Understanding Dyslexia Laws and Policies Rachael Gabriel, University of Connecticut

Research Understanding Dyslexia Laws and Policies Rachael Gabriel, University of Connecticut

Over the past decade, 37 states have Dyslexia Legislation: school. Since current understandings passed new legislation related to iden- A Brief History of dyslexia suggest that it cannot be tification, remediation, and/or aware- diagnosed based on a vision or hear- Reading instruction has been a focus ness of dyslexia in public schools.1 ing test, one might consider the first of state and federal legislation in the Even as a sense of urgency for legis- modern law to be a 1990 addition to U.S. for more than 50 years. Literacy lative action regarding dyslexia has Title 2 of California’s education code, and literacy rates are so often framed surged, debates about the nature, def- which encouraged teacher preparation as public policy issues that reading inition, diagnosis, and remediation of instruction—particularly beginning dyslexia still continue. For example, reading instruction—is a popular in 2016, two major literacy-related focal point for education and social Over 20 years, only professional organizations, the Inter- reform efforts alike. Though feder- national Literacy Association (ILA) eight states passed laws al legislation in particular had been and the International Dyslexia Asso- that included the word focused on funding literacy programs, ciation (IDA), engaged in a public assessments, personnel, and materi- dyslexia … In 2011 and debate over definitions of and impli- als, legislation related to the teaching 2012 alone, an additional cations for dyslexia as a learning dis- of reading has become increasingly 10 states added dyslexia- ability label (see ILA 2016a, 2016b; specific and prescriptive. At the state IDA, 2016). The exchange between specific legislation. level, reading-related legislation speci- these two organizations is only one fies everything from how and where example of the larger push and pull teachers are prepared and certified to of controversy and contradiction that programs to discuss dyslexia teach reading, to how and when stu- surrounds dyslexia-related policies with preservice teachers. Over the dents are taught and assessed. and practices. This creates enormous next 20 years, only eight states passed challenges for families and educators Dyslexia, a specific form of difficul- laws that included the word dyslexia, who aim to be fully responsive to stu- ty developing literacy, was identified though most were not exclusively dent needs in a polarized and com- during the 19th century and named focused on dyslexia (e.g., appeared plex policy context. in 1887 by a German ophthalmolo- within larger bills related to spe- gist named Rudolph Berlin. Though cial education funding). However, in In this article I describe current it was known in some form 130 2011 and 2012 alone, an additional trends in dyslexia legislation, con- years ago, the first state law to refer- 10 states added dyslexia-specific sider the significance of current pol- ence dyslexia specifically was passed legislation, and initial or revised icy and advocacy efforts, and discuss only 30 years ago. This was a note in policies have been consistently under the implications of recent state poli- Louisiana statute within a package of consideration by state legislatures cy changes for educators of students legislation that required vision and across the country ever since. with reading difficulties. hearing testing for children entering

1 Several online resources can be used to track trends and changes in state dyslexia policies at the state level, including www.dyslegia.com, a website devoted to state and federal dyslexia and reading laws; and the International Dyslexia Association website’s legislation page, which includes a color-coded map showing patterns in the presence and coverage of dyslexia laws across states.

Spring 2018 Journal of Reading Recovery 25 Research

Figure 1. Continuun of Current Dyslexia Legislation

Exploratory Prescribed Prescribed teacher Mandated Committee and assessment and training and assessment and Adoption of the intervention and/or student screening intervention IDA definition teacher training and intervention

EXAMPLE: EXAMPLE: EXAMPLE: EXAMPLE: MN, MS, MO, NM, RI, UT, AL, AR, CT, HI, IA, KY, IN, MA, MS, NE, NJ, OH, NC, NH, NV, AK, TX WA, WV (11 TOTAL) LA, ME (11 TOTAL) OK, OR, VA (10 TOTAL) (5 TOTAL)

The recent swell in legislative activity The significance of each goal will first goal, however, marks a depar- has not led to uniform policies across be examined in the section that fol- ture: No other legislation requires states; however, the majority of U.S. lows. By examining this set in detail, reinforcing the very definition and states have considered and/or passed I argue that a particular set of terms meaning of reading difficulty. some or all of an identifiable package and ways of thinking and talking of legislation with a particular fram- about dyslexia are identified, and #1. A universal definition of dyslexia ing of dyslexia as a problem that can these provide insight into productive The Diagnostic and Statistical Man- be remedied by public policy. Recent and ethical responses in the current ual-5th edition (DSM-5), published dyslexia-specific legislation can be policy context. by the American Psychological Asso- understood along a continuum from ciation (APA), is the standard classifi- least to most prescriptive policies (see Unpacking the Advocacy cation reference for mental disorders Figure 1) with states falling at dif- in the U.S., and it has no entry for ferent points along the continuum Agenda dyslexia. The only instance of the At first glance, the list of five policy with the passage of each new piece of word is where it appears as “an alter- goals seems mostly parallel to exist- legislation. native term used to refer to a pattern ing legislation in most states about of learning difficulties characterized Of particular note when considering reading in general. Replace “dys- by problems with accurate or flu- this framing is the work of a group lexia” with the term “reading dif- ent word recognition, poor decoding, called “Decoding Dyslexia, a parent- ficulty” and you will have a similar and poor spelling abilities” (2013, p. led grassroots movement” (Decoding list of policies that already exist in 67), under the broader category of Dyslexia, 2013). They have planted states where response to interven- “specific learning disability.” Other chapters in every state and several tion (RTI) or other multi-tiered sys- resources that do include dyslex- other countries and led lobbying tems of support (MTSS) are in place. ia often provide varying definitions efforts and letter-writing campaigns So, many people are left wondering and descriptions of it. Just as Vellu- focused on a consistent set of policy what’s really new, or whether dyslex- tino pointed out that existing defi- goals, arguments, and statistics. ia-specific legislation merely reiterates nitions of specific learning disability Their five policy goals, displayed in or parallels existing guidelines. For “were based more on social and polit- Figure 2, appear either in part or in example, many states have required ical expedience than on any compel- their entirety in nearly all new dys- early screening and diagnosis of read- ling research” (2010, p. 7), there is no lexia legislation across the county. ing difficulties, as well as appropri- official definition of dyslexia that is Therefore, their efforts seem largely ate research-based interventions for universally accepted by academics responsible for the recent surge in both general and special education and researchers. legislative activity related to dyslexia. students for more than a decade. The

26 Journal of Reading Recovery Spring 2018 Research

This is important to advocates settings. There is also some debate no meaningful distinction between because, without specific reference about whether dyslexia is separate dyslexia and ‘garden-variety’ read- in the DSM-5, there is no official and unique from other reading dif- ing disability — pointing out that the or authoritative definition or set of ficulties, or just one of a few possible starting point for instruction should diagnostic criteria in the scientific or patterns of reading difficulty (Spear- always follow the individual instead medical community. Therefore, crite- Swerling, 2016). This is why the first of the label, and that studies of dys- ria can vary across states, disciplines step to creating dyslexia-specific legis- lexic readers show that even those (e.g., neuroscience, linguistics, psy- lation is to identify and impose a uni- who carry the label and the genet- chology), and even individual prac- versal definition. ic markers can be successfully reme- titioners. A student given a dyslexia diated using techniques that can be The lack of consensus around defini- label by a pediatrician in one region applied to a range of reading difficul- tion and diagnosis creates challenging based on parent reports may or may ties (e.g., Gebauer et al., 2012). This dilemmas for public school person- not qualify when assessed by an edu- has led to a backlash among par- nel — dilemmas which often create cational psychologist in another after ents and advocates against “dyslexia conflict between schools and par- neuropsychological testing, or when deniers” who do not deny that some ents. Many disability categories have tested by a neuroscientist using brain students have great difficulty learn- specific diagnostic criteria which are imaging techniques. Though a range ing to read, but do deny that dyslexia conventionally applied by a school of assessments may be considered is different from reading disability in psychologist, pediatrician, or rel- potentially appropriate—especially in general and/or that it should be syn- evant professional in order to make combination—there is no single gold onymous with a particular approach an official diagnosis. When it comes standard, definitive assessment sys- to instruction/remediation. to learning disabilities in general, or tem for diagnosing dyslexia in school dyslexia in particular, it is not always In 1994, the IDA brought together a clear which professional should group of professionals to create and make the diagnosis, or which criteria popularize a ‘consensus definition.’ Figure 2. Five Policy Goals of should be applied. Many profession- Advocacy goal #1 is aimed at state Decoding Dyslexia als do not feel qualified to diagnose recognition of an updated version of and are unsure of where to refer stu- IDA’s consensus definition in order An Advocacy Agenda dents (National Public Radio [NPR], to assert legitimacy and authority 2016). Since schools are vulnerable to through state statutes influenced by 1. A universal definition and lawsuits when parents’ expectations dyslexia advocates rather than profes- understanding of “dyslexia” in for assessments and services are not sional diagnostic manuals published the state education code met, it is common for educators to by academics and leaders of profes- 2. Mandatory teacher training on receive guidance or even direct orders sional organizations (e.g., the APA). dyslexia, its warning signs and not to discuss any disability label This definition is not without critics, appropriate intervention strategies until an official diagnosis has been but has gained substantial recognition made. Parents often report that the in recent years. Once enshrined in 3. Mandatory early screening tests school denied the existence of dys- state law, it may become a taken-for- for dyslexia lexia, was afraid to diagnose it, or put granted given that dyslexia is a natu- 4. Mandatory dyslexia remediation off diagnosis for too long (Gabriel & ral and incontrovertible phenomenon programs, which can be accessed Woulfin, 2017; NPR, 2016) either with agreed-upon characteristics and by both general and special because no one was willing to name it features. education populations in official communication, or because confusion within a school system led 5. Access to appropriate “assistive IDA’s definition technologies” in the public school to delays in diagnosis. The IDA defines dyslexia as “a spe- setting for students with dyslexia Another layer of complexity is added cific learning disability that is neuro- when individual researchers or biological in origin. It is characterized SOURCE: Decoding Dyslexia, 2013 research organizations argue there is by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor

Spring 2018 Journal of Reading Recovery 27 Research

spelling and decoding abilities” (IDA, features. In practice, even neuroscien- on language and literacy and a set of 2002, n.p.). The definition goes on tists conducting imaging studies warn unique assessment tools that can be to note: about differences in diagnostic crite- used to identify a persistent pattern ria used from one study to the next. of difficulty associated with dyslexia These difficulties typically result Kalra (2014) notes: across settings. from a deficit in the phonologi- cal component of language that The biggest challenge in under- is often unexpected in relation to standing dyslexia is “equifinal- #2. Mandatory teacher training on dyslexia other cognitive abilities and the ity,” the idea that multiple causes Policy goals 2–4 are dyslexia-specif- provision of effective classroom and pathways can lead to the ic versions of existing legislation in instruction. Secondary conse- same (or similar) situations. In most states related to reading/literacy quences may include problems dyslexia research, that means that as described above. A logical exten- in reading comprehension and at least a handful of underlying sion of the idea that dyslexia is uni- reduced reading experience that problems could result in a spe- versal is that there are agreed-upon can impede growth of vocabulary cific reading impairment. (n.p.) approaches to instruction for students and background knowledge. However, the IDA definition uses with dyslexia. Part of the argument of The definition identifies the root language to construct a version of the IDA is that “popularly employed problem as phonological, but notes dyslexia that is singular, real, clear. reading approaches, such as Guid- that secondary difficulties with com- and cannot be denied. ed Reading or Balanced Literacy, prehension and exposure to text Despite advances in neuroscience are not effective for struggling read- may also occur, which explains why technologies, methods for diagnosing ers. These approaches are especially students with dyslexia might have dyslexia are not always clear or com- ineffective for students with dyslex- more limited vocabulary and back- mon. Given the range of potential ia because they do not focus on the ground knowledge despite normal or assessment tools, some states approve decoding skills these students need advanced cognitive abilities. This nar- a specific assessment to standardize to succeed in reading” (IDA, 2017). rows what counts as dyslexia and sup- criteria across the state, or approve a Instead, they argue “What does work ports the idea that it is unique from menu or assessment options to offer is Structured Literacy, which pre- other general reading difficulties. some standardization and some pro- pares students to decode words in an This definition also contributes to the fessional leeway. It is important to explicit and systematic manner. This construction of dyslexia as naturally know that the lists of approved assess- approach not only helps students with occurring (biological) and undeniable ments vary both in length and con- dyslexia, but there is substantial evi- because it has a particular origin rath- tent (some do not overlap). Given the dence that it is more effective for all er than being a diagnosis of exclusion. complexity of addressing a language readers” (n.p.). The inclusion of neurobiology con- or literacy-based disability, the best By arguing that Structured Literacy is nects the definition to research that approach to diagnose likely includes best for all students, the organization has identified particular genetic multiple professionals, including (but positions its term, Structured Literacy, markers and neuroimaging patterns not limited to) classroom teachers, as the only or best solution for read- that have been associated with dys- reading specialists, school psycholo- ing instruction, thus positioning its lexia (cf. Elliott & Grigorenko, 2014; gists, speech-language pathologists, program accreditation as the only or Pugh & McCardle, 2009; Cornelis- and special educators. Indeed most best measure of teacher preparation sen, Hanson, Kringlebach, & Pugh, state menus include assessments tra- programs. This contrasts with ILA 2010) which further legitimize the ditionally given by reading specialists, which currently serves as the accredi- assumption that dyslexia is natural school psychologists, and speech-lan- tation body for most university-based and incontrovertible phenomenon guage pathologists. Each profession- reading teacher/specialist preparation with agreed-upon characteristics and al should bring a unique perspective programs.

28 Journal of Reading Recovery Spring 2018 Research

The move towards advocating for Structured Literacy rather than mul- By arguing that Structured Literacy is best for all tisensory or Orton-Gillingham-based approaches was admittedly strategic. students, the International Dyslexia Association Hal Malchow, IDA president, writes: positions its term, Structured Literacy, as the only or The term “Structured Literacy” best solution for reading instruction, thus positioning is not designed to replace Orton its program accreditation as the only or best measure Gillingham, Multi-Sensory, or of teacher preparation programs. other terms in common use. It is an umbrella term designed to describe all of the programs that teach reading in essentially the that IDA will get to ‘sell’ Structured while minimizing or marginalizing same way. In our marketing, this Literacy. The implications of states’ those who question the definitions or term will help us simplify our use of this term will be discussed boundaries of dyslexia. message and connect our suc- below. cesses. “Structured Literacy” will The last phrase of goal #4 “which can #3. Mandatory student screening help us sell what we do so well. be accessed by both general and spe- As understandings of dyslexia have (Malchow, 2012, n.p.) cial education students” demonstrates evolved over the past 130 years, esti- Thus, the term is explicitly linked the distancing of dyslexia from the mates of prevalence have varied dra- to a purposeful positioning of stigma of disability in general and the matically. The inclusion of a student IDA’s brand(s) of reading instruc- inclusion of a wide range of students screening provision in new dyslexia tion (Orton-Gillingham-influenced under the umbrella of dyslexia. Both legislation mandates ongoing efforts approaches such as Wilson Read- are significant trends in the history to screen public school children for ing® and Barton Reading & Spelling of popular understandings of dyslexia reading difficulties. Dyslexia advo- System®) in order to sell it for use in (Elliot & Grigorenko, 2014). In fact, cates have recently popularized the teacher preparation and school set- Texas requires that dyslexia be iden- ‘1 in 5’ estimate which suggests that tings. It also complicates the process tified as a “health impairment” rath- up to 20% of the population may of determining whether the approach er than a learning disability in order have dyslexia, though most are undi- is research-based. Since Structured to distinguish it from any cognitive agnosed. This implies that public schools have been missing significant Literacy is an umbrella term that has impairment. This positions dyslexia only recently been applied to a small as a genetic difference rather than a numbers of students — casting public set of similar approaches, there is no disability, which may reduce some of school personnel as either ignorant or research base on its effectiveness — the social stigma attached to special negligent. Thus, a distrust of public let alone one that suggests that Struc- education services and students with schools is inherent in a construction tured Literacy (or any approach) disabilities. of dyslexia that highlights liberal or is effective for all students. As ILA open-ended prevalence statistics. Between the first two advocacy goals has pointed out, there is limited evi- an interpretative repertoire for under- More modest estimates place preva- dence for the effectiveness of many standing dyslexia as natural and lence at 5–10% of the population of the approaches included under incontrovertible has been identified (Siegle, 2006). Given that 20% of that umbrella (2016). Yet, mandating by examining the contexts of terms school-age students are diagnosed teacher training on dyslexia implies like neurobiological, structured liter- with a learning disability, and 80% that current training is not adequate acy, and universal. This “dyslexia as of students with learning disability to prepare teachers to work with natural and incontrovertible” (Weth- labels were referred for difficulties dyslexia and that something else is erell, 1998) repertoire includes dis- related to reading, an estimate around required (in this case Structured Lit- cussions of neuroscience and genetics, 10% is far closer to current identi- eracy may be implied). This means fication levels (National Center on

Spring 2018 Journal of Reading Recovery 29 Research

Learning Disabilities, 2017). So, #4. Mandatory access to dyslexia One function of an increase in more conservative estimates are more remediation programs dyslexia diagnoses might be that supportive of current practice in Similar to the two previously more students get more assistance public schools and do not point to described goals, the provision for earlier. Another is that it fuels a rap- the need for new or additional test- access to remediation programs lies idly expanding market for dyslexia- ing. New legislation that requires over and above existing special edu- specific assessments, tools, trainings, screening for dyslexia is aimed at cation law which requires all stu- and techniques. Though increased increasing the number of children dents with all disability labels to have access to a now booming marketplace with dyslexia labels and/or the con- access to free and appropriate educa- of educational materials and services fidence with which schools deter- tion in the least restrictive environ- is good news in terms of awareness mine whether dyslexia is present by ment. Notice that the provision is not and accessibility of relevant tools, it specifying particular assessments that for “appropriate” or “least restrictive” also means options proliferate and schools should use. By questioning programming or instruction, but to may be difficult for parents and pro- existing testing practices, advocates “dyslexia remediation programs.” fessionals to evaluate. For example, in a 2002 news article in Britain’s The Guardian, the mother of a child with No doubt some of the many therapies advertised as a dyslexia label described the range treatments for dyslexia have some benefit for some of failed therapies she tried in order to minimize the effects of her son’s children—and even some scientific basis—but with- dyslexia. Based on the advice of par- out consensus on diagnostic criteria, assessment, or ent groups and private providers, her intervention, it is nearly impossible to assess the trials ranged from diets to supple- efficacy of advertised treatments and cures or to ments; from visual and reflex thera- pies to muscle and nerve realignment police the claims of a growing dyslexia industry. (Bedell, 2002). No doubt some of the many therapies advertised as treat- ments for dyslexia have some benefit open the door for new/additional This suggests that the instruction for some children—and even some testing, which expands the market for available in special education settings scientific basis—but without consen- companies that generate and collect is not viewed as sufficient and that sus on diagnostic criteria, assessment, such assessment data. students with dyslexia need dyslexia- or intervention, it is nearly impossi- specific programs (not just individu- ble to assess the efficacy of advertised Some states go as far as specifying alized instruction), which, according treatments and cures or to police the which assessments must be used, to IDA, means Structured Literacy. claims of a growing dyslexia industry. while others provide a menu of options for districts. In either case, As mentioned in the discussion of the Nevertheless, frustrated with the the consequence of the interpretative definition of dyslexia, the inclusion speed and difficulty with which repertoire that constructs dyslexia as of “all students,” even general educa- public schools diagnose or acknowl- a natural, universal, unique phenome- tion students, may be viewed as both edge diagnosis of dyslexia, parents non creates a need for dyslexia-specif- an effort to make these approaches continually turn to private providers ic assessments to be applied to more seem universal/universally good and for outside tutoring, assessments, and children than ever before. Within a way of distancing dyslexia from spe- therapeutic experiences. This, per- this repertoire, the knowledge and cial education/learning disabilities in haps more than the research base for effectiveness of public school educa- general. If good instruction for stu- any particular dyslexia remediation tors is questioned and portrayed as dents with dyslexia is good instruc- program, is the compelling reason for lacking. tion for all students, then dyslexia state legislators to act: When parents does not separate a student from his believe schools have failed to ade- peers as much as another disability quately diagnose and address label might.

30 Journal of Reading Recovery Spring 2018 Research

dyslexia, they take on significant Dyslexia and the Law: In other words, though one might financial burdens for outside testing What is Required, What imagine that advocates had particu- and tutoring. When such resources lar branded programs in mind, in are not available, advocates warn that is Implied? many cases, the law leaves room for dyslexia may be going unnoticed Advocacy for recent dyslexia legisla- any program that can be described and unaddressed. tion has been strongly influenced and as a program for dyslexia remedia- informed by groups like Decoding tion based on certain criteria. IDA Dyslexia and the programs, terms, #5. Assistive technology describes Structured Literacy as and repertoires espoused by the IDA. The fifth and final goal is a dyslexia- instruction that is charcterized by six However, the letter of the law is in specific version of existing legislation criteria (Figure 3). Though these cri- many cases less ideological than prag- related to the rights of all students teria were drawn from a specific set matic, which means implementation with disabilities. Again, the need for of branded programs that focus on efforts can be inclusive of a range of a provision which reiterates the rights explicit, systematic phonics instruc- approaches. of students with disability labels may be rooted in the perception that these rights are not enforced, but also has roots in the idea that dyslexia is a Figure 3. IDA Definition of Structured Literacy difference-not-disability, which dis- 1. Simultaneous, Multisensory (VAKT) Teaching uses all learning pathways in the tances dyslexia from the stigma asso- brain (i.e., visual, auditory, kinesthetic tactile) simultaneously or sequentially in order ciated with disabilities that would be to enhance memory and learning. included under special education law. This provision allows students, par- 2. Systematic and Cumulative Multisensory language instruction requires that the ents, educators, and others the right organization of material follows the logical order of the language. The sequence must to assistive technologies such as read- begin with the easiest and most basic concepts and progress methodically to more ers, dictation devices, and spelling difficult material. Each concept must also be based on those already learned. Concepts tools, without requiring an official taught must be systematically reviewed to strengthen memory. disability diagnosis. Once again, by requiring such tools to be made more 3. Direct Instruction The inferential learning of any concept cannot be taken for widely available, it also fuels the mar- granted. Multisensory language instruction requires direct teaching of all concepts ket for companies that produce them. with continuous student-teacher interaction. Reading difficulties may represent an 4. Diagnostic Teaching The teacher must be adept at flexible or individualized urgent emotional and financial bur- teaching. The teaching plan is based on careful and continuous assessment of the den on families and there is a large individual’s needs. The content presented must be mastered step by step for the and powerful industry that stands to student to progress. benefit from more frequent diagno- 5. Synthetic and Analytic Instruction Multisensory, structured language programs ses and less trust in public schools. include both synthetic and analytic instruction. Synthetic instruction presents the Thus, school-based educators are parts of the language and then teaches how the parts work together to form a whole. often caught between the desire to Analytic instruction presents the whole and teaches how this can be broken down into recognize and address reading diffi- its component parts. culty and the demand for particular labels, programs, and tools that may 6. Comprehensive and Inclusive All levels of language are addressed, often in parallel, or may not be central to the concep- including sounds (phonemes), symbols (graphemes), meaningful word parts tions of literacy learning espoused in (morphemes), word and phrase meanings (semantics), sentences (syntax), longer that school. Where this is the case, passages (discourse), and the social uses of language (pragmatics). new dyslexia laws often leave some room for responsible interpretation SOURCE: International Dyslexia Association, 2017 while ensuring dyslexia is explicitly addressed.

Spring 2018 Journal of Reading Recovery 31 Research

tion, other instructional approaches the ‘neurobiological origin’ of dys- Recovery and other programs will might also fit or exceed these criteria. lexia represents a “visible pedagogy” need to build a case for inclusion as (Bernstein, 1975), which is easy to viable options for dyslexia-specific Even though the term Structured Lit- identify, monitor, package, and sell policies. All invisible pedagogies with eracy was coined in order to rebrand or replicate. A more holistic approach a track record of success outside of and unify a collection of approach- might be viewed suspiciously because programs most closely associated with es, its definition could apply to any it amounts to what sociologist, Basil Structured Literacy will require some approach that can claim the 10 Bernstein (1975) referred to as “invis- explanation and demonstration in bolded words as descriptors. Edu- ible pedagogy,” one that is child-cen- order to show how they fit in the cators with expertise in approaches tered and therefore variable due to its current policy climate. such as Reading Recovery® should emphasis on nurturing individuals, be prepared to articulate how their Over and above the letter of current rather than training all children to approach qualifies as “structured” but state laws, the policy context now master particular skills. also “research-based.” Indeed, Read- seems to call for a small set of coordi- ing Recovery has clearest claim for Part of the power of the dyslexia nated responses from public schools, a research-based designation based advocacy movement is that it pro- especially those that wish to main- on a review by the federal govern- motes taken-for-granted assumptions tain support for approaches that are ment (What Works Clearinghouse, of what is good (e.g., no one would not limited to Structured Literacy. This set of responses both proac- tively communicates adequate atten- Reading Recovery and other programs will need tion to screening and diagnosis and defensively demonstrates the align- to build a case for inclusion as viable options for ment of invisible pedagogies with dyslexia-specific policies. All invisible pedagogies taken-for-granted criteria for dyslexia with a track record of success outside of programs programs. First, schools and districts most closely associated with Structured Literacy must ensure transparency regarding their diagnostic processes and crite- will require some explanation and demonstration ria. This may mean making descrip- in order to show how they fit in the current policy tions, flow-charts, or manuals public, climate. either online or in pamphlet form for parents and advocates. Where such transparency is a challenge, schools should embrace the opportunity to 2013) as well as a long track record argue that instruction should be un- be more intentional and accountable of success in preventing learning dis- systematic) therefore making such to an assessment system that supports abilities (Lyons, 1991). However, the choices common sense decisions for all children, including those with phrases “scientifically based read- legislators. The danger, however, is dyslexia labels. ing research” or “research-based” are that it might artificially limit what Second, given the range of ways to not included in the universal defini- counts as good instruction based on diagnose dyslexia, the possibility that tion, or dyslexia-as-difference reper- a particular framing of dyslexia as a approved lists of assessments will toires. Therefore, programs with tight policy problem. Though it could be change over time, and fears regarding alignment with recent advocacy and understood as such, Reading Recov- legal ramifications of misdiagnosis policy documents (e.g., Structured ery is not often explicitly described by or delayed diagnosis, a multidisci- Literacy approaches with an empha- such terms as multisensory, systematic, plinary team approach to assessment sis on explicit, systematic phonics or cumulative. These are mere brand and remediation is the most respon- instruction) will be taken-for-grant- names for principles of instruction sible, defensible way forward. This ed as good while others may be held and pedagogy with deep, wide-reach- means consulting if not engaging the under suspicion. The exclusive focus ing roots across the ideological services of more than one literacy- on the areas most tightly linked to spectrum. Therefore, Reading

32 Journal of Reading Recovery Spring 2018 Research

Cornelisson, P., Hansen, P., Kringelbach, M., & Pugh, K. (2010) The neural The prescriptiveness of dyslexia policies varies across basis of reading. Oxford, UK: Oxford states, but the majority leave room for a range of University Press. approaches, provided that educators can make the Decoding Dyslexia (2013). Information potential of these pedagogies visible by engaging with sheet. Retrieved from http://www. decodingdyslexia.net/info.html the emerging vocabulary of dyslexia. Decoding Dyslexia (2017). Decoding Dyslexia. Retrieved from http://www. decodingdyslexia.net/ Elliott, J., & Grigorenko, E. (2014). related professional when considering that matter for students with read- The dyslexia debate. Cambridge, UK: a dyslexia diagnosis in a school set- ing difficulty, or that these ways of Cambridge University Press. ting (e.g., classroom teachers, reading understanding and describing read- Gebauer, D., Fink, A., Filippini, N., specialists, speech-language patholo- ing difficulty are static rather than Johansen-Berg, H., Reishofer, G., gists, special educators, ESL teachers dynamic. It is to say that a combi- Koschutnig, K., Kargl, R., Purgstaller, as necessary). Not only does this dis- nation of desperation and capitalism C., Fazekas, F., & Enzinger, C. tribute the important responsibility, it (supply and demand) in the educa- (2012). Differences in integrity of also ensures triangulation of observa- tional marketplace has coalesced into white matter and changes with train- tions and professional judgment. privilege for this particular version of ing in spelling impaired children: dyslexia at this moment in time. If a diffusion tensor imaging study. Finally, educators must be able to educators fail to engage productively Brain Structure & Function, 217(3), articulate a coherent statement of the within current understandings of dys- 747–760. ways in which current approaches lexia, they will be written out of any Gabriel, R. & Woulfin, S. (2017). address state requirements and defi- major role in the public’s understand- Reading and dyslexia legislation: The nitions using terminology used in ing of how to identify and address confluence of parallel policies. In J. the text of the law and/or by IDA. In Lester, C. Lochmiller, & R. Gabriel dyslexia. If, instead, educators take other words, to whatever extent edu- (Eds.). Discursive perspectives on educa- up, negotiate, and engage with the cators believe that adequate screening tion policy and implementation (pp. specialized vocabulary and current and remediation are in place, it must 197-219). New York: Palgrave. concepts, they may have the oppor- be framed in the specific language of International Dyslexia Association. tunity to partner with those who are current policy and advocacy efforts. (2002). Definition of dyslexia. willing to invest tremendous resourc- To whatever extent assessment and/ Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/ es toward the shared goal of every or remediation of individual reading definition-of-dyslexia/ child a reader. difficulties have not been adequate, International Dyslexia Association. new legislation provides the oppor- (2016). IDA urges ILA to review and tunity and impetus to address inade- References clarify key points in dyslexia research quacies by building more transparent, American Psychiatric Association. (2013). advisory. Retrieved from https:// coherent systems for assessment and Diagnostic and statistical manual of dyslexiaida.org/ida-urges-ila-to-review- and-clarify-key-points-in-dyslexia- support. mental disorders: DSM-5. Washington, DC: Author. research-advisory/ The prescriptiveness of dyslexia pol- Bedell, G. (2002). “Lost for wurds.” The International Dyslexia Association. icies varies across states, but the Guardian. Retrieved from https:// (2017). Effective reading instruction. majority leave room for a range of www.theguardian.com/educa- Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/ approaches, provided that educa- tion/2002/jun/30/primaryeducation. effective-reading-instruction/ tors can make the potential of these features International Dyslexia Association. pedagogies visible by engaging with Bernstein, B. (1975). Class and pedago- (2018). Multisensory structured lan- the emerging vocabulary of dyslexia. gies: Visible and invisible. Educational guage teaching: Just the facts. Retrieved That is not to say that the discourses Studies, 1(1), 23–41. from https://dyslexiaida.org/multisen- of dyslexia are the only discourses sory-structured-language-teaching/

Spring 2018 Journal of Reading Recovery 33 Research

International Literacy Association. National Public Radio. (2016). (2016a). Research advisory: Dyslexia. Special series: Unlocking dyslexia. About the Author Retrieved from https://www.literacy- Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/ worldwide.org/docs/default-source/ series/503544816/unlocking-dyslexia where-we-stand/ila-dyslexia-research- Pugh, K., & McCardle, P. (Eds.). (2009). advisory.pdf How children learn to read: Current International Literacy Association. issues and new directions in the inte- (2016b). Research advisory addendum: gration of cognition, neurobiology and Dyslexia: Response to the International genetics of reading and dyslexia research Dyslexia Association. Retrieved from and practice. New York: Psychology https://www.literacyworldwide.org/ Press. Dr. Rachael Gabriel is an associ- docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ Siegel, L. S. (2006). Perspectives on ate professor of literacy education ila-dyslexia-research-advisory.pdf dyslexia. Paediatrics & Child Health, at the University of Connecticut. International Literacy Association. 11(9), 581–587. She is the author or editor of five (2017). About us: Our story. Retrieved Spear-Swerling, L. (2016). Common books for literacy teachers and edu- from https://www.literacyworldwide. types of reading problems and how to cation researchers and serves on the org/about-us/our-story help children who have them. Reading editorial boards of journals focused Kalra, P. (2014, November 28) Getting Teacher, 69(5), 513–522. on literacy, education research, and past dyslexia myths: How neuroscience Vellutino, F. (2010). “Learning to be policy. Dr. Gabriel’s research inter- has helped. [blog post]. Retrieved from Learning Disabled:” Marie Clay’s sem- ests include teacher development https://www.cogneurosociety.org/dys- inal contribution to the response to and evaluation, as well as literacy lexia_myths/ intervention approach to identifying instruction, interventions, and Lyons, C. A. (1991). Reading Recovery: specific reading disability. The Journal related policies. Her current proj- A viable prevention of learning disabil- of Reading Recovery, 10(1), 5–23. ects investigate supports for adoles- ity. Reading Horizons, 31(5). Retrieved Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning cent literacy, disciplinary literacy, from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/ and interpretative repertoires: and tools for teacher evaluation. reading_horizons/vol31/iss5/4/ Conversation analysis and poststruc- Malchow, H. (2012). Structured literacy: turalism in dialogue. Discourse & A new term to unite us and sell what we Society , 9(3), 387–412. do. International Dyslexia Association. What Works Clearinghouse (2013). Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/ Intervention report: Reading Recovery. structured-literacy/ Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ National Center on Learning Disabilities. ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/ (2017). The State of LD: 2017. wwc_readrecovery_071613.pdf Retrieved from https://www.ncld. org/the-state-of-learning-disabilities- understanding-the-1-in-5

34 Journal of Reading Recovery Spring 2018