Authored by Rob Frantum-Allen

Part 1 of a 2-Part Series

District and school leaders across the country continue to face a persistent challenge: students with disabilities often perform below their peers on literacy and statewide assessments. While these achievement gaps are common, they should not be accepted as inevitable.

Research, district improvement efforts, and examples from high-performing schools demonstrate that stronger outcomes are possible when systems focus on the conditions that support student success. Access to rigorous literacy instruction, intentional specially designed instruction, knowledgeable educators, aligned instructional materials, and sustainable implementation practices all play a critical role in improving outcomes for students with disabilities.

The question for leaders is not whether achievement gaps exist. It is whether current systems, practices, and supports are helping close those gaps or unintentionally reinforcing them.

As districts work to improve literacy outcomes, federal accountability measures such as the Office of Special Education Programs’ (OSEP) Results-Driven Accountability framework and the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) provide important performance indicators. However, these requirements represent more than a compliance exercise. They offer an opportunity to examine the conditions that influence student outcomes and identify areas where meaningful improvement can occur.

Meet Public Consulting Group (PCG) at the IDA 2026 Reading, Literacy & Learning Conference, November 12-14 in Las Vegas, to learn how districts are using structured self-study processes to better understand literacy outcomes for students with disabilities and build sustainable improvement plans.

Reversing a Pattern We Have Come to Accept

Indicator 3 within the IDEA Part B SPP/APR measure’s participation and performance of students with IEPs on statewide assessments, including proficiency gaps between students with disabilities and their peers. While these data points are essential, they do not explain why gaps exist or what actions districts should take to address them.

Too often, persistent gaps become a familiar part of annual reporting. When low performance is viewed as an unavoidable consequence of disability, improvement efforts may focus on adding programs, interventions, or professional learning opportunities without examining the underlying conditions driving results.

Improving outcomes begins with a different mindset: recognizing that while disabilities may affect how students learn, low achievement should never be considered inevitable.

Look Beyond the Scores

When literacy outcomes remain low, leaders often feel pressure to implement a new program, intervention, schedule, or professional development initiative. While these actions may be helpful, they are only effective when they address the root causes of the challenge.

Achievement data can indicate where leaders should focus their attention, but the data alone cannot answer critical questions:

• Are students receiving strong Tier 1 literacy instruction?
• Is intervention supplemental rather than substituting core instruction?
• Is specially designed instruction clearly aligned to student needs?
• Do educators have the tools, training, and support required for effective implementation?
• Are instructional materials, assessments, and literacy practices working together as a coherent system?

Answering these questions requires a cross-functional review that brings together perspectives from literacy, special education, general education, assessment, school leadership, and family engagement.

Common Pitfalls That Limit Improvement

Even well-intentioned districts can encounter challenges that slow progress:

• Jumping to Solutions: Districts may invest in new programs, professional development, or intervention models before fully understanding the conditions contributing to low outcomes. Without a clear diagnosis, even strong solutions may fail to produce meaningful results.
• Normalizing the Gap:When low achievement is repeatedly reported without deeper analysis, expectations can gradually decline. Over time, performance gaps may become viewed as normal rather than as indicators that warrant further investigation.

Improvement begins when leaders shift the conversation from what students cannot do to what systems can do differently.

What District Leaders Can Do Now

Districts looking to improve literacy outcomes for students with disabilities can begin with a few key actions:

• Challenge assumptions. Identify areas where low performance has become expected and examine what evidence might suggest a different outcome is possible.
• Connect outcome data to instructional practice. Review state and local results alongside classroom evidence, intervention models, specially designed instruction, and implementation practices.
• Bring together the right stakeholders. Include leaders and practitioners from literacy, general education, special education, assessment, and family engagement to create a shared understanding of the challenges and opportunities.
• Conduct a structured systems review. Use a framework that helps identify the instructional, organizational, and implementation conditions influencing student literacy outcomes.

Continue the Conversation at IDA 2026

PCG will be at the IDA 2026 Reading, Literacy & Learning Conference, November 12–14 in Las Vegas. Visit the PCG team to discuss how structured self-study can help districts strengthen literacy outcomes for students with disabilities.

If you will not be attending IDA 2026, contact PCG to learn how our team can support literacy improvement efforts year-round.

(800) 210-6113 | [email protected] | Teaching and Learning Consultants | Education Strategy Consulting | PCG

Relevant Resources

• IDA 2026 Reading, Literacy & Learning Conference
• Teaching and Learning Consultants | Education Strategy Consulting | PCG