Special Education Regulations Revision Process

Office of Dispute Resolution and Administrative Services

Virginia Department of Education

P.O. Box 2120

Richmond, Virginia 23218-2120

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to submit my written comments regarding your office’s proposed revisions to the Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children with Disabilities in Virginia.

In particular, I strongly object to VDOE’s inclusion of the word “diagnosed” in its definition of a child with an autism disability. 

The last sentence of the proposed regulations at 8 VAC 20-81-10. Definitions  (Autism) reads:  A child who manifests the characteristics of autism after age three could be “diagnosed” as having autism if the criteria in this definition are satisfied.

This sentence should be changed to reflect the federal requirement at Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 156, August 14, 2006,/Rules and Regulations, pg. 46756:  A child who manifests the characteristics of autism after age three could be “identified” as having autism if the criteria in paragraph (c) (1)(i) of this section are satisfied.

The Board of Education and the legislature should have a real concern with school personnel who are not qualified or licensed to interpret the DSM-IV manual to “diagnose” children with autism (see 8 VAC 20-81-80. Eligibility. Section L (Eligibility as a Child with Autism).  The DSM-IV criteria that the VDOE is proposing to use to determine a child’s eligibility for special education services is what qualified and licensed medical doctors consult to make a diagnosis of autism.  There are no provisions in the federal mandates or state law that allow school personnel to “diagnose” children with autism as the proposed regulations allow school staff to now do.  By using the word “diagnose” in the proposed definition of autism and by allowing school districts to use DSM IV diagnostic criteria (see attached related comment on eligibility criteria) to determine a child’s eligibility for autism can only lead to school staff overruling a medical expert’s diagnosis and denying eligibility to a child.  

When section 8 VAC 20-81-10. Definitions (Autism), is harmonized with section 8 VAC 20-81-80. Eligibility, Section L (Eligibility as a Child with Autism), it is clear that the larger, atypical autistic population; as defined by the medical community, who do not necessarily meet all the proposed required criteria would be discriminated against.

These children would be determined either not to be eligible for special education services or more likely they would be inappropriately found eligible for special education services under another disability category such as mental retardation, emotion disturbance, or speech language impairment and thus would receive inappropriate educational programming and placements. 

The proposed definition exceeds the federal definition and will make it more difficult for children who have a medical diagnosis of autism, especially with the proposed restrictive criteria for autism which also exceeds the federal requirements, to be found eligible for special education services.  Recommend the word “diagnose” be eliminated from the regulations. 

Sincerely,

Jackie Simchick