We have some wealthy school systems in VA. They have a strong tax base to 'purchase' personnel/resources to support students with disabilities in accessing the general ed and/or special ed curriculum. But what about those 'wanna-bes' who think they can do the same thing as the wealthy ones but without this strong tax base? This is what happens:

A child between the ages of 5-8s years old residing in Fairfax has lost that wonderful "opening doors' option of being called DD. They are now sorted into one of those fed definition categories. ugh. However, some of those doors to the gen ed classroom are more likely to be opened in Fairfax than a 'less-resource' school system because there is more support personnel, like "Inclusion Specialists', to go with them into the gen ed room. When that child needs some 'back up' support in a resource room with a sped staff member for part of the day, it is likely that child will go into a room that has an age span of 5-8 yrs old.

Not so in 'wanna-be' school system. 'Wanna-be' has eliminated the DD name option for the 5-8s so it incorrectly assumes that a 'label defines placement'  and eliminates all its DD teachers and all its DD resource rooms. It justifies this wrong-headed decision by saying it will cut back on 'disproportionate rep' and over-ID in sped. hmmm-just how much did it cost for  those outstanding, flexible, creative DD teachers, DD staff and DDclassrooms (with DD children of various skill levels, not homogeneous, segregated student groupings of EMR, TMR, LD, ED) who are now cut out of the budget.? Wanna-be' doesn't have enough money to buy staff and says there's not enough students to justify two speds/school building. So that baby who resides in 'wanna-be' who previously had that DD label option goes into a resource room (in a system that doesn't have the 'outside-the-box' thinking to just call it 'the resource room' so sticks with old-dog terms, like the EMR, ED or LD room, and that baby is now in a room that has an age span of 5 years old to 5th grade. totally ugh.

What was VCASE thinking to propose this 'backwards' step of eliminating the DD option for our young children with disabilities in that vulnerable developmental period of 5-8 yrs old? Didn't they even consider the research, the back up by such respected people, Jane Mercer, Janet Lerner, and organizations, such as the National Assn for the Ed of Young Children and the Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children? Nah. VCASE just was 'single issue': reduce the %age of children in sped so let's just cut out that DD option. sooooooooo totally ugh bc there are so many unseen 'ripple' effects that weren't even taken into consideration. And our young children, formerly labeled with DD, will now have doors shut because of the segregating nature of those fed dis categories, and the mindset of the ed bureaucracy that they, not the parents who are the only constant in their own child's life, are the experts and the specialists. So our young children with disabilities will become what they are mis-labeled at the young age of 5 years old. How awful.

VBOE-maintain that DD option and align it with the fed age range to age 9 yrs old. It's the right thing to do so our young children with disabilities can still have bright educational futures.