EP 153 | Lisa Richer on Clarity, Confidence, and IEP Advocacy

Parents often know something is wrong before anyone else names it.

Maybe your child is melting down after school. Maybe they are reading far below grade level, even though the school says they are “doing fine.” Maybe they can explain complex ideas out loud but cannot get thoughts onto paper. Maybe the IEP looks appropriate on paper, but real life tells a different story.

In a recent conversation on Stress-Free IEP, Frances Shefter spoke with Lisa Richer of Journey 2 Bloom about what happens when a child’s needs do not fit neatly into one school category. Their discussion centered on a powerful truth: parents need to trust what they are seeing, but they also need data, strategy, and the right team to turn those concerns into meaningful support.

Your Gut Is Often the Starting Point

Parents are sometimes made to feel like they are overreacting.

They may hear:

• “Let’s wait and see.”
• “Your child is too young to know.”
• “They are not that far behind.”
• “They are doing fine compared to peers.”
• “That behavior does not happen at school.”

But a parent’s concern should not be dismissed just because the school does not see the full picture yet.

Lisa shared that, as a parent, she had to relearn how to trust her instincts. Frances echoed that same experience, explaining that sometimes parents know there is “something” going on before they know the diagnosis, the legal category, or the exact service their child needs.

That instinct matters.

But gut instinct alone is not the finish line. It is the signal that more questions need to be asked.

Trust Your Gut, Then Ask for the Data

A strong IEP conversation should not be based only on opinions. It should be grounded in information.

If something feels wrong, parents can start asking questions like:

• What evaluations have been completed?
• Is the school using current data?
• What progress has my child made toward IEP goals?
• Are the goals measurable?
• What interventions have been tried?
• How often are services actually being delivered?
• Is my child making meaningful progress, or just getting by?
• Does the data match what I am seeing at home?

Frances emphasized that data matters because it helps the team move away from personal opinions and toward what the child actually needs.

A parent may want a specific service or placement. A school may believe something different. The question should become: what does the data support?

That does not mean parents should ignore their instincts. It means they should use those instincts to push for better information.

Children Are Not One Diagnosis

One of the biggest challenges in special education is that the system often wants children to fit into clean categories.

But children are rarely that simple.

A child may have ADHD and anxiety. Autism and dysgraphia. Dyslexia and social-emotional needs. Strong verbal skills and major written expression challenges. High cognitive ability and significant executive functioning struggles.

Frances and Lisa discussed how labels can help open the door to services, but they should not limit how the team sees the child.

The eligibility category is not the whole child.

A child who qualifies under one category may still need support in other areas. For example:

• A child with dyslexia may also need emotional support.
• A child with autism may also need writing intervention.
• A child with ADHD may need movement, structure, and executive functioning help.
• A twice-exceptional child may appear “fine” compared to peers while still having a major gap between ability and performance.

The IEP team should not stop at the label. The team should ask what the child needs in order to access learning.

The IEP Team Should Not Be Controlled by One Person

Frances made an important point about the IEP team: every person at the table has a role.

The school psychologist may interpret evaluations. The general education teacher can speak to curriculum and classroom expectations. The special education teacher can discuss specialized instruction, accommodations, and supports. Related service providers bring their own areas of expertise. The school representative helps address resources and implementation.

And the parent knows the child.

That matters.

No single person should control the entire IEP decision. If a psychologist, administrator, or provider says, “I think…” and the rest of the team simply follows, parents should pay attention.

The better question is:

What does the team believe based on the data, the evaluations, the child’s needs, and the parent’s input?

Parents are not visitors at the IEP meeting. They are members of the team.

Red Flags Parents Should Watch For

Some IEP concerns are obvious. Others are more subtle.

Parents should slow down and ask more questions when they notice red flags such as:

• Decisions seem to be made before the meeting.
• One person appears to control the outcome.
• Parent concerns are brushed aside.
• The school relies on outdated evaluations.
• The team focuses only on the disability category, not the whole child.
• The school says a child does not qualify because they are not failing.
• Services are discussed based on availability instead of need.
• The IEP does not match what is actually happening day to day.
• The team recommends a major change without clearly explaining the long-term impact.

A red flag does not always mean the school is acting in bad faith. Sometimes it means the team needs more information, more expertise, or a more careful discussion.

But parents should not ignore those moments.

Collaboration Is Powerful, But It Still Needs Strategy

Frances and Lisa both emphasized the importance of collaboration.

The goal of an IEP meeting should not be to create conflict. The goal should be to focus on the child and figure out what support is appropriate.

Frances explained that even as an attorney, she does not enter meetings looking to be adversarial. Lisa described her role as a partner who helps families and schools connect the dots.

That approach can make a real difference.

But collaboration does not mean parents should agree to something that does not make sense. It does not mean staying quiet. It does not mean accepting an IEP that is not working.

Good collaboration still includes:

• Clear parent input
• Accurate data
• Honest discussion
• Follow-through
• Accountability
• Willingness to challenge assumptions

Sometimes the best first step is talking directly with the principal. Sometimes it is asking for central office involvement. Sometimes it is bringing in an advocate or attorney. The right strategy depends on the child, the school, the data, and the family’s goals.

Early Support Can Change a Child’s Path

Early intervention was another major theme in the conversation.

When children receive the right support early, it can change how they experience school later. Lisa shared how targeted reading intervention gave her son tools that helped him compensate so well that some later testing did not show the full picture of his dyslexia.

That is why early support matters.

The purpose of evaluation is not just to get a label. The purpose is to identify needs and provide the right tools before a child falls further behind.

Frances also shared a classroom example from her teaching years. A kindergarten student who struggled to sit still could still answer every question while moving around and helping with a classroom task. He did not need to be forced into a traditional learning posture. He needed movement so his brain could engage.

That is the kind of problem-solving more children need.

Instead of asking, “Why can’t this child learn like everyone else?” the better question is:

What does this child need in order to learn?

Progress Often Happens in Steps

Parents understandably want answers quickly. When your child is struggling, every delay feels urgent.

But IEP progress often happens step by step.

Sometimes the first step is requesting updated evaluations. Sometimes it is reviewing progress data. Sometimes it is documenting that the current plan is not working. Sometimes it is getting the right people into the meeting. Sometimes it takes more than one meeting to reach the outcome the child needs.

That can be frustrating, but it does not always mean nothing is happening.

A helpful way to think about the process is:

1. Identify the concern.
2. Request or review the data.
3. Clarify the child’s needs.
4. Determine what supports are missing.
5. Build the record.
6. Push for the appropriate service, placement, or change.

The end goal matters. But the steps in the middle are often what make that goal possible.

Parents Need Clarity, Confidence, and Courage

Lisa described her work with families as helping them move toward clarity, confidence, and courage. That framework fits the IEP process well.

Parents first need clarity:

• What is happening?
• What does the data show?
• What does my child need?
• What are my options?

Then they need confidence:

• How do I explain my concerns?
• What questions should I ask?
• What should I request in writing?
• How do I participate meaningfully in the meeting?

Then they need courage:

• When do I push back?
• When do I ask for another meeting?
• When do I bring in help?
• When do I say the current plan is not enough?

Frances also emphasized that parent education is central to her work. The goal is not for families to feel dependent. The goal is for parents to understand the process well enough to advocate more effectively for their children.

Final Thoughts: The Child Comes First

The strongest IEP teams stay focused on the child.

Not the label.

Not the school’s usual way of doing things.

Not one person’s opinion.

Not what is easiest.

The child.

When parents trust their instincts, ask for data, understand their role on the team, and seek help when needed, they are better positioned to advocate for an IEP that works in real life—not just on paper.

If your child is struggling and the current plan does not seem to match their needs, it may be time to take a closer look. The right questions, the right data, and the right support can change the direction of the conversation.