For many parents, hearing that their child is more impaired than they previously believed can be devastating. This is especially true when the children have been attending specialized private schools that failed to adequately identify and address their language and literacy deficits. The revelation often comes after an outside comprehensive language and literacy testing—an experience that can feel like a punch to the gut. Parents who had been led to believe their child was progressing appropriately in private school setting are suddenly confronted with test results that indicate significant impairments in language, literacy and pragmatic communication. Understandably, they may feel betrayed, angry, and overwhelmed. However, as painful as this truth may be, facing reality is the only way to ensure that the child gets the support they need to succeed.
The Damage of Misrepresentation
Many specialized private schools, particularly those that market themselves as “specializing in dyslexia” or “executive function support”, “multi-sensory learning”, “innovative teaching”, with an “ecosystem of experts” in reality often lack the expertise to provide rigorous, evidence-based interventions. Instead of conducting thorough assessments and developing individualized, targeted instruction, they tend to rely on a “supportive” environment that minimizes student distress but fails to remediate core skill deficits. Oftentimes, the lack of standardized oversight means the quality of instruction can vary significantly. Some schools may not even employ adequately trained staff or implement evidence-based interventions, leading to suboptimal outcomes for students. The marketing of these schools is utterly stellar, emphasizing their supportive environments without guaranteeing the remediation of core skill deficits, often leading to unmet expectations. These schools tend to reassure parents that their child is doing quite well, using subjective and vague feedback rather than concrete data. Without standardized testing, adequate curriculum-based measures, and systematic high quality progress monitoring, deficits are frequently deliberately downplayed.
This misrepresentation can have significant consequences. When a child with undiagnosed language/pragmatic deficits is praised for their “effort” rather than given explicit, structured intervention, parents may believe their child is thriving or doing much better than they really are. When weaknesses in reading comprehension or writing are framed as “just needing a little support” rather than as clinical concerns requiring intensive remediation, families remain unaware of the true extent of the issue. By the time formal testing is conducted elsewhere—whether due to a transition to another school, a new clinical concern, or an outside evaluation—it can be a harsh wake-up call. The discrepancy between what parents were told and the actual results is jarring, and many understandably struggle to process the extent of their child’s struggles.
Why Facing the Truth Matters
It is human nature to avoid painful realities, but when it comes to a child’s education and development, avoidance only makes the situation worse. The sooner deficits are identified, the sooner interventions can be put in place. Research consistently shows that early and intensive intervention leads to better outcomes, particularly in areas such as language development, pragmatics, executive functioning, and academic achievement. However, intervention is still effective even in adolescence—provided that it is based on a clear and accurate understanding of the child’s needs.
Denial, on the other hand, leads to lost time. If parents allow themselves to believe that the testing is exaggerated or incorrect simply because it does not align with prior feedback from the school, they risk delaying essential services. The reality is that assessments conducted by trained professionals—especially those using standardized measures—are far more reliable than subjective impressions from school staff who may have been incentivized to keep parents satisfied rather than to deliver difficult news.
Moving Forward: From Shock to Action
Once the initial shock subsides upon assessment completion, parents must shift their focus from grief and anger to action. What can be done to help? What interventions are available? If the school failed to identify deficits, is it still the right environment for their child? Should outside services be added? These are difficult but necessary questions. Parents should seek out professionals who specialize in language, pragmatics, literacy, and executive functions to create an evidence-based plan that addresses their child’s real needs rather than an artificially optimistic version of them.
Some key steps include:
- Seeking explicit, research-backed interventions rather than vague “support” that lacks measurable outcomes.
- Advocating for appropriate school placement or services if the current school is not equipped to address the child’s needs.
- Accepting that progress may be slower than hoped but understanding that genuine growth comes from confronting challenges, not ignoring them.
Conclusion: The Truth Is Hard, but Ignorance Is Worse
No parent wants to hear that their child is struggling more than they thought. The emotions that come with such revelations—guilt, anger, sadness—are completely valid. But no matter how painful, the truth is better than the alternative. When schools fail to provide an accurate picture of a child’s abilities, they do them a disservice. And when parents resist facing reality because it is too uncomfortable, they unintentionally delay the very help that could make a difference.
A difficult truth, once acknowledged, can lead to meaningful action. A comforting lie, on the other hand, only prolongs the inevitable reckoning. Parents must recognize that uncovering these challenges—however late—is not a failure, but an opportunity. An opportunity to advocate, to intervene, and to ensure that their child has the tools to succeed—not just in a sheltered school environment, but in the real world.
References
- Fuller, E. A., & Kaiser, A. P. (2020). The effects of early intervention on social communication outcomes for children with autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(5), 1683-1700.
- Pak, N. S., Chow, J. C., Dillehay, K. M., & Kaiser, A. P. (2023). Long-term effects of early communication interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 66(8), 2884-2899.
- Verbeek, L., Vissers, C., Kleemans, T., Scheper, A., & Verhoeven, L. (2023). Early intervention of language and behavior in monolingual and bilingual preschoolers with developmental language disorders. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 64, 106-118.