8 VAC 20-81-20. Functions of the Virginia Department of Education.

Recommendation: Add “modifications” to assessment provisions in 8 VAC 20-81-20.4.

4. Ensure that each local educational agency includes all children with disabilities in all general

Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) and division-wide assessment programs,

including assessments described in section 1111 of ESEA, with appropriate accommodations,

modifications, and alternate assessments where necessary and as indicated in their respective

IEPs and in accordance with the provisions of the Act at section 1412.

Justification: Modifications to assessments is another IEP consideration to help enable students

to participate in taking assessments and progress toward goals.

Recommendation: Amend proposed regulation 8 VAC 20-81-20.15.b.(6) as follows:

Review the Annual Plan, including new or amendments to policies and procedures for the provision of special education and related services, submitted in accordance with 8 VAC 20-81-230. B.2. submitted by state-operated programs, the Virginia School for the Deaf and the Blind at Staunton.

Justification: To align with recommendation and justification given in 8 VAC 20-81-240.  Checks and balances are needed to ensure procedural changes to the provision of FAPE are appropriately crafted.

Recommendation: Retain current language corresponding to 8 VAC 20-81-20.22:

Disburse the appropriated funds for the education of children with disabilities in Virginia to local school divisions and state-operated programs which are in compliance with state and federal laws and regulations pertaining to the education of children with disabilities including submission of revised policies and procedures for provision of special education and related services.

Justification: To align with recommendation given in 8 VAC 20-81-240.

 8 VAC 20-81-40. Special education staffing requirements.

Recommendation:  Delete E.4.

1. For a child who is not deaf or hard of hearing but for whom sign language services are specified in the IEP to address expressive or receptive language needs, the sign language services shall be provided by an individual meeting the requirements determined appropriate.

Justification:  LEAs  should not be allowed to set their own standards for interpreters under any circumstances.  The state needs to set a standard that is consistent and not allow the for the possibility of staff that are not qualified to act as interpreters for any student.

Recommendation: Change Appendix A Figure 1 and 2 to include developmental delay caseloads for children through the age of nine.

Justification: Federal regulations, §300.8(b), allow the developmental delay category to include children through the age of nine.

8 VAC 20-81-50. Child Find.

Recommendation: Retain 60 day timeline in current regulations

Screening (C) - “Screening.

1. Each local school division shall have procedures, including timelines, that ensure that all children are screened within 60 business days of enrollment, including transfers from out of state as follows:

a. Children shall be screened in the areas of hearing and vision in accordance with the

requirements of 8 VAC 20-250-10.

b. Children shall be screened for scoliosis in accordance with the requirements of 8 VAC 20-690-20.

c. Children shall be screened in the areas of speech, voice, language, and fine and gross motor functions to determine if a referral for an evaluation for special education and related services is indicated.

d. Children who fail any of the above screenings may be rescreened after 60 days if the original results are not considered valid.

e. The screening may take place up to 60 business days prior to the start of school. The local educational agency may recognize screenings reported as part of the child’s pre-school physical examination required under the Code of Virginia if completed within the above prescribed time line.

f. Children shall be referred to the special education administrator or designee no more than 5 business days after screening or rescreening if results suggest that a referral for evaluation for special education and related services is indicated. The referral shall include the screening results.

Justification: The proposed regulation deleted the specific 60 business day timeline as in the current Virginia regulation. The proposal leaves it open to each LEA to designate their own timelines. It is noted that this is to minimize state regulations that exceed federal requirements.  However, maintaining the current Virginia regulation by having a specific timeline in the regulation sets a stronger measure of accountability.

Recommendation:  Keep current Virginia regulations regarding child study committee and delete the sections on Referrrals, D1-6.  If a decision is made to retain the new regulation,  add the child’s parent to the referral team as #5.

a. The team shall include:

(1) The referring source, as appropriate (except if inclusion of a referring source would breach the confidentiality of the child);

(2) The principal or designee;

(3) At least one teacher; and

(4) At least one specialist.

(5) The child’s parent

Justification: Child study committee has bee n deleted from the proposed regulations. The proposed regulations leave it up to each LEA to designate procedures to handle referrals of children suspected of having a disability.

Response to comments note that “child study has been replaced by a framework for a school based structure for referrals, including timelines, required team members and procedures for the referral process. It is noted that these provisions provide LEAs with greater flexibility to use scientific, response to intervention methods while maintaining procedural protections for students.”  While supportive of response to intervention practices, the elimination of child study eliminates  uniformity among school divisions with regard to screening for children with disabilities. Families across Virginia should be able to rely on and expect the same process to exist for determining eligibility for special education services, including screening.  Services are already extremely variable from one locality to another forcing parents to “shop” for localities that will appropriately serve their children.

If child study committees are deleted, it will have a negative impact on students and will further alienate parents from the screening process by removing the guarantee that they will be participants.  If this regulation is kept than at a minimum the child’s parent must be added to the referral team to ensure parental involvement at the earliest stages of decision-making.

Recommendation:  If the referral section is maintained in its current form, add specific time-frame for referral to special education evaluation implementation of interventions in Section D (4)(b).

4(b). If the child has not made adequate progress after an appropriate period of time 60 calendar days of during the implementation of the interventions, the team shall refer the child to the special education administrator or designee for an evaluation to determine if the child needs special education and related services (34 CFR §300.309)

Justification.  While it is understood that children will respond in different timeframes to various interventions, it should be clear within a two month period as to whether the child is making sufficient progress to continue the intervention or to examine whether more specialized services are needed.