Even with the existing protections students and parents have under the current regulations, in many cases students still fail to be provided an appropriate education. The areas of the draft regulations are areas in which, if not provided the current protections, my student would have failed to a greater extent.  Without these student and parental protections, IEPs wouldn't be worth the paper they are written on.   

Removing the accountability of teachers and schools to adequately address IEP goals is a direct statement that our students with disabilities are a hinderance to the education system in Virginia and that we as parents should be happy that our students are housed for the day.    Our students need more protections, not less.

Child Study Committees

 I oppose the elimination of Child Study Committees as currently required in the existing regulations.  The proposal to leave the referral procedures up to LEAs removes the protection of timelines and the guarantee that parents will participate in the referral process.  The proposal also eliminates the requirement that classroom interventions not delay the evaluation. Existing Child Study Committee requirements outlining the procedures LEAs must use to refer students for special education ensure consistency in the application process across all Virginia jurisdictions and are vital to parents’ understanding of and participation in the referral process. Consistent referral procedures also ensure that LEAs do not set additional timelines that unduly extend the time between when a child is referred for services and a parent consents to an evaluation.

Timelines

I oppose the proposed 65 business day timeline for an eligibility decision rather than adhering to the federal guideline of 60 days from the date of parental consent for evaluation. This proposal could cause a child with a disability to wait an additional 4 weeks longer than allowed by the federal guideline to be found eligible.  Intended by federal law to prevent a child who may need services from waiting unnecessarily to receive them, the 60 day limit provides ample time for an evaluation in most cases.

Accountability for IEP Goals

 I oppose elimination of the provision in current regulation that states each LEA “must make a good faith effort to assist the child to achieve the goals, including benchmarks or objectives, listed in the IEP.”  LEAs should actively work toward achieving the growth projected in a child’s annual IEP goals.  If there is no requirement for schools to demonstrate some accountability for IEP goals, then the IEP is meaningless as a measure of success in providing a child with a disability a free and appropriate education.

Due Process

I oppose the elimination of the current requirement to develop and submit an implementation plan following the rendering of a due process decision or the withdrawal of a hearing request.  The proposal that VDOE be provided by the LEA, upon request, with documentation that the area(s) have been corrected is only an after-the-fact requirement upon school divisions.  Parents would no longer have the assurance of written guidance or timelines so that they know when to expect corrections to occur and ensure their child receives FAPE.

LEA participation on local advisory committees

 I oppose the change in the proposed regulations which would allow LEA personnel to act as voting members on local advisory committees.  A conflict of interest would prevent LEA employees from acting in a truly independent capacity.  In addition, the proposal thwarts the purpose of the advisory committee which is to offer honest critiques of the LEA’s special education policies and programs.  It is hard to see how a member of the advisory committee who also works for the LEA could operate effectively if the member had to consider his or her employer when weighing in on committee deliberations and decisions.