Students with disabilities get short shrift in Massachusetts schools, commentary argues

Despite Massachusetts’ reputation as a leader in public schools, students with special needs are failing to get the comprehensive education they are promised by law, a recent analyst concluded.

“The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) frequently highlights its commitment to equity, inclusion, and educational opportunity for all students,” wrote Ben Tobin in a commentary published by the CommonWealth Beacon. “Yet for many families of students with disabilities, those promises feel increasingly disconnected from reality.”

Tobin, board member of the SPEDWatch advocacy group and a licensed special educator and dyslexia interventionist, described three areas where the state’s schools were falling short.

“Concerns involving disability-related bullying, delayed identification of learning disabilities, and inadequate support for students with complex needs are frequently cited by families who feel their concerns have not been fully addressed,” he wrote.

Although federal law guarantees a free public education to all students with disabilities, Massachusetts takes this directive further to recognize “every student’s right to meaningful educational opportunity,” according to Tobin.

“DESE is charged with ensuring that school districts comply with these obligations and with investigating complaints when families believe schools have failed to provide appropriate services and supports.”

However, the very oversight intended to help students has stymied their efforts to get appropriate support, Tobin argued.

“Parents describe filing complaints and waiting months for investigations to conclude while their children continue struggling in inappropriate educational placements. Others report findings that acknowledge procedural shortcomings but result in little meaningful corrective action.”

‘Systemic failures that carry long-term educational, social, economic costs’

Delays in special education services can carry significant consequences for children’s long-term academic progress, Tobin noted.

“Rather than identifying and addressing learning challenges early, many students receive intervention only after years of academic struggle,” he wrote.

“Early identification and evidence-based intervention are not merely educational best practices; they are investments that can reduce the need for more intensive services later while improving outcomes for students.”

Drawing on his own experience with dyslexia intervention, Tobin warns “academic gaps can widen dramatically” if evidence-based instruction does not come fast enough for a student with special needs.

“These outcomes are not simply individual tragedies. They are systemic failures that carry long-term educational, social, and economic costs.”

Rather than settling for the present system, education officials should take recent federal reviews “as an opportunity for reflection and reform rather than defensiveness,” Tobin argued.

“Students with disabilities deserve more than promises and utopic language. They deserve systems that respond promptly when problems arise, enforce the law fairly, and place children’s needs above institutional convenience. These students deserve DESE’s attention and care and consideration.”