A UER is an automatic remedy that will be offered to students identified as potentially adversely impacted during the 2016-17 and/or 2017-18 school years in areas identified by public inquiry. Last school year, the majority of these students were previously identified as those who would automatically receive an SSCA meeting. See above timeline for details.
While a student is typically only entitled to compensatory education services after a delay or denial of services that caused a lack of expected progress has been established, UERs are being offered to streamline the SSCA process and deliver services to students who may have been impacted by the violations identified in the ISBE Public Inquiry.
UER meetings will be conducted via conference call. A centralized ODLSS SSCA team will notify parents/guardians via U.S. mail, email, and/or telephone to inform them of their eligibility for a UER and schedule a phone conference to discuss UER options.
NOTE: The areas and years for which the student has been identified to receive a UER will be specified on the Notice of UER Conference Call document. If the parent/guardian believes that their child was impacted in another SSCA area or another year identified in the ISBE Public Inquiry Report, the parent/guardian may request an SSCA meeting.
Identification of Students Eligible for a UER
With ISBE approval, CPS utilized information from their electronic system (via SSM data pulls) to identify a class of students who were potentially impacted in three areas identified as problematic by the Public Inquiry: paraprofessional support, transportation as a related service, and eligibility for extended school year (ESY) services. For these three areas, data was pulled via the following parameters:
A student’s 2015-16 IEP was the starting point of analysis.
- If the student’s 2015-16 IEP indicated eligibility for a particular support/service identified by the Public Inquiry, then the student’s 2016-17 and. 2017-18 IEPs were then reviewed to see if those services were removed.
See Fig. 1
|Extended School Year
|The student had ESY on their 2015-16 IEP but did not have ESY on the last finalized IEP in the 2016-17 abd/or 2017-18 school year(s).
|The student has transportation on their 2015-16 IEP but the service was not on the 2016-17 abd/or 2017-18 IEP(s) and the student was not enrolled in his/her neighborhood school.
|The student had paraprofessional support on their 2015-16 IEP but the service was not on the 2016-17 and/or 2017-18 IEP(s) AND paraprofessional support was not noted in Section 10: Accommodation & Modifications or Section 11: Specialized Instruction (goal).
The student's record includes a paraprofessional justification form that was left in draft during the 2016-17 and/or 2017-18 school year(s).
|Specific Learning Disability
|The student's record includes a Learning Environment Intervention's (LEI) or Learning Environment Screening (LES) that was left in draft during the 2016-17 and/or 2017-18 school year(s).
NOTE: The review of the 2016-17 and 2017-18 IEPs was not conducted to determine whether the IEP team made the “correct” data-based decision or the student was harmed; instead, the review examines whether a “lock or block” within the system prevented the team from recommending services that the student may have otherwise been eligible to receive.
Two IEP-related areas were identified as potentially problematic by the Public Inquiry as challenging to include in the CPS data run: (1) an improper delay or denial of placement of students in a therapeutic day school setting (100% removal from the general education setting); and (2) identification of students eligible under the disability category of specific learning disability (SLD) (see Fig. 1 regarding the initial data capture). To address this problem, the notices and letters encouraged Parents to request an SSCA meeting if they believe their child was impacted in these areas.
CPS identified approximately 10,000 (i.e. about 1 in 5 students with disabilities) as qualifying for a UER. All identified students in this group may not have been delayed or denied services during the 2016-17 and/or 2017-18 school years. However, without admitting liability, CPS erred on the side of overinclusive data and agreed to provide a UER to these students without conducting further analysis.