Special Education Access Relies Too Heavily on Parent
A researcher and parent argues that a child's access to special education services depends more on a parent's ability to handle complex systems than on the
Access to special education services often hinges on a parent's advocacy skills rather than a child's documented needs, according to a researcher and board member of the National Center for Learning Disabilities. Meredith Richards, writing for The 74, states that obtaining support depends less on a child's needs than on a parent's ability to understand complex laws, ask the right questions, and persist when answers are unclear.
Richards, drawing on her roles as a parent, researcher, and NCLD board member, cites a recent focus group of family leaders from across the country. Despite geographic differences, parents described remarkably similar experiences of opaque processes and inconsistent communication. One participant likened the experience to "playing a game I didn't have the rules to."
Parents Forced Into Case Manager Roles
Nearly every parent in the focus group described being handed forms to sign with little explanation. One mother recalled sitting in meetings with professionals using jargon she could not understand, leaving her unable to respond. Another parent spent hours building her own data presentations to prove her child was not making progress, feeling this extra work was necessary to ensure someone was monitoring it.
Collaboration requires transparency, Richards argues. Families cannot participate as equal partners when they lack clear information about how and why decisions are made. When schools rely on parents to push for services using sophisticated advocacy, it widens inequities. Research consistently shows disparities in special education access based on a family's socioeconomic resources, language proficiency, and knowledge of school systems.
The Problem of Incomplete Diagnoses
Many children discussed had more than one disability, yet parents described schools treating a single diagnosis as a catch-all explanation. One mother shared that her district insisted her son's autism accounted for all his learning needs, despite clear signs of dyslexia. Another child was initially labeled with a "processing disorder" but later received diagnoses of dyslexia, ADHD, and anxiety after an outside evaluation.
Learning disabilities commonly co-occur with conditions like ADHD, autism, and anxiety disorders, making comprehensive evaluation essential. Relying on a single diagnosis delays identification and intervention while the child continues to struggle.
The Costly Path of Outside Evaluations
Five of the 14 children discussed received expensive, time-consuming outside evaluations because parents felt their concerns were not being heard. These evaluations often provided the only path to clarity. Parents described relief at finally understanding their child's challenges, coupled with frustration at the effort required.
When schools resist updating evaluations, families with resources find workarounds. Families without resources have no choice but to wait. Richards notes that waiting has consequences, including widening skill gaps, increased anxiety, and a growing sense of failure in children. She emphasizes these children are not lazy or unintelligent but are struggling with needs that have not been adequately identified.
Actionable Steps for Schools
The stories point to clear steps schools can take to make identification more transparent and equitable. Richards proposes three key actions.
First, schools must communicate in plain language. Parents need to understand evaluations, timelines, and their rights before making decisions.
Second, schools should evaluate the whole child. One diagnosis should not prevent further assessment when concerns remain.
Third, schools must make progress transparent. Families should receive regular, understandable updates about goals, growth, and next steps.
The parents in the focus group were persistent and resourceful. Many eventually secured needed services. But Richards concludes that children should not receive different opportunities simply because one family knows how to handle the system while another does not. Advocacy should function as a safeguard, not a requirement for basic access.
