(As a disabled person I utilize Identity First Language. For readers who are also disabled and prefer Person First, please accept this of my respectful acknowledgement of your preference)

I am a special education advocate and parent of disabled students in the Central Virginia region. My experience centers mostly on supporting lower socioeconomic families with advocacy and the primary disabilities I support are neurodivergencies including autism, ADHD, specific learning disorders including dyslexia and dysgraphia, and emotional disabilities such as anxiety.

I have several concerns reading this proposed document; primarily how it may affect disabled black, indigeounous, and other people (students) of color, otherwise known as BIPOC. Some of the recommendations within are baffling to me in the inequity they could cause. When counteracting systemic racism it is important to consider whether a law or policy is overtly racist or discriminatory, but it is also equally if not more important to consider how a policy may be implemented and whether the effect of implementation would be racist or discriminatory. That to say, Virginia educators and the Virginia Department of Education must still actively examine their own systemic racism. 

One of my greatest frustrations as an advocate in my region is the delayal of identification. Students are referred to RTI which is then not even monitored with fidelity. Students are given the wait and see approach. I see students with unidentified learning disabilities become angry, aloof, and develop “a pervasive mood of unhappiness” at school. It is only after they become behavior problems that disabilities are identified. More than once I have seen this pattern escalate to students being subjected to frequent restraint in their frustration at school all while schools delay evaluating. It is unfathomable how harmful and traumatic these delayals are on our students. A large part of my practice is supporting newly identified dyslexic students (SLD) in middle school, whereas the prime time for intervention and remediation is early elementary.

The demographic that suffers the most from these delayals and denials is our disabled BIPOC students who must first face the implicit bias based on their race before their vulnerabilities as a disabled student. Black students are over identified as Intellectually Disabled or Emotionally Disabled due to bias in our schools, whereas the early identification and support of their needs remains underwhelming statistically.

Specific to this document my concerns as follows:

Pg 19- “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 students' cultural background and language skills.” 

Thirty-five points is 2.3 standard deviations. Whereas some SLP commenters seem to believe this is supportive in speech assessment the truth is this is for all normed tests. Thirty-five points is a misinformed or malaligned team refusing to move on a child’s needs until they have fallen near totally off the bell curve. For scale, on a cognitive assessment, that equates to failing to identify unless a child’s perceived score approaches or exceeds what is typically considered  intellectually disabled; the implication being only severely impacted BIPOC would ever be identified if schools propose 35 point margins.

Also, confounding is the implication that a test with a 35 point margin of error would make it to the eligibility committee. An examiner is supposed to be trained in selecting tests which reduce cultural and linguistic bias. Examiners are supposed to be trained in screening out dialectal and linguistic differences in scoring. Examiners are supposed to apply confidence intervals, which support the dampening of these potential biases. Examiners are supposed to provide assurances that the evaluations are reasonably accurate. If they have made it that far and have only a test they can’t verify within two deviations, then how are they supposed to expect the other members who do not have specialized training in their field to make any more accurate conclusions?

As this standard would be applied only to students with cultural and linguistic differences it could mean failure to identify specific learning disabilities in disabled BIPOC entirely. Therefore, effectively segregating disabled BIPOC students  from resources that could help attain functional literacy or above. This perpetuates the cycle of poverty in many communities and feeds the school-to-prison pipeline.  The carelessness of this statement is profound, all while it is offered without a single citation, and has all the potential to wield systemic racism against BIPOC students. It’s inclusion diminishes the credibility of the VDOE as a source of reputable authority and is discriminatory in nature.

Pg 24- “Students with intelligence test scores between 70 and 85 frequently fall into the gap between General and special education. While they may not qualify for special education, it is important to develop interventions within general education to address their needs. Effective instructional practices can build academic resilience and ameliorate the important, but often ignored, risk factor for borderline intellectual functioning. (Shaw, 2008 p. 291)

Firstly, it should be noted this quote is highly abridged from the original author who stated, “Recent educational trends (e.g., the use of response to intervention models of special education eligibility, implementation of inclusive education, and the accountability components of No Child Left Behind) have increased awareness and may serve as a catalyst for improving the education of students with borderline intellectual functioning.”

Regardless, there are many children whose general IQs fall within this range even with significant cognitive strengths. Additionally, there are many who have achievement that is not commensurate with even this modest cognitive despite high level instruction and even school-wide Tier 2 interventions and who benefit from identification for explicit instruction, such as structured literacy for phonemic awareness. Whereas the law identifies intellectual disability as below two standard deviations this implies ranges above ID are now to be considered exclusionary factors. The inclusion of this quote gives localities a plausible reason to shift the definition of intellectual disability regardless of whether it gives students better outcomes. All this while many localities still struggle with providing inclusive, supportive, and differentiated work in general education.

Juxtapose this with the 35 point testing variance proposed for cultural and linguistic differences and another profound concern arises; BIPOC could be disproportionately misidentified as cognitively falling into the 70-85 range by matter of statistics and therefore denied special education.

Pg 5- On a relatively minor note, I find it counterproductive to recommend a staff monitor time when many localities make it standard practice to block off 30 minutes to an hour for even the most complex meetings.  Districts are very good at “respecting everyone’s time” by making a meeting table 2-3 times, but fail to respect parent’s time by allocating a reasonable time for discussions. This practice is inequitable to families who have to take time off work and/or get childcare, etc for meetings and this statement could further that practice.

Pg 5 “Team Leader”- IDEA does not define or require a team leader. While assigning a person as meeting facilitator is helpful, coining the term Team Leader, when many localities try to imply to families that school-based members have more authority within the meeting can support the harmful culture in which some parents' voices in their children’s education are being muffled.

Pg 6-7 Autism- The document fails to address the clause of 34 CFR 300.8(c)(1) “autism does not apply if a child's educational performance is adversely affected *primarily* because the child has an emotional disturbance.” Whereas the VDOE went to length on other categorizations to address commonly debated points there is silence here. Many localities are refusing to consider autism when even slight emotional needs are present, such as when a child has social anxiety, even though this condition is often secondary in nature to autism’s social interaction difficulties. Guidance on the term primarily would support teams in making meaningful and individualized decisions.