All below comments relate to the following guidance document: VDOE Supplemental Guidance for Evaluation and Eligibility in Special Education. https://www.townhall.virginia.gov/L/GDocForum.cfm?GDocForumID=636&fbclid=IwAR0cK9wsOLsyWoGwKJkHxraj1c8flFf5GAThX1xPBesXawPqP8q_k4HbefA

 https://www.townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=C%3A%5CTownHall%5Cdocroot%5CGuidanceDocs_Proposed%5C201%5CGDoc_DOE_4900_20210726.pdf&fbclid=IwAR2LCEb28HlDLE-5kh6tIPY71ja4ddFrWFTjkjjjJcNB2H-RhMJKZX-KuHM

IQ-Achievement Severe Discrepancy Method (pg 18) should be removed and not allowed.  The use of the discrepancy model has not been found as a valid indication of SLD.  

• When Congress reauthorized IDEA, they changed the law about how to identify children with specific learning disabilities. IDEA 2004 says schools “shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning.” (Section 1414(b))
• According to the IDEA 2004 regulations, States “Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining if a child has a specific learning disability ... must permit the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention and may permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability…” (CFR 300.307(a))
• https://www.asha.org/advocacy/federal/idea/idea-part-b-issue-brief-identification-of-specific-learning-disabilities/

Under RTI (pg 21-22) insert that the parents should be notified of what RTI is, the levels, how long to expect on each level, the amount/type/time of each service, and what data is collected/used for either graduating from RTI or moving the child through to an evaluation.  

• When RTI is being used to determine if a child is suspected of having SLD, the parents must be notified (consent is not required) about: (A) the state's policies regarding the amount and nature of student performance data that would be collected and the general education services that would be provided; (B) strategies for increasing the child's rate of learning; and (C) the parents' right to request an evaluation (§300.311(a)(7)). This notification must be documented in the eligibility determination. Thus, the state education agency (SEA) must have clear state policies pertaining to RTI that can be communicated to parents by the LEA. Furthermore, RTI must not be used to delay identification. Section 300.309(c) requires the school to promptly request parental consent to evaluate a child suspected of SLD who has not made adequate progress under RTI. https://www.asha.org/advocacy/federal/idea/idea-part-b-issue-brief-identification-of-specific-learning-disabilities/

Under screenings for SLD (pg 24, para 2) “The child should have a recent vision and hearing screening” should be amended to state the child should pass a COMPREHENSIVE vision and hearing screening.  Passing or not passing a visual acuity screening fails to consider a Functional visual issue (accommodative or convergence insufficiency), which is covered under IDEA.  The Department of Education’s Office of Special Education (OSE) 2014 policy letter to Michelle Kotler and the similar 2017 policy memo for ‘eligibility determinations for children suspected of having a vision impairment under idea’ both recognize convergence insufficiency as something covered under IDEA. Similarly, a comprehensive hearing exam should test at a large range of frequencies: the school only tests for hearing at 1000 – 4000 Hz.  Testing at lower frequencies, 250-500 Hz, may find that the student is not actually hearing the voicing cues at these frequencies; making it hard to hear the phonics separately in speech.  According to American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), the Guidelines for Manual Pure-Tone Threshold Audiometry should be at measurements from 250-8000 Hz.  More info on how lower frequencies impact speech (often as a result of childhood glue ear):  https://www.phonak.com/us/en/hearing-loss/hearing-loss-in-children/hearing-tests-for-children.html  and https://hearinghealthmatters.org/hearingandkids/2013/4000-hz-tell/. Further, these tests should be done prior to standardized intelligence and educational testing as poor eyesight and hearing have both been known to affect the standardized tests – which are based on visual and hearing abilities. Specifying a range that must be tested (and under which disabilities (i.e. if the student is only suspected of being blind – then maybe no widened hearing range (as examined by pure-tone audiometry; but if suspected of speech or hearing then a widened hearing range is recommended) will standardize the hearing test through Virginia and should target the potential difficulties hearing at higher or lower frequencies when speech or hearing is indicated.  Or for speech/hearing evaluations - a comprehensive audiology test is required (to include speech testing (ability to hear speech in loud and quiet environments with different speech sounds), tympanometry, and otoacustic emissions).  As ASHA notes: Children with minimal to moderate and/or unilateral hearing losses are often identified late because they seem to hear and develop socially adequate speech and language. Speech is audible to them but, depending on the type and configuration of the hearing loss, parts of words or sentences may not be heard clearly. Therefore, it is often difficult for these children to understand what they hear.”https://www.asha.org/policy/gl2002-00005/  If speech and/or hearing are determined to be an issue by the team, then a full assessment should include the wider range of frequencies and the different types of tests beyond pure tone audiometry.  Testing the psych or educational standardized tests first may result in the tests pulling down the intelligence score – suggesting the child has less intelligence than they do.  It could be that the IQ test would then be a minimal estimate of the child’s actual intelligence because the child was handicapped by their hearing/vision issues.  That should be noted and considered prior to the educational and psych testing to allow for accommodations, modifications, or at least an assessment of whether the test is a minimal indication of the child’s abilities, or if it is an accurate representation.  

Finally, in the same section of vision and hearing testing – the LEA should indicate that additional testing when the child does not pass the school’s test should be paid for by the LEA under IDEA.  Just like pg 18, “If the school team determines that a medical is necessary, the cost of the medical evaluation must be covered by the LEA and completed within the evaluation timeline.”  If the school is mandating a test to rule out/consider for the evaluation – it should be covered. According to the final comments for IDEA part C “Concerning the comment about a lead agency’s payment and referral responsibility, the lead agency would be responsible for referring families to ophthalmologists or optometrists and also would be responsible for paying for diagnostic services, as required under §303.13(b)(5).” https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/reg/idea/part-c/idea-part-c-final-regs.doc  

Under Speech Language Disability (pg 26), you should also consider more than just swallowing ability as part of the functional assessment, looking at the structures of the mouth (tongue, tonsils, lips, which can affect ability to be able to pronounce certain words.  If the speech pathologist is unable to view the functional abilities – they should seek out a dentist who can highlight enlarged tonsils, soft palette issues, or other problems: https://greatspeech.com/what-to-expect-during-an-oral-mechanism-exam/

Additionally, please consider notification and documentation timeline requirements.  When schools can notify a parent a day or two in advance for making a meeting, the parent does not have time to adjust their schedules.  Schools should be required to provide ten calendar days notice of meetings – just like schools have 10 calendar days to respond to a request for an evaluation.  Similarly, parents should also have 10 days prior to a eligibility meeting (where the school has all of the assessments) to review the documents, gather their questions, contact an advocate/attorney, or seek other information to come to the meeting prepared.  As it currently is, schools have not provided those assessments or documents with enough time prior to meetings for parents or advocates to arrive prepared.  This should not happen.  Parents should have a standardized and reasonable number of days notice (i.e. 10 calendar days – even when potential weekends and holidays are included (i.e. thanksgiving) this gives parents time to be prepared when attending – and gives time to adjust schedules to make the important meeting).  If schools require a specific amount of time to respond, get organized, and review assessments for their response - then parents should also have a specific amount of time for the same.

Consider for schools requiring them to document a number of tries/ways to reach of parent before it can be said the parent ignored the notices (i.e. tried three times, two email one follow up phone call to email address and phone number of record - no response so school met without parent).