Judy Hackett is president and Timothy Thomas is legislative chairperson for the Illinois Alliance of Administrators of Special Education. Shayne L. Aldridge, a former teacher and special education administrator, is an attorney in the Springfield office of Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn.

In the January/February 2008 issue of The Illinois School Board Journal, "How many teachers will it take to teach special ed in Illinois?" addressed the practical aspects school boards will face when confronting the special education class size and workload regulations issued by the Illinois State Board of Education in June 2007, and how districts would implement them. Now we would like to give you a glimpse into the historical perspective surrounding the regulations and how special education cooperatives, associations, districts and their personnel can help lead the way for school board compliance.

In The Republic, the Greek author and philosopher Plato stated: "The beginning is the most important part of the work."

In order to remain in compliance with the newly reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 and its implementing regulations, the Illinois State Board of Education drafted a set of regulations to address impending changes. ISBE determined that it should reduce the number of state regulations by eliminating those that duplicated federal regulations, as well as revise outdated or ineffective processes dictated by the old regulations.

The state board released the newly drafted regulations in April 2006, and in keeping with its normal practice, sent the regulations out on a "tour" of Illinois to gather public comments through October 2006. In August 2006, however, the U.S. Department of Education finalized and issued its federal regulations implementing the IDEA reauthorization. Consequently, the state board considered the public comments and approved its regulations in December 2006. This was a much swifter response than the 1997 IDEA reauthorization when it took the state board more than four years to develop and distribute its regulations.

At the beginning of 2007, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR), which is authorized to conduct systematic reviews of administrative rules promulgated by state agencies, prohibited the state board from implementing the regulations it just spent nearly a year developing and gathering feedback from the field. JCAR members asked ISBE to revise some of the regulatory language and to engage specific stakeholders in the development of certain provisions, namely Sections 226.730, 731, and 735, Class Size and Workload.

In response, ISBE brought together various educational stakeholders to develop the areas that JCAR identified as needing further revision. Included in this process were representatives from the teachers' associations, advocates for students and families, special education administrators, regular education administrators, regional superintendents of schools, school law attorneys, as well as ISBE personnel. Each panel member brought a perspective to the table to discuss how the regulations would affect their constituents.

Through discussion and compromise, the group drafted provisions that were mostly agreeable to all sides to address class size and workload. The group revised some provisions, drafted new ones, and put on paper some issues that had been bandied about in the field, but until that time, no group had ever formalized.

One area that school boards must address in a critical fashion is the composition of their general education classrooms under the "70/30 Rule." The regulation requires that, for a classroom to be considered a general education classroom, at least 70 percent of the class must be composed of students without Individual Education Plans (IEPs), thus, the term "70/30." Not only must the percentage of students be correct in the classroom, but the classroom also must use the general education curriculum, while being taught by a teacher certified in general education instruction.

Additionally, the class cannot be a general remedial classroom through practice or designation. This has been the criteria for general education classrooms for many years, but has not been strictly adhered to by some school districts. The regulations now carve this criteria into stone.

Putting it in black and white, in the form of an administrative regulation, has made it clear that school districts must sit up and take notice of the rule and start counting the number of students with IEPs in each classroom. Even with confusion surrounding the "70/30 Rule," school boards must not lose sight of the federal mandate that special education students should be educated with their non-disabled peers to the maximum extent practicable. The rule is merely a way to ensure that Illinois school districts are meeting the letter, as well as the spirit, of the law.

Mark Twain once said, "Work is a necessary evil to be avoided." Most educators and classroom teachers, however, take the viewpoint that teaching and providing special services to students is a "labor of love." The panel undertook its task of finding compromise and common ground with this in mind.

To get there, some essential elements needed defining in order to begin the discussion of the issues surrounding special education workloads. The state board defined "class size" as the number of special education students in the classroom during any class period. "Case load," as state board defined, is the number of special education students for which the teacher is actually responsible.

With these definitions in hand, the panel set its sights on helping districts quantify the special educators' responsibilities to ensure that students actually receive the appropriate public education to which they are entitled to under federal and state law.

The panel determined that the individuals most affected by the workload regulation, the people actually doing the work, should be included in formulating the workload limit plans within their own school districts. To this end, the panel provided for schools to adopt a plan that specifies the limits on the workload of their special educators so that all special education and related services are provided at the requisite intensity levels to ensure student achievement. School boards must adopt and implement their plans so they are in effect for the 2009-10 school year or at the end of a current collective bargaining agreement in effect at that time. The regulation requires school boards and special educators to come together to develop the plan. The affected employees (i.e., the special educators) must have input into plan development. The regulation also provides that the plan must be developed "in cooperation with" the exclusive bargaining representative, if one is present.

Some areas regarding workload have always been a potential subject of collective bargaining and this is hardly a new concept at the negotiation table. Under the Illinois Education Labor Relations Act, educational employers are required to bargain subjects related to "the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment." Moreover, IELRA provides that educational employers and employees may bargain decisions to determine class size and class staffing. Clearly, school boards are not strangers in a strange land when it comes to bargaining for wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, so this area should not present a significant challenge, if approached in the correct fashion.

An old saying goes, "If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail." With this in mind, the panel set out some of the details it believed would be necessary for school districts to address in their plans. The regulation provides that the limitations on the special educators' workloads should be "based on an analysis of the activities for which the special educators are responsible."

Special educators spend the majority of their time in four major areas: (1) providing individualized instruction or therapy; (2) consulting and collaborating with other staff members regarding individual students; (3) attending IEP meetings and other staff conferences; and (4) the associated paperwork and reporting for those activities. These areas, the panel felt, must be considered when school districts develop their plans. The list is not exhaustive and the parties may include other such tasks that are individual or unique to their particular situations.

Fortunately, much of the data that districts need to analyze may be collected in the school environment. Clearly, teachers and therapists have their schedules for the school year and can easily determine the amount of time they spend providing individualized instruction or therapy to students.

But three areas will require more intentional study. Special educators will need to track the amount of time they spend attending IEP meetings, in consultation and collaboration, and completing paperwork and reports. The Illinois Alliance of Administrators of Special Education has committed to collecting such data from districts all over the state. The Alliance hopes that it can compile the data on a statewide basis and determine some averages that school districts can use for planning purposes. With this data in hand, school districts should find it easier to determine their own workload amounts for the special educators in their schools.

The panel also believed that, once empowered with the data concerning the amount of time special educators spend performing certain tasks, school districts would be better able to address students' educational needs thus impacting special education student achievement. While there was considerable debate on this topic among the panel members, it was felt that the arrived at compromise was a better vision for special education than just providing a strict set of guidelines or mandated staffing levels and student time formulas. Allowing school districts to collect and analyze the data from their own educational environments allows school boards, administrators and the affected special educators to make individualized determinations as to what their plans will address regarding workloads and reflects the broad diversity of school districts in Illinois.

As Hannah Montana, aka Miley Cyrus, sings: "Mix it all together and you know that it's the best of both worlds." But Hannah/Miley is not the only one who can lay claim to having the best of both worlds; school districts and special and general educators can as well.

After nearly six months of negotiations, consensus building and complex cooperative efforts of the various stakeholder groups, the panel revised the special education regulations producing language that allows school districts to experience the best of both worlds: teacher satisfaction and improved student achievement.

It appears that the panel and the state board believe that if embraced and earnestly put into practice, the class size and workload regulations will enable school boards to realize an increase to their bottom lines: higher student achievement. Because the regulations are mandatory and the state will require the plan, school districts should take a proactive approach to development, beginning as soon as possible.

While it is hard to believe, the 2009-10 school year is not that far away, and a plan will need to be in place.

Plato, The Republic, Greek author & philosopher in Athens (427-347 BC).

IASB ARCHIVES HOME