Standards for
Determining
Class Size
Caseload
Purpose
To determine appropriate class size/caseloads for both special education and general education
teachers and reinforce that special education is comprised of supports and services rather than a
place.
Background
In June 2001, the General Assembly amended TCA 49-1-104, requiring the State Board of
Education to establish caseload standards for personnel serving students who receive special
education services and for maximum class sizes in all classrooms in which students with
disabilities are educated. The statute requires this action no later than February 1, 2002.
The State Advisory Council for the Education of Students of Disabilities initiated this taskforce
effort. Taskforce recommendations approved by the Advisory Council will be forwarded to the
State Board of Education for their consideration.
Few states set class size limits that include students with disabilities. The State Board of
Education has the opportunity to take a national leadership role by making a sound decision
based on solid data and setting a standard that represents what is good for students with and
without disabilities and promotes achievement for all students. The Board is also in the unique
position of promoting the use of a single instrument that can provide rational, objective and
methodically gathered data reflective of the level of student need as it relates to teacher parity.
Funding formulas and class size/caseload limits are not the same, but there is a direct
connection. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) makes it clear that state
funding formulas cannot be based on the type of setting where a child is served or result in
placements that violate least restrictive environment. Any approach to setting caseload/class size
limits must be placement and disability neutral and based on the levels of supports and services
required by the students. This approach is consistent with IDEA.
Developing a formula for special education class size is complicated by the way students are
educated. Some special education students spend all day in a general classroom. Others spend
part of the day in a general education classroom and part of the day in a classroom taught by a
special education teacher. In some school districts, special education students may attend a
segregated school where there are no general education classrooms, often in classrooms with
mixed grade levels. This makes it difficult to develop a relevant number for how many students
with disabilities can be in any one room. One current problem with class size caseload is that
students with disabilities who are in the general education class all or part of the day are not
included when the numbers of children in a general education class are counted. General
education determines how many teachers are needed based on the student count under the BEP
formula. When students with disabilities stayed in segregated classes, not being counted was not
a problem because the number of special education teachers and how many students they had
was determined by a different formula.
Now that students with disabilities are spending more (or all) of their day in general education
classrooms, not counting them as part of the class is becoming more of a problem. A teacher may
already have the maximum number of students allowed under general education (the BEP), yet
students receiving special education services could be added to the class because they do not
count for class size. It is particularly hard on the teacher if the student requires more time than
the other students because of self-help needs, behaviors or needed accommodations or
adaptations. In some cases, the student may have parents who demand more of the teacher’s
time for consultation, information exchange or progress updates. Yet on paper, the student does
not exist in that class.
Additionally, there are students in general education classes who do not meet the criteria for
special education services, but who nonetheless, need additional supports in order to benefit from
education. There is currently no mechanism for tracking these students or for providing the
supports they need. There is also an absence of a rational, objective and methodical way to
identify and distribute these students among teachers.
The Task Force used the following Guiding Principles to develop its
recommendations.
Guiding Principles:

General education and special education are parts of the same system.
Special education simply provides supports and services for students to
assist them in participating in general education.

The class size for special education should be the same as the BEP formula. However,
students should be weighted to determine their support needs.

All students with disabilities must be educated in the least restrictive environment. This
means they must be with students without disabilities to the maximum extent
appropriate.

Students with disabilities should be included when the number of children in their
general education class is counted for class size/caseload determinations.

The State funding formula must be changed to comply with the federal law requirement
that school districts not receive more money for segregated placements of students with
disabilities.

Class size/caseload determinations should be based on objective criteria and what will
best meet the needs of students.

Policies to determine class size and caseload guidelines should be based on rational and
objective data rather than on the amount of funding currently available.

Students with high needs for supports and services must be counted differently for class
size/caseload determinations than a student with low support needs.

Weighting should be placement neutral and independent of placement decisions. A
student should be weighted based on what services are needed, not where those services
are delivered.

Weighting should result in equitable class sizes and caseloads so that no one teacher has
an unfair number of high need students.
Teacher Time and Student Need – The matrix
The task force developed a matrix instrument that utilizes 14 objective factors to assess levels of
student needs in any classroom. The matrix instrument is equally applicable to students with
and without IEPs. Factors such as school absences, reading level, home concerns, lack of parent
involvement, and self-esteem are just some of the obstacles to learning with which some students
contend. While some of these students may already receive services through an IEP to address
learning needs, the student in the general education population who is ineligible for services
must also be considered in terms of teacher time when determining class sizes and caseloads.
If we are truly committed to achievement for all students, then we must also be realistic about
the levels of student needs that must be met in any given classroom so that learning the required
curriculum can be undertaken.
Counting Class Size
Students with disabilities should be counted just as
any other pupil in the general education classroom.
However, the amount of supports and services the
student needs must be taken into account. One way
to do this is to count a student with disabilities who
requires additional support as though they were
equal to more than one child. A student with only a
few support needs might count as one student while
a student with more intense needs would count as
two students and a student with significant needs
would count as three students. This helps take into
account the specific student’s needs as well as the
extra time and effort the student may require from the teacher.
What this means in practical terms is that a teacher who would normally have 18 students in a
classroom could have 15 students without disabilities and 1 student with high needs. The
student counts as 3 students because of the intensity of his needs. While only having 16 students
physically present in the classroom, the teacher’s workload is still the equivalent of the 18
students she is expected to have under the BEP. It is recommended that the matrix be used for
all students. This would take into account students without disabilities who require extra
teacher time and effort and who also need to count as more than one child.
The same weighting formula would be used for classrooms where only students who have IEPs
are educated. If the special education class has students who are all in the same grade, the class
size would be the same as for general education, and then the weighting formula would be used.
For example, a special education class with all kindergarten students would have a maximum
class size of 20. The class could contain no more than the weighted equivalent of 20 students. If
all the students in that class were weighted as 4s, for example, there could only be 5 students in
the class (5 students weighted as 4s is equal to 20). This would make it the same class size as
that used for a general education kindergarten class.
If the special education class has students from several different grades, the class size used
would be the one with the lowest number of students. For example, if a special education class
had students in kindergarten through fifth grade, the class size would be based on the
kindergarten class size of 20.
The following pages show the recommended matrix and instructions for completing it.
Instructions for Completing Class Size Weighting Matrix
The scoring should be done at the end of the school year and is completed by the teacher who had
the student that year. If a student has more than one teacher, one teacher should be responsible
for gathering the information from all the student’s teachers and related personnel and
combining the information before completing the matrix. It should be completed on all students,
not just those in special education.
When scoring a student who has help from an educational assistant for all or part of the day,
scoring must be based on what the student needs, not what the student receives in the form of
services. Example: if a student needs reminders 76% or more of the time to stay on task, that
would rank as a 4 under Work Habits. It does not matter if the student has an educational
assistant to do this or if the classroom teacher does it or a peer does it.
Score each student in each area with 0 being the lowest and 4 the highest. The maximum score
for any one area is 4. A score of 4 indicates a student needs significant assistance in that area.
NOTE: The explanation for some areas use the word “OR.” A student only needs to meet one
item in that area. Example: Under Group Participation, #2, it says: “Does not participate in
groups OR does best alone OR does best in group.” Obviously a student could not meet all of
these criteria. To get a score of 2 for this area, a student would need to meet only 1 of these 3
conditions.
In some areas, you may be scoring a student for several different things. Example: Under
Therapy, you are scoring a student for needs in Speech, Occupational Therapy, Physical
Therapy, Vision and Hearing. If a student only gets speech services as a consult (ranked as 1),
PT twice a week (ranked as 2) and OT three times a week (ranked as 3), rank them according to
the highest score. In this example, that would mean scoring the student as a 3 because their OT
needs are the highest score.
After scoring the student in each area, write the number for that area in the right-hand column
marked “Score.” Add the student’s score for all areas to get the total weighting score.
Once the scoring is completed for all students, turn the sheets into the school principal.
Instructions for Principals
The weighting scores you receive from teachers are used to assist you in determining which
students will be in which class for the next school year. The purpose is to make sure no one
teacher is overloaded with students with significant needs for supports. This should be used for
all students, not just those receiving special education services. Class size is the same for a
general education class as for a special education class. The weighting is an equitable way to
account for students with high needs.
It is NOT recommended that students be grouped according to need. For example, do NOT put all
the students whose weighting score is between 43 and 56 in the same class. This will be too
difficult for any one teacher to handle. It is recommended that students weighting as 3 or 4 be
limited to one per class where possible.
Total Weighting Score of 0 to 14 – indicates a student who takes an average amount of the
teacher’s time. Example: If the class size is limited to 20 students, this student would be 1 of 20
students.
Total Weighting Score of 15 to 28 – indicates a student who takes up as much time as 2 average
students. Example: If the class size is limited to 20 students, this student would be 1 of 19
because he/she would count as student #19 and #20.
Total Weighting Score of 29 to 42 – indicates a student who takes up as much time as 3 average
students. Example: If the class size is limited to 20 students, this student would be 1 of 18
because he/she would count as student #18, #19 and #20.
Total Weighting Score of 43 to 56 – indicates a student who takes up as much time as 4 average
students. Example: If the class size is limited to 20 students, this student would be 1 of 17
because he/she would count as student #17, #18, #19 and #20.
Special Notes Regarding Use Of Matrix
This system is being used in one county, and some early data is available on the outcomes of this
process for one school. (The matrix was used for all students not just those receiving special
education. The outcome would look different with a system using the process to provide weighted
information only for those receiving special education.)
There are five hundred and eighty-four (584) students at Grassland Elementary School. Five
hundred and forty-four (544) received a rating of 0 or 1. Thirty-seven (37) received a score of 2.
Three (3) received a rating of 3. No student received a rating of 4.
Actual numbers
91 in kindergarten
97 in first grade
96 in second grade
87 in third grade
110 in fourth grade
94 in fifth grade
Weighted numbers
94 in kindergarten
100 in first grade
109 in second grade
91 in third grade
117 in fourth grade
102 in fifth grade
Weighted average
18.8 in kindergarten
20 in first grade
21.8 in second grade
22.75 in third grade
23.4 in fourth grade
25.5 in fifth grade
No class at K-3 exceeds the limit of 25. No class at 4th and 5th exceeds the limit of 30. The
average for 4th and 5th grades is 24.33, below the limit of 25.49. The average for K-3 is 20.73,
above the limit of 20.49.
Based upon the weighted numbers, one additional teacher would have
probably been added to K-3. However, it should be noted that two of the
teachers in the second grade have had some generally intense parent
conferences and are concerned about the year ahead of them with these
students and parents. Their weightings with certain students were perhaps
influenced by current apprehensions. Had the matrix been filled out later in
the year when the students were better acclimated and the teachers had
better rapport with the parents, it is questionable if the ratings would have
been as high. It is further suspected that had it been the end of the school
year as the matrix is intended to be used, the information provided in the
matrix would have been different.
Task Force Recommendations
1. Make the class size determination for students receiving special education services the
same as the BEP formula. However, all students should be weighted to determine their
support needs.
2. Use of the matrix should be phased in over a three-year period.
 In the 2002-2003 school year, all school districts use the matrix for all students.
This will give each district the information on whether additional teachers or
classes may be needed. It is expected that not all school districts will need
additional teachers.
 In the 2003-2004 school year, the State should collect all the data from the school
districts from the previous year and current year. This information should go to
the State Board of Education and then to the Legislature to show the need for
additional teachers and classes (if any) and funding impact.

In the 2004-2005 school year, the Legislature should allocate sufficient money for
school districts to use matrix information to make all class sizes (general and
special education) match the BEP formula.
Additional Considerations
The Task Force discussed several other areas that it believes are related to student support
needs and which require further timely study for recommendations. The summary of those
discussions is listed below.
Determining caseloads for related service personnel
There is currently insufficient data to determine what
caseload size should be for related service personnel.
Therapists work a maximum of 40 hours per week so
that is the maximum number of service hours they
have available each week. A formula should take into
account the number of direct service hours required
and time for consultation, writing reports and
attending IEP meetings. For example if a therapist is
expected to spend 75% of his/her time giving direct
services to students, the remaining 25% would be
spent on IEP meetings, consultation and reports.
Caseload should be determined by student need. This
could be done by determining the number of direct service hours needed in a building (as stated
in IEPs) and factoring in how much is individual therapy and how much is done with groups of
students. A district could then determine how many therapists were needed and the number of
students to be seen by each. Districts should also consider the growth they see each year from
new students. In districts where personnel may serve students at more than one school, districts
will have to make allowances for travel time between schools.
Deciding when an educational assistant is needed in the classroom
In some cases an educational assistant may need to be added to the classroom. There are several
reasons that would make this necessary:
 Self-help needs of the student (toileting, seizures, tube-feeding, etc.);
 Behavior concerns (especially if the student has the potential to be harmful to self or
others or needs to be removed temporarily from the classroom at times);
 One-on-one instruction needed on academics (not necessarily all day); and/or
 Physical assistance needed by the student (positioning, lifting, suctioning, etc.).
These factors need to be taken into account when determining if a teacher can handle a
classroom alone or if an extra pair of hands may be needed. As a general rule, education
assistants should be assigned to the classroom and not to one specific child. This prevents
making the student with disabilities too dependent on an assistant and allows the teacher the
flexibility of using the educational assistant to help with other students as needed as long as the
needs of the student with disabilities are met. Again, any formula needs to also look at the needs
of students without disabilities and their demands on teacher time.
Adjusting the BEP formula
Tennessee’s current funding formula for special education pays more money
for students if they are educated in more segregated settings. Such funding
formulas have been specifically forbidden by IDEA since the 1997
Amendments were passed. Other states have utilized a variety of funding
mechanism to avoid violating the provisions of IDEA.
Some states use a funding formula that is census based. This allows schools
more flexibility to use funds in ways that fit how the school district sets up its
programs and takes into account the number of students in the district with
special education needs.
Some states have moved to a percentage formula for special education funding. Funding for
special education, for example, might be 12% of the total BEP formula for that school district.
The district has the flexibility to spend the money as it sees fit rather than having to struggle
with tracking placement of students. Placement of students does not determine the funding only
the fact that students with disabilities are a set percentage of total children.
To encourage least restrictive environment placements, some states have set their
reimbursement formulas to reward schools that keep special education students in general
education classes a majority of the time. A school might receive 90% of costs for special education
students who spend 3 hours or less each week in segregated special education classes. The same
school gets only 80% if the student spends more than 3 hours per week in segregated special
education classes. Some states also pay additional money to school districts for students who are
exceptionally high cost.
Funding the costs of special education in Tennessee needs to be changed so that it is based on
student needs, not on where services are delivered.
Additional benefits of using the matrix
Use of the matrix for all students will provide school districts with valuable information that can
be used for long-range planning. The Task Force is recommending that the matrix be completed
in the spring of each year. This gives schools until fall to ensure they have enough teachers,
related services personnel and classrooms to meet student needs.
On a more long-range basis, schools will be able to predict future needs for additional teachers
and classrooms. For example, if a district shows a high number of students ranked as 3s and 4s
who are in 4th grade, the district will know that it may need additional teachers, related services
personnel and classes, not only at the elementary level, but in the future when those students
move up to middle and high school. This gives districts better ability to do long-range planning.
A district might have a lot of students with high needs in the 4th grade and exceptionally low
numbers of high need students in the 3rd grade. If additional 4th grade teachers are hired this
year, but fewer will be needed in 4th grade next year, the district has the ability to plan in
advance how best to use these personnel. It will also give good predictors of the number and type
of related services personnel needed.
For districts that cluster students at certain schools for particular programs, the matrix can
show if a cluster site is becoming too saturated with high need students and plan accordingly.
By using the matrix with all students and paying close attention to the results, districts can
combine it with growth rate predictions and have an excellent tool to assist them in determining
future needs for personnel, classrooms and schools.