ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
Work Study Session I
April 19, 2000
Agenda Topic:
Special Education Rules Revision - Selected Issues
Materials:
Selected Summaries of Public Comment
Staff Contact:
Gordon Riffel
Jack Shook
Purpose of Agenda Item

To focus Board attention on several key issues related to the revision of special
education rules and regulations; and

To establish a foundation for Board action on the proposed rules in May.
Expected Outcome of Agenda Item

Board member understanding of key issues; and

Board direction to staff as appropriate.
Background Information
The State Board of Education has spent almost a year dealing with issues related to
revision of Illinois’ special education rules. This rulemaking responds to the 1997
reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the
issuance of final federal regulations implementing the changes in that Act.
Issues related to the rulemaking were first considered in June 1999, and proposed
changes to Illinois’ current rules were authorized for public review in August. An
extended public comment period of 60 days (rather than the mandatory 45 days) was
provided to ensure that all interested parties would have an opportunity to review the
text and its implications, and a series of public hearings was held. In addition, the
proposed rules were formally submitted for review by the Advisory Council on Education
of Children with Disabilities, as required by Section 14-3.01 of the Illinois School Code;
and to the Court Monitor overseeing the Corey H. Settlement Agreement.
More than 825 separate responses were received. All of these have been carefully
reviewed by staff and presented to the Board in a variety of formats over the past
several months. Staff is now preparing the final analysis of commentary and developing
recommendations for Board action.
Policy Issues:
During this meeting, the Board will have an opportunity to revisit, in greater detail, some
of the key issues associated with this rulemaking. This will include the following:

The requirements of the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act and the way in which
those requirements impact rulemaking decisions;

Issues related to “exceeding federal regulations;”

Pros and cons for extending authorization of the “developmental delay” category
through age 9;

Class size and case load, including case load limitations for speech and language
therapists;

Evaluation of students, with emphasis on the definition of referral, the components of
the evaluation and the role of the school social worker in relation to the
“developmental study;”

“Child Review Team” and “IEP Team.”
As background for this discussion, we have attached copies of the summarized public
comment on 1) developmental delay, 2) issues related to school social workers and the
developmental study, 3) speech and language therapists’ case load and 4) class size.
DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY
(Section 226.75)
Summary of Comments
Communications representing more than 235 individuals addressed the following
provision:
Developmental Delay: Delay in physical development, cognitive development,
communication development, social and emotional development, and/or adaptive
development occurring in children from three through five years of age.
(This language is found at 226.522 of the existing rules and was carried forward
unchanged into the proposed rules.)
The majority of the commenters responding to this proposed definition requested raising
the upper age limit for developmental delay to nine years of age. One individual
suggested allowing districts to use developmental delay up to age nine only for children
who are not determined eligible for special education until they are five. The only other
exception was one suggestion to change the maximum to six or seven years of age.
Many commenters believed that it is difficult to determine the exact nature of a child’s
disability by five years of age. They asserted it is even difficult to distinguish a delay in
development from a disability at that age, since children often have a wide variability in
developmental progress but no prior school experience at this point. It was claimed that
the evaluator is not able to obtain reliable or valid data due to the failure of the
instruments to assess and diagnose the nature of a disability accurately at that early
age. Therefore, they contended that the assessments fail to support the specific
identification of a disability in a very young child.
Commenters expressed concern that variance in children’s developmental growth and
experiences makes their achievement discrepancies less apparent. They believe these
same factors also contribute to problems with validity and reliability of evaluation data.
Therefore, evaluation results for these children frequently fail to manifest a discrepancy
between ability and achievement that is wide enough for them to meet the eligibility
requirements that apply to a learning disability. They pointed out that there are several
low-incidence disabilities, such as mental impairment, traumatic brain injury and autism,
which are much more difficult to diagnose at five years of age. They believe the
proposed rule would result in children’s being determined not eligible for special
education services and left struggling in regular education classes. They contend that
such children will exit special education for a few years until they are referred again in
second or third grade, are found eligible, and reenter special education. This is counterindicative of an early intervention focus and creates needless school failure for these
children.
Commenters believed that, by nine years of age, children’s developmental variations
have leveled off and students have developed a wider repertoire of “school skills.” This
results in more reliable evaluation data. They believe the availability of “developmental
delay” as an eligibility category until age nine would allow school districts more time to
identify the specific source of children’s disabilities and reduce the need for applying
more stigmatizing labels to children at an early age (which may change as they grow
older and evaluations become more valid).
Some commenters pointed out what would happen to a four-year-old child who entered
an early childhood program after being evaluated and found developmentally delayed.
When the child reached age five, he or she could not continue as eligible due to
developmental delay but would have to be identified as having a specific disability. That
would involve a re-evaluation, since changing the identified basis of a child’s eligibility
requires one. They contended that raising the developmental disability age to nine
would mean a more “seamless” system for students such as these.
Many commenters believed districts should have the opportunity to continue delivering
services to students whom may not qualify for one of the special education eligibility
categories. This would enable districts to continue to serve children who need services
but could not be accurately evaluated due to their age. A revision in the proposed rules
to expand the age to nine would provide districts the flexibility to serve young children
and more time to identify their disabilities. According to these commenters, it would
allow the provision of services to children without classifying them inappropriately and
would facilitate the transition from early intervention services to primary programs.
Many contended this would be more consistent with learning theories and supported by
research, would foster the “whole child” approach, and would provide districts the
opportunity to intervene during students’ period of optimal development. The use of
developmental delay from age three through age nine was recommended as a proactive
approach to remediation of developmental delays by serving students appropriately
while they are young, enabling them to avoid the experience of failure. It was also
suggested that this would be consistent with the move toward the non-categorical model
used in the pending revisions to our certification system.
Other commenters believed the proposed language would continue to foster categorical
thinking which is inconsistent with the standards followed in the field of special
education by most states in the country. A few suggested that the term “developmental
delay” needed to be defined to ensure uniform interpretation across the state. They
believe using developmental delay as a category will result in clearer communications
between parents and the school concerning a child’s disability and will ensure the
continued provision of services based upon the student’s needs and not a focus on
meeting specific eligibility criteria.
SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER
(Sections 226.120, 226.840, and 226.310(j))
More than 350 letters, large-scale petitions, and e-mails, bearing the signatures of some
800 individuals, dealt with a cluster of issues related to the provision of school social
work services. While most of the commenters indicated that they were school social
workers or social work students, comments were also received from advocates,
parents, psychologists, at least one school board member, and a state legislator
concerned for the quality and types of services children would receive. This group of
comments addressed the following three related topics: requirements for the case
study, qualifications of evaluators, and the description of school social work services.
Role of School Social Worker/Requirement for Social
Developmental Study (Section 226.120)
A very large proportion of the commenters was concerned that the proposed rules will
change the long-standing procedures by which a child is evaluated. Rather than
specifying a required list of case study evaluation (CSE) components, the proposed
rules create a process by which a group (referred to as the “child review team”) will
determine what evaluations will occur for each child who is referred. The problem these
commenters saw with the makeup of the child review team is that the number of
professionals providing input is determined by what is identified as the referral question
or problem. This may have the effect of excluding persons whose expertise does not,
on the surface, seem to be directly essential to addressing that question or problem.
Many of these commenters felt strongly that the rules should continue to incorporate the
current list of required case study components for all, or at the very least all initial, case
study evaluations, because the initial case study is a comprehensive professional
process for understanding and clarifying students’ needs and services. “Every service
team I have worked on in 30 years believes in the importance of the case study
evaluation as practiced in Illinois for all that time. I cannot understand how the current
case study evaluation components can suddenly be of no value when the State had
such solid rationale for a case study evaluation for the last 30 years.”
Others felt that the proposed rules’ failure to list a minimum set of components in an
initial CSE will result in a placement decision made without benefit of crucial
information. Turning away from a comprehensive and multidisciplinary diagnostic
protocol was considered a disservice to children. “Children in Illinois schools deserve to
have evaluations which consider each student’s needs in the context of the impact of
life changing events such as death or illness in the family, legal entanglements, frequent
moves, history of abuse, financial difficulty, death of a pet, lack of adequate
heat/clothing/food on their educational needs.” These respondents believed that,
without a social developmental study (SDS), the team would lack knowledge of the
family background, the parent’s perception of the problem, the cultural background of
the family, the potential stressors in the family, the previous academic history, the
child’s behavior at home, and the child’s personality characteristics. “Without the SDS
the evaluation is nothing more than testing which makes no more sense to determine a
child’s academic performance potential than merely looking at IQ scores.” The SDS
allows the team to make judgments based on the child’s strengths, weaknesses, and
support systems.
A few commenters suggested that the proposed change would make it much more
difficult for parents to know what information ought to be included in the evaluation.
They further reasoned that not requiring specific elements invites district teams to act
unprofessionally and avoid investigating all relevant information, causing districts to
make inappropriate decisions regarding students’ educational needs. Others asserted
that the proposed language invites districts to use financial considerations to influence
decision-making regarding how thorough a specific student’s evaluation must be. A
concern expressed by most is that “Eliminating the minimum components in a case
study evaluation will jeopardize the right of children to receive a comprehensive case
study evaluation from multiple disciplines.”
A related issue dealt with parental comfort with and real participation in the process.
Commenters expressed concern that the school staff members are a team of
professionals who enjoy a working relationship while the parent does not share this
camaraderie, putting the parent at a distinct disadvantage. They thought parents would
be much less comfortable sharing needed information with a group instead of with a
school social worker (SSW) in private. “A cursory discussion by team members at a
pre-MDC meeting to determine whether or not the social developmental study is
necessary is neither sufficient nor appropriate.” They noted that parental involvement is
a strong mandate in IDEA and stated that the SSW is the primary person who fosters
parental involvement through conducting the SDS, specifically the parent interview, in a
safe atmosphere. “I have yet to meet a parent who willingly and comfortably reveals
more than an “everything is fine” when seated at a table with numerous professionals,
albeit strangers.”
A final issue expressed by many commenters was their concern that the currently
required social developmental study, including an assessment of the student’s ability to
adapt in various in-school and out-of-school situations, should continue to be conducted
whenever a child is evaluated or re-evaluated. Investigating more than just the
presenting problem leads to identifying student strengths and solutions that would
otherwise have gone unidentified. The social developmental study evaluates all the
systems, which have influenced the child’s growth and development, and assesses how
those systems affect the child’s ability to benefit from his experiences in the educational
environment. Many times, prior to conducting a social developmental study, school staff
feel nothing can be gained by investigating the student’s home environment, only to
discover circumstances which greatly affect the student’s ability to learn. “To have a
case study evaluation without an SDS is like conducting a dental check-up without xrays.”
Qualifications of Evaluators (Section 226.840)
Summary of Comments
Commenters felt very strongly that school social workers are the only certificated
professionals qualified to conduct a social developmental study. They presented as
evidence an IDEA regulation as well as numerous references to our own Illinois
certification standards and competency testing requirements.
It was asserted that the federal regulation at 34 CFR 300.24(b)(13) clearly identifies the
school social worker as the only professional qualified to conduct the social assessment
and that IDEA identifies no other professional as qualified to do so. Further, ISBE
certification rules require SSW’s to take the coursework necessary to train professionals
to conduct the SDS and do not require this of any other certificated professional.
Commenters stated that, when the SDS has been done by someone other than a
qualified SSW, this component has typically been given cursory attention. “The notion
of having school psychologists or school guidance counselors conduct the social
developmental study is akin to the erroneous concept that because someone has taken
a class in statistics and test administration that he/she could function as adequately as a
school psychologist.”
Specific comments were also made that school professionals who are not intimately
familiar with the complexity and extent of the expertise needed to conduct the social
developmental study tend to discount its value in the diagnostic process. Guidance
counselors do not have the training, expertise, or knowledge of special education to
consult with parents effectively and evaluate students’ needs. School psychologists
already have a large responsibility for conducting special education evaluations. Adding
the social developmental study to their workload would make it much more likely that
their own biases and impressions will affect placement to a greater extent. For this
reason, commenters believed multiple team members need to be involved in the
assessment. “If school social workers are not mandated to do the SDS chances are the
SDS and its component parts will not get done and students will only be recognized by
academic performance and teacher observation.”
Description of School Social Work Services (Section 226.310(j))
Summary of Comments
The commenters felt quite strongly that this section of the rules should use the word
“shall” to express as a definition of services the duties to be performed only by the
school social worker, rather than the word “may” used in the proposed rule. They
believe that IDEA’s definition of related services at 300.24(b)(13) clearly states that
school social work services “include” a number of duties/functions which the proposed
regulations list, in error, as “may” include. In their view, stating that these functions
“shall” be performed by a school social worker would better comply with IDEA and
would support the value of these services to students, staff, and parents. They believe
the proposed rule implies that anyone, no matter their lack of qualifications, can provide
the functions listed and diminishes the school social worker’s ability to advocate for
children and families. “School social work services are more important now than ever
before because of the increased violence in our schools and using the term “may”
appears to diminish the important role of the school social worker.”
CASE LOAD FOR SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS
(Section 226.730(b)(3))
Over 270 letters, large-scale petitions, and e-mails, bearing the signatures of some
1,000 individuals, dealt with the following provision:
3)
The number of children served by a speech-language pathologist shall be
based on the severity of the speech-language needs of each child. At no
time shall the caseload exceed 80 students.
(This language is found in Section 226.250 of our existing rules and was carried forward
unchanged into the proposed rules.)
While most of the commenters indicated that they were speech-language pathologists,
several dozen letters were also received from parents concerned for the quality of
service children would receive. Every one of these respondents requested that the
number 80 be lowered. In support of this request, numerous commenters outlined the
changes that have taken place in the student population they serve since the maximum
of 80 was established more than 20 years ago. In particular, they noted that most of the
students seen in the school setting at that time presented fairly straightforward
difficulties with articulation or stuttering; they would probably not even be eligible for
special education under today’s rules. They indicated how the complexity and severity
of children’s needs have changed by enumerating the conditions and syndromes that
today’s students experience. In their view, receptive and expressive language
disorders, voice disorders, feeding and swallowing problems, reading and writing
delays, planning and training for the use of augmentative communication devices, and
difficulties with social language skills require more intensive intervention than a
caseload of 80 permits.
A number of the commenters noted that, in theory, the first sentence of Section
226.730(b)(3) should be adequate, in that it limits the speech-language pathologist’s
caseload to the number who can be served effectively and alludes to the use of a
severity scale. In practice, however, they noted that many district administrators believe
80 is always allowable, so in those districts that number becomes the caseload
everyone has to carry and severity is not taken into account.
Several other aspects of the SLP’s workload were highlighted repeatedly. The amount
of paperwork that has to be completed was first and foremost among these. Many
commenters noted that federal requirements had increased dramatically with the advent
of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and subsequently with IDEA.
(“Before I can begin a class with a student, I need to fill out at least nineteen pages of
paperwork in triplicate...”) Others stressed additional tasks that fall to the SLP: “Today
we conduct speech-language screenings, carry out comprehensive diagnostic
evaluations, write reports, participate in multidisciplinary team conferences, develop
IEP’s, participate in parent/teacher conferences, complete required documentation,
conduct annual review conferences, consult/collaborate with classroom teachers and
participate on child study committees (to name a few).”
The commenters were not suggesting that these other tasks be removed from their
workload. On the contrary, they noted that several components are necessary to
successful habilitation: parental involvement, communication with students’ case
managers, other professionals, and paraprofessionals, and preparation of materials, in
addition to paperwork.
They expected to be accountable for a collaborative,
interdisciplinary approach to meeting the needs of children who present enormous
challenges. They stated that this requires ongoing opportunities to meet with other
professionals for planning and evaluation, and that the time spent in such endeavors
affects the caseload a person can manage. Additionally, it is necessary to consider
travel time and the effects of scheduling. Not taking these into account compromises
the quality of service; caseload size should balance time for direct services and time for
other responsibilities.
It was repeatedly pointed out that SLP’s couldn’t provide appropriate services to
students when there is not enough time to do so. A large caseload requires large class
groupings in order to see students for the amounts of time specified in their IEP’s.
However, while on paper the students are receiving the planned number of minutes of
service, students with intense needs do not make very much progress and do not get
out of the program; they stay in therapy for years and the caseload grows even larger.
(“It’s no wonder that many children work for years on the same goals.”)
The respondents contrasted what they stated to be effective practice with the situation
they currently face. They noted that many students could be helped much more quickly
if they could get adequate therapy early in their lives. It was pointed out that, according
to recent brain research, with increased intensity of a task, new neural connections
could be made. In other words, the time currently available for therapy is not in line with
what is known about how students progress. (“We are not doing anyone any justice.”)
Commenters did not hesitate to acknowledge that school districts and cooperatives
would have to hire additional SLP’s if the caseload maximum were lowered, and that
they have had a difficult time finding available candidates. They attributed this apparent
shortage to Illinois’ high caseload in comparison to working conditions in surrounding
states. (Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Kentucky have numbers ranging from 32 to 60
students, and according to ASHA, the national average maximum is 52.) They
expressed the belief that the maximum of 80 serves as a strong disincentive to service
in the Illinois public schools and that lowering that number would go a long way toward
solving the problem of supply. They stated that students in the field no longer see the
public schools as a viable place for employment, so that hospitals, nursing homes, and
clinics have become more attractive. On the other hand, this was stated to be an
opportune time to “capture” speech pathologists released from other settings due to
changes in managed care programs, and lowering the caseload maximum was thought
to be an effective way of attracting both these experienced professionals and “the better
and brighter graduate students.” (“Now is the time to “hook” them on working in the
schools.”) Conversely, “It is unethical to sacrifice the treatment of students due to a
shortage of speech-language pathologists. With increased caseloads, the public school
system will drive away potential speech-language pathology applicants.” Also, “This
has been a problem and a disgrace for our state for years.”
In summary, the number 80 was called overwhelming, unreasonable, ridiculous,
unbelievable, ludicrous, unmanageable, impossible, not workable, detrimental to
children, exorbitant, disappointing, to say the least, unbearable, outdated, ambiguous,
illogical, inconceivable, indefensible, highly inappropriate, unrealistic, archaic,
antiquated, outrageous, obtuse, infuriating; a disincentive to work in Illinois schools,
incongruous with the roles and responsibilities of the public school SLP and a gross
disservice to students. (“Only the Bionic Speech Pathologist could successfully service
80 students with today’s needs and rules and regulations!”)
For a more appropriate benchmark, many pointed to the maximum caseload of 40
students (25 for early childhood caseloads) recommended by the American Speech and
Hearing Association (ASHA), while others mentioned a maximum of 50 or 60. Another
frequently suggested approach was the use of a severity rating scale developed in the
early 1990’s, which assigns “service delivery units” to the students who are seen by a
speech-language pathologist (SLP) in accordance with the severity of their disabilities
and the intensity of their needs. The caseload is then capped at 100 units rather than
according to an arbitrary headcount. This method is explained in a technical assistance
manual distributed by the State Board and is apparently used in many Illinois districts.
Commenters complimented its usefulness and suggested that it be mandated. (“Where
100 severity units are not respected as a maximum, time is misspent, the job gets done
halfway; and the income is not worth the stress. Put in a weighted formula and allow us
to do a professional job.”)
One respondent voiced the plea of many colleagues: “Give us a chance to help Illinois
students with speech disabilities improve sooner, vs. later.”
CASE LOAD/CLASS SIZE (Section 226.730)
Approximately 100 comments were received from a variety of respondents regarding
Section 226.730, which deals with case load and class size as these relate to the
varying needs of the students receiving special education services.
The rule
distinguishes between “instructional” classes and services and “resource” classes and
services, according to the portion of a student’s day accounted for by the service. (It
should be noted that our current rules define “instructional” as provided to a student for
50 percent or more of the school day, as opposed to 60 percent in the proposed rules.)
Commenters expressed concern about placing students who receive services for
between 50 and 60 percent of their school day in the “resource” setting, where the
allowable class size is larger than in the “instructional” setting. Many stated that this
change to 60 percent would greatly increase the number of students in the resource
program and would undermine the quality of services being provided. They felt that
students need smaller classes to benefit from individualized instruction, not larger ones.
Many commenters stated that it is currently difficult to adequately serve children who
receive services with a 50 percent threshold. In addition, they stated that resource
programs are not appropriate if a student is receiving services for 50 percent of the day
or more. When a student is in an instructional class, he/she receives more
individualized and specialized services, and the 50 percent threshold should remain in
order to offer students the individualized instruction needed.
The main impact of the proposed change would have been on caseload. Resource
services have a maximum caseload of 1 teacher to 20 students. The maximum for an
instructional class is 1 teacher to 10 students. Increasing the resource services to 60%
of a student’s day versus 50% may result in a reduction of instructional classes with a
corresponding increase in resource services. This was a major concern to several
commenters.
Other statements included concern that many resource rooms are not full-sized, so
schools would not be able to accommodate increases in the number of students
receiving such services, and that there is no valid reason to change resource programs
up to 60 percent since there is no evidence or research that supports the change. On
the other hand, a few commenters supported the proposal to change the resource
program up to 60 percent, stating that class size requirements would be consistent with
the federal breakdown and would clear up child reporting.
Commenters acknowledged that federal reporting requirements involve distributing
children among three categories: (a) those who receive services for more than 60
percent of the school day, (b) those who receive services for 21-60 percent of the
school day, and (c) those who receive services for 20 percent of the school day or less.
They indicated that there is no need to include language in the rules regarding a
reporting mechanism and that changing the Funding and Child Tracking System
(FACTS) would be more appropriate. Others suggested adding language related to the
reporting breakdown where requirements for service in the least restrictive environment
are discussed, instead of in the case load/class size section (because the breakdown
exists for the purpose of determining whether states appear to be serving children in the
least restrictive environment).
All but a few of the commenters suggested that the rule as currently in force should
remain unchanged (referring to 50 percent instead of 60 percent). One commenter
suggested that if the proposed language is adopted, the case load/class size of 20
should be lowered.
On a related note, some commenters interpreted subsection (c), which deals with
enrollment in classes provided to students for less than 20 percent of the school day, to
mean that students needing service for such a limited time would not be considered
eligible for special education or eligible for resource services. Some proposed either
eliminating that subsection or inserting language to make students’ eligibility explicit,
while another idea was to create a title for this category (presumably also to make the
fact of students’ eligibility clear).