Too many of the propsed changes seek to diminish required parental involvement.  This will be a disaster.

The only person sitting at the table who has the most experience with the disablitiy of the student involved is the parent.  The regular teacher is a general preactioner who may have heard of the disability, but their actual knowledge is general at best and at worst is a perfect example of the addage "A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing."  Even the Special Ed teacher, who has had more exposure to topics in special ed disabilities,  isn't expected to be an expert on every form of disability that can impact a child's learning.  All the other members of of the committee are there to provide their specific role's input, be it testing results or builing assets.

As the parent, I am the only one at the table who has in-depth knowledge of the child's past difficulties, and I will be the only one of the team who will be in the future meetings.  I am the only one who meets with my child's numerous doctors, therapists, and other health professionals.  I am the only person who has the motivation to keep going back to the research and see what new papers have been written, or what new research has been discovered.  I am the one who sits up all night on the internet trying to find out what ideas are out there to help my child. 

That's is why parents need to be mandated members of the committees and the decisions.  Ultimately, the parents are the only true experts at the table.

Parental Rights need to continue to be manadated in Virginia Regulates to ensure the best educational out come of the children involved.

Please process this letter as my comment and position on
certain proposed changes to the regulations, definitions and eligibility criteria from those effective March 27, 2002. I am writing to you as a resident and domiciliary of Virginia, and I have a personal interest in the regulations because [insert reason such as parent., advocate, teacher, etc.]. I am commenting specifically on proposed changes
8 VAC 20-81-90 B.3,  8 VAC 20-81-80 L., 8 VAC 20-81-80 N., and 8 VAC 20-81-320 B.2.b.10. I am also commenting of the removal of short-term goals. My comments and position are as follows:

I specifically absolutely object to the following change which removes the parent's right to prevent the LEA from unilaterally removing a child's special education either partially or fully and permits this removal to occur without parent consent which is the following proposed change:

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.

Reason: Termination of services is in essence revoking a student’s determination of eligibility. 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (c)(5)(A) states that “a local education agency shall evaluate a child with a disability in accordance with this section before determining that the child is no longer a child with a disability.” 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(4)(A) specifically states “the determination of whether the child is a child with a disability … and the educational needs of the child shall be made by a team of qualified professional and the parent of the child.” To revoke a student’s eligibility without parental consent in essence revokes that parent’s right to be a part of the eligibility process.

I also object to the revised eligibility definition of the disability category of “Autism”.

8 VAC 20-81-80 N. 1. Any of the Pervasive Developmental Disorders, such as Autistic Disorder, Asperger's Disorder, Rhett's Disorder, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder – Not Otherwise Specified including Atypical Autism as indicated in diagnostic references, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), may be included under the eligibility category of autism. Students with autism demonstrate restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities such as encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus, apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals, stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (i.e., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements), persistent preoccupation with parts of objects.

2. A minimum of six characteristics from the following communication and social interaction areas shall be present to be considered for eligibility.

a.         One or more impairments in communication, such as delay in, or  total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through  alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime), in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others, stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language, or lack of varied, spontaneous make believe play or social imitative play  appropriate to developmental level

b.         Two or more impairments in social interaction, such as marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction, failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to  developmental level, a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (i.e., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest), or lack of social or emotional reciprocity are noted. Delay (s) or abnormal functioning in social  interaction, language as used in social communication, or symbolic or imaginative play, with onset prior to age three are also evident.

Reasoning: This requires an unrealistic and unsubstantiated number of symptoms.

I also object to the proposed teacher-student ratio for children with Autism.

8 VAC 20-81-320 B.2.b.10 Autism - one teacher for every six children or one teacher and one paraprofessional for every eight children;

Reasoning: It permits too many disabled children to be supervised by staff safely and effectively.

I also oppose the proposed revisions to the eligibility definition of the disability category of "developmental delay".

8 VAC 20-81-80 N.1. The local educational agency may include developmental delay as one of the disability categories when determining whether a preschool child, aged two by September 30 to five, inclusive, is eligible under this chapter.

Reasoning: Presently this designation can be used until age 8. It is often not possible to determine a more definitive diagnosis at age 5 but is possible later.

I also object to the elimination of the requirement for schools to develop short-term goals. According to the revision, short-term goals won't be written for students unless they are in the state's alternative assessment program. I believe all SPED students benefit from short term goals.

Please process my comments and reasoning and forward them to the appropriate entities.

Sincerely

Please process this letter as my comment and position on
certain proposed changes to the regulations, definitions and eligibility criteria from those effective March 27, 2002. I am writing to you as a resident and domiciliary of Virginia, and I have a personal interest in the regulations because [insert reason such as parent., advocate, teacher, etc.]. I am commenting specifically on proposed changes
8 VAC 20-81-90 B.3,  8 VAC 20-81-80 L., 8 VAC 20-81-80 N., and 8 VAC 20-81-320 B.2.b.10. I am also commenting of the removal of short-term goals. My comments and position are as follows:

I specifically absolutely object to the following change which removes the parent's right to prevent the LEA from unilaterally removing a child's special education either partially or fully and permits this removal to occur without parent consent which is the following proposed change:

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.

Reason: Termination of services is in essence revoking a student’s determination of eligibility. 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (c)(5)(A) states that “a local education agency shall evaluate a child with a disability in accordance with this section before determining that the child is no longer a child with a disability.” 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(4)(A) specifically states “the determination of whether the child is a child with a disability … and the educational needs of the child shall be made by a team of qualified professional and the parent of the child.” To revoke a student’s eligibility without parental consent in essence revokes that parent’s right to be a part of the eligibility process.

I also object to the revised eligibility definition of the disability category of “Autism”.

8 VAC 20-81-80 N. 1. Any of the Pervasive Developmental Disorders, such as Autistic Disorder, Asperger's Disorder, Rhett's Disorder, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder – Not Otherwise Specified including Atypical Autism as indicated in diagnostic references, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), may be included under the eligibility category of autism. Students with autism demonstrate restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities such as encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus, apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals, stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (i.e., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements), persistent preoccupation with parts of objects.

2. A minimum of six characteristics from the following communication and social interaction areas shall be present to be considered for eligibility.

a.         One or more impairments in communication, such as delay in, or  total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through  alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime), in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others, stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language, or lack of varied, spontaneous make believe play or social imitative play  appropriate to developmental level

b.         Two or more impairments in social interaction, such as marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction, failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to  developmental level, a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (i.e., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest), or lack of social or emotional reciprocity are noted. Delay (s) or abnormal functioning in social  interaction, language as used in social communication, or symbolic or imaginative play, with onset prior to age three are also evident.

Reasoning: This requires an unrealistic and unsubstantiated number of symptoms.

I also object to the proposed teacher-student ratio for children with Autism.

8 VAC 20-81-320 B.2.b.10 Autism - one teacher for every six children or one teacher and one paraprofessional for every eight children;

Reasoning: It permits too many disabled children to be supervised by staff safely and effectively.

I also oppose the proposed revisions to the eligibility definition of the disability category of "developmental delay".

8 VAC 20-81-80 N.1. The local educational agency may include developmental delay as one of the disability categories when determining whether a preschool child, aged two by September 30 to five, inclusive, is eligible under this chapter.

Reasoning: Presently this designation can be used until age 8. It is often not possible to determine a more definitive diagnosis at age 5 but is possible later.

I also object to the elimination of the requirement for schools to develop short-term goals. According to the revision, short-term goals won't be written for students unless they are in the state's alternative assessment program. I believe all SPED students benefit from short term goals.

Please process my comments and reasoning and forward them to the appropriate entities.

Sincerely

Taking parental consent away will be a disaster for the children in special education. The parent is the one true person at the IEP meeting without an agenda. The main teacher is thinking about how she/he will be able to do more in the same amount of time. The assistant principal is focusing on completing the IEP process in the time allotted and keeping the school budget in check. The special education teacher is thinking about how many students they have and the amount of time they have to work with each student. The parent is the one person that knows the child inside and out. The parent simply wants the child to be able to learn with the fewest limits or restrictions. The parent doesn’t have another agenda.

Taking the parent out of the IEP decision making is assuming that the school personnel is honorable and only thinking about how to reduce restrictions for and best teach each child. While some schools earn an ‘A’ grade, some schools deserve an ‘F’ for special education services. If all schools were honorable and truly only thinking about how to reduce restrictions for and best teach each child, there would not be so many proven cases showing otherwise.

If the Department of Education and the courts think they see too many cases now, wait until the parent is taken out of the IEP decision process. Why would anyone consider removing parental consent for the special education regulations with the track record of the schools?

Susan Jubilee

A mother with first hand experience with a great school and a terrible school.

I have heard two arguements for why the proposed regulations are need.  One, they will ensure the students who need to services most will get them.  Two, parents still have the option of Due Process to challenge a school districts decision.  Both arguements show that either the Board has no idea what they are talking about, or they think special education parents have no clue.

For a child to be granted services the school must have consented to the services.  The schools already have the power to decide who should and should not receive services.  If students are receiving services who should not, then the school administration did not do their job.  The Special Education Regulations are not where this needs to be addressed.  The Board needs to address the policies and procedures that govern school districts.  The only way parents can force a school district to give their child services is through Due Process or legal action.

But the Board is making sure parents think even harder before pursuing this option because why would a parent spend tens of thousands of dollar on Due Process one year when they know the school district can take away any services they won the following year, WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, and have to spend tens of thousands of dollars again to keep those services.  Parents can send their children to private schools for less than that.  So Due Process becomes even less of an option for parents if the new regulations are approved.

They are changing the rules in favor of the schools and create an uneven playing field.  In legal terms it is the equivilant of Double Jeopardy or putting the burden of proof on the defendent.  And if I was a parent facing Due Process for my child, I would look for legal options to challenge the new regulations first.  Spend that money on a legal action where you might be able to get the regulations reversed or even set precedents that are in favor of the parents.

Lastly, parents should not be upset that the Board weakend the regulations and in favor of the schools, they should be upset that they did not use this opportunity to strengthen the current regulations to help the families.  Keeping the regulations as they were should not have been acceptable, so families should not be happy if the Board keeps the regulations the same.  In Special Education staying pat and doing nothing can be just as harmful to the children.

Everyone needs to understand the precedent these regulations could set, not just special education families and special education families in Virginia.  If these regulations are approved they will set a precedent for other states to follow suit.  If the Board is allowed to control parents in special education it sets a precedent for attempting to take similar action with the general education population.

The Special Education Regulations are based on the Federal Regulations as laid out in IDEA.  The intention of IDEA is to protect children with disabilities.  It is not its intention to protect the school administrators and provide them with ways to neglect our children.  The Board needs to approach these regulations with the children in mind, not the administrators.

When I first read of the proposed changes, I thought this can not be possible. After all, we live in America. We have the freedom of speech and now the VDOE wants to take that away from us? It just can’t be! In our school system we have little to no voice as it is and to take away all of our voices and concerns for our children, our children will not get what they need to thrive. Our school does as little as possible as it is for our children and if our concerns are not heard, then the needs of our children will not be met. My daughter is 6 1/2 years old and has Down syndrome and autism. Our schools refuse to acknowledge that she has autism even though the developmental doctor diagnosed her with it. We constantly address the autism diagnosis to the school and hopefully one day the school will begin to meet our daughter’s needs. If the VDOE takes our voices away, her autism diagnosis will never be addressed by our school system. Our daughter escaped from school 2 weeks ago. No one knows for sure how long she was gone. The school says 2-7 mnutes, our calculation is 17-22 minutes. Anything could have happened, but luckily she was discovered unharmed. You see, she wasn’t even missing. She walked into the school one morning and walked through the entire school and no one ever noticed that she was unattended. She was never missing, she was just discovered by a student and a P.E. teacher outside. We have told the school time and time again that she needs a one-to-one aide for safety issues, and even after this incident, the school still refuses to hear our cries for our daughter’s needs, but we refuse to lie down and give up. Is that what the VDOE want parents to do? Give up on our children? Our children are our future and we are here to help them and to provide them with what they need. If our schools won’t do it and the parents aren’t allowed to do it, then who will do it? I beg that proposed changes to the Virginia Special Educaton Regulations not be revised to take away the parnetal rights to their children. Please hear our voices and our concerns for our children.

I am my child's best advocate. I know her better than anyone and to take away my rights would, I believe, be detrimental to her education. Parents should be encouraged to be more involved in the educational process since this is PUBLIC education not less. All children benefit when educators and parents come together for the benefit of the child.

As a parent of two children who are currently recieving spec. ed. services, I have to state my opposition to these proposed changes.  Parents are the only individuals on an assesment team who have a solid continuum of knowledge regard a childs disability.  In the case of a child suffering from an autism spectrum disorder, where each childs needs can be radically different, the label can often not adequately describe the problems.

Considering the huge numbers of children any school has to place in an appropriate educational setting, it is a benefit to the team to have someone there who's memory encompases the entire history of a childs education.  In addition, sometimes anecdotal evidence from the home setting can help to facilitate the proper placement.  Parents MUST remain an important member of the team.

Lee Bowles

It is discouraging to read about the proposed revision that states that  the local plans will no longer be submitted to the DOE for approval.  I believe this undermines the importance of gifted programs in our public school systems.  I am apalled at the repeal of the funding issues 8VAC20-40-70.  This act certainly does not protect the rights of gifted students to a quality education by allowing funds to be distributed locally as "the powers to be" deem  fit.  I am 95% sure that our BOE will distribute funds elsewhere and not where it is intended.  These changes are a backward movement for gifted education and our leaders of the future.

I am opposed to changes that you are considering.  Parental rights are a requirement for children.  Take my situation for instance.  Four years ago the Viriginia did not give her FAPE.  In fact, the school failed to tell me how to start an IEP.  I have been her teacher and recently went back to the school for related services once they found her eligible for an IEP.  My daughter is deaf-blind with other disibilites and the school didn't even know what deaf-blindness is.  I told them.  I kow my daughter better than anyone.  She is my masters degree, and with out my knowledge and experience the school can not develop a program.  If you take parent rights away you take away FAPE.  

My other daughter 3 years old and in the public school under an IEP.  Because the school will not give me documentation on how she performs in the classroom we have noticed issues.  1) I told the school she has sensory problem, they ignored me.  My daughter packs her mouth so full of food she has choked.  2)  She wears orthodics and the school didn't listen when I told them.  She fell in the crowded class room.  And the teacher payed no attention.  This was on a day I chose to do a surprise visit.  A teacher assistant brought it to my knowledge is happened again.  Because of this intervention could not be put in place. And the school with holding information from parents is not in the best interest of the child.  3) I had to tell the school who is qualified to do feeding evaluations.  I had to explain to the County's nutritionist what an allergic reaction to food dye is.  I had to explain what sensory problems are and behavioral stratiges that need to be put into place so she recieves FAPE.  4) the schools fail to make and IEP, individulized.  They want to give her goals that kids her age work on, instead of giving her goals that require her to meet her developmental milestones.  5) She recieves no social interaction and the interaction in all in a group setting and not indivilualized. 

Viriginia needs to step up and give these children FAPE, after all this is the law and basis of an IEP under the IDEA.   Parental consent is a requirement that these children need. 

There is already a shortage of qualified interpreters; who do not currently meet the recommended change to a level 3.   If this is mandated then the schools will lose even more interpreters to colleges or interpreters will lose a job.  Think about how many more problems the schools will then face if this happens. 

Don't change the level.  I happen to know some incredible interpreters who love their job, who are not at level 3 or equivalent.  Tonight I am their voice. I do not support the change for interpreters. 

There is already a shortage of qualified interpreters; who do not currently meet the recommended change to a level 3.   If this is mandated then the schools will lose even more interpreters to colleges or interpreters will lose a job.  Think about how many more problems the schools will then face if this happens. 

Don't change the level.  I happen to know some incredible interpreters who love their job, who are not at level 3 or equivalent.  Tonight I am their voice. I do not support the change for interpreters. 

I oppose changing the current requirements for parental consent to any change in their children’s IEPs. Current Virginia regulations require parental consent to any change in their children’s IEPs before the change can happen. The draft Virginia regulations no longer require parental consent before children’s IEP services are partially or completely terminated. If adopted, this change will be a major loss, decreasing school-family partnership.

I object to the revised eligibility definition of the disability category of Autism.  This requires an unrealistic and unsubstantiated number of symptoms.  I also object to the proposed teacher-student ratio for children with Autism.  It does not require enough staff for children with this disability to be supervised by staff safely and effectively.

I oppose changing the definition of ‘Developmental Delay’ to include only children age 2 through 5.  The current definition includes children who are 2-8 years old. However, some children under the age of 8 years old have disabilities that cannot be determined accurately because of their young age. Allowing them to be found eligible under the more general category of ‘developmental delay’ avoids inaccurate labeling and potentially, inappropriate or unnecessary services. There is an added impact for foster children who sometimes do not enter the foster care system until they are 4 or 5.

The bottom line is this: The proposed regulations force parents to either submit  to the school's decision  on  a student's continued eligibility for Special Ed services or expose themselves to a lengthy and expensive  litigious process, way beyond the means of most parents. This is a blatent attempt  by the state to limit any participation by parents and should be rejected soundly. It's a sad day in the Commonwealth when parents are taken out of the decision making process for their own children. This is a slippery slope and one shivers to think where such regressive thinking can lead in the future.

1. Take away our right to give consent in our daughter's IEP process
2. Restrict our involvement in ensuring accommodations if she transfers to another school
3. Remove our input from the Functional Behavioral Assessment team
4. Allow a Local Education Agency to deny our request for an IEP meeting if they think the request is unreasonable
5. Lengthen the time, without our consent, that a school has to postpone addressing our daughter's specific accommodations
6. Do not require impartial due process hearings
7. Reduce the number of IEP progress reports given to us on the status of our child's education

• Denying Parents the Right to Serve on Child Study Committees Determining Special Education Eligibility.

• Denying Parents the Right to Receive Timely Evaluations.

• Denying Parents the Right to Receive Timely Findings of Eligibility.

• Adding New and Arbitrary Criteria for Eligibility.

• Removing Schools’ Obligation to Implement IEPs Within a Certain Timeframe.

• Removing Schools’ Obligation to Include Benchmarks or Short-Term Objectives in IEPs.

• Unnecessarily Delaying Parents their Right to Receive a Copy of their Child’s IEP.

• Denying Parents the Right to Independent Functional Behavioral Assessments.

• Denying Interpreting Services to Children.

• Denying Parents the Right to a Fair Due Process Hearing by Shifting Control of Hearing Officers to VDOE.

• Denying Parents Equal Rights in Due Process Hearings.

• Denying Parents the Right to Timely Implementation of Due Process and Court Orders.

To maintain the balance on the IEP Team and maintain Virginia's past history of supporting parental rights in determining an appropriate education for their children, I ask that the following changes be made to the draft 8 VAC 20-81, Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children with Disabilities in Virginia.

On page 127 of 315, 8 VAC 20-81-90, B.2., change the wording to the
following:

B. The IEP Team shall terminate the child's eligibility for special education and related services in the following areas:

1. Termination of special education services occurs if the team determines that the child is no longer a child with a disability who needs special education and related services.

2. A related service may be terminated during an IEP meeting without determining that the child is no longer a child with a disability who is eligible for special education and related services. The IEP team making the determination shall include local educational agency personnel representing the specific related services discipline being terminated.

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., and parental consent is required and must be obtained.


And, on page 205 of 315, 8 VAC 20-81-170, E. change the wording to the
following:

E. Parental consent.

1. Required parental consent. Informed parental consent is required before:

a. Conducting an initial evaluation or reevaluation, including a functional behavioral assessment if such assessment is not a review of existing data conducted at an IEP meeting; (34 CFR § 300.300(a)(1)(i))

b. An Initial eligibility determination or any change in categorical identification;

c. Initial provision of special education and related services to a child with a disability; (34 CFR § 300.300(b)(1))

d. Any revision to the child's IEP services;

e. Accessing a child's public benefits or insurance or private insurance proceeds in accordance with subsection F. of this section; and (34 CFR § 300.154)

f. Inviting to an IEP meeting a representative of any participating agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for secondary transition services. (34 CFR § 300.321(b)(3))

g. Any partial or complete termination of special education and related services.

2. Parental consent not required. Parental consent is not required before:

a. Review of existing data as part of an evaluation or a reevaluation, including a functional behavioral assessment;

b. Administration of a test or other evaluation that is administered to all children unless, before administration of that test or evaluation, consent is required of the parent(s) of all children; (34 CFR § 300.300(d)(1))

c. The screening of a student by a teacher or specialist to determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation; (34 CFR § 300.302)

d. Administration of a test or other evaluation that is used to measure progress on the child's IEP goals;

e. A teacher's or related service provider's observations or ongoing classroom evaluations;

VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION IT IS YOUR DUTY TO ALIGN THE VIRGINIA SPECIAL REGULATIONS WITH THE FEDERAL I.D.E.A.

VIRGINIA AND KANSAS ARE THE ONLY STATES THAT EXCEED THE FEDERAL MANDATES.  THERE ARE 48 STATES WHICH DO NOT EXCEED THE FEDERAL MANDATE -- AND NOBODY IS BEING LEFT BEHIND -- NO PARENTS, NO CHILDREN AND NO PROFESSIONALS.  HOW CAN PARENTS SAY THAT THEY ARE HAVING THEIR RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY WHEN THEY WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.

VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION IS IT YOUR DUTY TO ALIGN THE STATE SPED REGS WITH FEDERAL IDEA. 

IF PARENTS WITH CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS  HAVE A GOOD, TRUSTING, HONORING WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR SCHOOL DIVISIONS, THEY HAVE NO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT ANYTHING BEING TAKEN AWAY.

VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION IT IS YOUR DUTY TO ALIGN THE STATE SPECIAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS WITH THE FEDERAL IDEA.

The preceeding comment requesting Virginia not to exceed the Federal IDEA is my personal comment made by me, Lee White.  I am a member of and Vice President of Governmental and Professional Affairs for the Speech and Hearing Association of Virginia.  The comment I made reflects my personal opinion and  NOT necessairily the general  opinion of the membership body of SHAV nor the SHAV Board of Directors.  Please let there be no confusion with this matter. Thank you. L. Anthony White, MS, CCC-SLP.

 DATE:             February 4, 2008

TO:                  Special Education Regulations Revision Process

EMAIL:            ReviseSpedRegs@doe.virginia.gov

FROM:            The Executive Board of the Fairfax County Council of PTAs (FCCPTA)

On behalf of the Fairfax County Council of PTAs (FCCPTA), which represents PTAs in approximately 200 Fairfax County Public Schools, the following comments are submitted by the Executive Board of the FCCPTA to the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) regarding the revision of the Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children with Disabilities in Virginia.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ensures that children with disabilities have a free appropriate public education available to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living.  We believe the current Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children with Disabilities in Virginia are superior in many ways to the proposed regulations.  We further believe that the existing regulations do not merit the wholesale revision that is being proposed in order to comply with the 2004 amendments to IDEA.

Virginia has been in the forefront of promoting and protecting the necessary parent-school partnership that ensures children with disabilities are properly identified and served by our local school divisions.  The proposed regulations represent a step backwards in Virginia’s historic guarantee of parental rights in special education.  The Virginia Board of Education must not allow this roll back of civil rights in Virginia for children with disabilities and the parents who advocate for them.

Virginia’s important parent protections

The FCCPTA supports Virginia’s long-standing commitment to the right of parental consent in three basic areas:  (1) identification to determine the existence of a disability and a child’s eligibility for special education and related services; (2) initial implementation of and changes to a child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP); and (3) termination of a child’s special education eligibility or services.  IDEA requires parental consent to initiate services as a matter of ensuring parent involvement; the rights of consent to changes in a child’s IEP and for termination of services are Virginia-specific, and were added to promote a greater level of partnership between parents and schools.

VDOE’s stated argument for the proposed deletions of Virginia-specific parental rights and protections from the current regulations is "to respect the intent of Part B of the Act [IDEA 2004] to minimize the number of rules, regulations and policies to which local educational agencies and schools are subject."  However, minimization of state regulations is a common theme in federal legislation and not a specific mandate for IDEA.

Regulations promulgated by the federal government are considered the minimum standard that states must follow.  States can, and regularly do, exceed federal regulations because they respond to the needs of their particular citizens, as is their right.  The effort to minimize differences between the federal and state special education regulations must not mean the elimination of long-standing Virginia-specific rights currently guaranteed to our state's citizens.

The priorities listed below reflect the FCCPTA’s position on select areas of the proposed Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children with Disabilities in Virginia which significantly impact Virginia’s historic guarantee of rights to children with disabilities and their parents.  These specific areas are important to continuing the existing civil protections in Virginia that are essential to the free appropriate public education (FAPE) of children with disabilities:

FOR THE COMPLETE VERSION OF THE FCCPTA's WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, SEE www.fccpta.org.

DATE:  May 5, 2008

TO:       Special Education Regulations Revision Process

EMAIL: ReviseSpedRegs@doe.virginia.gov

FROM: The Executive Board of the Fairfax County Council of PTAs (FCCPTA)

On behalf of the Fairfax County Council of PTAs (FCCPTA), which represents PTAs in approximately 200 Fairfax County Public Schools, the following is submitted by the Executive Board of the FCCPTA to the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) as an addendum to its previous public comments of February 4, 2008 regarding the revision of the Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children with Disabilities in Virginia.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ensures that children with disabilities have a free appropriate public education available to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living. We believe the current Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children with Disabilities in Virginia are superior in many ways to the proposed regulations. We further believe that the existing regulations do not merit the wholesale revision that is being proposed in order to comply with the 2004 amendments to IDEA.

Virginia has been in the forefront of promoting and protecting the necessary parent-school partnership that ensures children with disabilities are properly identified and served by our local school divisions. The proposed regulations represent a step backwards in Virginia’s historic guarantee of parental rights in special education. The Virginia Board of Education must not allow this roll back of civil rights in Virginia for children with disabilities and the parents who advocate for them.

Parent Requests for IEP Meetings [8 VAC 20-81-110, pg. 140]

The FCCPTA opposes the proposed provision that permits local education agencies (LEAs) to refuse a parent’s request for an Individualized Education Program (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.

Accountability for IEP Goals [8 VAC 20-81-110, pg. 140]

The FCCPTA opposes elimination of the provision in current regulation that states each LEA “must make a good faith effort to assist the child to achieve the goals, including benchmarks or objectives, listed in the IEP.” LEAs should actively work toward achieving the growth projected in a child’s annual IEP goals. If there is no requirement for schools to demonstrate some 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.

Public Comment by the Fairfax County Advisory Committee for Students with Disabilities on the Proposed VDOE Regulations

February 13, 2008

The Advisory Committee for Students with Disabilities (ACSD) is the Fairfax County Public Schools SEAC. In our role as spokespersons to the School Board, we have sought input from hundreds of parents and child advocates in our county about the proposed changes to the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) regulations. We find that parents have a significantly different perspective on these regulations from that of the representatives of Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) who have previously provided comment to the VDOE. We completely reject all arguments that the VDOE should limit its regulations in order to align them with those of the federal government: states have the right and the obligation to tailor their programs to fit the needs of their citizens within the scope of the law. We also reject arguments that the current rights granted to parents impose an undue burden on LEAs; on the contrary, where there is undue burden, it is on the struggling parents who find themselves overpowered by LEAs at almost every turn. In most situations, parents and schools work together in the best interest of children, but when disagreements arise over services, bewildered parents are easily outmaneuvered by the bureaucratic and legal juggernaut that clangs into alignment against them. The rights granted to parents under the current regulations provide some small protection against railroading; these rights should be expanded, not rolled back.

LEA participation on local advisory committees

The ACSD opposes the change in the proposed regulations which allows LEA personnel to act as voting members on local advisory committees.  Our experience in Fairfax County is that employees of FCPS provide invaluable insights and support as we formulate our recommendations to the School Board. However, these recommendations are often contrary to the advice of the staff. At best, it would be impossible for anyone who receives a paycheck from an organization to remain independent of influence; at worst, parents and child advocates would lose a critical means of affecting changes in their school systems.

Gender and ethnic restrictions on membership of local advisory committees

The ACSD opposes the proposed changes that would impose restrictions on the gender and ethnic makeup of its members. Although we seek and value diversity and find it particularly helpful for members to have experience with a variety of disabilities, this proposal is affirmative action at its most ill conceived.  We cannot imagine how a quota system could increase the usefulness of a committee whose pool of volunteers is overwhelmingly female in a county whose citizens come from scores of different cultural backgrounds. The proposed regulations would effectively silence many of our most knowledgeable and vocal parents; we question the actual intention of this change.

Parental Consent to the Termination of Services

The ACSD opposes the elimination of the current requirement for parental consent for the termination of special education eligibility and related services.  Disabilities by their very nature are life-long; removing supports just because they have been successful is unwise.  Parents of children with special needs do not have access to the same resources as school districts; therefore, to ensure a fair process, it is absolutely critical that certain rights be retained by the parents.  The right of consent is a long-held parental right in Virginia.  Requiring parents to go to due process to demonstrate that their children continue to need special education services is placing a tremendous burden on the parties who have the least resources to prove their position.

Parental Consent to Services for Transfer Students

The ACSD opposes the elimination of the current requirement for parental consent prior to providing special education services to transfer students. Such a proposal could permit an LEA to implement an IEP that does not offer comparable services to the student’s previous school district. Prevention of such a scenario far outweighs concerns over the availability of parents to sign consent in a timely manner.

Response to Intervention

The ACSD urges clarification of what is meant by Response to Intervention (RTI). If RTI is to be a tool for determining whether a student has a learning disability, then it is necessary to define or at a minimum provide guidance to LEAs with respect to the tools that should be used, how response will be determined (what scientifically based tools or the requirement that scientifically based tools are used), who is qualified to assess a student's response and what training in necessary in order for an individual to be deemed qualified to assess whether a student has responded to intervention.

Short Term Objectives

The ACSD urges modification of the regulations to add that IEP teams must formally consider including short term objectives for all students. Unless consideration of these objectives is included on the agenda check list, these useful tools will be forgotten, much to the loss of students for whom frequent reevaluation is necessary to determine if their educational program is actually working.

Due Process Hearing System

The ACSD opposes removing the implementation of the due process hearing system from the Supreme Court of Virginia and shifting it exclusively to VDOE.  LEAs have the ear of the VDOE, but individual parents have no influence whatsoever. The proposed removal of the special education due process hearing system from the judiciary to the regulating agency presents a conflict of interest and would improperly create a new, non-independent judicial system.

Furthermore, the ACSD opposes 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 must not have their expensive and rare victories crumble into dust by the failure of the school system to ever implement them.

Discipline Procedures

The ACSD opposes eliminating 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.  Services provided for students during removal lasting longer than 10 days are already woefully inadequate, thus compounding the student’s disciplinary problems with school failure. The proposed regulatory change would eliminate all requirements on local school divisions to attempt to remedy this shortcoming in the provision of special education services.

The ACSD urges clarification to say that returning a student to the original placement means to the original school, not simply to the same level of services.  Currently in Fairfax County Public Schools, principals are given the option of expelling children from their school and forcing them to go to another school even if the Manifestation Determination Review is concluded in the students’ favor. Participating in the decision about where a child attends school is critical to parental involvement and should not be denied where a child’s actions are a manifestation of his or her disability.

Functional Behavioral Assessments

The ACSD opposes permitting the development of a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) after merely reviewing existing data. This definition should be amended to state that the FBA is an evaluation that consists of a systematic collection and analysis of direct and indirect data, and may include a review of existing data. It is the frequent experience of parents that schools conduct FBAs in name only, failing to explore the actual function of a child’s behavior and hastily compiling previous observations into a paper trail to justify disciplinary action.  It is to everyone’s benefit to determine why the child is misbehaving, especially if the behavior is a manifestation of the child’s disability.

Timelines

The ACSD opposes delaying the trigger for the eligibility time line until parental consent is obtained, rather than starting the clock when the initial referral is made. The current timeline is more than adequate in the majority of cases; further delay in the delivery of services will only increase the possibility of school failure and demoralization. Even as it is, the unjustified modification of the federally mandated “days” by the VDOE to read “business days” leads to extraordinary delays when the timeline happens to correspond to school holidays.

Child Study Committees

The ACSD opposes the elimination of Child Study Committees as currently required by the existing regulations. VDOE’s proposal to leave the referral procedures up to LEAs removes the guarantee that parents be participants in the process.  The proposal will also eliminate the protection of timelines. 

Labeling

The ACSD recommends modification of the regulations to use the term emotional disability rather than emotional disturbance. The term emotional disability, though far from humane, at least has the advantage of obscuring its pejorative nature behind a veil of bureaucratic jargon. The term emotionally disturbed, on the other hand, has a real English meaning that inflicts cruel damage on children while failing to summarize the criteria for eligibility that it is intended to encompass. Similarly, the ACSD recommends modification of the regulations to use the term “intellectual disability” rather than “mental retardation.” Children do not want to be called mentally retarded, and expectations are lowered just by the use of the words.

Eligibility Criteria.

The ACSD opposes the definition of eligibility criteria for disabilities that exceed those defined in the federal regulations and take away flexibility from the LEAs. Such overreaching provisions may work to the disadvantage of children who would otherwise qualify for services as a child with a disability.  For example, in defining the criteria for eligibility under autism, the proposed regulations may exclude children with an autism spectrum disorder who do fit the narrow DSM autism diagnostic criteria contained in the provisions.  Federal law includes autism as a covered disability under IDEA; it does not endeavor to define the various educational criteria for the autism disability as a spectrum disorder. 

Definition of Autism
The ACSD recommends 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."  The proposed regulations substituted the word "diagnosed" for the word "identified;” the former is an improper term to use for educational purposes.  School personnel are no more qualified to diagnose autism than they are to make any other medical diagnosis.

Developmental Delay.

The ACSD opposes limiting the developmental delay category only to the ages of 2 to 5 and supports the IDEA 2004 definition of developmental delay from ages 2 to 9.  The developmental delay label is especially important for young children who benefit from early intervention, but who may not be easily categorized. Rushing to label a child’s disability may have serious long term repercussions for that child’s education and emotional development.

Individualized Education Program and Transition.

The ACSD supports the change in regulation that exceeds the federal regulations and directs that transition services be put into effect when the child turns 14, two years younger than indicated by IDEA 2004. All IEPs should be written with the long term goal in mind; it takes many years to accumulate necessary information to plan the right curriculum and arrange for employment and independent living.

Finally, because the state is ceding to the local school district more power and autonomy by removing numerous provisions previously mandated, the state should require the districts to provide notice and an opportunity for public comment on their own local rules so parents can present their concerns and express their opinions, thereby assuring fair and appropriate local regulations.

We are not experts on this law and have not spent hours studying it.  We are writing because we are concerned about how the changes brought about by this legislation may affect our daughter and others like her in the future.

We are in the process of finalizing an IEP and 504 plan for our middle school daughter.  Without being specific, her learning and physical disabilities are more subtle, not easily seen by her teachers and administrators on a daily basis.  She tends to have good days and bad days.  However, as her parents we see her at home struggle with her physical and learning disabilities everyday.   We believe that without the simple accommodations provided by an IEP she would "slip through the cracks" and not reach her full potential.  

Though I believe the school staff has good intent, it has been a two year effort on our part to get to the point of actually putting a formal plan in place.  We believe that without her doctors (writing letters and coming to the school to meet with the administrators and explaining her condition) and us acting as her advocate, the IEP would not have been written.  Under the proposed law, we believe that the school administrators, now given greater control in the process, would have deemed her IEP unnecessary.  

It is for this very personal reason that we believe the changes in the regulations that remove or limit parental involvement and consent in the development, implementation, and requirement that school track and report IEP results is a mistake.   Please do not change the law so that parents have less involvement and consent in the process.  Please do not change the law just to make Virginia's law the same as the rest of the country.     

I am opposed to the changes proposed. The school system should maintain an open working relationship with parents and encourage their input. Why would VA want to align with other states simply to comply with the status quo? Hasn't VA always strived to have superior education opportunities? And in response to the comment made by another posted about no child is being left behind in 48 other states...you can't be serious? I know several people who work within the public school system and all would disagree...not to even mention parental opinions.

I also disagree that the Level 3 Interpreter qualification should be mandatory. Many interpreters are more than capable of succeeding at their jobs without the VQAS Level 3. Isn't the shortage already enough of a problem without adding to it?

     If my parental rights are reduced then the quality of the services my daughter receives will be negatively effected. “Due Process” is not an adequate venue to address IEP concerns. I have always considered “due process” a costly and time consuming process that would be my last resort. Parents should be PART OF THE PROCESS and not regulated to “DUE PROCESS”.   Parental Rights need to continue to be mandated in Virginia to ensure the best educational out come for all children.

I have two 6 year old children in special ed. so I have some experience and am very concerned with a lot of the changes but 2 in specific:

1) Change of Developmental Delay Age:

Because of the new regs and their expected implementation my children are now listed as learning disabled instead of general developmental delay.  While in the future this diagnosis may be shown to be correct, I highly disagree with it at this point.  My children a year ago tested 1.5 years behind, they recently tested 1.5 years behind.  So they have covered 1 year of material in 1 year.  They may not have caught up to their peers but to me that means they are not disabled, they just started behind and are consistantly learning but not catching up.  Some children are just late bloomers and need so extra time catching up.  If you compare the learning now to when I was in school, everything I learned in K, 1st and probably some of 2nd they are now expected to know BEFORE coming to school and are expected to increase that knowlege.  Yet many scientific studies say children, esp boys are not programed to learn / developmentaly read to learn Language arts until they are 7 or 8 but instead we keep cramming it down their throat and tell them they are disabled if they can't do it.  This does nothing but set them up for failure.  I am afraid for the many kids that will not be able to keep up and can't get the help required because they might not meet the criteria for learning disability because they are just delayed and do not actually have any disabilities.

2)  I am very concerned about any changes that remove the parent from the IEP process.  What is the #1 reason parents give for kids going well in class - parent involvement, yet the school system is trying to take that away from the kids who need it most.  I am sure there is the occassional parent that has conned the school system into getting modifications for a child who does not need it or who may have at one time but does not anymore.  On the other hand, I am sure there will be just as many, or probably many more cases, of school systems who will deny /terminate services, not based on the fact that the kids don't need them but because of budget or other semi valid but illegal reasons.  Yes parents can appeal the decision and some might win but many won't due to financial and time reasons.  And those that do win, the child still has to go through the valuable time of services lost, the upheaval and stress the family is under to fight for those services, etc.  Ultimately studies show that there are too many children without involved parents, and that children with involved parents do better.  Why would the school system fight to keep the parents uninvolved? 

I must say at this point that  my school system has worked with me every step of the way and been very interested in having me involved and listened to my opionions..  But I have heard many stories of parents who are not as lucky.

- E Carwile

Chesapeake, VA

This will only be a begining to an end for all parents of these children. If anyone knows what is best for a child it is the parents in more cases then not. This is no different then saying that our children must serve a certain God without any concern to what the parents believe. If this were to happen then why not let them name and raise our children? I already feel I have lost my right as a parent where education is concerned.

Carie

Can someone please tell me just what makes a teacher of special ed or any other degree qualified to diagnose a child with such a label? these are labels that our children will never escape once they have been given. My daughter started with a speech iep due to being tounge tied at birth.To what the shool now has decided is  boarderline mentally retarded. I am now having to fight with a school district that has gone as far as to lie and accuse me of behavior in which never happend. They have retaliated and refused my child an education under these lies and found the principal to be in danger without ever even giving me a chance to tell what really happend. WHY? Because I took a picture of the retaliation. Parents, what is it they are really hiding from us?

I am my child’s main advocate. No one knows his needs better than I. As his mother, I am the only one who can speak for the whole child. 

Parents will always have Parental rights, but this does seem to me that this is more to do with making someones job easier. That would be nice, I would like my job to be easier too. Schools have a part in my childs life but they are not the parents and should not be given any rights to care for your child. To put it in simple terms there are Teachers who teach and Parents who are the ultimate care giver and advocates to there child. This is not a part time job to just limit parental rights.

Something to think about if this part of parental right is taken away does this allow the School to also take the extra blame and personal responsibilty for there actions taken on my child, if they make a bad decision. Through my own experince this bad decision making has happened more often then I care to count. We all make mistakes but as a team we can work together and not play the blame game. Its a long hard journey for parents to learn all the ins and outs of the Parental rights and what the School can actually offer or do for your child, so we need the Schools support as much as they need the parents and this does keep both sides in check .

 Sure we can run to due process but prevention would seem to be the best way to go.

I am opposed to the proposed changes limiting the parental role.  I am an equal part of the team.  I am the one who knows my son the best.  I serve as the only constant from year to year.  Please do NOT take away my rights to advocate for my child.

I oppose these changes because it takes away the parents right to be a full participant in their child's education.  This law would allow the school system to offer less services.  The services provided by the school and scarce already we don't need them reduced more, we need the services to be improved significantly if we expect our children to succeed. 

The proposal also eliminates speech therapy and occupational therapy for these children.  I believe this is very unfair, what about the FAPE - ending speech and occupational therapy is also ending the child's appropriate education.  These children are not getting the appropriate amount of speech and occupational therapy they need, to eliminate them would severely reduce their ability to become productive citizens.

I am also disappointed in the public schools because they no longer (at least in the area I live) offer summer school for these children.  These children need this extra educational experience to retain what progress they have made throughout the school year.  No summer school makes them lose what they learned during the school year.

The schools should implement ABA or Lovaas style of learning, if they truly want to help those with developmental disorder to reach their full potential.

Public schools are more interested in their sports program than their academic program, especially academic program for special needs children.  Us with special needs children, want the best for our child and our children deserve FAPE as much as any other student.  It is time that our schools realize this and start educating our children appropriately.

Schools need to stop the custom of starting classes for special needs children 30 minutes later than general students and dismissing them 30 minutes earlier than the general students.  By doing so they are losing 5 hrs per week of valuable education time, 30 hrs during the 6 week period, 90 hrs for one semester and 180 hours per year of valuable instruction time that would greatly benefit our children with special needs.    And then the school won't let them have summer school to make up these 180 hrs during the school year that these children have been denied their education.

  As a concerned voter, active Virginia citizen, and a thirty-year
teacher of special needs students, I urge the committee to reject the
proposed regulations regarding special education in Virginia's
schools. 
  These regulations would restrict parental rights to have a say in
their child's IEP process and accommodations, lessen standards that
would
require an appropriate education for their children in the event of a
discipline referral, and allow for conflicts of interest in any
hearings
involving their children, among other harmful consequences. 
  In particular, these dangerous recommendations would:
   
   Take away parental rights to give consent in their child's IEP
process  
   Restrict parental involvement in ensuring accommodations if their
child transfers to another school  
   Remove parental input from the Functional Behavioral Assessment team
   Allow a Local Education Agency to deny parental requests for an IEP
meeting if they think the request is unreasonable  
   Lengthen the time, without parental consent, that a school has to
postpone addressing their children's specific accommodations  
   Not require impartial due process hearings  
   Reduce the number of IEP progress reports given to parents on the
status of their child's education
Though these regulations were proposed in an attempt to bring Virginia
in line with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
they do the exact opposite of what IDEA intends.  These proposals
place students with AD/HD and other disabilities in danger of not receiving
a fair, appropriate, and public education guaranteed to them under
federal law.
  I join concerned parents and teachers across Virginia, Governor
Kaine, and other Virginia Children and Adults with special needs in
voicing my opposition to these proposed special education regulations. 
  Thank you for taking the time to hear and acknowledge my concerns.
  Sincerely,
  Christy L. Garcia, MA, BSSED, LPN
  Homebound Instructor for Botetourt County Schools
  5022 Jonathan Lane
  Roanoke, Virginia 24019

It makes me sick when I read about proposed changes that take power away from parents.  I am a parent of a child with ASD and can not imagine placing my son’s education solely in the hands of my local public school system.  The school system already does the absolute bare minimum to help children with special needs.  If parent advocates no longer have a say in their child’s education what will become of them?  Parents must have an equal hand in determining the most appropriate educational course for the future success of our children. 

I, for one, will shout my opposition from the rooftop if I must.  I know my child better than anyone and know what is best for his education.  I refuse to let services be taken away or diminished.  With the rates of ASD at epidemic levels today, NOW is the time to step up and provide more assistance not less.  We owe it to our children to provide them with the best education regardless of their special needs.  If parents remain complacent on this issue our voices will never be heard and our children will suffer. 

The school system seems to win every time my family and I have a dispute with them over an IEP or other issue. They indimidate us at IEPs with their knowledge and authority. I cannot imagine how they would use their power to dominate us if they had the additional power to unilaterally deny every request and deny unilaterally every service to our 4 year old autistic daughter. This is a power they should not have. Just say no to the Virginia school system. I really could care less if the school system is within Federal guidelines or not.

1. Ensures that the best interests of the child are served,
2. Guarantees that the parent is treated as a full and equal member of the IEP team as required by IDEA,
3. Protects the integrity of the IEP team process outlined in IDEA,
4. Prevents schools from making eligibility and service termination decisions by fiat and not by the consensus of the IEP team as intended by IDEA, and
5. Acts as a counterbalance to the pressure on school personnel to eliminate children from their special education services due to limited school district resources.

.

Virginia is a state built on common law.  This common law is intended to benefit/include all people and the state as a whole.  With regards to the proposed changes in the special education regulation, my husband and I are opposed.  The regulations should include more parent involvement in the lives of special education childern.  I am a mother of three with two children covered currently under IEPs.  Only through my involvement has their IEP development and implementation has each child been able to make forward progress.  I have spent ever day of their lives with them and have the knowledge to assist educators with the development of an IEP and Behavioral plan that beneifits both my children and the priors.  

Thank you -

Heidi and Gary Oldland

THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE MY STORY.  MY COMMENTS CONCERN THE PROPOSED CHANGE THAT WILL ELIMINATE PARENTAL CONSENT FOR TERMINATION OF SERVICES.

            *                       *                       *                    *                     *                      *                     *

MY NAME IS LINDA FALKERSON, I AM THE MOTHER OF A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL WHO HAS AN IEP FOR EMOTIONAL DISABILITIES.

MY DAUGHTER HAS A BRAIN INJURY FROM A STROKE THAT OCCURRED  IN UTERO.

AS A RESULT, SHE SUFFERS FROM MOOD DISORDERS, SHE IS ADD, AND, SHE HAS EPILEPSY.  TWICE AN AMBULANCE HAS BEEN SUMMONED TO SCHOOL GROUNDS WHEN SHE’S SUFFERED A GRAND MAL SEIZURE IN FULL VIEW OF CLASSMATES.

MY DAUGHTER HAS ABOVE AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE AND PRESENTS WELL, BUT EMOTIONALLY & SOCIALLY SHE IS BEHIND HER PEERS.  HER EMOTIONAL SYMPTOMS ARE SIMILAR TO OTHER STROKE VICTIMS; SHE CRIES EASILY AND HER ANGER CAN JUMP FROM ONE TO TEN VERY QUICKLY.  BECAUSE OF HER BRAIN DAMAGE, SHE  LACKS FULL SENSATION AROUND HER MOUTH AND OFTEN DOESN’T REALIZE SHE HAS CRUMBS ON HER CHIN OR THAT HER LIPS ARE EXTREMELY DRY.  RECENTLY SHE IS HAVING PROBLEMS WITH BLADDER CONTROL.

MY DAUGHTER HAS BEEN SOCIALLY ISOLATED IN SCHOOL BY CLASSMATES WHO FIND HER “ODD”. WHEN THE CLASS IS TOLD TO TEAM UP WITH A PARTNER, SHE OFTEN FINDS HERSELF WORKING ALONE. SHE’S SAT BY HERSELF ON A SCHOOL BUS FILLED WITH LAUGHING STUDENTS ON A FIELD TRIP.  SHE DROPPED OUT OF HER MIDDLE SCHOOL PLAY BECAUSE NO ONE WOULD SIT WITH HER AT REHEARSALS. 

THIS ISOLATION HAS PLAYED A HUGE ROLE IN HER FRUSTRATION, HER EMOTIONAL VOLATILITY AND HER SENSE THAT SHE IS ‘NOT NORMAL.’    AT AGE 9 SHE TRIED TO HURT HERSELF, USING A KNIFE AND SCISSORS, LUCKILY, SHE DIDN’T PUNCTURE HER SKIN, BUT LEFT SMALL MARKS. SHE’S ALSO USED A PEN AND HER JAGGED FINGERNAILS TO POKE AND SCRATCH HER ARM. 

TEACHERS AT HER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN THIS, SINCE IT OCCURRED OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL.  I TOLD THEM WHEN SHE WAS FIRST BEING CONSIDERED FOR SPECIAL SERVICES.  LAST YEAR, WHEN I ASKED HER CASE MANAGER HOW MY DAUGHTER WAS DOING SOCIALLY SHE REPORTED BACK AFTER CONSULTING WITH HER TEACHERS,  THAT MY DAUGHTER WAS ‘DOING FINE.’  THEY DIDN’T KNOW SHE WAS SITTING IN THE CAFETERIA AT A TABLE BY HERSELF, OR THAT WHEN SITTING ALONE BECAME INTOLERABLE, SHE WAS SKIPPING LUNCH AND HANGING OUT IN THE AUTISM ROOM WHERE SHE FELT ACCEPTED.

HER CASE MANAGER, TEACHERS AND GUIDANCE COUSELORS DIDN’T KNOW MY DAUGHTER WAS CALLING HOME FROM SCHOOL EVERY DAY, OFTEN SEVERAL TIMES A DAY, BEGGING ME TO PICK HER UP.  SEVERAL TIMES SHE TOLD ME SHE ‘COULDN’T TAKE IT ANYMORE’ AFTER SOMEONE TEASED HER.  I  TOLD HER IEP TEAM ABOUT THE CALLS AT HER RE-EVALUATION MEETING.

JUST TWO WEEKS AGO SHE CALLED ME FROM THE BATHROOM ON HER CELL PHONE, CRYING AND THREATENING TO WALK OUT OF SCHOOL IF I DIDN’T PICK HER UP.  SHE HAD HAD AN ARGUMENT WITH TWO GIRLS IN THE CAFETERIA.  SHE TOLD ME SHE WAS SCRATCHING HER ARMS AGAIN WITH HER FINGERNAILS.  NO ONE AT SCHOOL WOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS UNLESS I CALLED AND TOLD THEM.

TEACHERS ARE BUSY TEACHING, SO ARE CASE MANAGERS.  THEY CAN’T ALWAYS WITNESS WHAT GOES ON IN THE HALLWAYS OR THE CAFETERIA. THEY DON’T KNOW WHICH KIDS ARE ‘HURTING THEMSELVES’ BECAUSE THEY DON’T FIT IN.  BUT PARENTS CAN TELL THEM.

 I AM MY DAUGHTER’S BEST ADVOCATE.  IF SCHOOL STAFF IS GIVEN THE SOLE POWER TO DECIDE THAT SHE NO LONGER QUALIFIES FOR THE SUPPORT THAT SHE’S GETTING  BECAUSE OF HER EMOTIONAL DISABILITIES, THEY WILL BE MAKING THAT DECISION WITHOUT VITAL INPUT FROM ME.  AND THEY COULD BE CUTTING  THE ONLY SAFETY NET THAT PREVENTS HER FROM FALLING BACK INTO A SELF DESTRUCTIVE ABYSS.

YOU,  REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ARE HOLDING ONE END OF THE SAFETY NET, I AM HOLDING THE OTHER END.  IF YOU GIVE SCHOOL STAFF YOUR END OF THAT SAFETY NET, AND ELIMINATE ME, THE NET WILL FALL. AND MY DAUGHTER COULD FALL TOO.

THANK YOU.

Public Testimony on the Proposed Revision of the Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children with Disabilities in Virginia

June 2, 2008

Jeannine Rosado

9418 William Kirk Lane

Burke, VA 22015

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jeannine Rosado and I am speaking as a concerned citizen and have a 2 year old son with autism that currently attends preschool in Fairfax County. I want to express my concerns about the proposed revisions of the Virginia's special education regulations.

 My son has difficulty communicating. He gets frustrated when he is not able to communicate and this affects his behavior. Many times he is aggressive when over stimulated or when he is having a difficult time with a transition. My son’s aggressions sometimes take the form of scratching at faces and biting. Biting is a safety issue that schools take seriously. For safety reasons schools may want to remove a child from the general educational setting due to biting. My son has previously experienced discipline procedures due to biting.

I support retaining the existing requirement that an IEP be convened and parents be involved in the development of a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) during discipline procedures.

Previously my son’s rights were protected because our IEP team was able to meet by parental request and develop a Functional Behavioral Assessment. Instead of suspending my child for biting, his teachers were able to help him learn the necessary skills required to become a successful participant in his classroom through the implementation of a behavior plan. This plan addressed his behaviors and helped him learn more suitable ways of expressing himself. Discipline procedures should take in consideration the whole child and should be educational as well and an FBA provides for such an opportunity.

My son has a variety of specials needs which include educational, functional and behavioral. His Individualized Education Program was done through IEP Team consensus, with parental input and consent. My involvement has had a direct impact on his level of services and supports and participation in the general education preschool curriculum.

 I oppose permitting the development of a Functional Behavior Assessment to be a merely a review of existing data that does not require input of the parent. This provision should clearly state that an FBA is an evaluation that consists of a systematic collection and analysis of direct and indirect data, and may include a review of existing data. My son's behaviors also vary depending upon his environment. His behaviors are more challenging when not in an educational setting. The indirect data that would be provided by me as a parent would be crucial in order to develop an accurate Behavior Intervention Plan that would address all of my son's behavioral needs.

 A child’s education is the key to their future. To ensure that these children become productive citizens we must guarantee the supports and services necessary to educate them. It is in everyone’s best interest to provide these supports to benefit our society. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to speak.

Good Evening. My name is Sue Sargeant. I speak tonight on behalf of The Arc of Rappahannock which supports persons with developmental and intellectual disabilities in Fredericksburg, and the counties of Caroline, King George, Spotsylvania and Stafford. I am also a public school speech therapist who began teaching in Virginia in 1976 when PL94-142, now IDEA, began implementation across this great nation which values fairness and justice for our most vulnerable residents and citizens and their families. This Arc supports the platforms and comments AGAINST these proposed sped regs made by the attached parent advocacy and education assns. (by the Arc of Virginia, the Virginia Office for the Protection and Advocacy, Governor Kaine, JustChildren, the Coalition for Students with

Disabilities, the Virginia Education Association,  and the Fairfax County Advisory Committee for Students with Disabilities). Due to time constraints of this public comment, I will highlight just a few issues.

Virginia is a good supporter of young children. Look at how we go above federal requirement and are the only state to begin public education for our 2 yr olds with developmental delays. Let’s continue to do the right thing for our young children and do it the Virginia way. The Virginia way is to go above and beyond and Governor Kaine is right there with us with “Virginia

Leading the Way”.  Keep the DD option and make it align with IDEA with the age range of 5-9 yrs old.

It does not matter that Fairfax or Loudoun, have already been limiting their age range to the 2-5s so those of us in other LEAs should just go along with them. This is wrong for these LEAs to do despite their (mis)perception that young  children at age 5 can be appropriately identified into those disability category ‘sorts’ of e.g., ‘Mental Retardation/Intellectual Disability vs Learning Disability. They haven’t even had exposure to the 3-R’s curriculum yet for pete’s sake! These LEAs have no longitudinal data to support any of their harming practice. The National Assn for the Ed of Young Children and the Division for Early Childhood of the CEC both have platforms on maintaining DD for the 5-8s.  It will not help any young child to come up with say a ‘VDOE compromise’ such as allowing the continued use of DD for those 5s with previous experience under this label as a 2-4 yr old preschooler but not allow the DD use for ‘newly eligible’ 5-8s. 

VDOE has  no data, longitudinal included, for a hypothesis that cutting out the DD option for the 5-8s cuts down on dispropor rep of African American boys in sped. Why not look at more in-class non-sped supports for  teachers  so we can keep our children in the general ed classroom where they can access the content and where they BELONG’. Why not just tell teachers that they aren’t going to take a hit if students in their class don’t pass the SOLs and their school misses AYP?

Paperwork. We’re always going to have paperwork in sped. Cutting out parent consent provisions is not going to make that paperwork go away. New stuff will just pop up, like the paperwork associated with ‘double dipping’ into Medicaid monies to pay for the under-funded IDEA mandate.

So yes, we in VA go above and beyond on parent consent and involvement provisions because it is the RIGHT THING TO DO. It is THE RIGHT THING TO DO , to maintain those  provisions as well as current sped regs because we, service providers and parents, want to walk hand in hand as partners in educational planning decisions for OUR children and OUR students with disabilities. 

Thank you for listening to the hundreds of parents and advocates throughout the Commonwealth who support the platforms of The Arc of Virginia, VOPA and Virginia Education Association.

Good Evening. My name is Sue Sargeant. I speak tonight as a public school speech therapist and a member of the Virginia Education Association. I support the platforms  AGAINST these proposed sped regs made by the Arc of Virginia, and VOPA-the Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy.

After attending several  public hearings and listening to the hundreds of parents and advocates from communities throughout Virginia voice their concerns about the drastic changes to these special ed regs, I just shake my head and wonder ‘why do you put parents and advocates through this?’  You can read the VCASE position and these proposed regs and see that they mirror an ‘out of touch mindset’ with what is occurring in the day-to-day functioning of our public schools’ special education services and programs.  These special ed administrators do not realize how hard we have worked in the Commonwealth for decades to build successful partnerships with parents in the special educational planning process. We, service providers, parents and advocates are not going to let some central office desk administrators  create division in these partnerships. 

Trying to see their viewpoint, I realize that most of their interactions with parents must be divisive and confrontational rather than  mutually-supportive, equal and beneficial relationships that are evident when families and teachers team up to work together to assist a child in accessing the general and special ed curriculum. Why else would these regs propose eliminating parent consent and involvement provisions? Just because we go ‘above and beyond in Virginia? That’s a poor excuse. In Virginia we do the right thing for our children with disabilities. The Virginia way is to go above and beyond and Governor Kaine is right there with us too with “Virginia Leading the Way”. 

Is it because of the paperwork? We’ll always have paperwork.  Look at the state’s double-dipping into the Medicaid monies to pay for IDEA. Talk about paperwork! Why can’t we just say that Virginia is a trendsetter and we are modeling the way it should be across the US so that each state has its right to adopt the ‘right and Virginia way’ of involving parents as equal partners. So what if parents still have the option of going to a due process if they don’t agree with terminating their child’s access to speech or OT? Who wants that extra paperwork hassle? Do it right the first time, the Virginia way, and keep the current parent consent provisions in place.  Then we won’t have to anticipate that these changes are going to bring on the paperwork burden of due process hearings.

And why attack the DD age range? Remember-evaluators, even from Fairfax or Loudoun counties, cannot accurately discriminate in that developmental period of 5-8 yrs old between a child with mental retardation, a learning disability or a significant auditory processing deficit.

Back in 1978, I was a full time grad student at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. We read Jane Mercer’s work plus this book, “Johnny’s Such a Bright Boy, What A Shame He’s Retarded”. The whole concept of the dangers of early mis-labeling permeated each of our classes. We could all cite sections of Lloyd Dunn’s 1964 classic article “Special Ed: Is Much of It Justifiable?” to drum into our young heads that despite good intentions of well meaning but uninformed ‘specialists’ that labels and mis-labels harm children’s opportunities for a bright educational future. That ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but names can really hurt me’.  So Please  keep the DD disability category option and make it align with IDEA to age 9.

You, as well as supportive legislators in the VA Gen Assembly, have now learned that these changes were not thought out thoroughly to get ‘the other side of the story’. Look at the EXTENSIVE thought that the Arc and VOPA put in to explaining our concerns with these troublesome proposals and respect that work. The current regs aren’t broken and don’t need much fixing. Ensure bright educational futures for ALL of Virginia’s children by sending these regs right back to the drawing board for a major re-write.

Thank you for listening.

.

PROFILE OF A 5 YEAR OLD WITH A DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY

Joey* can not be understood. His speech is characterized by multiple sound substitutions and omissions and it is considered 80% unintelligible. He is also clumsy. His walking is uncoordinated but he does not have cerebral palsy. He just has an issue with motor planning. He gets Occupational Therapy for this. When he plays with his legos, he is creative. If you listen carefully, you can tell that he is talking about his creations  in which a creature may escape in a convoluted contraption that sends him into space. Other  kindergarteners like him. He’s fun to be near. He doesn’t grab at toys. He just can’t be understood and sometimes he doesn’t seem to listen. His sisters have all been diagnosed with a severe auditory processing deficit. He’s still young but his mother suspects he’ll have that diagnosis soon. He has lots of supports in place, including a special ed Resource teacher in his general education Kindergarten class with 1 hour pullout for specific skill development to help him access the K curriculum with supports of speech and occupational therapies.

Joey has a disability category of Developmental Delay (DD) and his mother was pleased that he could hold on to this soft-label until age 8 since many of his issues will resolve by then. Plus he’ll have the experience of learning to read and doing math under his belt so that his IEP special ed team will have a better  idea at age 8 if he may have a ‘significant learning disability’. But Joey’s mom didn’t have the chance this year to wait until age 8. When the preliminary ‘draft’ of the proposed changes in the Virginia Department of Education’s special ed regulations was released and proposed DD elimination for the 5 – 8 year olds, Joey’s school system jumped at the chance to re-test and re-label him and more than 100 other 5 year olds with more ‘severe’ labels, such as Mental Retardation  (MR) or Learning Disability.

So what will happen to Joey? If he is in a school system that focused on research-based techniques and had ‘highly qualified’ special ed staff supporting more of his time in the general education classroom, perhaps he could handle the MR mis-label. But maybe not. He may be in a school system that has high turnover of staff or with personnel who can’t see past that negative label on him; who can’t understand that ’labels don’t drive placements’. So if you are MR, then you belong in the MR classroom with all those other MR children. So Joey becomes what he is labeled. He becomes ‘retarded’ and the bureaucracy becomes smug in letting others know  that he was that all along and now it’s proven.  He’ll spend the years between 5-8 years with that label and associating with a more homogeneous grouping of ‘flat score’ kids rather than the diversity inherent in a DD-resource or inclusion classroom. He’ll be in the ‘lower and separate track’ of public education, otherwise known as that segregated self-contained special ed room. That low IQ score at the vulnerable age of 5 years old and that more ‘severe’ label will always be in his academic record and will define who he associates with and what type of diploma, if any, he will get for the rest of his 16 years in school. He will not  graduate out of MR because he will ‘become’ MR due to low expectations for that disability category and a ‘watered down’ separate curriculum.

But Joey’s educational life may turn out OK. His mom found an advocate. They both dug in their heels with his father too and Joey got the ‘milder’ disability category of Speech Language Impairment entered into his academic records.  SLI is a ‘less stigma’ sort of  disability category. But what about the parents of other Joeys in the Commonwealth who don’t know about this option? Their Joeys will sit in low expectations MR self contained rooms with some minimal attempt at ‘inclusion’ by going to assemblies, the library, or art/music rooms. But not access to the general education SOL content or to the Reading Specialist. And due to mislabeling at age 5 by a school system team that thinks it can tell the difference at age 5 between a child with Mental Retardation or a Learning Disability, he will become what he is incorrectly labeled: ‘mentally retarded’ until he leaves the school system at age 22 years old. Not as a child who was taught compensatory skills and overcame his delays at age 8 years old.

The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) is soliciting the public’s input until June 30 about the  special education regulations. The proposed changes are controversial and most of them are opposed by The Arc of Virginia and The Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy. Apparently these regulatory changes were proposed because Virginia goes above and beyond federal regulation in the special education law Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and especially when it comes to parent involvement in the special ed process. Rather than being proud of being a trendsetter in this area, the Virginia Council for Administrators in Special Ed (VCASE) opposes Virginia-specific parent consent provisions in our current regulations. VCASE thinks that by eliminating the parent consent and involvement provisions they will cut back on the paperwork in special education. However, those of us who have taught for decades know there will always be paperwork in special education; if not the ‘double-dipping’-sort associated with tapping into Medicaid monies to pay for public school therapies because of an underfunded IDEA federal  mandate, then  the new paperwork hassles anticipated with the due process hearings that families will be filing in response to disagreements with the public schools when they no longer have a say about the speech, occupational or physical therapy being removed from their child’s individualized educational program without their permission as is being proposed in these regulation changes

School systems across Virginia have become alarmed at the number of children who are being placed in special ed programs. These proposed regulations are a misguided attempt to reduce this high percentage. For example, on Monday May 12, the Spotsylvania Co School Board voted to eliminate the  DD option for their 5-8 year olds because it was stated that this would cut back on children in special ed.  (Amanda Blalock and Linda Wieland were the lone dissenters voting in favor of maintaining the DD option for the 5-8s). No data, longitudinal included, was presented to justify this decision. It was not pointed out that no IQ test or IEP team can clearly define the difference between a ‘significant learning disability’ and ‘mental retardation’ for a 5-year old. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children both have position statements that state “ Categorical classification during these years of 5-8 yrs old would be premature and potentially inaccurate.” Instead, lowering class sizes and bringing more ‘push-in’ special ed supports to the general education classroom, not eliminating the soft-label DD, are effective in reducing the referrals to special education. It remains to be seen if there is a connection between a higher sped referral rate and a school’s attempt to keep a high pass rate on their SOLs and make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under No Child Left Behind.

Let’s continue to do the right thing for our young children and do it the Virginia way. The Virginia way is to go above and beyond. Parents and teachers have joined together for decades since 1975 to build equal partnerships through these current special ed regs. We don’t want to turn back the clock. Keep the DD option and make it align with the federal IDEA law with the age range of 5-9 yrs old. And keep those parents involved in the desired partnership of home and school by the current consent provisions. By doing this we will ensure brighter educational futures for ALL of our children.

.

*Children’s Names have been changed to one. This profile is a conglomeration of features of several students but is a common scenario when a Virginia public school system (such as Spotsylvania County in August 2007)  decides to re-test and assign new (and harsher) disability categories to students between the ages of 5 – 8 years old  who had been ‘soft- labeled’ with Developmental Delay (DD).

Sue Sargeant is a 30 year special education teacher and an officer with The Arc of Rappahannock, an advocacy organization which supports persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities since 1953 in Planning District 16: Fredericksburg and the counties of Caroline, King George , Spotsylvania, and Stafford.

I wanted to enter a comment on new information that needs to be addressed in the state's decisions about deaf blindness and blindness/ visual impairment.

As I advocate and educate doctors and school staffing about my daughters condition I have new information that needs to be addressed across the state.  According to professionals the state has a law that bases help offered off of visual acuity.  The definition of blindness is not just referring to acuity it also refers to the physical motor component of the brain (processing and speed).  My daughter has bilateral amblyopia due to high astigmatism, one optic nerve that is not developed as well as the other; she has dysgrahpia which is spelling difficulty, no basic perceptual understanding, and visual processing with a slow motor.  Yet we can not get help and have someone teach our daughter Braille, because you have to go by acuity.  Well, this goes against the definition of blindness, this creates a problem so severe that the children like my daughter go through school and life with little to no help. 

I'm sorry but it's time that people understand that blindness, deafness, and the combination of which are so serve that not just school laws need to change but laws in general.  

My daughter is deaf blind and still can not check out books from the Virginia State Blind and visually impaired Library, because her eye acuity does not qualify her for these services.

I had the blind teacher do an evaluation on our daughter, when I mention Braille and she knew my daughter had good eye acuity she said that is not a recommendation.  Well, the issue with this is by the time a child is 8 their eyes have trained the brain the way it will see for the remainder of the child's life.  Even with vision therapy there will be no cure nor lead to a full correction of the problem. 

My child is 10 and she struggles to read on a pre-school level, this is not from a lack of teaching it is a simple medical disability hindering her education.  It should not be up to the state nor a school system and VDOE to say eye acuity is the only way to get help.  I'm tired of hearing state run agencies saying we can't help you because of the state laws saying your child isn't bad enough. 

People can have good eye acuity’s and still fall under the disability of blindness.  Just like deafness /hard of hearing does not just mean ability to hear.  Children like our daughter with these disabilities need sensory integration therapy.  The schools do not offer this nor know what sensory integration problems ever are or how to help.  Schools need to have this knowledge and develop this as a related service and recognize that this is just as important as speech, PT, OT, and adaptive PE.

It's time for a change and the only way change will come about is people start listening to parents and working with the parents in the best interest of child. 

Special Education Regulations Revision Process

Office of Dispute Resolution and Administrative Services

Virginia Department of Education

P.O. Box 2120

Richmond, Virginia 23218-2120

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to submit my written comments regarding your office’s proposed revisions to the Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children with Disabilities in Virginia.

In particular, I strongly object to VDOE’s misuse of 34 CFR § 300.307 as the federal authority to add 8 VAC 20-81-80 (Eligibility) Sections H, I, L M, N, O, P, Q, R, and S to the proposed regulations.  VDOE has misled the public and the Board of Education with its intentional misrepresentation of this federal citation in declaring that this reference gives it the authority to propose criteria for all disabled children. I oppose the inclusion of the arbitrary and subjective sections listed above and recommend that these sections be deleted in their entirety.

The proposed new sections would put in place predetermined and arbitrary requirements for eligibility where none previously existed and where none are required by federal mandates. Additionally, the proposed would make it more difficult for children to be determined eligible for special education services. 

VDOE has arbitrarily expanded the federal requirement for “[s]tates to establish criteria to assist eligibility committees in determining whether a child has a specific learning disability.” The proposed regulation inappropriately adds criteria for selected disability categories (such as autism, developmental delay, deafness, hearing impairment, and others) where no such criteria are set out in the federal or state laws or federal regulations.

The proposed provisions would impose unnecessary barriers for parents and children with disabilities. Such overreaching restrictions can only work to disadvantage children with atypical forms of autism (PDD-NOS, Asperger’s, Rhett’s) or children who are not deaf but use interpreting services (apraxia, dyspraxia, Down’s Syndrome) or children who otherwise would be eligible for special education services. The proposed provisions would improperly give local education agencies the authority to medically diagnosis a child—a role for which they are not qualified. The proposed criteria are arbitrarily conceived to the detriment of children with disabilities and will, if adopted, only create delays in eligibility determinations, lead to battles between school staff and medical experts, and increase litigation.

Moreover, VDOE has not adopted criteria for all disabilities, as it claims in its proposed 8 VAC 20-81-80 (I).  VDOE has carefully chosen not to require the same restrictive criteria for the disability categories of emotional disturbance, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, speech and language impairment, deaf-blindness, or traumatic brain injury.

I agree that there should be criteria for the specific learning disability category, as this is required by the federal regulations, but as I have stated above, I strongly oppose adding novel criteria for selected other disabilities. The above-cited  sections should be deleted in their entirety.

Sincerely,

Jackie Simchick

Special Education Regulations Revision Process