Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Dyslexia topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents tell board district lacks adequate dyslexia supports; urge in-school interventions
Summary
Multiple parents told the Georgetown County School Board the district’s current approach to dyslexia screening and intervention is insufficient, describing delayed evaluations, limited in-district remediation and out-of-pocket tutoring expenses; parents urged adoption of structured, multi-sensory evidence-based instruction.
Parents used the public-comment period to press the board on the district’s support for students with dyslexia and other learning disabilities.
Julie Gratchell described a long struggle to secure effective reading support for her child. She said the child qualified for an individualized education program (IEP) after a delayed evaluation and that earlier recommendations of after-school remediation were insufficient: "We needed a structured evidence based approach that specifically targets dyslexia," she said, and requested that instruction and interventions be available during school hours rather than only after school.
Christine Roberts told the board her son was diagnosed with dyslexia in kindergarten and later pulled back to kindergarten because in-district instruction could not meet his needs. She said some parents now pay more than $1,000 a month for outside tutoring and questioned whether the district’s newly rolled-out LETRS professional development adequately serves students with severe dyslexia. "The LETRS program that we finally rolled out... is not adequate," she said, and urged the board to work with state legislators and pursue funding and training to expand in-school supports.
Both speakers framed their remarks as systemic concerns rather than isolated incidents and asked the board to prioritize screening, staff training and evidence-based, multi-sensory instruction for dyslexic students. The speakers cited specific program and procedural gaps (delays in evaluation, inconsistent use of 504 plans and IEP accommodations, and reliance on outside providers) and requested one-on-one engagement with board members or administrators to develop solutions.
Board members acknowledged the comments; the meeting record shows the district later referenced state-level resources and existing funding allocations when discussing special education in separate remarks. The board did not announce a specific follow-up action in response to these comments during the meeting.
