Proposed Special Education Administrative Rules - Summary of Survey Results


We surveyed our ISD clients regarding the possible cost implications of certain proposed rules. We received responses from 14 ISDs. The responses we received were very consistent across ISDs and they are summarized here. We recognize that, since this survey was prepared, MDE has advised that some of these rules will be amended or clarified to address these cost concerns. At this point, however, the rules have not yet been amended or clarified and you may wish to use some of these results in your comments to MDE.

Our first question was whether additional staff would need to be hired if R340.1832(1)(E), p. 129-130, established a caseload cap for each teacher based on the ISD-wide average instructional ratio computed under the rule. The ISDs were unanimous that such a rule would require a substantial increase in staff with a concomitant cost increase. In some ISDs, it was estimated that such a rule would require as much as a 30% increase in staff.

Our second question was what the cost impact would be if the instructional ratio in R340.1754(c), p. 98, were a caseload cap of twelve (12) students in early childhood programs and what the impact would be if it were a class-size cap. The ISDs were unanimous that, if this were a caseload cap, there would be a very large cost increase, in most cases requiring roughly double the current staff. If it is a class-size cap, most ISDs believed that it would have little or no cost impact.

Our third question related to the elimination of the social maladjustment exclusion in the Emotional Impairment rule, R340.1706, p. 22. If the effect of this revision were to make eligible students with conduct disorders not currently eligible, we asked how many additional students would become eligible and at what costs. All but one of the responding ISDs estimated that there would be a substantial increase in the number of EI eligible students with attendant significant cost increases. There was a wide range in their estimates of the percentage increase in the EI population, but clear consensus that there would be a large increase.

Our fourth question was regarding the Early Childhood Developmental Delay rule, R340.1711, p. 29, and the change in the eligibility threshold from the present "equal to or greater than ½ of the expected development" to "¼ of the expected development" but requiring delay in two or more areas rather than the current one or ore areas. The ISDs were unanimous in stating that there would be a very substantial increase in the number of eligible students and in program costs but there was again a wide variance in their estimates of the percentage increase in the number of eligible students. Some ISDs estimate that the number of eligible students would more than double.

Our final question was whether there would be a cost savings if the proposed Other Health Impairment rule, R340.1709A, p. 26, were amended to eliminate the requirement for a medical evaluation for ADD and AD/HD. While some ISDs estimated that there would be some cost savings, most believed that there would be little or no savings. Of more concern to several was the listing in the proposed rule of various potentially qualifying conditions. They expressed concern that this would be construed by parents as conferring automatic eligibility for any of the conditions listed and result in either a significant increase in the number of eligible students and in program costs, or an increase in due process hearing requests.