The Harvard SEPAC creates a survey annually for families seeking Special Education Services or that currently have an IEP. Here are the results, recommendations, and responses from the school district.

1. Harvard SEPAC Recommendations based on 2021 survey results:

2. The Fall 2020- Spring 2021 survey of parents/ guardians in the Harvard School District who
have children either receiving special education services or are in the process of seeking /
developing an IEP returned 63 responses. 59 responses to the survey were excluded due to not
checking off “Has an IEP” or “Seeking special education services (or developing an IEP)” in the
initial demographics question.
● The majority (32%) of respondents have a child in elementary school,
● 21% have a child in middle school,
● 19% have a child in high school, and 16% have a child in preschool.
● 71% of respondents were in-district, 6% have an out of district placement, 3%
homeschooled, 19% reported being remote and 44% reported being hybrid. The survey
was distributed via an email blast district-wide in order to reach the most parents. It was
left open for two weeks and a reminder email was sent out at the halfway mark.

3. ● 53 of the 63 respondents answered this question.
● 58% of respondents agreed, reporting that evaluations were prompt, the process was
easy, communication was open and the district was helpful.
● 26% of respondents disagreed.
Open responses showed some common themes. Several respondents showed frustration over
the SPED eligibility and evaluation process as it is designed, describing it as “waiting for a child
to fail,” frustration that reports on the evaluations are not provided until a few days before the
eligibility meeting, and that the consent to evaluate / evaluation forms are too difficult to
understand. Some specific recommendations from respondents were a more strict adherence to
the state-mandated timelines, an initial packet sent out that includes the IEP eligibility timeline, a
more accessible online presence, and complaints about needing to hire outside legal help or
advocates to navigate this initial process. Other parents suggested more documentation from
the staff when making the referral for an evaluation, and another reported their child’s condition
was minimized.
SEPAC recommendation
The SEPAC recommends providing the IEP eligibility Timeline infographic in the consent-to-
evaluate packet that is initially sent out. Directing parents to the SEPAC website
www.harvardsepac.com or providing the SEPAC contact information will give parents a way to
find additional information and support. A little empathy goes a long way during this initial

4. contact, and using reflective listening techniques along with validation can help ensure parents
that you both want the best for their child and are there to help.
● 51/63 parent/ guardians responded
● 67% were satisfied.
● 22% reported not being satisfied
Of those who reported being satisfied, comments included: having a very friendly and
communicative team, their team is easy to get a hold of, there have been great improvements
over previous years, there is a great emailing system with specialists and teachers, and there
have been helpful zoom/ in person interactions.
Of those who reported not being satisfied with the communication, some reported a lack of
communication between special education providers and general education providers, and poor
adherence to the IEP. Some reported a general lack of communication or challenges
communicating with specific staff, even sensing hostility and feeling “all alone.” Some reported
misunderstandings between out of district placement and HPS staff regarding graduation
requirements.
SEPAC recommendation
Our recommendations include continuing to have open and frequent email communications
between special education staff and parents/guardians. It seems CC’ing the general education
teachers and the SPED liaisons where necessary could facilitate communication, as there were
several examples of communication breakdowns. A respondent recommended more direction

5. regarding upcoming meetings and what will be discussed, which we feel would be very helpful.
For example, if the annual IEP meeting is coming up, give a one month and two week reminder
that includes easy to decipher bullet points of what will be discussed, and how the
parent/guardian can be prepared. Another respondent recommended a digital notebook that
travels between school and home (could be a simple google document) that includes the dated
notes from specialists and teachers.
If communication feels tense, strained, or hostile, try the approach of empathizing with the
parent’s concerns and asking how the SPED provider/ gen ed teacher can be more helpful.
Sometimes just feeling listened to makes a huge difference. The follow through on the parents’
concerns is just as helpful, even if the answer is “we understand you’d like us to x-y-z; let’s give
it a try or this hybrid approach.”
● 50/63 responded
● 58% agreed
● 20% disagreed
8/20 described adequate attention to their child’s needs, though a few of these described only
achieving these results after going to an out of district placement or after extensive guardian
pushing and involvement. Of the 20% who disagreed, some of the comments are around what
appears to be a misunderstanding of how a child’s disability could impact their ability to access

6. the curriculum. These include anxiety, social needs, and communication difficulties. These
needs are so individual for each child and family.
SEPAC’s recommendations
COVID has made this past year incredibly challenging in meeting the social-emotional needs of
all children (and staff/ parents!). More training and education for general education providers on
how various disabilities affect these domains in children and what interventions are effective to
address them is needed. If a liaison is alerted to an issue with a staff member around
understanding how a child’s disability affects their emotional/ social interactions / behaviors in
class, perhaps call a meeting quickly with the guardian, staff member, and the school counselor.
Some guardians expressed a desire for intervention from a school psychologist or counselor;
maybe the SPED liaison could discuss this openly at regular points throughout the year with
parents to ask if they see a need. It is also apparent in the answers of many parents that there
is a general misunderstanding of what social/ emotional/ behavioral needs may be in context of
their child’s education; this shows an opportunity for parent education through workshops.
● 49/63 responses.
● 24.5% of respondents use outside providers 3 or more times per week,
● 18.4% use them often (1-2 times per week)
● 20.4% reported that they were currently looking for outside providers.

7. Open responses highlighted parents’ concerns around the district’s reading support (particularly
for dyslexia) and methods for teaching writing as well as lack of communication from the title 1
teachers; as a result, outside services have been sought out by parents for these perceived
support gaps. A few respondents noted that they would seek outside support regardless of what
the district provided to their child.
SEPAC recommendations
The SEPAC suggests that in addition to providing quarterly progress reports, the district could
seek input and feedback from parents on how they perceive their students’ success in
accessing the curriculum. Although out of the realm of the SEPAC, parents expressed in the
survey that they would like more feedback from Title I providers.
Educational seminars for staff on teaching phonics and reading to children with Dyslexia would
improve the curriculum.
● 47/63 responses.
● 32 (68.1%) agreed or strongly agreed
● 6/47 (12.8%) disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Open responses focused on the need for more continuing education opportunities, particularly
around eating therapy and educating students with dyslexia. While parents felt special
education staff are quite knowledgeable, they had mixed feedback on general education
teachers’ knowledge of disability and/or IEP plan. Positive comments focused on the thorough
evaluations, the knowledgeable staff, and how in-tune providers are with the students’ needs.

8. SEPAC recommendations
Feedback on Question 6 indicates that most parents feel the district’s professionals are
knowledgeable about their child’s disability. We recommend additional training and continuing
education for school professionals, particularly for evidence-based methods of teaching to
students with dyslexia and training related to eating therapy. Additionally, clear communication
and regular check-ins between SPED staff and teachers to gauge students’ progress and
implementation of the IEP are recommended. Teachers without knowledge of a child’s particular
disability should be provided additional training opportunities by the district.
● 47/63 responses.
● 66% agreed or strongly agreed
● 2% disagreed
Open responses included several parents who felt staff was flexible in scheduling and/or the
staff worked hard to find appropriate times for services. Several responses indicated parents
would prefer services be offered at times other than when specials are offered and/or outside of
school hours. One parent noted that back-to-back PT sessions and having more than one SLP
session on the same day have occurred in order to accommodate the therapist’s schedule.
SEPAC recommendations
The district should have open communication and seek the approval of parents, to the extent
that it is possible, as to when SPED services or supportive services are provided to students.

9. Therapists should schedule with the child to best support their needs. The general feedback
was positive for this survey question so no additional recommendations are indicated.
● 47/63 responses.
● 60% agreed or strongly agreed
● 17% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Open responses included several parents who felt their student was making good progress with
their current supports. Several parents expressed they felt the school offered only the minimum
required to meet their child’s needs.
SEPAC recommendations
Feedback on Question 8 indicates that most parents are happy with the frequency and duration
of services. The SEPAC recommends the team provide clear communication to parents as to
why and how the frequency and duration of services is determined. The scheduling of services
should be made in the best interest of the student.
Several respondents reported feeling dissatisfied with the progress their child is making given
the frequency and duration of services. More focus on a co-teaching model so that the general
education teacher isn’t solely responsible for providing services to the child in the times between
1:1 services could be helpful.

10. ● 45/63 responses.
● 29% of respondents said that they fully understand ESY and are satisfied with the
services.
● 18% said they don’t understand ESY but are satisfied with the services.
● 33% of respondents didn’t understand ESY or were not satisfied with services provided.
Many of the open-ended responses revealed that parents did not understand how or if their
student qualified for ESY and communication regarding when, where and how services would
be provided was not clear.
SEPAC Recommendations
Based on the survey responses there are areas of around ESY that could be improved. The
SEPAC recommends increased transparency around ESY services- how a student qualifies and
what services will be provided. The SEPAC would like information about the ESY program to be
provided to families with sufficient time for families to decide if they will be able to commit to
having their student fully participate in ESY. The SEPAC looks forward to working with the
district to improve understanding of and access to ESY services.

11. ● 44/63 responses
● 60% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with this statement
● 15% disagreed or strongly disagreed
Open responses reflected parents’ satisfaction with how their student is included in the general
education setting. Other responses reflected a belief that general education teachers or
administrators were less receptive to having students with special needs in the gen ed setting.
SEPAC Recommendations
One SEPAC initiative includes the ability for SPED children to be involved in sports. There may
be a lack of opportunities for kids with varying needs in Harvard athletics.
Based on the responses, the SEPAC recommends that inclusion continue to be an area of focus
for the District. A majority of respondents believe inclusion is a priority for the District and the
SEPAC commends the district for fostering this culture.
Additionally, there is a call for the inclusionary practice of teaching to the child with the most
needs and the least needs in the room, as then, all will benefit! Including the dyslexic child.
Shelly Moore’s 7/10 split bowling metaphor is a wonderful way to understand this practice; you
can find it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYtUlU8MjlY