Virginia Regulatory Town Hall View Comments

Department of Education

State Board of Education

Guidance Document Change: The VDOE Supplemental Guidance for Evaluation and Eligibility in Special Education was developed to assist Individualized Education Program (IEP) and Eligibility teams, including parents, as they engage in evaluation, eligibility determinations, and decisions regarding the need for related services. This guidance is an addendum to the Virginia Department of Education’s Guidance on Evaluation and Eligibility for Special Education and Related Services. This document was developed in response to Recommendations 1 and 2 from the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) 2020 report on K-12 Special Education in Virginia. The Supplemental Guidance provides information about data sources that may be used to inform eligibility for special education services or a need for a related service, as well as information to assist in the local interpretation for terminology in Virginia special education regulations that are not clearly defined (e.g., determining “adverse educational impact” and determining “need for specially designed instruction”). The Sample Eligibility Forms and Disability Worksheets reflects a revision to the existing Guidance on Evaluation and Eligibility for Special Education Appendix (Sample Evaluation and Eligibility Forms). This revision was made in response to Recommendation 2 from the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) 2020 report on K-12 Special Education in Virginia. The sample forms and worksheets are provided to assist Local Educational Agencies (LEA) in documenting eligibility determinations in accordance with the criteria contained in the Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children with Disabilities in Virginia.

Previous Comment Next Comment Back to List of Comments

9/1/21 4:37 pm

Commenter: Symone Walker, NAACP Education Committee, Arlington Branch

I OPPOSE the eligibility language which disadvantages Black, Brown, and EL students

I oppose VDOE's proposed Supplemental Guidance re eligibility which raises concerns for EL, Black and Brown, and low-income students getting services. The language on page 19 is a slippery slope as it builds in too much room for bias and subjectivity:

"Careful consideration of bias and diagnostic accuracy or error rates is suggested when examining performance on norm referenced or standardized tests. Research shows that cultural and linguistic differences may result in an impact of up to 35 standard score points depending on the particular test and individual student’s cultural background and language skills. Teams should discuss the impact of regional dialectal differences, common family or cultural customs, lack of practice, and other factors that while appropriate for the individual student, may result in a lower score due to inappropriate comparison with the test norming population.

When results across student evaluation components are inconsistent or varied, the team should consider possible reasons or a combination of other explanations for the student’s academic and/or behavioral difficulties. Discussion of why results differ may reveal additional explanations including lack of high-quality instruction due to ongoing teacher vacancies, implementation of interventions not matched to student area(s) of need, or cultural mismatch for classroom activities or evaluation tasks."

Why hasn't VDOE cited this study? Please PROVIDE this study cited as the basis.

If a student can’t read, they should receive help. Period. This language provides a big loophole for districts not to find students eligible.

A psychologist who is an expert on effective reading instruction notes that "35 standard score points is 2 1/3 standard deviations. That's an enormous difference, which they have claimed is based on research without citing that research. They have allowed the reader to believe that almost anything could cause that large a difference. I suspect the research they're citing (if there is any research at all) had one or two students with differences that large out of dozens or hundreds in the study. Note the language they use, "up to…" They're not saying it's common; not saying it's expected. They're saying this is the maximum difference that has ever occurred in a study, without citing the study. So, some kid who was proficient in Portuguese and scored 140 on a test given in Portuguese, scored 105 in the same test given in English, because they barely spoke English. That would justify their sentence. But they have deliberately worded it in a vague yet generous way to allow you to believe that children score as much as 35 points below their actual ability on a fairly routine basis because of differences in dialect and cultural customs.

You don't have to have any proof, mind you. This loophole is the gift that keeps on giving. You just have to suspect, to believe, that the child's "actual" ability exceeds the reported score. Once you believe it (for no better reason than you want to believe it) that's good enough. Your belief allows you to discount the importance of the score."

In summary, this eligibility guidance will FURTHER disadvantage minority and marginalized students.

Sincerely,

Symone Walker

Parent of a dyslexic student (for whom I've had to fight to get identified, and find eligible)

Vice Chair of Arlington SEAC

Co-Chair, Arlington NAACP Education Committee

Member, Virginia NAACP Education Committee

CommentID: 99888