Re: Public Comment to Virginia Board of Education re: Parental Consent, Mediation; Developmental Delay (DD); Local Advisory Committees; Removal of short term goals; Child Study Committee; Observation of Classes; Transition Services
Dear Sirs,
I appreciate the opportunity to write to you regarding proposed changes to the Regulations Governing Special Education for Children with Disabilities in Virginia. I am a parent of a child with disabilities, living and attending school in Virginia. Therefore, I will be personally affected by the changes proposed.
I am opposed to the following:
I am encouraged to see that the language in the family impact statement expresses the importance of family involvement. However, it is my concern that by implementing the proposed revision limiting parental consent will result in the loss of parent/student rights.
I am opposing the following:
8 VAC 20-81-90, B-3; Prior to any partial or complete termination of special education and related services, the local educational agency shall comply with the prior written notice requirements of 8 VAC 20-81-170, C., but parental consent is not required
The parents would receive prior written notice, of course, however, at that point, the only recourse would be for the parent to initiate due process. There are very few parents who could afford attorney fees, time off from work, etc. to complete this process. Beyond that, the process is very intimidating to parents.
I see this as an issue because 8 VAC 20-81-170, E-2-a states that parental consent is not required for review of existing data as part of an evaluation, re-evaluation, or E-2-c for the screening by a teacher (or specialist) to determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation. These items should be Individualized Education Plan/Program (IEP) team considerations and should require parental consent. How can it be possible in section 8 VAC 20-81-270, E-1-d to state that parental consent is required for any revision to the IEP services, and then in E-2-f state that parental consent is not required for the termination of those same services. This language is confusing and misrepresentative. Students who truly have the need of services could suffer greatly.
I have a child with physical disabilities affecting mobility, motor skills (both fine and gross motor), as well as visual. I am concerned that with his average or above grades and test scores, someone at the school may feel that he may not require the accommodations and services that he currently utilizes. If parental consent is not required, he may be ‘screened’ to determine appropriate instructional strategies, a review be made of existing data, and then his special education services terminated—all without consent. I, as his parent, would receive only a notice of informed consent?
I feel that this is unfair to propose this change based on those parents who may wish to ‘hold onto all services when they are no longer necessary’, as I have heard from Department of Education (DOE) representatives as well as Local Education Agency (LEA) representatives. The schools feel that they are being ‘held hostage’ by certain parents. How many can there be who would do such things? I have found it rather difficult to simply get parents involved in a support and advocacy group for their own benefit. How many can possibly be so involved that they want to ‘hold the school district hostage’ providing unnecessary services? My question here, would be, why are the unnecessary services not being reduced according to need each year by the IEP team? Why is this an issue when the student reaches high school transition age? I cannot see that the regulations should be changed to the detriment of the majority of students because of the few who are receiving unnecessary services. If any student is receiving unnecessary services, then evaluations should be made to determine appropriateness of current services at the time concerns are raised.
A student such as my son who cannot write, but uses a computer, the loss of that accommodation, and accompanying Occupational Therapy (OT) service would leave him without the ability to express his understanding and knowledge in all subject areas. I feel that the loss of parental consent would have a negative effect on the students of Virginia schools.
8 VAC 20-81-190, E-2 and E-2-a, I am in agreement that mediation should conclude with a legally binding agreement if an agreement is reached. If one party or other does not follow through with the agreed upon actions there would be legal document. However, I disagree that all discussions should not be used in due process hearing or civil proceedings, if necessary. How can the occurrence of mediation and all that occurred therein not be considered? That seems unreasonable on behalf of both the parents and the Local Education Agency (LEA). It would be a known fact that mediation took place, if the proceedings were to no avail, it would become assumed that one or other participant was uncooperative during such proceedings. The result would be that a bias, intentional or otherwise, would be held by the hearing officer during the due process hearing.
8 VAC 20-81-80 N-1, In regard to the definition of Developmental Delay (DD), my own son was ‘labeled’ DD until age 9, inclusive. Until the age of 12 he had no diagnosis. Without the option of DD, he would have been uanble to receive services. I realize that this definition ends up becoming a ‘catch-all’, but with this proposed change there will simply become a new ‘catch-all’ (but very likely a ‘catch-all’ that entails more stigma than DD). It is a dangerous thing to label children at such a young age.
My child has no cognitive impairment, but his early scores were very low because of mobility/gross and fine motor delays (quite severe). He would have likely been labeled at that time with an incorrect label of Mental Retardation (MR) had the DD label not been available. I am grateful that the DD category was open to him at least long enough for him to prove in grades 1-3 that his cognition was at least average, if not above average. It took us, parents and the Local Education Agency (LEA) that long (into grades 1-3) to get the right accommodations in place for him to excel in the classroom and then tweak them to the point that he could properly utilize them.
I would like to add that I understand, after speaking with Department of Education representatives, that there is an issue of disproportionality where students receiving special education services are over-represtented in certain areas. However, I feel strongly that this is not the solution, but that more effort needs to be made to evaluate more closely in order to correctly categorize those who have a specific diagnosis, or possibly create new categories to handle new diagnoses that do not fit into current categories, especially if these new diagnoses are showing up in alarming numbers. Do not create stringent guidelines that will have a real negative impact on these young students. The label often dictates the services. We need to move away from that model, this change to the DD definition would be taking a giant leap in the wrong direction.
8 VAC 20-81-230, In regard to the proposed change to regulations allowing school administrators and teachers to become appointed members of the local special education advisory committees; I feel that this will prevent the express purpose of having the advisory committees in existence. The purpose of the advisory committee is to have an open, public forum where students, parents and interested parties may go with issues of concern that they feel need to be addressed, but are not. Having the Local Education Agency (LEA) representatives there as voting members of the committee will serve to hinder this process.
As well, the LEA relies upon the advisory committee to bring input regarding this population from the populations’ perspective. However, this will not happen if the members are paid employees of the LEA. The current regulations allow any school personnel to participate in every way on the committee with the exception of voting. This prevents any conflict of interest and undue influence on members that would negatively affect the effectiveness of the advisory committee.
One individual stated that employees of LEA’s who are also parents of students with disabilities would like to have the opportunity to serve as members. I see their issue. However, they would be unable to serve as voting members. This does not mean that they cannot participate in discussions, be present at any/all meetings, and speak during public comment sessions or provide written public comment on issues.
My concern stems from the fact that most the committee will become loaded with administrators who’s presence will be intimidating and allow/cause the number of parents to falter. If the proposed change is implemented, the LEA would control the advisory element that has long since been for parents to have a voice at the administrative level.
8 VAC 20-80-62, F-2, I oppose the removal of the requirement that schools develop short-term goals unless they are in an alternative assessment program. I believe that having measurable short term goals is very important and should be maintained.
Other concerns:
1.In regard to the child study committee being removed from regulations at the time of the initial referral; this would allow school divisions to allow an undesignated amount of time to elapse before evaluation for services is decided upon.
At that time, the proposed regulations implements a 65 business day timeline for the evaluation process and eligibility determination. This is not where my concern lies. My concern lies in the initial referral stage when either a Local Eduation Agency (LEA) or a parent has made a referral, which goes unheeded for an undetermined amount of time before parental consent for the evaluation process is ever sought. That could conceivably be an entire school year.
2.I would like to take a moment to comment on the fact that some localities have school policies in place that disallow parents observation of classes, whether involving students with disabilities or not. This seems to be incongruent with the fact that volunteers are in our schools on a continual basis and observe students while in that setting. Yet, when permission is requested to observe a student who is struggling, resistance is met. Could this possibly be added specifically into the special education regulations?
I approve and support the following:
8 VAC 20-81-110, G-10-a, In regard to maintaining the current regulation to begin transition services at age 14 and updated annually, I feel that this is entirely appropriate as well as necessary to provide the student with the best possible opportunities to explore all available options regarding vocational and life goals. I am encouraged that the language in this section supports the best interest of the student.
Local Advisory Committees, Retaining the local advisory committees is a positive step for students and their families. It allows parents to have input regarding issues of concern or praise for the local educational agency (LEA). It provides the LEA an avenue to hear from parents throughout the district regarding areas of need as well as areas where performance is noteworthy. More than anything, it proves that the state of Virginia has reason to encourage parental participation in their child’s education by hearing input throughout the school year in the form of this committee. I would encourage Virginia to maintain the provision for local special education advisory committees in the future, but as currently defined under current regulations.
Referral Sources, I encourage maintaining the provision in the regulations that referral sources be allowable from any source in the community. Limiting referral sources would serve only to allow children to linger for longer periods of time without appropriate services. The earlier identification is made and services are begun, the better the chances of the child to succeed in their educational career.
In closing, I would like to thank you for all that you do in efforts to regulate our children’s education. These efforts do not go unnoticed. I appreciate having the opportunity to make comments regarding these changes and would request a copy of the summary upon the completion of this process.
