Oppose: Elimination of parental consent prior to the partial or full termination of special education and related services
Oppose: Elimination of parental consent for services for transfer students.
Support: Each and every recommendation (see attached) of the Virginia Office of Protection and Advocacy (VOPA).
Good evening, Board members. My name is Rob Foster, and I am the proud father of twin girls Sarah and Emily. Thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of retaining current regs that require parental consent prior to the partial or full termination of special education and related services. I understand that the draft regulations are an attempt to simplify the regulations and reduce paperwork. Most parents want this also; we want less time spent on paperwork and meetings and more time spent in classroom instruction. This can only help our children. Though I cannot imagine how controversial draft regs which would reduce parent participation and consequently degrade the parent-school relationship would accomplish this. I foresee that the process would become much more complex, time-consuming, and combative.
Apparently, there are students who are no longer eligible for special education but whose parents will not consent to terminate services. Apparently, these students burden the county with high costs in funding, time, and paperwork. If this is the case, there must be many of these students weighing the system down. Maybe my girls will be affected. In my mind, the students with disabilities who no longer need special education would be students who have little more than accommodations on their IEPs. This is not a huge cost nor is it reams of paperwork and time. Many students need accommodations, even students not covered under IDEA. Some say accommodations are just good teaching. On the other hand, if these students receive special education and related services, have IEPs outlining goals with accommodations and curricular adaptations and modifications (i.e. paperwork folks are complaining about), but are achieving at grade level and doing well, then these students are receiving special education that works! According to NCLB and IDEA 2004, special education is supposed to enable students to reach profiency on challenging state academic achievement standards! (Please let me know where these students go to school.) Anyone can see that taking the IEP and services away would surely cause these students to regress or fail very quickly. But you’re right, it sure would be cheaper and take less time and paperwork. And what’s a few failing SOL scores if they don’t have to be disaggregated into the disability subgroup!
My main concern is the degree of vagueness surrounding the elimination of parental consent.
·VDOE representatives have stated that before special education services could be terminated, an evaluation would first be conducted by the school in order to determine if the child is still a child with a disability who needs special education. Why don’t the draft regs state this? In direct contradiction to this, Charles Pyle, a VDOE rep, stated last week after the public hearing in LoudounCounty that if parents do not agree with schools, the parents could have another evaluation done.
·Furthermore, let’s say that there is disagreement among the “team”, that excludes the parents, as to whether the child is still a child with a disability who needs special education and related services. If the decision is made by consensus, then it could be possible for a school administrator, not the special education staff and experts, to ultimately make the decision to terminate services.
·After a recent hearing in Roanoke, Doug Cox, Assistant Superintendent of Special Education for the VDOE, reported that this “controversial provision would only apply to students who have improved to the point that they would no longer need special services.” Who defines “improved to the point..”? What is the criteria for reaching this point? I find it very odd that grade-level attainment wasn’t mentioned. Is “improved to the point..” based on data or teacher observation? If data, what type? Norm-referenced standardized achievement tests? SOL scores? Grades? IQ scores? Reading assessments? Why don’t the draft regs specify these details? This lack of detail is a set-up for future misinterpretations and disagreements, even among school personnel. And FAPE requirements under IDEA clearly state, “Each state must ensure that FAPE is available to any individual child with a disability who needs special education and related services, even though the child has not failed or been retained in a course or grade, and is advancing from grade to grade.” (Section 300.101 (c) (1))
·Another comment was: “It would affect only children that started out with a mild disability.” Again, why don’t draft regulations state this? And what exactly is a mild disability? Does the IDEA statute even mention a “mild” disability?
I urge you to reconsider regulations that would in any way damage the parent-school relationship that is vital to the success of our children.
“….whether the IEP and FAPE requirements were put there out of mistrust of the parents, or out of mistrust of school authorities. It seems to me they were put there to make sure the school authorities did not give the disabled child second-rate treatment.”
- Transcript of Oral Argument, statement by Supreme Court Justice,
Florence County School District IV. V. Shannon Carter (October 6, 1993)
