Workload Law for Illinois Special Educators

Originally published in the January 2023 issue of the ISHA Voice; republished in the September 2024 issue of the ISHA Voice

By Karen Kockler, School Affairs Committee member and the IL SEAL for ASHA

In June 2007, the 23 Illinois Administrative Code Section 226.735 Workload for Special Educators was enacted, and became a law that affects all special educators in the state. This 2007 version of the law required that school districts “…shall adopt a plan specifying limits on the workload of its special educators” for the 2009-10 school year. Workload plans were to “be developed in cooperation with the entity’s affected employees so that all services required under students’ IEPs, as well as all needed ancillary and support services, can be provided at the requisite level of intensity”. This version of the law was amended in January 2016 when the “2009-10 school year” language was replaced with “…to ensure timely implementation by the start of the school year”.

So, let’s review what this law is telling us.

First, it Is a law. According to the Oxford dictionary, law is a “system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties”. From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, law is “a binding custom or practice of a community: a rule of conduct or action prescribed (or dictated) or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority”. Schools are communities, and we who are members of school communities, must follow the law with our actions. Administrators and special educators, which includes speech-language pathologists and all School Support Personnel (SSP), must uphold the law. This is not an option or choice. If we don’t act in compliance, we run risks of being found in violation of the law and of our ethics—ASHA’s Code of Ethics (see Principle of Ethics II F and Principle of Ethics IV R), and the Illinois Educator Code of Ethics (see the Preamble). Most importantly, we run the risk of losing our credentials.
Next, “…shall adopt a plan specifying the limits on the WORKLOAD of its special educators” and do so “…in cooperation with the entity’s affected employees”: In other words, representatives of all special ed teachers and SSP disciplines, with administration, are to be involved in the development of a plan that will “limit” the workloads (no reference to caseloads) of the “affected” employees.
These plans are to be developed “…so that all services required under students’ IEPs [all services] can be provided at the requisite level of intensity”. All services–direct, indirect, ancillary and supportive–must be provided as described and as required by each student’s IEP—not as dictated by district administrators, not just by IEP minutes, not as a program group, but as determined by each student’s IEP team.
And, finally, workloads for each special ed teacher and SSP shall be determined and implemented by the start of the school year. More on this later…
The language in the law continues with a description of the activities that must be included when analyzing workloads. This description states:

“Work load limits shall be based on an analysis of the activities for which the entity's special educators are responsible and shall encompass, but need not be limited to:

individualized instruction; *[eg. services you provide directly to students, in and out of the classroom].
consultative services and other collaboration among staff members; *[eg. consultation with individual teachers, parents, outside agencies, etc.; collaboration in the form of team meetings, planning, modifying curricula, and possibly co-teaching, for individual students];
attendance at IEP meetings, and other staff conferences *[eg. parent-teacher conferences]; and
paperwork and reporting.” *[eg. evaluations, report writing, progress updates, Medicaid billing].

*Items in [ ] denote specific examples, not language embedded within the law.

It is important to remember that as an “entity’s special educator”, each of us is responsible not only for the services we provide as SLPs, SLPAs, and audiologists to our students, but we also have responsibilities and duties to the staff and to the district. These activities need to be included in the analysis as well, for they constitute “work” for which we are responsible, and we should have time to perform these duties and responsibilities at work, within our contractual time. Omitting these activities, along with not including specific IEP requirements, is why many of us find ourselves working many hours AFTER our contractual day, especially those of us expected to manage 60 students (or in some cases, more). It’s why too many of us sacrifice our home life and family time because we don’t have enough time in our work day to complete all that is required of us. So, when analyzing your workload, it is critical to include everything you need to do—direct AND indirect services, consultations, networking, collaboration with teachers, documentation, observations, evaluations, planning and materials preparation time (for what you will actually do with each of your students/groups; not report writing, evaluating, etc.), lunch times (to take care of yourself), building duties, Medicaid billing…everything!

The final section of the law refers specifically to speech-language pathologists. It is written as “The number of children served by a speech and language pathologist shall be based on the speech-language needs of each child. The other provisions of this Section notwithstanding, at no time shall the caseload of a speech and language pathologist exceed 60 students.” In other words, the number of students with whom an SLP works is based first on the needs of the students, then no more than 60 students. I believe the maximum of 60 students was the guidance before Section 226.735 was enacted, but finding a reference to this effect proved difficult. I do know that those who originally fought to get the language of 60 students to be the maximum, insisted that it remain in the Workload law as a protection. According to ISBE’s Special Education department, the main focus of the law is workload analysis which does, in fact, apply to SLPs, with the last section being a final “check” to ensure SLPs are not overwhelmed (FAQs). However, it seems many administrators continue to use this as a default method of determining caseloads for SLPs, and do not apply the workload part of the law as it is written. Since it is based on caseload numbers and not on an analysis of the work required by SLPs, this practice has resulted in overwhelming workloads, and perhaps contributes to the significant attrition of SLPs leaving the school setting.

Illinois districts could save time and money by implementing one of several FREE workload analysis plans already in existence; here are a few examples:

The ASHA Workload Calculator (very similar to North Carolina’s WL tool).
The ISHA Speech Language Pathology Guide: Eligibility and Workload Analysis.
or explore those from other states, for example North Carolina (very similar to ASHA’s WL Calculator).

Returning to the issue of when and how often to complete workload analyses may depend on which process you use. The ASHA and NC workload calculators are completed daily for one week, or daily for a month, and ASHA has a telepractice version of the calculator as well. Depending on your district administrators, you could be required to complete an ASHA calculator multiple times throughout the year. The ISHA Workload Analysis is designed to follow all of the requirements of Section 226.735. One form for each student is completed annually (suggested to be completed immediately after a student’s annual review) or if/when the IEP must change, and one summary form per SLP annually, or if/when the caseload changes. The student WL form documents ALL the activities required by each student’s IEP, and the SLP summary page calculates total direct minutes/month, the number of indirect minutes/month, plan time, lunch time, supervision time (if any), and all other time needed to complete district-required activities. It also calculates each SLP’s Full Time Equivalent (FTE) based on total contractual time and total time needed to complete all activities…real time, not in arbitrary units or units based solely on number of students and/or IEP minutes. SLP teams could use the data on these forms to determine staffing needs for the following year (if compiled in January/February of each year, so that any needed positions could be posted beginning in March of each year).

Could there be better ways to analyze workloads? Perhaps. Until enough data has been collected that will provide average WL minutes for SLPs, detailed analyses of IEPs must be completed. In the meantime, ISBE gave us this wonderful law, and we ought to stand by it, advocating for ourselves and the students and families we serve. Our codes of ethics call us to comply with the law; if we don’t, we risk losing what we’ve worked so hard to gain.

Karen serves as ASHA’s State Education Advocacy Leader (Co-SEAL) for Illinois, and is a member of the School Affairs and Legs & Regs Committees.