Reading Level does not equal Data. Let's stop this practice...

I’m frustrated. I sat in two meetings this week with 1, the same scripted arguments and 2, data provided at the meeting despite parent’s requests for data prior to the meeting. Common Scenario: student identified as needing specialized reading services. This student is multiple years behind. This child is dyslexic. This child also (now) exhibits impulsivity, anxiety or certain behaviors in addition to reading challenges.

In the meeting, members of the team state they use explicit, multisensory instruction, but do you - the parent - know the program? The teacher’s level of training? How progress is/will be monitored? The scope and sequence of the lesson plan/s? Does the team provide this data? Do they provide the data regularly? Do you know how mastery is measured? Is it by mastery of sight words or fluency speed /words per minute? Perhaps, they tell you small group work / reading level?

It is difficult sitting in meetings and listening to Teams discuss guided reading and balanced literacy as “instruction” and an indicator of progress. I hear, “she is reading at “Level K” and she increased “10 words this month.” Do you even know what this means? Or, can the team explain? It means nothing more than simply “your child is reading at Level K.” It does not explain deficits. It does not tell you what skills are missing or what level of support is needed to improve decoding or fluency. And, it does not tell you if the program is delivered with the fidelity and intensity required to close the gap on both skill and grade level. Substantive, diagnostic reading assessments (in conjunction with this information) will help you understand your child’s grade level and skill deficits. And, if the team determines your child requires a certain program due to these deficits (because evidence-based means there is science and testing to corroborate the effectiveness of the methodology) and they provide this data IN a meeting, then it can and should be named in the IEP. An IEP is individualized for your student. And, multisensory, explicit, systematic programs vary in scope, sequence, and level of training. Methodology drives the “I” in your child’s IEP. And, if that is not reason enough, it is written in black and white language. “There are circumstances in which the particular methodology that will be used is an integral part of what is "individualized" about a student's education and in those circumstances will need to be discussed at the IEP meeting and incorporated into the student's IEP.”

What can you do? Ask specific questions, get answers, and enforce well-written goals that truly measure progress with appropriate (and discussed) data collection plans. The most effective argument you have regarding your child’s progress is that your child did not meet his or her IEP goals. Because, time and time again, Teams present data (typically, contemporaneously while IN your meeting, *also see below) showing what depicts “improvement.” If goals are based on tools IN and from the intervention and correlate to diagnostic scores with confined timeframes, you will have standards that measure these components of reading. (*Teams, please stop this practice. If you have a scheduled progress meeting or IEP reconvene, this data was obviously prepared ahead of the meeting. Please provide material to the parent which will be presented in a meeting PRIOR to the meeting. Parents are not only part of the Team, they are the most important (and only consistent) members of the Team. Parents cannot provide meaningful input if they are viewing a Zoom Google Slide presentation of reading data for the very first time while IN the meeting.) #IEP #iepmeeting #iepgoals #SpecialEducationAdvocate #specialeducation #specialeducationlaw #dyslexia #dyslexiaawareness #ADHD