To make informed educational decisions, parents must be able to read and comprehend the information that is given to them by their school. The purpose of the current study was to examine the readability of Parents' Rights documents of all states. Results indicated that only 4% to 8% of Parents' Rights documents were written at the recommended reading level. To the contrary, 20% to 50% of the documents were written at a college reading level or higher, and other text characteristics may have added to their difficulty. These findings suggest that parents of students with special needs are likely to find Parents' Rights documents very difficult to read and understand. Parents' Rights documents should be rewritten to make them accessible to more parents.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbrightJ.de GuzmanC.AceboP.PaivaD.FaulknerM.SwansonJ. (1996). Readability of patient education materials: Implications for clinical practice. Applied Nursing Research, 9, 139–143.
2.
AllenJ. (2002). With the best intentions: Agents, impetus, and consequences of placement decisions. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 18, 39–66.
3.
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
4.
AndersonT. H.ArmbrusterB. B. (1986). Readable textbooks, or, selecting a textbook is not like buying a pair of shoes. In OrasanuJ. (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice (pp. 151–162). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
BailinA.GrafsteinA. (2001). The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: A critique. Language & Communication, 21, 285–301.
6.
BlattB. (1972). Public policy and the education of children with special needs. Exceptional Children, 38, 537–545.
7.
BrantlingerE. A. (1987). Making decisions about special education placement: Do low-income parents have the information they need?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 94–101.
8.
ChallJ. S.DaleE. (1995). Readability revised: The New Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
9.
CluettS. E.MulvihillB. A. (1997). Early identification of children at risk for special education placement. University of Alabama at Birmingham. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418 540).
10.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 8, 411–426.
11.
CooperK. L.RasconL. (1994, March). Building positive relationships on the border with parents of special students: Effective practices for the I. E. P. In MontgomeryD. (Ed.), Proceedings of the annual national conference of the American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES): Rural partnerships working together (pp. 347–351). Austin, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 369 627).
12.
CranwellD.MillerA. (1987, July). Do parents understand professionals' terminology in statements of special education need?Educational Psychology in Practice, 3, 27–32.
13.
DaleE.ChallJ. S. (1948). A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 27, 37–54.
14.
DavisT. C.CrouchM. A.WillsG.MillerS.AbdehouD. M. (1990). The gap between patient reading comprehension and the readability of patient education materials. The Journal of Family Practice, 31, 533–538.
15.
DoakL. G.DoakC. C. (1980). Patient comprehension profiles: Recent findings and strategies. Patient Counseling and Health Education, 2, 101–106.
16.
DoakL. G.DoakC. C. (1987). Lowering the silent barriers to compliance for patients with low literacy skills. Promoting Health, 4, 6–8.
17.
EppsS.TindalG. (1987). The effectiveness of differential programming in serving students with mild handicaps: Placement options and instructional programming. In WangM. C.ReynoldsM. C.WalbergH. J. (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice, Vol. 1: Learner characteristics and adaptive education. Advances in education (pp. 213–248). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
18.
FarrR.CareyR.ToneB. (1986). Recent theory and research into the reading process: Implications for reading assessment. In OrasanuJ. (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice (pp. 135–149). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
FleschR. F. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221–233.
20.
FleschR. F. (1974). The art of readable writing: With the Flesch readability formula (25th anniversary ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
21.
GrigorenkoE. L. (2001). Developmental dyslexia: An update on genes, brains, and environments. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 91–125.
22.
GunningT. G. (2002). Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
23.
GunningT. G. (2003). The role of readability in today's classrooms. Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 175–189.
24.
HartleyJ.TruemanM.BurnhillP. (1980). Some observations on producing and measuring readable writing. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 17, 164–174.
25.
HochhauserM. (1999). Informed consent and patient's rights documents: A right, a rite, or a rewrite?Ethics & Behavior, 9, 1–20.
26.
HurthJ. L.GoffP. (2002). Assuring the family's role on the early intervention team: Explaining rights and safeguards (2nd ed.). Chapel Hill, NC: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center.
27.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (1997).
28.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004).
29.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 Proposed Rule, 34 C.F.R. § 300, 301, and 304 (June 21, 2005).
30.
KingM. M.WintonA. S. W.AdkinsA. D. (2003, March). Assessing the readability of mental health internet brochures for children and adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 91–99.
31.
KirschI. S.JungeblutA.JenkinsL.KolstadA. (1993). Adult literacy in America: A first look at the findings of the National Adult Literacy Survey (NCES Publication No. 93275). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
32.
KlareG. R. (1963). The measurement of readability. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
33.
KlareG. R. (1974–1975). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 62–102.
34.
LyonG. R.FletcherJ. M. (2001). Early warning system. Education Next, 1(2), 22–29.
35.
McGrawK. O.WongS. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30–46.
36.
MeadeC. D.HowserD. M. (1992). Consent forms: How to determine and improve their readability. Oncology Nursing Forum, 19, 1523–1528.
37.
MeyerB. J. F. (2003). Text coherence and readability. Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 204–224.
38.
Micro Power & Light Co. (2003a). Readability Calculations (Windows Version 5.0) [Computer software]. Dallas, TX: Author.
39.
Micro Power & Light Co. (2003b). Readability Calculations (Windows Version 5.0) [Computer software manual]. Dallas, TX: Author.
MuirW. J. (2000). Genetics advances and learning disability. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 12–19.
43.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Child Restraint Systems, 49 C.F.R. Part 571 (Nov. 2, 2001).
44.
National Work Group on Literacy and Health. (1998). Communicating with patients who have limited literacy skills. Journal of Family Practice, 46, 168–176.
45.
Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Renewal Process, OEI-06-01-00370, 2002.
46.
Paasche-OrlowM. K.TaylorH. A.BrancatiF. L. (2003). Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. The New England Journal of Medicine, 348, 721–726.
47.
Plain Language in Government Writing, 63 F.R. § 31885 (1998).
48.
PowersR. D. (1988). Emergency department patient literacy and the readability of patient-directed materials. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 17, 124–126.
49.
RalphJ. B. (1982). A geriatric visual concern: The need for publishing guidelines. Journal of the American Optometric Association, 52, 43–50.
50.
RaskindW. H. (2001). Current understanding of the genetic basis of reading and spelling disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 141–157.
51.
RederS. (1999). The state of literacy in America. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved April 3, 2005, from http://www.nifl.gov/reders/lintro.htm.
52.
RoitM. L.PfohlW. (1984). The readability of P.L. 94–142 parent materials: Are parents truly informed?Exceptional Children, 50, 496–505.
53.
ShalevR. S.OrlyM.KeremB.AyaliM.BadichiN.FriedlanderY. (2001). Developmental dyscalculia is a familial learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 59–65.
54.
ShriverM. D.KramerJ. J. (1993). Parent involvement in an early childhood special education program: A descriptive analysis of parent demographics and level of involvement. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 255–263.
55.
SydesM.HartleyJ. (1997). A thorn in the Flesch: Observations on the unreliability of computer-based readability formulae. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 143–145.
56.
TaubH. A.BakerM. T.SturrJ. F. (1986). Informed consent for research: Effects of readability, patient age, and education. Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 34, 601–606.
57.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
58.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Digest of education statistics 2002 (NCES Publication No. 2003–060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
59.
WatkinsM. W. (2002). MacKappa [Computer software]. University Park, PA: Author.
60.
WatkinsM. W.PachecoM. (2000). Interobserver agreement in behavioral research: Importance and calculation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 205–212.
61.
WilliamsM. V.ParkerR. M.BakerD. W.ParikhN. S.PitkinK.CoatesW. C. (1995). Inadequate functional health literacy among patients at two public hospitals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 274, 1677–1682.
62.
YoungD. R.HookerD. T.FreebergF. E. (1990, May/June). Informed consent documents: Increasing comprehension by reducing reading level. IRB, 12, 1–5.
