IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES FOR
STUDENTS IDENTIFIED WITH DYSLEXIA OR SHOWING
DYSLEXIC TENDENCIES IN OHIO PUBLIC SCHOOLS
A dissertation
Presented to
The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Rebecca Tolson
May, 2020
ii ABSTRACT
The purpose of this dissertation study is to reveal constructs that determine how federal and state policies for identification of and services for students with dyslexia are implemented in Ohio public schools.
The study aims to find the answer to the following question: How do Ohio K-12 public educators (a) interpret and (b) implement federal and state policies for the identification of students with dyslexia or showing dyslexic tendencies?
Three Ohio K-12 suburban public-school districts were selected for this collective, instrumental case study research. Five personnel, district special education directors, principals, school psychologists, and a general and special education teacher, at each district were interviewed to share their experiences with students with dyslexia or showing dyslexic tendencies and district documents were collected and analyzed.
Interviews were conducted face to face and then transcribed. The meaning was extracted from the data using a coding procedure which allowed chunks and segments to be labeled and themes, patterns, ideas, and concepts to be organized. A focused coding procedure allowed for building and clarifying concepts within categories and codes were organized by relevance to each other in a way that helped in providing thick descriptions of participants' experiences. Constant comparison analysis was used to systematically reduce the data to codes, then develop themes from the codes and classical content analysis was used to count the number of codes to determine which concepts occurred throughout the data for descriptive statistics.
iii Five emergent themes were discovered during this study: (a) inconsistencies in handling identification of dyslexia as district practices (b) perceptions and misperceptions of dyslexia (c) varied screening and assessment practices for dyslexia (d) district challenges related to meeting the needs of students with dyslexia (g) parental lack trust in districts when it comes to identification of dyslexia.
The results of the study suggest that district practices that support the identification of dyslexia through a dyslexia protocol within a MTSS creates equity for students with dyslexia, empowers educators, provides academic, social and emotional support for students and families, and decreases the burden for parents to find an
Independent Education Evaluator (IEE). The study’s qualitative design provides descriptive data from interviews and district documents that further the knowledge in the field of education related to the identification of dyslexia.
Based on the findings, the researcher provides six recommendations: (1)
Establish consistent district practices for the identification of dyslexia, (2) Recommend university accreditation and professional development for dyslexia, (3) Create mandatory screening protocol for dyslexia, (4) Implement Structured Literacy© programs to meet the instructional needs of students with dyslexia, (5) Deliver consistent special education services for students with dyslexia, and (6) Provide support to students and families regarding dyslexia
iv
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family. First, my husband, Todd. Your love of Christ and our family inspires me to be all that God created me to be. Your faithful dedication, support, and encouragement empowered me throughout this long journey, even when I wavered from time to time. I am forever thankful for the sacrifices you have made so that I could pursue my dreams. I am blessed beyond measure to share my life with you. From the bottom of heart, thank you, Todd. Next, my children, Robert and
Sarah. The most important job of my life is being a mom. You have both supported me and sacrificed over the many years I have been in school. For this I am forever thankful.
I have learned of God’s miracles, grace, and love through both of you. You both encouraged me to the finish line through your belief that I could get there. Next, my mom and dad. You have always been there for me showing me unconditional love. You are both hard-working, driven individuals that instilled in me a work ethic and drive toward any passion imaginable. You encouraged me to dream big, whether athletics, school, family or faith. Next, my sisters, Chris, Julie and Vicki. I cherish each of you, as you are all so different. Through the laughter and tears, we stay close and strong as a family unit and for this I am grateful. You were all there for me when I needed someone to lean on. Thank you. Finally, my mother-in-law, Bonnie. Your example as a working, single mom, inspires me. You overcame many obstacles and raised an amazing son, my soul mate. For this I am forever thankful.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to express gratitude to my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Lisa Lenhart for her dedication and encouragement over this long academic journey. You provided me with the guidance that I needed throughout the process to accomplish my goals. I’m thankful our paths crossed years ago when you participated in a Structured Literacy© class I was teaching. I have grown as a student, teacher, researcher and person because of you.
To my doctoral committee members Dr. Xin Liang, Dr. Harold Foster, Dr.
Gordon-Pershey, and Dr. Juvancic-Heltzel, thank you for your support of my topic, your guidance in the area of academic writing and research design, and the time and commitment to the many drafts over the course of several years.
A special thank you to the participants in the study. I am grateful for your willingness to contribute to the field of educational research and the possibilities that exist because of your honesty and dedication to public education.
Deep gratitude to my friends and colleagues for encouraging me, listening to me endlessly talk about “my paper” and staying by my side.
To my former students with dyslexia, you are my “why” and the reason I believe the goal of literacy is reachable for students with learning challenges.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ...... xii
LIST OF FIGURES ...... xiv
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Overview of Dyslexia...... 3
Federal Laws for Dyslexia ...... 4
State Legislation for Dyslexia ...... 7
State-Level Grassroots Organizations for Dyslexia ...... 9
Early Identification of Dyslexia ...... 10
Delayed Identification of Dyslexia ...... 15
Response to Intervention (RTI) ...... 17
Under-Identification of Dyslexia ...... 19
Problem Statement ...... 20
Purpose Statement ...... 21
Research Question ...... 22
Importance of the Study ...... 22
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 23
Literacy...... 23
vii Reading...... 25
Reading Achievement ...... 33
Reading Difficulties ...... 35
Definition of Dyslexia ...... 39
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act...... 42
State Legislation for Dyslexia ...... 44
Identification of Dyslexia ...... 58
Dyslexia Screening ...... 60
Response to Intervention (RTI) ...... 64
Definition of Terms and Abbreviations ...... 66
III. METHODOLOGY ...... 68
Research Purpose ...... 68
Research Question ...... 69
Qualitative Paradigm and Tradition ...... 69
Case Study Design ...... 70
Sampling and Selection Procedure ...... 72
Data Collection Procedures ...... 75
Data Collection ...... 77
Interviews ...... 78
Documents ...... 85
Data Analysis and Management ...... 85
Ethical Considerations ...... 86
Trustworthiness ...... 89
viii Summary ...... 91
IV. RESULTS ...... 92
Context of the Research ...... 92
Data Collection Procedures ...... 97
Interviews ...... 98
Documents ...... 99
Data Analysis Procedures ...... 100
Open Coding ...... 100
Axial Coding ...... 104
Selective Coding ...... 112
Themes ...... 114
Triangulation ...... 117
Trustworthiness ...... 117
Findings ...... 118
Theme One: Inconsistencies in Handling Identification of Dyslexia as District Practices ...... 120
Theme Two: Perceptions and Misperceptions of Dyslexia ...... 123
Theme Three: Varied Screening and Assessment Practices for Dyslexia ...... 127
Theme Four: District Challenges Related to Meeting the Needs of Students with Dyslexia ...... 131
Theme Five: Parents Lack Trust in Districts Related to the Identification of Dyslexia ...... 138
Summary ...... 139
V. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 141
ix
Summary of the Results ...... 142
Discussion of the Results ...... 143
District Practices for Dyslexia ...... 143
Perceptions and Misperceptions of Dyslexia ...... 145
Screening and Assessment Practices for Dyslexia ...... 146
District Challenges Related to Meeting the Needs of Students with Dyslexia ...... 148
Parental Lack of Trust in Districts Regarding Identification of Dyslexia ...... 150
Recommendations Resulting from this Study ...... 151
Recommendation 1: Establish Consistent District Practices for the Identification of Dyslexia ...... 151
Recommendation 2: Recommend University Accreditation and Professional Development for Dyslexia ...... 155
Recommendation 3: Create Mandatory Screening Protocol for Dyslexia ...... 156
Recommendation 4: Implement Structured Literacy© to Meet the Instructional Needs of Students with Dyslexia ...... 157
Recommendation 5: Deliver Consistent Special Education Services for Students with Dyslexia ...... 158
Recommendation 6: Provide Support to Students and Families Regarding Dyslexia ...... 158
Limitations ...... 159
Implications of the Study ...... 160
Recommendations for Future Research ...... 168
Conclusion ...... 168
x REFERENCES ...... 170
APPENDICES ...... 183
A. DISTRICT CONSENT EMAIL ...... 184
B. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ...... 185
C. PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM ...... 187
D. DYSLEXIA CHECKLIST...... 189
E. INTERNAL REVIEW BOARD NOTICE OF APROVAL ...... 199
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1. Key symptoms of dyslexia and dyslexic tendencies (Mather & Wendling, 2012) ...... 41
Table 2.2 Sample of state dyslexia laws (Youman & Mather, 2018) ...... 55
Table 3.1 Ohio Report Card grades for participating districts (Ohio Department of Education, 2018) ...... 73
Table 3.2 Improving at-risk K-3 readers measure for participating district (Ohio Department of Education, 2019 ...... 75
Table 3.3 District demographic data 2018-19 school year ...... 80
Table 3.4 Field test interview questions ...... 81
Table 3.5 Sample responses to the question regarding how students with dyslexia are identified and services ...... 83
Table 4.1 District demographics and typology data 2018-19 school year ...... 94
Table 4.2 Description of participants ...... 95
Table 4.3 Date and time log of interviews ...... 99
Table 4.4 Results from open coding with five or more occurrences across two data types ...... 101
Table 4.5 Results from axial coding ...... 105
Table 4.6 Code quantity by category ...... 114
Table 4.7 Identification, intervention, and services of dyslexia by district ...... 115
Table 4.8 Member check comments ...... 119
xii
Table 5.1 District dyslexia protocol sample ...... 152
Table 5.2 Conference session exit slip results from preliminary findings ...... 162
Table 5.3 Participant comments from conference exit slips ...... 167
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1 Pathways for the identification and provision of instruction for students with dyslexia in Texas (Texas Education Agency, 2018) ...... 13
Figure 2.1 Simple view of reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) ...... 27
Figure 2.2 Scarborough’s reading rope (Scarborough, 2001) ...... 28
Figure 2.3 Reading systems in brain (Shaywitz, 2003) ...... 30
Figure 2.4 Four part processing system (Adams, 1990)...... 32
Figure 2.5 Quadrants of language skills on a continuum (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) ...... 38
Figure 2.6 Neural signature for dyslexia (Shaywitz, 2003) ...... 40
Figure 3.1 Sample data analysis of field test interview data in Excel ...... 82
Figure 4.1 Sample axial coding for the open code identification ...... 113
Figure 4.2 Triangulation process ...... 117
Figure 4.3 Descriptive findings related to dyslexia and student success ...... 140
xiv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Despite worldwide advancements in education, illiteracy remains a vexing problem. According to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2017), there are 750 million illiterate adults globally. The inability to read leads to students with relatively low literacy achievement that have more behavioral and social problems in subsequent grades (Miles & Stipek, 2006). Reading is an essential skill in many aspects of social and professional life (Miles & Stipek, 2006). Life takes on many paths for people who are illiterate. The topic of illiteracy is personal. My father, sister, and niece struggled to learn to read. Despite low literacy skills, my father learned the trade of upholstery, and my sister learned cosmetology. However, my niece became a drug addict after years of failed attempts in school. The following paper is a factual account of reading problems, as well as a personal journey. Not many people can say they taught their dad to read.
Reading is a process in which the reader translates symbols on a page into words and then attaches meaning to those words. The purposes of reading are for pleasure, to gain information, or to critique. According to McFarland, Hussar, deBrey, Snyder, Wang, and
Wilkinson-Flicker (2017), the average reading performance on the U.S. National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has remained basically unchanged since
1992. In 2015, only 36% of fourth-grade students and 34% of eighth-grade students performed at or above the proficient achievement level. The report indicates some of the
1 racial and ethnic achievement gaps have narrowed since 1992, but the gender gap persists, with female students scoring higher than male students. Differences in reading proficiency are also significant between students who receive free or reduced-price lunch
(a measure of family income), at 79% non-proficient, compared to students who did not receive free or reduced-price lunch, at 48% non-proficient.
Correlations between underachievement in reading and various factors abound, such as with the environment (Hernandez, 2011), the teacher (Ryder, Sekulski, &
Silberg, 2003), the program, meaning curriculum and instructional content (Garan,
2004), the instruction and teaching approaches (Vadasy, Sanders, & Peyton, 2006), or with differences in the brain, such as in dyslexia (Ferrer, Shaywitz, Holahan, Marchione,
& Shaywitz, 2010). There are three distinct environments where new policies and programs could foster children's school success (Hernandez, 2011). The first is the family because poverty and limits on available resources in the home can undermine children's capacity and opportunities to learn. Second is schools, which have the immediate responsibility for teaching children to read. Third is federal, state, and local policy, which can profoundly influence the organization and focus of schools and the extent to which children and families live in poverty. There are associations between socioeconomic status, home literacy environment, and reading achievement
(Friedlander, 2013). In the early years, it is often difficult to determine whether students are struggling with early reading skills because of a learning disability or because of external factors such as inadequate instruction, an ineffective teacher, or a program that does not meet the students' learning needs. The environment, program of instruction,
2 instructional content, and teaching approaches are key to the reading success of all learners. However, learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, also affect learning to read.
Overview of Dyslexia
The term dyslexia originates from two Greek parts: (1) dys, which means difficulty, and (2) lexia, which means words, reading, or language. Dyslexia can be defined as unexpected difficulty in reading in students who otherwise have the intelligence and motivation that is necessary for fluent reading, and who also have had reasonable reading instruction (Ferrer et al., 2010). The International Dyslexia
Association (2017) stated dyslexia is a language-based learning disability that refers to a cluster of symptoms that result from people having difficulties with specific language skills, particularly reading. Early identification of dyslexia allows interventions to be implemented before a downward spiral of underachievement, lowered self-esteem, and reduced motivation sets in (Hulme, Nash, Gooch, Lervåg, & Snowling, 2015; Snowling,
2013). If unidentified, students with dyslexia continue to fall behind not only in reading but in academics in general, which is why it is critical to address early reading concerns like dyslexia at the outset (Germano & Capellini, 2017). Dyslexia is not curable but is treatable if identified early.
The prevalence of dyslexia depends upon the precise definition and criteria used for its diagnosis. Horowitz, Rawe, and Wittaker (2017) reported that 20% of children in the U.S. to have learning and attention issues, but only a small number is formally identified with a disability in school. According to the 2017 Condition of Education report (McFarland et al., 2017), 35% of children and youth receiving special education services are identified under the category of specific learning disabilities (SLD).
3 Horowitz et al. (2017) reported that 6% of public-school students to have Individualized
Education Programs (IEPs) for an SLD such as dyslexia. The U.S. Department of
Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS) recommends that state and local education agencies have policies in place that allow for the use of the term dyslexia on a child's IEP if a child's comprehensive evaluation supports the use of the term (OSERS, 2015). According to the IDA (2017), 13 to 14% of the school population nationwide has a condition that qualifies them for special education. Between 15 to 20% of the general population has some of the symptoms of dyslexia, including slow or inaccurate and non-fluent reading, and poor spelling.
There are three federal laws designed to protect rights for students with dyslexia:
(1) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004); (2) Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and 3) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990). These laws describe the rights of students with dyslexia and other specific learning disabilities.
The students are legally entitled to special services to help them overcome and be accommodated for their learning difficulties.
Federal Laws for Dyslexia
IDEA (IDEA, 2004) is a law that makes available a free and appropriate public education to eligible children with disabilities throughout the nation and ensures special education and related services to those children. IDEA was previously known as the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) (Public Law No. 94-142), enacted in 1975 to support states and localities in protecting the rights of and improving the results for individuals with disabilities. Several key amendments to the EHA took place between 1975 and 1997. The 1986 amendment (PL 99-457) to the EHA mandated that
4 states provide programs and services from birth. The 1990 amendment (PL 101-476) reauthorized the EHA and changed the title to IDEA. The 1997 amendment (PL 105-17) supported initiatives for transition services from high school to adult living. In 2004
IDEA was reauthorized with additional procedures for identifying children with specific learning disabilities. IDEA guides how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to eligible children and youth with disabilities. IDEA seeks to provide children with disabilities the same opportunity for education as those students who do not have a disability. At a minimum, state regulations must provide all the protections stipulated in the federal IDEA. IDEA lists dyslexia as an example of a specific learning disability (SLD), but it does not specify how dyslexia is defined or how services should be provided for students with dyslexia in public schools (Ward-Lonergan & Duthie, 2018). Special education services provided to children with dyslexia vary significantly across states.
IDEA lists 13 categories of eligibility for special education services in public schools. One of the IDEA categories is SLD, which includes dyslexia as one type of
SLD. SLD, defined in part as “a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia” (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004, pp. 11-12). IDEA (2004) included dyslexia in the category of SLD but does not include a definition or specify how services should be
5 provided in K-12 public schools. The exact manner by which the law is implemented is left to individual states and districts.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (United States Department of
Health, 1978)) is a civil rights law that covers individuals with disabilities that substantially limit a major life activity. Major life activities include walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, working, caring for oneself, and performing manual tasks (Disability Rights & Education Fund, 2019). Schools must provide students with reasonable accommodations, so they get the same level of education as that provided to their peers (Disability Rights & Education Fund, 2019). Section 504 protects students who may not qualify under IDEA. This law prohibits organizations that receive federal funding, such as a school, from discriminating against people with disabling conditions. The Office of Civil Rights helps oversee compliance with Section
504. For some students, receiving the appropriate accommodations and modifications is the only way they will be successful in school. A student with dyslexia is considered to have a disability within the scope of Section 504 if it substantially limits the student's learning, one of the major life activities covered by the law.
The ADA (ADA, 1990), signed in 1990 and again in 2009, guarantees equal opportunities for people with disabilities in areas such as public accommodations, employment, and transportation (ADA National Network, 2017). ADA extends to all the activities of state and local governments. Services covered by this law include providing closed captioning in both internal and external video communication for students who are deaf or hard of hearing, wheelchair ramps for most businesses, churches, schools and other organizations, and buses from both public and private transportation organizations
6 (ADA National Network, 2017). Together, IDEA, Section 504, and ADA work to ensure that those with disabilities, such as dyslexia, have the right to fully access programs and services available to any other individuals.
State Legislation for Dyslexia
Many states proposed or passed dyslexia laws that provide more detail than
IDEA 2004 and attempt to provide students with dyslexia additional rights and protections, such as identification, interventions, accommodations, and support services.
These state laws are directed at trying to ensure consistency in services provided to students with dyslexia across school districts within a state (Morin, n.d.). The driving force for many proposed state dyslexia laws is directly related to issues expressed and actions taken by groups of parents, teachers, and other professionals concerned with the extent and quality of services provided to children and adolescents with dyslexia in school settings (Ward-Lonergan & Duthie, 2018). As of June 2019, 43 states passed dyslexia-specific laws and, among the states that passed laws, most updated the education codes to define dyslexia and provide guidelines to school districts on how to identify dyslexia and provide evidence-based interventions (Youman & Mather, 2018).
The laws and guidelines focus mostly upon dyslexia awareness (Peterson & Pennington,
2012), screening (Catts, 2015), intervention (Denton & Otaiba, 2011), teacher training
(Shaywitz, 2003), accommodations (Texas Education Agency, 2018), and overall rights for individuals with dyslexia (IDEA, 2004).
Many states, through grassroots parent organizations such as Decoding Dyslexia, are advocating for dyslexia awareness and a precise definition of dyslexia based on the guidelines of the IDA (Youman & Mather, 2018). Massachusetts House Bill 330 (2017)
7 cites the National Institutes of Health definition of dyslexia as a Neurological Learning
Disability (Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003) in contrast to the vague description of dyslexia as just one type of SLD in IDEA (Youman & Mather, 2018). Some states' laws, like Arizona, Ohio, and Maine's dyslexia laws, include a definition of dyslexia and other states' laws, like Colorado, California, and Louisiana's laws, focus on assessment and identification. Additionally, Kansas, Arkansas, and Minnesota's dyslexia laws include screening students for risk factors for dyslexia.
Ohio's dyslexia law, Ohio Revised Code House Bill 96 (2011), was enacted in
2011 to assess the effectiveness of early screening and reading programs for children at risk of reading failure, including those students with risk factors associated with dyslexia, and assess whether those programs can reduce special education costs. The
Ohio Department of Education enacted a dyslexia pilot project to fulfill the law. The pilot project involved school districts to provide screening and intervention services for children with risk factors for dyslexia. The pilot project operated for four full school years, beginning with the 2012-13 school year. The pilot project's goal was to evaluate the effectiveness of early screening and reading programs for children at risk for reading failure, including those students with risk factors for dyslexia and to evaluate whether those programs can reduce future education costs. The four participating school districts in year four (2015-16) included Cincinnati Public Schools, Edison Local School
Districts, Indian Creek Local School District, and Shawnee Local School District
(Morrison, Collins, & Hawkins, 2016). Results of the Ohio dyslexia pilot project indicate positive outcomes for students in the earliest grade levels were sustained in year four (Morrison et al., 2016). A review of the screening results for students who
8 participated in the Pilot Project shows the reduced risk for reading failure for a stable group of students in kindergarten, first and second grade (Morrison et al., 2016). The reduction in risk was not evident at grade 3 (Morrison et al., 2016). Schools improved their capacity to conduct universal screening for reading difficulties and match students to early intervention matched to their level of need (Morrison et al., 2016). Schools showed a difference between 15% and 12% of students with disabilities, representing
105 students, who will not require special education services because their literacy needs will be addressed through early intervention (Morrison et al., 2016). According to
Morrison et al. (2016), meeting students' needs proactively through early identification is cost-effective by reducing the need for special education services and ensuring that each student achieves proficiency in literacy. Unlike Texas and Arkansas, Ohio does not require students with dyslexia to be identified and reported. Individuals qualify for special education services through the IDEA eligibility category of SLD as basic reading skills, fluency, or comprehension. In Ohio, an individual with dyslexia may fall into one or more of these areas depending on the severity and secondary consequences.
State-Level Grassroots Organizations for Dyslexia
State dyslexia laws are often spearheaded by grassroots organizations such as
Decoding Dyslexia. The Decoding Dyslexia organization is grassroots, parent-driven movement, founded in 2011, that has been influential in promoting public awareness regarding the importance of improving services for students with dyslexia (Decoding
Dyslexia, 2013). Their mission is to raise dyslexia awareness, help families to support their children, and inform policymakers on best practices to identify, remediate, and assist students with dyslexia (Decoding Dyslexia, 2013). The Decoding Dyslexia
9 movement, represented in all 50 states, focuses on educating and empowering parents, providing resources, and support and rallying parents to approach state lawmakers about much-needed changes when it comes to dyslexia identification and remediation
(Decoding Dyslexia, 2013). This grassroots organization was formed to advocate for policy goals to be implemented within the public education system because of the specificity IDEA lacks. According to Linchtenstein (2018), the common element that has organized and united parent advocates is seeing their children struggle with reading, and having schools fall short in responding to students' reading difficulties. Linchtenstein
(2018) reported that parents from Oregon to Florida told virtually the same story of learning on their own and with the guidance of other parents that their child's lack of progress in reading might be attributed to dyslexia and finding that school districts were not prepared to evaluate, identify, and provide appropriate instruction for dyslexia.
Early Identification of Dyslexia
Throughout the U.S., the protocol for appropriate identification of and interventions for dyslexia is inconsistent. Snowling (2013) reported the risk of reading and writing difficulties is apparent early in development, and a screening tool targeting early language, literacy, and communication skills can identify children who will go on to be dyslexic. The foundation of reading is identifying and naming the letters of the alphabet and producing their corresponding speech sounds (Snowling, 2013). One of the early signs of dyslexia is difficulty gaining letter knowledge, with phonological awareness and rapid naming difficulties affecting the underlying processes that support developing letter skills (Snowling, 2013). Screening protocols are used to alert teachers to dyslexic tendencies (Germano & Capellini, 2017). A teacher can use informal
10 procedures to explore a child's phonological awareness development through (1) word discrimination, (2) rhyme recognition, (3) rhyme production, (3) syllable blending, (4) syllable segmentation, (5) syllable deletion, (6) phoneme recognition, (7) phoneme blending, and (8) phoneme segmentation (Mather & Wendling, 2012). A teacher can also observe if a child is struggling with naming known objects, colors, or letters in the course of normal activity (Mather & Wendling, 2012). Additionally, students with dyslexia have difficulty with verbal working memory tasks and phonological working memory tasks, such as reversing the sounds in a word (Hulme & Snowling, 2009).
The identification and intervention process for dyslexia is multifaceted and begins with the process of universal screening. Universal screening is an informal measure administered to all students by qualified people to decide which students are at risk for dyslexia or a related disorder (Gilbert, Compton, Fuchs & Fuchs, 2012).
Instruments used for universal screening at the kindergarten level must address phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, sound-symbol recognition, letter knowledge, decoding skills, spelling, and listening comprehension (Texas Education
Agency, 2018). In first grade, reading rate and accuracy should be added to the skills assessed in kindergarten (Texas Education Agency, 2018). It is important that schools monitor students for common risk factors for dyslexia in second grade and beyond
(Texas Education Agency, 2018). A qualified team is necessary to review the data to make informed decisions regarding whether a student exhibits characteristics of dyslexia
(Texas Education Agency, 2018). Students scoring at risk receive follow-up classroom interventions through a Response to Intervention (RTI) or Multitiered System of
Supports (MTSS) model (Spencer, Wagner, Schatschneider, Quinn, Lopez, & Petscher,
11 2014). On-going progress monitoring allows educators to assess student academic performance to evaluate student's responses to evidence-based targeted instruction
(Spencer et al., 2014). If the team speculates that the student has dyslexia, they should consider the type of instruction that would best meet the student's needs (Spencer et al.,
2014). Structured Literacy© approach prepares students to decode words in an explicit and systematic manner and is recommended for students with dyslexia (IDA, 2015). If consistent progress monitoring reflects a difficulty with reading, decoding, or reading comprehension, it is necessary to refer the student for a formal evaluation for dyslexia
(Texas Education Agency, 2018). The referral process follows a basic framework based on data (Texas Education Agency, 2018).
IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 guides the evaluation, identification, and provision of services for students with dyslexia. (IDEA, 2004) (Texas
Education Agency, 2018). Data and the student's individual need to determine which law applies (Texas Education Agency, 2018). All IDEA procedures for a special education evaluation must be followed when a student is suspected of having dyslexia (Texas
Education Agency, 2018). Schools must follow federal and state guidelines. However, it is recommended that they develop local procedures that address the needs of students with dyslexia (Texas Education Agency, 2018). Figure 1.1 describes the pathways for the identification and provision of instruction for students with dyslexia in Texas (Texas
Education Agency, 2018). The evaluation process starts with gathering cumulative data on the student's academic history to ensure that the difficulties are not due to lack of appropriate instruction, environmental factors, or socioeconomic status (Texas
Education Agency, 2018). The team determines based on cumulative data whether the
12
Figure 1.1. Pathways for the identification and provision of instruction for students with dyslexia in Texas (Texas Education Agency, 2018).
13 student needs interventions and accommodations specific to their suspected dyslexia that can be evaluated under Section 504 or the student's reading difficulties may warrant evaluation under IDEA (Texas Education Agency, 2018).
A formal evaluation includes both formal and informal data to decide whether a student demonstrates a pattern of evidence that indicates dyslexia (Texas Education
Agency, 2018). A diagnostic evaluation determines what process or processes are not working and how they are affecting and slowing reading and spelling development
(Hulme & Snowling, 2009). A multiple deficit approach is important when studying and diagnosing a complex disorder such as dyslexia (McGrath, Pennington, Shanahan,
Santerre-Lemmon, Barnard, Willcutt, & Olson, 2011). Impaired phonological awareness is often described as the key deficit, early marker, proximal cause, or predominant core cognitive correlate of dyslexia (Shaywitz, 2003). Instruments are available to assess various aspects of phonological processing, such as the Comprehensive Test of
Phonological Awareness (CTOPP). In addition to phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming (RAN) has been identified as a core area associated with dyslexia
(Mather & Wendling, 2012). The CTOPP also includes standard measures of rapid naming. Dyslexia is also related to verbal working memory and phonological working memory weaknesses found on standardized measures Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children, 4th edition of the Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Cognitive Abilities (Mather
& Wendling, 2012).
A team of professionals will need to look beyond scores on standardized assessments and consider the student's reading performance in the classroom, educational history, early language experiences, and, when necessary, the academic
14 potential to assist in determining the identification of dyslexia (Texas Education Agency,
2018). The results of the evaluation will determine whether a student meets the criteria for eligibility for special education services. In IDEA (IDEA, 2004), dyslexia is considered one of the varieties of etiological foundations for specific learning disabilities
(SLD). An IEP must include appropriate reading instruction based on student's needs
(Yudin, 2015). Figure 3.8 (in Chapter III) describes the pathways for the identification and provision of instruction for students with dyslexia in Texas (Texas Education
Agency, 2018). Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998, p. 21) asserted that “academic success, as defined by high school graduation, can be predicted with reasonable accuracy by knowing someone's reading skill at the end of third grade. A person who is not at least a modestly skilled reader by that time is unlikely to graduate from high school.” Early identification of dyslexia is essential for future academic success because it is more effective to prevent problems before becoming serious than to wait until they are fully developed.
Delayed Identification of Dyslexia
In the absence of screening, progress monitoring, or providing evidence-based interventions, the identification of dyslexia will be delayed (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009).
The identification of dyslexia in elementary school is often delayed based on a “wait-to- fail” approach (Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007). Traditional eligibility models depend on referrals, usually in the later grades and after failure (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). This is problematic because older struggling students require more intensive remediation as they fall behind, which leads to more costly interventions and requires more individual attention and smaller group instruction for gains to be made. Dyslexia is often
15 unidentified until the end of the second or the beginning of third grade, even though interventions are most effective in kindergarten or first grade, which makes remediation more difficult (Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007). This difficulty lies with the fact that students in the second and third grades are expected to read to learn information, and if the foundational skills of letter recognition and phonemic awareness are not mastered, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension are impeded (Chall, 1983).
Delayed identification of dyslexia is associated with psychological and clinical consequences. Children with dyslexia show more occurrences of internalizing anxious and depressive symptoms (Mugnaini, Lassi, La Malfa, & Albertini, 2009). The chances are less they will complete high school (Jimerson, Egeland, Sroufe, & Carlson, 2000) or enroll in programs of higher education (Dougherty, 2003). Last, the identification of dyslexia influences one's self-esteem (Glazzard, 2010). Glazzard (2010) found that a significant factor that contributed to students' self-esteem was a definite diagnosis and ownership of the label dyslexia, concluding that early diagnosis is essential for creating a positive self-image.
According to Snowling (2013), school systems should enact policies and procedures that empower teachers to identify children with special learning needs early in their schooling. Recommended district policies include a screening tool targeting early language, literacy, and communication skills, which have the potential to identify children who may go on to be dyslexic (Snowling, 2013). An RTI approach is suggested for monitoring students' progress with targeted interventions using a systematic phonics approach (Snowling, 2013). Additionally, policies should include teacher training on the progression of phonemic and phonic related skills such as rhyming, alliteration, and
16 letter-sound knowledge (Snowling, 2013). This would allow targeted interventions to prevent problems from becoming serious (Snowling, 2013). My niece was identified with an SLD in reading during the early grades. However, she was not provided interventions that taught her to read, which negatively impacted her self-esteem. She became depressed, and at 12 years old, started self-medicating with drugs and alcohol.
She has been in and out of prison and currently lives with a drug dealer. A downward spiral of illiteracy remains painfully personal. In an attempt to identify reading issues early, many districts use a process known as response to intervention (RTI).
Response to Intervention (RTI)
Within the RTI process, each school district uses data from interventions to determine eligibility for special education services, appropriate instructional practices, and access to the general curriculum (Special Education Guide, 2019). Along with the screening, progress monitoring, and using evidence-based interventions, RTI provides student data showing discrepancies relative to age-based expectations and instruction for the identification of learning disabilities like dyslexia (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). The data on instructional response lead to evaluations that ask how to teach best the child
(Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). The key components of RTI are typically operationalized within the framework of a multitiered instructional model (Barth, Stuebing, Anthony,
Denton, Mathes, Fletcher, & Francis, 2008). In the primary tier, intervention provides differentiated, scientifically based instruction to all students in general education classrooms (Bart et al., 2008). Data from universal screening and repeated progress monitoring using curriculum-based measures (CBMs) over time are used to inform instructional decisions and guide the differentiation of instruction (Bart et al., 2008). The
17 secondary tier provides identified at-risk students specialized instruction with increased intensity and more differentiation, typically in small group settings (Bart et al., 2008).
Progress monitoring using CBMs continues to inform intervention effectiveness (Bart et al., 2008). Students who do not respond to primary and secondary tier interventions advance to tertiary interventions with more intensity and differentiation, as well as, potentially initiating a comprehensive evaluation by a multi-disciplinary team to determine eligibility for special education (Bart et al., 2008).
RTI's main goals are to identify at-risk students for early intervention and prevention and recognize those for whom such early intervention is ineffective and to ensure that they get more intensive instruction and possibly special education (Compton et al., 2012). Within the RTI framework, schools identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, including those at risk for dyslexia, monitor their progress, and provide interventions. However, there is sometimes reluctance to identify children at risk for academic difficulties. Some educators hold the belief that a student will “grow out of it” and that children differ, and we should not try to fit them into a mold. The RTI approach is shown as an effective means of identifying children who may later qualify for reading disability status (Vellutino, Scanlon, Zhang, & Schatschneider, 2008).
However, the Institute of Education Science (2015) evaluation of RTI suggested that reading instruction is far from optimal, even in schools that are implementing RTI (Balu,
Zhu, Doolittle, Schiller, Jenkins & Gersten, 2015). According to the Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS, 2015), RTI may not be used to delay or deny a full and individual evaluation of a child suspected of having a disability. Even with systemic processes like RTI, dyslexia may not be identified early due to a lack of
18 understanding of dyslexia and the key deficits, early markers, proximal causes, or predominate core cognitive correlates (Shaywitz, 2003).
Under-Identification of Dyslexia
Early identification of later reading difficulties is not an exact science. Screening is intended to identify children who need special instructional attention (Poulsen, 2018).
The sensitivity of a screening tool is the percentage of children who are correctly flagged for being at risk (true positives) out of all the students who will experience difficulties
(Poulsen, 2018). The specificity (false positives) of a screening tool is the percentage of children who will not develop difficulties, but who are incorrectly identified as being at risk (Poulsen, 2018). The aim is to keep the false positive rate low (Poulsen, 2018).
Poulsen, Nielsen, Juul, and Elbro (2017) found that an early screening procedure for students from kindergarten to second grade that set the cut-off to produce 80% sensitivity resulted in a false positive rate of 29%. Accurate screening procedures use tests of multiple foundational skills and are better at predicting future reading difficulties than others (Poulsen, 2018).
There is some evidence that dyslexia may be under-identified. For example,
Texas and Arkansas passed laws that require public schools to identify, report and treat students with dyslexia separately from students with SLD. However, dyslexia laws in
Texas and Arkansas failed to achieve their intended aim to improve the identification of students in public schools with dyslexia, as reported by an analysis of publicly available data (Phillips & Odegard, 2017). Additionally, Phillips and Odegard (2017) documented that there is not a single student identified with dyslexia after the sixth grade in half of the public schools in the state of Arkansas even though the state is mandated by law to
19 identify and report them annually to the state department of education. The experiences of Texas and Arkansas show the challenges that exist for establishing screening procedures and interpreting the screening results (Phillips & Odegard, 2017). In 2011,
Ohio reported the SLD category, including dyslexia and several other conditions, at
6.20% of overall student enrollment, which is well below the IDA estimate of 15 to 20% of students with dyslexia (IDA, 2017). In this study, the researcher investigated how
Ohio K-12 districts implement federal and state policies for students identified with dyslexia or showing dyslexic tendencies.
Problem Statement
IDEA includes dyslexia in the category of SLD but does not include a definition or specify how services should be provided in K-12 public schools. The exact manner by which the law is implemented is left to individual states and districts. Identification of dyslexia requires clearly defined processes such as screening (Gilbert et al., 2012), tiered classroom interventions (Spencer et al., 2014), progress monitoring (Spencer et al.,
2014) and when necessary formal evaluations using a multiple deficit approach
(McGrath et al., 2011). Many states proposed or passed dyslexia laws to give students with dyslexia additional rights and protections. State laws aimed at trying to ensure consistency in services provided to students with dyslexia across school districts within a state. Due to the lack of universal policies and practices for the identification of dyslexia that leads to identification and treatment of dyslexia, thus this study is designed to investigate how a sample of Ohio K-12 public school districts interpret and implement federal and state policies for students identified with dyslexia or showing dyslexic tendencies, as reported by study participants who are district special education directors,
20 principals, school psychologists, and general and special education teachers. The researcher sought to report how the identification of dyslexia is handled and, once identified, how students are serviced, as well as the participants' knowledge and attitudes related to dyslexia.
Purpose Statement
This study sought to explain how Ohio K-12 public schools interpret and implement federal and state policies related to the identification of dyslexia. The research literature in this area shows the need for exploring constructs related to dyslexia due to a lack of specificity in IDEA related to the definition, screening, identification, and instruction and special education services included in varying state laws. The current study investigated how Ohio K-12 public schools handle the identification process for students with dyslexia or students with dyslexic tendencies. Additionally, the study explored teachers' instructional needs, districts' understanding of federal and state policies, and how early students with dyslexia are identified in Ohio.
This study is significant because it informs the body of literature on early identification and intervention for dyslexia since prevention is preferred before dyslexia becomes fully developed (Compton et al., 2012). It is more economical to provide early intervention than to wait when intervention requires more intense remediation (Morrison et al., 2016). Early intervention will reduce and possibly prevent (Snowling, 2013) serious social and emotional consequences (Miles & Stipek, 2006). The goal is public school district policies and practices that identify dyslexia and provide evidence-based interventions early.
21 Research Question
The study sought to reveal constructs that determine how federal and state policies for identification of and services for students with dyslexia are implemented in
Ohio public schools. The study aimed to find the answer to the following question:
How do Ohio K-12 public educators (a) interpret and (b) implement federal and state policies for the identification of students with dyslexia or showing dyslexic tendencies?
Importance of the Study
When a policy is unclear, it can affect whether and how a child will ever be identified and treated for dyslexia. IDEA (2004) lists dyslexia as an SLD but does not provide a definition and does not tell schools how to address it. The result is that there are differences from state to state (Phillips & Odegard, 2017) in the special education services provided for students with dyslexia. Even different districts and schools in the same state follow different procedures due to the lack of specificity in federal and state dyslexia laws (Youman & Mather, 2018). If untreated, students with dyslexia may encounter academic problems or emotional problems such as depression and anxiety
(Miles & Stipek, 2006). Additionally, they may not reach their potential in life due to a lack of literacy skills (Miles & Stipek, 2006). The findings from the current study by answering the research question will provide data to inform Ohio policy makers regarding identification of dyslexia.
22
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter examines the relevant literature in the field, considering questions around (1) literacy, (2) reading, (3) reading achievement, (4) reading difficulties, (5) definition of dyslexia, (6) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), (7) state legislation for dyslexia, (8) identification of dyslexia, and (9) dyslexia screening, and (10) response to intervention as they relate to the existing body of law and classroom practice.
Literacy
Literacy is the basic ability to read and write required in everyday life. The
International Literacy Association (ILA) defines literacy as “the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, compute, and communicate using visual, audible, and digital materials across disciplines and in any context. Over time, literacy has been applied to a wide range of activities and appears as computer literacy, math literacy, or dietary literacy; in such contexts, it refers to basic knowledge of rather than to anything specific to reading and writing” (International Literacy Association, 2019, p. 20).
Children develop literacy early on through interactions that are physically, emotionally, socially, and cognitively supported in the home and childcare settings by caregivers.
Parents or caregivers share with children how books are to be handled and encourage babbling and scribbling, which are essential parts of learning to be literate.
23 Additionally, families’ model cultural reading and writing behavior. UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2017) reports there are 750 million illiterate adults globally. For many children, literacy comes easily, but others need help unlocking the complexities of reading and writing.
Language development is acquired by most children easily. The domains of language are phonology, morphology, semantics (lexicon), pragmatics, and syntax
(Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Phonology refers to the way the sounds of the language operate (Moats, 2010). Morphology refers to the meaningful units of language and how they combine in word formation (Moats, 2010). Semantics is the way that language conveys meaning (Moats, 2010). Pragmatics is the way the members of the interactional community achieve their goals using language (Moats, 2010). Lexicon-as part of semantics- or vocabulary applies to stored information about the meanings and pronunciation of words (Moats, 2010). For children learning an alphabetic language, phonological awareness, and phonemic awareness are essential ingredients (Moats,
2010).
Phonological awareness is a general appreciation of the sounds of spoken language as distinct from their meaning (Moats, 2010). Phonemic awareness pertains to an understanding that words divide into a sequence of speech sounds (known as phonemes) (Moats, 2010). For most children, a knowledge of the phonological structure of language generally develops gradually over the preschool years. During the school years, children learn phonics and phonological decoding. Phonics is instructional practices that emphasize how letter spellings are related to phonemes in systematic ways
(Moats, 2010). Decoding involves deriving a pronunciation for a printed sequence of
24 letters based on knowledge of spelling-sound correspondences (Moats, 2010). Skilled readers are accurate and fluent while comprehending the text. However, a deficiency in any one of the domains of language will hinder progress toward becoming a reader.
Reading
Our society centers around literacy. Every subject in school and most daily functioning in our society requires reading at some level. The International Literacy
Association (ILA) defines reading as “the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language”
(International Literacy Association, 2019, p. 27). Early childhood education theorist
Jeanne Chall laid out the stages of reading development (Chall, 1983). The pre-reading stage, stage zero, covers birth until the beginning of formal education.
Children learn concepts of print, such as recognizing signs and letters in their names. They often pretend to read books at this stage. In stage one, the initial reading or decoding stage, children learn the letters and associating these with the corresponding parts of spoken words. Phase two, known as confirmation and fluency, consolidates what one acquires in stage one. Students gain courage and skill in using context and increase fluency and speed. Phase three, reading to learn, is where students learn new knowledge, information, thoughts, and experiences from reading. Stage four, multiple viewpoints involve dealing with more than one point of view. Students can deal with layers of facts and concepts added to those acquired earlier. In stage five, construction and reconstruction, reading can be for one's own needs and purposes, both personally and professionally. Reading serves to integrate one's knowledge with that of others, to synthesize these, and to create new knowledge. Learning to read and write relates to
25 children's developmental levels, not a precise chronological or mental age (Snow, Burns,
& Griffin, 1998). Chall's developmental stages of reading inform and guide educators in understanding typical and atypical development for learning to read. Most move along the stages seamlessly, while some fail to develop the skills that would move them to the next developing stage.
Educators must understand the essential components of teaching reading. Gough and Tunmer (1986) formulated the Simple View of Reading (Figure 2.1), which posits that a student's reading comprehension (RC) predicts decoding (D) skills and language comprehension (LC) abilities are known. Reading comprehension comes from skills and knowledge that breaks into two distinct and identifiable categories: decoding and language comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). There are three general types of reading difficulties: poor at language comprehension, weak at decoding, and weaknesses in both areas (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). Both decoding (D) and language comprehension
(LC) abilities are necessary for reading, and both must be strong. Strength in one area (D or LC) cannot compensate for a deficit in the other area (Gough & Tunmer, 1986).
Reading disabilities occur in both domains, decoding and language comprehension— however, the majority of students struggle to interpret the code. The Francis, Kulesz, and
Benoit (2018) study extended the Simple View of Reading to the Complete View of
Reading, which accounts for variation within readers and across texts. The Complete
View of the Reading model illustrates that readers develop differently and approach the reading task differently, showing the differential impact of text features on their fluency
(Francis, Kulesz, & Benoit, 2018). Both the Simple View and Complete View of
26 Reading provide clear guidance for the assessment of students' reading strengths and weaknesses in a way that will guide effective and efficient reading instruction.
Figure 2.1. Simple view of reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986)
The complexities of skilled reading, interconnectedness, interdependence of all the components represent strands of a rope. According to Scarborough (2001), the
“reading rope” (Figure 2.2) consists of lower and upper strands. The word-recognition strands show how phonological awareness, decoding, and sight recognition of familiar words work together as the reader becomes accurate, fluent, and increasingly automatic with repetition and practice (Scarborough, 2001). Phonological awareness is the ability to perceive and manipulate the sounds that make up the words in a person's language
27 (Mather & Wendling, 2012). Phonological awareness abilities include rhyming words, segmenting words into syllables, and isolating and counting the number of phonemes in words (Aaron, Joshi & Quatroche, 2008). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) is rapidly naming familiar objects or symbols (Mather & Wendling, 2012). RAN connects to reading accuracy, reading speed, and reading comprehension (Mather & Wendling,
2012). Concurrently, the language-comprehension strands (background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge) reinforce one another and then weave together with the word-recognition strands to produce a skilled reader (Scarborough, 2001). The process requires instruction and practice over time as, for many children, learning to read is a challenging undertaking. Scarborough's reading rope (2001) is similar to Gough and Tunmer's simple view (1986), where the integration of subskills leads to skilled reading in the form of reading comprehension.
Figure 2.2. Scarborough’s reading rope (Scarborough, 2001) 28 Skilled readers can not only identify words in a text but are good at comprehension. The two significant elements of reading are decoding and comprehension (Henry, 2003). Decoding involves the skills and knowledge by which a reader translates printed words into speech (Henry, 2003). Comprehension is the ability to understand the words, sentences, and connected text that one reads (Henry, 2003).
According to Henry (2003), we need to decode the words to assign meaning to words, sentences, and texts. Word identification means that the reader can read and pronounce a written word. Clarke, Snowling, Truelove, and Hulme (2010) reported findings that metacognitive strategies, inferencing skills, and oral language interventions are associated with gains in reading comprehension. In some cases, students may read the words accurately but not comprehend what they are reading. Understanding and remembering what one reads is the goal of reading.
Reading development also involves memory span and working memory (Mather
& Wendling, 2012). Memory span is the ability to listen to information and then repeat it accurately in a short period (Mather & Wendling, 2012). A memory span task would be asking a student to repeat a list of words or sentences. Readers must also make associations between verbal and visual associations (Mather & Wendling, 2012).
Working memory involves the capacity to hold information in immediate awareness while manipulating or transforming that information in some way. A working memory task would be to ask the student to repeat a series of sentences and ask them to recall the last word in each sentence. Reading requires cognitive and linguistic abilities (Mather &
Wendling, 2012).
29 Reading is an acquired act that is learned at a conscious level. Sophisticated electronic imaging studies of the reading brain allow researchers to virtually track the printed word as it initially registers as a visual icon, is then transformed into the sounds
(phonemes) of language, and simultaneously activates its meaning stored within the brain's internal dictionary (Shaywitz, 2003). For reading to occur, several essential regions of the left hemisphere of the brain must perform specific jobs in concert (Figure
2.3).
Figure 2.3. Reading systems in brain (Shaywitz, 2003)
For most people, language functions take place in the left cerebral hemisphere of the brain. The back part of the frontal lobe of the brain is known as the phonological processor, depicted in Figure 2.3 as located in Broca's area. This processing system enables us to perceive, remember, interpret, and produce the speech sound system of a
30 language (Moats & Tolman, 2009). The back part of the brain [occipital lobe] supports the orthographic processor.
This processing system receives visual input from printed words. It perceives and recognizes letters, punctuation marks, spaces, and letter patterns in words (Moats &
Tolman, 2009). The left parietal lobe of the brain (at the angular gyrus, shown in Figure
2.3 as the parieto-temporal region) is where these two processing systems communicate to support word recognition and supply the linguistic analysis of the meaning of the printed words read (Moats & Tolman, 2009). Pathways link the occipital and parietal areas to the temporal region, where word meanings and connected language are processed (Figure 2.4). Shaywitz (2003) provided the anatomical correlates of the processors needed for reading. Adams (1990) provided the cognitive-linguistic descriptions of the actions of the brain's processors. The physical aspects show to underlie the lower and the processors. Medical experts became interested in the development of the reading brain and discovered through advanced technologies the many cognitive systems that support reading.
The reading brain develops on a continuum. Novice or beginning readers rely more on intelligent analysis of speech sounds, using frontal regions of the brain (Moats
& Tolman, 2009). They are learning each component skill step-by-step and are not aware of the sound-symbol connections in words that are used to sound out words.
Proficient readers rely more on occipital and parietal regions of the brain because word images have been learned and can be automatically recognized (Moats & Tolman,
2009). Readers become fluent because word recognition is automatic. Word recognition becomes a subconscious process, freeing up attention to focus on understanding and
31
Figure 2.4. Four part processing system (Adams, 1990)
remembering. The two significant subcomponents of reading, word recognition, and decoding, change in relationship to each other between Grades 1 to 8 (Tannenbaum,
Torgesen, & Wagner, 2006). The nature of the skills of reading changes over time. With practice and reading experience, good readers become more fluent because word recognition is automatic. Novice or struggling readers remain inaccurate and non-fluent.
Reading progression develops in phases. According to the Ehri (1996) model of reading development, there are four phases. During the pre-alphabetic period, children cannot read the text independently, but learn the visual features of a word by memory
(Ehri, 1996). They depend on context and pictures to figure out a few words when attempting to read. During the early alphabet phase, children partially use letter-sound correspondence to begin sounding out words when reading (Ehri, 1996). They often use the first sound and guess at the rest of the word. Similar appearing words are confused during this stage. During the later alphabetic phase, children read more rapidly using full 32 phoneme-grapheme mapping (Ehri, 1996). They begin recognizing and using patterns of the language. During the consolidated alphabetic phase, students learn multisyllabic words quickly while associating meaning from the text (Ehri, 1996).
There are progressive stages in reading development. Typically developing children move through the phases at expected ranges of time. Students that struggle in the early phases of Ehri's model rarely catch up to their typically developing peers. Ehri's reading phases are similar to Chall's stage showing the progression of reading development.
Reading Achievement
There are many factors associated with reading achievement such as environmental factors such as socioeconomic status (SES) (Friedlander, 2013), home literacy environment (HLE) (Friedlander, 2013), the teacher (Ryder et al., 2003), and interconnections between cognitive abilities and reading achievement (Ferrer et al.
(2007). To explore the association between SES and HLE with reading achievement,
Friedlander (2013) examined literacy assessments conducted in four countries, Ethiopia,
Mali, the Philippines, and Uganda, by the non-profit organization Save the Children between the years 2008 and 2010. Sample sizes varied in each country from 329 to over
730 students, with grade levels ranging from first to third grade. Regressions determine which variables, SES and HLE, for each construct were most predictive of the specific reading outcome. Friedlander (2013) found that markers of family SES account for significant variance in regression models, predicting early literacy outcomes, and the
HLE of a student was consistently shown as a predictor of literacy achievement across a variety of outcomes and contexts. A child may be struggling with reading due to
33 environmental factors associated with socioeconomic status and home environment or a learning disability, like dyslexia, that is brain-based (Shaywitz, 2003).
The teacher also impacts reading achievement. Research on effective teachers and instruction suggests that the curriculum is not the reason for higher scores; instead, it is the elements of teacher explicitness (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). The major components in systematic, explicit teaching include teaching in small steps, guiding students during the first practice, and providing all students with a high level of successful practice (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). According to Ryder et al. (2003), effective instruction is based on the teacher's intuition and previous training in teaching explicitly and systematically. In addition to socioeconomic status and home environment, students' reading success relies on a knowledgeable and skillful teacher.
Additionally, there are interconnections between cognitive abilities and reading achievement. Ferrer, McArdle, Shaywitz, Holahan, Marchionee, and Shaywitz (2007) found evidence for a strong coupling over time between cognitive abilities and reading for individuals in grades one through twelve. Ferrer et al. (2007) indicated that dynamic interrelations between reading and IQ over time account for differences in reading development. For typical readers, reading and IQ show bidirectional influences, whereas, for both compensated and persistently weak dyslexic readers, these influences are small or unnoticeable. Reading and cognition develop more independently in students with dyslexia (Ferrer et al., 2007). Dyslexic readers developing intelligence seek stimulation in domains other than reading because they read less (Ferrer et al.,
2007). Dyslexic readers characterize by a disruption in the interconnection between IQ and reading over time (Ferrer et al., 2007). The IQ of individuals struggling to learn to
34 read ranges from below average to superior. Therefore, learning to read is independent of ability.
Reading Difficulties
Reading difficulties associate with individual, familial, and demographic risk factors. Physical and clinical conditions that follow from a primary diagnosis such as cognitive deficiencies, hearing impairment, early language impairment, attention deficits, and visual impairments present learning problems, including reading, as a secondary symptom (Snow et al., 1998). Familial risk factors for reading difficulties include a family history of reading problems, home literacy environment, verbal interaction, a language other than English, nonstandard dialect, and family-based socioeconomic status (SES) (Snow et al., 1998). Research on family risk of reading disabilities indicates that approximately 29-66% of children with family risk will develop reading disabilities (Snowling & Melby-Lervåg, 2016). Hess and Holloway
(1984) identified the five areas of family functioning that influence reading development: the value placed on literacy by parents reading themselves, expectations for achievement, availability and use of reading materials, reading with children, and opportunities for verbal interaction. In addition to individual and familial, demographic risk factors include socioeconomic status. The average reading performance on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show differences in reading proficiency are significant between students who receive free or reduced-price lunch (a measure of family income), at 79% non-proficient, compared to students who did not receive free or reduced-price lunch, at 48% non-proficient (McFarland et al., 2017).
35 There are school-based risk factors for reading difficulties. The Louisiana School
Effectiveness Study (Stingfield & Teddlie, 1987) reported classroom practices in ineffective schools, regardless of community SES, characterized by significantly lower rates of student time on task, less amount of new information presented by the teacher, lower rates of teacher communication of high academic expectations, fewer instances of positive reinforcement, more classroom interruptions, more discipline problems, and a classroom atmosphere generally rated as less friendly (Teddlie & Stingfield, 1993).
Follow-up case study findings showed that teachers in ineffective schools failed to cover all the district-mandated materials over the year, failing to provide students with an equal opportunity to learn (Snow et al., 1998).
Ineffective schools were different from their demographically matched peers in the areas of academic focus, daily schedules, resources, administration, and curricula
(Snow et al., 1998). Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton (2010) report that professional capacity such as teachers' knowledge and skills, support for teacher learning, and school-based learning communities, as well as, instructional guidance such as curriculum alignment and academic demands support or undermine school improvement efforts. At the national and state levels, keys to high performing schools include educational policies and changes at the school, and district levels (Thapa, Cohen,
Guffey, & Higgins-D' Alessandro, 2013).
There are two primary sources of reading difficulty, decoding, and comprehension. Some students have inefficient and inaccurate word reading skills that limit their ability to extract meaning. In contrast, other students have reading comprehension difficulties despite intact word-reading skills because their language
36 comprehension is weak (Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2000a). They show weaknesses across a range of language tasks that include semantic processing (Nation & Snowling, 1999), morphosyntactic knowledge (Tong, Deacon, & Cain, 2014), grammar (Stothard &
Hulme, 1992) and inference making, comprehension monitoring, and knowledge and use of story structure (Cain, 2003). Their difficulties with passage-level comprehension are evident when text is read aloud to them, indicating difficulty with language comprehension in general (Cain et al., 2001). Language comprehension skills exist on a continuum from weak to good. The same is true of word-reading skills. Figure 2.5 illustrates the continuum in quadrants.
Good readers are children in the top right quadrant who have both excellent language comprehension and good word-reading skills. Specific Comprehension
Difficulties (SCD) are children with good word-reading skills in the presence of poor language comprehension. Children with classic “dyslexia” have specific difficulties with the word-reading component but have intact language comprehension. Poor readers have weaknesses with both components of word-reading skills and language comprehension.
The Ohio Department of Education passed the Third Grade Reading Guarantee in
2012 to ensure that students are successful in reading before moving to the fourth grade
(Ohio Department of Education, 2018). The Ohio Third Grade Reading Guarantee states that schools must provide supports for struggling readers in the early grades (Ohio
Department of Education, 2018). The school immediately starts a reading improvement plan (RIMP) when a student shows signs they are falling behind in reading (Ohio
Department of Education, 2018). A RIMP intends to support the struggling reader.
Students must meet a minimum score on the reading portion of the state's third grade
37
Figure 2.5. Quadrants of language skills on a continuum (Gough & Tunmer, 1986)
English language arts test given twice during the school year (Ohio Department of
Education, 2018). There are summer and alternative assessment opportunities. The Ohio school report card measures how thriving a school district is at improving at-risk kindergarten through third-grade readers (Ohio Department of Education, 2018). The measure considers how many third-graders met the Third Grade Reading Guarantee requirements for promotion to fourth grade and how many third-graders scored proficient on the state English language arts test (Ohio Department of Education, 2018).
A districts number of students on a reading improvement and monitoring plan (RIMP) deducts from the number of students moved to on track and the total divided by the number of students started off track for a percentage transferred to a letter grade (A-F)
38 looking at how successful the district is an improving at-risk K-3 reader (Ohio
Department of Education, 2018). Ohio Department of Education requires districts to create a RIMP for students showing the need to be proficient by the end of third-grade
(Ohio Department of Education, 2018).
Definition of Dyslexia
Dyslexia is an unexpected difficulty in reading in individuals who otherwise possess the intelligence and motivation necessary for fluent reading, and who also received reasonable reading instruction (Ferrer et al., 2010). Dyslexia is a language- based learning disability that refers to a cluster of symptoms associated with difficulties with reading. The following are primary characteristics of dyslexia: (1) difficulty reading words in isolation, (2) difficulty accurately decoding unfamiliar words, (3) difficulty with oral reading, and (4) difficulty spelling (IDA, 2017).
According to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(2002), dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected concerning other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede the growth of vocabulary and background knowledge (Lyon, Shaywitz &
Shaywitz, 2003, p. 2). Figure 2.6 illustrates the neural signature for dyslexia as the disruption of posterior reading systems. Shaywitz (2003) compares the non-impaired reading brain to that of a brain with dyslexia. The non-impaired reader activates three
39 regions while reading as compared to the reader with dyslexia activating only one, the frontal lobe (Shaywitz, 2003).
Figure 2.6. Neural signature for dyslexia (Shaywitz, 2003)
Dyslexia is not an all-or-none phenomenon and occurs in degrees of severity
(Shaywitz, Escobar, Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Makuch, 1992). Some researchers argue that the current definition of dyslexia limits correct identification. According to Wagner
(2018), existing definitions of dyslexia do not facilitate reliable diagnosis because they rely primarily on a single indicator, such as IQ-achievement discrepancy or RTI.
Expanding definitions of dyslexia to include multiple indicators that incorporate both behavioral test data and biological factors improves the reliability of diagnosis (Spencer,
Wagner, Schatschneider, Quinn, Lopez, & Petscher, 2014). Spencer et al. (2014) recommend combined indicators such as impaired phonological processing, genetic risk factors, environmental risk factors, ADHD, sex, phonological decoding, sight word reading, poor response to the instruction, and listening comprehension better than 40 reading comprehension. Children at risk for dyslexia can be reliably identified even before kindergarten.
Table 2.1 provides the key symptoms of dyslexia and dyslexic tendencies as deficits in phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming, verbal working memory, and letter knowledge. These symptoms showed robust precursors of dyslexia in children as young as age 3 (Gaab, 2017). Dyslexia has the component of deficient memory organization, storage, and retrieval of linguistic and visual elements (Mather &
Wendling, 2012). If the storage in the proper brain areas were good, then the brain would not compensate by using the wrong area. In order to help children with dyslexia, we must find them, and to find them; we must develop a clear, concise way to define the nature of their deficits.
Table 2.1. Key symptoms of dyslexia and dyslexic tendencies (Mather & Wendling, 2012)
Dyslexia Dyslexic Tendencies
Problems decoding or single word Weakness in phonological reading (e.g., accuracy) awareness tasks (e.g., phoneme segmentation, blending, letter naming fluency) Poor reading fluency Difficulty learning letter names Poor spelling Difficulty learning sound-symbol association Deficit in phonological awareness Weakness in phonological memory (e.g., non-word repetition) Word recognition fluency Oral vocabulary
41 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) is a law that makes available a free appropriate public education to qualifying children with disabilities throughout the nation and ensures special education and related services.
IDEA was previously known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) from 1975 to 1990. In 1990, the U.S. Congress reauthorized EHA and changed the title to IDEA (Public Law No. 94-142). Congress reauthorized the IDEA in 2004.
The IDEA governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to eligible children and youth with disabilities.
IDEA explicitly indicates that children be identified for special education only when documented that low achievement is not the result of inadequate instruction, per
34 CFR §§300.309(a)(1), and (b) (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2011). A local education agency (LEA) team made up of teachers, school psychologists, parents, school administrators, and other invited parties make such a determination based on both quantitative and qualitative student data. Upon qualification, the team creates an individualized education plan (IEP), a legal document that lays out the program, or special education instruction, supports, and services needed to make progress in school.
IDEA enumerates a list of conditions under the definition “specific learning disability” (SLD). This list includes dyslexia. IDEA stipulates that: The term 'specific learning disability' means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding 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. Such term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities,
42 brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. (§300.8
(c) (10)) Although IDEA lists dyslexia as an SLD, it does not provide a definition and does not tell schools how to address it. There are many differences state to state in the special education services provided for students with dyslexia. Even different schools in the same district or state may address dyslexia differently. According to Lindstrom
(2018), a greater understanding of the law and specific assessments used for the identification of dyslexia can help the school understand the connection between the criteria for SLD eligibility under IDEA and dyslexia.
The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitation Services (OSERS) received communications from stakeholders, including parents, advocacy groups, and national disability organizations who believed that state education agencies (SEA) and local education agencies (LEA) were reluctant to reference or use dyslexia in evaluations, eligibility determinations, or in developing the
IEP under the IDEA (Yudin, 2015). In order to prepare teams to assess and treat children with dyslexia, OSERS submitted a letter in October of 2015 to SEA and LEA stating that there may be situations where an individual education plan (IEP) team could determine that personnel responsible for IEP implementation would need to know about the condition (e.g., dyslexia) underlying the child's disability (Yudin, 2015). For example, if a child qualifies under the category of SLD for basic reading skills, the child's IEP could include specific instructional supports, accommodations, and modifications shown to be useful for addressing the unique educational needs resulting from dyslexia. OSERS also clarified in the letter that “there is nothing in the IDEA that would prohibit the use of the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in IDEA
43 evaluation, eligibility determinations, or IEP documents.” “The team determining eligibility would find it helpful to include information about the specific condition (e.g., dyslexia) in documenting how that condition following the child's eligibility determination 34 CFR §§300.306(a)(1), (c)(1) and 300.308” (Yudin, 2015). The OSERS letter also noted that “schools may choose to implement a multitiered system of supports
(MTSS) to address students' need for additional support to succeed in a general education environment (Yudin, 2015). In 2016 Congress passed the Research Excellence and Advancements for Dyslexia Act (H.R. 3033) designated five million dollars of
National Science Foundation funding annually for five years for research on the science of specific learning disability with half reserved for research on the science of dyslexia
(Lichtenstein, 2018).
State Legislation for Dyslexia
State dyslexia laws aim to provide students with dyslexia added rights and protections. Across the U.S., 33 legislative bills related to dyslexia were introduced between January and March of 2018, addressing the need for early identification and intervention (Youman & Mather, 2015). As of January 2019, 45 states passed dyslexia- specific laws. States without dyslexia laws are Michigan, Idaho, North Dakoda, South
Dakoda, Wisconsin, and Vermont (Youman & Mather, 2018). Departments of education in 14 states have published handbooks or guidance documents on dyslexia (Lichtenstein,
2018). In addition to the 14 states with handbooks, several states have prepared guidelines, topic briefs, or technical assistance documents for the primary purpose of clarifying how dyslexia identification relates to special education eligibility
(Lichtenstein, 2018). State laws have mandated screening for dyslexia, or reading
44 problems including dyslexia in 15 states (Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Maine,
Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming) and three have screening pilot programs
(Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Utah) (Lichtenstein, 2018). Shaywitz (2014) testified to the
Congressional Committee on Science, Space, and Technology:
In dyslexia, remarkably in America, in the year 2014, we have not a knowledge gap but an action gap. We have the knowledge, but it is not being put into policy and practice, and far too many children, and adults too, are suffering needlessly. There is an epidemic of reading failure that we have the scientific evidence for treating effectively, and we are not acknowledging or implementing it (Shaywitz, 2014, p. 2).
Texas' dyslexia handbook outlines definitions and characteristics of dyslexia, screening, procedures for the evaluation and identification of students with dyslexia, and critical evidence-based components of dyslexia instruction (Texas Education Agency,
2018). Texas was the first state to pass a dyslexia law in 1986 spearheaded by a parent,
Tincy Miller, seeking answers to her son's problems with learning to read (Texas
Education Agency, 2018). The most recent legislation, Texas Education Code (TEC)
§38.003, requires that public school students be screened and tested as appropriate for dyslexia and related disorders at appropriate times by a program approved by the Texas
State Board of Education (Texas Education Agency, 2018). TEC §28.021(b) establishes guidelines for districts when measuring academic achievement or proficiency of students with dyslexia (Texas Education Agency, 2018). TEC §21.044(c)(2) outlines the curriculum requirements for teacher preparation programs to include the characteristics of dyslexia, identification of dyslexia, and multisensory strategies for teaching students with dyslexia (Texas Education Agency, 2018).
45 Arkansas published the state Dyslexia Resource Guide in 2016 to provide school districts, public schools, and teachers with guidance to meet Arkansas Code Ann. §6-41-
601 et seq. (Arkansas Department of Education, 2016). The guide was developed and updated by a committee of ten representatives who has experience in the field of dyslexia intervention and was appointed by the Commissioner of Education (Arkansas
Department of Education, 2016). The Dyslexia Resource Guide clarifies the Arkansas
Department of Education Rules governing how to meet the needs of children with dyslexia related to assessment, identification, and services for these students (Arkansas
Department of Education, 2016). Since Arkansas is a local control state, school districts have autonomy in making decisions regarding the diagnostic tools and instructional programs to use (Arkansas Department of Education, 2016). However, the state department is charged with defining the dyslexia therapy program. According to
Arkansas Code Ann. §6-41-603, a school district shall implement a universal screening
(Level I screening) of three types of students: students in kindergarten through grade two, transfer students who have not been screened, and students in grade three or higher experiencing difficulty as noted by a classroom teacher (Arkansas Department of
Education, 2016). A Level II screening is a more detailed process for identifying a pattern of strengths and weaknesses documenting the characteristics of dyslexia
(Arkansas Department of Education, 2016). Norm-referenced and diagnostic assessments are designed to measure the underlying causes, characteristics, and outcomes of dyslexia (Arkansas Department of Education, 2016). A school-based decision-making team determines if a student needs a dyslexia intervention service. If the dyslexia screening conducted by the school district indicates a student exhibits
46 characteristics of dyslexia, the student shall be considered to have met the profile of dyslexia and should be provided intervention services (A.C.A. 6-41-603) using a dyslexia program delivered with fidelity (Arkansas Department of Education, 2016).
California published a Dyslexia Guidelines document (California Department of
Education, 2017) in 2017 in response to the passage of Assembly Bill 1369, Chapter
647, Statutes of 2015, and which added §56334 and §56335 to California's Education
Code (California Department of Education, 2017). The Special Education Division of the California Department of Education prepared California's Dyslexia Guidelines in
2017. California Dyslexia Guidelines (2017) topics include a definition of dyslexia, the neuroscience of dyslexia, socioemotional factors of dyslexia, and screening and assessment of dyslexia. The appendixes provide a sample list of assessment tools that professionals may wish to consider using when assessing students with dyslexia.
According to Youman and Mather (2018), the California dyslexia Guidelines (2017) summarizes the characteristics and complications of dyslexia but provides little guidance regarding how, when, and what interventions to implement.
Ohio offers the Ohio Operating Standards for the Education of Children with
Disabilities (Lawriter Ohio Laws and Rules, 2011), last revised in 2014. This document summarizes the state-imposed rule requirements that are in addition to the federal Part B
IDEA requirements but does not explicitly address dyslexia. The Ohio document includes sections on the applicability of requirements and definitions, free appropriate public education, child find, confidentiality, procedural safeguards, evaluations, individual education plan (IEP), parentally placed nonpublic school children, delivery of services, transportation of students with disabilities, and preschool children eligible for
47 special education. The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) does not offer a handbook for dyslexia but does offer a dyslexia page on their website that provides contact information for the three Ohio IDA branches, as well as, information regarding the two
Ohio dyslexia laws, House Bill 96 (2011) and House Bill 157 (2011).
In 2011, Ohio passed HB 96 (2011), requiring the superintendent of public instruction to establish a pilot project to test, evaluate, and share with the state general assembly the results of and the delivery of early screening and intervention services for children with dyslexia. The law also specifies, in the statute, that dyslexia is a learning disability for which a child may receive special education services (Ohio Department of
Education, 2019). The Ohio dyslexia pilot project goal was to evaluate the effectiveness of early screening and reading programs for students showing risk for reading failure, including those students exhibiting risk factors associated with dyslexia (Ohio
Department of Education, 2019).
HB 96 required school districts to provide professional development in evidence- based reading instruction and multisensory structured language instruction to teachers serving students in kindergarten through second grades (Morrison, Collins, & Hawkins,
2014).
The Ohio Department of Education Office of Exceptional Children selected eight districts, Celina City School District, Cincinnati Public School District, Cleveland Arts
Social Science Academy, Edison Local School District, Indian Creek Local School
District, Medina City School District, Shawnee Local School District, and Trimble Local
School District, to participate in the pilot project voluntarily for year one (2012-13)
(Ohio Department of Education, 2019). Year one focused on kindergarten screening,
48 early intervention, progress monitoring, and administering reliable and valid assessments on phonological processing and rapid naming skills (Morrison et al., 2016). Six school districts, Cincinnati Public School District, Edison Local School District, Indian Creek
Local School District, Medina City School District, Shawnee Local School District, and
Trimble Local School District were renewed for grant funding in year two (2013-14) based on their implementation of the core components with a focus on kindergarten and first grade (Morrison et al., 2016). All six school districts earned funding for year three
(2014-15) based on evidence of implementation, focusing on kindergarten through second grade (Morrison et al., 2016). The Ohio Department of Education offered a fourth-year extension to four school districts, Cincinnati Public School District, Edison
Local School District, Indian Creek Local School District, and Shawnee Local School
District, due to their demonstration of high levels of implementation fidelity (Morrison et al., 2016).
Four districts fully implemented the dyslexia pilot project through year four: The dyslexia pilot project outcomes included standardized CBM assessments in phonological processing such as phoneme blending, deletion, substitution, and segmentation, rapid naming skills such as letter naming fluency, and oral reading fluency (Morrison et al.,
2016). Evaluators conducted a rigorous analysis of students' fundamental skills as assessed through the screening measures to assess the accuracy and appropriateness of the school and district's process for identifying students showing risk factors associated with dyslexia (Morrison et al., 2016). They used national norms to figure the number and percentage of students whose needs were best served by the core instruction, core instruction with a strategic intervention, or core instruction plus intensive, individualized
49 intervention (Morrison et al., 2016). They used multiple measures of early literacy to classify students needing intensive intervention if they were within the intensive range on any of the measures (Morrison et al., 2016).
Screening results across multiple measures (First Sound Fluency, Phoneme
Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency-Correct Letter Sounds, and Nonsense
Word Fluency-Whole Words Read) for year four indicate percentage of kindergarten students (n=526) participating in the project scoring Well Below Benchmark decreased from 26.8% during the beginning benchmark (fall) to 5.7% in the end benchmark
(spring) period (Morrison et al., 2016). The percentage of students At Benchmark or
Above Benchmark increased from 63.1% during the beginning benchmark (fall) to
85.2% in the end benchmark (spring) period (Morrison et al., 2016). The analysis of screening (Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency-Correct Letter
Sounds, Nonsense Word Fluency-Whole Words read, Oral Reading Fluency, and
Accuracy) results for year four for first-grade students (n = 562) participating in the project scoring Well Below Benchmark decreased from 16.0% during the beginning benchmark (fall) period to 13.5% in the end benchmark (spring) period (Morrison et al.,
2016). The percentage of students Below Benchmark decreased from 32.6% to 13.7%.
The percentage of students At Benchmark or Above Benchmark increased from 51.4% during the beginning benchmark (fall) period to 72% in the end benchmark (spring) period (Morrison et al., 2016). The analysis of screening (Nonsense Word Fluency-
Correct Letter Sounds, Nonsense Word Fluency-Whole Words Read, Oral Reading
Fluency, and Accuracy) results for year four for second-grade students (n = 652) participating in the project scoring Well Below Benchmark decreased from 25.0%
50 during the beginning benchmark (fall) period to 15.2% in the end benchmark (spring) period and the percentage of students Below Benchmark decreased from 18.6% to
16.6%. The percentage of students At or Above Benchmark increased from 56.4% during the beginning benchmark (fall) period to 68.3% in the end benchmark (spring) period (Morrison et al., 2016). An analysis of the screening (Oral Reading Fluency and
Accuracy) results for Grade 3 students (n = 543) participating in the project indicate that the percentage of students Well Below Benchmark remained relatively unchanged from
20.8% during the beginning benchmark (fall) period to 18.6% in the end benchmark
(spring) period (Morrison et al., 2016). The students Below Benchmark increased slightly from 14.5% to 16.9%. The percentage of students At or Above Benchmark remained unchanged from 64.6% during the beginning benchmark (fall) period to 64.5% in the end benchmark (spring) period (Morrison et al., 2016).
Results suggest a noticeable reduction in risk in reading failure for a stable group of students in kindergarten, first and second grade (Morrison et al., 2016). This reduction in risk was not evident in Grade 3 (Morrison et al., 2016). The results also show that additional, comprehensive support of students in grades one through three is needed to reduce further the risk of reading failure across the participating schools in the dyslexia pilot project (Morrison et al., 2016). Additionally, full implementation of the dyslexia pilot project contributed to a measurable reduction of reading failure risk that prevented the need for more intensive and costly individualized Tier III interventions (Morrison et al., 2016). The number of at-risk students entering special education eligibility as a result of their needs not being adequately met in the general education program was less than it had been in the year before the dyslexia pilot project, thus lowering the overall
51 percentage of students with disabilities throughout the project (Morrison et al., 2016).
Among the participating schools, a difference between 15% and 12% of students with disabilities represents 105 students who will not require special education services as a result of early intervention (Morrison et al., 2016).
Meeting students' needs proactively through early intervention is cost-effective in terms of reducing the need for costly special education services and ensuring that each student achieves proficiency in literacy (Morrison et al., 2016). Cost savings, in teacher time, varied by district, given differences in the effectiveness of Tier II interventions and teacher salaries (Morrison, Collins, & Hawkins, 2016). Salaries for kindergarten to second teachers, intervention specialists, and Title I teachers was used to calculate the median hourly rate ($38.87) (Morrison et al., 2014). Evaluators used a teacher time cost metric to calculate cost based on the median hourly rate multiplied by the number of minutes of intervention provided weekly multiplied by the number of students served by the teacher (Morrison et al., 2014).
For students receiving Tier III interventions who showed a rate of improvement that moved beyond the expected growth based on DIBELS benchmark goals, the reduction in risk precluded the need for intensive and costly Tier III interventions
(Morrison et al., 2014). The projected total cost savings by district (1) Cincinnati Public
Schools $101.533.50 (2) Edison Local Schools $62,040.00 (3) Indian Creek Local
Schools $133,344.64 (4) Shawnee Local Schools $21, 427.09 (5) Trible Local Schools
$10, 512.00 (Morrison et al., 2014).
According to Morrison et al. (2014), findings from the annual evaluation of the
Ohio dyslexia pilot project for years one and two outlined the following
52 recommendations: (1) The implementation of core evidence-based reading instruction, multisensory structured language instruction, and specific reading intervention programs within a tiered system of supports bolstered through effective, comprehensive, and sustained professional learning opportunities for teachers (Morrison et al., 2014). The results of the dyslexia pilot project demonstrated that a model for professional development should include classroom-based coaching in the implementation of multisensory structured language instruction to improve the core reading program along with professional development in MTSS (Morrison et al., 2014). (2) School districts build their capacity to provide MTSS for early intervention that matches students’ needs.
The results of the dyslexia pilot project demonstrate that school districts were more successful in their efforts to establish effective multi-tiered systems of support for students when the initiative championed by the district leadership (Morrison et al.,
2014). (3) Another iteration of the dyslexia pilot project is initiated based on the factors shown to contribute to successful outcomes for students. A future dyslexia pilot project would feature a more prescriptive model for the provision of comprehensive and embedded teacher professional learning opportunities for multi-sensory structured language instruction, core evidence-based reading instruction, and specific reading intervention programs within a tiered system of supports (Morrison et al., 2014). A future dyslexia pilot project would also further efforts to develop the capacity for a state- wide network of qualified trainers to provide on-site teacher professional learning opportunities, particularly in school districts outside Ohio's urban regions. (Morrison, et al., 2014).
53 An annual evaluation of the dyslexia pilot project (2012-2016) was conducted by the University of Cincinnati and made available on the Ohio Department of Education website on the dyslexia page. The Ohio dyslexia pilot project supported gains for students at-risk for dyslexia associated with early identification, screening, and intervention (Morrison et al., 2016). Even with the measurable district cost savings and reduction of reading failure risk, there are no statewide mandated policies in the areas of early identification, screening, and intervention for dyslexia following the dyslexia pilot project.
In 2011, the Ohio House Bill 157 (2011) also came into law addressing educator preparation in dyslexia. HB 157 (2011) provides that Ohio schools can contract with educational service centers statewide to provide teacher training related to dyslexia in evidence-based reading instruction and multisensory structured language instruction
(Ohio Department of Education, 2019). The professional development must be provided by a dyslexia specialist as outlined by the IDA's Knowledge and Practice Standards for
Teachers of reading. Ohio HB 157 (2011) provides training for current teachers, so they will understand how to teach children with dyslexia. Ohio HB 157 (2011) is a permissive, not mandated law; therefore, districts may choose not to participate in professional development in the area of dyslexia.
Many states have spearheaded dyslexia through legislation. Table 2.2 provides a summary of a sample of state dyslexia laws. Texas dyslexia law (2018) requires school districts to provide procedures for screening, identification, and treatment of dyslexia.
Texas law states that licensed dyslexia practitioners and therapists must provide the services, and students' progress must be monitored and reported to the state department
54 of education. Colorado's dyslexia law passed in 2011 provides funds for in-school dyslexia training, identification, and higher education teacher preparation programs to train on dyslexia. Arkansas's dyslexia law was passed in 2013 to ensure children with dyslexia have their needs met by the public-school system by requiring screening and intervention.
Florida's dyslexia law, passed in 2011, establishes procedures for the education of public-school students with dyslexia, the education and training of teachers, and the assessment of students with dyslexia attending an institution of higher education.
Indiana's dyslexia law, passed in 2015, requires teacher training programs to prepare teachers to recognize signs and symptoms of dyslexia and puts in place an official definition of dyslexia. State dyslexia laws provide mandates that go beyond
IDEA's general requirements in order to give students with dyslexia added rights and protections and ensure that schools within a single state operate the same way.
Table 2.2. Sample of state dyslexia laws (Youman & Mather, 2018)
State Law Provides Public Law Number
Texas (2017) Screening, identification, HB 1886 progress monitoring, teacher licensure and treatment Colorado (2011) In-school dyslexia training, SB 245 identification, higher education training Arkansas (2013) Screening and intervention in SB 33 public schools Florida (2011) Procedures for public schools, SB 866 teacher training, assessment in higher education Indiana (2015) Teacher training, definition HB 1108
55 The Texas Education Code (TEC) §38.003 makes provision for the evaluation and identification of students suspected of having dyslexia and mandates the formulation of rules and standards for the evaluation and instruction of students diagnosed with dyslexia (Serrant, 2016). The Houston Independent School District (HISD) in 2016 conducted an evaluation to identify the protocols for the delivery of dyslexia services, review related teacher and interventionist professional development and their alignment with the protocols and analyze 2016 reading and writing performance of HISD students identified with dyslexia (Serrant, 2016). Serrant (2016) reported Chancery School
Information System (SIS) data revealed that 3,091 students were identified with dyslexia in 2015-16, with 48% of those diagnosed with a learning disability. From 12.8 to 27.0% of third- to eighth-grade students met Level II: Satisfactory performance on the state reading assessment (STAAR) and 13.0 and 9.6% of fourth- and seventh-grade students met the same standard on the writing test (Serrant, 2016). The results show that 19.8 and
29.5% of high school students diagnosed with dyslexia met Level II: Satisfactory at the
2016 progression standard on the English I and English II STAAR EOC tests (Serrant,
2016). Slightly more than half (52.8%) of the interventionists and teachers of students diagnosed with dyslexia in HISD who enrolled in the district's professional development completed their programs (Serrant, 2016). Serrant (2016) recommendations included: (1)
Timely screening and identification of students diagnosed with dyslexia needs to occur with urgency, so students are receiving the appropriate services to improve academics
(2) All professional development programs relate to dyslexia the IDA's knowledge and practice standards and are following district policies and state and federal regulations.
(3) Interventionists and teachers access and complete all available professional
56 development opportunities. Hence, they possess the requisite skills to adequately provide instructional and learning support (4) More oversight and relevant data may be required to determine the kind and quality of interventions students diagnosed with dyslexia in
HISD may be receiving and the link between the quality of service and student academic performance.
The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) state law SB 612 (2015) Plan for
Universal Screening for Risk Factors of Dyslexia directed the ODE to hire a dyslexia specialist that offers school districts support and resources for students with dyslexia and their families (Oregon Department of Education, 2015). SB 612 (2015) required the dyslexia specialist to work with a committee of experts to create a plan to guarantee that every kindergarten and first-grade student in the state receive a screening for risk factors of dyslexia and to guide to school districts regarding notifying parents (Oregon
Department of Education, 2015). Oregon SB 1003 (2017) Best Practices for Screening
Students for Risk Factors of Dyslexia and Providing Instructional Support directed the
ODE to submit a report to the legislature about practices for screening students for dyslexia and providing instructional support for students who show risk for or who are identified as having dyslexia (Oregon Department of Education, 2017). The report
(Oregon Department of Education, 2017) identifies five best practices, including screening for dyslexia early and providing early intervention and continue to universally screen for reading difficulties in Grades 1 through 5 with targeted screening occurring at the secondary level. Districts use universal screening, including ongoing assessment and monitoring, to provide increasing levels of support to students with dyslexia. Provide evidence-based, explicit, systematic reading instruction to all students. Ensure that
57 qualified educators provide appropriate instruction. (Oregon Department of Education,
2017).
Identification of Dyslexia
There are multiple indicators for the identification of dyslexia. McCardle (2011) proposed a hybrid model for the identification of dyslexia that combines multiple indicators or criteria, including impaired phonological processing, genetic risk, and environmental influences. Phonological processing problems involve an inability to analyze language, resulting in difficulty segmenting speech into individual words, and, later, dividing words into syllables, and separating spoken words into speech sounds or phonemes (Lowell, Felton, & Hook, 2014). Impaired phonological awareness contributes to the development of reading disability, including dyslexia (Song, Georgiou,
Su, & Hua, 2016; Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003). Additional studies demonstrate consistent deficits in all phonological areas in young children with dyslexia, showing letter knowledge, reading accuracy, and reading speed also contributed to the development of phonological awareness (Boets, De Smedt, Cleuren, Vandewalle,
Wouters, & Ghesquière, 2010; Pennington & Lefly, 2001). Lindstrom (2018) provides a list of reading-related skill areas that one would expect to see deficits in students with dyslexia, including specific assessments used and examples of how to assess those skills.
Relevant reading areas include letter-sound knowledge, word decoding, reading fluency, spelling, and reading comprehension (Lindstrom, 2018). Indicators of dyslexia, such as difficulties with phonological awareness and letter recognition, present themselves early in a child's development. Therefore, universal screening is necessary to identify students at risk for dyslexia early.
58 A family history of a reading disability is another indicator of dyslexia. It can be useful to know a child's family history because a familial pattern of dyslexia is associated with substantially worse reading outcomes after one year in school (Hulme,
Nash, Gooch, Lervag, & Snowling, 2015). Additionally, genetic risk for reading disability shows in behavioral genetic studies (Wagner, 2018; Melby-Lervag, &
Snowling, 2016), and a family history of reading disability increases the probability of having a reading disability by a factor of four (Snowling & Melby-Lervag, 2016). Hulme et al. (2015) conducted a longitudinal study of children at familial risk of dyslexia, children with preschool language difficulties, and typically developing children.
Preschool measures of oral language predicted phoneme awareness and grapheme- phoneme knowledge just before entering school (Hulme et al., 2015). Reading comprehension at 8½ years was predicted by word-level literacy skills at 5½ years and by language skills at 3½ years (Hulme et al., 2015). The findings underlined the importance of oral language skills, vocabulary, and grammatical skills for the development of both word-level literacy and reading comprehension (Hulme et al.,
2015). According to Boets et al. (2010), non-dyslexic children at high family risk show poor performance on phonological and literacy tasks that require the most fine-grained phonological representations, which suggests that family risk of dyslexia is continuous and not discrete. Dyslexia often continues from generation to generation, which is why a screening process should include a family history of reading difficulties. Ohio currently does not include family history as part of their screening process (Lawriter Ohio Laws and Rules, 2011).
59 Early identification of dyslexia is essential for future academic success and contributes to students' positive self-esteem and many aspects of academic learning.
Glazzard (2010) used semi-structured interviews with secondary-aged pupils who had received an official diagnosis of dyslexia. The results indicated that factors such as comparisons made against other students, and the impact of teachers, peers, and family significantly influenced the self-esteem of pupils with dyslexia (Glazzard, 2010). Early identification of dyslexia allows for the implementation of interventions before a downward spiral of underachievement, lowered self-esteem, and reduced motivation.
According to Lindstrom (2018), the challenge is that teachers understand how to identify reading difficulties early, use data to make decisions, and link data to the development of an instructional plan. Scientific gains expand our thinking about dyslexia and lead the field to improve the recognition of the needs of children with dyslexia.
Dyslexia Screening
The risk of reading and writing difficulties is apparent early in development, and a screening tool targeting early language, literacy, and communication skills can identify children who are likely to go on to be dyslexic. Snowling (2013) used pupils' data from the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP), an early literacy screener, to investigate whether an assessment undertaken by teachers could provide a screening tool for the identification of children at risk of dyslexia. The findings showed that teacher assessment at five years old, based on ongoing observation, provides a valid measure of children's current development and is a reasonable predictor of literacy attainment two years later (Snowling, 2013). Screening for dyslexia contributes to early identification and intervention. There are valid and reliable screeners for dyslexia, such as The
60 Dyslexia Index Scores for the KTEA-3™, WIAT-III, Acadience Reading, and the
Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen™ available to districts.
Screeners are brief measures that sort individuals into two groups, those at risk and those not at risk. There are two categories of screeners: (1) Performance-based measures, which require the person screened to complete specific tasks, and (2) Rating scales, which require a rater, such as a teacher or parent, or the individual screened to respond to a series of statements or questions by providing each one with a rating.
Screeners are evaluated on being evidence-based, supported by sound scientific evidence including reliability and validity data, reliability, evidence that the items are internally consistent and valid, the screener measures what it claims to measure. The
KTEA-3™ Dyslexia Index uses a composite score for grades K-1 that includes subtests including phonological processing, letter, and word recognition, and letter naming facility and for grades 2-12+ subtests include nonsense word decoding, spelling, and word recognition fluency. The WIAT-III uses a composite score for grades K-1 that includes subtests, including early reading skills and spelling and for grades 2-12+ subtests include pseudoword decoding, oral reading fluency, and spelling. The Shaywitz
DyslexiaScreen is a rating scale that emphasizes phonological, linguistic, and academic performance from teacher observations.
LEA and SEA can develop screening protocols for early identification of children at risk for dyslexia. One of the first signs of reading difficulties is letter knowledge, with phonological awareness and rapid naming difficulties being underlying processes for learning to read. Rapid naming is a speed naming task in which the student names a series of printed letters, numbers, or blocks of color repeated in random order.
61 Germano and Capellini (2017) developed a screening protocol for early identification of children at risk for dyslexia and identified the predictive variables of the protocol.
Principle Component Analysis revealed four factors, accounting for 64.45% of the variance of the protocol variable: pre-reading, decoding, reading, and auditory processing (Germano & Capellini, 2017). These results support those reported by Skeide et al. (2015) that phonological awareness at ages 9 to 12 was predicted significantly by retrospective behavioral risk scores in an early dyslexia screening administered at ages 5 and 6 and was also significantly related to spelling performance measured at ages 9 to
12. A screening protocol helps identify students with dyslexia early for a better outcome academically, socially, and emotionally.
For early identification to be accurate, screening must yield a high percentage of true positives (e.g., sensitivity rates about .90) while limiting false positives and thereby producing a manageable risk pool. Compton, Fuchs, Bouton, Gilbert, Barquero and
Crouch (2010) tested 355 children in the fall of first grade and assessed for reading difficulty at the end of second grade. Results indicate that the addition of word identification fluency and dynamic assessment, but not running records or oral reading fluency, significantly decreased false positives (Compton et al., 2010).
Andrade, Andrade, and Capellini (2015) explored the accuracy of collectively administered screening tools for the early identification of second graders at risk for dyslexia in a two-stage screening model. The Alternative Tools for Educators (ATE) collective screening tool (Andrade et al., 2015) allowed for quick and easy to administer tasks based on phonological judgments by matching figures to spoken words. A comprehensive cognitive-linguistic battery of collective and individual assessments
62 administered to all children, which constituted the second screening stage (Andrade et al., 2015). Andrade et al. (2015) found that low achievement on Alternative Tools for
Educators (ATE) tasks and on collectively administered writing tasks (scores at the 25th percentile) showed good sensitivity (true positives) and specificity (true negatives) to poor literacy status, defined as scores <1 standard deviation below the mean on literacy abilities at the end of fifth grade. Students at risk for dyslexia can be screened in the early years using a collectively administered screening tool in a general education classroom setting. Currently, Ohio does not mandate universal screening for dyslexia
(Lawriter Ohio Laws and Rules, 2011).
Gonzalez & Brown (2019) explored early childhood educators' perceptions of dyslexia and the ability to identify students at-risk in Head Start centers. Researchers used a case study approach for this study of two Head Start centers, one in New Jersey and one in Pennsylvania (Gonzalez & Brown, 2019). Researchers gathered data using semi-structured interviews, observations, a teacher rating scale, and the Preschool Early
Literacy Indicator (PELI) assessment (Gonzalez & Brown, 2019). Head Start teachers held the misconception that dyslexia is a visual processing disorder rather than a phonological processing disorder (Gonzalez & Brown, 2019). The Head Start teachers did not consider phonemic awareness as an essential factor in identifying children at-risk for dyslexia (Gonzalez & Brown, 2019). Participants identified students at-risk in the areas of alphabet knowledge and oral language, but not in phonemic awareness and vocabulary (Gonzalez & Brown, 2019). Gonzalez & Brown (2019) results suggest that the stereotypes of dyslexia are hard to dispel and that teachers need professional development in the area of dyslexia.
63 Response to Intervention (RTI)
In the past, a student qualified for special education services if a severe discrepancy between academic success and intellectual ability identified through ability and achievement testing. IDEA (IDEA, 2004) regulations (Sec. 300.307) for a specific learning disability determination no longer require this discrepancy, but it can still be used. IDEA permits the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention to decide whether a child has a specific disability. The RTI process introduced within the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities
Act (IDEA). According to the Special Education Guide (2019), RTI is not introduced as a part of the law. Instead, it is presented within regulatory notes as a method to help identify students with specific learning disabilities. The only category that allows the use of RTI for identification purposes is SLD (Special Education Guide, 2019).
RTI is a process that educators use to help students who are struggling with a skill or lesson. The teacher uses measures of progress, such as test scores and student work samples, to choose an intervention suited to help the child learn (Special Education
Guide, 2019). If a child does not respond to the initial interventions, more focused interventions are used to help the child master the skill (Special Education Guide, 2019).
Federal law does not mandate RTI but is used widely by districts nationally. Vellutino et al. (2008) found that the RTI approach is an effective means of identifying children who may qualify for a reading disability. RTI often involves a four-step screening system that focuses on identifying students who need reading intervention in the primary grades
(Gilbert, Compton, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2012). Step one of the four-step screening system uses a short universal screener for all students in kindergarten and first grade to
64 determine risk and no-risk students. Step two of RTI progress monitors interventions.
Step three of RTI uses follow-up criterion-referenced testing for those students showing risk factors for reading disability, and step four provides an ongoing revision of procedures and cut scores (Gilbert et al., 2012). RTI's two goals are to identify at-risk students for early intervention and prevention and recognize those for whom such early intervention is ineffective so that they receive more intensive instruction and possibly special education (Gilbert et al., 2012). The best prognosis for individuals with dyslexia is when their learning deficits are identified early (Glazzard, 2010), and evidence-based interventions implemented with frequent monitoring of progress (Fletcher & Vaughn,
2009). Recommended instructional methods adhere to the findings of the National
Reading Panel's (NRP) essential components of reading instruction, including phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (NICHD, 2000). Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2002) and IDEA (IDEA, 2004) also incorporate the essential components from the NRP. The IDA (IDA) developed a guide to Structured
Literacy© in the form of its Knowledge and Practice Standards for the Teachers of
Reading (IDA, 2018). The IDA standards (IDA, 2018) include general guiding principles of Structured Literacy© as well as specific learning objectives in six content areas: (1) phonological and phonemic awareness, (2) phonics and word recognition (3) automatic, fluent reading of text (4) vocabulary (5) listening and reading comprehension and (6) written expression.
65 Definition of Terms and Abbreviations
Dyslexia. A specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading and reduced reading experience that can impede the growth of vocabulary and background knowledge (Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003, p. 2).
IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 (PL 108-446), reauthorized in 2015 (PL 114-95) Every Student Succeeds Act: Special education legislation, initially passed in 1975 (PL 94-142) and amended in 1990 (PL 101-476) and
1997 (PL 105-17), that serves as a mechanism to help fund special education. IDEA mandates that states receiving federal monies must provide special education and other services to qualified children from birth through age 21 with disabilities or risk the loss of these dollars. IDEA 2004 protects a child's right to a free appropriate public education
(FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (Birsh, 2018).
OSERS. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services
Phonics. Paired associations between letters and sounds, an approach to teaching reading and spelling that emphasizes sound-symbol relationships, especially in early instruction (Birsh, 2018).
RTI. Response to Intervention
66 Response to Intervention (RTI). An integrated model of assessment and intervention with a multilevel prevention system to identify students at risk as well as monitor their progress, supply evidence-based interventions, and allow for appropriate adjustments based on student responsiveness. An alternative to identify students with learning disabilities. Also called the response to instruction (Birsh, 2018).
Simple View of Reading. Model that defines reading comprehension as a product of lower-level skills such as word recognition and higher-level thinking processes such as listening comprehension (Birsh, 2018).
Special Education Services. Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a federal statute that ensures students with disabilities provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) that is designed to address their individual needs. FAPE refers to special education and related services provided without charge under public supervision. Students found eligible for special education services under IDEA are given an individualized education program (IEP) and guaranteed certain procedural safeguards, such as the right to file a complaint and request a due process hearing, to ensure they provided FAPE. (IDA, 2019)
Specific Learning Disability (SLD). A disorder in one or more of the fundamental processes involved in understanding or producing spoken or written language (Birsh, 2018).
67
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The chapter focuses on discussing the issues related to methodology and qualitative case study research. This chapter explains (1) the research purpose, (2) research question, (3) qualitative paradigm and tradition, (4) case study design, (5) sampling and selection procedure, (6) data collection procedures, (7) data collection, (8) data analysis and management, (9) ethical considerations, (10) trustworthiness through member checking, and (11) summary of the current study.
Research Purpose
This study seeks to explain how Ohio K-12 public schools interpret and implement federal and state policies related to the identification of dyslexia. The research literature in this area shows the need for exploring constructs related to dyslexia due to a lack of specificity in IDEA related to the definition, screening, identification, and instructional services included in varying state laws (Decoding Dyslexia, 2013). The current study investigated how Ohio K-12 public schools handle the identification process for students with dyslexia or students with dyslexic tendencies. Additionally, it explored the participants' understanding of dyslexia. The study is significant because it informs the body of literature on early identification and intervention for dyslexia since prevention is preferred before becoming a fully developed reader (Compton et al., 2012).
68 It is more economical to provide early intervention than to wait for when intervention requires more intense remediation (Morrison et al., 2016). Early intervention will reduce and possibly prevent (Snowling, 2013) severe social and emotional consequences (Miles
& Stipek, 2006).
Research Question
The study reveals constructs that determine how federal and state policies for identification of and services for students with dyslexia are implemented in Ohio public schools. The study aims to find the answer to the following question: How do Ohio K-12 public educators interpret and implement federal and state policies for students identified with dyslexia or showing dyslexic tendencies?
Qualitative Paradigm and Tradition
This study used an inductive process where data was gathered to build concepts, hypotheses, or theories. A post-structural approach is the study of phenomena as systems with the assumption that these systems have no inherent meaning (Merriam, 2009). The purpose of qualitative research is to understand how people make sense out of other lives, delineate the process rather than the product of meaning-making, and describe how people interpret what they experience (Merriam, 2009). The research purpose of this study lends itself to qualitative methods, which are an ideal way of recording and learning about experiences from narratives to interpret social realities (Merriam, 2009).
The qualitative research case study for this dissertation is grounded in the post-structural perspective, which guides and anchors the data collection and analysis. Post-structuralist deconstructs, problematizes, questions, and interprets (Merriam, 2009). In conducting case studies, researchers collect intensive data about instances of a phenomenon, and
69 they seek to understand each instance on its terms and in its context (Gall & Borg,
2007). A single study does not provide a base of evidence.
Case Study Design
A case study is a comprehensive description and analysis of a bounded system
(Merriam, 2009). The case study design investigates a case to gain insight into a central phenomenon (Creswell, 2002; Stake, 2006). Stake (2005) identified three types of case studies: intrinsic, instrumental, and collective. The intrinsic case study is when the researcher is interested in the case itself because of “an intrinsic interest in a phenomenon such as a particular child, clinic, conference or curriculum” (p. 445). An instrumental case study “is examined mainly to provide insight into an issue or redraw a generalization. The case is of secondary interest, it plays a supportive role, and it facilitates our understanding of something else” (p. 437). A collective or multiple case study, several cases, are studies “to investigate a phenomenon, population, or general condition” (p. 445).
The study utilized a collective, instrumental case study design. Qualitative interviews and document analysis were at the core of this study's effort to examine the implementation of federal and state policies for students identified with dyslexia or showing dyslexic tendencies. The study's qualitative nature allowed for descriptive insights and opinions into the phenomenon and the discussion of experiences to be analyzed according to the themes and patterns that emerged from both the interviews and documents. Themes are defined as essential features that distinguish a case (Gall, Borg,
& Gall, 1996). Patterns are defined as the observed variations in the phenomena that are systematically related to each other (Yin, 1993). The study examined multiple units of
70 analysis represented in three Ohio K-12 public school districts. Within each school district, several layers of data collection were utilized. Five district personnel at each district were interviewed to share their experiences with students with dyslexia or showing dyslexic tendencies. Member checks were conducted to validate the data and ensure external validity (Merriam, 2009). Therefore, the study is a collective explanatory case study with simultaneous data collection and analysis.
A case study is an in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system
(Merriam, 2009). The case study design investigates a case to gain insight into a central phenomenon (Creswell, 2002; Stake, 2006). Stake (2005) identified three types of case studies: intrinsic, instrumental, and collective. The intrinsic case study is undertaken when the researcher is interested in the case itself because of “an intrinsic interest in a phenomenon such as a particular child, clinic, conference or curriculum” (p. 445). An instrumental case study “is examined mainly to provide insight into an issue or redraw a generalization. The case is of secondary interest, it plays a supportive role, and it facilitates our understanding of something else” (p. 437). A collective or multiple case study, several cases, are studies “to investigate a phenomenon, population, or general condition” (p. 445).
The study utilized a collective, instrumental case study design. Qualitative interviews and document analysis were at the core of this study’s effort to examine implementation of federal and state policies for students identified with dyslexia or showing dyslexic tendencies. The qualitative nature of the study allowed for descriptive insights and opinions into the phenomenon and the discussion of experiences to be analyzed according to the themes and patterns that emerged from both the interviews and
71 documents. Themes are defined as important features that distinguish a case (Gall, Borg,
& Gall, 1996). Patterns are defined as the observed variations in the phenomena that are systematically related to each other (Yin, 1993). The study examined multiple units of analysis represented in three Ohio K-12 public school districts. Within each school district, several layers of data collection were utilized. Five district personnel at each district were interviewed to share their experiences with students with dyslexia or showing dyslexic tendencies. Member checks were conducted to validate the data and ensure external validity (Merriam, 2009). Therefore, the study is a collective explanatory case study with simultaneous data collection and analysis.
Sampling and Selection Procedure
In qualitative research, sample selection is usually nonrandom, convenience, and small (Merriam, 2009). The researcher chooses what, where, when, and whom to observe or interview (Merriam, 2009). Purposeful sampling assumes that the researcher wants to discover, understand, and gain insight and, therefore, must choose a sample to maximize gaining information (Merriam, 2009). Lincoln and Guba (1985) recommended sampling until a point of saturation or redundancy is reached. In purposeful sampling, the size of the sample is determined by considerations such as maximizing information
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The sampling is discontinued when no new information is anticipated from new sampled units (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Redundancy is the primary criterion (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Cases are considered to be information-rich when one can learn a great deal about topics of importance to the purpose of the study (Patton,
2002). The researcher begins purposive sampling by determining what selection criteria are essential in choosing the people or sites to be studied (Merriam, 2009).
72 Ohio K-12 public school districts were the setting of this study. In order to gain
“information-rich” data, the researcher used a convenience sampling strategy (Gall, Gall
& Borg, 2007). To achieve this, the researcher selected three Ohio public school districts representing a sample of Ohio suburban public schools based on their percentage of students with learning disabilities. Table 3.1 describes each participating districts' 2018 overall grade on the Ohio report card, as well as grades on measures of achievement, progress, gap closing, graduation rate, improving at-risk K-three readers, and prepared for success. All three districts received an overall grade of “B” and graduation rate of
“A” on the (Ohio Department of Education, 2018) Ohio report card. Grades vary for other measures such as achievement, progress, gap closing, improving at-risk K-3 readers, and prepared for success.
Table 3.1. Ohio report card grades for participating districts (Ohio Department of Education, 2018)
Report Card Measure District A District B District C
District Grade B B B
Achievement B B C
Progress B D B
Gap Closing A A A
Graduation Rate A A A
Improving At-Risk K-3 Readers C A B
Prepared for Success C C D
73 Table 3.2 explains the breakdown for the Improving At-Risk K-3 Readers measure for the three participating districts.
District A received a “C” grade and moved 72 of 138 students to on track with
100% of third graders meeting the Third Grade Reading Guarantee (Ohio Department of
Education, 2019). District B received a “A” grade and moved 33 of 35 students to on track, with 99.6% of third graders meeting the Third Grade Reading Guarantee (Ohio
Department of Education, 2019). District C received a “B” grade and moved 120 of 208 students to on track with 100% of third graders meeting the Third Grade Reading
Guarantee (Ohio Department of Education, 2019).
Lincoln and Guba (1985) recommend sampling until a point of saturation or redundancy is reached and is determined by informational considerations. The main participants are administrators, school psychologists, and teachers selected due to their roles and responsibilities related to IDEA (IDEA, 2004) and students with dyslexia to provide maximum experiences to understand the study's phenomenon. Studying the implementation of federal and state policies for dyslexia in schools with a similar percentage of students with disabilities enriched the data by showing how these similar schools interpret laws, especially with using multiple case studies. Having multiple cases added more clarification to the factors surrounding how local education agencies (LEA) implement federal and state policies for students with dyslexia or students with dyslexic tendencies.
74 Table 3.2. Improving at-risk K-3 readers measure for participating districts (Ohio Department of Education, 2019) Measure District A District B District C
Improving at-risk K- 3 Readers Grade C A B
# of students moved to on track 72 33 120
RIMP Deduction 0 0 0
# of students started off track 138 35 208
% of students moved to on track 52.2 94.3 57.7
% of students remained off track 47.8 5.7 42.3
% of third graders met the Third Grade Reading Guarantee 100 99.6 100%
% of third graders scored proficient on the English language arts test 90.6 87.5 81.0%
Data Collection Procedures
An Institutional Review Board (IRB) application was submitted. The application included a district consent email form (see Appendix A) and an initial interview protocol listing proposed interview questions (see Appendix B). Once the IRB approval was granted, the school district personnel was contacted to explain the research. After obtaining the appropriate permission from district administration, the researcher selected
75 participants based on their roles related to IDEA and servicing students with dyslexia, as well as their willingness to participate in the interviews. Participants are licensed by the
State of Ohio and servicing students in the area of reading. The researcher obtained participant consent before the interviews (see Appendix C for the full Consent Form).
Therefore, five participants from each of the three districts in Ohio were interviewed for a total of 15 interviews. The participants include district special education director, principal, school psychologist, and general education and special education teacher, due to their direct responsibilities with IDEA and servicing students with dyslexia.
The researcher selected three districts with similar demographics such as typology, size, percentage of students with disabilities, percentage of disadvantaged students, and number of students with limited English proficiency as reported by the
Ohio Department of Education district profile report (2018) as well as, reading scores as reported by the Ohio Department of Education district report card (2018) English language arts achievement measure and the improving at-risk K-3 readers measure
(2018). All three districts are Ohio public schools servicing approximately 4,000 students from preschool through 12th grades. The district's student-teacher ratio is approximately 20:1 with the district achievement for English language arts performance index measure percentage above 85% in the third grade on the Ohio district report card
(see Table 3.1). The districts were selected because of convenience to the researcher based on location and participants available and willing to be interviewed on the topic of dyslexia. Participants were selected based on their roles and responsibilities. Special education directors provide insights into IDEA compliance. School psychologists conduct testing for learning disabilities and are part of the team that determines
76 qualification for services based on IDEA criteria. Principals provide building-level knowledge about both teachers and students related to reading interventions, special education services, and student outcomes for reading. General education teachers screen and progress monitor students for reading issues and provide reading instruction within a classroom setting and are often the first to suspect issues in learning to read. Special education teachers provide instruction to students meeting qualifications for special education services under IDEA.
Data Collection
Qualitative data is obtained through interviews and documents (Merriam, 2009). deMarrais (2004) defined an interview as a process in which a researcher and participant interact in a discussion focused on questions related to a research study” (p. 55). The primary purpose of an interview is to obtain a special kind of information by allowing the researcher to enter the other person's perspective (Patton, 2002). The three types of interviews are high-structured standardized, semi-structured, and unstructured informal.
The continuum varies in the range of structure from highly structured questionnaire- driven interviews to unstructured, open-ended, conversational formats (Merriam, 2009).
According to Merriam (2009), there are three ways to preserve data from an interview.
The first is to record the interview, which allows for verbatim transcription and the best database for analysis (Merriam, 2009). A second way is to take notes during the interview while recording. The third way is to write down as much as can be remembered as soon after the interview as possible (Merriam, 2009). According to
Morrow and Smith (2000), the use of a reflective journal adds rigor to a qualitative
77 inquiry as the investigator can record his or her reactions, assumptions, expectations, and biases about the research process.
Documents are a useful source of data easily accessible to the imaginative and resourceful investigator (Merriam, 2009). Documents refer to a wide range of written, visual, digital, and physical materials relevant to the study (Merriam, 2009). Public records and personal documents are two common types of documents used in qualitative research (Merriam, 2009). There are many sources of public documents related to educational questions such as federal, state, and private agency reports, individual program records, and the statistical databases of the Center for Educational Statistics
(Merriam, 2009). Additionally, researcher-generated documents are documents prepared by the researcher or for the researcher by participants after the study has begun
(Merriam, 2009). Documents can help the researcher uncover meaning, develop understanding, and discover insights relevant to the research problem.
Two sources of data--interviews, and documents--were used in the current study.
Triangulation using multiple sources of data means comparing and cross-checking data collected through the interviews and documents (Merriam, 2009)
Interviews
For this study, data was gathered via semi-structured interviews and a collection of documents. Participants, such as administrators, school psychologists, and teachers, were selected using purposeful sampling and were interviewed separately for 30 to 45 minutes. The researcher conducted the interviews at the participant's preferred location
(school, office, coffee shop). One interview was conducted per participant. The semi-
78 structured interviews were audio-recorded for later transcription and analysis. Also, during the interview, the researcher took notes.
The key to getting useful data from interviewing is to ask valid questions
(Merriam, 2009). The researcher developed an interview guide (Appendix B) for this study to enable the researcher to explore the problem; however, neither the exact wording nor the order of the questions are predetermined, allowing for the collection of intensive, in-depth, and unstructured data. The researcher divided questions into topics related to federal and state policy for specific learning disabilities and dyslexia.
The researcher conducted a field test with an interview protocol in 2018. She conducted 45- to 60-minute interviews with participants holding positions such as special education directors, principals, school psychologists, and special and general education teachers. Participants were selected based on a prior relationship with the researcher. Participant consent was obtained through email. The researcher determined that these interviewees provided responses that led to insights and opinions into the phenomenon of identification of dyslexia. Table 3.2 lists the field test interview questions. The field test allowed the researcher to change, modify, and eliminate questions on the interview protocol based on alignment with the purpose and research question. The researcher transferred interview data to an Excel file for analysis. The researcher created a column for each question in Excel for data analysis (see Figure 3).
The frequency count of keywords that emerged from the data includes RTI (ten occurrences), instruction (eight occurrences), and SLD (11 occurrences). Table 3.3 provides sample responses to the question regarding how students with dyslexia are identified and serviced in their district. The researcher decided to eliminate the question
79
80 regarding a label of dyslexia since participants in Ohio are not required to use the label in the process of identification of SLD. The researcher also decided to add a question to the protocol on participants' certifications and background in reading and dyslexia to provide connections between participants' training, position, and understanding of dyslexia.
Table 3.4. Field test interview questions
How are students with dyslexia identified and serviced in your district?
How are outside evaluations of dyslexia handled at your district?
Would the label of dyslexia be advantageous to the process?
Do you use an RTI model?
How do federal and state policies guide district decisions for SLD?
How are the instructional needs of students with SLD/dyslexia met in your district, school, classroom?
What areas could your district improve concerning SLD/dyslexia?
81 Figure 3.1 Sample data analysis of field test interview data in Excel dataExcel in interview of field test analysis Figure data 3.1 Sample
82
83
84 Documents
The documents collected during this research were district procedures and guidelines related to federal and state policies and dyslexia. The researcher requested documents such as staff handbooks for the RTI process and protocols, intervention team meeting checklists, and diagnostic decision trees for students who perform below standards on reading assessments during the interview process. She used a reflective journal and field notes to collect data. The journal allowed the researcher to describe her feelings about conducting research and maintain subjectivity in this area of study. The field notes provided additional data for the analysis.
Data Analysis and Management
The collection and analysis of data should be a simultaneous and ongoing process in qualitative research (Merriam, 2009). A qualitative design is emergent as the researcher will not know ahead of time what will be said in an interview or collected in a document. Therefore, the process of data collection and analysis is recursive and dynamic in the process of making sense out of the data to answer the research questions
(Merriam, 2009). The practical goal of data analysis is to find answers to the research questions by identifying categories, themes, or findings (Merriam, 2009). A system for organizing and managing data is known as coding. Coding is assigning a shorthand designation to various aspects of the data for easy retrieval (Merriam, 2009).
The researcher utilized an iterative process of data analysis in the current study.
She transcribed all interviews, documents, journal entries, and field notes (including memos) to help categorize and conceptualize properties and interrelationships. The meaning was extracted from the data using a coding procedure which allowed chunks
85 and segments to be labeled and themes, patterns, ideas, and concepts to be organized.
She used a focused coding procedure that allowed for building and clarifying concepts within categories (Merriam, 2009). According to Creswell (2007), codes can be organized by relevance to each other in a way that helps in providing thick descriptions of participants' experiences.
The researcher used constant comparison analysis to systematically reduce the data to codes, then develop themes from the codes (Merriam, 2009) and classical content analysis to count the number of codes to determine which concepts occurred throughout the data for descriptive statistics (Merriam, 2009). Discourse analysis was used by selecting several lines of an interview transcript for examination by the rhetorical organization, variability, accountability, and positioning (Merriam, 2009). Last, the researcher used qualitative comparative analysis to systematically analyze similarities and differences across cases allowing for connections between categories (Merriam,
2009). The researcher organized significant and minor themes in a meaningful narrative structure that connects to the research question (Merriam, 2009). By using multiple types of data analysis and triangulation, the results are trustworthy and meaningful.
Ethical Considerations
The validity and reliability of a study depend in many ways upon the ethics of the investigator (Merriam, 2009). Actual ethical practice comes down to the individual researcher's values and ethics (Merriam, 2009). The field issues being resolved as they arise will depend on the investigator's sensitivity and values (Merriam, 2009). The researcher data filtered through her theoretical position and biases, such as deciding what is essential when collecting and analyzing data since she was the primary instrument for
86 data collection (Merriam, 2009). According to Merriam (2009), overlaying both the collection of data and the dissemination of findings is the researcher-participant relationship. Lincoln and Guba (1995) proposed standards for validity, such as the extent to which the research allows all voices heard, and the extent of reciprocity in the research relationship. According to Stake (2005), interviewing carries with it both risks and benefits to the informants as respondents may feel their privacy invaded, they may be embarrassed by specific questions, and they may tell things they had never intended to reveal.
The researcher considered ahead of time protection of subjects from harm, the right to privacy, and the notion of informed consent and the issue of deception. All the participants were treated in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the American
Psychological Association (APA, 2010) and the University of Akron Institutional
Review Board (IRB). Although there are no identifiable risks for participating in this study, there was the possibility that participants would feel uncomfortable discussing their experiences, training, and understanding of dyslexia. The researcher took every caution to ensure that all participants felt safe, comfortable, and had the choice to withdraw from the study. Patton (2002) has pointed out that the interviewer's task is first and foremost to gather data, and they are neither a judge nor a therapist, nor are they unresponsive to the human issues, including great suffering and pain, that may unfold during an interview. Furthermore, the documents used in the current study were handled by the researcher with professional integrity. To ensure confidentiality, data was stored in Excel which is password protected and names blacked out on all documents.
87 The researcher's position is known as reflexivity, the process of reflecting critically on the self as a researcher, the human as an instrument (Lincoln & Guba,
2000). Researchers need to explain their biases, dispositions, and assumptions regarding the research (Merriam, 2009). Maxwell (2005) explains the reason for making one's perspective, biases, and assumptions clear to the reader is not to reduce variance between researchers in values and expectations they bring to the study but with an understanding of how a researcher's values and expectations influence the conduct and conclusions of the study.
Analyzing data may present other ethical problems, since the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection, and data is filtered through his or her theoretical position and biases (Merriam, 2009). In this study, the researcher adopted the epistemological lens of a constructivist, whereby one gains knowledge and understanding of the world through experiences. Her background in the field of dyslexia could present potential bias, so means of mitigating this include reflexivity, a subjectivity statement, and a journal with memos. It is impossible to eliminate biases.
Researchers should develop an awareness of biases and acknowledge them both to themselves and their readers (Merriam, 2009).
The researcher's intention to conduct a study about the implementation of policies for students with dyslexia stems from her past experiences as a teacher of students with reading disabilities. She also has family members who struggled with learning to read. Additionally, she is active on legislation committees in Ohio that focus on dyslexia laws. The researcher possesses a strong passion, both personally and professionally, to investigate the topic of dyslexia. Her self-awareness allows her to fully
88 understand herself as well as the group of participants in this research. In this way, she was able to interpret their responses objectively while avoiding any personal influence during the data collection, analysis, and reporting processes. Given her personal and professional connection to the subject of inquiry, she understands the risk of identifying herself with research participants. Therefore, she attempted to avoid any behavior that may impinge on her ability to be objective
Trustworthiness
Qualitative case study researchers use various methods and procedures to ensure quality and rigor (Gall et al., 2007). One strategy to meet the users' needs is usefulness.
Gall et al. (2007) suggested making it a goal to enlighten the individuals who read the case study or to emancipate further research participants, readers of the report, and possibly other groups. The findings of the current study provide beneficial information and insights to policymakers and education stakeholders.
Interpretive research seeks to study the local, immediate meanings of social actions for the actors involved in them (Gall et al., 2007). The researcher's task is to figure out how to view the phenomenon as the participants view it (Gall et al., 2007).
The participants' viewpoint is called the emic perspective and will be conveyed clearly through the research report using a thick description. According to Lincoln and Guba
(1985), the investigator needs to provide “sufficient descriptive data” to make transferability possible (p. 298). External validity is the extent to which the findings of one study can be applied to other situations. Truthfulness involves being honest and straightforward by including direct quotes from research participants.
89 According to Gall et al. (2007), a chain of evidence builds clear, meaningful links between research questions, raw data, and the findings through an audit trail that documents the research process, covering sources and methods of recording data, data reduction and analysis products, data reconstruction and synthesis products, process notes, and information about the development of instruments. The iterative analysis of repetitive themes in the data, using interview transcriptions, journals with memos, and documents of district policies, will determine data saturation and maintain the audit trail necessary for truthfulness and trustworthiness. Triangulation using multiple sources of data means comparing and cross-checking data collected through interviews and documents (Merriam, 2009).
Multiple methods of data collection, analyses, or theories serve to ensure the validity of the qualitative data and establish trustworthiness through member checking for the current study. To ensure reliability, the data collection for the case study will include semi-structured interviews, a reflective journal, and document analysis. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes and codes used to describe themes that emerge from the data. The researcher used reflexivity and a subjectivity statement as well. Reflexivity is where the researcher's act of focusing on himself or herself as a constructor and interpreter of the social reality being studied
(Merriam, 2009). The subjectivity statement is a process in which the researcher systematically records and reviews his or her subjective perceptions and feelings while a study is in progress to assess how they may be affecting the research design or outcomes
(Merriam, 2009). Member checks were used to randomly validate the data throughout the study to ensure external validity (Merriam, 2009). The researcher performed random
90 member checking by sending the interview transcripts to six participants for review and feedback, as well as peer reviews of the design and results of the study.
Summary
The current study was an instrumental explanatory, descriptive case study with a descriptive tendency conducted through a multiple case study design with several layers of analysis. The researcher obtained Institutional Review Board approval and notified districts about the purpose and procedures of the study. The researcher provided participants with a consent form before the interviews. Guidelines were established to maintain confidentiality of participant identities. Possible biases were addressed using reflexivity. The study examined the implementation of federal and state policies for students with dyslexia or showing dyslexic tendencies in three public school districts in
Ohio. Within each district, several layers of data collection were used. The researcher interviewed district personnel on their points of view regarding the implementation of laws for students with dyslexia. District documents were collected and analyzed.
Data were analyzed and coded under significant categories and emergent themes.
Triangulation was applied to confirm the trustworthiness of the findings as the study joins several data collection techniques. The researcher performed member checking to ensure the study findings and interpretations accurately reflect participant experiences. A chain of evidence provides connections between the research questions, data collection procedures, data analysis, and the findings presented in the study report.
91
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of interviews and documentation to answer the research question: How do Ohio K-12 public educators (a) interpret and (b) implement federal and state policies for the identification of students with dyslexia or showing dyslexic tendencies? This chapter explains (1) the context of the research, (2) data collection procedures, (3) data analysis procedures, (4) findings, and (5) summary.
Findings are presented by theme, based on an analysis of semi-structured interviews and school district documents with a discussion on how the study links back to the research question. Member checking results ensures external validity for the findings. The chapter ends with the result that school districts can identify dyslexia within the public school setting. The researcher includes an example of one school district's protocol for the identification of dyslexia.
Context of the Research
The researcher interviewed 15 participants for this study. Three Ohio public school districts were selected, representing a sample of Ohio suburban public schools based on their percentage of students with learning disabilities and similar demographics. Table 4.1 shows district demographics and typology. According to the
Ohio Department of Education (2018), all three districts are suburban, low student poverty, and average population size. General factors for suburban include low student
92 poverty, large population, and enrollment, average student minority population, primarily professional employment, and high parental educational attainment (Ohio
Department of Education, 2018). Low student poverty is the percentage of students flagged as economically disadvantaged, and an average population size includes a measure of the number of students served by a school district and the scale of the educational enterprise (Ohio Department of Education, 2018). The Ohio Department of
Education created a school district typology in 2013 as a cluster analysis using 11 measures, some of which combined into composite measures (Ohio Department of
Education, 2018). ODE chose these measures because they each provide an understanding of the characteristics that describe the make-up of a school district population and its community (Ohio Department of Education, 2018). The measures used for the typology and their data sources come from the U.S. Census Bureau (2010) and the Ohio Department of Taxation (Ohio Department of Education, 2018).
Additionally, districts were selected based on ranking on the Ohio district report card
(Ohio Department of Education, 2018). The improving at-risk K to third-grade readers component of the Ohio district report card looks at how many third-graders met the third-grade reading guarantee requirement for promotion to fourth grade, and how many third-graders scored proficient on the state English language arts test (Ohio Department of Education, 2018). The Ohio Department of Education deducts a district's number of students on reading improvement and monitoring plan (RIMP) from the number of students moved to on track and divides the total by the number of students started off track for a percentage transferred to a letter grade (A-F). The calculation intends to measure how successful the district is improving at-risk K-3 readers (Ohio Department
93 of Education, 2018). ODE requires districts to create a RIMP for students not on track to be proficient in reading by the end of third grade.
Table 4.1. District demographics and typology data 2018-19 school year
Demographic District A District B District C
Typology Suburban Suburban Suburban
Student Poverty Low 18% Low 17% Low 21%
Population Size Average Average Average
Disadvantaged 19% 16% 22% Students
Students with 13% 12% 16% Disabilities
District Report Card B B B Grade
Achievement Grade B B C
Graduation Rate A A A
Improving At-Risk C – 52.2% A – 94.3% B – 57.7% K-3 Readers
The sample from the thee districts represents five positions, director of student services, principal, school psychologist, general education teacher, and special education teacher, for each district. Table 4.2 describes participant characteristics such as gender, position, experience in education, educational background, as well as their knowledge of the number of students identified with dyslexia within their school or district. The total years of experience in education varied among the 15 participants sampled. Those
94 participants with 5-14 years (n = 4), 15-19 (n = 4), 20-24 (n = 3), 25-30 years (n = 3),
>30 years of experience (n = 1).
Table 4.2. Description of participants
Experience # District Gender Position Education in Education Superintendent License
Intervention Director of Specialist K-12 1 A Male Student 26 years License Services
Principal License
Pupil Services
School Psychology School License 2 A Female 17 years Psychologist Principal License
Principal License Primary
3 A Male School 24 years K-8 Teaching Principal License
Elementary Education License Intervention 4 A Female 25 years Specialist Specific Learning Disabilities License
Master’s Degree in Education Third-Grade 5 A Female 22 years Teacher Reading Endorsement
(table continues)
95 Table 4.2. Description of participants
Experience # District Gender Position Education in Education Ph.D. in School Director of Psychology 6 B Female Student 12 years Services Certified School Psychologist
B School Master’s Degree in 7 Female 18 years Psychologist School Psychology
Middle Childhood License Primary 8 B Female School 19 years Master of Education Principal Degree
Principal License
Learning/Behavior Disability Certificate Intervention 9 B Female 30 years Specialist Bachelor’s Degree in Elementary Education
Master of Education Third-Grade 10 B Female 11 years Degree Teacher
(table continues)
96 Table 4.2. Description of participants
Experience # District Gender Position Education in Education Bachelor’s Degree in Mild and Moderate Director of Intervention 11 C Female Student 15 years Specialist Services Master of Administration Degree
MTSS School Psychology 12 C Male 11 years Coordinator License
Master’s Degree in Reading Primary 13 C Female School 31 years Language Arts, and Principal Literacy Degree
Principal License
Intervention Bachelor’s Degree 14 C Female 21 years Specialist in Special Education
Bachelor’s Degree in Early Childhood Education First Grade 15 C Female 7 years Teacher Reading Endorsement
Gifted Endorsement
Data Collection Procedures
This section describes the data collection procedures through interviews and documents.
97 Interviews
The researcher sent a district consent email to the three districts' contact with whom she had recruited. The district contacts responded with an acceptance email to participate in the study and provided upon request from the researcher names and emails for participants in the position of teacher, special education teacher, principal, school psychologist, and director of student services. Fifteen interviews with Ohio school district personnel served as the primary source of research data for this study. The researcher scheduled interviews through email correspondence, with the participant deciding on a date, time, and location that was convenient. General education teachers were difficult to schedule due to their reluctance to participate and was indicated by
District B principal. The interviews were semi-structured as the researcher used an interview protocol. The researcher created the interview protocol ahead of time to explore the topic of the study, and her dissertation committee approved it. During the interview, the researcher allowed for a natural flow of interaction and additional questions that came up spontaneously. The interviews ranged from 20 to 50 minutes in duration. General education teacher interviews were the shortest as their answers were brief and, in the researcher’s opinion, they appeared uncomfortable with the topic of dyslexia. School psychologists’ interviews were longer in duration and, in the researcher’s opinion, they appeared confident in the area of dyslexia. The researcher recorded each interview on her password-protected phone and transcribed on her password-protected computer using automated transcription software, Trint
Transcription, a service that translates audio to text. The researcher is the only one with access to the password to the phone and computer. Table 4.3 provides a date and time
98 log for interviews that the researcher scheduled and conducted interviews during the fall of 2019. Progression of interviews was by district, A then B, then C, except for participant three following district B.
Table 4.3. Date and time log of interviews
Date Time District Participant Gender Position
7/30/19 2:00 p.m. A 4 Female Intervention Specialist
8/15/19 10:30 a.m. A 2 Female School Psychologist
8/16/19 9:00 a.m. A 1 Male Director of Student Services
8/26/19 2:00 p.m. A 5 Female Third-Grade Teacher
8/30/19 10:00 a.m. B 6 Female Director of Student Services
8/30/19 11:30 a.m. B 9 Female Intervention Specialist
9/3/19 10:50 a.m. B 7 Female School Psychologist
9/3/19 11:30 a.m. B 8 Female Primary School Principal
9/3/19 1:00 p.m. B 10 Female Third-Grade Teacher
9/11/19 10:00 a.m. A 3 Male Primary School Principal
10/15/19 8:00 a.m. C 11 Female Director of Student Services
10/15/19 9:30 a.m. C 12 Male MTSS Coordinator
10/15/19 11:45 a.m. C 13 Female Primary School Principal
10/15/19 1:00 p.m. C 14 Female Intervention Specialist
10/15/19 3:00 p.m. C 15 Female First Grade Teacher
Documents
District documents for identification of dyslexia served as supporting research data. During the interview process, the researcher requested copies of district documents
99 related to dyslexia, RTI, screening, and progress monitoring. The researcher collected documents through email or during the interview. She saved them in district folders on her password-protected computer. In addition to the district documents, the researcher kept a reflective journal detailing the events from the study. This journal included her reactions, reflections, and notes from each interview and interactions with all case study participants.
Data Analysis Procedures
After each district's five interviews, the five transcriptions were downloaded to a
Word document within 24 hours and checked for accuracy within one week by listening to the recordings of the interviews and comparing it to the text.
Open Coding
First, the researcher coded data manually using open coding. Open coding occurs at the beginning of data analysis to identify any segment of data that might be pertinent to the study (Merriam, 2009). The researcher then tagged keywords that emerged from the data such as identification, diagnosis, and RTI, within the transcribed Word document. Next, district documents were photocopied and open coded using the same keywords as the interviews as well as new emerging keywords, such as equity and in- house dyslexia diagnosis. Table 4.4 lists the keywords that emerged from the open coding process, such as accommodations, identification, progress, and parents, as well as the data source, such as interview or document, district, frequency, and amount of occurrences for the keywords. The researcher used word-count queries as a tool for discovering selective codes, a core category, from the data with criteria of five total exposures across participants and data sources.
100 Table 4.4. Results from open coding with five or more occurrences across two data types
Initial Code Sources District Frequency
Accommodations Interview A 4 B 11 C 1 Coursework Interview A 1 Interview B 0 Interview C 4 Diagnosis Interview A 10 Interview B 25 Interview C 4 Dyslexia Interview A 36 Interview B 42 Interview C 34 Experience Interview A 1 Interview B 0 Interview C 4 IAT (Intervention Interview A 11 Assistance Team) Document A 1 Interview B 22 Interview C 2 Identification Interview A 4 Document A 5 Interview B 1 Interview C 3 Document C 6 (table continues)
101 Table 4.4. Results from open coding with five or more occurrences across two data types (continued)
Initial Code Sources District Frequency
Instruction Interview A 29 Document A` 6 Interview B 20 Interview C 21 Document C 1 Intervention Interview A 35 Interview B 54 Interview C 32 No New Instruction Interview A 8 Interview B 5 Interview C 0 Outside Evaluation Interview A 9 Interview B 9 Interview C 13 Parents Interview A 13 Interview B 28 Interview C 9 Document C 2 Policies Interview A 4 Interview B 5 Interview C 15 Professional Development Interview A 2 Interview B 11 Interview C 7 (table continues) 102 Table 4.4. Results from open coding with five or more occurrences across two data types (continued)
Initial Code Sources District Frequency
Program Interview A 7 Interview B 4 Interview C 19 Progress Interview A 19 Document A 2 Interview B 19 Document B 1 Interview C 8 Reversal Interview A 4 Interview B 2 Interview C 1 Response to Intervention (RTI) Interview A 19 Document A 3 Interview B 7 Interview C 3 Document C 1 Screening Interview A 0 Interview B 1 Interview C 8 Services Interview A 12 Interview B 5 Interview C 12 (table continues)
103 Table 4.4. Results from open coding with five or more occurrences across two data types (continued)
Initial Code Sources District Frequency
Specific Learning Interview A 7 Disability (SLD) Interview B 1 Interview C 1 Document C 1
Axial Coding
Axial coding relates categories and properties to each other, refining the category scheme (Merriam, 2009). During the axial coding stage, the researcher transferred keywords, direct quotes, and researcher notes from the open coding process to an Excel document for further analysis. Using the Excel filtering feature, codes were combined based on the similarity of topics, such as progress monitoring, RTI, intervention assistance team (IAT), and screening, as shown in Table 4.5. Next, keywords emerging from the data within the combined open codes were color-coded for frequency counting and data analysis.
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111 Figure 4.1 is a sample representing 5 of 73 rows or 6% of data in the Excel document for the open code identification. During the axial coding stage of the analysis process, the keyword early was color-coded red under the code identification to identify the importance of early identification based on the number of times participants used that term. Data represents a special education and general education teacher and document one from district C. The color-coding allowed the researcher to track codes visually. The researcher analyzed data such as participant position, comments, and themes related to the open code identification.
Selective Coding
In analyzing the depth of codes, or the number of vignettes assigned to a group of codes, or grouping of open codes, selective codes emerged from the data. In selective coding, a core category, proposition, or hypotheses are developed (Merriam, 2009). The researcher reduced the data by developing a set of categories that adequately encompass and summarize the data by deciding what is worth taking note of in each segment of the
Excel database. The core categories are central to defining aspects of the phenomenon to which all other categories and hypotheses are related or interconnect (Merriam, 2009).
The selective categories that emerged were: (1) district practices for dyslexia, (2) perceptions and misperceptions of dyslexia, (3) district differences in the identification of dyslexia, (4) instruction and intervention for students with dyslexia, (5) special education services (Tier III) for students with dyslexia, and (6) parents of students with dyslexia. Table 4.6 presents the number of codes created for each category.
Identification policies and practices and related instruction for dyslexia were mentioned
112 identification code coding forFigure the open axial 4.1. Sample
113 frequently in both documentation and interviews. District practices, perceptions and misperceptions, district differences in identification, instruction, special education services, and parents were mainly mentioned in interviews.
Table 4.6. Code quantity by category District Perceptions District Instruction Special Parents Practices Misperceptions Differences Education Identification Services
Interview 47 43 116 155 27 16
Document 3 0 15 12 0 2
Table 4.7 summarizes the categories of identification, intervention, and special education services for dyslexia by the district. Districts identify dyslexia through an outside agency, within the IDEA category of SLD, or provide an in-house dyslexia diagnosis. Interventions range from a global approach for decoding and phonics to an individualized approach with specific programs, and to a Structured Literacy© approach.
Districts provide special education services in various settings such as one-on-one, small group-based, push-in, or pull-out supports based on the needs of the child.
Themes
Selective coding requires the researcher to analyze categories for emerging themes. Relationships across selective codes were analyzed. Each time a vignette linked directly to a code, the researcher reviewed that vignette for relations with other codes.
For example, when asked about special education services provided for students with dyslexia, participants from all three districts responded with specific programs such as
Fundations, Orton-Gillingham, or SPIRE. District B's principal stated,
114
115
116 “We've adopted Fundations in our district. So that has been huge and that was the piece we are missing. We did not have a systematic approach to teaching students how to read.” The relationship between programs and special education services was analyzed, and the theme for special education services emerged as inconsistent special education services for students with dyslexia.
Triangulation
During the data analysis process, the researcher combined the interview data with the district documents to code, analyze, and verify for theoretical relationships.
Triangulation is a process of utilizing multiple sources of data to increase the credibility of research findings (Merriam, 2009). The researcher triangulated findings using interviews, documents, and reflective field notes, as seen in Figure 4.2.
Documents
Reflective Interviews Field Notes
Deep Understanding
Figure 4.2. Triangulation process
Trustworthiness
For trustworthiness, the researcher performed random member checking by sending the interview transcripts to six participants for review and feedback. The
117 researcher stored the feedback in the form of an email in the district folders on the researcher's computer, which is password protected. Table 4.8 provides member check comments. To further ensure trustworthiness, the researcher conducted a peer review.
Two colleagues, one an intervention specialist and the other a doctoral candidate, were asked to review the design of the study, the congruency of emerging findings from the data, and tentative interpretations. The researcher emailed the colleagues' drafts, and they emailed back the drafts with comments. The researcher reviewed and considered the feedback, making revisions where necessary.
Findings
The researcher gathered data through interviews and district document review, as well as through a data analysis process. The researcher developed codes and categories as they related to the identification of dyslexia through district practices. Public school districts in Ohio showed inconsistencies in handling the identification of dyslexia as district practices. Data revealed misperceptions and reluctance to screen for dyslexia.
School psychologists used varied screening and assessment practices to identify dyslexia. Districts struggled to meet the diagnostic and prescriptive instructional and intervention needs of students with dyslexia, which leads to inconsistent special education services. Interviews with school personnel indicate that parents lacked trust in districts when it comes to the identification of dyslexia. In the following sections, relevant data are presented in italicized direct quotes for each theme and defined by data sources.
118 Table 4.8. Member check comments
Participant Comments Action Taken
1 Yes, it looks accurate. Thanks. No action needed.
12 4. This should be seven, not eleven. 4. Changed #4 from 11 to 7 5. Cross-battery assessment 5. Changed across to cross-battery assessment 7. a neuropsychologist, math computation, 7. Changed neuroscience math problem solving to neuropsychologist; omitted comma between IDEA criteria for being a student with a math and computation; disability, but does not require specially omitted comma between designed instruction to address those needs math and problem solving; changed 9. Now, that I could not give you a especially to specially definitive number off the top of my head. designed instruction to address those needs. XXXX would tell you, XXXX, the 9. Changed Now, that I assessments were the thing that mattered could not give you a the most. Right out of the gate. But I say, I definitive number off will always argue you have to have the the top of my head; systems in place to actually bring the Changed It's like the assessment conversation of life to these many at-bats or if I two sides of a similar coin. really want to get good But on this, we can debate all day on it, but at hitting a baseball, I we have to get the assessments right. need a lot of at-bats, right. It's like the many at-bats or if I really want to get good at hitting a baseball, I need a lot of at-bats, right.
Otherwise, for the most part, it looks like things were captured accurately, 6 Yes. No action needed.
5 Yes, it is accurate. No action needed.
13 I am fine with the transcription. No action needed.
3 I read the transcript. No action needed.
119 Theme One: Inconsistencies in Handling Identification of Dyslexia as District
Practices
This theme provides insight into the district policies for the identification of dyslexia. This section discusses district policies and procedures and provides examples from interviews and documents related to the identification of dyslexia. This section shows inconsistencies between districts with the interpretation and implementation of policies on how districts identify dyslexia, therefore creating frustration and confusion on the part of educators, parents, and students. The researcher asked about how students with dyslexia get identified in their district and answers varied from internal policies to referral to outside evaluators, to IDEA (IDEA, 2004) qualification under SLD in reading.
District A refers dyslexia testing to outside agencies. District B adheres to IDEA's categories of Specific Learning Disability (SLD) or Other Health Impairment (OHI), and
District C provides in-house dyslexia diagnosis using a district dyslexia protocol.
Referral to outside agencies. Assessment of dyslexia includes testing, most often provided by a team of professionals who have had clinical training in assessment
(IDA, 2017). Professionals who assess Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) and dyslexia may have degrees in education, reading, speech-language pathology, psychology, school psychology, or neuropsychology (IDA, 2017). District A refers parents to outside agencies for testing and diagnosis of dyslexia.
Our school psychologists typically don't diagnose dyslexia. They make referrals if they have a teacher that says I have concerns, and the school psych may need to look further into what's going on and talk to the parents to make that type of referral. (District A Director of Student Services)
120 Dyslexia has a spectrum of mild, moderate, and severe levels (Shaywitz,
Escobar, Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Makuch, 1992). Only at its severe level will a child qualify for special education services that require an Individual Education Plan (IEP)
(IDA, 2017). District B explains that frustration often arises when a clinical diagnosis of dyslexia does not equate with an Individual Education Plan (IEP) based on the school evaluation.
There are times where a clinical diagnosis (of dyslexia) doesn't always equal a disability-related to an IEP. Sometimes a student might need a 504, or a student may just need some short-term intervention. So, we look at that report we discuss it, and then the district determines if there's additional data they need to gather or if there's any interventions we're going to provide. (District B Director of Student Services)
Eligibility under IDEA categories. Districts A and B do not have written district policies for the identification of dyslexia. District A school psychologist and intervention specialist believe policies prohibit the diagnosis of dyslexia within the school setting.
I don't diagnose dyslexia in the school, but we diagnose a specific learning disability. (District A School Psychologist)
And so, the testing was done by a school psychologist, but she can't make it an official diagnosis of dyslexia because she doesn't have the other kinds of testing that they might do in a specialized area. (District A Intervention Specialist)
Confusion and frustration over a clinical diagnosis of dyslexia and educational evaluation for eligibility under IDEA exist within the school setting.
And so that's like one of our biggest battles is how we determine eligibility under IDEA versus how a clinical professional might apply that medical diagnosis (District B School Psychologist).
121 District B Director of Student Services states we acknowledge a clinical diagnosis in the background information of the ETR then look through the lens of the different disability categories under IDEA.
In-house dyslexia diagnosis. According to District C, federal and state policies do not prohibit the identification of dyslexia. District C created a district dyslexia protocol which provides goals, outlines who can diagnose dyslexia, tells when to complete the dyslexia battery, provides elements to be included in the assessment battery, including suggested measures, severity ratings (e.g., mild, moderate, severe), and provides eligibility language in the Educational Team Report (ETR). (District C
Document One) The District C dyslexia protocol goals state:
By providing a multidisciplinary approach to the evaluation of a student with a potential reading disability, District C will be able to diagnose and treat dyslexia while providing social and emotional support for students and families regarding this specific disability.
Providing an in-house dyslexia diagnosis allows District C to create equity for dyslexic students. Additionally, the district and parents will be able to decrease the burden/need for parents to find an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) beyond the multidisciplinary team. (District C Document One)
Educational testing can identify the presence of SLD or dyslexia and can provide the documentation that IDEA requires for eligibility for specially designed instruction and accommodations (IDA, 2017). Due to past stigma, District C created an eligibility/ineligibility checkbox within the dyslexia protocol that includes mild, moderate, or severe dyslexia. District C Director of Student Services stated:
I understand that dyslexia falls under SLD in reading, but because of the stigma that was created in the past, maybe it does just need to be its own identifying category under SLD with a checkbox for dyslexia. (District C Director of Student Services)
122 District C Dyslexia Protocol includes eligibility language for ETR's:
Eligibility under IDEA: Student presents a pattern of performance that is consistent with a diagnosis of mild/moderate/severe dyslexia which falls under the IDEA eligibility category of Specific Learning Disability due to deficits in (Basic Reading, Reading Fluency, Reading Comprehension) and requires specially designed instruction to address his/her needs. (District C Document One)
Not Eligible under IDEA: Student presents a pattern of performance that is consistent with a diagnosis of (mild) dyslexia but does not meet the IDEA criteria for being a student with a disability and does not require specially designed instruction to address their needs. (District C Document One)
District C created the dyslexia protocol in 2018 in response to IDEA's lack of
specificity regarding the identification of dyslexia. District C's school psychologist
expressed frustration with the IDEA qualification process. Let's be honest; the specific learning disability (SLD) is not specific enough. Explaining why they decided to develop internal policies for the identification of dyslexia, District C's school psychologist said:
My interpretation of it is like, well, it's a very gray area, and we finally just tilted towards it. It's all right. We're going to talk about it. We're not afraid of dyslexia. And that's where like developing our own internal policy on the matter grew from. (District C School Psychologist)
Theme one: Problem, purpose, question, and theory. Districts interpret and implement federal and state policies for the identification of students with dyslexia or dyslexic tendencies differently, which creates confusion amongst educators and parents.
District practices are inconsistent, ranging from written policies, referrals to outside agencies, and identification under IDEA SLD category.
Theme Two: Perceptions and Misperceptions of Dyslexia
The results of the study interviews and documents demonstrated an inconsistent understanding of what dyslexia is and how to treat it. Educators cannot identify and
123 remediate what they do not know and understand. Results indicate that 33%--that is, 5 of
15 of the overall participants--and 66%--that is, 10 of 15 teachers interviewed--believe the myth that dyslexia is reversing letters.
I know that like it affects the ability to read because things can either jump on a page or there's reversals or whole word reversals. (District A Third Grade Teacher)
Just a student who reads words, sees things backwards or sees letters differently. (District B Third Grade Teacher)
Dyslexia is defined as a specific learning disability (Shaywitz, 2003). However, only 20% (3 of 15 of the overall participants interviewed) described dyslexia as a learning disability.
I would say that it qualifies under a specific learning disability, and it is a language-based learning disability. (District A Principal)
Symptoms of dyslexia are inaccurate and non-fluent word recognition (Shaywitz,
2003). An impressive 100% of school psychologists interviewed linked decoding deficits with dyslexia.
Dyslexia would fall under a specific learning disability, so we delve into basic decoding, basic reading, reading fluency, and reading comprehension, so we break it down that way. (District A School Psychologist)
Dyslexia is a neurological, brained based disability (Shaywitz, 2003). Fifty-three percent (8 of 15 of overall participants interviewed) recognized dyslexia as a neurological condition.
It's a neurological condition where the student's phonological loop impacts their brain, along with sometimes impeded working memory difficulties as well as typically difficulties with processing speed or rapid naming. (District C School Psychologist)
124 The underlying cause of dyslexia is a deficit in the phonological component of processing language (Shaywitz, 2003). Results indicate that 33% (5 of 15) of overall participants interviewed mentioned phonological deficit when defining dyslexia.
The quintessential blueprint for dyslexia looking like the hypothesized double deficit with a deficit in rapid naming as well as phonological awareness. (District C School Psychologist)
Students with dyslexia learn to read, write, and spell using a Structured
Literacy© approach (IDA, 2015). Structured Literacy© elements include phonology, sound-symbol association, syllable instruction, morphology, syntax, and semantics
(IDA, 2015). Structured Literacy© is distinctive in the principles that guide how critical elements are taught, such as systematic and cumulative, explicit instruction, and diagnostic teaching (IDA, 2015). Educators trained in a Structured Literacy© approach showed understanding and confidence about the principles of instruction for students with dyslexia.
I mean, we've got people going through the Orton-Gillingham practicum right now, and their knowledge of dyslexia and just reading difficulties, in general, has shot through the roof just through that experience. (District C School Psychologist)
So I started the year thinking well in the summer as I'm reading that I would just be doing it with my O-G practicum student, but the knowledge I gained was so incredible, and I didn't feel right not doing it with my other students if they qualified in basic reading in their ETR. (District C Intervention Specialist)
In contrast, teachers untrained in a Structured Literacy© approach lacked an understanding of the principles of instruction for dyslexia. When asked about instruction for students with dyslexia, they responded as follows:
125 I don't think I have any bells or whistles specific in the classroom that I use. (District B Intervention Specialist)
Apps on Chrome books that change the font (District B Intervention Specialist)
One teacher let a parent guide her on how to teach her child with dyslexia.
The mom of a student with dyslexia in my classroom shared some different ways that helped him as far as different ways to write, and different ways like bigger print and things like that to help him see things and tools to help his eyes travel the right way. And since I've only had one student with dyslexia, I did what mom told me. (District B Third Grade Teacher)
Using the term dyslexia remains controversial. The results of the current study suggest inconsistencies, confusion, and frustration with using the term dyslexia.
Dyslexia is a theme in our meetings; why aren't we calling it dyslexia? Why is it a bad thing?
Is it a bad thing? Is it not? (District C Director of Student Services)
A school psychologist describes the process of using the term or not using the term as nerve-wracking.
Nerve-wracking for school psychologists since they have always been told they couldn't say it (District C Director of Student Services)
However, one district from the study identifies dyslexia with the label and not in general terms.
The one thing in Ohio, it was taboo, or it was bad to say your kid has dyslexia, and that's one thing our district is not doing. We are saying your child has dyslexia or all the signs towards having dyslexia. And we're not afraid to say it anymore, but we were. (District C School Psychologist)
When districts openly label dyslexia rather than giving a general term, dyslexia is not threatening to various parties, such as professionals and families, due to a common understanding. The deficits associated with dyslexia are language-based, not visual, and
126 not related to cognitive skills or intelligence (Shaywitz, 2003). It benefits all parties to understand what dyslexia is and what it is not and contributes to a reciprocal trust factor.
So, it's almost a relief when you can have that conversation with a family, a student, and the staff. (District C Director of Student Services)
The findings on perceptions and misperceptions of dyslexia indicate a need for professional development in the area of dyslexia. A school psychologist feels general education teachers have the most need in this area.
But I would definitely say our tier one, core teachers are the ones that probably need the most professional development in the area of dyslexia. (District C School Psychologist)
Theme two: Problem, purpose, question, and theory. IDEA lacks specificity regarding a definition of dyslexia. States have passed laws to include a clear definition.
However, there remains inconsistent understanding amongst educators of what dyslexia is and how to treat it. Educators cannot identify and remediate what they do not know and understand. The identification of dyslexia depends on the knowledge of educators.
Theme Three: Varied Screening and Assessment Practices for Dyslexia
Universal screening. A first step in the process of identification is universal screening for dyslexia (IDA, 2019).
Universal screening determines a student's risk for reading difficulty or dyslexia and the need for intervention (IDA, 2019). It is vital to identify the instructional needs of struggling students as soon as possible for remediation purposes (IDA, 2019). One of three districts interviewed administers a universal screening assessment battery specifically for dyslexia, using the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing
127 (CTOPP) (Wagner, Torgesen, Roshotte, & Pearson, 2013) suggested by the end of
October in Kindergarten.
The fact that we universally screen our kindergarteners and continue to rescreen students with the CTOPP that presents with those profiles over time is an absolute strength of ours. (District C School Psychologist)
Dyslexia is a neurobiological disorder (Shaywitz, 2003). It takes much longer to intervene with an older student then it does in kindergarten because of brain development and the increase in grade-level material (IDA, 2019). District B is reluctant to screen for dyslexia due to fear of the sheer number of potential kids showing a risk.
What do you do if you have 300 kids looking like they're at risk on a screener like the Shaywitz Dyslexia Screener? How many kids will pop up on that and are those the same kids we're already servicing based on other measures we have without saying 'it's dyslexia at risk.' (District B School Psychologist)
Many states have introduced and passed legislation that requires screening for dyslexia (Lichtenstein, 2018). Ohio legislatures introduced, SB 102 (2019) Dyslexia
Screening Program for Schools and SB 200 (2019) Professional Development for
Screening for Dyslexia. SB 102 (2019) proposed a dyslexia screening program be established, and each district or school shall conduct screenings before first grade and provide intervention services for students with risk factors for dyslexia, including low phonemic awareness. Grades K-12 transfer students would also be screened within thirty days after enrollment. Guidelines and procedures for the screening programs will be established by the state superintendent and the IDA Ohio branches. Two of the three districts interviewed mentioned Ohio SB102.
I'm aware that in the state there's also a Senate bill that's actively being considered right now about looking at Senate Bill 102 that is looking at by
128 the age of six, we need to have screened and identified and starting to intervene. (District B Director of Student Services)
Assessment for dyslexia. Whether a clinical or educational evaluation, identification of dyslexia requires a battery of assessments, including supplemental measures that require a depth of knowledge by a skilled clinician who synthesizes intake information, reports, test scores, and interprets results (IDA, 2017). IDEA (IDEA, 2004) states that eligibility for SLD must consider a student's response to intervention or classroom instruction. When students do not progress with RTI or Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) approach, a clinical evaluation is needed to identify if they have dyslexia. An educational evaluation of dyslexia should assess phonological awareness, phonological or language-based memory, rapid automatic naming, receptive vocabulary, phonics skills, decoding, oral reading fluency, single words, sentences and paragraphs, spelling, writing, and sentence level and paragraph-level written expression (IDA, 2017).
District A identification methods. District A school psychologist relies on the state-mandated categories of SLD, which are basic reading, reading fluency, and reading comprehension. Dyslexia would fall under the basic reading, decoding category.
I have to go by state-mandated, um, categories so dyslexia would fall under a specific learning disability, so we delve into basic reading (decoding), reading fluency, and reading comprehension, so we break it down that way. I don't diagnose dyslexia in the school, but we diagnose a specific learning disability in those three areas and written language as well. (District A School Psychologist)
District B identification methods. Identifying dyslexia, according to District B school psychologist, involves multiple assessments, the RTI process, and classroom- based assessments. Areas mentioned were phonemic awareness and decoding.
129 From a testing perspective, I think we use multiple measures. I mean I think we look at phonemic awareness, I think we look at multiple measures for decoding…, plus we're looking at RTI, plus we're doing you know four or five classroom-based assessments. (District B School Psychologist)
District B school psychologist recognizes dyslexia as a learning disability with decoding deficits under the IDEA category of SLD or Other Health Impairment (OHI).
During the interview, she mentioned reading comprehension and decoding deficits.
Reading comprehension can be a secondary consequence of dyslexia (Shaywitz, 2003).
There's very few at this level who are LD reading comp only. I mean, most of them have a decoding deficit, and so most of them have LD in reading. A clinical person will likely find them to have dyslexia. I mean a lot of them are OHI (Other Health Impairment) and impacts reading, but they're so inattentive. (District B School Psychologist)
District C identification methods. Identifying dyslexia according to District C school psychologist has more nuance to it than state criteria for SLD. Districts need to get away from the traditional cookie-cutter mentality of using patterns of strengths and weaknesses or the old school discrepancy model, which is simply plugging numbers into a formula. (District C School Psychologist).
We consulted with neuropsychologist here in XXXX and put together a battery of assessments and procedures to utilize when we suspect a child may have dyslexia. And that includes a full cognitive battery, as well as supplemental measures that also evaluate a student's executive functioning as well, and also includes a look at their basic reading, their reading fluency, reading comprehension capabilities in combination with spelling, written expression and then their math, math computation, math problem- solving capabilities as well. So, we try to have a rounded battery in that regard. There're also components of that battery that incorporate speaking and listening in their relation to reading skills as well, plus observation on top of that. (District C School Psychologist)
A principal described a diagnostic tool that organizes data as a game-changer.
Additionally, the process requires a team approach, which includes a school
130 psychologist, speech-language pathologist, reading specialist, and occupational therapist, according to District C school psychologist.
Theme three: Problem, purpose, question, and theory. There are Ohio public school districts that use a “Wait to Fail” model when it comes to screening and assessment practices for dyslexia due to a lack of formal procedures and practices for screening, progress monitoring, and evaluation for special education services if necessary. Early identification of dyslexia is a prevention model that is more economical for school districts.
Theme Four: District Challenges Related to Meeting the Needs of Students with
Dyslexia
Principles of instruction for students with dyslexia are systematic and cumulative, multisensory, direct and explicit, and data-driven (IDA, 2015). The intensity needed depends on the severity level of the student's disability (Shaywitz, Escobar,
Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Makuch, 1992). A student with severe dyslexia requires intensive remediation services (IDA, 2015). Scheduling and staffing this level of support can be difficult. Findings suggest the instructional time for students with dyslexia is a concern for District A.
But I would say they (reading specialists) need to have more time to really implement full dyslexia instruction, not just dyslexia instruction but that explicit instruction time. You know those routines. (District A Principal)
Instructional time may not reflect the diagnostic and prescriptive needs of the student.
I can't have the reading specialist working one-on-one for the time required. You can't do that. So, they get lumped in. That's reality. (District A Principal)
131 A director of student services describes how explicit instruction for students with dyslexia coordinates with ELA instruction.
In addition to Wilson, Just Words, and Fundations, I still want them immersed in that core ELA instruction, so they're not living in two separate worlds, and they're actually coordinated. (District B Director of Student Services)
Explicit instruction is happening separately from the ELA as an intervention period three days a week. (District B Director of Student Services)
Structured literacy. Structured Literacy© is the method used to teach students with dyslexia (IDA, 2015). Concepts of the language are systematically taught from simple to complex and cumulatively reviewed to mastery (IDA, 2015). Based on the interviews, districts in Ohio use Structured Literacy©.
We utilize a network of those professionals in order to deliver that special instruction that Structured Literacy© that they require. (District C School Psychologist)
So, our students that fit that dyslexic profile, they are going to receive multisensory reading instruction. Structure literacy is what they're going to receive. And that can come in the form of the Orton-Gillingham method. (District C School Psychologist)
Those who are receiving Wilson are already on an IEP. Those students, when we're starting to see some concerns that they are in trouble, we'll put them in Fundations first, and then we watch carefully. (District B Director of Student Services)
After being trained in MTSS, a principal wishes she would have learned
Structured Literacy© methods sooner.
So, I feel that there's a lot of students I could have helped out had I had this Structured Literacy© training sooner, but I have quite a few years left still. (District C Principal)
Intervention Specialists report progress with special education students using
Structured Literacy© programs.
132 I feel in my 30 years of teaching both gen ed, and special ed Fundations is the best program we've ever had for kids with reading disability. I've seen more progress with my sped kids using Fundations. (District B Intervention Specialist)
Some intervention specialists use Structured Literacy© programs but without formalized training or certification.
We also use some of the Fundation's materials. Personally, I don't have the training, but we use some of the material, so we're doing the best we can following the guidelines. (District A Intervention Specialist)
Response to intervention. One framework for identification for learning disabilities like dyslexia is Response to Intervention (RTI). RTI's two goals are to identify at-risk students for early intervention and prevention and recognize those for whom such early intervention is ineffective so that they receive more intensive instruction and possibly special education (Compton et al., 2012). The best prognosis for students with dyslexia includes early identification and evidence-based interventions implemented with frequent monitoring of progress (Glazzard, 2010). The current study findings suggest that the RTI process varies significantly from district to district and may not target the specific needs of students with dyslexia.
I likened RTI to we did a lot of admiring the problem, but we really didn't determine the exact needs or the specific interventions that would be needed for a particular child. (District C Principal)
The variance in RTI between districts could be due to a lack of training and follow-through. Some districts train their staff in the RTI framework. However, follow- through after the training may be an issue.
RTI was never really applied in the way it was supposed to be applied in our building because once the team came back, there was no real follow- through. (District A Intervention Specialist)
133 Additionally, RTI may be a challenge for districts to get up and running.
However, over time, a workable system can be developed. One principal describes RTI as by no means is it a model, but it works for us. (District A Principal)
Some view RTI as a special education initiative and other districts are including general education teachers in the process. RTI in general education is essential since dyslexia ranges from mild, moderate to severe, and encompasses all tiers of instruction within the framework severity (Shaywitz, Escobar, Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Makuch,
1992).
And when we're providing intervention, it's general education teachers, and its Title teachers, it might be special education teachers. It's all hands-on deck. (District B Director of Special Services)
So, it's not a special education thing. It's a general education initiative because it isn't always special education. (District C Director of Student Services)
Intervention assistance team. RTI may have a negative stigma of yet another new initiative, so the process may be called the Intervention Assistance Team (IAT). The
IAT serves as a vehicle to intervene for students who are struggling in school. The team consists of the referred student's teachers, parents, specialists, school psychologists, and principal.
RTI systems have been in place for a very long time, but we are trying not to use the word RTI because it sometimes scares teachers in terms of what's the new initiative.
It may be called IAT, Kid Talk, PCTC, which means what do kids need. (District B Director of Student Services)
The Intervention Assistance Team meets to discuss data and intervention groups.
134 IAT is data meetings to plug kids into intervention groups. They help us make decisions quickly about kids and put them in place. (District B School Psychologist)
And then once a month we meet as a grade level, and we talk about you know who's making progress or who's not. Do we need to switch around the groups? Do we need to add anybody or take anyone out? (District A Third Grade Teacher)
However, some argue that the IAT process is subjective.
IAT was just brainstorming random ideas we thought would help the student. (District C Intervention Specialist)
For IAT, you would just invite the stakeholders that were involved with the student, and it was very timed. You had a form and time per section, and then teachers would brainstorm ideas that they thought would help or the stakeholders their parent would actually be involved in the meeting, and then we would monitor that intervention and follow up. (District C Intervention Specialist)
Two participants, a District C school psychologist, and a District A principal, expressed concern that the identification process lacks equity.
Five years ago, it was fair but not equitable, which was a problem. Bring five kids you're worried about. Complete domination of the time cycle on one student. (District C School Psychologist)
And so, we just keep looking at teacher's recommendation of data, reading support specialist data, what do they show and we decide who wins the lottery, which is a sad thing to say, because unfortunately in my perspective, you're on a team of four or a team of three. This data may look slightly different. These people may get in because there are only 75 kids you are dealing with as opposed to a hundred kids you deal with. I look at 462 students at one elementary building versus 390 at another elementary building and the same amount of time. So, I get one Title One for the same amount of time. If you live right over there across the street and you have this score, you might get services. You live on this side of the road. You might not get services. (District A Principal)
Multitiered system of support. One district in the study uses a Multitiered
System of Support (MTSS). MTSS is a framework used to provide targeted support for
135 all learners. It focuses on supporting the “whole child,” whether an advanced or struggling learner, through academic, behavioral, social and emotional services (Fletcher et al., 2009; Barth et al., 2007). The goal of MTSS is for teachers to have an instructional answer for what a child requires. (District C School Psychologist)
District C principal describes MTSS as more informative and not as subjective as past practices of IAT or RTI.
But this is definitely just more informative. I feel like the data that we collect now is not as subjective. I just feel like we do a much better job at the MTSS process than what we have in the past. (District C Principal)
I think the important thing to know about our MTSS is in the past, historically in this district and I know in other districts, teachers bring their kids of concern, and it's all based on feelings and opinion. All right-minded, just not data. (District C School Psychologist)
According to District C principal, the MTSS process guides with analyzing data and being diagnostic and prescriptive with the results.
And then like I said refining that MTSS process and having someone that was able to guide us in analyzing that data and because, this is silly but, even as a literacy coach I administered the CTOPP, and this was years ago someone said oh you need to administer that assessment, so we did it, but we didn't know what to do with the results. (District C Principal)
Additionally, the MTSS process empowers teachers and intervention specialists with programs and resources to help students with dyslexia.
MTSS is much more structured now with programs and resources to help these students. (District C Intervention Specialist)
Special education services. The intervention services one receives as a student with dyslexia lack consistency from district to district due to the inconsistencies in district practices for identification of dyslexia, the perceptions, and misperceptions of dyslexia, the varied screening and assessment practices for dyslexia. The setting,
136 duration, and type of intervention services vary and lack consistency between districts.
Some provide pull-out services, and others feel it best to prescribe push-in services.
Special education services may be customized, individualized, and tailored to the student's needs or generalized for all students within the SLD category.
Intervention services can be provided to students with dyslexia regardless of a diagnosis.
So, we really take a very individualized approach. But at the same time, we have students who don't have a diagnosis they may get the same type of intervention (Director of Student Services)
Special education services for students with dyslexia may be delivered in a small group setting and tailored to the individual needs of the student.
So, it doesn't matter which tier you're on; whoever is the best individual to serve you. So, our small elementary has one intervention specialist. It doesn't mean if you're on an IEP or if you're not on an IEP, it doesn't matter. The person that's O-G trained, whether she's an intervention specialist or a reading specialist, she'll be the one that provides your service. So, it's all small group, and it's really tailored to what the kid needs. (District C Director of Student Services)
Districts get creative with special education services to meet the academic needs of students with dyslexia.
We are creative with services. Some meet after school to meet all the other needs that the students have during the school day. Some meet during study hall, a tutoring period, or during choir. (District B Director of Student Services)
Intervention services for dyslexia can be customized based on student needs.
We customize interventions. It's not cookie-cutter, every kid with dyslexia gets X, Y, and Z. (District C Director of Student Services)
Theme four: Problem, purpose, question, and theory. Districts use a variety of instructional strategies, such as phonics routines, phonological awareness activities,
137 and multisensory teaching, and recognize these require additional training and certification. Districts are attempting to provide Structured Literacy© instruction, but with many barriers such as time, schedules, resources, and training, The MTSS framework provides equitable supports to students with dyslexia and empowers teachers and intervention specialists with programs and resources to help students with dyslexia.
Theme Five: Parental Lack of Trust in Districts Related to the Identification of
Dyslexia
It can be difficult for a parent of a child with dyslexia to navigate the various aspects of the learning needs and the social-emotional concerns associated with dyslexia
(IDA, 2017). Districts gain trust from parents when they address dyslexia within the school setting.
I feel like there's a level of trust that's been like kind of like returned to our school district because we were like, oh, you're just OK. This is what I want to know. And you're going to tell it to me, right? Like we're not going to dance around the issue. We're not going to be afraid of the D-word. All right. We're going to talk about it. So, let's do that. (District C School Psychologist)
Communication with parents is key to helping them understand dyslexia.
Before that, you didn't say the D-word you know to parents. And I think now too the next step is helping parents understand that it's not a bad word. Your child is just going to learn this in a different way. It doesn't mean that they can't learn (District C Principal)
You know I think we need to do a better job of educating our parents now. (District C Principal)
It is difficult for parents to understand the IDEA (IDEA, 2004) category of SLD in reading includes dyslexia. Until schools consistently use the term and explain it to parents, there will be confusion.
138 We had families coming to us saying, well, you're saying that SLD in reading, but they have dyslexia. And we kept saying, but it's the same thing. (District B Director of Student Services)
Parents also misunderstand the clinical diagnosis of dyslexia versus the educational evaluation for the qualification of services under IDEA.
So, as the parent, I'd be concerned and like well this doctor saying this, and you're saying that. So that's the worst part of this whole thing. That's the only thing I really hate about my job. (District B School Psychologist)
Others believe policies do not prohibit the diagnosis of dyslexia within the school setting.
But I think now that we can do it (diagnosis of dyslexia) in-house, we're going to save the family a lot of money as well and give them I mean the results 10 to 1 will be the same. (District C School Psychologist)
District C dyslexia protocol provides clarity for families.
We had families coming to us saying, well, you're saying that it's SLD in reading, but they have dyslexia. And we kept saying, but it's the same thing (District C Director of Student Services).
Theme Five: Problem, Purpose, Question, and Theory. When public school districts identify dyslexia, they start earning the trust of their parents. Identification of dyslexia allows for the opportunity to educate parents about dyslexia and the learning needs of their child. A district protocol for the identification of dyslexia provides clarity for families.
Summary
Chapter IV presented descriptive findings from a collective, instrumental qualitative case study of three Ohio K-12 public school districts with a focus on the identification of dyslexia related to federal and state policies. Figure 4.3 illustrates that an MTSS framework can support students with dyslexia. Students with dyslexia achieve
139 success in school when districts establish practices that comprise screening, identification, instruction, and services that gain the trust of parents. General education, also known as Tier I, is shown in green. Small group instruction and differentiation, Tier
II, is shown in yellow and special education, Tier III, is shown in red. The descriptive findings of the study resulted in five themes. These themes include: (1) inconsistencies in handling identification of dyslexia as district practices, (2) perceptions and misperceptions of dyslexia, (3) varied screening and assessment practices for dyslexia,
(4) district challenges related to meeting the needs of students with dyslexia, and (5) parental lack trust in districts regarding identification of dyslexia. Results suggested that federal and state policies do not prohibit local districts from identifying dyslexia, and
Chapter V presents a detailed analysis of the findings as well as conclusions drawn from them and will include recommendations for future research and practice.
Figure 4.3. Descriptive findings related to dyslexia and student success
140
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this qualitative case study explains how Ohio K-12 public schools interpret and implement federal and state policies related to the identification of dyslexia. The researcher met the purpose of the study by exploring, through interviews and district documents, teachers’ instructional needs, districts’ understanding of federal and state policies, and early identification of students with dyslexia in Ohio. This chapter includes (1) summary of results, (2) discussion of results, (3) recommendations, (4) limitations, (5) implications, and (6) conclusion.
This chapter contains discussion and future research possibilities to help answer the research question: How do Ohio K-12 public educators (a) interpret and (b) implement federal and state policies for the identification of students with dyslexia or showing dyslexic tendencies? Districts in the current study interpret and implement federal law IDEA differently related to the identification of dyslexia. District A believes that IDEA prohibits them from identifying dyslexia so refers testing to outside agencies.
District B interprets the law as dyslexia is included in the IDEA category of SLD in basic reading skills. District C believes the law does not prohibit them to identify dyslexia in-house, so they implement a district-wide dyslexia assessment protocol. Ohio, unlike other states, does not require districts to identify and report student identified with dyslexia.
141 Summary of the Results
The results of the study indicated the emergence of five major themes: (1) inconsistencies in handling identification of dyslexia as district practices, (2) perceptions and misperceptions of dyslexia, (3) varied screening and assessment practices for dyslexia, (4) district challenges related to meeting the needs of students with dyslexia, and (5) parental lack of trust in districts regarding identification of dyslexia. Results suggest that federal and state policies do not prohibit local districts from identifying dyslexia. The strength of this study is that districts can now understand what they need to do regarding the identification of dyslexia. Appendix D provides a dyslexia checklist that districts should follow regarding identification, instruction and services for students with dyslexia. In order to identify students with dyslexia early a mandatory screening protocol with a universal screener, diagnostic screener and progress monitoring for ongoing characteristics of dyslexia is required. The instruction needs to adhere to the
International Dyslexia Association (IDA) recommendation of a Structured Literacy© approach. The evaluation of dyslexia must follow a standard protocol that gathers cumulative data, data-driven meetings, formal evaluation domains, review and interpretation of data and evaluations, severity ratings, and eligibility determination regarding Section 504 or IDEA (IDEA, 2004). Additionally, districts must provide professional development and family and student support regarding students with dyslexia. Last, university teacher preparation programs should seek IDA accreditation which will align their coursework to the IDA Knowledge and Practice Standards for
Teachers of Reading including a supervised practicum.
142 Discussion of the Results
Federal and state policies lack specificity regarding both identification and implementation inclusive of variability by state, district and classroom. Policies do not prohibit identification of dyslexia in public schools. Five common themes bear prominence in terms of factors influencing how districts in the study interpret and implement policies related to identification of dyslexia. These themes include: (1) inconsistencies in handling identification of dyslexia as district practices, (2) perceptions and misperceptions of dyslexia, (3) varied screening and assessment practices for dyslexia, (4) district challenges related to meeting the needs of students with dyslexia, and (5) parental lack of trust in districts regarding identification of dyslexia. Each theme is described in detail in the following sections with direct quotes included.
District Practices for Dyslexia
This study’s conclusion that federal and state policies lack specificity regarding identification of dyslexia concurs with the literature IDEA lists dyslexia as an example of a SLD but IDEA does not specify how dyslexia is defined or how services should be provided for students with dyslexia in public schools (Ward-Lonergan & Duthie, 2018).
Participants describe policies for dyslexia as not specific, a gray area, and not in keeping with what is appropriate for students.
Diagnosis and ownership of dyslexia is socially and emotionally best for students. Glazzard (2010) found that the most significant factor that contributes to students’ self-esteem is a definite diagnosis and ownership of the label dyslexia, concluding that early diagnosis is essential for creating a positive self-image. In the current study, participants express confusion and frustration over a clinical diagnosis of
143 dyslexia and educational evaluation for eligibility under IDEA. One school psychologist clearly states, “I don't diagnose dyslexia in the school, but we diagnose a specific learning disability.” Another school psychologist feels one of her biggest battles is determination of eligibility under IDEA versus how a clinical professional applies a medical diagnosis of dyslexia. A director of student services explains that her district acknowledges a clinical diagnosis in the background information of the Evaluation Team
Report (ETR), and then looks through the lens of the different disability categories under
IDEA. Another district refers cases of suspected dyslexia to outside testing agencies.
The third district participating in the study decided to identify dyslexia as part of the
ETR process proactively. Clearly, we have three districts each dealing with the identification of dyslexia issue differently. Participants admittedly stated the confusion to parents and teachers alike. “We had families coming to us saying, well, you're saying that it’s SLD in reading, but they have dyslexia. And we kept saying but it’s the same thing.” (Director of Student Services)
Federal and State policies do not prohibit identification of dyslexia in public schools. The literature suggests school systems should enact policies and procedures empowering teachers to identify children with special learning needs early in their schooling (Snowling, 2013). The current study aligns with Snowling (2013) by revealing a district that established a district protocol and procedures for identification of dyslexia.
The document states goals, personnel able to diagnose dyslexia, when to complete the dyslexia battery, severity ratings, and eligibility language in ETRs. The following is a sample of the language used by district C (Document One):
144 Eligibility under IDEA: Student presents a pattern of performance that is consistent with a diagnosis of mild/moderate/severe dyslexia which falls under the IDEA eligibility category of Specific Learning Disability due to deficits in (Basic Reading, Reading Fluency, Reading Comprehension) and requires specially designed instruction to address his/her needs. Not Eligible under IDEA: Student presents a pattern of performance that is consistent with a diagnosis of (mild) dyslexia but does not meet the IDEA criteria for being a student with disability and does not require specially designed instruction to address their needs.
Perceptions and Misperceptions of Dyslexia
Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge (Lyon,
Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2003, p. 2).
The results of the study reveal three areas related to the definition of dyslexia: (1) language-based learning disability, (2) neurological brain-based disability, and (3) phonological deficit. Only 20% (3 of 15) of participants interviewed includes a learning disability as part of the definition of dyslexia, 53% (8 of 15) define dyslexia as a neurological, brained based disability, and 33% (5 of 15) mention phonological deficit when defining dyslexia.
The literature defines dyslexia as an unexpected difficulty in reading in individuals who otherwise possess the intelligence and motivation necessary for fluent
145 reading, and who have also had reasonable reading instruction (Ferrer et al., 2010).
While the sample of teachers interviewed understand that dyslexia is associated with difficulty learning to read, 60% believe the myth that dyslexia is equated with reversing letters. The IDA defines dyslexia as a language-based learning disability that referring to a cluster of symptoms associated with difficulties with reading. Students with dyslexia typically also have comorbid difficulties with other language skills such as spelling, writing, and pronouncing words (IDA, 2017). IDEA lacks specificity regarding a definition of dyslexia. Some states have passed laws to include a clear definition; however, there remains inconsistent understanding amongst educators of what dyslexia is and how to treat it. The current study findings confirm the Houston Independent
School District (HISD) findings that educators cannot identify and remediate what they do not know and understand (Serrant, 2016). The HISD study reported only slightly half
(52.8%) of the interventionists and teachers of students diagnosed with dyslexia who enrolled in the district’s professional development successfully completed their program
(Serrant, 2016). The knowledge of educators in terms of identification of dyslexia is dependent upon and of paramount importance.
Screening and Assessment Practices for Dyslexia
All districts interviewed screen, progress monitor, and meet to discuss student progress; however, the process varies by district from models of Response to
Intervention (RTI), Intervention Assistance Team (IAT), and Multi-Tiered System of
Support (MTSS). Identification of dyslexia begins with a process of universal screening.
One district’s process of screening for dyslexia aligns with the literature, emphasizing the importance of screening protocols that are in use to alert teachers to dyslexic
146 tendencies (Germano & Capellini, 2017). This district administers a universal screening assessment battery for dyslexia using the Comprehensive Test of Phonological
Processing (CTOPP) by the end of October in Kindergarten defining this as a district strength due to the benefits of early identification. However, even when screening occurred in Head Start centers, teachers hold the prevailing misconception of dyslexia is a visual processing disorder rather than a phonological processing disorder (Gonzalez &
Brown, 2019). If unidentified, students with dyslexia continue to fall behind not only in reading, but also academics in general, which is why it is critical to address early reading concerns like dyslexia at the outset (Germano & Capellini, 2017). The benefits of screening for dyslexia are clear. Results of the study show two of the three districts do not screen specifically for dyslexia. These results are consistent with the literature that dyslexia is often unidentified until the end of the second or the beginning of third grade, even though interventions are most effective in kindergarten or first grade, making remediation more difficult, time consuming, and thereby expensive (Wanzek & Vaughn,
2007). Since not all districts in the current study screen specifically for dyslexia, results agree with the literature that the identification of dyslexia in elementary school is often delayed in terms of a delayed wait-to-fail approach currently employed in elementary schools (Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007).
Gough and Tunmer (1986) formulation of the Simple View of Reading where a student’s reading comprehension (RC) score can be predicted if decoding (D) skills and language comprehension (LC) abilities are known. Building off this formulaic approach, school psychologists have the capacity to use diagnostic tools to identify dyslexia through an MTSS framework (Fletcher et al., 2009; Barth et al., 2007). The
147 identification of dyslexia requires a battery of assessments including supplemental measures (Wagner, 2018). In the current study one participant expressed more nuance is involved in terms of the identification of dyslexia than the state criteria for SLD. A district dyslexia protocol establishes the goals, who can diagnose dyslexia, when to complete the dyslexia battery, elements to be included in a Multifactored Evaluation
Assessment Battery, and severity ratings and eligibility language in ETRs (District C,
Document One). Timely screening and identification of students diagnosed with dyslexia need to occur with urgency in order to ensure that these students receive the appropriate services to help them perform academically (Serrant, 2016). It is recommended that school psychologists use an assessment battery with the following elements: history, general intellectual functioning, information on cognitive processing, executive functioning, specific oral language skills related to reading and writing, listening comprehension, tests of auditory processing and phonological awareness, word reading and decoding, fluency, reading comprehension, spelling, written expression, and classroom observation.
District Challenges Related to Meeting the Needs of Students with Dyslexia
Structured Literacy© is the method used to teach students with dyslexia (IDA,
2015). Concepts of the language are systematically taught from simple to complex and cumulatively reviewed to mastery (IDA, 2015). Structured Literacy© methods adhere to the findings of the National Reading Panel’s (NRP) essential components of reading instruction including phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension (NICHD, 2000). The IDA (IDA, 2010) developed a guide to Structured
Literacy© in the form of its Knowledge and Practice Standards for the Teachers of
148 Reading (IDA, 2010). The IDA standards (IDA, 2018) include general guiding principles of Structured Literacy©, as well as specific learning objectives in six content areas: (1) phonological and phonemic awareness, (2) phonics and word recognition, (3) automatic, fluent reading of text, (4) vocabulary, (5) listening and reading comprehension, and (6) written expression. Participants identify the need for phonics, phonemic awareness, and decoding implemented in a multisensory, explicit, and systematic routine coordinated with English Language Arts. The districts in the current study provide a variety of instructional strategies such, as phonics routines, phonological awareness activities, and multisensory teaching recognizing the requirement for additional training and certification. Districts are attempting to provide Structured
Literacy© instruction; however, with the existence of many barriers inclusive of time, schedules, resources, and training. Tier I teachers interviewed in this study are not trained and certified in Structured Literacy©, an approach for students who have difficulty learning to read (IDA, 2015). The term refers to both the content and methods or principles of instruction. According to the International Dyslexia Association (2017),
Structured Literacy© methods are critical for students with reading disabilities including dyslexia.
A student can receive special education services regardless of a diagnosis of dyslexia. The driving force for many proposed state dyslexia laws is directly related to issues expressed and actions taken by groups of parents, teachers, and other professionals concerned with the extent and quality of special education services provided to children and adolescents with dyslexia in school settings (Ward-Lonergan &
Duthie, 2018). The interviewed Director of Student Services explains that at her district,
149 special education is not needed for a student with dyslexia to receive services. Districts attempt to provide special education services tailored to the needs of the student with dyslexia. However, the current study reveals inconsistent special education services for students with dyslexia ranging from whole class, small group, to a one-on-one setting.
District A provides 20-30-minute intervention services while District C provides 30-60 - minute intervention services. District A emphasizes push-in services, while District B and C use pull-out services. All three districts use Structured Literacy© certified teachers; however, not all students with dyslexia receive services from a Structured
Literacy© certified teacher. District A offers extended school year (ESY) services geared toward students with dyslexia. District B provides intervention services after school to students with dyslexia when necessary. Districts use a variety of instructional strategies such as phonics routines, phonological awareness activities, and multisensory teaching, as well as recognition that these require additional training and certification. The current study validates with the literature that a MTSS framework provides equitable supports to students with dyslexia, as well as empowering teachers and intervention specialists with programs and resources to help students with dyslexia (Fletcher et al., 2009; Barth et al.,
2007).
Parental Lack of Trust in Districts Regarding Identification of Dyslexia
Groups of parents formed work groups across the state of Ohio to advocate for students with dyslexia. Their efforts target academic, behavioral and social skills since the inability to read leads to students with relatively low literacy achievement who tend to have more behavioral and social problems in subsequent grades (Miles & Stipek,
2006). The concerns amongst parents is justified since the literature emphasizes children
150 with dyslexia show an increased incidence of internalizing anxious and depressive symptoms (Mugnaini, Lassi, La Malfa, & Albertini, 2009). The current study supports the contention that when public school districts identify dyslexia, they begin to earn and maintain parental support of at-risk students corroborating with the literature (Mugnaini,
Lassi, La Malfa, & Albertini, 2009). This further allows for the opportunity to educate parents about dyslexia and the learning needs of their child.
Recommendations Resulting from this Study
Federal and state policies lack specificity regarding identification of dyslexia leaving the interpretation and implementation up to individual states, districts and schools; however, policies do not prohibit identification of dyslexia in public schools.
Problems exist in terms of misperceptions of dyslexia, how to remediate the language- based learning disability and lack of formal district protocols for dyslexia. One such method of identification is Response to Intervention (RTI), which is not consistently equitable amongst school districts even within one state. Public school districts identifying and addressing students with dyslexia earn the trust of parents. Results of the study suggest that district practices supporting the identification of dyslexia through a dyslexia protocol within a MTSS create equity for students with dyslexia, empower educators, provide academic, social and emotional support for students and families, and decrease the burden for parents to find an Independent Education Evaluator (IEE).
Recommendation 1: Establish Consistent District Practices for the Identification of
Dyslexia
In the study, one of three districts establish written policies for the identification of dyslexia. It is recommended that all Ohio K-12 districts establish consistent district
151 practices for the identification of dyslexia. Table 5.1 provides a sample of a district dyslexia protocol with goals, personnel able to diagnose dyslexia, when to complete the dyslexia battery, elements of the assessment battery, severity ratings, and eligibility language for ETRs (District C Document One). The protocol includes sample measures, criteria for severity ratings, and verbiage for eligibility criteria under IDEA.
Table 5.1. District dyslexia protocol sample
Goals
By providing a multidisciplinary approach to the evaluation of a student with a potential reading disability, DISTRICT will be able to diagnose and treat dyslexia while providing social and emotional support for students and families regarding this specific disability Providing an in-house dyslexia diagnosis allows DISTRICT to create equity for dyslexic students. Additionally, the district and parents will be able to decrease the burden/need for parents to find an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) beyond the multidisciplinary team.
Who Can Diagnose Dyslexia?
Must be a multidisciplinary team including: o Psychologist o Speech-Language Pathologist o MTSS Coordinator o Student Services Administrator
Other contributing members include: o Parent/Guardian o Classroom teacher o Reading Specialist o Intervention Specialist o Principal
When to complete the Dyslexia Battery:
1. Students must have passed through the Tier 3 Stakeholder Process 2. History of neurotypicality – single, double or triple deficit CTOPP- 2 profile 3. 1.5 or more years of structured literacy© intervention 4. Parent & family history of reading difficulties 5. Parent request
(table continues)
152 Table 5.1. District dyslexia protocol sample (continued)
Elements to be included in MFE Available Measures Assessment battery History: Developmental, Medical, Child History Form Academic, Family History Developmental History Teacher Report/Interview Checklists General Intellectual Functioning (Choose Wechsler Intelligence Scale for One) Children – 5th Edition (WISC-V) Differential Abilities Scale – 2nd Edition (DAS-II) Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ-IV) Information on Cognitive Processing WISC-V: Core Battery (Choose One) DAS-II: Core Battery, Working Memory, and Processing Speed Clusters XBA: Cross Battery Assessment (Flanagan, et al.) Executive Functioning (Choose One) BRIEF: Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function D-KEFS: Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System WMS: Wechsler Memory Scale, Fourth Edition CMS: Children’s Memory Scale Brown EF/A: Brown Executive Function/Attention Scales CVLT3: California Verbal Learning Test, Third Edition
Specific Oral Language Skills Related to Tests of higher level skills related to Reading/Writing Success (Choose One) language comprehension (semantics, syntax, morphology, and pragmatics): Comprehensive measures of higher-level language skills: CELF-5: Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, 5th ed. CASL: Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language TLD: Test of Language Development: Primary or Intermediate
A measure of listening comprehension is often given to gain a general measure of language comprehension skills – Choose one: (table continues)
153 Table 5.1. District dyslexia protocol sample (continued)
Listening Comprehension: (Choose One) KTEA-III: Listening Comprehension WIAT-III: Listening Comprehension CELF-V: Understanding Spoken Paragraphs OWLS: Listening Comprehension
Tests of Auditory Processing/ CTOPP-2: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Awareness: Phonological Processing, 2nd ed., Core Battery
Educational Testing: Word Reading and Decoding (Choose One) Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-III: Word Reading, Pseudoword Decoding Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement- III (KTEA-III): Letter & Word Recognition, Nonsense Word Decoding
Fluency (speed and accuracy of letter naming AimsWeb: Progress Monitoring through passage reading) (AimsWeb Progress GORT-5: Core Battery Monitoring & Choose One) WIAT-III: Oral Reading Fluency KTEA-III: Word Recognition Fluency, Decoding Fluency
Reading Comprehension (Choose One) WIAT-III: Reading Comprehension KTEA-III: Reading Comprehension
Spelling (Choose One) WIAT-III: Spelling KTEA-III: Spelling
Written Expression (Choose One) Test of Written Language, 3rd ed. (TOWL- III): Sentence and Passage Writing WIAT-III: Written Expression Subtests (Sentence Composition, Alphabet Writing Fluency, Essay Composition) KTEA-III: Writing Fluency, Written Expression
Classroom Observation (Must Do Momentary Time Sampling (minimum of 15 Momentary Time Sampling) minutes) Anecdotal (Supplemental)
(table continues)
154 Table 5.1. District dyslexia protocol sample (continued)
Severity Ratings
Mild (1 SD+ discrepancy between psychological process and literacy, with literacy skills falling between SS of 80 – 84 (85-115) or SS 85 to 89 (90-110). Moderate (1 SD+ discrepancy between psychological process and literacy, with literacy skills falling between SS of 75 - 79 (85-115) or SS 80 - 84 (90-110). Severe (1 SD+ discrepancy between psychological process and literacy, with literacy skills falling below 74 SS (85-115) or SS 79 (90-110).
Eligibility Language in ETRs
Eligible under IDEA: [Student] presents a pattern of performance that is consistent with diagnosis of [mild/moderate/severe] dyslexia which falls under the IDEA eligibility category of Specific Learning Disability due to deficits in the areas of (Basic Reading, Reading Fluency, Reading Comprehension) and requires specially designed instruction to address [his/her] needs. Not Eligible under IDEA: [Student] presents a pattern of performance that is consistent with a diagnosis of (mild) dyslexia but does not meet the IDEA criteria for being a student with a disability and does not require specially designed instruction to address their needs.
Recommendation 2: Recommend University Program Accreditation and
Professional Development for Dyslexia
The study reveals misperceptions of the manifestations and characteristics of dyslexia from Ohio K-12 public school teachers and staff. It is recommended that institutions of higher education receive accreditation by the International Dyslexia
Association (IDA, 2019). The IDA program and accreditation process promotes the systematic evaluation and refinement of educator preparation programs in alignment with IDA’s research-based Knowledge and Practice Standards (KPS) for Teachers of
Reading (IDA, 2019). When an educator preparation program meets the standards of
IDA accreditation, the public has the assurance that programs have engaged in a
155 rigorous, standards-based preparation program designed to promote candidate mastery of the principles and practices of Structured Literacy© (IDA, 2019). Additionally, candidates engaging in intensive supervised practicum experiences sufficiently designed and staffed to promote applied mastery of the principles and practices of Structured
Literacy© in the service of preventing reading failure and remediating struggling readers with profiles characteristic of dyslexia (IDA, 2019). Additionally, it is recommended that Ohio K-12 public schools provide professional development in dyslexia that adheres to the IDA’s program and accreditation standards based on the IDA KPS. According to
Serrant (2016), it is important that all professional development programs related to dyslexia meet the IDA’s Knowledge and Practice Standards and are in accordance with district policies and state and federal regulations. It is also essential that interventionists and teachers access and complete all available professional development opportunities to ensure they possess the requisite skills to adequately provide instructional and learning support for students diagnosed with dyslexia (Serrant, 2016). Furthermore, Gonzalex &
Brown (2019) reported stereotypes of dyslexia are hard to dispel and professional development for pre-service and in-service teachers in early literacy practices and dyslexia are needed.
Recommendation 3: Create Mandatory Screening Protocol for Dyslexia
If the achievement gap between students with dyslexia and typical readers is to be narrowed, reading interventions must be implemented early when children are developing the basic foundation for reading acquisitions (Compton et al., 2010). The earlier the intervention, the easier it is to remediate (Compton et al., 2010). Dyslexia screening is a tool for identifying children who are at risk for this learning disability,
156 particularly in preschool or kindergarten. Inexpensive screening measures identify children at-risk for dyslexia in mid-kindergarten. The screening tool identifies predictor variables that raise red flags so that teachers can intervene early and effectively (Gaab,
2017). Kindergarten through second grade measures include phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, phonics, word attack skills, accurate and fluent reading of text, and reading comprehension. Timely screening and identification of students diagnosed with dyslexia needs to occur with urgency in order to ensure that these students are receiving the appropriate services to help them perform academically (Serrant, 2016). It is recommended that Ohio K-12 schools require dyslexia screening for all students.
Recommendation 4: Implement Structured Literacy© Programs to Meet the
Instructional Needs of Students with Dyslexia
Learning to read is the biggest challenge for students with dyslexia (Shaywitz,
2003). Commonly used reading approaches are often ineffective for students with dyslexia because they do not focus on specific needs related to the learning disability
(IDA, 2015). It is recommended that Ohio K-12 public schools implement Structured
Literacy© at all tiers of instruction. Structured Literacy© prepares students to decode words in an explicit and systematic manner (IDA, 2015). Structured Literacy© instruction includes phonology, sound-symbol association, syllable instruction, morphology, syntax, and semantics (IDA, 2015). The guiding principles of instruction are systematic and cumulative, explicit instruction, and diagnostic teaching (IDA, 2015).
157 Recommendation 5: Deliver Consistent Special Education Services for Students with Dyslexia
Students with dyslexia may be found eligible for special education services under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). Dyslexia falls under the IDEA eligibility category of specific learning disability (SLD) with each state or district having its own criteria for determining eligibility under the SLD category.
Since dyslexia is not its own disability category, schools may use the term SLD instead of dyslexia. It is recommended the term dyslexia be used specifically in evaluations, eligibility determinations, and Individual Education Plan (IEP) documents (Yudin,
2015). This recommendation is consistent with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, 2015 Dear Colleague Memo stating,
“There is nothing in IDEA that would prohibit the use of the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in IDEA evaluations, eligibility determinations, or IEP documents”
(Yudin, 2015). According to Serrant (2016), more oversight and relevant data may be required to determine the kind and quality of interventions students diagnosed with dyslexia may be receiving, and the link between quality of service and student academic performance. Clear communication to all stakeholders throughout the process of determining eligibility for special education services, including teachers and parents, will help align the delivery of consistent special education services for students with dyslexia.
Recommendation 6: Provide Support to Students and Families Regarding Dyslexia
Students and families may find it stressful to navigate the systems designed to support struggling students in public schools (Decoding Dyslexia, 2013). Feelings of
158 confusion and frustration surrounding dyslexia are common (Decoding Dyslexia, 2013).
Early identification of dyslexia is essential so that students learn to read, and they understand why reading is hard in order to mitigate comorbid social and emotional difficulties (Lindstrom, 2018). It is recommended that Ohio K-12 public schools help parents build a knowledge base about dyslexia and its impact on their child through a state dyslexia guidance document. It is recommended that stakeholders such as students and families be made aware of the current research and evidence-based practices for dyslexia so they can be confident supports and services being provided are proven effective for their child. The more students and parents know about the characteristics of dyslexia, the more the parents will be able to support their child through the academic process, but also express specific concerns over their child’s progress. Thus, both students and parents will be empowered to ask important questions about the programming decisions being made for their child at school (District C Document One).
Limitations
Several limitations to this study exist. First, the study focuses on data collected from directors of student services, principals, school psychologists and teachers.
However, it did not gain insight from other stakeholders such as speech language pathologists and parents, which would have added additional perspective. Additionally, the scope of this study is limited to research at three Ohio suburban school districts and, therefore, results are not generalizable to another district typology such as urban and rural demographics. The same study conducted in an economically challenged district may have different results. Another limitation is a broader scope of questions may have given more insight into other complex problems dealing with students with dyslexia.
159 Data sources, which included semi-structured face-to-face interviews and relevant document review added to the narrow scope of the study. Last, the recommendations provided in the discussion portion are based on this research, the researcher’s literature review, and knowledge of dyslexia. While the researcher believes these to be significant implications, others may interpret the data differently.
Implications of the Study
This research study was built on foundational research on the topic of dyslexia
(Lyon, Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2003; Moats & Dakin, 2008; Ferrer et al., 2010) and early identification of dyslexia (Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007; Snowling, 2013; Hulme, Gooch,
Lervåg, & Snowling, 2015). The researcher of this study sought to understand how Ohio
K-12 public schools interpret and implement federal and state policies for the identification of dyslexia. The aim of the research was especially relevant considering recent proposed legislation in Ohio, SB 102, SB 200, and HB 436, pertaining to dyslexia screening and professional development for teachers, as well as studies reporting unidentified students with dyslexia continuing to fall behind not only in reading, but also academics in general (Germano & Capellini, 2017) and the fact that dyslexia affects between 15 to 20% of the population according to the IDA (2017). The findings of this study indicate inconsistencies in handling identification of dyslexia as district practices, misperceptions of dyslexia, varied screening and assessment practices for dyslexia, and district challenges related to meeting the needs of students with dyslexia. Additionally, parents often lack trust in districts when it comes to identification of dyslexia.
Considering the findings presented in Chapter IV and the discussion of results presented in this chapter, the research results lend support for the following
160 recommendations: (1) Establish consistent district practices for the identification of dyslexia, (2) Recommend university accreditation and provision of professional development to teach students with dyslexia, (3) Create mandatory screening protocol for dyslexia, (4) Implementation of Structured Literacy© to meet the instructional needs of students with dyslexia, (5) Deliver consistent special education services for students with dyslexia, and (6) Provision of support to students and families regarding dyslexia.
The researcher presented preliminary findings of the current study at the IDA
Conference in Portland, Oregon in November of 2019. Table 5.2 provides results from the exit slip for the session where participants were asked to select which findings from the study were most relevant to them. Fifteen participants responded, including a dyslexia therapist, parents, administrators and a university professor. Overall area of most relevance to participants was perceptions and misperceptions concerning dyslexia predominated the responses of the participants. Parents and administrators marked federal and state policies and screening for dyslexia in kindergarten as relevant. Dyslexia is a national concern for educators and parents alike. Specific areas of concern amongst participants include screening, identification and intervention for dyslexia. Based on exit slip results and question and answer portion of the presentation, preliminary findings of the current study seem to be universally prevalent.
161 Table 5.2. Conference session exit slip results from preliminary findings
Finding Therapist Parent Administrator Professor Unknown Comments (n=1) (n=3) (n=4) (n=1) (n=6)
Federal and State Policies
Federal and 0 3 2 1 1 state mandated eligibility categories under IDEA and dyslexia falls under SLD or OHI presents with a stigma
Federal and state 0 3 4 1 3 policies lack specificity regarding identification of dyslexia
Federal and state 1 1 1 0 2 policies do not prohibit identifi- cation of dyslexia
Perceptions and misperceptions
Some educators lack 1 2 4 1 6 knowledge of what dyslexia is and how to treat it
(table continues)
162 Table 5.2. Conference session exit slip results from preliminary findings (continued)
Finding Therapist Parent Administrator Professor Unknown Comments (n=1) (n=3) (n=4) (n=1) (n=6)
There are incon- 1 3 3 1 3 Unfortunate sistencies, confusion and Working hard frustration over on this using the term dyslexia
General education 0 2 4 1 5 Terrible teachers inter- viewed had either Some do-- a Master’s in debunking Literacy or a in OG Reading Endorse- training ment believe dyslexia is Why? The associated with evidence has reversing letters been out for so long
Screening
District personnel 0 1 2 0 3 Yes, we are knowledge of lucky legislation for early screening for dyslexia
Screening for 0 3 3 0 6 Great dyslexia in kindergarten
District personnel 0 2 1 0 6 ! express reluctance to screen for dyslexia
(table continues)
163 Table 5.2. Conference session exit slip results from preliminary findings (continued)
Finding Therapist Parent Administrator Professor Unknown Comments (n=1) (n=3) (n=4) (n=1) (n=6)
Identification
There is con- 1 2 3 0 3 Working to fusion and frus- create tration over school clinical diagnosis guidelines of dyslexia and to help with educational this evaluation for eligibility under IDEA
Identification of 1 1 2 0 1 Yes dyslexia requires a battery of assessments including supplemental measures
Instruction
Instructional 1 2 4 1 5 Middle time for students school with dyslexia a schedules concern make it difficult for Intervention Specialists to provide OG
WTF?
(table continues)
164 Table 5.2. Conference session exit slip results from preliminary findings (continued)
Finding Therapist Parent Administrator Professor Unknown Comments (n=1) (n=3) (n=4) (n=1) (n=6)
Teachers trained 0 2 3 0 4 Some and in a Structured still Literacy© developing program knowl- edgeable and Wow! confident about the principles of instruction for students with dyslexia
Teachers 0 2 3 1 5 Wow! untrained in a Structured Literacy© program lacked knowledge about the principles of instruction for dyslexia
Intervention
RTI process may 1 2 2 1 3 lack data needed to identify needs of students with dyslexia
IAT process 0 2 2 0 1 subjective not data driven
MTSS data 0 2 3 1 2 We use driven and Balanced structured Literacy in Tier I (Core)
(table continues)
165 Table 5.2. Conference session exit slip results from preliminary findings (continued)
Finding Therapist Parent Administrator Professor Unknown Comments (n=1) (n=3) (n=4) (n=1) (n=6)
Interventions 0 2 4 1 4 for dyslexia utilize Structured Literacy© approach
Interventions 1 2 4 0 2 for dyslexia can be customized based on student needs
Services
A student can 0 2 2 0 3 Great! receive inter- vention services regardless of a diagnosis of dyslexia
Parents
Districts that 1 3 3 0 4 I believe address this. dyslexia gain trust from Yes! parents
Table 5.3 includes participants’ positions, comments or suggestions from the
IDA Conference session preliminary results. Parents’ comments indicate the importance and universal prevalence of the findings. A participant from Hawaii found the findings
166 to be important and universally prevalent. One participant suggests review of the United
States’ prison system.
Table 5.3. Participant comments from conference exit slips
Participant Position Comments or Suggestions
1 Therapist We need to give thought of how to give the “What is dyslexia” and keep it before the world.
2 Parent All of these issues are deeply important to me. I’m a parent of 2 dyslexic kids. I have been educating myself about dyslexia for the past 6 years. This is the 2nd IDA conference I’ve attended. Some schools/states do a good job with dyslexia. Many do not. This is deeply frustrating. Thank you for what you are doing to raise awareness and inspire change!
3 Parent Thank you! If you are able to share your research once it’s written/complete, could you share it?
4 Parent Parents trying to build a small army of empowered and educated parents to try and change the laws and curriculum in NC.
5 Administrator
6 Administrator I gave you my card. Happy to help!
7 Administrator None
8 Administrator None
9 Professor None
10 Unknown Thank you for this important research!
11 Unknown Your findings in Ohio are consistent with the struggles that are evident nationwide. Look at the prison system to see the reality of lack of identification and instruction for struggling readers and writers
(table continues)
167 Table 5.3. Participant comments from conference exit slips (continued)
Participant Position Comments or Suggestions
12 Unknown None
13 Unknown None
14 Unknown None
15 Unknown Thank you – great session and important findings that seem to be universally prevalent across the states. I’m from Hawaii and all this sounds so familiar to the experiences we in Hawaii’s schools have.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study examines identification of dyslexia related to federal and state policies. A future study could expand the research to look in more depth at instructional and intervention practices and services for dyslexia. Further investigation of teacher perceptions of dyslexia is warranted to expand the understanding of teacher preparation programs and dyslexia. Last, the study is limited to three Ohio suburban school districts.
Future research could expand beyond the original scope to include rural and urban school districts to create a stronger understanding of the implications for students with dyslexia from various typologies.
Conclusion
Chapter V provides a summary of the data results from a qualitative case study of three Ohio K-12 public schools to answer the research question: How do Ohio K-12 public educators (a) interpret and (b) implement federal and state policies for the identification of students with dyslexia or showing dyslexic tendencies? Five emergent themes are discovered as a result this study: (a) inconsistencies in handling identification 168 of dyslexia as district practices, (b) perceptions and misperceptions of dyslexia, (c) varied screening and assessment practices for dyslexia, (d) district challenges related to meeting the needs of students with dyslexia, and (e) parental lack trust in districts when it comes to identification of dyslexia. Next, the chapter presents a discussion of the results in relation to the literature regarding district practices, misperceptions, and screening and assessment for dyslexia. Additionally, a discussion is included concerning district challenges such as instruction and special education services as related to meeting the needs of students with dyslexia. Last, the chapter included a discussion on parents’ lack of trust in districts regarding dyslexia. Six recommendations are provided.
The chapter concludes with the study’s limitations, implications for practice, and recommendations for further research.
169
REFERENCES
Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., & Quatroche, D. (2008). Becoming a professional reading teacher. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Americans with Disabilities Act National Network. (2017). An overview of the Americans with disabilities act. Retrieved from https://adata.org/factsheet/ADA- overview.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 255-291). New York: Longman.
Andrade, O. V. C. A., Andrade, P. E., & Capellini, S. A. (2015). Collective screening tools for early identification of dyslexia. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1581–1581. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01581
Aouad, J., & Savage, R. (2009). The component structure of preliteracy skills. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24(2), 183.
Arkansas Department of Education (2016). Dyslexia resource guide. Retrieved from http://www.arkansased.gov/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/Dyslexia/DRG- Final-12-13-17-JS1.pdf
Baker, L., & Anderson, R. I. (1982). Effects of inconsistent information on text processing: Evidence for comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2), 281-294. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/747487
170 Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading. NCEE, 2016-4000. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Barth, A. E., Stuebing, K. K., Anthony, J. L., Denton, C. A., Mathes, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D. J. (2008). Agreement among response to intervention criteria for identifying responder status. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.004
Beck, G. J., Hazzard, D., McPhillips, T., Tiernan, B., & Casserly, A. M. (2017). Dyslexia policy and practice: Cross-professional and parental perspectives on the Northern Ireland context. British Journal of Special Education, 44(2), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12172
Bigozzi, L., Tarchi, C., Pezzica, S., & Pinto, G. (2016). Evaluating the predictive impact of an emergent literacy model on dyslexia in Italian children: A four-year prospective cohort study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414522708
Birsh, J. R., & Carreker, S. (2018). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (4th Ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Boets, B., De Smedt, B., Cleuren, L., Vandewalle, E., Wouters, J., & Ghesquière, P. (2010). Towards a further characterization of phonological and literacy problems in Dutch-speaking children with dyslexia. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 5–31.
Breaux, K., & Eichstadt, T. (2018). Pearson clinical assessment solutions: A dyslexia toolkit. Pearson Assessments.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
California Department of Education (2017). California Dyslexia Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ac/documents/cadyslexiaguidelines.pdf
Cain, K. (2003). Text comprehension and its relation to coherence and cohesion in children’s fictional narratives. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 335–351. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2443/10.1348/ 026151003322277739
171 Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2000). Investigating the Causes of Reading Comprehension Failure: The Comprehension-Age Match Design. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12(1–2), 31–40. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db =mzh&AN=2000093816&site=eds-live
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Clarke, P. J., Snowling, M.J., Truelove, E., & Hulme, C. (2010). Ameliorating children’s reading-comprehension difficulties: A randomized controlled trial. Psychological Science, 21, 1106-1116.
Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., Gilbert, J. K., Barquero, L. A., & Crouch, R. C. (2010). Selecting at-risk first-grade readers for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage gated screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018448
Cresswell, J. W., & Maietta, R. C. (2002). Qualitative research. In D. C. Miller & N. J. Salkind (Eds.), Handbook of social research (pp. 143-184). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cresswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Decoding dyslexia. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.decodingdyslexia.net/info.html deMarrais, K. (2004). Qualitative interview studies: Learning through experience. In K. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for research (pp. 51-68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund. (2019). Section 504 of the rehabilitation act of 1973. Retrieved from https://dredf.org/legal-advocacy/laws/section-504-of- the-rehabilitation-act-of-1973/
Dougherty, C. (2003). Numeracy, literacy and earnings: Evidence from the national longitudinal survey of youth. Economics of Education Review, 22(5), 511. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2443/10.1016/S0272-7757(03)00040-2
Ehri, L. (1996). Development of the ability to read words. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume II (pp. 163-189). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
172 Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393–447. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393
Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). [U.S. Government Publishing Office].
Ferrer, E., Shaywitz, B. A., Holahan, J. M., Marchione, K., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2010). Uncoupling of reading and IQ over time: Empirical evidence for a definition of dyslexia. Psychological Science, 21(1), 93-101. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797609354084
Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30–37.
Fletcher, J., E. Shaywitz, S., Shankweiler, D., & Katz, L. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. (Vol. 86). https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.86.1.6
Francis, D. J., Kulesz, P. A., & Benoit, J. S. (2018). Extending the simple view of reading to account for variation within readers and across texts: The complete view of reading (CVRi). Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518772904
Friedlander, E. (2013). Environmental factors associated with early reading achievement in the developing world: A Cross-national study. International Journal of Educational Research, 57, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.10.006
Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Bryant, V. J., Hamlett, C. L., & Lambert, W. (2012). First grade cognitive abilities as long-term predictors of reading comprehension and disability status. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 217–231.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Garan, E. M. (2004). In defense of our children: When politics, profit, and education collide. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gilbert, J. K., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2012). Early screening for risk of reading disabilities: Recommendations for a four-step screening system. Official Journal of the Council for Educational Diagnostic Services, 38(1), 6–14.
173 Germano, G. D., César, A. B. P. de C., & Capellini, S. A. (2017). Screening protocol for early identification of Brazilian children at risk for dyslexia. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01763
Glazzard, J. (2010). The impact of dyslexia on pupils’ self-esteem. Support for Learning, 25(2), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2010.01442.x
Gonzalez, M., & Brown, T. B. H. (2019). Early childhood educators’ perceptions of dyslexia and ability to identify students at-risk. Journal of Education and Learning, 8(3), 1–12.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.
Henry, M. K. (2003). Unlocking literacy effective decoding and spelling instruction. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Hernandez, D. J., & Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2011). Double jeopardy: How third- grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation. Retrieved from https://www.aecf.org/resources/double-jeopardy/
Hess, R. D., and Holloway, S. (1984). Family and school as educational institutions. In R. D. Parke (Ed.), Review of child development research, 7: The family. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2011). The practice of qualitative research. Los Angeles: Sage.
Horowitz, S. H., Rawe, J., & Whittaker, M. C. (2017). The state of learning disabilities: Understanding the 1 in 5. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Hulme, C., Nash, H. M., Gooch, D., Lervåg, A., & Snowling, M. J. (2015). The foundations of literacy development in children at familial risk of dyslexia. Psychological Science, 26(12), 1877-1886. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0956797615603702
International Dyslexia Association. (2019). Advocating for a child with dyslexia within the public education system. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/advocating- for-a-child-with-dyslexia-within-the-public-education-system/
International Dyslexia Association. (n.d.). Dyslexia assessment: What is it and how can it help? Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/dyslexia-assessment-what-is-it- and-how-can-it-help/
174 International Dyslexia Association. (n.d.). Dyslexia laws in the USA: A 2018 update. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/dyslexia-laws-in-the-usa-an-update/
International Dyslexia Association. (2017). Dyslexia basics. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/dyslexia-basics/
International Dyslexia Association. (2018). Knowledge and practice standards for teachers of reading. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/knowledge-and- practices/
International Literacy Association. (2019). Literacy glossary. Retrieved from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/get-resources/literacy-glossary
Jimerson, S., Egeland, B., Sroufe, L. A., & Carlson, B. (2000). A prospective longitudinal study of high school dropouts: Examining multiple predictors across development. Journal of School Psychology, 38(6), 525-49.
Lawriter Ohio Laws and Rules. (2011). Chapter 3323.25. Education of children with disabilities. Retrieved from http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3323.25
Lichtenstein, R. (2018). Parent advocates champion evidence-based practice under the banner of dyslexia--part 1. Communique, 47(3), 1–27.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049500100301
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Lindstrom, J. H. (2019). Dyslexia in the schools: Assessment and identification. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(3), 189–200.
Lowell, S. C., Felton, R. H., & Hook, P. E. (2014). Basic facts about assessment of dyslexia: Testing for teaching. Baltimore, MD: The International Dyslexia Association.
Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 1–14.
Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148–182.
175 Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McCardle, P. D. (2011). Dyslexia across languages: Orthography and the brain-gene- behavior link. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., de Brey, C., Snyder, T., Wang, X., Wilkinson-Flicker, S. American Institutes for Research (AIR). (2017). The Condition of Education 2017. NCES 2017-144. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx ?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED574257&site=eds-live
Merriam, S. B., & Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles S. B., & Stipek, D. (2006). Contemporaneous and longitudinal associations between social behavior and literacy achievement in a sample of low-income elementary school children. Child Development, 77(1), 103.
Moats, L. C. (2000). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Pub.
Moats, L. C., Dakin, K. E., & International Dyslexia Association. (2008). Basic facts about dyslexia & other reading problems.
Moats, L. C., & Tolman, C. (2009). The challenge of learning to read. Boston, MA: Sopris West Educational Services.
Morin, A. (n.d.). Dyslexia laws: What they are and how they work. Retrieved from https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/your-childs-rights/basics-about- childs-rights/dyslexia-laws-what-they-are-and-how-they-work
Morrison, J. Collins, T. & Hawkins, R. (2014). Evaluation of the dyslexia pilot project: Years 1-2. Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/ Special-Education/Students-with-Disabilities/Specific-Learning- Disability/Dyslexia-Pilot-Project/Dyslexia_Pilot_Exec_Summ.pdf.aspx
Morrison, J. Collins, T. & Hawkins, R. (2016). Evaluation of the dyslexia pilot project: Year 3. Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Special- Education/Students-with-Disabilities/Specific-Learning-Disability/Dyslexia- Pilot-Project/DPP-Year-3-Evaluation-and-Final-Report.pdf.aspx
176 Morrison, J. Collins, T. & Hawkins, R. (2016). Evaluation of the dyslexia pilot project: Year 4. Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Special- Education/Students-with-Disabilities/Specific-Learning-Disability/Dyslexia- Pilot-Project/DPP-Year-4-Evaluation-Report-10-27-16.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US
Mugnaini, D., Lassi, S., La Malfa, G., & Albertini, G. (2009). Internalizing correlates of dyslexia. World Journal of Pediatrics, 5(4), 255-264. doi:10.1007/s12519-009- 0049-7
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1999). Developmental differences in sensitivity to semantic relations among good and poor comprehenders: Evidence from semantic priming. Cognition: International Journal of Cognitive Science, 70(1). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=mzh&AN=1999010570&site=eds-live
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). NAEP reading - Scheduled reading assessments, past results, trends, methods. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/
National Institute of Literacy (2009). Early beginnings: Early literacy knowledge and instruction: a guide for early childhood administrators and professional development providers. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx ?direct=true&db=cat02507a&AN=ohiolink.b28091664&site=eds-liveNational Institute for Literacy National Reading Panel report: teaching children to read. (2000). Educational Research Service. OH HB157 | 2011-2012 | 129th General Assembly. (2011, December 21). LegiScan. Retrieved February 22, 2020, from https://legiscan.com/OH/bill/HB157/2011 OH HB96 | 2019-2020 | 133rd General Assembly. (2019, March 05). LegiScan. Retrieved February 22, 2020, from https://legiscan.com/OH/bill/HB96/2019 Ohio Department of Education. (2018). Ohio third grade reading guarantee. Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/Literacy/Third-Grade- Reading-Guarantee Ohio Department of Education. (2017). Ohio school report cards. Retrieved fromhttp://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Data/Report-Card-Resources/Improving- At-Risk-K-3-Readers Ohio Department of Education. (2017). Ohio district profile reports. Retrieved from:http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Finance-and-Funding/School-Payment- Reports/District-Profile-Reports/FY2018-District-Profile-Report
177 Ohio Department of Education. (2019). Dyslexia Pilot Project. Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Special-Education/Students-with- Disabilities/Specific-Learning-Disability/Dyslexia-Pilot-Project
Oregon Department of Education (2015). SB 612: Plan for universal screening for risk factors of dyslexia. Retrieved from https://www.oregon.gov/ode/students-and- family/SpecialEducation/RegPrograms_BestPractice/Documents/sb-612-plan- for-universal-screening-for-risk-factors-of-dyslexia-final.pdf
Oregon Department of Education (2017). SB 1003: Best practices for screening students for risk factors of dyslexia and providing instructional support. Retrieved from https://www.oregon.gov/ode/students-and family/SpecialEducation /RegPrograms_BestPractice/Documents/Senate%20Bill%201003%20Legislative %20Report.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pennington, B. F. & Lefly. D. L. (2001). Early reading development in children at family risk for dyslexia. Child Development, (3), 816.
Phillips, B. A. B., & Odegard, T. N. (2017). Evaluating the impact of dyslexia laws on the identification of specific learning disability and dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 67(3), 356–368.
Pollard, L. (2012). Decoding Dyslexia - A grassroots parent movement on a mission. National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.ncld.org/ archives/blog/decoding-dyslexia-a-grassroots-parent-movement-on-a-mission
Randall J. R., Burton, J. R., & Silberg, A. (2006) Longitudinal study of direct instruction effects from first through third grades. The Journal of Educational Research, 99:3, 179-192. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ abs/10.3200/JOER.99.3.179-192
Rosenshine, B. & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M.C. Wittrock (Dir.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 376-391). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Ryder, R. J., Sekulski, J., & Silberg, A. (2003). Results of direct instruction reading program evaluation first through second grade, 2000-2002. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Development of children with early language delays. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 70-83.
178 Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Serrant, T. (2016). The assessment of dyslexia services and the academic achievement of students diagnosed with dyslexia in the Houston Independent School District, 2015-16. Research Educational Program Report. In Houston Independent School District. Houston Independent School District.
Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., Holahan, J. M., & Shaywitz, S. E. (1992). Discrepancy compared to low achievement definitions of reading disability: results from the Connecticut longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(10), 639– 648.
Shaywitz, S. E. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. Knopf.
Shaywitz, S. E. (2014). Testimony before the committee on science, space, and technology united states house of representatives. Retrieved from https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Shaywitz%20Testimony.pdf
Skeide, M. A., Kirsten, H., Kraft, I., Schaadt, G., Müller, B., Neef, N., & Friederici, A. D. (2015). Genetic dyslexia risk variant is related to neural connectivity patterns underlying phonological awareness in children. Neuroimage, 118, 414–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.06.024
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Snowling, M. J. (2013). Early identification and interventions for dyslexia: A contemporary view. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(1), 7– 14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01262.x
Snowling, M. J., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2016). Oral language deficits in familial dyslexia: A meta-analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin, 142(5), 498-545. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/10.1037/bul0000037
Song, S., Georgiou, G. K., Su, M., & Hua, S. (2016). How well do phonological awareness and rapid automatized naming correlate with Chinese reading accuracy and fluency? A meta-analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20(2), 99– 123. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1088543
Special Education Guide. (2019). Response to intervention. Retrieved from https://www.specialeducationguide.com/pre-k-12/response-to-intervention/
179 Spencer M., Wagner, R. K., Schatschneider, C., Quinn J. M., Lopez D, & Petscher, Y. (2014). Incorporating RTI in a hybrid model of reading disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, (3), 161.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & U. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795–819.
Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (1987). A time to summarize: Six years and three Phases of the louisiana school effectiveness study.
Stothard, S. E., & Hulme, C. (1992). Reading comprehension difficulties in children: The role of language comprehension and working memory skills. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4(3), 245–256. https://doiorg.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2443/10.1007/BF01027150
Tannenbaum, K. R., Torgensen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (2006). Relationships between word knowledge and reading comprehension in third-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 381-398.
Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference. New York: Teachers College Press.
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey S., & Higgins-D’ Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2011: Provisions Related to Children with Disabilities, 20U.S.C. §108-446(2011).
Thompson, P. A., Hulme, C., Nash, H. M., Gooch, D., Hayiou-Thomas, E., & Snowling, M. J. (2015). Developmental dyslexia: Predicting individual risk. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(9), 976–987.
Texas Education Agency (2018). The dyslexia handbook. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter074/19_0074_0028-1.pdf
180 Tong, X., Deacon, H., & Cain, K. (n.d.). Morphological and syntactic awareness in poor comprehenders: Another piece of the puzzle. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 22–33. Retrieved from https://doiorg.ezproxy.uakron.edu: 2443/10.1177/0022219413509971
UNESCO. (2017). International literacy day 2017. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/en/news/international-literacy-day-2017
Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., Peyton, J. A. (2006). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: A randomized field trial with paraeducator implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, (3), 508.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2443/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.004
Van Norman, E. R., Nelson, P. M., & Parker, D. C. (2018). A comparison of nonsense- word fluency and curriculum-based measurement of reading to measure response to phonics instruction. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(4), 573-581. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/10.1037/spq0000237
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Zhang, H., & Schatschneider, C. (2008). Using response to kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at-risk for long-term reading difficulties. Reading & Writing, 21(4), 437–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9098-2
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Pearson, N. A. (2013). Comprehensive test of phonological processing (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Wagner, R. (2018). Why is it so difficult to diagnose dyslexia and how can we do it better? International Dyslexia Association, 7(5). Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/why-is-it-so-difficult-to-diagnose-dyslexia-and-how-can- we-do-it-better/
Ward-Lonergan, J. M., & Duthie, J. K. (2018). The state of dyslexia: recent legislation and guidelines for serving school-age children and adolescents with dyslexia. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 49(4), 810–816. https://doi- org.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2443/10.1044/2018pass:[_]LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0002
Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 541-561.
181 Wolff, P. H., & Melngailis, I. (1994). Family patterns of developmental dyslexia: Clinical findings. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 54(2), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.1320540207
Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2048/login?url= http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat02173a&AN=akr.b17 17456&site=eds-live
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Youman, M., & Mather, N. (2018). Dyslexia laws in the USA: A 2018 update. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 44(2), 37-41.
Youman, M., & Mather, N. (2015). Dyslexia laws in the USA: An update. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 41(4), 10.
Youman, M., & Mather, N. (2013). Dyslexia laws in the USA. Annals of Dyslexia, 63(2), 133–153.
Yudin, M. K. (2015). Dyslexia guidance. United States Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/ memosdcltrs/guidance-on-dyslexia-10-2015.pdf
182
APPENDICES
183
APPENDIX A
DISTRICT CONSENT EMAIL
Dear Mr./Mrs./Dr.
I am conducting a research study entitled “Implementation of Federal and State
Policies for Students Identified with Dyslexia or Showing Dyslexic Tendencies in
Ohio Public Schools”. I would like to invite you to participate in a research project for my dissertation at the University of Akron in the Department of Curricular & Instructional
Studies.
Please see the attached Permission Form for the purpose and procedures of the study.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing from you.
Rebecca Tolson PhD Candidate, University of Akron
184
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Alignment of Interview Protocol with Research Questions
Research Question: How do Ohio K-12 public educators interpret and implement federal and state policies for students identified with dyslexia or showing dyslexic tendencies?
Interviewee Questions
Introduction 1. What is your position? 2. How long have you been working in that position? 3. What are your professional certifications? 4. How many years of experience do you have working in education? 5. What type of coursework or professional development have you had in the area of dyslexia, reading, literacy or learning disabilities?
Identification 6. What is dyslexia? 7. What is the identification process for students with dyslexia? 8. How are outside evaluations of dyslexia handled at your district? 9. How many students in your district (your school) are identified annually?
Instruction 10. How are the instructional needs of students with dyslexia met in your district, school, classroom? 11. How are services provided to students with dyslexia?
12. Describe how the RTI process works in your district. 13. What type of professional development has your district provided on RTI?
Policy 14. Describe your understanding of federal policies related to dyslexia.
15. Describe your understanding of state policies related to dyslexia.
185 Closure 16. Describe your district’s top two strengths regarding identification of dyslexia? 17. How could the identification process for dyslexia be improved in your district?
18. Do you have anything you want to share with me that I did not ask about?
186
APPENDIX C
PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM
Title of Study: Implementation of Federal and State Policies for Students Identified with Dyslexia or Showing Dyslexic Tendencies in Ohio Public Schools Introduction: You are invited to participate in a research project being conducted by Rebecca Tolson, a doctoral student in the Department of Curricular & Instructional Studies at The University of Akron. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate how districts interpret and implement federal and state policies for students identified with dyslexia or showing dyslexic tendencies.
Procedures: The data collection method is semi-structured interviews with district personnel such as administrators, school psychologists, and teachers, as well as artifacts and documents. Each participant will be interviewed for 30-45 minutes. Risks and Discomforts: A risk is you may feel uncomfortable discussing experiences, training, and understanding of dyslexia. Every caution will be taken to ensure that you feel safe and comfortable and have the choice to withdraw from the study at any time. Benefits: You will receive no direct benefit from your participation in this study, but your participation may help us better understand how federal and state policies for dyslexia are being implemented at the local level. Right to refuse or withdraw: Participation is voluntary, and participants have the choice to withdraw from the study if the feel the need. Anonymous and Confidential Data Collection: No identifying information will be included in the data you provide. Your signed consent form will be kept separate from your data, and nobody will be able to link your responses to you. Any identifying information collected will be kept in a secure location and only the researchers will have access to the data. Participants will not be individually identified in any publication or presentation of the research results. Only aggregate data will be used. The districts will not be named, only demographics and the state of Ohio. Confidentiality of records: Confidentiality of records will be maintained by using coding of data, interview audio tapes and transcriptions that will be stored and viewed only by the researcher. 187 Who to contact with questions: If you have any questions about this study, you may call Rebecca Tolson at (330) 705-6342 or Dr. Lisa Lenhart at (330)972-6664. This project has been reviewed and approved by The University of Akron Institutional Review Board. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you may call the IRB at (330) 972-7666. Audio and Video Taping: Audio taping of single interviews will be used for transcription purposes and will be erased when the study is complete. Acceptance & signature: I read the information provided above and all of my questions have been answered. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. I will receive a copy of this consent form for my information. ______Participant Signature Date
188
APPENDIX D DYSLEXIA CHECKLIST
K-12 School Districts
Screening Universal Screener - Three times a year: BOY Deadline: October 31 Kindergarten Phonological awareness Phonemic awareness Rapid Naming Sound-symbol recognition Letter knowledge Decoding skills Spelling Listening comprehension Family history Teacher observations Work samples Intervention history Universal Screener – First, Three times a year: BOY Deadline: October 31 Second, Third Grade and Phonological awareness higher for a student Phonemic awareness experiencing difficulty as Rapid Naming noted by a classroom Sound-symbol recognition teacher Letter knowledge Decoding skills Spelling Reading rate Reading accuracy Listening comprehension Teacher observations Work samples Intervention history Data Review Qualified MTSS team Analysis of screening results
189 Diagnostic Screener Norm-referenced, diagnostic assessments designed to measure the underlying cause, characteristics, and outcomes Assess specific skills including phonological awareness, rapid naming, word reading, decoding, fluency, spelling and reading comprehension Administered to students exhibiting characteristic of dyslexia Progress Monitoring Ongoing for characteristics of dyslexia Determine when a student is or is not responding to intervention Every two weeks until a student maintains scores above the cut-point for two consecutive cycles If a student does not make sufficient progress, the MTSS team considers increasing intensity of an intervention and evaluate the appropriateness of the instructional program being used, adjusting the level of intervention, providing individualized or small- group instruction, increasing amount of time for intervention, or increasing the frequency of sessions Multitiered System of An integrated, comprehensive framework that Support focuses on standards, core instruction, differentiated learning, student-centered learning, individualized student needs, and the alignment of systems necessary for all students’ academic, behavioral, and social successes Analyze screening and progress monitoring data to assist educators in planning and implementing appropriate instruction and evidence-based interventions to those students who exhibit characteristics of dyslexia Classroom teachers utilize effective evidence-based classroom strategies that have been shown to be effective for students with dyslexia Determine appropriate dyslexia-specific intervention needs of students Provide classroom supports and accommodations specific to dyslexia
190 Structured Literacy© Instruction Tier I: Core Instruction Focuses on providing effective, research-based instruction to all students in general education Focuses on essential, grade specific, reading standards across content areas allowing the majority students to successfully meet grade level expectations High-quality effective reading instruction delivered by a trained Structured Literacy© professional Universal screening to determine instructional need and risk factors for reading deficits including dyslexia Differentiated learning practices include pre- assessments, flexible grouping based on needs, instructional supports such as peer-tutoring or learning centers, and accommodations Effective Tier I Core Instruction for dyslexia is the first line of defense Tier II: Supplemental Determined by universal screening results Intervention Norm-referenced diagnostic tools measure specific areas of concern critical in differentiated instruction and planning targeted interventions focused on student’s needs Progress monitoring at least every two weeks Intervention provided in addition to Tier I instruction Intervention adheres to the Structured Literacy© approach designed to meet the instructional needs of students with dyslexia Delivered by a trained and certified Structured Literacy© professional If student continues to make insufficient progress or fails to respond to intervention, the MTSS team refers for further evaluation to determine the nature of the reading problem and the severity of the reading difficulty Referral for Tier III, special education, may occur if a student fails to make adequate progress Tier III: Intensive Use of a Structured Literacy© intervention based on Intervention the needs of the student Intensive Intervention delivered by a certified Structured Literacy© instructor is essential Additional instructional time, individually or in small group, with more targeted, specialized content or instructional delivery, increased practice and
191 feedback opportunities, or attention given to cognitive processing strategies Frequent and ongoing progress monitoring Track student learning, establish goals, plan instruction and make appropriate adjustments to instruction based on student progress toward achievement of state standards Establish clear targets for growth based on data indicating trends in past performance and intensity of supports across time to ensure growth in component skills leading to overall improvement and access to grade level materials Target areas include (1) phonemic awareness, decoding, and spelling, (2) listening and language comprehension, (3) silent reading comprehension Essential Components Phonemic Awareness Systematic Phonics Fluency Vocabulary Comprehension Content Phonology Orthography Morphology Semantics Syntax Pragmatics Sound symbol association Syllabication Reading comprehension Fluency Principles of Instruction Sequential and Cumulative Multimodal Direct and Explicit Diagnostic Structured – step by step procedures Synthetic and analytic instruction Instructional Delivery Individualization of the content Supports provided Extended time in small group instruction Meaning-based instruction Delivered by a professional who has completed training and certification in the evidence-based Structured Literacy© approach
192 Maintains fidelity of the delivery model including phonemic awareness, grapho-phonemic knowledge, structure of the English language, linguistic instruction, and strategies for decoding, encoding, word recognition, fluency and comprehension Standard Written Protocol Evidence-based and effective for students with dyslexia Taught by an appropriately trained instructor; Providers of instruction must have additional documented dyslexia training and certification that adheres to the training requirements of the International Dyslexia Association Implemented with fidelity Instructional Copies of notes Accommodations (sample) Note-taking assistance Additional time on class assignments and tests Reduced/shortened assignments Alternative test location Priority seating assignment Oral reading of directions or written material Word bank Audiobooks Text to speech Speech to text Electronic spellers Electronic dictionaries Formula charts Adaptive learning tools and features in software programs Individual or small group instruction Use of highlighters to organize written information Assistive Technology Audiobooks (sample) E-Text and Text-to-Speech (TTS) Graphic Organizers Low-tech options (e.g. reading rulers, handwriting tools, highlighting tape, fidgets etc.) Smart pens Speech-to-Text Spell Checkers Word prediction (WP) Reporting The superintendent or head of school reports annually the dyslexia program delivery model of instruction to the state department of education
193 Evaluation and Identification Cumulative Data Vision Screening Gathering Hearing Screening Teacher reports of classroom concerns Classroom reading assessments Accommodations or interventions provided Academic progress reports Samples of schoolwork Gifted/talented assessments Parent conference notes Results of universal screening State assessment results Observations of instruction provided to student Outside evaluations Speech and language assessment School attendance Curriculum-based assessment measures Instructional strategies provided and student’s response to instruction Screening results Parent survey Environmental and socioeconomic factors Language proficiency Family history Data-driven Meeting MTSS team members Formal Evaluation Academic Skills: word reading and decoding, fluency, Domains to Assess reading comprehension, spelling, written mechanics/expression/composition/fluency, classroom observation Cognitive Processes: general intellectual function, cognitive processing, nonverbal measures, executive functioning, specific oral language skills, listening comprehension, receptive language, test of auditory processing/phonological awareness/memory, verbal working memory, processing speed, rapid naming of symbols or objects, morphological processing, orthographic processing Additional areas: family history, handwriting, mathematical calculation/reasoning Review and Difficulties are unexpected in relation to the student’s Interpretation of data other abilities, sociocultural factors, language and evaluations difference, irregular attendance or lack of appropriate and effective instruction 194 Difficulty with accurate and/or fluent word reading Poor spelling skills Poor decoding ability Difficulties result from a deficit in the phonological component of language Severity Ratings Mild (1 SD+ discrepancy between psychological process and literacy, with literacy skills falling between SS of 80 – 84 (85-115) or SS 85 to 89 (90-110) Moderate (1 SD+ discrepancy between psychological process and literacy, with literacy skills falling between SS of 75 - 79 (85-115) or SS 80 - 84 (90-110) Severe (1 SD+ discrepancy between psychological process and literacy, with literacy skills falling below 74 SS (85-115) or SS 79 (90-110) Eligibility determination Section 504: If the physical or mental impairment related to dyslexia substantially limits one or more major life activities such as the specific activity of reading Eligible under IDEA: [Student] presents a pattern of performance that is consistent with diagnosis of [mild/moderate/severe] dyslexia which falls under the IDEA eligibility category of Specific Learning Disability due to deficits in the areas of (Basic Reading, Reading Fluency, Reading Comprehension) and requires specially designed instruction to address [his/her] needs. Not Eligible under IDEA: [Student] presents a pattern of performance that is consistent with a diagnosis of (mild) dyslexia but does not meet the IDEA criteria for being a student with a disability and does not require specially designed instruction to address their needs.
Reporting The superintendent or head of school reports annually the results of screening and evaluation for the identification of dyslexia to the state department of education Services The individual education program (IEP) team shall consider, without limitation, the following instructional approaches: (1) explicit, direct instruction that is systematic, sequential and cumulative, and follows a logical plan of presenting the alphabetic principle that targets the specific needs of the student, (2) Individualized instruction to meet the specific needs of the student in an appropriate setting that uses intensive, highly concentrated methods and materials 195 that maximizes student engagement, (3) meaning- based instruction directed at purposeful reading and writing, with an emphasis on comprehension and composition, (4) multimodal instruction that incorporates the simultaneous use of two or more sensory pathways during teacher presentation and student practice
Professional Learning K-12 Educators Definition of dyslexia Common risk factors, early indicators, and characteristics of dyslexia Screening, assessment, and progress monitoring for dyslexia Evidence-based instructional practices valid for students with dyslexia Connecting research to practice for students with dyslexia Associated academic difficulties and conditions related to dyslexia Essentials of early interventions for dyslexia Instructional accommodations for students with dyslexia Social and emotional concerns associated with dyslexia Awareness of controversial therapies for dyslexia Resource: Evaluating Professionals Fact Sheet Resource: IDA Helpful Terminology Fact Sheet General education Completion of 6 hours of professional learning teachers specific to dyslexia annually to stay current in the research and evidence-based practices Special education Certification in Structured Literacy© approach teachers required
Family and Student Support Student, Parent, and Holistic approach to support including school, home Guardian Support and community Explore, develop, and understand their strengths as a person with dyslexia
196 Understand the extra time and work traditional academic tasks can require Help others, including teachers and peers, to understand dyslexia as a challenge that does not solely define a person Develop strategies for organization and time management Use alternative methods to access information Use tools for being an advocate Awareness of signs of reading difficulty and dyslexia by developmental stage Understand social and emotional concerns Awareness of controversial therapies for dyslexia Communication Website https://dyslexiaida.org/ IDA Resources and Fact Sheets IDA Infographics IDA Workshops and Webinars IDA Handbook What Every Family Should Know Literacy expectations by grade Grade level tips and activities Assistive Technology Resources
University Checklist
Teacher Preparation Programs International Dyslexia Accreditation Association (IDA) IDA Knowledge and coursework alignment Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading Supervised Practicum Candidates apprenticed in servicing students with dyslexia Applied mastery of the principles and practices of Structured Literacy© in the service of preventing reading failure and remediating off-track readers with profiles characteristic of dyslexia.
197 State Department of Education Checklist
State Department Dyslexia Committee Professional Learning Maintain a list of courses (face-to-face or online modules) that fulfill the dyslexia professional learning requirements for educators and adhere to the IDA Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading Dyslexia Guidebook Maintain a state dyslexia guidebook Data Collection Manage database of screening, evaluation, identification and intervention results reported annually by district superintendent or head of school Instructional Program Review Maintain annual dyslexia instructional program review that LEAs adhere to a delivery model of instruction that meets the needs of students with dyslexia Dyslexia Coordinator State level manager and support to LEAs
198
APPENDIX E
INTERNAL REVIEW BOARD NOTICE OF APPROVAL
199