Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's totally reasonable to ask for language to be included that says something like, "Madison requires two X 30 minutes phonics instruction weekly using an evidence-based multi-sensory method."

No it’s not. As stated above, it’s about the goals. The school might have access to an evidenced-based approach that is not multi-sensory. Maybe it works even better than, say, OG. The school needs to use what they see best to reach the GOALS that the team (which the parent is part of) agrees to. OP has every right to see the data that shows their kid is making progress towards the goal.

If the OP wants to know more specifics about the approach the school is using, they can schedule a parent conference OUTSIDE of the IEP.

I wrote the quote above and I'm a special ed teacher in MCPS and I have written service hours exactly like this. Writing "evidence-based multi-sensory method" does not require access to any specific "proprietary" curriculum, it is a method of instruction. Of course, the student should have a phonics goal to warrant this service, but there is nothing wrong with a parent asking for the type of instruction to be specified in the service hours. If the school refuses they can document why in the PWN.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's totally reasonable to ask for language to be included that says something like, "Madison requires two X 30 minutes phonics instruction weekly using an evidence-based multi-sensory method."

No it’s not. As stated above, it’s about the goals. The school might have access to an evidenced-based approach that is not multi-sensory. Maybe it works even better than, say, OG. The school needs to use what they see best to reach the GOALS that the team (which the parent is part of) agrees to. OP has every right to see the data that shows their kid is making progress towards the goal.

If the OP wants to know more specifics about the approach the school is using, they can schedule a parent conference OUTSIDE of the IEP.

I posted above about the legal side of things, but courts have disagreed with you. If a student genuinely needs a particular type of instruction (evidence based multi-sensory is a good example of the type I'm imagining), then it should be on the IEP and failure to provide it could be illegal. This doesn't apply to all students, but sometimes it is legally required.

Your instinct is right — random worksheets are a red flag, and you don't have to settle for hoping there's "some value." A few concrete levers:

You generally can't force the school to name a proprietary program (Wilson, etc.), but you CAN get the IEP to require the TYPE of instruction her profile needs — language like "systematic, explicit, evidence-based multisensory structured-literacy instruction." That ties them to a method without naming a brand (and in VA, the Literacy Act now requires evidence-based reading instruction, which helps you).

The real enforcement tool is DATA. Ask in writing for: (1) the assessment results that drove the current plan, (2) the scope and sequence she's following, and (3) progress-monitoring data on a set schedule (every 2-4 weeks). If she isn't making meaningful progress, that data is your evidence the intervention isn't appropriate — the legal standard is meaningful progress (Endrew F.), not whether they mean well. Put every request in writing so there's a record.

And yes — bring the ASDEC tutor (or an advocate) to the next meeting, and write the goals to match exactly what they say she needs.

If it helps, there are free copy-paste templates for requesting records, the assessment results, and progress data at anewstoryadvocacy.com/templates — exactly these asks, already worded.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's totally reasonable to ask for language to be included that says something like, "Madison requires two X 30 minutes phonics instruction weekly using an evidence-based multi-sensory method."

No it’s not. As stated above, it’s about the goals. The school might have access to an evidenced-based approach that is not multi-sensory. Maybe it works even better than, say, OG. The school needs to use what they see best to reach the GOALS that the team (which the parent is part of) agrees to. OP has every right to see the data that shows their kid is making progress towards the goal.

If the OP wants to know more specifics about the approach the school is using, they can schedule a parent conference OUTSIDE of the IEP.