We are proud parents of John Paul, a lively, loving and occasionally frustrated student who has a disability and attends Kings Park Elementary School in Fairfax County, Virginia.
John Paul was identified, as a child with specials needs through the Child Find program when he was about 2 ¾ and started his special education in the preschool program at the age of 3. Prior to entering Kindergarten, the KingsParkschool psychologist conducted a battery of tests and requested John Paul’s Individual Education Program (IEP) primary service label bementally retarded (MR). Because John Paul was 5 and difficult to test, we did not accept the MR label and pushed for a Developmental Delay (DD) label.
Every professional opinion (including professional educators and multiple Doctors from Children’s Hospital) we solicited since disputing the MR label has agreed that the data did not succinctly support the MR label. Had we agreed to the MR label, we believe John Paul’s curriculum would not have been as rigorous, resulting in fewer gains and accomplishments. He still has the DD label at the age of 7 ½ and we firmly believe it is the most appropriate label for him at this time.
We oppose limiting the developmental delay category to the ages of 3 to 5 and recommend the current VA regulations’ definition of developmental delay from the ages of 2 to 8 inclusive. The developmental delay label is especially important for young children who exhibit deficits and require early intervention, but who may not be easily categorized. It also critical for parents who may not understand the characteristics of childhood spectrum disorders and delay proper testing until later in childhood.
These children benefit from maintaining the developmental delay label, which will help avoid premature and possibly inaccurate mislabeling. From our experience, rushing to label a child’s disability can have serious long-term repercussions on that child’s education and emotional development.
We also oppose the elimination of the current requirement that a parent consent to the termination of special education eligibility and related services. We reject the claim that Virginia’s guarantee of the parental right of consent to the termination of services is particularly burdensome or costly to schools.
Virginia has historically recognized the essential parental right to participate in any decision on the continued services of their child because this right of consent:
Ensures that the best interests of the child are served,
Guarantees that the parent is treated as a full and equal member of the IEP team as required by IDEA,
Protects the integrity of the IEP team process outlined in IDEA,
Prevents schools from making eligibility and service termination decisions by fiat and not by the consensus of the IEP team as intended by IDEA, and
Acts as a counterbalance to the pressure on school personnel to eliminate children from their special education services due to limited school district resources.
Without the right of consent to the partial or full termination of services, parents would be unable to prevent local education agencies (LEAs) from ending services when it is not in the best interest of the child. Practically speaking, the fear of termination may also cause parents to accept less adequate IEPs and services. In addition, disabilities are by nature lifelong conditions; services should not be removed simply because the child has improved. Our experiences have taught us that State and/or County professionals are valuable partners in developing a successful IEP. But at the end of the day, it is the parents who:
·Have the children’s best interest in mind
·Are the best judge of their children’s challenges and accomplishments
·How the IEP is ultimately managed.
We support the continued allowance in the proposed regulation that directs transition services be put into effect when the child turns 14, two years younger than the federal guideline. Much like planning for colleges, parents and children need to plan for postsecondary goals well before the age of 16 in order to devise a correct curriculum that aims to improve long-term outcomes and to accumulate necessary information for decision making on further education, employment and independent living.
In conclusion, a child’s education is the key to their future. To ensure that these children become productive citizens, we must guarantee the supports and services necessary to educate them. We must focus on what is best for them.
