Opposed to Proposed Regs/Parental rights are key to child's civil rights
As the parent of a child with a disability, I wish to register my opposition to the proposed Virginia Department of Education, 8 VAC 20-81, Special Education Regulations, intended to fully implement the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), December 3, 2004, based on the loss of parental rights and parental involvement as reflected in the proposed regulations.Unfortunately, our family knows the impact of the loss of parental rights under the IDEA.
After the attacks on 9/11, we took comfort in having our children attend a private Catholic school in close proximity to our place of work.This was in contrast to attending public school at the end of a long communte.However, when our son experienced a sudden onset of severe symptoms during the academic year 2005-2006, later diagnosed as Tourettes Syndrome, we were required to request processing under the IDEA within the public school district where the private school was located instead of our public school district of residence.Unfortunately, this dynamic created a “loophole” which resulted in the denial of our parental rights through the private school’s obstruction of the development of the Individualized Education Program, (IEP), under the cognizance of the public school district.Ironically, we, the parents, were denied access to applicable procedures under federal statue and the opportunity to deliberate on behalf of our son based upon our son’s disability despite a determination that he was eligible.This was not an issue going to services.Rather, this was an issue going to the IEP development process as required under statute and the fact that we did not receive an IEP upon which we could determine our son’s school placement or services.Essentially, since our son’s ability to access applicable procedures and protections under law could only be realized through our participation in the IEP process, we felt that our son was the victim of discrimination in that he was denied rights to which he was entitled under federal statute based upon his disability.
However, in light of the educational funding structure in Virginia, neither our son nor we, his parents, had any recourse or appeal.The public school district failed to assume any further responsibility for program oversight and accountability based upon the action of the private school and our non-local resident status.Unfortunately, there was no appeal mechanism to address acts of discrimination in the private school system and the Virginia Department of Education had no mechanism to address acts of discrimination involving both a private school and a public school, generally referring discrimination issues to the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), Office of Civil Rights, (OCR).Conversely, the OCR advised us that they did not have jurisdiction to investigate our situation based upon the educational funding structure in Virginia which did not directly support the private school, despite the school’s designation as a USDOE, No Child Left Behind, Blue Ribbon School.(Nearly 50% of the eligibility criteria for the Blue Ribbon award pertained to OCR requirements.)All this was puzzling in that the private school also advertised itself as both a Title I provider and a school with special needs resources.The private school enjoyed state licensing of its extended child care facilities, operating under the same school administration, and employed a number of teachers licensed by the state.In addition, the provisions of the IDEA applied expressly to private schools, pointing to the state to ensure compliance.Ultimately, as a result of this systemic failure of accountability, our son was denied access to federal procedure based upon his disability by a state public education system that condoned the act of a private non-taxpaying entity, itself rich with public privilege, denying us our parental rights and the opportunity to properly complete the IDEA process in the public school district on our son’s behalf.Unfortunately, there is yet no language in the current proposed state regulations which would have prevented the loss of our parental rights and the denial of our son’s rights nor is there any language which would have held any of the parties accountable.
In contrast, we would note that the decision of Winkelman v. Parma City School District (No. 05-983) (2007),written by Justice Anthony Kennedy in May 2007 (written three months after the OCR decision in our case), the U. S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that parents are an important part of the process ascribed in the IDEA.Specifically, Justice Kennedy indicated that the IDEA and the IEP process, as one of four components of that statute, existed to ensure that the rights of a child with a disability, and of that child’s parents, were protected.This decision was written subsequent to the proposed state regulations.It reaffirms the essential role of parents in the IDEA process and focuses the purpose of the statute on the welfare of the child, rather than a mechanism to serve at the convenience of the state.
As we have sadly learned from personal experience, any regulations that deny or obstruct parental rights ultimately impact upon the civil rights of the child.Therefore, I ask that you DISAPPROVE the proposed state regulations and restore parental rights in Virginia as they are essential to the ability of the disable child to access their civil rights under federal statute and to maintain accountability within our own educational system.
