INDIVIDUALS WITH 

DISABILITIES 

EDUCATION ACT

Standards Needed to 

Improve Identification 

of Racial and Ethnic 

Overrepresentation in 

Special Education

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions, U.S. Senate

February 2013

GAO-13-137

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-137, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate

February 2013 

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION 

ACT 

Standards Needed to Improve Identification of 

Racial and Ethnic Overrepresentation in Special 

Education 

Why GAO Did This Study

Concerned that certain racial and 

ethnic groups were overrepresented in 

special education, Congress in the 

2004 reauthorization of IDEA required

that school districts take certain actions 

to address this problem. Specifically, 

districts identified with “significant 

disproportionality” based on race and 

ethnicity must spend 15 percent of 

their IDEA funds to provide early 

intervening services to school age 

children who need additional academic 

and behavioral support. GAO was 

asked to review these early intervening 

services. GAO examined (1) the 

numbers and characteristics of districts 

that provide services and how states 

determine which districts are required 

to provide services; (2) the types of 

services provided; and (3) oversight by 

the Department of Education and 

states. GAO analyzed data on early 

intervening services for school years 

2009-10 and 2010-11; reviewed 16 

states’ methods for identifying districts 

required to provide services that 

included review of states that did and 

did not require districts to provide 

services; visited state educational

agencies and school districts in 4 

states; and interviewed Education and 

state officials.

What GAO Recommends

To promote consistency in determining 

which districts need to provide early 

intervening services, Education should

develop a standard approach for 

defining significant disproportionality to 

be used by all states. Education 

proposed a revision to the 

recommendation, citing the need to 

collect more information. GAO 

continues to believe that the 

recommendation is valid as discussed 

in the report. 

What GAO Found

In 2010, states required about 2 percent of all districts to use Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funds for early intervening services to address 

the overrepresentation of racial and ethnic groups in special education. Based on 

definitions states individually developed to measure this overrepresentation—

referred to in IDEA as significant disproportionality—356 districts were required 

to provide services. Half of these districts were clustered in five states and 73 

were in Louisiana alone. States have used flexibility provided by Education to 

develop their own definitions of significant disproportionality and GAO’s analysis 

of 16 selected states found wide variation in definitions. Further, GAO found that

the way some states defined overrepresentation made it unlikely that any districts 

would be identified and thus required to provide early intervening services. 

Nebraska and Louisiana illustrate differing outcomes that can result from different 

state definitions. In Nebraska, one of 21 states that did not require any districts to 

provide services in 2010-11, racial and ethnic groups must be identified for 

special education at a rate three times higher than for other groups for 2 

consecutive years. In contrast, racial and ethnic groups in Louisiana districts 

must be identified for special education at twice the rate of other students in any 

year. GAO’s analysis found if Nebraska had used Louisiana’s definition, 

Nebraska districts may have been required to provide services and, conversely, 

Louisiana might have identified fewer districts under Nebraska’s definition.

Percentage of Districts by State Required to Provide Early Intervening Services in 2010-11

Districts used their IDEA funds for a range of early intervening services including 

literacy and math tutoring as well as professional development to help educators 

address behavioral and emotional issues. For instance, one of the districts GAO

visited provided struggling students with individualized math and reading 

instruction that resulted in improved performance. 

Education’s oversight of racial and ethnic groups’ overrepresentation in special 

education is hampered by the flexibility states have to define significant

disproportionality. Specifically, Education periodically reviews states’ definitions 

as part of its onsite monitoring under IDEA, but the department has not required 

a state to change its definition when it makes it unlikely that overrepresentation

will be identified. States in turn are required to identify districts and ensure that 

these districts reserve the required amount for early intervening services. 

View GAO-13-137. For more information, 

contact George A. Scott at (202) 512-7215 or 

scottg@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

Letter 1 

Background 3

States Required About 2 Percent of Districts Nationwide to Provide 

Early Intervening Services in School Year 2010-11 7

Districts Provided a Range of Services to Assist Struggling 

Students 15

Inconsistent Definitions and Limited Oversight May Hinder 

Identification of Overrepresentation of Racial and Ethnic 

Groups in Special Education 18

Conclusions 22

Recommendation for Executive Action 22

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 23

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 25

Appendix II Data on the Number of Children Served and Number and 

Percentage of Districts Providing Services by State (School 

Years 2009-10 and 2010-11) 30

Appendix III Criteria and Methodologies for Calculating Significant 

Disproportionality in 16 Selected States 36

Appendix IV Overlap between IDEA Indicators and Significant 

Disproportionality 41

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Education 42

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 44

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

Tables

Table 1: IDEA, Part B Funding and Number of Children Served 

(Fiscal Years 2008-2012) 6

Table 2: Amount of IDEA, Part B Funding Reserved for Early 

Intervening Services (School Years 2009-10 and 2010-11) 10

Table 3: Key Components of Definitions of Significant 

Disproportionality in Identification for 16 Selected States 11

Table 4: Percentage of Districts Providing Early Intervening 

Services Using IDEA, Part B Funds, by the Type of Activity 

Funded (School Year 2008–2009) 16

Table 5: Early Intervening Services Provided in the Districts We 

Visited 28

Table 6: Number of Children Receiving Early Intervening Services 

by State (School Years 2009-10 and 2010-11) 30

Table 7: Number and Percentage of Districts Providing Early 

Intervening Services in the 2009-10 and 2010-11 School 

Years. 32

Table 8: Student Enrollment and Number and Percentage of 

Students in Special Education by State (School Year 2010-

11) 34

Figures

Figure 1: Risk of Receiving Special Education, by Racial or Ethnic 

Group (School Years 2006-2010) 4

Figure 2: Percentage of Districts Required to Provide Early 

Intervening Services by State (School Year 2010-11) 7

Figure 3: Number and Percentage of Districts Providing Early 

Intervening Services (School Years 2009-10 and 2010-11) 8

Figure 4: Selected Characteristics of Districts by Provision of Early 

Intervening Services (School Year 2010-11) 9

Figure 5: Differences in State Definitions of Significant 

Disproportionality, Selected Elements 13

Figure 6: Overlap between IDEA Performance Indicators and 

Significant Disproportionality 21

Figure 7: State Role in Overseeing Early Intervening Services 22
Page iii GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

Abbreviations

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

Recovery Act American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

OSEP Office of Special Education Programs 

OSERS Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 

 Services 

SY School Year

RTI Response to intervention

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

February 27, 2013

The Honorable Tom Harkin

Chairman

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The overrepresentation of minority students in special education 

continues to be a persistent and challenging issue in education. This is a 

complicated issue because it is often difficult to determine if a student is 

struggling in school because of a disability or—as some suggest—other 

factors such as poverty, limited English proficiency, or factors within the 

school environment, such as a lack of high quality instruction or cultural 

bias. To illustrate, a 6th grade Hispanic girl who is not proficient in English 

may be diagnosed as having a learning disability because she is not 

reading at grade level. Similarly, an African American boy who may be 

acting out in school because of problems at home may be diagnosed as 

having an emotional disability. The consequences of overrepresentation 

have serious implications for students who may be inappropriately 

identified as having a disability because these students are placed in an 

educational track that is different than their peers which may negatively 

impact their academic and career outcomes.

In response to concerns about overrepresentation of racial and ethnic 

groups in special education, the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) included a provision allowing 

school districts the option of using up to 15 percent of their IDEA, Part B 

funds1

—previously expended only for students with disabilities—to 

provide early intervening services2 to students not currently receiving 

special education services but who need additional academic or 

behavioral supports to succeed in school. More significantly, the law 

requires a school district that is determined by its state as having 

 

1 Districts are allowed to use no more than 15 percent of their IDEA, Part B funds on early 

intervening services. 

2 Early intervening services and coordinated early intervening services are terms used 

interchangeably by Education. We use “early intervening services” throughout this report. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

“significant disproportionality”—a term not defined in law—to reserve 15 

percent of its IDEA, Part B funds to provide early intervening services for 

students who are not currently in special education. You asked us to 

review issues related to these services. This report examines: (1) the 

numbers and characteristics of districts that provide early intervening 

services and how states determine which districts are required to provide 

these services, (2) the types of services provided, and (3) how the 

Department of Education (Education) and states oversee early 

intervening services.

To examine the numbers and characteristics of the districts that provided 

early intervening services, we analyzed Education’s IDEA data for school 

years 2009-10 and 2010-11, which contained information on the number 

and characteristics of districts with students receiving special education 

and early intervening services provided,3 IDEA, Part B child count data, 

and Education’s Common Core of Data, which provided demographic 

data on all students in school districts. To assess the reliability of data 

from these data sets, we interviewed knowledgeable Education officials, 

reviewed documentation of data collection procedures, and conducted 

internal reliability checks. We determined that the data were sufficiently 

reliable for our purposes. To obtain more in depth information about early 

intervening services, we conducted site visits to eight districts in four 

states (California, Florida, Maryland, and Texas) where we interviewed 

state and local officials, and visited schools that had provided early 

intervening services. We selected these states—which all required some 

districts to provide early intervening services in school year 2009-10—

based on geography, the percentage of districts required to provide the 

services, and the percentage of districts that implemented the program 

voluntarily. Within those states, we selected districts that provided early 

intervening services based on location, whether they were required to 

implement the program or did so voluntarily, the amount they received in 

IDEA, Part B funding, poverty levels, and the percentage of students 

receiving special education services.

To identify how states determine which districts are required to provide 

early intervening services, we reviewed 16 states’ methodologies for 

determining significant disproportionality. To ensure that our review of 

 

3 IDEA data on early intervening services are collected by local educational agencies or 

educational service agencies. Throughout this report, use of the term “school districts” is 

synonymous with local educational agencies and educational service agencies.
 

Page 3 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

state methodologies included states that did and did not have districts 

identified as having significant disproportionality, we chose the six states 

with the highest percentage of districts required to provide services in 

school year 2009-10, and we randomly selected eight states that took into 

account the number of districts required to provide early intervening 

services, including 4 states that did not have any districts required to 

provide early intervening services. Further, we judgmentally selected two 

additional states due to the relatively low percentage of districts required 

to provide services. To identify the types of services that districts provided 

students, we reviewed data on services collected as part of Education’s 

IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study, which collected 

information for school year 2008-09, and Education’s early intervening 

services data. To examine how Education and states oversee the 

program, we reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, Education’s 

monitoring protocols, and the findings from Education’s monitoring visits 

of the 16 states included in our review of significant disproportionality 

definitions. We also interviewed Education officials and state officials in 

the four states we visited about their monitoring efforts. See appendix I for 

more details on our scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to February 

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Some groups of students are at greater risk of receiving special education 

than other students, and this trend has persisted over time (see fig. 1). 

Specifically, according to Education’s data, African American and 

American Indian/Alaska Native students are at greater risk of receiving 

special education than students from other racial and ethnic groups.4

Research suggests overrepresentation may be a consequence of several 

 

4 Data presented at the 2012 IDEA Leadership Conference: Looking at Race/Ethnicity 

Disproportionality in Special Education from the Student Outcomes Side of the 

Educational System: Why Analyzing Disproportionality Matters for Results Improvement 

Planning (Data Accountability Center and Regional Resource Center Program, 

Washington, D.C. 2012).

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

factors such as poverty, factors within the school environment, such as 

cultural bias, or some combination of these elements.

Figure 1: Risk of Receiving Special Education, by Racial or Ethnic Group (School 

Years 2006-2010)

Notes: Risk ratio was defined as a specific racial or ethnic group’s risk of receiving special education 

and related services divided by the risk for all other children. The data represent children ages 6 to 

21. All school years, with the exception of school year 2009-10, are based on either 50 states (school 

years 2006-07 and 2008-09) or 49 states (school year 2007-8) reporting along with District of 

Columbia. School year 2009-10 is based on those 38 states and the District of Columbia that reported 

using the same 5 racial/ethnic categories used in the previous years. Beginning with school year 

2010-11 and beyond, states are required to report using seven racial/ethnic categories.

To address the issue of overrepresentation, in the last reauthorization of 

IDEA in 2004, Congress added provisions allowing school districts the 

option to use up to 15 percent of their Part B funding to provide early 

intervening services for students in kindergarten through grade 12 

(putting particular emphasis on providing services to kindergarten through 

grade 3) who have not been identified as needing special education or 

related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral 

support to succeed in a general education environment. While the 2004 

reauthorization of IDEA allowed districts the option to voluntarily provide 

early intervening services, it made it mandatory for districts with 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

“significant disproportionality.”

5 This term is used in the law to refer to the 

overrepresentation of racial and ethnic groups in special education, 

although it is not defined. Under IDEA, a school district is required to 

reserve 15 percent of its IDEA, Part B funds for early intervening 

services6 if that district is found to have significant disproportionality in 

special education based on race and ethnicity with respect to: (1) the 

identification of children with disabilities; (2) the identification of children in 

particular disability categories; (3) the placement of children with 

disabilities in particular educational settings; and (4) the incidence, 

duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and 

expulsions.

IDEA outlines two broad categories of activities for which districts may 

use funds for early intervening services: (1) professional development for 

teachers and other school staff, and (2) educational and behavioral 

evaluations, services, and supports, including scientifically-based literacy 

instruction. The law requires districts providing these services to report 

annually to the state on the number of students who received these 

services and the number of students served who subsequently receive 

special education and related services during the preceding 2-year 

period.7

Funding for early intervening services is authorized under Part B of IDEA. 

First enacted in 1975, IDEA is the primary federal law that addresses the 

educational needs of students with disabilities.8 Under IDEA, Part B, 

Education provides grants to states that enable school districts to provide 

services to students with disabilities aged 3 through 21. In 2009, federal 

funding under IDEA, Part B was more than double the 2008 amount 

because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

 

5 Pub. L. No. 108-446, § 101, 118 Stat. 2647, 2739 (2004)(codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 

1413(f)(1) and 1418(d)(2)(B).

6 The term “significant disproportionality” was used in the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA. At 

that time, Congress required states to collect and examine data to determine if significant 

disproportionality based on race is occurring with respect to the identification, particular 

disability category, and placement of students in special education. It was not until the 

2004 reauthorization that Congress required districts identified as having significant 

disproportionality to use IDEA, Part B funds for early intervening services.

7 20 U.S.C. § 1413(f)(4).

8 IDEA was originally enacted as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Pub. L. 

No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) (1975). 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

(Recovery Act) (see table 1). The Recovery Act provided districts 

additional funds that could be used for any allowable purposes under 

IDEA, including to retain teachers and other school personnel, purchase 

technological equipment such as computers, and provide teacher 

professional development, among other things.9

Table 1: IDEA, Part B Funding and Number of Children Served (Fiscal Years 2008-

2012)

Fiscal year

Federal

funds (in billions)

Number of children with disabilities

served aged 3-21 (in thousands)

2008 11.3 6,718

2009 23.6 6,599

2010 11.9 6,614

2011 11.9 6,558

2012 12.0 6,558

Source: Education’s fiscal year 2013 budget request accessed on December 4, 2012 at: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget13/justifications/index.html. 

Until 2004, IDEA, Part B funds could only be used to provide services to 

children with disabilities. Currently, these funds can be used to provide 

early intervening services to students who have not been identified as 

needing special education services, but who need additional academic 

and behavioral support to succeed. IDEA is administered by Education’s 

Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).

 

9 See GAO, Recovery Act: One Year Later, States and Localities’ Use of Funds and 

Opportunities to Strengthen Accountability, GAO-10-437 (Washington, D.C.: March 3, 

2010).
 

Page 7 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

Among the almost 15,000 school districts nationwide that received IDEA 

funding in school year 2010-11, states required 356 (2.4 percent) districts 

to use these funds for early intervening services due to significant 

disproportionality. This represents a 12 percent decrease from the 

previous school year when 405 school districts were required to provide 

these services. Over half of the districts required to provide services in 

both school years were concentrated in five states—Louisiana, Michigan, 

Mississippi, New York, and Rhode Island—with 73 districts located in 

Louisiana alone in school year 2010-11. Twenty-one states did not 

require any of their districts to provide services (see fig. 2). 

Figure 2: Percentage of Districts Required to Provide Early Intervening Services by State (School Year 2010-11)

An additional 9 percent of districts nationwide that were not identified as 

having significant disproportionality voluntarily provided these services in 

school year 2010-11, but that number similarly decreased from 1,508 

(about 10 percent) in school year 2009-10 to 1,265 (about 9 percent) in 

2010-11 (see fig. 3). In total, about 1.26 million students received early 

intervening services during the 2010-11 school year. See appendix II for 

state-by-state data on the number of children served and number and 

States Required About 

2 Percent of Districts 

Nationwide to 

Provide Early 

Intervening Services 

in School Year 2010-11 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

percentage of districts providing services in the 2009-10 and 2010-11 

school years.

Figure 3: Number and Percentage of Districts Providing Early Intervening Services (School Years 2009-10 and 2010-11)

Notes: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. SY = school year.

The characteristics of students in the districts that were required to and 

voluntarily provided early intervening services did not differ substantially, 

except that the districts required to provide services had a higher 

percentage of African American students and a lower percentage of 

Hispanic students (see fig. 4). However, given the small number of 

districts required to provide services, it may be difficult to discern 

meaningful differences between these two groups of districts, which also 

differed little from the majority of districts providing no services, as shown 

below.
 

Page 9 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

Figure 4: Selected Characteristics of Districts by Provision of Early Intervening Services (School Year 2010-11)

During the 2 school years we reviewed, districts also reduced funding 

reserved for early intervening services, as shown in table 2. Funding 

decreased 47 percent between school years 2009-10 and 2010-11 

among districts required to provide services and more steeply—56 

percent—among districts voluntarily providing services.10 Some officials 

we interviewed said that the additional funding districts received under the 

Recovery Act,11 which gave states an additional $11.7 billion for IDEA, 

enabled them to fund early intervening services, but without these funds 

school districts officials said they struggled to provide these services 

without major cuts to other educational services. For example, in 

California’s Capistrano Unified School District, officials reported that they 

eliminated approximately 50 positions to pay for these services, and the 

student-teacher ratio increased from 20:1 to 32:1. In Baltimore County 

School District, officials reported that they will be required to use about 

$3.3 million of IDEA, Part B funds for these services in school year 2012-

 

10 Education’s data do not include information about the actual amount spent on these 

services. States have up to 27 months to obligate these funds for the provision of early 

intervening services.

11 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided $11.7

billion in additional funding for IDEA, Part B grants to states and districts. School districts 

were required to obligate all IDEA Recovery Act funds by September 30, 2011. Education 

encouraged districts to spend the majority of these funds during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 

school years.
 

Page 10 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

13, and because they must also provide special education services, 

general education teachers and general education services will likely be 

affected.

Table 2: Amount of IDEA, Part B Funding Reserved for Early Intervening Services (School Years 2009-10 and 2010-11)

Type of 

district

Number of 

districts SY 

2009-10

Amount of IDEA 

funding 

reserved SY 

2009-10

Percentage of 

total IDEA 

funding SY 

2009-10

Number of 

districts 

SY 2010-11

Amount of 

IDEA funding 

reserved SY 

2010-11

Percentage of 

total IDEA 

funding SY 

2010-11

Percentage 

change in 

amount 

reserved from 

SY 2009-10 to 

SY 2010-11

Districts 

required to 

provide 

services

405 $306,949,685 1.44 356 $163,851,707 1.60 -47

Districts 

voluntarily 

providing 

services

1,508 $251,840,189 1.18 1,265 $110,175,488 1.07 -56

Total 1,913 $558,789,874 2.62 1,621 $274,027,195 2.67 -51

Source: GAO analysis of Education’s IDEA Table 8 data file as of January 24, 2012 for SY 2009-10 and August 13, 2012 for SY 2010-

11. 

Note: SY = School Year. 

Selected states’ definitions for determining which districts have significant 

disproportionality—and are required to provide early intervening 

services—varied widely and may prevent states from identifying the 

magnitude of racial and ethnic overrepresentation in special education,

according to our analysis. To determine whether any of their districts have 

significant disproportionality, states have used the flexibility Education 

provided them to develop their own definitions. These definitions include 

method(s) of calculation and associated criteria that set the conditions 

under which a determination of significant disproportionality is made. 

Specifically, after states calculate how many students of each race and 

ethnicity receive special education services, states compare these results 

to criteria established in their definition, which include (1) the value that 

must be exceeded, and (2) the number of years that value or condition 

must persist for a determination of significant disproportionality. States 

can also establish a minimum number of students needed in a group for 

calculation, and all of these factors can influence a determination of 

State-Developed Criteria 

Largely Drives Decisions 

about Whether Districts 

Are Required to Provide 

Early Intervening Services
 

Page 11 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

significant disproportionality.12 In general, the higher the value that must 

be exceeded, the more years the value or condition must persist, and the 

greater the minimum number of students required for calculation, the less 

likely a state will identify districts as having significant disproportionality. 

(See table 3). 

Table 3: Key Components of Definitions of Significant Disproportionality in Identification for 16 Selected States

State 

Value to be exceeded

when comparing groups

Years value

must be exceeded

SY 09-10 SY 10-11 Districts

in state

SY 10-11

Districts required to provide 

early intervening services 

Alaska 3.5 or more 3 consecutive years 0 1 54

California 4.0 or more Current year and 2 out of 3 

previous years

a 17 15 980

Connecticut 4.0 or more 2 consecutive years 3 0 169

Delaware 1.4 (decreasing each year 

based on stakeholder input)

2 consecutive years 15 9 36

Florida 3.50 or more 1year 13 15 72

Iowa 2.0 or more 3 consecutive years 7 7 376

Louisiana 2.0 or more 1 year 86 73 111

Maryland 2.0 or more in 4 of 6 disability 

categories

1 year 8 1 25

Mississippi 4.0 or more 1 year 35 28 151

Nebraska 3.0 or more 2 consecutive years 0 0 253

Pennsylvania Greater than 4.0 3 consecutive years 0 0 615

Rhode Island Risk level for group being 

examined 1% or higher than the 

national risk for all students and 

a risk ratio at least 2.5 times the 

combined risk for all students in 

the nation

2 consecutive years 26 24 51

South Carolina 4.0 or more 1 year 3 4 85

Texas Calculated value must exceed 

critical value set by state. 

Critical value set at 99th 

percentile 

2 consecutive years 5 12 1259

West Virginia 3.0 or more 2 consecutive years 0 0 57

 

12 See app. III for detailed information on components of selected states’ definitions for 

significant disproportionality.
 

Page 12 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

State 

Value to be exceeded

when comparing groups

Years value

must be exceeded

SY 09-10 SY 10-11 Districts

in state

SY 10-11

Districts required to provide 

early intervening services 

Wisconsin 4.0 or more and risk 1.0% or 

greater than state level risk for 

white students 

3 consecutive years 2 5 446

Source: GAO analysis of 16 selected state definitions of significant disproportionality. For the number of districts in state, Education’s 

IDEA Table 8 data file as of January 24, 2012 for SY 2009-10 and August 13, 2012 for SY 2010-11. 

a

Note: SY = School Year

In addition to a risk ratio, California uses an additional calculation called an E-formula, which 

assesses whether the proportion of the group in special education being examined exceeds the 

proportion of that same group in general education by 3 standard errors.

The following examples illustrate how state definitions can influence the 

extent to which districts are found to have significant disproportionality. 

Pennsylvania, a state with almost 1.8 million students and 16 percent of 

its students receiving special education services, did not require any of its

over 600 districts to provide services in either of the years we examined.13

In this state, racial and ethnic groups in a district must be identified for 

special education at a rate more than four times higher than other groups 

for 3 consecutive years to be identified as having significant 

disproportionality. Pennsylvania also requires districts to have at least 40 

students in each racial and ethnic group to conduct a calculation—

allowing small districts and districts with small numbers of certain racial 

and ethnic groups to be exempt from providing services since the districts 

are excluded from the calculation of significant disproportionality. 

Similarly, in Nebraska, which has about 300,000 school-age children, of 

which 15 percent receive special education services, none of the state’s 

253 districts were identified as having significant disproportionality in 

school years 2009-10 or 2010-11. In this state, racial and ethnic groups in 

any of its districts must be identified in a specific disability category at a 

rate three times higher than all students for 2 successive years to trigger 

the requirement for services, and districts must have at least 30 students 

in a racial or ethnic group to be included in their calculations. Alaska, a 

state with over 132,000 school-age children, of which 14 percent receive 

special education, required none of its 54 districts to provide services in 

school year 2009-10 and one district in 2010-11. In Alaska, racial and 

ethnic groups in the district must be identified for special education at a 

 

13 Pennsylvania reported it had 615 districts in SY 2009-10 and 632 districts in SY 

2010-11.
 

Page 13 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

rate three-and-a-half times higher than their non-minority peers for 3 

consecutive years.

In contrast, states such as Louisiana, Maryland, and Rhode Island 

identified relatively more districts that were required to provide early 

intervening services. For example, Louisiana, a state with 700,000 

school-age children, required 86 of its 111 districts to provide services in 

school year 2009-10, and 73 in school year 2010-11. In that state, if racial 

and ethnic groups are found to be identified for special education at twice 

the rate of other students in a district, in a single year, it must provide 

services. Maryland, a state with 850,000 school-age children, required 8 

of its 25 districts to provide services in school year 2009-10, although that 

number dropped to one in 2010-11. In Maryland, districts must provide 

services when racial and ethnic groups are represented two or more 

times the rate of students who are in four out of six disability categories in 

any year. Finally, Rhode Island, a state with 143,000 students, of which 

18 percent are in special education, required 26 of its 51 districts to 

provide services in school year 2009-10 and 24 in school year 2010-11. 

In that state, services are required in districts where racial and ethnic 

groups are two and half times more than the combined risk of all students 

in the nation for 2 consecutive years to be in special education. (See 

fig. 5.)

Figure 5: Differences in State Definitions of Significant Disproportionality, Selected Elements

In addition to the key components of a state’s definition, the method of 

calculation can affect whether a district is identified as having significant 

disproportionality and required to provide early intervening services. 

States have discretion to select the methods for calculating significant 

disproportionality. For example, one commonly used set of methods 
 

Page 14 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

examines “risk” of being in special education. This includes calculation of 

risk, risk ratios, alternate risk ratios, and weighted risk ratios. Some of 

these methods compare students within a district while others compare 

students in the district with students in the state or the nation. These 

comparisons can be of students in the same racial group within the 

district or compare one racial group from the district to that racial group at 

the state or national level. Also, with one method, the calculated value 

might be above the value and the district would be identified as having 

significant disproportionality, whereas with another method, it might not. 

To illustrate the effect a state’s choice of methodology can have on a 

finding of significant disproportionality, we applied Louisiana’s 

methodology, a risk ratio, to state data from Nebraska, which identified no 

districts. We found that in school year 2010-11, African American 

students in Nebraska were identified with emotional disabilities at a rate 

2.9 times higher than all other students in the state.14 However, because 

Nebraska’s criteria for significant disproportionality requires districts to 

have over-identified students of a racial or ethnic group 3 times more 

often than other groups combined, no districts were required to provide 

services for the years we reviewed.15 The reverse was also true when we 

applied Nebraska’s criterion to Louisiana’s state data. African American 

students in Louisiana were identified at a rate 2.2 times more often for 

intellectual disabilities than all other students in the state in school year 

2010-11. While this rate is considered significantly disproportionate using 

Louisiana’s criteria it would not be considered significantly 

disproportionate using Nebraska’s criteria. (See app. I for more 

information on our methodology and app. III for more detailed information 

on the definitions used in the 16 states we reviewed.)

We explored the reasons some states adopted their definitions of 

significant disproportionality. In some states, such as Maryland and 

Florida, officials reported they have chosen to reduce burden or confusion 

by defining significant disproportionality in the same way they define other 

 

14 Nebraska uses a weighted risk ratio, not a general risk ratio as we used in our analysis, 

and resulting calculations of districts as having significant disproportionality using a 

general risk ratio may differ from our results. Further, our Louisiana calculation is based 

on state-wide data and resulting calculations of districts as having significant 

disproportionality may differ from Louisiana’s state calculations. See app. III for detailed 

descriptions of state definitions for significant disproportionality.

15 These comparisons are for illustrative purposes only and should not be construed to 

suggest that one methodology is preferable. 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

IDEA annual reporting requirements on disproportionality. For example, in 

Maryland the definitions for significant disproportionality and 

disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special 

education are the same.16 Other states opted for a tiered approach, 

setting certain criteria of the definition of significant disproportionality 

higher than other IDEA reporting requirements on disproportionality. For 

example, in Alaska, districts are considered as having significant 

disproportionality when racial and ethnic groups are identified for special 

education at a rate three-and-a-half times higher than their non-minority 

peers, whereas for disproportionate representation, the requirement is 

that they be three times more likely. Finally, California conducted 

extensive research to determine the strengths and weaknesses of various 

definitions and ran different scenarios in all of their districts to determine 

outcomes from each definition. Based on this analysis, the state 

developed a new methodology so complex an Education official reported 

the monitoring team needed a substantial amount of time for its review.

The types of early intervening services students received varied, 

according to a national study by Education,17 with most districts providing 

literacy instruction; response to intervention (RTI), an approach that 

provides different levels of assistance to students based on their needs; 18

and behavioral interventions (see table 4.)

 

16 Disproportionate representation is one of the IDEA annual performance indicators used 

to measure overrepresentation of racial and ethnic groups in special education.

17 M.C. Bradley et al., IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study (NCEE 2011-

4027) (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education, 2011. In this 

study, researchers surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1,200 school districts.

18 For this study, response to intervention (RTI) was defined as a multi-step approach to 

providing early and progressively intensive intervention and monitoring within the general 

education setting. In principle, RTI begins with research-based instruction and behavioral 

support provided to students in the general education classroom, followed by screening of 

all students to identify those who may need systematic progress monitoring, intervention, 

or support. Students who are not responding to the general education curriculum and 

instruction are provided with increasingly intense interventions through a tiered system, 

and they are frequently monitored to assess their progress and inform the choice of future 

interventions, including possibly special education for students determined to have a

disability. 

Districts Provided a 

Range of Services to 

Assist Struggling 

Students 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

Table 4: Percentage of Districts Providing Early Intervening Services Using IDEA, 

Part B Funds, by the Type of Activity Funded (School Year 2008–2009)

Source: Education’s 2011 IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study.

The districts we visited also reported providing these services using IDEA 

funds. Most of the districts we visited reported providing supplemental 

instruction in reading and math. For instance, the Austin Independent 

School District in Texas implemented a program for middle school 

students who were up to two grade levels behind and found that a higher 

number of participating students passed the state’s standardized math 

test. Officials from Baltimore County School District in Maryland reported 

that fifth graders who participated in a before-school program increased 

their math test scores. In Duval County School District, Florida, officials 

reported that the district provided elementary school students who faced 

significant academic challenges—including students who had been held 

back—with individualized math and reading instruction that resulted in 

improved performance on state assessments.

Most districts we visited also provided services to address students’ 

behavioral and emotional issues, which can affect learning. For example, 

in Prince George’s County School District, Maryland, officials reported 

that behavior specialists were placed in the middle and high schools with 

the highest number of suspensions to help students develop skills such 

as coping and anger management. The specialists also worked with 

teachers to help them identify alternative strategies to address student 

misconduct. In the Jefferson County School District in Florida, officials 

reported that school staff worked with middle school and high school 

students to develop plans and interventions to address attendance, 

Type of activity supported

by IDEA, Part B program funds

Districts required to 

provide early 

intervening services 

(percentage)

Districts voluntarily 

providing early 

intervening services 

(percentage)

Literacy instruction 81.79 84.33

Response to Intervention (RTI) 81.65 67.07

Behavioral interventions 63.36 60.11

Math instruction 63.22 48.63

Adaptive and instructional software 55.02 41.43

Educational evaluations 43.00 46.30 

Behavioral evaluations 47.47 36.51

Other instruction 17.79 21.23

Other 14.06 10.76
 

Page 17 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

tardiness, and behavior problems. Officials from two districts we visited 

said that providing students more assistance with literacy can also help 

address their behavior problems. As one official noted, students are less 

likely to act out if they feel more successful academically.

Teachers’ perceptions about students can also play a role in special 

education placement, and most of the districts we visited reported using 

IDEA funds for their professional development and for other school staff. 

For example, in Baltimore County School District, Maryland, officials 

reported that principals will take training in cultural awareness to help 

them better discern the underlying reasons for the behavior a child may 

be exhibiting and understand that the behavior may not necessarily 

indicate the need for placement in special education. District officials from 

all eight districts we visited cited improved decision-making in that 

providing the services allowed them to more readily assess whether 

students were responding to the services or needed more intensive 

services, such as those provided through special education. Officials from 

all eight districts we visited also reported that referrals for special

education evaluations still occurred, but where there was ambiguity, early 

intervening services allowed them to see if the child benefited from the 

services. For example, officials from Liberty School District in Texas said 

that although some students showed no improvement with early 

intervening services, the information staff collected while providing the 

services allowed them to more accurately identify children who needed 

special education services. Officials from the Jefferson County School 

District in Florida told us these services allowed them to collect better 

data on children’s progress and now they better distinguish students who 

need more help in the general classroom from those who need special 

education services.
 

Page 18 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

Education has responsibility for monitoring overrepresentation of racial 

and ethnic groups in special education. However, Education’s ability to 

oversee states’ identification of districts with significant disproportionality 

is hampered by the flexibility states have to individually define significant 

disproportionality. Rather than developing a standard definition of 

significant disproportionality that all states could use, Education told 

states they have the discretion to define the term, citing the need to give 

states flexibility to account for factors such as population size and 

composition.19 However, during the course of our study, Education 

officials acknowledged that some states’ definitions may be preventing 

them from identifying disproportionality. According to Education officials, 

the requirement for districts identified with significant disproportionality to

reserve 15 percent of their IDEA, Part B funds for early intervening 

services could be a financial burden, a sentiment echoed by officials in 

several states and districts we visited, who saw the requirement as a 

struggle for districts to afford.

In addition, while Education requires states to change their definition of 

significant disproportionality when it appears to treat one racial or ethnic 

group differently, it has not similarly required states to change their 

definitions when they make it unlikely that disproportionality will be 

identified. As part of its on-site monitoring of IDEA, Education reviews 

 

19 Education discussed states’ discretion in a 2007 memo to state special education 

directors and in the comment section of final agency regulations published in 2006. 71 

Fed. Reg. 46,540, 46,738 (Aug. 14, 2006). 

Inconsistent 

Definitions and 

Limited Oversight 

May Hinder 

Identification of 

Overrepresentation of 

Racial and Ethnic 

Groups in Special 

Education 

Federal oversight
 

Page 19 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

each state’s definition approximately every 5 years, but does not currently 

collect these definitions even though states can change their definitions 

annually. In reviewing states’ definitions, Education officials told us they 

assess whether the definitions appear to treat one racial or ethnic group 

differently and the department may solicit input from its Office for Civil 

Rights when making such determinations.20 We found that in 2010 

Education required California to revise its definition because of such 

concerns. However, Education officials also said the department 

generally has not required states to change their definition even when an 

assessment suggests that a state’s definition may prevent it from 

identifying overrepresentation of racial and ethnic groups in special 

education. For example, when Education concluded that Alaska’s 

definition made it unlikely that any districts would be identified, it did not 

require the state to change its definition but suggested only that Alaska 

reexamine its definition. During our review, Education officials 

acknowledged that state definitions of significant disproportionality merit 

additional attention, and in response to issues we have raised, said over 

the next year they will begin collecting states’ definitions and examine 

race and ethnicity data to establish whether states’ current definitions 

appropriately gauge disproportionality. Education officials also said they 

are considering other options to gather information to address concerns 

that states’ definitions might be masking overrepresentation of racial and 

ethnic groups, including auditing states that have not identified any 

districts and providing guidance to states. However, Education has not 

articulated how it will address the differing definitions states currently 

have for defining significant disproportionality that prevent the Department 

from having a consistent picture of the extent of the problem.

In addition to reviewing states’ definitions during on-site monitoring visits, 

Education recently began collecting data on districts providing early 

intervening services. In 2011, Education began collecting such data for

the 2009-10 school year regarding early intervening services. These data 

include the number of districts required to provide services, the amount of 

IDEA funds reserved, the number of students receiving services, and the 

number of students who subsequently received special education. 

However, at the time of our review, Education officials had not used the 

data to specifically inform their review of definitions of states with no 

 

20 Education’s Office for Civil Rights enforces a number of civil rights laws including Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, 

or national origin under federally funded programs or activities. 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

identified districts. Instead, Education officials reported that they review 

the data to check for its accuracy and signs of possible noncompliance 

with the law. For instance, Education officials reported that they flag 

districts that did not reserve funds for early intervening services, but 

reported students receiving these services. Education officials said that 

they contact the state and district to ensure the data are accurate and, if 

noncompliance is identified, to ensure corrective action is taken.

Education also monitors overrepresentation of racial and ethnic groups in 

special education through three performance indicators, based on 

monitoring priorities prescribed in IDEA. The three indicators Education 

uses are: (1) “disproportionate representation” of racial and ethnic groups 

in special education due to inappropriate identification, (2) 

“disproportionate representation” of racial and ethnic groups in special 

education in specific disability categories due to inappropriate 

identification, and (3) “significant discrepancies” in suspensions and 

expulsions (see appendix IV). While these indicators use different 

terminology, they overlap with the requirement for states to identify 

significant disproportionality. For instance, states must identify whether 

racial and ethnic groups are disproportionately identified for special 

education and by category of impairment when calculating both significant 

disproportionality and disproportionate representation. As with the 

flexibility states have in developing their definitions of significant 

disproportionality, states have discretion in how they define 

disproportionate representation and significant discrepancy. Therefore, 

one state may have different definitions across these measures of 

overrepresentation and therefore different findings of overrepresentation 

(see fig.6), while another state may have the same definitions. In addition 

to the data states submit to Education on early intervening services, 

states must also annually report on these indicators. While we were 

unable to fully explore this issue in our current study, we recently reported 

that state and school districts officials we interviewed found Education’s 

IDEA indicators to be complicated, resource-intensive, and duplicative.21

Education has sought input from state special education directors on this 

issue. The majority of state directors Education surveyed supported the 

idea of having one requirement to identify overrepresentation of racial and 

 

21 See GAO- K-12 Education: Selected States and School Districts Cited Numerous 

Federal Requirements As Burdensome, While Recognizing Some Benefits, GAO-12-672

(Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2012).
 

Page 21 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

ethnic groups among districts instead of requirements for identifying both 

significant disproportionality and disproportionate representation.

Figure 6: Overlap between IDEA Performance Indicators and Significant Disproportionality 

States are responsible for identifying the districts required to provide 

services and then ensuring that these districts spend the required 15 

percent of IDEA funds for these services (see fig. 7 on state oversight 

role). To carry out its responsibilities, officials in the states we visited 

reported various monitoring activities to oversee districts’ fiscal 

compliance and service implementation. For example, to monitor fiscal 

compliance in California, officials reported using accounting codes to 

track districts’ use of IDEA funds for early intervening services. Maryland 

officials said they conduct periodic on-site monitoring of districts. In 

Texas, state officials said districts that have significant disproportionality 

are required to use their data to determine the root causes of 

overrepresentation and that the state’s data system facilitates this 

analysis by allowing districts to examine their data in a variety of ways. 

States we visited also had different approaches for overseeing the types 

of services provided. Two of the states we visited reported requiring those 

districts to submit to the state a plan for how they will implement early 

intervening services, including the services they will provide. In Florida, 

officials said that districts are required to use funds for direct student 

support services, rather than for curriculum materials or administrative 

supports, and that the state reviews districts’ plans and provides 

additional guidance to ensure districts follow this state requirement. 

State Oversight
 

Page 22 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

Maryland officials, in contrast, said that they do not dictate how districts 

deliver services to their students.

Figure 7: State Role in Overseeing Early Intervening Services

To address the persistent problem of the overrepresentation of racial and 

ethnic groups in special education, Congress required states and school 

districts to take measures to help improve outcomes for struggling 

students. However, the discretion that states have in defining significant 

disproportionality has resulted in a wide range of definitions that provides 

no assurance that the problem is being appropriately identified across the 

nation. More significantly, without these services, struggling students may 

not receive the services they need to help them improve academically 

and thus may ultimately need special education services. Education has 

allowed states the flexibility to define significant disproportionality to 

account for differences in state population size and composition. 

However, a standard approach to defining significant disproportionality 

with built-in flexibilities to account for differences among states, would 

provide better assurance that states are gauging the true magnitude of 

the problem of overrepresentation of racial and ethnic groups in special 

education.

To better understand the extent of racial and ethnic overrepresentation in 

special education and promote consistency in how states determine the 

districts required to provide early intervening services, we recommend the 

Secretary of Education develop a standard approach for defining 

significant disproportionality to be used by all states. This approach 

should allow flexibility to account for state differences and specify when 

exceptions can be made.

Conclusions 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action
 

Page 23 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education for 

review and comment. The comments are reproduced in appendix V. In its 

comments, Education stated that the effect of state definitions of 

significant disproportionality on decisions concerning children from 

various racial and ethnic groups merit additional attention. However, in 

response to our recommendation that the department require a standard

approach to define significant disproportionality to be used by all states, 

Education proposed an alternative course of action that would focus on 

more collection of information about state definitions and to make that 

information available to the public as a matter of transparency. 

Specifically, Education stated that for the upcoming reporting year, the 

department will collect states’ definitions of significant disproportionality 

and information by disability categories in which a district was identified

with significant disproportionality. Education stated that such information 

will provide greater transparency and assist in holding states accountable 

for meeting the requirements regarding significant disproportionality and 

early intervening services by highlighting states where further 

examination may be warranted. Further, the department said that it may 

provide additional guidance on the issue that might include developing a 

standard approach for defining significant disproportionality. While the 

department’s data collection efforts will allow it to have, for the first time, 

complete information about the full range of definitions states are using, 

our report provides several examples of the range of different ways states 

have defined significant disproportionality. We believe that Education’s 

proposed efforts do little to address the overriding concern raised in our 

study about the lack of consistency across states in how they define 

significant disproportionality. Further, because some state definitions can 

be very complex and states can change definitions annually, we are 

concerned that Education’s collection and review of definitions may be 

burdensome for it to execute. Consequently, we have not revised our 

recommendation. 

Education also provided technical comments which we incorporated into 

the report where appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its 

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary 

of Education, relevant congressional committees, and other interested 

parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s 

website at http://www.gao.gov. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 24 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix VI.

George A. Scott

Director, Education, Workforce,

 and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 25 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

This appendix discusses our methodology for this study, which was 

framed around three objectives: (1) What are the numbers and 

characteristics of districts that provide early intervening services and how 

do states determine which districts are required to provide services? (2) 

What are the types of services provided? (3) How do the Department of 

Education (Education) and states oversee early intervening services?

To determine the number and characteristics of districts providing early 

intervening services, we analyzed Education’s IDEA data, commonly 

referred to as Table 8 data, for 2009-10 and 2010-11, the most recent 

years at the time of our review, and IDEA, Part B data on child counts 

(618 data). We analyzed data reported by the states to Education on the 

number of districts providing services and the amount of IDEA, Part B 

funding districts reserved for these services. To create a composite 

description of districts, we linked information from Table 8 on the 

characteristics of the districts that were required to and voluntarily 

provided services, as well as districts that did not provide early 

intervening services, to data from Education’s Common Core of Data for 

school year 2010-11, which includes the characteristics of all students 

enrolled in the school districts, including their racial/ethnic composition, 

percentage receiving special education, and percentage eligible for free 

or reduced price lunch. To assess the reliability of data from these data 

sets, we interviewed relevant Education officials, reviewed documentation 

of data collection procedures, and conducted internal reliability checks. 

We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

To determine how states determine which districts are required to provide 

services, we collected and reviewed 16 states’ methodologies for 

determining significant disproportionality with respect to the percentages 

of racial and ethnic groups in special education, which triggers the 

requirement that districts provide services. To ensure that our review of 

16 states included states with districts that did and did not have districts 

identified as having significant disproportionality, we chose the six states 

with the highest percentage of districts required to provide services in 

school year 2009-10 (Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi 

and Rhode Island), and eight additional states (Alaska, Connecticut, 

Iowa, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, West Virginia, and 

Wisconsin) that we selected through a stratified, random sample, based 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Providing Information on 

the Numbers and 

Characteristics of Districts 

and How States Identify 

Districts for Early 

Intervening Services
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 26 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

on the number of districts required to provide early intervening services. 1

Texas and California were selected because they were included in our 

site visit selection and due to their relatively low percentage of districts 

required to provide services in School Year 2009-10. The selected states 

were Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, 

Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South 

Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. We requested each 

state’s definition and analyzed them with respect to their method(s) of 

calculation, the minimum number of students in a group required for 

performing the calculation (N size), the number of years of data used, and 

the threshold value for identification of significant disproportionality. We 

followed up with knowledgeable officials in the 16 states to ensure our 

analysis was accurate and up to date.

Further, in order to illustrate how a state’s choice of definition can affect a 

finding of significant disproportionality, we provide two scenarios in the 

report using state data from Nebraska and Louisiana. To do this, we 

applied a standard metric, a risk ratio, to Louisiana and Nebraska’s state 

data. To reduce the risk of inappropriately identifying a particular racial or 

ethnic group for receiving special education services, different 

methodologies for assessing risk can be used in calculating 

disproportionality. As part of our review, we chose to assess the risk of 

racial and ethnic student groups being placed in special education using a 

general risk ratio analysis applied to data from Education’s Common Core 

of Data. We conducted these analyses on school year 2010-11 state level 

data to determine the rate of racial and ethnic groups’ identification for 

special education, and for each disability category. According to the 

Department of Education, this risk ratio method of calculation is used to 

answer the question: “What is a specific racial/ethnic group’s risk of 

receiving special education and related services for a particular disability 

compared to the risk for all other children with that disability?” Using this 

method, we calculated a risk ratio value, which we then compared to a 

“cut point” number which is determined by the state. The cut point number 

indicates how much more likely students of a specific race or ethnicity 

have to be overrepresented in special education in order for districts in a 

state to be considered as having significant disproportionality. The 

 

1 We randomly selected four states from those that identified some districts as significantly 

disproportionate (Iowa, Connecticut, South Carolina, and Wisconsin); and four states from 

those that did not identify any districts as significantly disproportionate (Alaska, Nebraska, 

Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.)
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 27 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

calculated risk ratio value has to be greater than the cut point value for a 

specific racial/ethnic group’s risk to be considered significantly 

disproportionate. States can vary in the cut point number they choose to 

use and, in our analyses, we examined the risk ratio values we calculated 

in relation to the cut points used by Nebraska and Louisiana.

To identify the types of early intervening services districts provided, we 

reviewed Education’s IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study, 

which included national data on the types of early intervening services 

districts provided during the 2008-09 school year.2 To gain further insight 

into how these services were delivered at the school and district level, we 

conducted site visits in four of our 16 selected states—California, Florida, 

Maryland, and Texas. In each state, we interviewed officials from the 

state department of education and two school districts we visited. In three 

states, we also visited elementary schools (see table 5.) We selected 

these states based on geography, the percentage of districts required to 

implement the program, and the percentage of districts that implemented 

the program voluntarily. Within these states, we selected the districts 

based on location, whether they were required to or voluntarily provided 

services, the amount they received in IDEA, Part B funding, poverty 

levels, percentage of students receiving special education services, and 

size. The information provided from these four site visits is not 

generalizeable across all states and school districts.

 

2 M.C. Bradley et al., IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study (NCEE 2011-

4027) (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education, 2011). In this 

study, researchers surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1,200 school districts.

Describing the Types of 

Services Provided
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 28 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

Table 5: Early Intervening Services Provided in the Districts We Visited 

District

Student 

enrollment

(School Year 

2010-11)

Required or Voluntarily 

Providing Services 

Amount reserved 

and percent of 

IDEA, Part B 

allocation

Number of 

children 

served Schools Visited

Capistrano Unified 

School District, CA

53,192 Required in SY 2009-10 and 

SY 2010-11

For SY 2009-10:

$ 2,830,881 (15%)

For SY 2010-11: 

$1,290,287 (15%)

Not reported Palisades 

Elementary

Chico Unified 

School District, CA

13,060 Voluntarily in SY 2009-10

Not required or provided 

voluntarily in SY 2010-11

$85,000 (2%) 154 Chapman and 

Shasta Elementary 

Schools

Duval County, FL 123,997 Voluntarily in SY 2009-10

Not required or provided 

voluntarily in SY 2010-11

$2,117,879 (3%) 1,304 Jacksonville 

Heights 

Elementary 

Jefferson County, 

FL

1,104 Required in SY 2009-10 and 

SY 2010-11

For SY 2009-10: 

$124,625 (15%)

For SY 2010-11: 

$72,814 (15%)

For 2009-10: 

84

For 2010-11: 

142

Jefferson County 

ESE Combination 

School

Baltimore County 

Public Schools, MD

104,160 Required in SY 2009-10

Not required or provided 

voluntarily in SY 2010-11

$7,402,321 (15%) 4,105 No schools visited

Prince George’s 

County Public 

Schools, MD

126,671 Not required or provided 

voluntarily in SY 2009-10

Required in SY 2010-11 

$3,859,783 (15%) 1,491 No schools visited

Austin Independent 

School District, TX

85,697 Voluntarily in SY 2009-10

Not required or provided 

voluntarily in SY 2010-11

$2,596,202 (8%) 604 Andrews 

Elementary School

Liberty Independent 

School District, TX

2,148 Required in SY 2009-10

Not required or provide 

voluntarily in SY 2010-11

$138,404 (15%) 103 San Jacinto 

Elementary School

Sources: Education’s IDEA data and Common Core of Data.

Note: SY = School Year

To determine how Education and states oversee the provision of early 

intervening services, we interviewed Education officials from the Office of 

Special Education Programs (OSEP) and Office for Civil Rights. We 

interviewed staff from Education’s contractor for its Data Accountability 

Identifying How Education 

and States Oversee Early 

Intervening Services
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 29 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

Center3 that at the time of our review was responsible for providing 

technical assistance to states in developing the definitions of significant 

disproportionality, disproportionate representation, and significant 

discrepancy. In addition, we interviewed members of Education’s 

Disproportionality Priority Team, created under the umbrella of 

Education’s Regional Resource Centers. This entity was established to

help states address disproportionality in special education and is 

comprised of staff from OSEP, the Regional Resource Centers, and the 

Data Accountability Center. We reviewed relevant federal laws and 

regulations and Education’s monitoring policies and protocols. For the 16 

states included in our review, we obtained and reviewed Education’s 

findings from their most recent monitoring visits, all of which were 

conducted between 2008 and 2011. We interviewed officials in the four 

states we visited about the states’ monitoring activities, as well as their 

perspectives of Education’s monitoring. We also interviewed a few 

experts in the field of racial disparities in special education, and staff at 

relevant organizations, including the Council for Exceptional Children and 

the National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to February 

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

3 The Data Accountability Center was funded by Education to review IDEA data collection 

efforts and provide technical assistance to improve state capacity to meet data 

requirements.
Appendix II: Data on the Number of Children 

Served and Number and Percentage of 

Districts Providing Services by State (School 

Years 2009-10 and 2010-11)

Page 30 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

Table 6: Number of Children Receiving Early Intervening Services by State (School 

Years 2009-10 and 2010-11)

State 

Total number of children 

receiving services

(SY 2009-10)

Total number of children 

receiving services

(SY 2010-11)

Alabama 1,055 2,880

Alaska 9,485 11,992

Arizona 45,221 32,779

Arkansas 5,654 5,051

California 10,892 32,633

Colorado 6,442 4,621

Connecticut 11,534 4,580

Delaware 19,676 22,573

District of Columbia 9 Not reported

Florida 67,292 75,776

Georgia 6,691 3,328

Hawaii 300 0 

Idaho 3,060 406

Illinois 41,770 114,399

Indiana 14,956 21,298

Iowa 1,909 1,903

Kansas 73 53

Kentucky 902 2,658

Louisiana 82,048 79,953

Maine 0 0 

Maryland 20,475 1,491

Massachusetts 12,166 214

Michigan 15,851 16,792

Minnesota 2,215 2,993

Mississippi 45,637 36,660

Missouri 36,360 49,010

Montana 427 0 

Nebraska 2,441 2,019

Nevada 65,577 72,239

New Hampshire 1,019 656

New Jersey 8,641 9,099

New Mexico 4,053 8,452

New York 101,221 142,642

Appendix II: Data on the Number of Children 

Served and Number and Percentage of Districts 

Providing Services by State (School Years 2009-10 

and 2010-11) 
Appendix II: Data on the Number of Children 

Served and Number and Percentage of 

Districts Providing Services by State (School 

Years 2009-10 and 2010-11)

Page 31 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

State 

Total number of children 

receiving services

(SY 2009-10)

Total number of children 

receiving services

(SY 2010-11)

North Carolina 43,128 47,780

North Dakota 3,780 1,813

Ohio 37,647 45,340

Oklahoma 27,565 29,641

Oregon 18,278 17,066

Pennsylvania 31,642 53,035

Rhode Island 7,385 8,674

South Carolina 50,576 30,858

South Dakota 759 1,083

Tennessee 32,379 6,312

Texas 229,404 200,065

Utah 12,240 7,242

Vermont 2,960 4,426

Virginia 11,294 10,738

Washington 10,345 13,417

West Virginia 240 138

Wisconsin 14,587 12,762

Wyoming 5,427 5,247

Total 50 states and D.C. 1,184,688 1,254,787

Source: GAO analysis of Education’s IDEA Table 8 data file as of January 24, 2012 for SY2009-10 and August 13, 2012 for SY2010-

2011. 

Note: SY = School Year
Appendix II: Data on the Number of Children 

Served and Number and Percentage of 

Districts Providing Services by State (School 

Years 2009-10 and 2010-11)

Page 32 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

Table 7: Number and Percentage of Districts Providing Early Intervening Services in the 2009-10 and 2010-11 School Years. 

State

Total 

number 

of 

districts 

(2009-10)

Number 

of 

districts 

required 

to 

provide 

services

(2009-10)

Percentage 

of districts 

required to 

provide 

services 

(2009-10)

Number of 

districts 

voluntarily 

providing 

services 

(2009-10)

Percentage 

of districts 

voluntarily 

providing 

services

(2009-10)

Total 

number 

of

districts

(2010-

11)

Number 

of 

districts 

required 

to 

provide 

services 

(2010-11)

Percentage 

of districts 

required to 

provide 

services 

(2010-11)

Number of 

districts 

voluntarily 

providing 

services 

(2010-11)

Percentage 

of districts 

voluntarily 

providing 

services

(2010-11)

Alabama 132 1 0.76% 3 2.27% 132 12 9.09% 4 3.03%

Alaska 54 0 0.00% 1 1.85% 54 1 1.85% 2 3.70%

Arizona 559 0 0.00% 62 11.09% 580 2 0.34% 37 6.38%

Arkansas 267 25 9.36% 53 19.85% 268 13 4.85% 35 13.06%

California 980 17 1.73% 7 0.71% 1,002 15 1.50% 5 0.50%

Colorado 61 0 0.00% 4 6.56% 62 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Connecticut 169 3 1.78% 45 26.63% 169 0 0.00% 14 8.28%

Delaware 35 15 42.86% 0 0.00% 36 9 25.00% 0 0.00%

District of 

Columbia 46 5 10.87% 1 2.17% 43 1 2.33% 0 0.00%

Florida 72 13 18.06% 25 34.72% 73 15 20.55% 10 13.70%

Georgia 188 8 4.26% 9 4.79% 196 7 3.57% 7 3.57%

Hawaii 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Idaho 127 0 0.00% 8 6.30% 131 0 0.00% 5 3.82%

Illinois 871 6 0.69% 96 11.02% 871 7 0.80% 203 23.31%

Indiana 355 7 1.97% 17 4.79% 354 7 1.98% 1 0.28%

Iowa 376 7 1.86% 6 1.60% 376 7 1.86% 8 2.13%

Kansas 78 0 0.00% 1 1.28% 76 0 0.00% 1 1.32%

Kentucky 176 4 2.27% 1 0.57% 176 7 3.98% 0 0.00%

Louisiana 111 86 77.48% 17 15.32% 142 73 51.41% 48 33.80%

Maine 315 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 290 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Maryland 25 8 32.00% 1 4.00% 25 1 4.00% 1 4.00%

Massachusetts 392 0 0.00% 23 5.87% 393 0 0.00% 5 1.27%

Michigan 717 11 1.53% 24 3.35% 731 29 3.97% 17 2.33%

Minnesota 251 0 0.00% 88 35.06% 256 0 0.00% 105 41.02%

Mississippi 151 35 23.18% 26 17.22% 151 28 18.54% 72 47.68%

Missouri 537 0 0.00% 8 1.49% 542 0 0.00% 11 2.03%

Montana 428 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 428 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Nebraska 253 0 0.00% 14 5.53% 253 0 0.00% 10 3.95%

Nevada 17 0 0.00% 2 11.76% 17 0 0.00% 1 5.88%

New Hampshire 175 0 0.00% 16 9.14% 176 0 0.00% 7 3.98%
Appendix II: Data on the Number of Children 

Served and Number and Percentage of 

Districts Providing Services by State (School 

Years 2009-10 and 2010-11)

Page 33 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

State

Total 

number 

of 

districts 

(2009-10)

Number 

of 

districts 

required 

to 

provide 

services

(2009-10)

Percentage 

of districts 

required to 

provide 

services 

(2009-10)

Number of 

districts 

voluntarily 

providing 

services 

(2009-10)

Percentage 

of districts 

voluntarily 

providing 

services

(2009-10)

Total 

number 

of

districts

(2010-

11)

Number 

of 

districts 

required 

to 

provide 

services 

(2010-11)

Percentage 

of districts 

required to 

provide 

services 

(2010-11)

Number of 

districts 

voluntarily 

providing 

services 

(2010-11)

Percentage 

of districts 

voluntarily 

providing 

services

(2010-11)

New Jersey 643 19 2.95% 12 1.87% 649 15 2.31% 11 1.69%

New Mexico 108 0 0.00% 13 12.04% 127 6 4.72% 13 10.24%

New York 701 63 8.99% 74 10.56% 701 40 5.71% 44 6.28%

North Carolina 213 1 0.47% 38 17.84% 217 2 0.92% 27 12.44%

North Dakota 32 0 0.00% 14 43.75% 32 0 0.00% 12 37.50%

Ohio 1,009 0 0.00% 116 11.50% 934 2 0.21% 96 10.28%

Oklahoma 532 21 3.95% 11 2.07% 529 2 0.38% 21 3.97%

Oregon 201 3 1.49% 18 8.96% 201 3 1.49% 19 9.45%

Pennsylvania 615 0 0.00% 26 4.23% 632 0 0.00% 16 2.53%

Rhode Island 51 26 50.98% 5 9.80% 53 24 45.28% 7 13.21%

South Carolina 85 3 3.53% 50 58.82% 86 4 4.65% 34 39.53%

South Dakota 159 0 0.00% 14 8.81% 156 0 0.00% 14 8.97%

Tennessee 139 0 0.00% 20 14.39% 139 0 0.00% 15 10.79%

Texas 1,259 5 0.40% 369 29.31% 1,253 12 0.96% 172 13.73%

Utah 114 2 1.75% 18 15.79% 117 1 0.85% 20 17.09%

Vermont 59 0 0.00% 17 28.81% 60 0 0.00% 16 26.67%

Virginia 132 5 3.79% 12 9.09% 132 6 4.55% 12 9.09%

Washington 295 0 0.00% 25 8.47% 295 0 0.00% 16 5.42%

West Virginia 57 0 0.00% 2 3.51% 57 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Wisconsin 446 2 0.45% 72 16.14% 448 5 1.12% 67 14.96%

Wyoming 49 4 8.16% 23 46.94% 49 0 0.00% 24 48.98%

Source: GAO analysis of Education’s IDEA Table 8 data file as of January 24, 2012 for SY2009-10 and August 13, 2012 for SY2010-

2011. 

. 
Appendix II: Data on the Number of Children 

Served and Number and Percentage of 

Districts Providing Services by State (School 

Years 2009-10 and 2010-11)

Page 34 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

Table 8: Student Enrollment and Number and Percentage of Students in Special 

Education by State (School Year 2010-11)

State Student enrollment

Number of students in 

Special Education

Percentage of students 

in Special Education a

AK 

a

132,104 18,048 14

AL 755,552 81,216 11

AR 482,114 64,883 13

AZ 1,071,751 125,806 12

CA 6,289,578 662,508 11

CO 843,316 84,710 10

CT 560,546 68,130 12

DC 71,284 11,947 17

DE 129,403 18,608 14

FL 2,643,347 366,824 14

GA 1,677,067 177,536 11

HI 179,601 19,716 11

IA 495,775 68,498 14

ID 275,859 27,365 10

IL 2,091,654 303,092 14

IN 1,047,232 165,802 16

KS 483,701 66,851 14

KY 673,128 102,370 15

LA 696,558 82,934 12

MA 955,563 167,323 18

MD 852,211 102,818 12

ME 189,077 29,502 16

MI 1,587,067 217,213 14

MN 838,037 122,850 15

MO 918,710 127,148 14

MS 490,526 63,786 13

MT 141,693 16,760 12

NC 1,490,605 184,704 12

ND 96,323 13,097 14

NE 298,500 44,299 15

NH 194,711 29,778 15

NJ 1,402,548 225,471 16

NM 338,122 46,612 14

NV 437,149 48,078 11
Appendix II: Data on the Number of Children 

Served and Number and Percentage of 

Districts Providing Services by State (School 

Years 2009-10 and 2010-11)

Page 35 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

State Student enrollment

Number of students in 

Special Education

Percentage of students 

in Special Education a

NY

a

2,734,955 452,551 17

OH 1,754,191 259,448 15

OK 659,911 97,247 15

OR 570,720 80,283 14

PA 1,793,284 295,077 16%

RI 143,793 25,332 18%

SC 725,838 100,262 14%

SD 126,128 18,026 14%

TN 987,422 119,004 12%

TX 4,935,715 441,987 9%

UT 585,552 70,232 12%

VA 1,251,440 162,338 13%

VT 96,858 13,562 14%

WA 1,043,788 127,909 12%

WI 872,286 124,721 14%

WV 282,879 44,924 16%

WY 89,009 15,231 17%

Source: GAO analysis of Education’s Common Core of Data as of August 20, 2012.

a

Students with Individualized Education Programs.
Appendix III: Criteria and Methodologies for 

Calculating Significant Disproportionality in 16 

Selected States

Page 36 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

State 

Category of 

overrepresentation 

Method of 

calculation

Minimum number in group 

required for performing the 

calculation (N size)

Threshold value 

for determination

Years threshold 

must be 

exceeded for 

determination

Alaska Identification Risk Ratio a 10 students with IEPs in the 

racial/ethnic group of interest 

AND in the comparison group 

3.5 or more 3 consecutive 

years 

Placement Risk Ratio 10 students with IEPs in the 

racial/ethnic group of interest 

AND the comparison group 

3.5 or more 3 consecutive 

years 

Discipline Risk Ratio at least 10 children with IEPs 

enrolled in the school district

3.5 or more 3 consecutive 

years 

California Identification Alternate Risk 

Ratio and 

E Formula

a 20 plus Ratio of 4.0 or 

more and E 

formula value 

exceeds 3 

standard errors

Current Year & 2 

out of 3 

consecutive years

Placement Alternate Risk 

Ratio and 

E Formula

20 plus Ratio of 4.0 or 

more and E 

formula value 

exceeds 3 

standard errors

Current Year & 2 

out of 3 

consecutive years

Discipline State Rate of 

Suspension Plus 

2%

20 plus State Rate of 

Suspension Plus 

2%

Current Year & 2 

out of 3 

consecutive years

Connecticut Identification Relative Risk 

Index 

a no minimum 4.0 or more 2 consecutive 

years

Placement Relative Risk 

Index

no minimum 4.0 or more 2 consecutive 

years

Discipline Relative Risk 

Index

no minimum 4.0 or more 2 consecutive 

years

Delaware Identification Relative Risk 

Ratio (beginning in

school year 2011-

12) 

a 10 SY 2011-12 – 1.4 

(decreasing each 

year based on 

stakeholder input) 

2 consecutive 

years

Placement Relative 

Difference Method

10 Relative difference 

value must be 

greater than .30 

2 consecutive 

years

Discipline Rate Ratio 10 SY 09- 10 – 1.32; 

SY 10-11 – 1.3 

(decreasing each 

year based on 

stakeholder input)

2 consecutive 

years

Florida Identification Risk Ratio a 30 in group being examined 3.50 or more Annually

Placement Risk Ratio 30 in group being examined 3.50 or more Annually

Discipline Risk Ratio 30 incidents of removal in 

group being examined

3.50 or more Annually

Appendix III: Criteria and Methodologies for 

Calculating Significant Disproportionality in 

16 Selected States
Appendix III: Criteria and Methodologies for 

Calculating Significant Disproportionality in 16 

Selected States

Page 37 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

State 

Category of 

overrepresentation 

Method of 

calculation

Minimum number in group 

required for performing the 

calculation (N size)

Threshold value 

for determination

Years threshold 

must be 

exceeded for 

determination

Iowa Identification Weighted Risk

Ratio

a 10 2.0 or more 3 consecutive 

years

Placement Weighted Risk 

Ratio

10 2.5 or more 3 consecutive 

years

Discipline Rate of 

Suspension

10 with 3 or more students in 

the group being examined 

suspended/expelled for more 

than 10 days in the school year

2% above state 

average

3 consecutive 

years

Louisiana Identification Risk Ratio a 10 2.0 or more Annually

Placement Risk Ratio 10 2.0 or more Annually

Discipline Comparison of 

Percents 

no minimum Percent must be 

higher than state 

average multiplied 

by 1.5

Annually

Maryland Identification Weighted Risk 

Ratio

a 30 2.0 or more in 4 of 

6 disability 

categories

Annually

Placement Weighted Risk 

Ratio

30 2.0 or more Annually

Discipline Comparative 

Discrepancy Ratio

30 2.0 or more Annually

Mississippi Identification Alternate Risk 

Ratio

a 40 in group being examined 4.0 or more Annually

Placement Comparison of 

Percents 

25 in group being examined Percent must be 

higher than 2.0 

times the state 

rate for students 

with disabilities in 

that placement

Annually

Discipline Comparison of 

Percents 

20 students with disabilities 

suspended or expelled for more 

than 10 days in the school year

Percent must be 

more than 5 

percentage points 

higher than the 

rate for all 

students without 

disabilities in the 

same school 

district.

Annually

Nebraska Identification Weighted Risk 

Ratio

a 30 3.0 or more 2 consecutive 

years

Placement Weighted Risk 

Ratio

30 3.0 or more 2 consecutive 

years
Appendix III: Criteria and Methodologies for 

Calculating Significant Disproportionality in 16 

Selected States

Page 38 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

State 

Category of 

overrepresentation 

Method of 

calculation

Minimum number in group 

required for performing the 

calculation (N size)

Threshold value 

for determination

Years threshold 

must be 

exceeded for 

determination

Discipline Comparison of 

Percents 

30 with 6 or more students in 

the group being examined 

suspended/expelled for more 

than 10 days in the school year

Percent must be 

higher than 3.0 

times the state 

rate for students 

with disabilities 

and 5.0 times state 

rate for race/ethnic 

groups

Annually

Pennsylvania Identification Weighted Risk 

Ratio

a 40 Greater than 4.0 3 consecutive 

years

Placement Weighted Risk 

Ratio

40 Greater than 4.0 3 consecutive 

years

Discipline Weighted Risk 

Ratio

40 Greater than 4.0 3 consecutive 

years

Rhode Island Identification Risk Ratio a 10 in group being examined Risk level for 

group being 

examined 1% or 

higher than the 

national risk for all 

students and a risk 

ratio at least 2.5 

times the 

combined risk for 

all students in the 

nation

2 consecutive 

years

Placement Alternate Risk 

Ratio or Alternate 

Total Removals 

Per Child (TRPC) 

Ratio plus E 

Formula

10 in group being examined Ratio of 2.5 or 

more and E 

formula value 

exceeds 3 

standard errors

2 consecutive 

years

Discipline Risk Ratio 10 in group being examined Ratio of 2.5 or 

more and E 

formula value 

exceeds 3 

standard errors

Annually

South Carolina Identification Weighted Risk 

Ratio

a 25 4.0 or more Annually

Placement Weighted Risk 

Ratio

25 4.0 or more Annually

Discipline Risk Ratio 25 4.0 or more in 2 or 

more of the 

disciplinary 

categories 

examined

Annually
Appendix III: Criteria and Methodologies for 

Calculating Significant Disproportionality in 16 

Selected States

Page 39 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

State 

Category of 

overrepresentation 

Method of 

calculation

Minimum number in group 

required for performing the 

calculation (N size)

Threshold value 

for determination

Years threshold 

must be 

exceeded for 

determination

Texas Identification Risk a Only school districts with at 

least 30 students receiving 

special education services are 

included in the computation of 

critical values and 

determination of 

disproportionality. Districts 

smaller than 100 students 

overall and districts with more 

than 40 percent of students 

receiving special education 

services are excluded

Calculated value 

must exceed 

critical value set by 

state. Critical value 

set at 99th 

percentile 

2 consecutive 

years

Placement Risk Only school districts with at 

least 30 students receiving 

special education services are 

included in the computation of 

critical values and 

determination of 

disproportionality. Districts 

smaller than 100 students 

overall and districts with more 

than 40 percent of students 

receiving special education 

services are excluded

Calculated value 

must exceed 

critical value set by 

state. Critical value 

set at 95th 

percentile 

2 consecutive 

years

Discipline Risk Only school districts with at 

least 30 students receiving 

special education services are 

included in the computation of 

critical values and 

determination of 

disproportionality. Districts 

smaller than 100 students 

overall and districts with more 

than 40 percent of students 

receiving special education 

services are excluded

Calculated value 

must exceed 

critical value set by 

state. Critical value 

set at 95th 

percentile 

2 consecutive 

years

West Virginia Identification Risk Ratio a 20 3.0 or more 2 consecutive 

years

Placement Risk Ratio 20 3.0 or more 2 consecutive 

years

Discipline Risk Ratio 20 3.0 or more 2 consecutive 

years

Wisconsin Identification Weighted Risk 

Ratio 

a 10 in group being examined 

and minimum total enrollment 

in the school district of 100 

students in any given racial 

group being examined

4.0 or more and 

risk 1.0% or 

greater then state 

level risk for white 

students 

3 consecutive 

years
Appendix III: Criteria and Methodologies for 

Calculating Significant Disproportionality in 16 

Selected States

Page 40 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

State 

Category of 

overrepresentation 

Method of 

calculation

Minimum number in group 

required for performing the 

calculation (N size)

Threshold value 

for determination

Years threshold 

must be 

exceeded for 

determination

Placement Weighted Risk 

Ratio 

10 in group being examined 

and minimum total enrollment 

in the school district of 40 

students in any given racial 

group being examined

4.0 or more and 

risk 1.0% or 

greater then state 

level risk for white 

students

3 consecutive 

years

Discipline Weighted Risk 

Ratio

10 in group being examined 

and minimum total enrollment 

in the school district of 40 

students in any given racial 

group being examined

4.0 or more and 

risk 1.0% or 

greater then state 

level risk for white 

students

3 consecutive 

years

Source: GAO analysis of information from state officials on selected states definitions of significant disproportionality.

a

This includes identification and Identification in a specific disability category.
Appendix IV: Overlap between IDEA Indicators 

and Significant Disproportionality

Page 41 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

IDEA Indicators

States required to determine annually:

Significant Disproportionality

States must determine annually whether “significant 

disproportionality” based on race or ethnicity is occurring in 

the State and LEAs of the State with respect to:

“Disproportionate Representation” in Identification (Indicator 9): 

Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and 

ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result 

of inappropriate identification. 

the identification of children as children with disabilities;

“Disproportionate Representation” in Category (Indicator 10): Percent 

of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic 

groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate 

identification. 

the identification of children with a particular disability; 

the placement of children with disabilities in particular 

educational settings; and

“Significant Discrepancy” in Discipline (Indicator 4b): Percent of 

districts that have a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the 

rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school 

year for children with IEPs; and policies, procedures or practices that 

contribute to the significant discrepancy. 

the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, 

including suspensions and expulsions.

Source: GAO analysis of Education’s guidance for early intervening services and IDEA indicators.

Appendix IV: Overlap between IDEA 

Indicators and Significant Disproportionality
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Education

Page 42 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Education 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Education

Page 43 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 44 GAO-13-137 IDEA: Early Intervening Services

George Scott, Director, (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Sherri Doughty, Assistant 

Director; Karen Febey, Sonya Harmeyer Marsden, Cady Panetta, and 

Cathy Roark made key contributions to this report. Also contributing were 

Tom Beall, James Bennett, Deborah Bland, Holly Dye, Ying Long, Luann 

Moy, James Rebbe, and Kathleen van Gelder.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(131145)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.