|
My name is Patricia Addison,
and I serve as Director
of Special Education,
in nearby Fairfax County
Public Schools,
Fairfax
,
Virginia
.
Today, I am here
speaking as the President
of the Virginia Council
of Administrators of Special
Education (VCASE).
VCASE is a non-profit
professional organization
which provides leadership
and support to its members
who are special education
administrators throughout
the
Commonwealth of Virginia
representing
all eight of the Superintendent’s
regions.
VCASE is affiliated
as a subdivision of the
Council of Administrators
of Special Education,
Inc., a division of the
Council for Exceptional
Children.
VCASE is committed
to improving the quality
and delivery of special
education services for
students in
Virginia
’s public schools.
VCASE
has solicited input from
the membership regarding
the development of regulations
for IDEA 2004, and we
appreciate this opportunity
to share with you the
following concerns and
recommendations.
Timeliness:
In order for
school divisions to successfully
implement the improvements
that have resulted from
IDEA 2004 and that are
effective July 1, 2005 , it is essential
that the regulations be
developed in a timely
manner.
State regulations
continue to be aligned
with the requirements
of IDEA 97, and states
will most likely and,
understandably, await
federal regulations prior
to making their changes.
Therefore, timely
dissemination of federal
regulations will help
to facilitate a smooth
and effective transition
for school divisions and
families from IDEA 97
to IDEA 2004.
Balancing
Over-regulation with Need
for Clarity:
There are many
sections of IDEA 2004
where the language contains
sufficient clarity and
where no further regulatory
interpretation is required.
Therefore, it is recommended
that every effort be made
to avoid redundancy and
intrusiveness and to provide
the flexibility needed
for families and school
divisions to work together
in implementing the statute.
There
are a few areas where
regulatory clarification
is recommended, and these
are as follows:
Timelines: Clarity
is needed in Section 614
as to whether the statute
is referring to 60 calendar
days or 60 business days
as the timeframe for completing
evaluations following
parental consent.
Our recommendation
is 60 business days in
order to provide school
divisions with a realistic
window of opportunity
to comply with expected
timelines.
This is essential
given the very real shortage
of key special education
staff such as speech and
language clinicians.
Terminology: Clarity
is also needed with regard
to certain terms used
in the statute, such as,
scientific, research-based
interventions.
We support the
work of the Learning Disabilities
(LD) Roundtable, a collaborative
effort by 14 national
organizations including
CASE, and we concur with
the definition they are
proposing for scientific,
research-based interventions.
We also recommend
that the proposed revisions
of the LD Roundtable with
regard to the evaluation
for specific learning
disabilities be incorporated
in the federal regulations.
Private
Schools:
We recommend clarification
in the section related
to private schools as
to what is meant by “meaningful
involvement”.
In addressing this,
we request
consideration of the fact
that private schools are
not mandated to be accountable,
as are public schools,
for the achievement of
all students under the
No Child Left Behind Act.
Further, the added
responsibility to provide
“meaningful involvement”
of schools that serve
students placed unilaterally
by their parents, who
have rejected a free and
appropriate public education,
is extremely complex and
potentially very burdensome
for public school divisions.
Transition
Planning:
We recommend the
provision of examples
of measurable post-secondary
goals as a way to provide
clarity in the area of
transition planning.
Documentation:
We
recommend the provision
of
examples of best practices
that would help to minimize
paperwork for special
education teachers as
new requirements for written
documentation are implemented.
Examples are recommended
that would illustrate
the responsibility to
document when a staff
member is unable to attend
an IEP meeting or is participating
through some other means
or when there is an agreement
between the parents and
school to make minor changes
to the IEP without a formal
IEP meeting.
Discipline: Clarity
is recommended regarding
what is meant by the minimum
of “relevant team members”
during manifestation team
meetings. It
is clear that a functional
behavioral assessment
and behavior intervention
plan are required if the
behavior, subject to disciplinary
action, is a manifestation
of a child’s disability.
However, we recommend
that it be made clear
that a functional behavioral
assessment and behavioral
intervention plan are
not required for behaviors
that are unrelated to
a child’s disability under
IDEA.
Highly Qualified Teachers: Additional
clarity is needed through
the regulations with regard
to highly qualified special
education teachers.
We believe that
special education
teachers whose roles are
to provide only consultative
services, such as adaptation
of curricula, to highly
qualified teachers should
be considered highly
qualified special education
teachers if
they meet their
state’s licensure requirements
as special education teachers.
Since these special
education teachers are
not responsible for providing
direct instruction in
core academic areas, they
should not be required
to meet additional requirements
for endorsements in core
academic areas.
This type of clarification
would provide greatly
needed assistance for
school divisions in the
recruitment and retention
of special education teachers.
Thank
you very much for this
opportunity to express
concerns and recommendations
related to the IDEA regulations.
If you have any
questions, you may contact
me at 703-246-7780 or
via e-mail at patricia.addison@fcps.edu.
You may also
contact
Tom Nash
, President-elect, at
804-296-6855 or via e-mail
at nash@albemarle.org.
Patricia
Addison
VCASE President
|
