Proposed Changes to the WACs

OSPI is proposing rule changes to the WACs that pertain to the provision of special education. These proposed changes have been reviewed by the WSASP Government and Public Relations (GPR) committee. While many of the changes involve moving toward person-first language and aligning vocabulary used throughout, there are some substantial changes being proposed. GPR highlighted several positive additions and has identified three changes that raise concerns. Though there are positive changes you may want to highlight in your comment, we recommend that you submit public comments only on areas of concern, and to do so as clearly as possible. To assist you, we have drafted language you may want to use in your public comment, as well as recommended replacement language for the WACs. In the text below, underlined sections are the changes we are recommending. As you make your comment, it is important to maintain the underlined portions of this drafted language and to not underline anything else. This helps the reader to understand what is being proposed. 

In addition to making these comments as individuals, the WSASP President will submit comments on behalf of WSASP, and Carrie Suchy, NCSP, from GPR has registered to testify at the 1/13 hearing being held via zoom. GPR has secured the support of WEA as well.  They will be submitting public comment on these three points as an organization in addition to WSASP.  GPR is also contacting other ESA professional organizations to increase the volume of this advocacy action. Please share this information with your colleagues who may also share these concerns.

Positive Additions or Changes in the Proposal:

• Changing the age limit for Developmental Delay through age 9 (was formerly through 8 years old), meaning a student can have services in this area until the day they turn 10.

• WAC 392-172A-01035 section 1e adds the sentence “Special education services may not be solely based on the disability category for which the student is eligible." 

• • While this has been the professional interpretation for many years, to have this explicitly stated is great!

• Across the entire document there are word changes moving towards student-first language.

Proposed Changes that are of concern:

• Changing the referral timeline from 25 school days to 15 school days.  

• • OSPI has indicated this is to be consistent with the OSPE letter 11-07, linked below. This letter pertains to delaying evaluations as a result of RtI, which is not permitted. We argue that we need this time not to delay an evaluation when we suspect a disability, but to gather data to help a team determine if they do suspect a disability, as opposed to any problems with instruction, environment, or curriculum. We also note concerns about scheduling within the shorter time frame.

• Adding behavior services as a related service with no definition of what that is. 

• • We have no concern with this being added as an option, but all other related services are defined to some extent. This should be no different. We have drafted a definition.

• Adding a required form for parents to complete when making a referral for special education.  

• • While we read this to be an attempt to remove barriers for parents and ensure parents rights to this process, we have concerns that it may inadvertently create a barrier for parents who would not have previously been required to make their request in writing.

Making a Public Comment:

For each area of concern, we have drafted comments you can directly copy and paste into your submission.  You should start with one or all of the pre-written statements provided here, but are encouraged to add information specific to your district. For example: What do you use those 25 days for? Is it primarily a scheduling problem, or are you using that time to gather data? What information do you need to know if you suspect a student has a disability which is adversely impacting their educational progress?

You can send all three comments in one email, as well as any other feedback, or select only those which you feel strongly about.  You only need to send one email.

How to submit public comment:

Instructions via email:

Email to: glenna.gallo@k12.wa.us

Subject line: Rules

You can then copy the comments and add your own additional information in the body of the email.

If you wish to mail or fax your comments, the information is:

Mail: OSPI, Attn: Glenna Gallo, PO Box 47200, Olympia, WA 98504 • Fax: 360-586-0247

Sample Public Comments:

These are formatted to have a white background and black text to more easily copy and paste into an email.

Referral Timeline:

RE: WAC 392-172A-03005. Referral and timelines for initial evaluations. (2)(c)

  I oppose reducing the timeline for determining whether or not to evaluate a student. I strongly recommend sustaining the referral timeline at twenty-five school days from the time of referral. The recommendations from the OSEP 11-07 letter indicate that RtI strategies cannot be a reason to delay a referral for a student suspected of having a disability, and that consent must be obtained after a reasonable period of time from the referral being made if the LEA agrees that an initial evaluation is needed. OSPI proposed to change the twenty-five school days to fifteen to better define “a reasonable period of time.” The twenty-five days, however, has been used to gather data in determining if the team does suspect a disability, rather than in obtaining consent after this decision is made. With the current inconsistencies in implementation of MTSS in most districts in the state, teams may need this time in order to apply best-practice strategies in areas of concern to determine if a disability is suspected or if there are problems with the instruction, curriculum, or environment as opposed to the learner.

In order to determine if a team, including the parent or guardian and/or student, does suspect a disability, the team may need the twenty-five school day timeline to gather data in a newly identified area of concern where intervention has not yet been applied. Fifteen school days is not sufficient to implement a new intervention and gather adequate data to help the team in determining if there is a suspected disability which requires an evaluation.

Also, scheduling can be a significant challenge for school teams. They often need the twenty-five school day timeline to gather a team of qualified professionals, including the parent or guardian and/or student, to determine if the team does suspect a disability. Limiting this to fifteen school days will likely result in referrals which are out of compliance simply due to scheduling challenges. I strongly recommend that this regulation not change.

Please retain the current language in WAC 392-172A-03005 (1)(c):

(c) Within twenty-five school days after receipt of the request for an initial evaluation, make a determination whether or not to evaluate the student. The school district will provide prior written notice of the decision that complies with the requirements of WAC 392-172A-05010. 

Behavior Services Definition:

RE: WAC 392-172A-01155 Related services (3)

I support the addition of behavior services as a possible related service but it needs to be defined in section 3, as are other related services in this section:

I request the following definition be added:

(q) Behavioral services means services provided by a qualified professional with training in evidence-based practices in the area of behavior; such as, behavior analyst, school psychologist, behavior technician, or other certificated educator with specific training in this area.

Parent Referral Form:

RE:  WAC 392-172A-03005 Referral and timelines for initial evaluations. (2 and 3)

Based on the suggested revisions to these sections, I suggest that the WACs clarify what the date of request is: either the date which a staff member first hears of a request verbally or in writing, or the date of receipt of a written request. It is also of concern that this, though intended to be a tool to help parents and members of a child's team in the pursuit of a referral, may act as a barrier. Though the WAC previously indicated requests will be provided in writing unless that person is unable to write, many schools have not required a request to be in writing to proceed with the process, and have allowed parents to make verbal requests. The addition of a form, which is implied to be required, may add a barrier to parents seeking a referral who previously may have been able to do so verbally. As such, I recommend that in addition to the availability of a form for the provision of a written request, that districts have the option to document referrals made verbal or in other formats, rather than requiring parents to complete an additional form. This could be completed in the form of a prior written notice or other district created method of documentation, in the event that parents are not able to provide this request in writing.

Suggested Language:

(b) The request must be in writing, unless the person is unable to write or the district can provide written notice that a referral in some other form (oral, phone, text, etc.) was received. 

(c) Each school district must have a referral form for requesting an initial evaluation available to the general public and provide it, or other documentation of the receipt of a referral, upon receipt of an oral or written request in the requestor's native language or with the support of a qualified interpreter when needed.

References

Proposed changes (these are updated in real time when OSPI makes changes based on public comment)

OSEP letter 11-07