policy and program in dyslexia education

Dyslexia as a Specific Learning Disability
Classified under the broader rubric of specific learning disabilities, dyslexia is a severe reading disability known to have a neurological basis (Taylor, Smiley & Richards, 2009, p. 92). Because reading and literacy are so crucial in every area of educational curricula and instructional design, students with reading disabilities like dyslexia may struggle more globally in their academics even though they do not have specific learning disabilities in other areas. Therefore, it is important that dyslexia is identified as early as possible in order to provide critical interventions for this student population.
Not all reading disabilities are dyslexia. Only one percent of all learning disabilities are correctly identified as dyslexia (Taylor, Smiley & Richards, 2009, p. 92). Whereas the “vast majority of reading problems can be effectively remediated,” dyslexia is difficult to remediate when it manifests in its so-called “pure” or most extreme form (Taylor, Smiley & Richards, 2009, p. 92). Identifying children with dyslexia involves paying close attention to how they perform on general literacy in early childhood, particularly in areas like phonological awareness, reading recognition, rapid automatic naming, and reading comprehension (Taylor, Smiley & Richards, 2009). Phonological awareness refers to the ability to recognize that words are formed of smaller components known as phonemes and syllables. The brains of children with dyslexia prevent them from effectively recognizing phonemes, which then significantly impacts their ability to code and decode, read and write.
Children with dyslexia also have trouble with rapid automatic naming, which is totally different from phonological awareness and therefore reveals the complex series of cognitive functions involved in literacy. With rapid automatic naming, the student becomes able to quickly recite strings of letters, like saying the alphabet or spelling a word, as well as strings of numbers, as a phone number. Rapid automatic naming ability is linked with the ability to improve reading skills (Taylor, Smiley & Richards, 2009). Children with dyslexia also exhibit problems with general word identification and recognition. They may add or substitute words, skip or omit other words, and mispronounce words too. Word recognition problems can manifest both when the child is reading and hearing words. The inability to effectively understand, recognize, and process words, associating those words with their underlying meaning, also leads to reading comprehension problems within this population cohort (Taylor, Smiley & Richards, 2009). Students with dyslexia can therefore struggle in a number of different classroom environments in which the content delivery depends heavily on language. Many students with dyslexia score high on intelligence assessments and are “gifted” in areas other than reading (O’Brien, 2017, p. 1). Teachers need to understand that there are other methods of conveying content than relying on words.
Unfortunately, research has shown consistently that students with reading disabilities and dyslexia specifically “rarely catch up” and can have lifelong problems with reading and literacy (Taylor, Smiley & Richards, 2009, p. 93). Teachers need to be empowered with the knowledge of how to apply best practices at every stage of a child’s development, focusing especially on early childhood education. The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) specifically mentions dyslexia under the general rubric of learning disabilities, liberating funds that help educators and administrators meet the needs of this special population. Educators need to learn more about how to identify dyslexia as early as possible, preferably in the preschool environment. Parents also need to recognize early warning signs and participate in their child’s intervention programs. Administrators need to remain cognizant of what resources are available to them in their communities, so that they can devote and allocate the funding and resources necessary for helping students with dyslexia and the educators who help them. Special educators are in the position of providing administrators and general education teachers, as well as parents, students, and counsellors, with access to evidence-based best practice treatment interventions for students with dyslexia.
Programs for Students with Dyslexia
There are several programs available for students with dyslexia. Some programs are also designed with parents in mind, to help parents of young children identify and overcome the early signs of the reading disability. Other programs focus more on educators, such as on helping general education teachers work with students with dyslexia by understanding better how to adapt material or to provide unique approaches to reading and literacy skills development. Some programs enable collaborative teaching models to enhance communication between special education and general education teachers, and to help with instructional planning and pedagogy. For example, a cluster of programs using the Orton-Gillingham method of literacy development targets students with dyslexia. These approaches are often referred to as “multisensory” approaches to reading, helping to de-emphasize the use of words and language in instructional design and academic curricula (Morin, n.d., p. 1). Specific programs using the Orton-Gillingham method include the Wilson Reading System, the Barton Reading Program, and the Lindamood-Bell Program (Morin, n.d., p. 1). As important as these types of programs are, they tend to be proprietary and therefore lack the ability to be consistently integrated throughout a school district, let alone a state’s school system.
The State of Virginia has offered a more comprehensive program to help all stakeholders: students, parents, teachers, administrators, and members of the community involved in dyslexia remediation. In 2002 the state passed the Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children with Disabilities in Virginia. These regulations specifically defined dyslexia, distinguishing it from other learning disabilities based on phonological issues. More importantly, in 2017, the Virginia Department of Education updated Code of Virginia § 22.1-253.13:2(G), to mandate teacher training programs as well as mandating the implementation of a specialized position called the Dyslexia Advisor (Virginia Department of Education, 2018a, “Dyslexia”). Effective as of 2017, the new provisions hold that every single teacher licensed and certified in the Virginia Department of Education system must complete a mandatory awareness training module to prepare them for identifying and working with students with dyslexia in their classrooms and schools. Each local school board in the State of Virginia must also employ a reading specialist with appropriate professional training and full working knowledge of best practices. Best practices for students with dyslexia include the techniques used in the classroom, a recognition of characteristics of dyslexia as per emerging research, and appropriate interventions including assistive technologies. With advanced understanding of the cognitive aspects of reading, the dyslexia advisor adds a tremendous value to the Virginia Public School system.
Problem Statement
Schools are not being provided with sufficient institutional supports to help students with dyslexia. The Virginia Department of Education program involves two important components including mandatory dyslexia awareness modules for teachers, and also the mandatory position of a dyslexia advisor in each district in the state. Although these are important first steps, more needs to be done to promote early identification. As O’Brien (2017) points out, many schools are “missing the mark” when it comes to teaching students with dyslexia effectively (p. 1). Students with dyslexia are unnecessarily falling behind in subject areas that do not need to rely so heavily on language-based instructional modules. Moreover, the dyslexia awareness module mandatory for all Virginia teachers may not be sufficient for revealing the best practices to incorporate into instructional design. It is understandable that each school would implement dyslexia adaptations for students differently depending on individual differences and other factors, but it is important to provide more comprehensive training and more consistent implementation of evidence-based practices.
Theoretical Perspectives
The primary theoretical orientation when addressing issues related to dyslexia is neurobiological. Research has shown that individuals with dyslexia have a smaller planum temporale versus those without dyslexia: revealing the actual differences in brain structure (Taylor, Smiley & Richards, 2009, p. 90). Further research using MRIs show how the brains of students with dyslexia do work differently versus their counterparts without reading disabilities. Neurobiological theories focus on the brain and its structure, rather than on broader cognitive or psychological theories. While by far the most salient theoretical perspective addressing dyslexia and how special education programming should address it, the neurobiological approach is not the only one. Students with dyslexia do not have global learning disabilities or impaired intellectual functioning. Therefore, dyslexia could be viewed under the theoretical rubric of Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory (Taylor, Smiley & Richards, 2009). The theory of multiple intelligences shows how specialized skills like math and reading are only a few of many different areas where students demonstrate excellence. Students with dyslexia may, for example, be good at math, science, music, and physical education. They may also possess strong social skills.
The Virginia Department of Education (2018a) recognizes the neurobiological underpinning of dyslexia, stating in law that “Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin,” (p. 1). Because there is a clear neurobiological origin of dyslexia, it may become easier to develop appropriate interventions. Dyslexia is not necessarily associated with ancillary issues like behavioral or emotional disorders. Viewing dyslexia as a neurological condition makes it easier for teachers to separate other aspects of the student from the ability to read on pace with peers. The neurobiological approach prevents teachers from assuming that a student with dyslexia is intellectually or developmentally disabled, and instead promotes a strengths-based approach. A strengths-based approach encourages teachers, parents, and peers to focus on what the student is good at rather than on stressing deficits. Rather than fixate on sub-standard performance on reading skills assessments and assignments, the student can focus on high achievements in all other subject areas. This theoretical orientation can be useful for inspiring inclusive instructional and classroom design. Undoubtedly, the theoretical orientation has influenced the Virginia Department of Education’s recent commitment to improve service delivery specifically for this student population.
The teacher awareness training module on dyslexia, now mandatory for all teachers seeking new certification or renewing an existing license, is based on the neurological theory and shows how teachers can recognize the unique ways students process information when phonological awareness is severely impaired. However, teachers—and especially general education teachers—cannot be expected to become experts in linguistics, cognitive science, and related fields. The dyslexia advisor in each school district is the role responsible for disseminating information from the growing base of empirical research, communicating that information in a language and method that is accessible to all teachers. Special education teachers should also be given more robust instruction on dyslexia, with possible updates to the Virginia law in the future.
Within the provisions of the Virginia Department of Education program on dyslexia, special education teachers are rarely mentioned. Yet they stand positioned somewhere between the general education teacher and the dyslexia advisor in providing evidence-based services for students. The special education teacher can comprehend some of the neurobiological bases of dyslexia and the unique constraints on reading skills acquisition and phonological awareness, while being able to translate emerging research into appropriate instructional practice and design. Understanding how the brain processes sounds, written words, and other elements of language greatly helps special education teachers to recommend methods of improving instructional design.
Because early identification remains so important with dyslexia in particular, another major concern is how to improve preschool services for students who show early warning signs. Students who are at risk for dyslexia need to be identified sooner, referred to special education teachers or counselors for screening and assessments. Parents should be involved at this early stage, implying a collaborative approach to dyslexia programming. The Virginia Department of Education law helps unite the goals of school administrators, policymakers, parents, teachers, and students, but it can go a step further to include the means by which to integrate early intervention strategies. The dyslexia advisor in each school district should ideally be entrusted with the responsibility of reviewing all current research on the neurobiological foundations of dyslexia, and any corresponding intervention strategies that might help mitigate the problems associated with impaired reading skills development. Until researchers come up with methods of correcting the structural abnormalities at the root of dyslexia, perhaps by facilitating neuroplasticity via pharmaceutical interventions, it is unlikely that any medications can be used to hasten reading skills development.
Pairing dyslexia with other specific learning disabilities in IDEA has been helpful for raising awareness and allocating funds and resources. Yet as the Virginia Department of Education boldly shows, dyslexia is qualitatively different from other learning disabilities and even other reading disabilities. Neurobiology is one of the differences, as are the specific ways dyslexia impacts academic performance. Students with dyslexia often perform well in subjects that are not reading-dependent, making it critical to provide best practices in effective content delivery in all subject areas, and redesigning learning objectives or learning assessments when necessary. Research in the neurobiology and neuropsychological functioning of dyslexia has shown which specific interventions and strategies work, and more importantly, why. For example, Zygouris, Avramidis, Karapetsas, et al. (2017) found that remediation programs focusing on audio-visual processing, plus techniques for memory enhancement, were effective for improving performance on comprehension, visual discrimination, and other key factors in dyslexia.
The Legislative Landscape: Past, Present, Future
The first state to pass a dyslexia law was Texas, in 1985 (Worthy, Salmaron, Long, et al., 2018). Since then, 42 states have followed suit to entrench dyslexia programs in state-based education legislation. Between January and March of 2018, 33 new bills have been introduced throughout the country (Youman & Mather, 2018). The legislation does not just mirror the provisions of IDEA, but actually mandates enhanced quality as well as quantity of services available to students with dyslexia and the teachers and parents who support them. Texas has continued to lead the way in dyslexia legislation, with several different bills addressing different aspects of programming and service delivery. Other states have similarly adopted comprehensive approaches to dyslexia legislation, with varying emphasis on “identification, intervention, accommodations, funding, and/or dyslexia specialists,” (Worthy, Salmaron, Long, et al., 2018, p. 377). In this light, Virginia’s recent law seems paltry in comparison to those of Texas but nevertheless a significant step towards integrating policy and best practices. The most significant shortcoming throughout all the states’ laws, including those in Texas, remains clarity: such as what it truly means for educators to be prepared to meet the needs of students with dyslexia. As Worthy, Salmaron, Long et al., 2018) also point out, legislation typically ignores the critical intersections between race, socioeconomic class, gender, and dyslexia that has been highlighted in the literature.
Early intervention is the main theme of legislation related to dyslexia in the United States. Many states have developed an evidence-based handbook or teacher reference guide to aid in instructional design (Youman & Mather, 2018). Movements to improve dyslexia programming in public schools has been driven organically and often in a grassroots method, instigated by individuals with dyslexia and their parents or by local organizations. Some local organizations have grown to encompass a national or even international audience, with groups like Decoding Dyslexia being especially influential in public policy and advocacy (Youman & Mather, 2018). Awareness is only one aspect of effective service delivery, but it seems to be one of the only aspects the Virginia Department of Education stresses currently. Early intervention, and more effective screening programs also need to be incorporated into all state legislation related to dyslexia. In addition to advising educators about best practices, legislation does also cover the rights of persons with dyslexia, in light of IDEA as well as other state and federal anti-discrimination laws.
Many states have had successful pilot programs for screening and early interventions. In 2017, for example, Oregon passed Senate Bill 1003. Oregon Senate Bill 1003 proves to be one of the most striking and potentially transformative pieces of legislation related to dyslexia as it mandates “all school districts must ensure that every student is screened for risk factors of dyslexia upon first enrolling at school in kindergarten or first grade,” (Youman & Mather, 2018, p. 38). Similar screenings should become commonplace, as they are not intrusive but do potentially help direct at-risk students towards the services they need immediately. Not only will early identification help with remediation efforts, but also empowers the parents with knowledge they need to help their children during home instruction, and also empowers teachers with what they need to know to help the children they will be working with that school year. According to Youman & Mather (2018), 18 states have mandatory universal screening in early childhood education like Oregon’s program.
As important as the universal screening programs are, they do need to be implemented in every state. In addition to mandatory universal screening in early grades, school districts need to come up with comprehensive and clear solutions for how to proceed. Once a child has been diagnosed with dyslexia, there are no formal pathways for intervention strategies or even progress monitoring (Youman & Mather, 2018). It is important to have a set of rules and guidelines all teachers can follow consistently, as well as resources available for parents. Some states do have provisions for a dyslexia specialist like Virginia’s dyslexia advisor, but that individual does not necessarily have direct contact with the student or even with individual teachers. Interventions will be individualized and tailored for the unique needs of each student, but they do need to be comprehensive and consistent. In addition to promoting more effective early intervention strategies, dyslexia legislation is shifting towards a focus on teacher training and preparation. Legislation lacks clarity regarding who exactly is responsible for regular screenings, monitoring children with dyslexia, and modifying course content for students with dyslexia (Youman & Mather, 2018). Administrators are given discretion in this regard, and should be more proactive in coming up with the best strategies for motivating staff to comply with dyslexia legislation laws. While it is important to empower teachers to use the instructional strategies they believe suits their classroom and content best, teachers still do need to prove adherence to evidence-based dyslexia intervention models based on the neurological theoretical orientation.
Impact of the Problem and Program
The problem of inadequate dyslexia interventions in schools has been partially resolved through improved efforts at mandating teacher awareness, preparation, and training. Best practices in special education include recommendations for the most effective interventions at each developmental age including “explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, spelling fluency, and vocabulary,” (Youman & Mather, 2018 p. 39). The primary impact of dyslexia legislation is that instructional interventions like these are not recommended by mandatory in some states. Another major impact has been on administrators, who have access to programs, services, tools, and technologies such as “digital story telling, text-to-speech, live scribe, and e-books,” (Youman & Mather, 2018, p. 39). Teachers in general education classrooms may initially resist incorporating additional instructional strategies, accommodations, supports, and technologies for their dyslexic students. A collaborative teaching model in which a special education teacher works alongside the general education teacher can alleviate the burden of additional workload, while also making sure that the student receives the instruction he or she is entitled to by law.
Programs for dyslexia have raised awareness, showcasing dyslexia as a unique reading disability with developmental components and a neurobiological basis. With increased awareness comes decreased stigma, and with decreased stigma comes increased accessibility of available programs, services, and resources. Increasing awareness of dyslexia can also reduce disparities due to socioeconomic class or race. Dyslexia programs have created some organizational structure challenges and changes in public education, such as the creation of the specialized position within each school district. Providing information about dyslexia in different languages can also help overcome cultural and linguistic barriers. Dyslexia programming has impacted student outcomes: the most important stakeholder group.
Impact on Students
Dyslexia awareness and dyslexia legislation have had a meaningful and positive impact on primary stakeholder groups. Although more work is needed to strengthen institutional and legislative supports, the current legislation has helped to improve advocacy efforts. Laws are preventing students with dyslexia from getting “held back,” by showcasing the ways that dyslexia does not adversely impact academic performance in many subject areas (Youman & Mather, 2018, p. 39). Students with dyslexia should be able to interact with instructional content in ways that does not rely exclusively on verbalized instruction, allowing them to maximize their potential while they progress through their educational careers. O’Brien (2017) points out the need for improvements, and indeed, there are several ways the current program can more effectively meet the needs of all students with dyslexia. As more parents become aware of how to recognize early warning signs, they may play a more active role in the future by seeking out the screenings available to them by law. Similarly, special education teachers now have access to more robust partnerships in education and in the community. Partnership and collaboration will remain the most important factors in ensuring best practices when working with diverse populations affected by dyslexia.



References
Morin, A. (n.d.). Programs that are influenced by an Orton-Gillingham approach. https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/partnering-with-childs-school/instructional-strategies/programs-that-use-an-orton-gillingham-approach
O’Brien, K. (2017). Even with new dyslexia law, many schools still missing the mark. ABC8 News. https://www.wric.com/news/even-with-new-dyslexia-law-many-schools-still-missing-the-mark_20180326071830735/1078159860
“Reading, Spelling, and Writing Programs,” (n.d.). Dyslexia Help: Regents of the University of Michigan. http://dyslexiahelp.umich.edu/tools/reading-programs
Taylor, R.L., Smiley, L.R. & Richards, S. (2009). Exceptional Students. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Virginia Department of Education (2018a). Dyslexia. http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/disabilities/learning_disability/dyslexia.shtml
Virginia Department of Education (2018b). Dyslexia training. http://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching/licensure/dyslexia-training/index.shtml
Worthy, J., Salmeron, C.,, Long, S.L., et al. (2018). “Wrestling With the Politics and Ideology”: Teacher Educators’ Responses to Dyslexia Discourse and Legislation. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice 67(1): 377-393.
Youman, M. & Mather, N. (2018). Dyslexia laws in the USA: A 2018 update. https://www.dyslexicadvantage.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2018-Youman-Mather.pdf
Zygouris, N.C., Avramidis, E., Karapetsas, A.V., et al. (2017). Differences in dyslexic students before and after a remediation program: A clinical neuropsychological and event related potential study. Applied Neuropsychology: Child 7(3): 235-244.