|fi 65| 2007 illinois spec ed regulations revision
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1
2
SUMMARY OF 2007 ILLINOIS SPECIAL EDUCATION REGULATION CHANGES
Section Change Impact
226.50(c) “Eligibility; Graduation or
Completion of Program”
The new requirements in Illinois give
children the right to receive services
through age 21 (or the day before the
student‟s 22nd
birthday)
This new provision extends services for
those children who turn 21 during a
school year to include summer school
and part of the next school year.
226.75 “Definitions” “Developmental Delay:” Changes the age
requirement from 3-5 years of age to 3-9
years of age
“Disability:” Adds a provision indicating
that the special education category of
“Autism… shall include… any Autism
Spectrum Disorder that adversely affects
a child‟s educational performance.”
“Emotional Disturbance:” Changes the
definition to read “over a long period of
time,” instead of “extended period of
time.”
“Other Health Impairment:” Changes the
definition to read “including a heightened
alertness to environmental stimuli,”
instead of “heightened sensitivity.” In
addition, the definition adds Tourette‟s
Syndrome as an example of the types of
children found eligible under the OHI
category.
- With this addition, it will now be clear
to school districts which categorization
children with Asperger‟s Syndrome
should be given.
Webster‟s dictionary:
extended = to stretch out to fullest
length
long = having greater length than usual,
or extending over a considerable time
3
Section Change Impact
226.75 “Definitions”
(cont’d)
Deleted the “Educational Performance1”
definition in its entirety
No where in the federal statute or
regulations is there an alternative
description of “educational
performance,” however the Children‟s
Mental Health Act of 2003 mandates
ISBE to “incorporate social and
emotional development standards as
part of the Illinois Learning Standards
for the purpose of enhancing and
measuring children‟s school readiness
and ability to achieve academic
success.” In addition, it requires school
district to develop a policy
incorporating social and emotional
development into the district‟s
educational program, which must
“address teaching and assessing social
and emotional skills and protocols for
responding to children with social,
emotional or mental health problems, or
a combination of such problems, that
impact learning ability.”
1 This definition defined “educational performance” as “A student‟s academic achievement and ability to establish and maintain social relationships and to
experience a sound emotional development in the school environment.”
4
Section Change Impact
226.75 “Definitions”
(cont’d)
“Related Services:” This change
eliminates cochlear implant mapping as a
related service which districts are
mandated to provide.
“Supplementary Aids and Services:” This
change added a mandate that districts
provide “aids, services and other
supports” during “extracurricular and
nonacademic settings.”
“Transition Services:” Adds language
that indicates the transition activities
have to be “focused on improving the
academic and functional achievement of
the child.” Also adds the caveat that
transition services for disabled children
“May be special education, if provided as
specifically designed instruction, or a
related service, if required to assist a
child with a disability to benefit from
special education.”
- This latest addition extends disabled
children‟s access to non-disabled peers
through participation in after school
activities (clubs, dances, etc.) if the
parent is unable to do so.
- Extends transitional services beyond
typical job coaching, and allows for
districts to provide additional special
education services in lieu of conducting
a typical transition interview if, at age
14½, the district does not believe the
child is ready for these services.
226.100 “Child Find Responsibility” Added “highly mobile children (migrant
children)” as an example of the children
school districts are mandated to actively
seek out and identify.
- Plyler v. Doe, (457 U.S. 202) which
was decided in 1982, already makes it
illegal for districts to deny student‟s
access to education based on their legal
or illegal immigration status. However,
this additional requirement for child
find will surely impact the residency
5
Section Change Impact
226.100 “Child Find Responsibility”
(cont’d)
See previous page statute (which currently does not
address the issue of temporary or
interim housing arrangements) and
residency policies currently exercised
by most school districts.
226.110 “Evaluation Procedures” The new language no longer designates it
as “referring” a child for an initial
evaluation or re-evaluation, but changes
the language to read “requesting an initial
evaluation.” This section also changes
the deadline for the district to determine
whether an evaluation is warranted from
10 to 14 school days, and indicates that
the district‟s formal notification of the
determination be provided to the parents
within that same 14 school day deadline.
This section also changes the deadline for
the completion of a case study evaluation
(and IEP meeting to review the results of
the evaluation) from 60 calendar days to
60 school days. In addition, this deadline
does not start ticking upon the “request”
of an initial or re-evaluation, but upon
“the date of the written consent from the
parent.”
- This change in language will most
likely make it easier for parents to
receive case study evaluations for their
children, and eliminates the need for
parents to know the technical special
education “jargon” for referral, and
allows them to merely ask for testing.
- This is a significant change in the
timeline requirement for a CSE, as
districts now have 60 school days –
nearly half an academic year – to
complete the CSE components.
However, the federal statute still
mandates that if a CSE is requested for
a child with less than 60 school days left
in the academic year, then the CSE and
IEP meeting to discuss the results of the
evaluations still have to be completed
by the first day of school in the next
school year.
6
Section Change Impact
226.110 “Evaluation Procedures”
(cont’d)
The new language also requires that the
district provide the parents the final
written IEP at the end of the IEP meeting
(making it no longer acceptable to mail
to the parents at a later date).
The new requirements also prohibit school
districts from filing for due process if the
parent of a child refuses to sign consent for an
initial case study evaluation.
See previous page
226.130 “Additional Procedures for
Students Suspected of or Having a
Specific Learning Disability”
The new provision mandates that school
districts begin implementing Response
To Intervention2 (“RTI”) as part of the
evaluation procedure no later than the
beginning of the 2010-2011 school year.
New language also indicates, however,
that the district cannot deny parents a full
case study evaluation if based on the
child‟s participation in RTI.
Despite requiring the use of RTI in the
future, Illinois also indicated in the new
language that school districts still “may
use a severe discrepancy between
intellectual ability and achievement for
determining whether a child has a
specific learning disability.”
- The new regulations mandate school
districts to begin implementing RTI, a
relatively new educational model
(emphasized in the 2004 IDEIA
statutes) with the goal of early
identification and intervention of
children with disabilities. However,
because of the novelty of RTI, the
Illinois State Board of Education
(“ISBE”) has yet to create learning
standards related to an RTI model
which can be universally conducted. As
such, ISBE agreed to postpone this
mandate for school districts to the 2010-
2011 school year, at which time an
acceptable RTI model should be
finalized.
2 See our attached memo, Response to Intervention and its Legal Implications, for details regarding the new methodology.
7
Section Change Impact
226.180 “Independent Educational
Evaluation”
New language mandates a deadline for
sending notice of an IEP meeting for 10
days after the parents inform the district
that their child has received a privately-
funded evaluation.
226-210 “IEP Team” Now mandates (instead of leaving it to
the discretion of the school district) that
“a person knowledgeable above positive
behavior strategies” be part of an IEP
Team of a child whose behavior impedes
his or her learning or the learning of
others.
This additional requirement in
attendance at an IEP meeting for ED
children will hopefully have a positive
impact in creating appropriate, and not
punitive, behavioral plans for students.
226.230 “Content of the IEP” Changes the age of the onset of transition
planning from 14 to 14½.
This continues to be a higher standard
than the federal regulations dictate,
which require transition planning
beginning at 16.
226.400 “Disciplinary Actions” The new language eliminates the
districts‟ prior requirement to “report
immediately” any suspension of a special
education child, including giving the
parents a “full statement of the reasons
for the suspension, and a copy of which
shall also be given to the school board.”
The state finally adapted the new federal
regulations increasing the number of
days a child can be removed to an interim
alternative educational setting from 45
calendar days to 45 school days. In
The changes in these regulations gives
school districts more discretion on
handling disciplinary matters for
children with disabilities.
In addition, they solidify the federal
regulations giving school districts
additional reasons for removing special
education students to interim
placements, and allows for a longer
period of time for interim placements –
45 schools days (nearly an academic
quarter) – instead of 45 calendar days.
8
Section Change Impact
226.400 “Disciplinary Actions”
(cont’d)
addition, the new regulations adds a third
reason for placing a child in an interim
educational setting – for “inflicting
„serious bodily injury‟ upon another
person.”
See previous page
226.560 “Notification of Parents’
Rights”
New language eliminates the mandate
that districts provide parents a copy of
the notice of procedural safeguards along
with each notification of an IEP meeting
and with each request for consent for the
re-evaluation of the child, and added a
requirement to send them annually and
“upon request” to parents/guardians.
226.610 “Information to Parents
Concerning Right to Hearing”
Adds new language into state regulations
regarding new procedures for filing due
process complaints, including adding a
sufficiency requirement to the complaint
and requiring districts to formally
respond to the complaints.
These changes to the due process
requirements place additional pressure
on both parents and school districts.
While this was done in the hopes that
both parties would amicably settle
educational disputes, they also make
due process hearings more and more
difficult for parents to conduct on their
own.
226.730 “Class Size for 2009-2010 and
Beyond”
This section adds a new definition of
“class” as being “any circumstance
where at least one special education
teacher is assigned and provides
instruction and/or therapy exclusively to
students with IEPs.”
This new definition of “class” appears
to eliminate co-taught classrooms and
inclusion classrooms from these class
size mandates.
9
Section Change Impact
226.730 “Class Size for 2009-2010 and
Beyond” (cont’d)
The new regulations for the 2009-2010
school year increase class size
allowances3 to the following:
- 154 (for classrooms who are placed in
spec ed classrooms for less than 20% of
their day)
- 105 (for classrooms whose students are
placed in spec ed classrooms for between
20 – 60% of their day), and
- 86 kids (for classrooms whose students
are placed in spec ed classrooms for
more than 60% of their day)
In addition, these class size restrictions
are no longer dependent on disability
category.
The new regulations changes the
formulary process for determining how
many children can be in special
education classes by making it based on
the percentage of time children spend
within special education classrooms, as
opposed to their specific disability
category. In many cases, the new
requirements allow for more special
education children to be placed within
specific classrooms. This increase of
class size originally was supposed to go
into effect for the 2007-2008 school
year, however backlash from teacher‟s
unions across the state ensued and ISBE
agreed to bump the change back to the
2009-2010 school year.
226.731 “Class Size Provisions for
2007-08 and 2008-09”
For the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school
years, however, class size will remain the
same7:
3 The legislature did this with one caveat: they added a section which indicates that if, during this same time frame, school districts are receiving substantially
more money in reimbursement from the state (and can therefore hire additional special education teachers), then the class size allowances would decrease once
again from 15 to 13, from 10 to 8 and from 8 to 6. 4 An additional 2 children are allowed if a classroom aide is assigned.
5 An additional 5 children are allowed if a classroom aide is assigned.
6 An additional 5 students are allowed if a classroom aide is assigned.
7 An additional 2 students are allowed if a classroom aide is assigned.
10
Section Change Impact
226.731 “Class Size Provisions for
2007-08 and 2008-09” (cont’d)
- Early childhood classroom = 5 - Severe/profound or multiple disabilities = 5
- ED = 8
- LD = 10
- Visual or auditory impairment = 12
- MR = 12 (elementary) and 15 (h.s.)
The only classrooms which will increase
in size during these two years are
resource classrooms, which will increase
to 20 students, however the new
language also indicates that “teachers
shall participate in determining the
appropriate enrollment.”
- While this regulation limits the case
load for teachers and speech-language
pathologists, there continues to be no
limit to the amount of students seen by
other certified staff, including social
workers, school psychologists,
occupational therapists, and physical
therapists.
226.735 “Work Load for Special
Educators”
This new provision mandates that school
districts are now required to “adopt a
plan specifying limits on the workload of
its special educators,” which are to be
developed in accordance with the Illinois
Educational Labor Relations Act.
The plans are to be based on the analyses
of:
1. Individualized instruction,
2. Consultative services and other
collaboration among staff members,
3. Attendance at IEP meetings and other
staff conferences, and
4. Paperwork and reporting.
This new section allows teachers and
other certified related service personnel
greater relief from over burdensome
case loads. This relief will most likely
mainly be felt by teachers and related
service personnel who are non-
unionized.
11
12
13
8 RtI instruction is to be implemented as a supplement to a child‟s regular school curriculum, not in
replacement of it. 9 There is no specification of how long each tier should last, however time frames mentioned in research
articles indicate anywhere from 8 – 16 weeks for Tier 2 and longer for Tier 3.
14
10
11
Also referred to in Illinois as the “School-Based Problem Solving,” or “Flexible Service Delivery,”
models.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
i These methodologies are “scientifically based,” meaning that they are based on research which includes:
a) systematic, empirical methods, b) rigorous data analyses that test the hypothesis and justify the general
conclusions drawn, c) reliance on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid
data allowing for replication, and d) acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal or panel of independent experts.
20 U.S.C. 7801 § 9101, the federal Elementary and Secondary Education statute.