Why does Massachusetts Need Dyslexia Legislation? by Nancy Duggan, Executive Director, DDMA
The Purpose of Dyslexia Legislation is to clarify and specify, based on science, research and brain imaging technology the neurobiological basis for
Why does Massachusetts Need Dyslexia Legislation? by Nancy Duggan, Executive Director, DDMA
The Purpose of Dyslexia Legislation is to clarify and specify, based on science, research and brain imaging technology the neurobiological basis for dyslexia so that it can be more effectively identified and managed.
One particular disability is a neurobiological condition defined as dyslexia.
Before reading instruction, in fact at birth, dyslexic kids experience differences in brain structure and processing which will effect how and if they learn to read. Learn more about this.
Neuroscientists, using brain imaging like fMRI technology validated that simple screening was over 86% accurate in identifying students at risk for dyslexia at age 5 and 6. (Review the READ study and testimony)
Peer reviewed research proved earlier intervention specific to dyslexia was much more successful for these children.(Review the Dr. Gaab video and many other sources.
Collaboration between Neuroscientists, Cognitive Developmental Pediatricians, Speech and Language Dyslexia Literacy Experts, Educators at every level, Parents, and Policy-makers should create informed guidance for the Commonwealth.
Dyslexia legislation is an important issue. It will determine if students who arrive at school with a neurobiological condition called dyslexia must “wait to fail” before receiving screening, diagnosis and evidence based instruction specific to dyslexia. If passed, legislation will provide a clear and scientific definition of dyslexia(1) and require early screening so that students at risk for dyslexia can be identified early and evidence based instruction(2) for students with dyslexia can begin before a child experiences failure.
To learn more about the social and emotional affects of unidentified dyslexia CLICK HERE
Why do we need a definition? Doesn't everyone know what it is? Specific Learning Disability (SLD) is the largest designation of special education in MA. According to the 2010-2011 Annual Report to the Legislature, 31.5% of special education students in Massachusetts were categorized as Specific Learning Disability, (SLD). That was 51,900 of the 164,711 students in the special education programs for the school year 2010-2011. But it is a broad category that covers many very different disabilities. How these disabilities are determined and what interventions are used varies widely between districts. Some schools will use the term dyslexia only when an outside diagnosis costing parents thousands is provided, other districts tell parents that it is an irrelevant term and refuse to use it even with an outside diagnosis. Other districts use the term incorrectly to mean any language based reading problem, or all specific learning disabilities. Some districts, after reading failure and diagnosis, and too often only after BSEA involvement provide services. This confusion is noted by the DESE. Quoted from a recent Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth, Report commissioned by Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
we learned that local school districts are given substantial flexibility in their interpretation of these specific disability categories. In some cases, this appears to result in children with the same underlying issues receiving different disability labels in different school districts. This represents a potential impediment to the effective delivery of services to children and also presents challenges for our analyses.
Despite the confusion with the SLD model, acknowledged in this report and the experiences of many many families across the Commonwealth, most students receiving services for special education are categorized as SLD. The requirements for an SLD include that:
The student must experience quality reading instruction, and fail. (3)
The team determines that exclusionary factors like “culture” or “economic disadvantage” were not a primary factor they may be considered for SLD and an IEP.(4)There is no other disability that could exclude students from receiving services required due to a biological disability, something they are born with based on these subjective and irrelevant factors.
This is the current "wait to fail" method. As a result, dyslexia may or may not be used as a term to identify evidence based interventions at this stage. Many parents find that a private diagnosis and evaluations costing thousands are the only way, even after this process, to get a dyslexia diagnosis and the specific evidence based instruction known to be effective with dyslexia. Since some students are excluded simply on the basis of having a second language or economic disadvantage there are some students that never learn the cause of their academic struggles or the skills they need. This multi year delay, confusion about the definition, and irrelevant exclusionary factors are the cause of great stress for students, parents, teachers and in fact districts. The end result for far too many is failure. The correlation to poor reading and the school to prison pipeline makes this an even more important issue.
By accepting the scientific neurobiological definition, the accuracy of identifying dyslexia and the ability to determine effective delivery of services will be greatly improved. This definition is used in the neuroscience based research that provides data for evidence based screening and instruction.
If we know beyond a doubt, that it is a neurobiological condition some students will be born with, why do we still expect these children to wait to fail before targeting the interventions that work best for them? How can we pretend that there is not a better more accurate way?
Many Massachusetts legislators have been learning more about this from a grass roots organization called Decoding Dyslexia Massachusetts. This group includes parents, students, neuroscientists, speech and language pathologists, higher education profes