Measuring Accessibility of Written Communication for Parents of Students With Disabilities

Abstract

Effective communication is essential for successful school–family partnerships. Written communication is most common due to the efficiency of written documents, but challenges include assuring the information disseminated to parents is accessible based on readability, clarity, complexity, and structure particularly for parents of students with disabilities and parents with low levels of literacy. The purpose of this review was to understand to what extent written communications intended to inform parents, particularly parents of students with disabilities, were accessible given recommendations regarding appropriate readability levels and document structure. Results from eight studies, published over 30 years, evaluated 461 documents and showed divergent trends in recommended and actual reading levels where written communication became less accessible over time. Recommended readability levels ranged from 5th to below 9th grade, yet actual readability levels were almost 11th grade on average. Implications specific to the readability and accessibility of written communication are discussed.

Keywords

accessibility parent involvement readability students with disabilities written communication

Parents of students with disabilities often struggle to navigate the special education system (Burke, 2013) and can encounter significant family stressors related to coping with the realities of their child’s disability diagnosis (Edwards & Da Fonte, 2012). Given this, ensuring parents are well informed and involved in their child’s education is at the heart of special education policy (Frew, Zhou, Duran, Kwok, & Benz, 2013) and a best practice for maximizing student potential (Hill & Tyson, 2009). Special education policy has included implicit intent for schools to involve parents to improve student services since the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, and in 2002, federal statute included explicit mandates regarding parent involvement as part of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA). Since 2004, states have been increasingly held accountable for parent involvement through Indicator 8 of IDEA (2004), which requires states to report the degree to which schools facilitate parent input during the ongoing special education process. The inclusion of such measures in accountability policies indicates the importance placed on the school’s role in involving parents in their children’s education (Elbaum, 2014). Parent involvement is an integral part of special education policy but also the foundation of effective school–family partnerships.

School–family partnerships that include effective communication techniques to inform and involve parents can lead to long term positive student outcomes including better grades, lower dropout rates, greater value for education, and improved student behaviors (e.g., Arguea & Conroy, 2003; Cowan, Bobby, St. Roseman, & Echandia, 2002; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2007). Communication between schools and parents is expected to improve parents’ understanding of school practices and policies, awareness of student performance and progress, and engagement in decision making and problem solving on behalf of their children (Epstein et al., 2009). Communication that allows families to engage and participate in their child’s educational experience is crucial to student learning (U.S. Department of Education, 1991; Voltz, 1994). In addition, parents of students with disabilities have the right to ongoing updates regarding their children’s service options and educational needs under the reauthorization of the IDEA (2004). Many parents of students with disabilities find understanding special education materials and regulations daunting when considering the volume of information including the legal jargon and technical terms (Burke, 2013).

Due to the need for frequent school-to-home communication, schools must develop communication systems that are both effective and efficient. Frequently, written communication is the most feasible method for disseminating information given the constant balancing act between parent needs and school realities (Williams & Cartledge, 1997). For special educators, who often have large case loads and a frequent need to inform parents (e.g., meeting requests, change in service forms, screening results, Individualized Education Programs [IEPs], and parents’ rights and responsibility documents), disseminating written documents is a feasible option. Although written communication skills may seem fundamental to adult life in modern society, many education personnel are not trained to effectively communicate with families (Graham-Clay, 2005), especially families that may struggle with literacy.

Parents must understand what they are reading to make informed and educated decisions about their child (Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006). Potential barriers to effective written communication include readability level, clarity, complexity, and structure of documents (Epstein et al., 2009). Recognizing potential accessibility barriers for parents, federal education legislations IDEA (2004), and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; 2002) include mandates regarding written communication procedures. For example, Section 300.503 of IDEA states prior notice and procedural safeguards for parents be “written in language understandable to the general public.” Similarly, Sections 1111, 1112, 1114, 1116, and 1118 within Subpart 1 of Part A in NCLB state that “parents shall be notified of the policy in an understandable and uniform format and, to the extent practicable, provided in a language the parents can understand.” Although this has been helpful, there is no clear definition within the legislation regarding exact reading levels deemed understandable for parents.

Clear estimates of parent literacy in the United States are hard to find, but the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics completed the National Assessment of Adult literacy (NAAL; Kutner et al., 2007) to measure adult literacy using four levels: below basic, basic, intermediate, and proficient. Results from the NAAL indicated 43% of adults, many of whom are parents, are illiterate, or have only basic reading abilities (Kutner et al., 2007). According to the NAAL, adults in households with incomes less than US$19,999 (poverty threshold at US$18,810 [U.S. Census Bureau, 2010]) performed on average at the most basic literacy levels. Similarly, the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS), conducted to compare adult literacy across seven countries, suggested less than 50% of U.S. adults have proficient literacy skills necessary to read and comprehend complicated written information (Clermont et al., 2005). Nationwide, one in seven adults (14%) cannot read beyond a first grade level, which prevents them from reading a bedtime story to their child, a prescription label, or a note from a teacher (Baer, Kutner, Sabatini, & White, 2009; Darling, 2004). Taken together, many adults are functioning with basic or below basic literacy skills in everyday life and these lower literacy levels are especially prevalent in low-income subpopulations (Kutner et al., 2007).

Education personnel, including special educators, may be unaware of the potential barriers created for parents when written communication methods do not account for parent needs and literacy levels. Pressure from accountability policies and federal mandates placed on schools to effectively communicate with and involve parents, combined with the universal nature of written communication, necessitates the need to understand the extent to which information disseminated through writing is actually accessible to parents. If documents and forms are written at inaccessible reading levels for parents with low levels of literacy, the intent to inform and involve all parents is likely unfulfilled. The purpose of this review was to understand the extent to which accessibility of written communication for parents, particularly parents of students with disabilities, has been investigated. Through a systematic review of the literature, we sought to identify published readability data specific to written communication for parents to answer the following two research questions:

Research Question 1: What are appropriate readability levels of documents intended to inform parents, particularly parents of students with disabilities?

Research Question 2: What are the actual reading levels of documents intended to inform parents, particularly parents of students with disabilities?

Method

Although the purpose of this article is not to detail the history of readability research, it is necessary to explain how readability formulas can be used to estimate grade levels to understand how readability serves as a proxy for accessibility within the scope of this review. Defining the construct of accessibility using readability, before conducting the systematic search, allowed clear distinctions to be made when considering the types of publications that would be included in the review. The systematic search and inclusion procedures are outlined to explain the body of literature reviewed for this investigation.

Readability as a Proxy for Accessibility

Readability is the measure of a prose document such as a textbook, newsletter, teacher note, or email that determines an estimated level of completed schooling necessary to read any given passage. For example, if a document for a parent was written at a 10th grade level, the parent would be required to have completed the 10th grade reading curriculum to comprehend the document. Readability is calculated by a mathematical formula that can include different weightings for components of writing including word length, sentence length, paragraph length, and complexity of patterns within the document (see Chall & Dale, 1995; Flesch, 1951, 1974; Fry, 1977; Rush, 1985). One of the most widely used readability tests is the Flesch–Kincaid Test of Readability because it is a highly reliable estimate of reading grade level (Harris, 2011). The Flesch–Kincaid formula includes total words, average words per sentence, and average syllables per word where longer sentences and frequent use of multisyllabic words increase the grade level estimate of the document making it harder to comprehend.

Readability measures have been used as a minimal proxy for accessibility over the last 40 years, but readability measures are estimates that often underestimate text difficulty. Overall, readability formulas do not account for document organization, structure or format, nature of content, reader motivation, or reader differences (Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006; Holcomb & Stith, 1985). More specifically, readability formulas do not take into account variables including page length, inclusion of examples for clarification, graphics, page format, density, writing style, or reader background knowledge and experience (Lo, 2014; Roit & Pfohl, 1984). Although not standardized when compared with readability formulas, supplementary qualitative analyses offer further insight into accessibility beyond the minimal proxy.

Identifying Readability Studies for Review

A comprehensive search of published investigations on readability of print materials for parents of students with disabilities was conducted. First, online databases Academic Search Complete, Education Full Text, Education Journal, Education Source, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), JSTOR, PsycINFO, and Teacher’s Reference Center were searched using multiple combinations of the search terms communication, comprehension, involvement, literacy, readability, reading level, parent, print, and written. The initial search terms were intended to capture publications related to the reading levels for all parents because accessibility and readability of print materials for all parents may have implications for parents of students with disabilities. The search resulted in 53 potential articles about readability and parents for review.

Next, the application of inclusion criteria limited the pool of publications to eight. There were five inclusion criteria: (a) Publications had to be peer-reviewed studies that presented primary readability data, (b) the intended audience of the documents analyzed had to be parents, (c) the studies had to be conducted in the United States because appropriate and actual adult readability levels within the United States may not be comparable with other countries, (d) the purpose of the documents analyzed was to inform parents, and (e) the broad theme of the written communication had to be related in some way to children’s education. Many of the exclusions occurred for two reasons: (a) the articles were readability studies of medical or health related patient’s rights forms or (b) the articles were about the importance of parent involvement with literacy activities at home. The intention of the search was to gather all peer-reviewed studies that could be used to answer the research questions about appropriate compared with actual readability levels of documents within the education field intended to inform parents, and if possible, specifically parents of students with disabilities. After identifying the eight peer-reviewed studies for review, an ancestral search of reference lists was conducted. Last, Scopus was used to identify articles that were cited by or did cite one of the eight peer-reviewed studies identified for this review. No new studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified through the ancestral or prospective search procedures.

The remaining eight studies published between 1984 and 2014 included a total sample of 461 documents for review. Descriptive characteristics of each study included in Table 1 are reviewed in the “Results” section of this article. It is worth noting that without including special education search terms in the original search, seven of the eight research studies reviewed were specific to special education. The focus within published research specifically on special education documents may be a result of Subpart E in Part B of IDEA (2004), which includes mandates regarding accessibility and appropriateness of documents disseminated to parents of students with disabilities. The one readability study that did not specifically evaluate special education written communication focused on common school-to-home written communications (Mavrogenes, 1988a, 1988b), which were described as letters, notices, and newsletters. Parents of students with disabilities likely benefit from these common forms of information when supporting their children’s educational experiences, and therefore, this research study was included.

Table 1.

Findings From Studies of Readability Organized by Date.

Authors and date	Document distribution	Print material evaluated	Documents evaluated	Primary analyses	Average grade level	Grade level range	Supplementary analyses and findings	Suggested appropriate readability grade level
Roit & Pfohl, 1984	State	Manual of parents’ rights related to the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975	25	(a) Flesch grade level (b) Fog (c) Dale-Chall (d) New reading ease	(a) 5.4 (b) 8.2 (c) 8.6 (d) 7.9	(a) 4.1–6.5 (b) 5.5–9.6 (c) 5.7–9.8 (d) 5.4–9.6	M number of pages: 36.4 Mode font size: fine Density: most pages completely covered Lists and charts: most had multiple Pictures: most had none	< 9
Holcomb & Stith, 1985	State	Parent education materials (topics included: children with disabilities, infant care, and early childhood)	16	(a) Flesch grade level (b) Dale-Chall (c) Fog index (d) Farr-Jenkins-Peterson (e) SMOG Readability (f) Fry graph	(a) 8.9 (b) 8.4 (c) 11.6 (d) 10.6 (e) 10.3 (f) 7.9	(a) 6–12 (b) 5–12 (c) 7–16 (d) 7–17 (e) 8–14 (f) 6–13	None	7–8
Mavrogenes, 1988a, 1988b	District	Common school-to-home written communications	67	(a) Fry	(a) 10.5	(a) 6–< college	Appearance: handwritten or typed Font: italics, all capitals, lower case, standard roman Organization: some headings and definitions, many grammatical errors	no suggestion
Singh, 1995	Not specified	Parents educational materials for children with ADHD	5	(a) SMOG Readability Test	(a) 12.4	(a) 10–16	Readability Assessment Instrument (RAIN): none of the Brochures included all 14 criterion necessary for accessibility	8
Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006	State	Parents’ rights documents related to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1997 and 2004	50	(a) New Dale-Chall (b) Flesch grade level	(a) 11.0 (b) 13.9	(a) 5–< college (b) 7–< college	M number of pages: 17 (2–47) Mode font size: 11 (5–72) Included definitions: 26% (n = 13) Visuals (tables, figures, pictures, examples): most had none	5–6 7–8 when technical terms are included
Pizur-Barnekow, Patrick, Rhyner, Folk, & Anderson, 2010	Individual parents	Individual Family Service Plans	85	(a) Flesch–Kincaid grade level (b) Flesch reading ease^a	(a) 7.9 (b) 59.8^a	(a) 7.0–9.4 (b) 51.3–67.7^a	None	5
Pizur-Barnekow, Patrick, Rhyner, Cashin, & Rentmeester, 2011	County	Early intervention parent program materials	94	(a) Flesch–Kincaid grade level (b) SMOG Readability Test (c) Flesch reading ease^a	(a) 9.6 (b) 16.7 (c) 49.9^a	(a) 4.8–13.3 (b) 14.4–22.2 (c) 31.9–67.9^a	None	5
Lo, 2014	Individual parents	Individualized Education Programs	28	(a) Flesch reading ease^a (b) New Dale-Chall	(a) 40.0^a (b) 12.0	(a) 11.0–67.1^a (b) 10.4–13.8	M number of pages: 14.4 (10–18) Mode font size: 3 (2.8–4.3) M number of acronyms: 14 (8–21) Typographical errors:89% (n = 25) contained 1–34 errors	5

Note. ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Flesch reading ease is not a grade level estimate. See The Art of Readable Writing (Flesch, 1948) for conversion from ease score to grade level estimate.

In the next section, there is a review of the purpose, sample, methods, and findings of each readability study. In addition, data presented within each study are analyzed specific to answering the research questions: (a) “What are the recommended appropriate readability levels of documents intended to inform parents, particularly parents of students with disabilities and how have these recommendations changed over time?” and (b) “What are the actual reading levels of documents intended to inform parents, particularly parents of students with disabilities and how have these levels changed over time?” The current review ends with a discussion of the findings, implications, and suggestions for increasing accessibility of written communications disseminated individually, districtwide, countywide, statewide, or across state lines to parents, particularly parents of students with disabilities.

Results

Table 1 outlines the eight studies in chronological order as this body of research spans from 1984 to 2014 and ordering the studies in this manner highlights the progression of the conceptualization of accessibility across time. The eight research studies reviewed include a total of 21 readability analyses using variations of seven readability formulas to evaluate 461 documents intended for parents (see DuBay, 2004 for a history of readability from 1920 to 2004). The written communication documents spanned from formal special education parents’ rights documents and IEPs or service plans to informal parent education materials and common school-to-home newsletters (Table 1). Many documents evaluated within the body of research were publicly available such as parent brochures about attention deficit hyper activity disorder (ADHD; Singh, 1995) and electronically available Parents’ Rights documents (Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006). Prior to computer-based technologies, such as the Internet, authors requested state agencies (Roit & Pfohl, 1984) and schools (Mavrogenes, 1988a, 1988b) to mail hard copies of written communications for evaluation. In situations where student confidentiality was an issue, authors obtained parent and local agency consent to evaluate accessibility of Individual Family Service Plans (IFSP; Pizur-Barnekow, Patrick, Rhyner, Cashin, & Rentmeester, 2011; Pizur-Barnekow, Patrick, Rhyner, Folk, & Anderson, 2010) and IEPs (Lo, 2014).

Appropriate Readability Levels

Appropriate readability levels, as recommended by researchers from studies within this review, steadily decreased from 1984 to 2014 where early recommendations were no higher than ninth grade, and by 2014, recommendations were steady at fifth grade (Figure 1). Roit and Pfohl (1984) conducted the first systematic analysis of the accessibility of informational parent documents to understand the appropriateness of such communication methods when considering parent education and literacy levels. The authors referenced the U.S. Bureau of Census and a nationwide survey from the U.S. Educational Testing Services (see Roit & Pfohl, 1984) to suggest anything written above ninth grade would be inappropriate for parents, especially given that grade level completion does not necessarily equate to reading grade level ability. Roit and Pfohl (1984) recognized the number of parents reading below ninth grade was unknown at the time of the study and theorized that school personnel make naïve or irresponsible assumptions about parents’ ability to read and comprehend print materials each time they ask parents to give their informed consent. Holcomb and Stith (1985) agreed with the recommendations of Roit and Pfohl (1984) and suggested print materials intended to educate parents should appeal to audiences with wide ranging reading abilities and varied degrees of formal education.

Figure 1.

Recommendations for appropriate readability levels and actual total means reading grade level estimates by study over time.

Singh (1995), who claimed eighth grade was an appropriate readability level for parents, cited the U.S. Department of Education (1986) as documentation that the average individual must have completed eighth grade to have the necessary literacy skills to function in modern society, and therefore, eighth grade was deemed the appropriate readability level (Table 1). In a more recent investigation, Fitzgerald and Watkins (2006) recognized there was no consensus as to what an appropriate adult readability level was but based their recommendation for appropriate readability on four sources: President Clinton’s (1998) memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies titled, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” state adult readability protocols, the Department of Health and Human Services’ definition of plain English, and readability researcher opinions. The authors concluded written communication intended for parents should ideally be at a fifth or sixth grade reading level, and in situations where technical terms are necessary, readability levels should not exceed seventh to eighth grade (Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006). Similarly, Pizur-Barnekow and colleagues (2010) defined accessibility as information written with no reading comprehension barriers and suggested a fifth grade reading level was appropriate for all parents including individuals living at or below the poverty level referencing the National Workgroup on Literacy and Health’s (1998) report on literacy and health. The authors also referenced a national survey conducted by Greenfield, Sugarman, Nargiso, and Weiss (2005), which estimated 90 million people in the United States have limited literacy and are only able to read between a fifth and eighth grade level where at-risk subpopulations including adults in poverty are reading at the lowest grade levels (Pizur-Barnekow et al., 2010). Most recently, Lo (2014) agreed with the work of Pizur-Barnekow and colleagues (2010) claiming fifth grade was an appropriate reading level for parents because many parents read up to six grade levels lower than their highest grade completed through formal education. Taken together, many parents may read at an eighth grade level, but to communicate in a manner appropriate to all parents, documents should be written at the fifth grade level.

Actual Readability Levels

Actual readability levels, as determined by the researchers from studies within this review, increased from 1984 to 2014 (Figure 1) where the same procedural safeguard documents tested in 1984 that scored between a 5.4 and 8.6 grade level were tested 22 years later and scored between an 11 and 13.9 grade level (Table 1). Holcomb and Stith (1985) provided a thorough exposition of early readability estimates by explaining the formulas for calculating readability in addition to reporting validity and reliability statistics for each readability formula. This helped to establish the appropriateness of readability as a measure for reading grade levels of written communication for parents. When averaging the multiple measures used within each investigation shown in Table 1, the actual readability grade levels went from 7.5 (Roit & Pfohl, 1984), to 9.6 (Holcomb & Stith, 1985), to 10.5 (Mavrogenes, 1988a, 1988b), to 12.4 (Singh, 1995), to 12.5 (Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006), to 9.0 (Pizur-Barnekow et al., 2010), to 12.8 (Pizur-Barnekow et al., 2011), to 12.5 (Lo, 2014). When considering the body of research as a whole, the average reading grade level of written communication for parents was 10.8. Holcomb and Stith (1985) estimated more than half the target parents would not be able to comprehend the written documents, and those who were able to comprehend would still have some difficulty.

Accessibility of written communication is minimally measured using readability formulas, but an expanded understanding of accessibility includes a determination of suitable document clarity, complexity, and structure (Mosenthal & Kirsch, 1998; Rotter, 2006). Supplementary analyses used to evaluate accessibility, shown in Table 1, revealed more barriers to reader comprehension than supports. Qualitative factors including number of pages, print size, and print density, as well as style, organization, punctuation, tone, grammatical errors, and sentence complexity, can create comprehension barriers while carefully selected lists, simple tables, organizational headings, pictures, and definitions of key terms can improve accessibility of written documents (Mavrogenes, 1988a, 1988b; Roit & Pfohl, 1984). In addition, Fitzgerald and Watkins (2006) noted frequent use of acronym creates potential barriers for readers because acronyms can slow down processing speeds and increase reader frustration due to additional steps required to read and comprehend acronyms given their original meaning (Flesch, 1951, 1974).

Qualitative findings from this body of research revealed variation in document structure organization, and complexity ranging from handwritten and typed documents, where fonts varied from italics or all capital letters to very small standard font, and many documents contained a number of grammatical or typographical errors (Table 1). Mavrogenes (1988a, 1988b) concluded these conditions did not provide for optimal legibility, but more recent researchers have gone farther to say irregular fonts and handwritten text impede reader comprehension (Rotter, 2006). Within the body of research, some documents did include organizational headings and defined important terms, which improve parent accessibility, but these supports were not included consistently in the documents evaluated (Table 1). Pizur-Barnekow and colleagues (2011, 2010) did not conduct qualitative analyses but concluded readability statistics alone are a limited measure of accessibility and comprehension. Despite the limitations, the authors explained readability grade level estimates are a worthwhile proxy for accessibility because documents should minimally be readable before further measures of appropriateness or design need to be considered (Pizur-Barnekow et al., 2011).

Discussion

Effective communication is essential for successful school–family partnerships. Written communication is most common due to the efficiency of written documents, but challenges include assuring the information disseminated to parents is accessible based on readability, clarity, complexity, and structure particularly for parents of students with disabilities and parents with low levels of literacy. The purpose of this review was to understand to what extent written communications intended to inform parents, particularly parents of students with disabilities, were accessible given recommendations regarding appropriate readability levels and document structure. Results from eight studies, published over 30 years, evaluated 461 documents and showed divergent trends in recommended and actual reading levels where written communication became less accessible over time. Recommended readability levels ranged from fifth to below ninth grade, but the grand mean reading grade level of documents from eight studies was 10.8. Implications specific to the readability and accessibility of written communication are discussed.

Several important conclusions can be drawn from this review to better understand how the recommended accessibility of written communications compared with the actual accessibility and readability levels as measured by researchers. First, the range of appropriate readability as suggested by researchers has declined considerably over the course of the three decades covered in this review. As Figure 1 shows, during the 1980s and 1990s, recommended readability levels were at the eighth or ninth grade level. By the turn of the century, recommendations for appropriate levels were much lower at the fifth or sixth grade level. Part of this trend is due to differences in targeted parent audiences between studies whereby recommendations for general parent populations were at the higher end and recommendations for written communication for parents of students with disabilities and lower income parents at the lower end.

Second, the trend toward lower acceptable readability levels may also represent a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding on the part of researchers regarding the limits of basic readability measures to capture the totality of what makes documents accessible to all parents. Over time, researchers began to include qualitative analyses of document form and structure to supplement the quantitative values provided by readability measures, which has generally led to lower readability level recommendations (e.g., Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006; Lo, 2014). Studies that included these qualitative analyses showed that common components of message format such as small and irregular font, limited white space, and longer page length impeded accessibility and could lead to decreased parent comprehension of the information provided. Furthermore, other aspects that are often found in the content of written communications such as grammatical errors, technical terms, and frequent usage of acronyms were also found to likely affect parents’ ability to comprehend information (Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006; Holcomb & Stith, 1985; Mavrogenes, 1988a, 1988b; Roit & Pfohl, 1984). Across this body of research, components such as glossaries, examples, and organizational headings were thought to improve accessibility; however, these structures were not found consistently.

While recommended readability levels decreased over time, actual reading levels appeared to increase over the 30-year period considered in this review (Figure 1). On average, actual reading levels were much higher than recommended readability levels when considering the body of literature as a whole. At the beginning of the 30-year period, actual reading levels of parent procedural safeguard manuals were in line with recommendations regarding appropriate readability levels, but by the end of the period in 2014, an examination of IEPs resulted in considerable misalignment between recommended and actual reading levels. Certainly, some of the variation in measured readability is due to variation in the technical level of the given set of documents (e.g., written notes home versus IEPs). However, this makes the point of readability recommendations that are sensitive to all parents’ literacy levels more important as well as highlights the difficulty in creating technical documents that are sensitive to all parents’ needs and abilities.

The lack of accessibility due to the high reading grade levels and complex document structure was consistent over time regardless of document type and organizational level (e.g., state versus school). This suggests that some parents, especially parents of students with disabilities, have encountered serious accessibility barriers regarding written communication and were likely hindered when trying to make decisions about their child’s education. Furthermore, many of the studies reviewed highlighted the important point that grade level completion is not a direct translation of actual reading ability (Roit & Pfohl, 1984) as some adults read markedly below their highest level of formal schooling (Lo, 2014). Therefore, education personnel writing to parents, especially those of students with disabilities, should consider parents with even the most basic readability levels when creating appropriate written communication. A lack of attention or sensitivity to the needs of all parents with respect to reading abilities undermines an important value and expectation in American education that parents must make informed and educated decisions about their child (Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006). Parent must understand what they are reading to be informed, and it would seem from this review, most documents are likely written in ways that make this more difficult for many parents or impossible for parents with low levels of literacy.

Conclusion

The body of research on parent readability and education identified through this review is limited and even scant when narrowing the focus to high-risk parent populations such as poor and low-income parents or parents of students with disabilities who have low levels of literacy. Nonetheless, the findings from this body of research were consistent over time and within varying types of documents. Readability levels are too high and need to be considered when communicating with all parents, especially parents of students with disabilities (Holcomb & Stith, 1985; Lo, 2014; Mavrogenes, 1988a, 1988b; Pizur-Barnekow et al., 2011, 2010). At a minimum, education personnel at all organizational levels need to test all written communication for readability before sending the documents home to parents or making documents available on websites. Common readability statistics can be efficiently calculated using integrated tools in word processing software ubiquitous across computers in the United States.

Once the readability level of a document is calculated, several simple adjustments can improve accessibility for parents with lower levels of literacy. For example, simple attention to limiting the use of pronouns, multisyllabic words, and acronyms will tend to lower the readability level of a document (Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006; Flesch, 1948, 1950, 1951, 1974). General structural changes such as consistent font style and size and decreasing overall page length and density can remove obstacles for readers and improve accessibility (Mavrogenes, 1988a, 1988b; Roit & Pfohl, 1984). Attention to the provision of organizational headings, examples, and definitions of technical terms can also lead to improved clarity and increased comprehension of written communication (Rotter, 2006).

Getting parent input on how to improve the design and content of print communication intended for parents is also vital (Epstein et al., 2009). Periodically, input should be sought from all types of parents including low-income parents, parents of students with disabilities, and parents who struggle with literacy regarding how to make written communication more accessible to them. By systematically engaging parents in this way, educators and school personnel at all levels can learn to become better creators of written communications that serve and benefit all parents. Recognizing, measuring, and accounting for the accessibility issues of written communications will help align the actual readability of documents with recommendations of appropriate readability.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Arguea

N. M.

Conroy

S. J.

(2003). The effect of parental involvement in parent–teacher groups on student achievement. School Community Journal, 13(2), 119–136.

Baer

Kutner

Sabatini

White

(2009). Basic reading skills and the literacy of America’s least literate adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) supplemental studies. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Burke

M. M.

(2013). Improving parental involvement: Training special education advocates. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23, 225–234.

Chall

J. S.

Dale

(1995). Readability revised: The New Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Clermont

Desjardins

Dhawan-Biswal

Dong

Kirsch

Munroe

. . . Willms

D. J.

(2005). Learning a living: First results of the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey. Paris, France: Statistics Canada and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-603-x/2005001/pdf/4200878-eng.pdf

Clinton

W. J.

(1998, June 1). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. Retrieved from www.plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/govmandates/memo.cfm

Cowan

Bobby

St. Roseman

Echandia

(2002). Evaluation report: The home visit project (ED Report No. 466018). Sacramento, CA: The Sacramento City Unified School District.

Darling

S. S.

(2004). Family literacy: Meeting the needs of at-risk families. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 84(2), 18–21.

DuBay

W. H.

(2004). The principles of readability. Costa Mesa, CA: Impact Information.

10.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, P.L. 94-142, 20 U.S.C. § (1975).

11.

Edwards

C. C.

Da Fonte

(2012). The 5-point plan. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(3), 6–13.

12.

Elbaum

(2014). Challenges in interpreting accountability results for schools’ facilitation of parent involvement under IDEA. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 24, 206–217.

13.

Epstein

J. L.

Sanders

M. G.

Sheldon

S. B.

Simon

B. S.

Salinas

K. C.

Jansorn

N. R.

. . . Williams

K. J.

(2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

14.

Fitzgerald

J. L.

Watkins

M. W.

(2006). Parents’ rights in special education: The readability of procedural safeguards. Exceptional Children, 72, 497–510.

15.

Flesch

(1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221–233.

16.

Flesch

(1950). Measuring the level of abstraction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 34, 384–390.

17.

Flesch

(1951). How to test readability. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

18.

Flesch

(1974). The art of readable writing. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

19.

Frew

L. A.

Zhou

Duran

Kwok

O. I.

Benz

M. R.

(2013). Effect of school-initiated parent outreach activities on parent involvement in school events. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 24, 27–35.

20.

Fry

(1977). Fry’s readability graph: Clarifications, validity, and extension to Level 17. Journal of Reading, 21, 242–252.

21.

Graham-Clay

(2005). Communicating with parents: Strategies for teachers. School Community Journal, 15(1), 117–129.

22.

Greenfield

Sugarman

Nargiso

Weiss

(2005). Readability of patient handout materials in a nationwide sample of alcohol and drug abuse treatment programs. The American Journal on Addictions, 14, 339–345.

23.

Harris

(2011). The readability of sample stories for eye movement recording. Journal of Behavioral Optometry, 22, 89–95.

24.

Hill

N. E.

Tyson

D. F.

(2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, 740–764.

25.

Holcomb

C. A.

Stith

(1985). Readability of selected parent education publications. Family Relations, 34, 151–159.

26.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Walker

J. M. T.

Sandler

H. M.

Whetsel

Green

C. L.

Wilkins

A. S.

Closson

(2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. Elementary School Journal, 106, 105–130.

27.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

28.

Kutner

Greenberg

Jin

Boyle

Hsu

Dunleavy

(2007). Literacy in everyday life: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2007-480). Washington, DC: Department of Education.

29.

(2014). Readability of individualized education programs. Preventing School Failure, 58, 96–102.

30.

Mavrogenes

(1988a). Readability and parent communications: Can parents understand what schools write to them: Part one. Reading Horizons, 28, 225–231.

31.

Mavrogenes

(1988b). Readability and parent communications: Can parents understand what schools write to them: Part two. Reading Horizons, 29, 5–12.

32.

Mosenthal

P. B.

Kirsch

I. S.

(1998). A new measure for assessing document complexity: The PMOSE/IKIRSCH document readability formula. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41, 638–657.

33.

National Workgroup on Literacy and Health. (1998). Communicating with patients who have limited literacy skills. The Journal of Family Practice, 46, 168–176.

34.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).

35.

Pizur-Barnekow

Patrick

Rhyner

P. M.

Cashin

Rentmeester

(2011). Readability of early intervention program literature. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31, 58–64.

36.

Pizur-Barnekow

Patrick

Rhyner

P. M.

Folk

Anderson

(2010). Readability levels of individualized family service plans. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 30, 248–258.

37.

Roit

M. L.

Pfohl

(1984). The readability of P.L. 94-142 parent materials: Are parents truly informed. Exceptional Children, 50, 496–505.

38.

Rotter

(2006). Creating instruction materials for all pupils: Try COLA. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 273–282.

39.

Rush

R. T.

(1985). Assessing readability: Formulas and alternatives. The Reading Teacher, 39, 274–283.

40.

Singh

(1995). The readability of educational materials written for parents of children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 4, 207–217.

41.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Social, economic, and housing division: Poverty. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/thresh03.html

42.

U.S. Department of Education. (1986). Digest of education statistics (1985-86). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

43.

U.S. Department of Education. (1991). America 2000: An educational strategy. Washington, DC: Department of Education. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books

44.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation, and Improvement. (2007, June). Engaging parents in education: Lessons from five parental information and resource centers. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/admins/comm/parents/parentinvolve/engagingparents.pdf

45.

Voltz

(1994). Developing collaborative parent–teacher relationships with culturally diverse parents. Intervention in School & Clinic, 29, 288–291.

46.

Williams

V. I.

Cartledge

(1997). Passing notes—To parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(1), 30–34.