May 14, 2020
Dr. Stephanie Jones
Chief of Diverse Learner Supports and Services
Chicago Public Schools
snjones4@cps.edu
Rebecca A. Parker
Deputy Chief of Diverse Learner Supports and Services
Chicago Public Schools
raparker@cps.edu
Dr. Carmen I. Ayala
State Superintendent of Education, Illinois State Board of Education
statesup@isbe.net
Trisha Olson
General Counsel, Illinois State Board of Education
TOLSON@isbe.net
Heather Calomese
Executive Director of Programs, Illinois State Board of Education
HCALOMES@isbe.net
Dear Partners in Education,
We are writing on behalf of the Special Education Advocacy Coalition of Chicago (SPEACC), which
is the new name for the Advocates Group, to share feedback about the recent ISBE and CPS
guidance on Remote Learning for children with disabilities and related documents (such as the
Authorized Use policy). At the outset, we want to acknowledge the incredible challenges posed to
the education community by the COVID-19 virus and resulting shutdown. We are well aware that
this unexpected event has required a massive reworking of the educational delivery system in Illinois.
We very much appreciate your work in trying to develop plans that will meet the needs of all
students, including those with disabilities, in a way that is workable and effective. We also
appreciate the efforts of the frontline educational staff, educators, related service professionals,
paraprofessionals and others that have risen to the occasion to provide new material and ways of
delivering a meaningful education for their students.
At the same time, we need to express grave concern about how Remote Learning is being
implemented and about the guidelines issued by CPS (Special Education Guidance to Remote
Learning Procedures, Standards, & Instructional Quality issued on April 27, 2020; Frequently Asked
Questions, Updated May 8, 2020) and the several related documents from ISBE (Remote Learning
Recommendations, March 27, 2020; Mandatory Suspension of In-Person Instruction Guidance for
Illinois Schools and School Districts, Last Updated May 6, 2020; Frequently Asked Questions for
Special Education During Remote Learning, Last Updated May 8, 2020), some of which are
referenced in the CPS document. Despite the City and State guidance documents, there is enormous
variation in how RL is being implemented throughout CPS and even within specific schools, as well
as in other districts. We hear from many families about various troubling concerns, including that:

 May 14, 2020
Page 2 of 6
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•

They have not received a RL plan and have not been consulted about curriculum or service
configuration for their student;
If they have a RL plan, the services provided are very minimal even for children with
significant learning needs;
Some districts are using the ISBE guidelines as a maximum amount of services to be
provided to students in special education, rather than making an individualized assessment
for each student;
They have received little or no work;
They are not receiving meaningful direct service from any staff;
Students do not have AT (e.g. phones, internet access, working computers) that allow access
to the programs and curriculum/apps and timely engagement/interaction with school staff;
Students in smaller resource rooms are now in the regular classroom with the result that their
LRE has been changed and they now must share teachers and paraprofessionals with a larger
group; and
Many parents are not able to provide sufficient support to their child and/or are not able to do
so at all due to work or other family commitments.

None of this is surprising in light of the guidance documents that CPS and ISBE have provided.
These documents are masterworks of ambiguity and contradiction, creating enormous confusion, and
leaving much of the decision making as to how to implement RL to the local school administrators or
school staff. The ultimate message from both the ISBE and CPS is that IDEA rules must be followed
and that children with IEPs are still entitled to FAPE, but that schools and educators are free to:
•
•
•
•

Reduce services,
Focus on student engagement with the material rather than with the staff member,
Allow alternative means of addressing goals and objectives, and
Provide far less (or no) service minutes overall or for particular areas of academic instruction
or related services.

Whether those developing these documents are deliberately encouraging a “flexible” approach to
FAPE and service levels to reduce the schools’ obligations, or the rampant ambiguity and
contradiction is due to an inability to provide direct concrete guidance, the end result is the same:
FAPE is being denied in both the construction and implementation of the remote learning for
children with disabilities. Despite a promise of “equity and equal access,” the reality is that many
children with disabilities, even those receiving equal minutes and instructional modalities, are not
being given adequate or equitable services to allow them substantive access to their curriculum and
goals and objectives. Others, tragically, are not engaged in RL at all, and are being permitted to
simply disappear.
The following issues reflect areas where we have the greatest concern with respect to the CPS
Guidance and underlying ISBE guidance:
I.

Involvement with parents: There is an appropriate emphasis throughout on staff outreach to
parents and involvement with them. (e.g. “The successful implementation of remote learning
begins with a positive mindset that effective, ongoing communication and collaboration with
families…make it possible to provide remote learning to all students, regardless of
disability.” ISBE Q&A, 5-8-20,1) However, most current RL services have generally been

 May 14, 2020
Page 3 of 6
implemented without parent involvement. The guidance documents endorse parent
involvement but don’t provide clear direction as to when, how or how often this is to occur.
There are so many variables for how the RL plans will work, so it is essential that there be
regular communication. Teachers and parents are both busy, but there needs to be an explicit
expectation for actual live communication initiated by the staff on a regular basis. Has CPS
considered what additional support with other tasks teachers may need to make time for
essential communication with families?
II.

FAPE: Echoing the ISBE Q&A, the CPS 4-27-20 document expresses a clear statement that
all students must be provided a “free appropriate public education.” However, the rest of that
CPS statement and at multiple other places in the document, it indicates that services may not
be provided in the same manner as typically provided or in the same amount. There is only
one example provided and no more detailed explanation of either what degree of adaptation
is acceptable or what level of actual live service is required. There is no statement that all or
even most goals should be addressed. Nor is there a statement that the minutes detailed in the
IEP are to be maintained. To the contrary, the direction to focus on skill practice, projects,
enrichment activities and literacy implicitly undermines the direction that the IEP (and goals
in the IEP) should drive the RL plan.

III.

IEP vs. Remote Learning Plan: Both the CPS and ISBE documents repeatedly indicate that
the IEP is still in force and should direct the RL plan, but neither resolve the question of how
the IEP and RLP are reconciled, whether the RLP is a revised IEP, and if not, why not. For
example, if there is concern about the RLP, staff and parents are directed to have an IEP
meeting, but it isn’t clear if that is intended to make the RLP part of the IEP, change the IEP
to allow for lesser services (which is objectionable) or simply to use it as a reference point.

IV. Consideration of Parental Burden: The CPS and ISBE guidance documents place
enormous responsibility on the parent to implement the RLP. Some parents may be able to
do this very well, but many may be unable to implement it due to having to work, not
knowing or understanding the material, not having the material in their native language if
English is not their spoken language, having other children or adults in the household that
require supervision, or not having the ability to adequately engage the student in the RL
without additional help. The CPS 4-27 document recognizes on page 4 that the RLP should
make adjustments to alleviate any unreasonable burden on the parent or guardian. We
support that position. However, it does not define what an “unreasonable burden” is, leaving
that in the hands of the school team, nor does it spell out how this determination should
occur. What if it is an “unreasonable burden?” It allows for the possibility that the RLP will
simply reduce expectations for the child (and the parent) to address the “unreasonable
burden” and does not indicate that the burden could/should be alleviated by providing
additional services. For example, a child may need 1-1 support to do the tasks in their plan,
but the parent is unable to provide that support. Rather than shifting down the expectation,
there should be consideration of providing a SECA to at least partially address the need for
support without the parent.
V.

Listed Accommodations on Page 6 are inadequate to address the real world need for
accommodations during Remote Learning: The list provided assumes the student’s ability
to self-engage and/or the presence of a parent able to assist the student. It does not provide

 May 14, 2020
Page 4 of 6
useful guidance when neither the child nor the parent has the capacity to implement the
modifications.
VI. Level of Service: We see no justification for the unilateral and substantial reduction in
service to any student nor the direction to focus on engagement without also directing
significant daily direct involvement between the student and teachers or provision of direct
related services minutes in the amount specified in the IEP. The focus on engagement allows
for staff to provide worksheets or videos without regard to their educational efficacy or
relation to the child’s needs. Many parents are reporting that their child is receiving little or
no direct instruction, let alone therapy services, but are predominantly being provided
worksheets or canned video activities. We also question why virtual availability of the
“school” is limited to four hours per day, rather than a full school day. Further, the mandated
weekly check-in is inadequate and may implicitly endorse that the only direct interaction
with students is the weekly check-in. In addition, the guidance for related service providers
calls for services to be “aligned with” the IEP or 504 plan. It doesn’t explain what “aligned”
means or whether this is intended to require that the IEP or 504 plan minutes must be
provided or only used as a benchmark with lesser service being permissible. For example,
the guidance clearly permits providers to alter the way that they deliver services to include
consultative, group or co-teaching and asynchronous services. This indicates the services
may be different than that called for in the IEP, again creating confusion and undermining the
initial commitment to FAPE and to using the IEP to drive services.
VII. Assistive Technology: Neither ISBE nor CPS recognizes the critical importance of AT to the
success of students with disabilities in RL. On the contrary, the guidance approves of
telephone access only to classes where other students have multi-sensory access and
providing students with written packets of materials instead of online access to materials with
instant feedback and no time delay of moving paper back and forth (actually there is no clear
plan of how the students with paper packets will get feedback). All students with disabilities
should have computer access, up to date computers including all software relevant to
achieving their goals, accessing the general education curriculum where needed, and access
to their teachers and RSPs. Without these tools, it is predictable that student progress will be
delayed significantly or worse, that some students will experience significant regression.
Districts should also be providing support to parents in accessing assistive technology
tools. This includes technical assistance with accessing websites and using online platforms.
VIII. Related Services: No justification is provided for why related services minutes should be
reduced. We also are troubled by the “good faith” effort language on pp 14-15 of the CPS
guidance and p. 1 of the ISBE Q&A, as this provides a laundry list of ways that direct
services can be reduced.
IX. Paraprofessionals: The paraprofessionals are arguably even more important for students
with disabilities under Remote Learning than they may be during normal times. We believe
that the paraprofessionals/SECAs should be allowed to provide direct support to students that
were already assigned shared or 1-1 support, and that additional students may require SECA
support given the challenges of Remote Learning and that such support should be provided.
This is a way to leverage staff services to provide greater support to students that need it
given the multiple demands on the teachers, related service professionals and parents. This

 May 14, 2020
Page 5 of 6
also may have implications for increasing the number of paraprofessionals/SECAS to meet
students’ IEP needs.
X.

Assessment/Evaluation/Reevaluation: We could not fully assess this section in the CPS
document, as the Link for quantitative data contained in the document blocks non-CPS users.
Despite that, we believe that there are many sources of data available to evaluation teams. In
addition, many test publishers are modifying their test procedures to allow for on-line testing.
Decisions as to whether to go forward without live testing or with remote live testing should
be carefully evaluated, with full parent involvement. There will be many students whose
disabilities are too challenging for reliable remote testing, but there will be many others that
may be evaluated either without live assessment or with remote testing.

XI. Data Collection: Reports from many parents make clear that there is not consistent
communication between school staff and parents and that many parents are not being asked
to gather or report data on student performance on a regular basis. There do not appear to be
good mechanisms for monitoring student engagement, which is a separate data issue than
amount of work completed or with a particular accuracy. The absence of accurate and
consistent data will raise problems in relation to determining at what level a student is
functioning when they return to school and whether there has been progress or regression.
Similarly, the absence of data will make decisions about extended school year difficult or
impossible.
XII. Grading: There is wide confusion about how grades are to be calculated, as well as under
what circumstances incompletes will be awarded. The ability to gain extra credit is cast as a
benign change, but in fact penalizes any student that lacks the technology, accommodations
or parental support to adequately earn extra credit. Thus, those students with adequate
support can raise their grade, while others cannot. Further, students with more severe
disabilities and/or greater difficulty accessing material will be penalized for lesser
performance. If students in these categories are then given incompletes and forced to redo the
work, they will be further penalized based on factors that are beyond their control. Finally,
because ISBE has mandated that RL cannot negatively impact a student’s grades (Q.93, p.29,
ISBE 5-6-20 Guidance), student grades risk artificial inflation, potentially depriving students
of accurate progress data that are relevant to future services.
We hope that CPS and ISBE will carefully review these comments and concerns and issue revised
and expanded guidance that provides for real access to education for children with disabilities and
provides clear direction as to what is expected, including a level and quality of service that includes
direct instruction and services adequate to allow students with disabilities to make meaningful
progress on their challenging goals. Further we hope that ISBE is developing tools to effectively
monitor and correct problems as they arise in the implementation of RL in CPS and other districts.
There is some urgency to address these issues now in order to provide guidance for the remainder of
this school year and beyond. It is clear that Remote Learning is here to stay to a significant extent at
least for the FY 21 school year because there is no conceivable way that Governor Pritzker’s May 5,
2020 Restore Illinois Stage 4 testing and tracking preconditions for opening schools in Chicago in
the Fall can be met.

 May 14, 2020
Page 6 of 6
We would appreciate a written response to our concerns by May 20 and to take some time either
before, after or during our regularly scheduled meeting on May 21 to discuss these issues with you.
Sincerely,
Matt Cohen, Matt Cohen and Associates
Sharon Weitzman Soltman, Esq.
Olga Pribyl, Vice President, Equip for Equality
On behalf of the Special Education Advocacy Coalition of Chicago (SPEACC)
cc:

Sarah Briggs
Manager District Representative
Chicago Public Schools
srbriggs@cps.edu
Laura Boedeker
Assistant General Counsel, ISBE Appointed Monitor for CPS
Illinois State Board of Education
LBOEDEKE@isbe.net
Lisa Armonda
Assistant General Counsel, ISBE Appointed Monitor for CPS
Illinois State Board of Education
LARMONDA@isbe.net
Kendra Yoch
Attorney for CPS
kby@franczek.com