When schools say a child is “doing fine,” it can mask real learning needs. One parent shares how they used data, advocacy, and persistence to secure support for their dyslexic child.

Written by a parent for DyslexiaHelp.

In the IEP process, I encountered a team who looked at (some, not enough) data and determined that my dyslexic child was adequately able to access general education. This team was so sure that there was no “NEED,” despite the private evaluation I shared, that they refused my request for an evaluation. This is known as the “wait to fail” approach, unfortunately common with schools across our nation. I’m sharing the strategy I used to get the IEP team to evaluate my dyslexic child and provide services.

Our school denied my request for an evaluation citing the following (infuriating) reasons.

• Child scored well above average on standardized tests.
• Child was “making progress” with Tier 1 intervention.
• Child was happy, well behaved, and participated actively in class.
• Child was only in kindergarten and too young to receive services.

Even with a district that is agreeable and supportive, it’s critically important for parents to know the laws and their rights. For students with dyslexia, here are a few of the most important legal tidbits I learned along my journey.

• SLD does not require a child to be “behind” in achievement to qualify for services.
• SLD requires specialized instruction, even if a child is progressing, if there is NEED.
• A NEED can be proven in any of these categories:
  • Reading Skills
  • Reading Fluency
  • Reading Comprehension
  • Generally: Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, Spelling or Thinking

In my case, I believed there was a NEED, but the school did not… So, here’s how I proved the NEED:

Districts are required to have data-based criteria for managing the special education process. My IEP team was cagey with the “data” and how they would determine a “Need.” Without a mutual understanding of “data” and “Need,” I had no leverage. Here’s how I built my case using “data” and the school’s criteria for “Need”:

• Own The Data: I obtained a private evaluation (at my own expense) so that I had a clear, complete, and unbiased picture of my child’s disability. The private evaluation enabled me to share a data set that clearly articulated weaknesses in phonemic awareness, phonemic processing, and working memory. This allowed me to challenge the school’s initial denial for an evaluation.
• Criteria Alignment: Next, I requested the district provide the “Local Plan to Implement [insert STATE] Criteria for Determination for Specific Learning Disability”. Districts are legally required to maintain this information and make it available to the public—it’s a document that describes how a district qualifies a child for an IEP in SLD. It’s worth noting that several leaders on our IEP team denied even knowing about this document.
• Map Your Data to School Criteria: Using the school’s criteria as outlined on the Local Plan, I mapped the areas where my dyslexic child demonstrated qualifying scores. Districts will often want to see qualifying scores on more than one assessment.
• Speak Their Language: I showed the IEP team the Local Plan, reviewed the districts qualifying criteria, and then showed the team how my dyslexic child’s scores mapped against their criteria.
• Keep Pushing—Make a Paper Trail: When our school refused to evaluate my dyslexic kid, I kept pushing. I insisted on meeting with our team every 4 weeks. I documented every conversation. I insisted on seeing the data that the school was using to make their decisions. I escalated concerns. Keep at it. Play the long game.

With the above strategy, the IEP team finally proceeded with an evaluation and ultimately granted services. With services, I am happy to share that my dyslexic child is making meaningful progress.