I oppose the elimination of the current requirement for parental consent prior to providing special education services to transfer students.  Such a proposal could permit a LEA to implement an IEP that does not offer comparable services to the student's previous school district.  
 
I oppose the elimination of Child Study Committees as currently required in the existing regulations.  VDOE's proposal to leave the referral procedures up to LEAs removes the guarantee that parents be participants in the referral process and the protection of timelines.  The proposal also eliminates the requirement that classroom interventions not delay the evaluation.  
 
I oppose permitting the development of a Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) to be merely a review of existing data that does not require input of the parent.  This definition should clearly state that an FBA is "an evaluation that consists of a systematic collection and analysis of direct and indirect data , may include a review of existing data", and that parents must participate as a matter of parental consent.
 
I support the continued allowance in the proposed regulation that directs transition services be put into effect when the child turns 14, two years younger than the federal guideline.  Parents and children need to plan for postsecondary goals well before the age of 16 in order to devise a correct curriculum that aims to improve long-term outcomes and to accumulate necessary information for decision making on further education, employment and independent living. We are already starting this long process for my children, and need strong school support and involvement.
 
I oppose the proposed 65 business day timeline for an eligibility decision rather than adhering to the federal guideline of 60 days from the date of parental consent for evaluation.  Intended by federal law to prevent a child who may need services from waiting unnecessarily to receive them, the 60 day limit provides ample time for an evaluation in most cases.  In addition, this timeline should apply to both initial evaluations and re-evaluations. 
 
I oppose limiting the developmental delay category only to the ages of 2 to 5 and recommend retaining the current Virginia definition of developmental delay which includes the ages of 2 through 8.  The developmental delay label is especially important for children who exhibit delays and benefit from early intervention, but who may not be easily or correctly identified until a later age.  
 
I recommend that the proposed Virginia regulation defining autism reflect that of federal regulation, which states, "A child who manifests the characteristics of autism after age three could be identified as having autism if the criteria in this definition are satisfied".  
 
I recommend the regulations use the term "intellectual disability" in place of "mental retardation".  Similarly, I recommend use of the term "emotional disability" rather than "emotional disturbance".  Both current terms convey negative stigma on the child, are outdated and offensive to many.      
 
I oppose the elimination of the requirement that any child with a disability removed for longer than 10 days be provided services that enable the child to progress in the general education curriculum.  I also oppose giving schools the option of keeping a student in an interim placement until the expiration of the 45 day period.  This provision should state that once the Manifestation Determination Review has been concluded , the student must be returned immediately to the original placement, unless the IEP team determines that a change in placement is in the best interest of the student.
 
I oppose the proposed elimination of the current requirement that IEP progress reports be provided for students with disabilities at least as often as periodic report cards are provided to non-disabled students.  There is no justification for this change.
 
I recommend the regulations clarify that IEP teams must consider including short-term objectives for all students.  As every good teacher knows, reaching IEP goals is unlikely without short-term objectives.
 
I oppose the proposed limitations in relation to current regulation on when schools need to provide Prior Written Notice.  Prior Written Notice is one of the few ways that parents can get their questions answered by reluctant schools and must not be chipped away from the existing rights of parents in Virginia. 

 

I oppose removing the implementation of the due process hearing system from the Supreme Court of Virginia and shifting it exclusively to VDOE.  The proposed removal of the special education due process hearing system from the judiciary to the regulating agency presents a conflict of interest.  Furthermore, I oppose the elimination of the current requirement to develop and submit an implementation plan following the rendering of a due process decision or the withdrawal of a hearing request.   Parents would no longer have the assurance of written guidance or timelines to set their expectations for correction.

I oppose the change in the proposed regulations which allows LEA personnel to act as voting members on local advisory committees ( a potential source of Conflict of Interest).  Furthermore I oppose the proposed requirement that local advisory committees reflect the gender of the local school division.  I further oppose the proposed requirement that local advisory committees reflect the ethnic makeup of the local school division.  This direction is so vague as to be unusable. 
 
I oppose the proposed provision that holds LEAs, teachers or othe r school staff unaccountable if a child does not achieve the growth projected in the annual goals, including benchmarks or objectives.  If there is no accountability for IEP goals, then the IEP is meaningless as a measure of success in providing a child with a disability a free and appropriate education.
 
I oppose the proposed provision that permits LEAs to refuse a parent's request for an IEP meeting if they consider such a request "unreasonable."  No request to promote and continue the dialogue between parents and schools should be considered unreasonable.  This provision works against the parent-school partnership at the heart of Virginia's special education process and denies a parent's legitimate right to pursue changes to their child's IEP. 

 

In summary, I believe the current regulations have ensured the rights of children with disabilities and their parents and do not require the wholesale revision that is being proposed in order to comply with the 2004 amendments to IDEA. 

 

I would like to support in their entirety the comments submitted by various groups representing students with disabilities.  In particular, I would like to endorse every comment made by the  Virginia Coalition for Students with Disabilities in its May 2008 comments on the special education regulations.  I would also endorse all the points made by theVirginia Office for Protection and Advocacy, The Virginia Coalition on Students with Disabilities, The Fairfax County Council of PTAs, The Arc of Northern Virginia, and The Arc of Virginia.