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.