I talked to a friend in VDOE (not sure if off record or not) to figure out why there is such a resistance to the DD Name Option for the 5-9s. It still sounds like concern about over-referral to sped which results in disproportionate rep, esp with African-American children. This happens all over the US,not just VA. But gosh, VA. doesn't have too hot of an 'inclusive' reputation for education as per its history reflected in Brown v. Board of Ed (1954) and then that lousy 'massive resistance'. So those high numbers may be sending off red alerts to the number crunchers. whatever.
So we've done well in the past with that DD Name option for the 5-8s which occured as the result of a concerned group of VA. folks (with well-known specialists from out of state sharing concerns about detrimental labeling) coming together in the early 1980s and saying "LABEL JARS, NOT KIDS!' bc we knew of the negative effects of early, and often incorrect labeling. We need to keep the momentum up in VA with continuing to offer this DD Name option to our vulnerable children once they 'age out' of ECSE at age 5 or get referred in the 5-9 developmental period. VA is so outstanding in early childhood/sped (ECSE) options since we're the only state that offers Part B/ECSE public school at age 2 (and not age 3 as the fed mandates). Yeah, VA! So we need to continue to 'move VA forward'. (rather than go backwards with taking away the DD name option after age 5. Plus Early Childhood Speds and other advocates would like VA to go to age 9 bc obviously feds saw the benefit of a DD Name option for the 5-9s or they wouldn't have allowed it in their IDEA re-write. Wisconsin is progressive. Their Dept of Public Instruction has already adopted the DD Name option for their 5-9s as noted 'no fiscal impact' too. Virginia, we need that name optoin too for our 5-9s.
This DOE staff member said that it isn't the number of comments that make a difference now. It's that there is a 'new piece of info' that can be considered. That recommendation from the State Sped Advisory Committee on keeping the DD for the 5-8 yrs old may give us that 'new' consideration bc it says the reasoning is that it gives public schools (LEAs) more 'flexibility'.
I would also say that we need more data. That at this time in VA, we don't have the data from those few LEAs that chose to remove the DD name option already. This is the data we need: A breakdown by race, new dis category, age (an early 5 or a late 7 yr old), the name of the lead psychologist/ed diagnostician, school to see if there is some bias in presenting the info. (I heard from one inexperienced 'tester' that he can't sleep at night bc he thinks now that he may have mislabeled some children. He was overwhelmed with the numbers of children he had to test within a short timeframe to 're-sort' former DD children into another dis category)
And here is a KEY factor to get data on: the school systems' supports (e.g., tough, data-based pre-referral interventions, a sped para assigned to the room) to the child and gen ed teachers within that school system (LEA) to keep that struggling child in the gen ed room. IN one system that eliminated the DD Name option for 5-8s, all DD teachers and paras were re-assigned to the harsh label rooms of MR/ID and ED. This LEA withdrew all supports for a struggling child (who does not qualify for an IEP) to succeed in the gen ed room. In another system former DD teachers/paras were converted to "inclusion specialists'. BIG DIFFFERENCE!
But the disconnect across school systems in VA remains. Carl Brakeman on River months ago had an outstanding response which pointed out this disconnect or blaming the 'softness' of that DD label on the over-referral. (ie., who wouldn't want more 'individualized' support for a struggling child if the label is only 'soft' DD, rather than the harsh ones of 'mental retardation/intellectual disability' or 'emotionally disturbed' (this is what school systems are still using to define certain children with behavior or emotional issues/disabilities). Plus systems say they cut down on enrollment in sped when they can say to the Eligibility team 'this child can't qualify bc we don't have a category to put him/her into. So just leave him in the gen ed classroom."
Again, remaining in the gen ed room is a good option. The gen ed rooms have more vibrant, best practice gen ed teachers who are learning about Universal Design for Learning and collaborative teaching. They are using strategies which used to just be in the realm of sped, like slower pace voices to explain directions, encouraging peers to support each other, e.g., whispering "Jamie, this is the page were on", highlighting directions, less cluttered tests so that they're not as overwhelming to those children with visual perception difficulties.
But those gen ed teachers still need some supports in their rooms for those children who aren't found eligible. Obviously they felt they needed some help with this struggling child or they/the parents wouldn't have referred to Child Study in the first place. That 'softness' of the DD Name option has nothing to do with this over-referral. Carl connected it to the need to have some better Response to Intervention (RtI) going on so that a teacher doesn't feel like she has to refer to Child Study. Right now RtI seems so new to most school systems in VA. Child Study teams are just thinking it means 'accomodations'. I sat in on one such meeting a month ago and just shook my head when I heard the psychologist ask the team "What RtIs have you been implementing with this child?" and the response was "well we moved her to the front of the room, we reduced her spelling list". I said 'those are accomodations. we need research-based intervention in here." and the team looked at me with that 'deer-in-the-headlights' look. So we're 'evolving' in VA with this understanding of what RtI means. When we get on board with real understanding of RtI and its great data-based pre-referral interventions, we'll see some cool stuff going on for children who 'yes, struggle' but who can benefit from remaining in the gen ed room with a licensed teacher where all kinds of exciting things happen with 'high expectations'. Rather than get segregated in a self-contained sped room with peers who struggle with the same issues (so reduced positive effects of peer models) as well as a non-licensed/endorsed 'teacher-in-training' who's on waiver bc of the extreme shortage of sped teachers across the US . So thanks for encouraging us to get those comments in.
and thanks for reading this too! Sure hope we get that DD Name option for our 5-9s!
