Chapter 14 PA Regulations and IDEA 1

Chapter 14 PA Regulations when compared to IDEA, at first glance, seems to derive their

interpretation of the law and execution of said law into subcategories that follow a similar

categorical outline to IDEA. It seems as though Pennsylvania, takes what IDEA puts into place

and expands on it. IDEA also delegates the role of the states to put in place regulations that ensure

IDEA is followed with fidelity. Child find is one section under the IDEA law, that is left to the

state level to translate and determine what is necessary to safeguard the requirement of students

being identified in a timely manner and what that looks like. Under § 300.111 Child find the

regulations are loosely defined and give the states jurisdiction to determine certain language such

as using the term developmental delay. Developmental delay is defined in the beginning of Chapter

14 as a child who scores within a 25% deficit of what the child’s chronological age is or 1.5

standard deviation below the mean in multiple developmental areas using set diagnostic

assessments and criteria.

Interestingly enough this pattern can be seen throughout both documents. In determining

whether or not a student is eligible for specialized instruction is also a relatively general under

IDEA other than the initial definition of what it means to be a child with a disability. This definition

includes children who are evaluated and determined as having an intellectual disability, a hearing

impairment, a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment, a serious emotional

disturbance, an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment,

a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities. It doesn’t state how a child

should be evaluated under IDEA other than by multiple authentic measures. The evaluation piece

is left to be determined by the states procedures and regulations. IDEA does go into detail when it
Chapter 14 PA Regulations and IDEA 2

comes to specific learning disability diagnosis and eligibility. A common theme I noticed under

the discrepancy for determining qualifications for Specific Learning Disability were the use of the

words “lack of quality instruction” and things such as hearing, vision, limited English proficiency,

etc. The state level again, defines what stands as quality instruction and what is described as

research-based intervention. IDEA only dictates that data must show that a child is not making

sufficient progress with the use of research-based interventions.

Chapter 14 also outlines what is legal as far as caseload and class size based on the amount

of time students spend in the general education classroom. Pennsylvania determines how many

students can be serviced, whereas IDEA only speaks to who is serviced and holds the states to a

level of responsibility of providing free and appropriate education within the students least

restrictive environment. Both IDEA and Chapter 14 define least restrictive environment as

education with peers who are nondisabled to the greatest possible extent.

In conclusion, IDEA and Chapter 14 PA Regulations differ quite a bit and only share some

similarities, such as the definition of least restrictive environment. The majority of the language in

IDEA is general, except when it comes to mediation, due process, and disciplinary action amongst

special education students. Timelines are also something similar in both documents, as far as when

to acquire written consent for evaluation. Chapter 14 PA Regulations is where most of the rules

and procedures we follow as teachers in the Philadelphia School District. The states seem to have

a lot more power in determining, interpreting, and the implementation of what IDEA has set in

place.
Chapter 14 PA Regulations and IDEA 3