MASSACHUSETTS IS OFTEN celebrated as a national leader in public education. State officials point to strong test scores, high graduation rates, and national rankings that routinely place the Commonwealth’s schools among the best in the country. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education frequently highlights its commitment to equity, inclusion, and educational opportunity for all students.

Yet for many families of students with disabilities, those promises feel increasingly disconnected from reality.

Across Massachusetts, parents and caregivers have raised concerns about whether DESE is effectively fulfilling its responsibility to protect vulnerable students and enforce the rights guaranteed under state and federal law. Families navigating the state’s special education complaint process often describe experiences marked by lengthy delays, procedural obstacles, limited remedies, and a growing perception that the system is more responsive to institutional interests than to the needs of children.

These concerns deserve serious public attention.

Under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, students with disabilities are entitled to a free and appropriate public education tailored to their individual needs. Massachusetts law goes further, recognizing every student’s right to meaningful educational opportunity. 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.

In theory, this oversight structure exists to protect students. Many families, however, feel abandoned by it.

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. 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.

The consequences of inadequate special education services are not temporary setbacks. They can alter the course of a child’s life.

When a student with dyslexia does not receive evidence-based reading instruction early enough, for example, academic gaps can widen dramatically. When students with autism or emotional disabilities lack appropriate supports, behavioral crises can escalate and valuable learning opportunities can be lost. When schools fail to address bullying effectively, the effects can extend far beyond the classroom, contributing to anxiety, depression, and school avoidance.

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

One persistent concern among advocates is that Massachusetts continues to rely too heavily on a “wait-to-fail” model. Rather than identifying and addressing learning challenges early, many students receive intervention only after years of academic struggle. 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.

Recent federal reviews have raised questions about many aspects of Massachusetts’s oversight of special education services, highlighting areas where improvements may be needed. Those findings should serve as an opportunity for reflection and reform rather than defensiveness.

Families often enter the special education process believing schools and state agencies will work collaboratively to support their children. Instead, many encounter a system that feels adversarial.

School districts typically have access to attorneys, consultants, administrators, and professional evaluators. Parents, meanwhile, are expected to master complex state and federal regulations while balancing work, caregiving responsibilities, and the emotional strain of watching their child struggle. Districts control much of the information that drives decision-making, including educational records, service documentation, evaluations, and individualized education programs.

The power imbalance is undeniable.

Many families cannot afford educational advocates or attorneys. Those who can often spend thousands of dollars seeking services that students have been entitled to receive all along. DESE was intended, in part, to provide accountability within this imbalance. Increasingly, however, some caregivers question whether the agency is willing to enforce student rights at all when doing so places pressure on local districts.

This issue extends beyond any individual dispute. Public confidence in educational oversight matters. If families believe complaints will not be investigated fairly or that meaningful remedies are unlikely, trust in the system inevitably erodes.

That is especially troubling in a state that prides itself on educational excellence.

Massachusetts should be proud of its teachers, specialists, and administrators, many of whom work tirelessly on behalf of students with disabilities. Recognizing their dedication, however, does not require ignoring systemic concerns when similar complaints emerge from families across different districts and communities.

Constructive criticism of DESE is not an attack on public education. It is a call for transparency, accountability, and stronger protections for vulnerable students.

Meaningful reforms are possible. The Commonwealth could strengthen independent oversight of special education complaints, improve transparency surrounding investigations and findings, impose stronger corrective actions for repeated violations, and expand access to advocacy resources for families who cannot afford representation. Greater protections against retaliation for parents advocating on behalf of their children would also help rebuild trust.

The ongoing debate over inclusion illustrates why these conversations matter. Inclusion should mean more than physical placement in a general education classroom. True inclusion requires providing the specialized instruction, accommodations, and supports necessary for students with disabilities to access the curriculum meaningfully and make progress.

Simply placing a struggling student in the same room as their peers without addressing their educational needs is not inclusion. It is a missed opportunity. A cost saving measure not centered on the student.

Students know when they have meaningful access to learning and when they do not. A child who cannot read proficiently in a classroom where reading is central to nearly every activity understands that reality regardless of how policies are described. The same principle applies across a wide range of disabilities and learning differences.

Families should not have to wage years-long battles simply to secure basic services, accommodations, or safe educational environments for their children.

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.

Massachusetts can continue to refer to itself as a leader in public education to a point. But true leadership requires more than celebrating successes and patting yourself on the back. It requires listening when families say the system is failing them — and having the courage to make the changes necessary to ensure every child receives the education they deserve.

Ben Tobin is a licensed special educator and dyslexia interventionist. He is a board member of the special education advocacy group SPEDWatch.

bztobin0968@gmail.com