was on a trajectory of progress.
Category of Analysis Standard Rationale 

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

WĂƌƚŶŶƵĂů^ƚĂƚĞƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗&&zϮϬϮϬ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶsͲϭϯKDEŽ͘ϭΘϮϬͲϬϬϯϬͬdžƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĞʹϭͲϯϭͲϮϬϮϯ
Category of Analysis Standard Rationale 

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 disproportionality for each of the 14 categories ofanalysis described in § 300.647(b)(3) and (4)?

zĞƐ EŽ

If you answered YES to question 6: 

x Fill in Table 9 below by providing the number of years of data the State uses in making annual determinations of significant disproportionality.

If you answered NO to question 6: 

x Fill in Table 10 below by providing the number of years of data the State uses in making annual determinations of significant disproportionality for

each category of analysis.

Table 9: Years of Data — Same Number of Years Used for all Categories of Analysis 

Category of Analysis Number of Years of Data Used 

All categories of analysis 

WĂƌƚŶŶƵĂů^ƚĂƚĞƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗&&zϮϬϮϬ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶsͲϭκKDEŽ͘ϭΘϮϬͲϬϬϯϬͬdžƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĞʹϭͲϯϭͲϮϬϮϯ

3
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 

EĂŵĞ ŽĨ /ŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů WƌĞƉĂƌŝŶŐƚŚĞ &Žƌŵ͗

dŝƚůĞŽĨ/ŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůWƌĞƉĂƌŝŶŐƚŚĞ&Žƌŵ͗ĂƚĞ͗

WĂƌƚŶŶƵĂů^ƚĂƚĞƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗&&zϮϬϮϬ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶsͲϭρKDEŽ͘ϭΘϮϬͲϬϬϯϬͬdžƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĞʹϭͲϯϭͲϮϬϮϯ

SUBMIT