This study focused on literacy-related barriers to understanding the rights of students with disabilities and their parents within the special education system. SMOG readability scores were determined for procedural safeguards documents issued by all state departments of education. The average reading grade level was 16; 6% scored in the high school range, 55% scored in the college range, and 39% scored in the graduate or professional range. Comparisons of national literacy data and national data on the educational attainment of parents of students with disabilities suggest that there is a disproportionate burden of limited literacy among these parents compared to the general population. The significance of results is discussed with respect to relevant regulatory requirements, case law, and evidence from the legal and health literacy fields.
BakerD. W.ParkerR. M.WilliamsM. V.PitkinK.ParikhN. S.CoatesW.. (1996). The health care experience of patients with low literacy. Archives of Family Medicine, 5(6), 329–334.
3.
BrantlingerE. A. (1987). Making decisions about special education placement: Do low-income parents have the information they need?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(2), 94–101.
4.
CharrowR.CharrowV. (1979). Making legal language understandable: Psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79(7), 1306–1374.
5.
ContrerasA.Garcia-AlonsoR.EcheniqueM.Daye-ContrerasF. (1999). The SOL formulas for converting SMOG readability scores between health education materials written in Spanish, English, and French. Journal of Health Communication, 4, 21–29.
6.
DaleE.ChallJ. S. (1948). A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 27(1), 11–28.
7.
DavisonA.KantorR. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: A case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2), 187–209.
8.
DoakC.DoakL.RootJ. (1996). Teaching patients with low literacy skills (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott. (Out of print; available from www.hsph.harvard.edu/healthliteracy)
9.
DuBayW. H. (2004). The principles of readability. Costa Mesa, CA: Impact Information.
10.
DuncanG. J.Brooks-GunnJ. (2000). Family poverty, welfare reform, and child development. Child Development, 71(1), 188–196.
11.
FitzgeraldJ. L.WatkinsM. W. (2006). Parents’ rights in special education: The readability of procedural safeguards. Exceptional Children, 72, 497–510.
12.
HarryB.AllenN.McLaughlinM. (1995). Communication versus compliance: African American parents’ involvement in special education. Exceptional Children, 61, 364–377.
13.
HendersonA.MappK. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin: National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
14.
HeymannJ. (2000a). The widening gap: Why America’s working families are in jeopardy and what can be done about it. New York: Basic Books.
15.
HeymannJ. (2000b). What happens during and after school: Conditions faced by working parents living in poverty and their school-aged children. Journal of Children & Poverty, 6, 5–20.
16.
HeymannJ.EarleA. (2001). The impact of parental working conditions on school-age children: The case of evening work. Community, Work & Family, 4, 305–325.
17.
HironakaL. K.Paasche-OrlowM. K. (2008). The implications of health literacy on patient provider communication. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 93, 428–432.
18.
ImberS.RadcliffeD. (2003). Independent educational evaluations under IDEA ’97: It’s a testy matter. Exceptional Children, 70, 27–44.
19.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004).
20.
KauferD.SteinbergE.ToneyS. (1983). Revising medical consent forms: An empirical model and test. Law, Medicine, and Health Care, 11(4), 155–162.
21.
KimbleJ. (1994–1995). Answering the critics of plain language. Scribes Journal of Legal Writing, 5, 51–85.
22.
KirschI.JungeblutA.JenkinsL.KolstadA. (1993). Adult literacy in America: A first look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
23.
KlareG. (1974–1975). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10(1), 62–102.
24.
LeeS.ArozullahA.ChoY. (2004). Health literacy, social support, and health: A research agenda. Social Science and Medicine, 58(7), 1309–1321.
25.
MassonM.WaldronM. (1994). Comprehension of legal contracts by non-experts: Effectiveness of plain language redrafting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8(1), 67–85.
26.
Max M. v. Thompson, 592 F. Supp. 1437, 1448 (N.D. Ill. 1984).
27.
McLaughlinG. (1969). SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12, 639–646.
28.
National Education Goals Panel. (1999). The national education goals report: Building a nation of learners. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.
29.
National Longitudinal Transition Study–2. (2003). NLTS2 data tables. Retrieved August 1, 2006, from http://www.nlts2.org
30.
National Research Council. (2005). Measuring literacy: Performance levels for adults. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
31.
Neilsen-BohlmanL.PanzerA. M.KindigD. A. (Eds.). (2004). Health literacy: A prescription to end confusion. Committee on Health Literacy, Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
32.
Office of the Federal Register. (1998). Making regulations readable. Federal register document drafting handbook. College Park, MD: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.
Paasche-OrlowM. K.TaylorH. A.BrancatiF. L. (2003). Readability of informed-consent forms (Author reply). New England Journal of Medicine, 348(22), 2263.
35.
Plain Language Action and Information Network. (n.d.). What is plain language?Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://www.plainlanguage.gov
36.
PruittM. (2003). Relationships between reading level of parents, readability of special education documents/forms, knowledge of IEP contents, and parental involvement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City.
37.
ReynoldsA. J. (1991). Early schooling of children at risk. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 392–422.
38.
Robinson-ZanartuC.Majel-DixonJ. (1996). Parent voices: American Indian relationships with schools. Journal of American Indian Education, 36(1), 32–54.
39.
RoitM.PfohlW. (1984). The readability of P.L. 94–142 parent materials: Are parents truly informed?Exceptional Children, 50, 496–505.
40.
RuddR. (2007). Health literacy skills of U.S. adults. American Journal of Health Behavior, 31(Suppl. 1), S8–S18.
41.
RuddR.AndersonJ.OppenheimerS.NathC. (2007). Health literacy: An update of public health and medical literature. In ComingsJ.GarnerB.SmithC. (Eds.), The annual review of adult learning and literacy (pp. 175–204). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study. (2006). SEELS data tables. Retrieved June 24, 2006, from http://www.seels.net
43.
SydesM.HartleyJ. (1997). A thorn in the Flesch: Observations on the unreliability of computer-based readability formulae. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2), 143–145.
44.
Tellier-RobinsonD. (2000). Involvement of Portuguese-speaking parents in the education of their special-needs children. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 309–323.
45.
Torres-BurgoN.Reyes-WassonP.Brusca-VegaR. (1999). Perceptions and needs of Hispanic and non-Hispanic parents of children receiving learning disabilities services. Bilingual Research Journal, 23, 373–387.
46.
TurnbullH.WilcoxB.StoweM. (2002). A brief overview of special education law with a focus on autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32(5), 479–493.
47.
U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Policy guidance for Title 1, Part A: Improving basic programs operated by local educational agencies. Archived information: Parental involvement. Washington, DC: Author.
48.
U.S. Department of Education (2003). National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 2003[Data file]. Available from National Center for Education Statistics Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/naal/
49.
WagnerM.BlackorbyJ.CametoR.NewmanL. (1993). What makes a difference? Influences on post-school outcomes of youth with disabilities. The 3rd comprehensive report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
50.
Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1042 (9th Cir. 1998).
51.
WeissH.MayerE.KreiderH.VaughanM.DearingE.HenckeR.. (2003). Making it work: Low-income working mothers’ involvement in their children’s education. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 879–901.
