It's still unclear if the Student with a Disability SWD category can be used at eligibility. Don't the feds require that a student has to have one of its disability categories so they can watch that dispropor rep? I know SWD can be used on the IEP but what about eligiblity time? So, if DD is eliminated as a name option at eligibility during this period of public comment and regulatory process and if a child has speech/language issues, then why not go for that other 'soft' label of Speech Language Impairment-SLI? That 'soft' label keeps more doors open than restrictive designations of MR/ID, LD. Does VDOE even realize that school systems frequently use acronyms on their IEPs for service location, such as EMH, EMR classroom or ED classroom and when parents question this, they're told 'oh, that's just a smaller class to help your child". One parent reported that she was given the impression that the "ED classroom" was the 'EDucation' Classroom. So is this underhanded dealings? If you ask the eligibility/IEP team members why they use acronyms, one is told, 'well if I told the parent what it really stood for then they wouldn't agree to having their kid in that room and that kid needs services'. hmmmm. is this 'informed' parent consent?

Labels define who you will associate with in your schooling and eventually diploma status. A child becomes what s/he is labeled. MR/ID is an opinion, not a fact. 5-8 years old is a vulnerable, changing key developmental period. Keep the DD NAME option and revise it to fed definition to age 9 years old.