Dyslexia Is Very Treatable. So Why Aren’t We Helping More Kids?

Below is a link to a powerful article by Phoebe Adams and Cathy Mason about the challenges for students with dyslexia in our public schools. The article also highlights legislation that is pending in Massachusetts requiring early screening procedures for dyslexia – a step in the right direction to helping students with language-based disabilities.

From the authors: “Many students who receive generic reading instruction learn to read at grade level. However, dyslexic students require structured literacy approaches. As one first grader said, ‘I have a locked box in my brain and no one has the key.’ But we have the knowledge. We have the key. All we need is someone to turn it.”

Read the full article here: http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2017/11/28/dyslexia-legislature-cathy-mason-phoebe-adams

Receive blog updates by email

School Observations: A Parent’s Right

Recently, a parent sent me an email asking whether a school district could significantly limit an observation of her son’s classroom. The school district was attempting to impose numerous restrictions.

An amendment to the special education law in 2008 solidified a parent’s right to observe, and an advisory from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) instructed school districts that they must follow the amendment. Legislators and the department have made clear that observations, whether by a parent or an independent evaluator, are critical in helping families and schools determine if a student is making effective progress. School districts can rarely limit or restrict observations.

Below I have provided the school district’s “requirements” and a brief analysis of whether its requests were reasonable and consistent with the law:


1) You must provide a detailed reason for the observation, and tell us specifically what you are seeking to gain by observing.


A school district cannot impose this restriction.

The 2008 amendment provides that “upon request from a parent” a school district must provide “timely access” for an observation. There is little room for interpretation. School districts cannot require parents to jump through additional hoops such as providing specific or detailed reasons for the observation. A parent can simply state that they are trying to determine whether their child is making progress.


2) All observations are limited to 20 minutes.


A school district cannot impose this restriction.

The 2008 amendment instructs that school districts must permit access to programs that is of “sufficient duration and extent” to determine whether a student is making progress. The DESE advisory states that the average observation runs from 1 to 4 hours and time should be decided on an individual basis. For one student, in a recent Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) decision, a hearing officer ruled that an observation could last a full, continuous school day (Mansfield Public Schools – BSEA #13-07030).

Similarly, in Weymouth Public Schools – BSEA # 09-1335, the Bureau of Special Education Appeals allowed a parent’s request to observe for 13 hours over four days. In the Weymouth ruling, the hearing officer relied on the DESE advisory and found that the school district’s 60-minute observation limit was unlawful, as duration and extent of observations should be determined on an individual basis.


3) You must sign a confidentiality agreement.


A school district can impose this restriction.

It is likely reasonable for a school district to require a confidentiality agreement. Special education law allows school districts to restrict observations in order to protect the confidential or personally identifiable information of other students.

While this does not mean that an observer cannot have access to the classroom, schools can take reasonable steps to protect information that a parent or an independent evaluator might observe about other students.

The law only allows school districts to limit observations in two other circumstances — to ensure the safety of students or the integrity of the program. A school district cannot claim that an observation will be “disruptive” without evidence as all observations will cause some level of disruption.


4) All observers must be accompanied by the special education director who is not available during the time of day you want to observe.


A school district cannot impose this restriction.

If an observation during a particular time of day is necessary to determine whether a student is making progress, school districts must accommodate the request. Arbitrarily assigning one staff person or administrator to accompany observers creates unreasonable restrictions on parents and independent evaluators. In the Mansfield ruling, hearing officer William Crane found the school district’s arguments about similar restrictions unpersuasive.

Independent Educational Evaluations: Use it or Lose it

In special education law, independent educational evaluations are important both to inform parents and school districts about the unique needs of a student. Parents can pay privately for an evaluation at any time, and share the results with the school district at a Team meeting.

Parents can choose whether to share an evaluation. Sometimes, for example, evaluations contain private information that might not be appropriate to share with a school district.

However, a Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) hearing officer recently found that when parents did not share an evaluation with a Team, they could not use that evaluation as evidence at hearing. The strongly worded opinion serves as a warning that parents should either use an evaluation at the Team level or lose it if the matter requires a BSEA hearing.

In Richmond Consolidated School District (“RCS”) – BSEA # 14-10881, the hearing officer decided that the school district’s IEP provided FAPE when the parents were unable to present sufficient evidence to the contrary. The parents could not rely on an independent evaluation that they had not previously shared with the Team.

Hearing officer Raymond Oliver wrote, “By not providing this report to Richmond, the TEAM process could not be fully implemented. By all accounts, the TEAM would have convened to review this report in the same manner it had convened to review other reports and information that was presented to them. To allow the parents to rely on the testimony and report of Ms. Imperatore and Ms. Odato-Staed to attempt to prove that the IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide a FAPE to Mark, would circumvent the TEAM process, violate the special education laws and prejudice the school district. I, therefore, have not given any weight to the testimony of Ms. Imperator or Odato-Staed or their respective report.” (emphasis supplied)

Read the full decision here