I concur with the comments posted by Donna Shank regarding the following proposed regulations governing special education programs in Virginia:

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.

DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY - I oppose limiting the developmental delay category to the ages of 3 to 6 and recommend the IDEA 2004 definition of developmental delay from the ages of 3 to 9.  The developmental delay label is especially important for young children who exhibit deficits and require early intervention, but who may not be easily categorized.  These children benefit from maintaining the developmental delay label and delaying a decision on the determination of their essential disability.  Rushing to label a child’s disability may have serious long term repercussions on that child’s education and emotional development.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA -  I oppose including any eligibility criteria for disability categories in the regulations that exceed those specifically defined in the federal regulations.  Such overreaching provisions may work to the disadvantage of children who would otherwise qualify for services as a child with a disability.  For example, by defining the criteria for eligibility under autism, the proposed regulations may exclude children with an autism spectrum disorder who do not fit the narrow diagnostic criteria contained in the proposed regulations.  Federal law includes autism as a covered disability under IDEA; it does not endeavor to define the various educational criteria for the autism disability as a spectrum disorder.  Furthermore, if VDOE sets specific criteria for autism, which it has not done previously, it will be taking away flexibility from LEAs in making individual eligibility determinations.

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.

Thank you,
Shannon Secrist