It's not too late to have your voice heard! VDOE IS accepting written comments and IS counting every comment! Please consider sending a letter of your comments.

My top 10 are listed here in this sample letter. Feel free to copy any that work for you.

TO: Special Education Regulations Revision Process

Email: ReviseSpedRegs@doe.virginia.gov

I am submitting the following comments to the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) regarding the revision of the Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children with Disabilities in Virginia. I believe the current regulations have ensured the rights of children with
disabilities and their parents and do not require the wholesale revision that is being proposed in order to comply with the 2004 amendments to IDEA

1. Parent Consent Provisions [8 VAC 20-81-90, provision of existing regulation, not included]

Parental Consent to the Termination of Services:
I oppose the elimination of the current requirement for parental consent for the termination of special education eligibility and related services. Without the right of consent to the partial or full termination of services, parents have no ability to prevent LEAs from ending services
when it is not in the best interest of the child.

2. Child Study Committees [8 VAC 20-81-50, provision of existing regulation, not included]

I oppose the elimination of Child Study Committees as currently required in the existing regulations. VDOE's proposal to leave the referral procedures up to LEAs removes the guarantee that parents be participants in the referral process and the protection of timelines. The proposal also eliminates the requirement that classroom interventions not delay the evaluation.

3. Functional Behavior Assessments (FBAs) [8 VAC 20-81-10, pg. 27-28]

I oppose permitting the development of a Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) to be merely a review of existing data that does not require input of the parent. This definition should clearly state that an FBA is "an evaluation that consists of a systematic collection and analysis of direct and indirect data, may include a review of existing data", and that
parents must participate as a matter of parental consent.

4. Developmental Delay. [8 VAC 20-81-80, pg. 121]

I oppose limiting the developmental delay category only to the ages of 2 to 5 and recommend retaining the current Virginia definition of developmental delay which includes the ages of 2 through 8. The developmental delay label is especially important for children who exhibit delays and benefit from early intervention, but who may not be easily
identified.

5. Definition of Autism [8 VAC 20-81-10, pgs. 12-13]

I recommend that the proposed Virginia regulation defining autism reflect that of federal regulation, which states, "A child who manifests the characteristics of autism after age three could be identified as having autism if the criteria in this definition are satisfied".

6. Eligibility Criteria [8 VAC 20-81-80, pg. 119-120]

I oppose including any eligibility criteria for disability categories, especially the Autism category, 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.

7. Discipline Procedures [8 VAC 20-81-160, pg. 183-195]

I oppose the elimination of the requirement that any child with a disability removed for longer than 10 days be provided services that enable the child to progress in the general education curriculum.

8. IEP Progress Reports: [8 VAC 20-81-110, pg. 154, provision of existing regulation, not included]

I oppose the proposed elimination of the current requirement that IEP progress reports be provided for students with disabilities at least as often as periodic report cards are provided to non-disabled students. There is no justification for this change.

9 Due Process Hearing System [8 VAC 20-81-210, pg. 234-264]

I oppose removing the implementation of the due process hearing system from the Supreme Court of Virginia and shifting it exclusively to VDOE. The proposed removal presents a conflict of interest.

10. Accountability for IEP Goals [8 VAC 20-81-110, pg. 140]

I oppose the proposed provision that holds LEAs, teachers or other school staff unaccountable if a child does not achieve the growth projected in the annual goals, including benchmarks or objectives. If there is no 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.

Sincerely,

Your name

There is more information about the proposed changes, future hearing dates and ways to submit written comments under the KNOW AUTISM section of this site.