Diane Willcutts/Education Advocacy LLC

Please join the Special Education Legal Fund, me, and some other fun panelists for an important discussion. Free! Virtual! May 6 at 7 p.m.

Choosing the “best” school district isn’t always straightforward—especially for children with special needs. Rankings and reputation don’t tell the whole story, and moving districts doesn’t always lead to better outcomes.

Join our S.E.L.F. Webinar Wednesday, May 6th at 7 PM to hear a multidisciplinary panel discuss what families should really consider: how districts meet individual needs, evaluate incoming students, support social transitions, and honor existing IEPs. Learn what questions to ask, what factors matter most, and how to advocate for the right fit for your child.

Free Registration with Event Brite link: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/1983131716348?aff=oddtdtcreator

Join me at this free event in Stamford!

P.S. My associate Kate Schrock and I have concluded that, if school districts would do these TWO things, nearly every student with disabilities could be educated in their neighborhood schools. In our practice, we see that students are placed out of district most often due to reading disabilities, emotional needs, and/or behavior concerns. So. . .

1. To support emotional and "behavior" needs, schools should train all teachers, administrators, paraprofessionals, and related services staff in Dr. Ross Greene's Collaborative and Proactive Solutions, which has multiple PUBLISHED peer-reviewed studies showing it is effective. And yes, each school should ensure that there is a core team who has done the in-depth training WITH coaching. See the link, below.

2. To support reading for ALL students, schools should ensure that all K-3 teachers, reading specialists, and special education teachers are certified in structured literacy, including a supervised practicum. For example, this could be Orton-Gillingham certification at at least the associate's level, CALT certification, etc. Note that Orton-Gillingham and other structured literacy are NOT just for students with dyslexia. Structured literacy works for everyone--garden-variety child will simply zip through this more quickly. And p**f, 95% or more of our elementary school students will be able to meet grade-level benchmarks. Yes, teaching reading is rocket science, and there are no shortcuts. So let's stop doing the ineffective hit-and-run professional development and provide our teachers with what they need--including the supervised practicum in structured literacy!

Now, wasn't that easy? : )

Workshops and Trainings – LIVES IN THE BALANCE Whether you’re an educator, parent, mental health clinician, physician, or staff member in a therapeutic treatment facility, if you’re looking for exposure to or proficiency in the Collaborative & Proactive Solutions (CPS) model, we offer a variety of training options to meet your needs. Among t...

Remember that educating students with disabilities has always been a bipartisan issue--since the Individuals with Disabilities Act was passed in 1975.

We know that the consequences of denying students an appropriate education are dire--resulting in higher drop-out rates, increased anxiety and depression, increased involvement with the juvenile justice system, and increased rates of unemployment and underemployment.

When our federal and state governments invest in appropriately educating students with disabilities, the vast majority of our kids can become independent, productive taxpayers who do not need to rely on government assistance! District administrators need to stop wasting money fighting against what children with disabilities need (hint: their families are not going away) and invest in what works!

Spent the day on Capitol Hill with my fellow Connecticut advocates for children with disabilities! So. Much. Fun.

If you live in Connecticut, please submit testimony opposing SB-312, which intends to endorse districts "instructing" struggling readers with AI, rather than to provide instruction through an actual teacher who is certified in structured literacy.

SB 312 states, "The Department of Education may approve one or more supplemental literacy support products that utilizes a machine-learning or other machine-based system capable of (1) listening to students read aloud, (2) analyzing student reading performance in real time, and (3) providing immediate, individualized support or intervention in the form of tutoring and instructional feedback."

Sorry, there is no such "literacy support product" whose computer algorithm has been demonstrated to be effective through peer-reviewed research. (But the bill doesn't require that. . . so maybe we're just supposed to take the publisher's word for it?) Links to the bill, to submit public testimony in writing, and to sign up to speak at the public hearing on 3/4/2026 are here:

www.cga.ct.gov

The Connecticut State Department of Education needs to become laser-focused on providing children with effective reading instruction in our schools. This is STILL not happening.

In Connecticut, only 36% of our fourth graders are proficient readers, according to the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (see link below). Research tells us that, if we provide effective reading instruction, at least 95% of all students should be proficient readers. So why is Connecticut failing to teach more than half of our students to read well? Because most of our teachers have never been taught to effectively provide reading instruction in a way that is consistent with reading science--which typically requires about two years of training and a supervised practicum.

Although the state legislature attempted to improve reading instruction in Connecticut by passing the Right to Read law, there have been ongoing problems. For example, Right to Read required that the state identify "approved" reading curricula that are consistent with reading science--that nearly every district must use. Which sounds helpful in theory. So why hasn't Right to Read been effective?

A. Implementation problems. For example, some of the CT "state-approved" reading curricula do a terrible job of teaching foundational skills--and some even use failed strategies like "cuing" and/or requiring that students memorize whole words by sight rather than decoding them. In December 2022, I brought my concerns to the attention of Melissa Hickey at CSDE (who oversaw the approved curricula selection process) and received an email back that said something along the lines of "no reading program is perfect."

B. Even using a "good" reading curriculum is not enough on its own. The teacher implementing reading instruction must have a strong foundation in structured literacy, and getting that foundation requires about two years of training and a supervised practicum in structured literacy. Most of our schools of education do not provide this. So Connecticut needs to require our Educator Preparation Programs (EPPs) at our colleges and universities to provide an evidence-based program of study and supervised practicum in structured literacy to teacher candidates.

On the plus side, for the past 5 to 10 years, Connecticut law has required that educators applying for any level of certification as a special education teacher or reading specialist have completed a program of study and supervised practicum in structured literacy specific to teaching students with dyslexia. (See 10-145d(i) for the exact wording.) On the negative side, to date that law has not been enforced. Not only do we need to implement the law we have, we also need to expand it to all include all K-3 teachers applying for certification, as these are the grades where students are still learning to read. ALL students benefit from structured literacy! And research tells us that most reading problems can be prevented if students get the right reading instruction in kindergarten and first grade.

The Connecticut Office of Dyslexia and Reading Disabilities (ODRD) has been charged with auditing our EPPs and helping to move us towards enabling our teachers to be effective instructors of structured literacy. Fingers crossed the ODRD gets the funding and support it needs to move forward with trying to repair the state of reading in Connecticut.

nces.ed.gov

Do you have an IEP meeting coming up? (In Connecticut, we call them PPTs.) If so. . . consider emailing your child's special education teacher to say something like the following:

Hi,

To help me prepare for my child's IEP meeting, please email me at least three school days in advance all progress reports, evaluations, district benchmarks, any draft IEP goals and objectives, and any other documents to be discussed at the meeting.

Thanks for your help!

100% of school districts have access to tax-payer funded special education attorneys who often work to block services that students with disabilities need. Parents are often left to navigate this complex process on their own. SELF works to level the playing field.

S.E.L.F. – Special Education Legal Fund Founded by parents, Special Education Legal Fund (S.E.L.F.) is an organization that provides knowledge, resources, and support to under-resourced families so they may successfully advocate for their children.

An excellent article by Allison Quirion of Decoding Dyslexia Connecticut. AND structured literacy works for all students, not just those with dyslexia! Our colleges and universities need to start teaching our teachers how to teach literacy in a way that is consistent with reading science!

Opinion: CT promised to protect students with dyslexia Since the creation of the Office of Dyslexia, the state education department has failed to meet nearly every major requirement legislators put in place.