#CritEdPol: Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies at
Swarthmore College
$4192+
?
779+ 68/)1+
93+
Helping Students Read to Achieve: %e Past,
Present, and Future of Educational Policies on
Dyslexia
Elias Blinko$ , '17
Swarthmore College+(1/3047;'68.246++*9
4114;8./7'3*'**/8/43'1;4607'8 .B57;46077;'68.246++*9)6/8+*541
!'684,8.+ *9)'8/43422437
A/768/)1+/7(649-.884=49,46,6++'3*45+3'))+77(=%46078.'7(++3
'))+58+*,46/3)197/43/36/8*!414963'14,6/8/)'1*9)'8/43!41/)=
#89*/+7'8#;'68.246+411+-+(='3'98.46/>+*'*2/3/786'8464,%4607
46246+/3,462'8/4351+'7+)438')8 +2'=46-7;'68.246++*9
"+)422+3*+*/8'8/43
1/304@1/'7+15/3-#89*+387"+'*84)./+:+A+!'78!6+7+38'3*9896+4,*9)'8/43'1!41/)/+743=71+</'
#CritEdPol: Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies at Swarthmore College$417768/)1+
&
:'/1'(1+'8 .B57;46077;'68.246++*9)6/8+*541:41/77
Helping Students Read to Achieve: The Past, Present,
and Future of Educational Policies on Dyslexia
Elias Blinkoff
Swarthmore College
Abstract
Developmental dyslexia is among the most common neurobehavioral dis-
orders in children, affecting approximately 8.5 million students across the
United States (Bipartisan Congressional Dyslexia Caucus, 2015). Despite
its prevalence as a language disorder characterized by impaired reading abil-
ity, researchers have struggled to define dyslexia, contributing to variability
across state-level educational policies on dyslexia and preventing students
with the disorder from being identified, and ultimately receiving appropriate
intervention services. Although federal policies have indicated greater recog-
nition of dyslexia over time, continued use of the term “specialized learning
disability (SLD)” in those policies as an umbrella term for students with
dyslexia and other learning disabilities may subject students with dyslexia
to educational interventions that are not specific to their disorder, jeopar-
dizing their educational achievement. Three federal policy recommendations
are presented here to support the needs of students with dyslexia. First, the
recent passage of the Research Excellence and Advancements for Dyslexia Act
(READ Act) is commendable, but policymakers should ensure that dyslexia
is recognized beyond the category of “specific learning disability.” Next, the
Bipartisan Congressional Dyslexia Caucus should support development of a
best practices guide for educators that bridges dyslexia research and practice.
Finally, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act should be amended
to ensure America’s predominant special education law recognizes and ad-
dresses the needs of students with dyslexia. Collectively, these recommen-
dations should help identify and support students with dyslexia across the
United States by recognizing their unique educational needs, allowing them
to read and achieve in the classroom and beyond.
Preprint submitted to Critical Education Policy Studies June 3, 2016
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
1. Understanding Dyslexia as an Educational Policy Issue
Developmental dyslexia is one of the most common neurobehavioral dis-
orders in children, estimated to affect 17-21% of the school-age population,
or approximately 8.5 million students in the United States (Ferrer et al.,
2015, p. 1121; Bipartisan Congressional Dyslexia Caucus (BCDC), 2015).
That said, despite dyslexia’s prevalence, current federal educational policies
on the disorder do not sufficiently address the unique needs of students with
dyslexia and state policies are inconsistent and highly variable (Youman &
Mather, 2013, p. 133–134 & 138). As a result of this tangled policy web,
students with dyslexia may not receive the special education services that
are necessary for their academic achievement. Thus, increased federal recog-
nition of—and support for—students with dyslexia is necessary to spur state
and local educational agencies into action, so that these vulnerable students
can achieve long-term academic success in terms of classroom engagement
and assessment performance.
This policy document will demonstrate that the current educational pol-
icy landscape for students with dyslexia results from incongruence across
education, psychology, and neuroscience research with respect to the basic
definition of dyslexia, its underlying causes, and appropriate classroom in-
terventions (Katzir & Pare-Blagoev, 2006, p. 58–60). After outlining these
underlying issues and the associated insufficiency and variability in federal
and state dyslexia policies, respectively, this document will describe how the
federal policy landscape has recently shifted towards greater recognition of
dyslexia in a way that could support national adoption of dyslexia-specific
educational interventions. Finally, this document will outline three policy
recommendations for students with dyslexia. These recommendations are
intended to be implemented progressively, harnessing recent political mo-
mentum around dyslexia to promote larger-scale policy shifts in the dyslexia
policy landscape, specifically addressing its present variability in order to
support the educational achievement of some of our nation’s most overlooked
special education students. First, this document will applaud policymakers
for the passage of the Research Excellence and Advancements for Dyslexia Act
(READ Act) in February 2016, a federal law that prioritizes dyslexia research
with the potential to clarify the definition of dyslexia, and ultimately sup-
port a greater national consensus around dyslexia policy and best practices.
However, this document will provide a cautionary note regarding READ Act
implementation, focusing on the fact that the Act defines “Specific Learning
Page 23
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
Disability”, rather than dyslexia itself, suggesting that policymakers continue
to support a term that is insufficient for meeting the educational needs of
students with dyslexia. Next, the document will suggest that the Bipartisan
Congressional Dyslexia Caucus support the development of a best practices
handbook for educators working with students with dyslexia. Finally, this
document will recommend amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA; 2004) to recognize and address the unique educational
needs of students with dyslexia in America’s predominant special education
law.
2. Background
Before addressing the state of educational policy for students with dyslexia,
it is important to understand the inherent complexity of the disorder itself,
beginning with its basic definition. This is not a moot point, given that lack
of consistency in the definition has led to variability in state and federal ed-
ucational policies pertaining to dyslexia that that have, in turn, negatively
impacted the academic achievement of students with the disorder. Dyslexia
has been studied for over a century, but experts acknowledge that “a strong
consensus regarding a clear, useful definition still does not exist” (Youman
& Mather, 2013, p. 134). Within the past decade, however, researchers have
identified signs and symptoms that are unique to dyslexia and critical for
early identification of students with the disorder. According to psychologists
and pediatricians, dyslexia is a language disorder marked by impaired phono-
logical processing (Katzir & Pare-Blagoev, 2006, p. 58; Ferrer et al., 2015,
p. 1121; American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), 2009, p. 838), so students
with dyslexia often struggle with printed word recognition, spelling, read-
ing comprehension, and writing (Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 134; Gabrieli,
2009, p. 280). Notably, dyslexia is not a visual impairment, as was claimed
through the first half of the 20th century (Katzir & Pare-Blagoev, 2006, p.
57; AAP, 2009, p. 837). It is also important to recognize that language
impairments among students with dyslexia are often “unexpected [by ed-
ucators and child development professionals] in relation to other cognitive
abilities” (Lyon et al., 2003, p. 2), meaning that a student with the disorder
may exhibit “reading deficits that. . . can not [sic] be predicted by [their] age,
other academic or cognitive abilities, exposure to instruction, or sociocultural
opportunities” (Lyon, 1995, p. 15). This fact makes it challenging, but edu-
cationally critical, to identify students with dyslexia in the classroom so that
Page 24
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
they can receive appropriate educational interventions to meet their unique
needs and maximize their academic achievement as soon as possible.
Beyond the linguistic focus, dyslexia experts also agree that the disorder
develops early in—and persists throughout—a child’s life (Gabrieli, 2009, p.
281; Ferrer et al., 2015). A reading achievement gap between students with
dyslexia and their typical peers can develop as early as first grade and remain
through adolescence (Ferrer et al., 2015, p. 1121). As a result, researchers
warn that “A student who fails to read adequately in 1st grade has a 90%
probability of reading poorly in 4th grade and a 75% probability of reading
poorly in high school” (Gabrieli, 2009, p. 280). Therefore, dyslexia’s long-
term effects on students have led experts, and non-profit organizations such
as Decoding Dyslexia, one of America’s largest parent-led dyslexia advocacy
groups (Decoding Dyslexia, 2013), to put pressure on policymakers. Sup-
ported by numerous researchers (Ferrer et al., 2015, p. 1125; Gabrieli, 2009,
p. 283; AAP, 2009, p. 839; Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 139), advocacy orga-
nizations have urged policymakers to support mandatory dyslexia screenings
for young students, followed by appropriate special education services for
students with the disorder (Decoding Dyslexia, 2013).
Based on the research findings and advocacy work outlined above, current
federal dyslexia policies are insufficient and complex, and state-level policies
vary immensely with respect to the level of recognition and support given
to students with dyslexia (Youman & Mather, 2013). Major federal policies
for students with dyslexia include the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA; 2004) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. However, they still
fail to provide sufficient and specific educational supports for students with
dyslexia.
Beginning with the IDEA, it classifies students with dyslexia as having a
“specific learning disability (SLD)” (IDEA, 2004; Youman & Mather, 2013,
p. 134), but unfortunately for many students with dyslexia, “SLD” is a
large umbrella term that fails to account for important distinctions between
dyslexia and other learning disabilities. This has serious implications for the
special education interventions that are provided to students with dyslexia.
When their unique educational needs go unrecognized, researchers suggest
that they typically receive “general intervention strategies and accommo-
dations” by default that “may or may not fit the needs of students with
dyslexia” (Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 138). Notably, these needs tend to
be related to phonological decoding, recognition of sight words, and general
fluency (Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 148). Even if they are assigned to a
Page 25
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
reading specialist, students with dyslexia often receive reading instruction
with other struggling readers who may not need the same type of instruc-
tion”, such as English-language learners or students with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 148). While researchers
admit that providing “general reading strategies” to “a heterogeneous group
of struggling readers is not harmful for students with dyslexia”, they empha-
size that those strategies may not target the specific needs noted above, since
they often fail to differentiate between dyslexia and other cognitive impair-
ments classified as SLDs (Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 138, 147-148; READ
Act, 2016). Lastly, this document recognize that the SLD designation does
not automatically promote the use of generalized interventions in every class-
room. However, the terms’ broadness opens the door for schools to employ
such interventions, posing an educational risk to students with dyslexia.
Turning to more practical concerns, the IDEA lays out a lengthy and com-
plex screening processing for SLDs like dyslexia that prevents timely iden-
tification of—and interventions for—students with the disorder. According
to the IDEA, if a student who has been given “appropriate access to educa-
tion” continues to struggle in the classroom for reasons that cannot be ex-
plained by “cultural and environmental factors”, they must be evaluated for
an SLD using at least one of three evaluation procedures. Firstly, an “ability-
achievement discrepancy formula” may be developed, which arguably quan-
tifies a special education students’ academic deficit (Kavale, 2001). However,
the formula must be supplemented by other documentation (e.g., classroom
observations or parent reports) if it is intended as the sole means of SLD
identification (Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 139). Secondly, educators are
urged to implement research-based interventions and monitor the students’
responses. This is known as a “response-to-intervention (RTI)” approach. If
the student fails to respond, then the SLD classification process continues.
Lastly, educators are free to use “alternative research-based models”, includ-
ing those that search for patterns in the students’ strengths and weaknesses
(Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 139). Given the clear complexity of the SLD
identification system, this document argues that students with dyslexia may
not receive appropriate educational interventions in a timely manner.
As previously noted, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 also aims to provide
federal support for students with dyslexia. Under Sec. 504, these students
have a disability in reading, which the law cites as one of nine “major life
activities” (Rehabilitation Act, 1973; Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 140). For-
tunately, the Rehabilitation Act helps students with dyslexia receive special
Page 26
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
education services, even if they fail to meet the IDEA’s strict requirements
for SLD identification. However, researchers indicate that the Sec. 504 al-
ternative is only considered in those states that acknowledge dyslexia as a
distinct disorder in language and reading (Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 140).
While federal dyslexia policies are characterized by insufficiency, state-
level dyslexia policies are “characterized by variability and inconsistency”,
both in terms of identifying the disorder and the timely provision of inter-
ventions (Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 133). In 2012, 22 states had statewide
dyslexia laws, three of which mandated the creation of a dyslexia handbook
to inform educators and parents about best practices for identifying and
supporting students with the disorder. Of the remaining states, three had
created a dyslexia handbook without a law mandating them to do so, two
had designated dyslexia weeks or months to raise awareness about the dis-
order, and six had dyslexia laws pending in their state legislatures (Youman
& Mather, 2013, p. 134).
Among states with dyslexia laws, policies still vary with respect to early
identification, interventions, and accommodations for students with the dis-
order. Despite evidence for early identification (Ferrer et al., 2015; Youman
& Mather, 2013, p. 139), only a few states have mandated universal dyslexia
screening for students in grades K–2 (Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 138),
with several more having released voluntary guidelines for student dyslexia
screenings (Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 139).
Moving beyond identification, dyslexia intervention policies also vary by
state, especially with respect to the amount of teacher training schools must
provide with respect to intervention strategies. In some states, students with
dyslexia receive appropriate interventions in their public schools. Elsewhere,
the same students may not receive any additional support if they do not meet
the qualifications set by the IDEA, or they may receive interventions that are
not appropriate for students with dyslexia (Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 141-
142). Focusing on teacher training as a key contributor to effective interven-
tion implementation, some states, such as Louisiana, have mandated dyslexia
training for general education teachers (Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 147).
However, that is not the case in every state, especially where dyslexia laws
are non-existent (Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 147). This deficit in teacher
training is especially concerning in states that classify dyslexia as an SLD.
There, researchers report that educators—including reading specialists—may
employ strategies that are intended to help all struggling readers without con-
sidering the unique needs of students with dyslexia. As described previously,
Page 27
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
this means that students with dyslexia “often receive reading instruction with
other struggling readers who may not need the same type of instruction (e.g.,
English language learners, who mostly need vocabulary building activities;
students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, who have fallen be-
hind their peers).” By contrast, students with dyslexia tend to need support
with “phonemic awareness, phonemic decoding, sight word development, and
fluency” (Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 147–48).
Based on the variability among state-level dyslexia policies, the federal
government seems most likely to generate impactful policies for students
with dyslexia, beginning with national recognition of the disorder, and then
promoting best practices for identification and intervention techniques. For-
tunately, the federal government has recently taken on this objective, thanks
in large part to the efforts of the Bipartisan Congressional Dyslexia Caucus.
Led by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Rep. Julia Brownley (D-CA),
the Caucus has taken several steps to increase dyslexia awareness among
educators, parents, and the public. In July of 2015, the members of the
Caucus wrote to Assistant Secretary of Education for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services Michael Yudin, requesting that the Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) “issue guidance to states
and school districts regarding the use of the term ‘dyslexia’ ” in IDEA doc-
umentation (BCDC, 2015, p. 1). As the lawmakers noted, parents found
school districts were unwilling to use the term in their children’s Individual-
ized Education Plans (IEP’s), which are written plans “developed to ensure
that [a primary or secondary school student] who has a disability identified
under the law. . . receives specialized instruction and related services” (Do-It
Univ. of Washington, 2015). Instead, school districts were continuing to use
ambiguous SLD terminology.
In arguing for the term “dyslexia”, members of Congress emphasized the
chief concern about the SLD designation, namely that it is “too vague a de-
scription to communicate to a teacher that the child needs intensive, explicit,
systematic, evidence-based instruction to make progress.” (BCDC, 2015, p.
1). Responding to the Caucus, Asst. Secretary Yudin issued a letter to
state and local education agencies explicitly stating that, “nothing in the
IDEA. . . would prohibit the use of the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dys-
graphia in IDEA evaluation, eligibility determinations, or IEP documents”
(Yudin, 2015, p. 1). However, the use of those terms remained at the discre-
tion of state and local education officials.
In February 2016, the Bipartisan Congressional Dyslexia Caucus helped
Page 28
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
pass a new federal dyslexia policy, the Research Excellence and Advancements
for Dyslexia Act (READ Act; H.R. 3033) (Govtrack, 2016), backed by the
parent dyslexia advocacy organization #SayDyslexia and the National Cen-
ter for Learning Disabilities (NCLD), among other non-profit groups (Tucker,
2016). Originally introduced in the House by Reps. Smith (R-TX) and
Brownley (D-CA), the Act supports translational dyslexia research to gen-
erate greater awareness of the disorder and provide evidence for best prac-
tices with respect to early identification and interventions. The READ Act
requires the President’s budget request to Congress to include a line item
supporting the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Research in Disabilities
Education program. It also mandates the NSF to direct $5 million annually
to dyslexia research intended to support early identification strategies, cur-
riculum development, and professional development to raise awareness about
dyslexia among educators (READ Act, 2016; BCDC, 2016). Lastly, the Act
defines the term “specific learning disability” as follows, with implications to
be addressed later in this document.
The term specific learning disability’ (1) means a disorder in 1
or more of the basic psychological processes involved in under-
standing or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder
may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak,
read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations; (2) includes
such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal
brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia; and (3)
does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of
visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of intellectual disability, of
emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic
disadvantage. (READ Act, 2016)
While more specific than the previous “general learning disability” des-
ignation (Lyon, 2003, p. 2) in federal policy, it is concerning that “specific
learning disability” is explicitly defined in the READ Act. This suggests that
SLD continues to be the legal and educational standard in federal dyslexia
policy, despite being a broad term that encompasses a wide range of behav-
ioral and cognitive learning disabilities, including dyslexia, all of which have
unique characteristics (Lyon, 2003, p. 3) requiring unique interventions and
accommodations (Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 138, 147–148).
Returning to the impact of the Dyslexia Caucus, its members—including
Co-Chair Rep. Brownley (D-CA),who introduced the READ Act with Rep.
Page 29
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
Lamar Smith (R-TX) (BCDC, 2016)—have been instrumental in supporting
other Congressional actions to standardize the definition of dyslexia and rec-
ognize its educational implications. This aim has been represented through
two resolutions, House Resolution 456 (H.R. 456), and Senate Resolution 275
(S. Res. 275). In 2014, Rep. William Cassidy (R-LA) and Rep. Brownley
(D-CA) proposed H.R. 456 to define dyslexia and recognize its “significant
educational implications” (H.R. 456, 2014). Seeming to address the state-
level inconsistencies researchers had noted (Youman & Mather, 2013), H.R.
456 defined dyslexia as follows:
Whereas, defined as an unexpected difficulty in reading in an
individual who has the intelligence to be a much better reader,
dyslexia reflects a difficulty in getting to the individual sounds of
spoken language which typical impacts speaking, reading, spelling,
and often, learning a second language (H. Res. 456, 2014)
Although this Resolution would have recognized a national definition of
dyslexia in the House of Representatives with considerable support from
dyslexia advocacy organizations and research programs (Shaywitz & Shay-
witz, 2014), it failed to pass the House and has not been reintroduced in the
current Congressional session (Govtrack, 2014).
Fortunately for students with dyslexia and their supporters, Senate Res-
olution 275 was passed unanimously by the Senate on October 7, 2015 (Gov-
track, 2015). Borrowing language from H.R. 456, S. Res. 275 called on
“Congress, schools, and State and local educational agencies to recognize the
significant educational implications of dyslexia that must be addressed” (S.
Res. 275, 2015) and presented a definition of the disorder that emphasized its
phonological underpinnings and unexpectedness relative to a student’s over-
all cognition. It also emphasized the critical nature of early diagnosis and
intervention strategies, reflecting research reviewed in this document (S. Res.
275, 2015). While Senate Resolution 275 has been seen as “game-changing”
for dyslexia policy and students with the disorder (Shaywitz & Shaywitz,
2015), it is important to recognize that simple resolutions like S. Res. 275
do not carry the force of law and only reflect the sentiments of one house of
Congress (Lexis Nexis, 2007). As such, stronger federal policy actions will
be required to bring order to the tangled web of dyslexia policy (Youman &
Mather, 2013).
Overall, this series of legislative actions demonstrates that dyslexia has
gained greater recognition in the federal policy landscape. However, the term
Page 30
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
“dyslexia” itself—which is unique and entails serious educational implications
for students with the disorder—has not risen to the level of law, as the READ
Act’s continued focus on “specific learning disability” demonstrates. More
broadly, this section has highlighted persistent ambiguity in the definition
of dyslexia, potentially a contributing factor to the federal and state policy
challenges outlined here. Therefore, the series of recommendations outlined
in the following section should help explicitly recognize dyslexia, and ensure
that all students with the disorder are identified in a timely manner and
provided with the specific special education services they need to achieve
academic success.
3. 3-Part Policy Proposal: Overview, Evaluation, and Action Plan
This section of the document will present three policy recommendations
that are meant to be implemented progressively, while taking both the vari-
ability in state-level dyslexia policy and the growing recognition of dyslexia
at the federal level into account. First, policymakers and advocacy or-
ganizations should be congratulated for passing the READ Act, but they
should maintain their collaboration to ensure implementation that focuses
on the central issue of dyslexia’s ambiguous definition and demonstrating its
uniqueness among “specific learning disabilities.” Secondly, policymakers and
federal Department of Education officials should leverage the power of the
READ Act to disseminate the resulting research as best practices through
a dyslexia handbook. Finally, this document will recommend amending the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2014) to codify the unique edu-
cational needs of students with dyslexia in our nation’s predominant special
education law.
First addressing the passage of the READ Act, policymakers and ad-
vocacy organizations should be applauded for their efforts, which stand to
empower the National Science Foundation to address long-standing ambigu-
ities around dyslexia itself (READ Act, 2016; Katzir & Pare-Blagoev, 2006,
p. 58) that have trickled down to generate variability in the dyslexia pol-
icy landscape that is detrimental for students with the disorder (Youman
& Mather, 2013). However, policymakers must recognize the importance of
effective policy implementation. The Act passed with support from the Bi-
partisan Congressional Dyslexia Caucus, which consists of over 100 members
of Congress who are collectively dedicated to “. . . increasing public awareness
about dyslexia and ensuring all students have equal educational opportuni-
Page 31
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
ties” (BCDC, 2015a). Some of the nation’s largest dyslexia advocacy organi-
zations, including #SayDyslexia and the National Center for Learning Dis-
abilities also supported the Act (#SayDyslexia, 2015; NCLD, 2015). Specif-
ically, Decoding Dyslexia (#SayDyslexia’s parent organization) appreciated
the Act’s focus on early identification strategies, professional development for
educators, and evidence-based curriculum development, all of which aligned
with their policy objectives (BCDC, 2015a; Decoding Dyslexia, 2013).
Although the research funding provided by the READ Act is valuable, it
is important to discuss effective policy implementation with a specific focus
on dyslexia. As described previously, much of the variability in state-level
dyslexia policy, and the apparent need for federal standardization, can be
attributed to ambiguity in the definition of the disorder itself. Therefore, the
NSF should initially focus on funding basic research to generate a standard-
ized definition of dyslexia before progressing to applied research into early
identification, professional development, resource development, and other key
areas (READ Act, 2016). Otherwise, the central issue of ambiguity will
remain unaddressed, and policies will remain variable. More importantly,
the READ Act continues to define—and thereby emphasize—“specific learn-
ing disability” as an umbrella term that encompasses dyslexia (READ Act,
2016). Here, effective research-centered implementation of the Act stands to
differentiate dyslexia from its SLD counterparts, a result with considerable
implications for students with dyslexia and their specific educational needs.
With the passage of the READ Act, subsequent research should ensure a
strong foundation of evidence-based methods for students with dyslexia. The
next step will be to nationally disseminate those methods to support best
practices in early identification, interventions, and professional development
across the country. To accomplish this goal, policymakers should leverage
the power of the Bipartisan Congressional Dyslexia Caucus and request that
the U.S. Department of Education issue a national educators’ handbook of
best practices for students with dyslexia. This would address the lack of
high-quality dyslexia handbooks in many states (Youman & Mather, 2013,
p. 134) and provide a critical resource for educators.
Fortunately, a Department of Education dyslexia handbook would not
be without precedent. As described above, the Dyslexia Caucus already
spurred Assistant Secretary of Education Michael Yudin to issue a letter to
state and local educational agencies about the use of “dyslexia” in IDEA
documentation in 2014 (BCDC, 2015b; Yudin, 2015). This suggests a prece-
dent of condition, in that the federal government has recently issued explicit
Page 32
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
guidelines pertaining to students with dyslexia. The U.S. Department of Ed-
ucation has also set a methodological precedent. In 2004, the Department
contracted with the American Institutes for Research to produce a report
titled Teaching Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: In-
structional Strategies and Practices. As a research report, it did not require
state and local educational agencies to adopt particular strategies for work-
ing with students who had attention disorders, but it did serve as a valuable
resource for educators who wanted to ensure that they were using effective
interventions (OSERS, 2004, p. 1).
Furthermore, a federal dyslexia handbook should avoid the political pit-
falls associated with unfunded mandates, in which the federal government
requires state and local governments to comply with a policy but then does
not provide adequate financial resources for their compliance (Nivola, 2003).
In relative terms, funding should not be a major concern when creating the
handbook. Since the 2004 report was produced under an existing contract
with the American Institutes for Research, a national dyslexia handbook
should be able to be covered by another existing contract with a think tank
or research institute. With respect to evaluating the effectiveness of this ac-
tion, the Department of Education could commission a follow-up study by
the research institute that produces the handbook several years after its re-
lease. This study would document the handbook’s usage by educators, both
in terms of frequency and its most valuable resources. The results would
shape revisions in future editions of the book, as appropriate.
Lastly, this document recommends amending the Individuals with Dis-
abilities Education Act (2004) to address the unique needs of students with
dyslexia. As previously emphasized, the current version of the law includes
dyslexia under the umbrella term of “specific learning disability (SLD)”
(Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 139), meaning that students with dyslexia
may be receiving general interventions that are inappropriate for their unique
educational needs (Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 138, 147–148). This pol-
icy action would rely on momentum from Congressional Resolutions, the
READ Act and its subsequent research, and national support for best prac-
tices generated by the Department of Education dyslexia handbook to for-
mally recognize dyslexia in America’s predominant special education law.
One key amendment to the IDEA could include the explicit identification of
dyslexia—perhaps in conjunction with other learning disabilities—based on
the definition of the disorder established in Senate Resolution 275.
After establishing recognition, an amended IDEA could then mandate
Page 33
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
universal early identification programs for grades K–2, as researchers (Fer-
rer et al., 2015) and advocacy organizations (Decoding Dyslexia, 2013) have
strongly recommended. Funding for this initiative would likely come from the
existing Grants to States Program directed by the U.S. Department of Edu-
cation Office of Special Education Programs, which already assists states in
“meeting the excess costs of providing special education and related services
to children with disabilities”, focusing on direct interventions (U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, 2014). In this case, the grant monies would support the
implementation of early identification and intervention strategies in an ed-
ucationally and fiscally efficient manner. Lastly, it is important to realize
that the effectiveness of an amended IDEA would depend on the success of
the two prior recommendations outlined above. Assuming that the IDEA is
amended as described here, Congress or the Department of Education could
evaluate the effectiveness of their policy change by commissioning researchers
to conduct a comprehensive follow-up study. If the situation improves over
time with respect to identification of and support for students with dyslexia,
that finding should be reflected in the researchers’ report.
4. Conclusion
Surveying the current state of educational policy for students with dyslexia,
it is evident that the long-running controversy over the definition of the dis-
order and appropriate interventions (Katzir & Pare-Blagoev, 2006) has bred
confusion in terms of how to identify these students and best support their
educational needs, as demonstrated by the current variability in state-level
dyslexia policies. In the midst of this variability, federal education policies
like the IDEA have combined students with dyslexia and those with other
“specific learning disabilities”, resulting in a situation where students with
dyslexia may not receive appropriate educational interventions targeted to
their disorder (Youman & Mather, 2013, p. 138, 147-148). Overall, the pro-
gressive implementation of the three policy recommendations presented here
should contribute to their mutual success. By relying on the growing recogni-
tion of dyslexia at the federal level (BCDC, 2016, 2015a, 2015b; READ Act,
2016; Yudin, 2015), these recommendations should collectively help identify
and support students with dyslexia across the United States by recogniz-
ing their unique educational needs relative to those of students with other
learning disabilities, and ultimately allow them to read and achieve in the
classroom and beyond.
Page 34
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
.
References
American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Ophthalmology, Council on
Children with Disabilities, American Academy of Ophthalmology, Amer-
ican Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, and Amer-
ican Association of Certified Orthoptists (2009). Joint Statement–Learni-
ng Disabilities, Dyslexia, and Vision. Pediatrics, 124(2), 837-844.
Bipartisan Congressional Dyslexia Caucus. (2015a). Bipartisan READ Act
Provides Millions with Dyslexia a Brighter Future. Retrieved from
https : //dysl exiacaucus−brownley.house.gov/press−release/bipartis
an − read − act − provides − millions − dyslexia − brighter − future.
Bipartisan Congressional Dyslexia Caucus. (2015b). Letter to Asst. Secre-
tary of Education Michael Yudin on Dyslexia Guidance. Washington,
D.C.: Bipartisan Congressional Dyslexia Caucus.
Bipartisan Congressional Dyslexia Caucus. (2016). Bipartisan Dyslexia
Bill Heads to President’s Desk [Press release]. Retrieved from https :
//dyslexiacaucus − brownley.house.gov/press − release/bipartisan −
dyslexia − bill − heads − president%E2%80%99s − desk.
Decoding Dyslexia. (2013). Decoding Dyslexia Info. Retrieved from http :
//www.decodingdysl exia.net/inf o.html
Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology Program at the
University of Washington. (2015). What is the Difference Between an
IEP and a 504 Plan? DO-IT. Retrieved from http : //www.washington.e
du/doit/what − dif ference − between − iep − and − 504 − plan.
Ferrer, E., Shaywitz, B. A., Holahan, J. M., Marchione, K. E., Michaels, R.,
& Shaywitz, S. E. (2015). Achievement Gap in Reading is Persistent as
Early as First Grade and Persists through Adolescence. The Journal of
Pediatrics, 167, 1121–1125.
Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2009). Dyslexia: A New Synergy Between Education and
Cognitive Neuroscience. Science, 325, 280–283.
Govtrack.us. (2014). H.Res. 456 (113th): Calling on schools and State
and local educational agencies to recognize that dyslexia has signifi-
cant. . . educational implications that must be addressed. Retrieved from
https : //www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hres456.
Govtrack.us. (2015). S.Res. 275 (114th): Calling on Congress, schools,
and State and local educational agencies to recognize the significant
Page 35
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
educational. . . implications of dyslexia that must be addressed and des-
ignating October 2015 as “National Dyslexia Month”. Retrieved from
https : //www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/sres275
Govtrack.us. (2016). H.R. 3033: READ Act. Retrieved from https :
//www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr3033.
H. Res. 456 (2014).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L. 108–
446, 20 U.S.C. §1400 (2004).
Katzir, T., & Pare-Blagoev, J. (2006). Applying Cognitive Neuroscience
Research to Education: The Case of Literacy. Educational Psychologist,
41(1), 53-74.
Kavale, K. A. (2001). Discrepancy Models in the Identification of Learning
Disability: Executive Summary. Paper presented at the Learning Dis-
abilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future, Washington,
D.C.
Lexis Nexis. (2007). About Bills, Resolutions, and Laws. Retrieved from
https : //www.lexisnexis.com/help/CU/Ser ial
S
et/About
B
ills.htm.
Lyon, R.G. (1995). Toward a Definition of Dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 45,
3–27.
Lyon, R.G., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., (2003). A Definition of Dyslexia.
Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2015). READ Act Passes House
of Representatives, Expands Research in Dyslexia. Retrieved from http :
//www.ncld.org/archives/action−center/what−we−ve−done/read−
act − passes − house − of − representatives − expands − research −
in − dyslexia.
Nivola, P. S. (2003). Fiscal Millstones on the Cities: Revisiting the Prob-
lem of Federal Mandates. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.: http :
//www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2003/08/regulation − nivola.
Research Excellence and Advancements for Dyslexia Act (READ Act), Pub.
L. No. 114-124, 42 U.S.C. §1862r, 1862r-1 (2016).
S. Res. 275 Cong. Rec. S7106 (2015).
Say Dyslexia. (2015). #ReadAct Hearing on September 30, 2015. Retrieved
from http : //www.saydyslexia.org/blog.
Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2014). Make dyslexia a national priority.
Retrieved from http : //thehill.com/blogs/congress−blog/healthcare/1
96400 − make − dyslexia − a − national − priority.
Page 36
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2015). Game-changing U.S. Senate Reso-
lution 275. Retrieved from http : //dyslexia.yale.edu/ABOUT Shaywit
z SenateRes275.html.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, P.L. 93-112, 29 U.S.C. §701 (1973).
Tucker, G. C. (2016). President Signs READ Act, Funding Research on
Dyslexia and Other Learning Issues. Retrieved from https : //www.unde
rstood.org/en/community−events/blogs/in−the−news/2016/02/25/p
resident − sig ns − read − act − funding − research − into − dyslexia −
and − other − learning − issues.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilita-
tive Services, Office of Special Education Programs, (2004). Teaching
Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Instructional
Strategies and Practices, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilita-
tive Services, Office of Special Education Programs. (2014). Special Ed-
ucation Grants to States. Retrieved from http : //www2.ed.gov/program
s/osepgts/index.html.
Youman, M., & Mather, N. (2013). Dyslexia laws in the USA. Annals of
Dyslexia, 63, 133–153.
Yudin, M. (2015). U.S. DOE Dyslexia Guidance (United States, Department
of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services).
Page 37
Critical Education Policy Studies Spring 2016
Hooton, I. (2010, December 10). Dyslexia, conceptual image [Photograph]. Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-07/dyslexia-project-shows-what-its-like-to-read-with-
the-disorder
Author
Elias is a rising senior at Swarthmore College, where he is a special major
in Psychology and Educational Studies with a minor in Cognitive Science.
His research interests are at the intersection of developmental psychology,
cognitive neuroscience, and educational policy. Elias is particularly focused
on how principles of language acquisition can inform educational policies and
shape best practices in school and at home for English Language Learners,
as well as other students who face barriers to English literacy.
Page 38
