As parents of a very disabled little child, we wanted to put in writing our very sincere hope that our rights will not be eroded further as is the case should the VDOE change the regulations as proposed.

 

We completely reject all arguments that the VDOE should limit its regulations in order to align them with those of the federal government. For example, Virginia follows the ADA with respect to service dogs, but they have gone a step further in supporting three unit teams, and adding “including schools” to public entities so service dog teams will not find the resistance there. Virginia and other states have the right and the obligation to tailor their programs to fit the needs of their citizens within the scope of the law. Updating the bills and signing them into law has tailored the law to fit the needs of Virginians across the state. 

 

How can the current rights given to parents impose an undue burden on LEAs?  Parents are struggling and find themselves “disempowered” at almost every turn. When disagreements arise over services, as is the case for us, we have experienced many dirty tricks and have had to fight tooth and nail to avoid being outmaneuvered by the bureaucratic and legal juggernaut that clangs into alignment against us. The rights granted to parents under the current regulations provide some small protection against railroading; these rights should be expanded, not rolled back. We implore you to support the Virginia parents of child with multiple special needs!

 

As the parents of a severely disabled child, we want you to know where we stand on the following issues.

 

Parental Consent to the Termination of Services

We are vehemently opposed to 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 parents who have the least resources to prove their position.

 

Due Process Hearing System

As the parent of a severely traumatized and disabled child, I would urge you NOT to remove the due process hearing system from the Supreme Court of Virginia and shift it exclusively to VDOE.

 

Local educational agencies have the ear of the VDOE, but individual parents have no influence whatsoever. We have experienced this first hand. Often parents are treated without respect and they are demeaned by the LEAs. As an experienced special education teacher, I know what it is like to sit on both sides of the table. The myth from schools that “we are the experts and we know best” is rampant and is troublesome among parents of special needs students. The proposed removal of the special education due process hearing system from the judiciary to the regulating agency presents a HUGE conflict of interest and would improperly create a new, non-independent judicial system.

Furthermore, we also vehemently oppose the elimination of the current requirement to develop and submit an implementation plan following the rendering of a due process decision or the withdrawal of a hearing request. Parents must not have their expensive and rare victories crumble into dust by the failure of the school system to ever implement them.

 

LEA participation on local advisory committees

I believe it would be a conflict of interest for the local education agency ( LEA ) personnel to act as voting members on local advisory committees. 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

I am in opposition to the change 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. 

Parental Consent to Services for Transfer Students

Please do NOT eliminate 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.


 

Short Term Objectives

We also urge 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.

 

Functional Behavioral Assessments

There is no way for an adequate Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) to be written let alone be implemented after merely reviewing existing data. As it stands now FBAs are avoided and when completed they are poorly written and unclear. The 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. Teachers or specialists who write them need to be trained. The frequent experience of parents is 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.

 

Labeling

As a special education teacher, I understand the necessity for labels. I would recommend 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, we feel modification of the regulations to use the term "intellectual disability" rather than "mental retardation would also be a good step forward. Expectations are lowered just by the use of the words.

 

Response to Intervention

We urge 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.

Eligibility Criteria.

We oppose 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.

Developmental Delay

Please do not allow the limiting of the developmental delay category only to the ages of 2 to 5. Instead please reinforce 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. Schools often do not have the specialized experience they need in working with children like our daughter who suffers from classic reactive attachment disorder (RAD) and Developmental Trauma Disorder classified as severe and chronic PTSD. The schools re-traumatized her because they did not understand how to work with her and they would not listen to us as her parents or her physicians and therapists.

 

 

We urge you to protect our rights and the rights of our special needs children. Please do not allow Virginia to fall back into the dark ages of education.