![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
After a multitude of studies across more than a century, researchers have failed to consistently identify characteristics or patterns that distinguish dyslexia from other decoding challenges. Many researchers and educators argue the construct is too vague and contradictory to be useful for educators. Nevertheless, attention to dyslexia in policy and practice has increased at a rapid rate; 37 states now have dyslexia laws, and national legislation was passed in 2016. Employing Bakhtin’s concept of authoritative discourse (AD) as a theoretical lens, we examined the emergence and current state of dyslexia legislation and policy in Texas, Indiana, and Florida, three states that represent various histories of legislation and stages of policy implementation. Our analysis found similarities among the states’ legislation, particularly regarding how the policies emerged and the AD embedded within them. The International Dyslexia Society’s recommendations for a specific intervention approach that is “multisensory, systematic, and structured” appear in each state’s laws. This approach is not well supported by research, but it is officially sanctioned through legislation in many states and has had a profound effect on policy and practice. By not engaging in the discourse or using the word “dyslexia,” literacy researchers and educators place themselves outside of a closed discourse circle that influences policy and practice and deeply affects students. We encourage active participation in the conversation and in policy decisions that are currently taking place without the input of literacy educators and researchers.
Although the term dyslexia was coined in the late 19th century (Duane, 1985; Guardiola, 2001), dyslexia has more recently garnered widespread attention in policy and practice. Texas passed the nation’s first dyslexia law in 1985, identifying dyslexia as a disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Council for Exceptional Children, n.d.). The law set up an identification and intervention process that is separate from the process for specific learning disabilities (SLDs). Since that time, 36 additional states have approved dyslexia laws, most of them passed since 2010, and additional bills continue to be proposed (Eide, 2017). Youman and Mather (2013) describe the laws as “characterized by variability and inconsistency” (p. 133). Attention is growing nationally as well; in 2016, President Obama signed into law the bipartisan Research Excellence and Advancements in Dyslexia (READ) Act, which requires the National Science Foundation to devote a minimum of $250 million annually for dyslexia research (Govtrack.us, 2016).
Few would argue that some children struggle specifically with learning to decode print, which is the central issue in what is termed dyslexia. However, despite thousands of studies, researchers have failed to consistently identify characteristics or unique patterns of reading that set students identified as dyslexic apart from other readers with decoding challenges (Elliott & Grigorenko, 2014; Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004). In fact, the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth edition (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013), no longer lists dyslexia as a separate category because “the DSM-5 Neurodevelopmental Work Group concluded that the many definitions of dyslexia and dyscalculia meant those terms would not be useful as disorder names or in the diagnostic criteria” (APA, n.d., para. 4.). Similarly, many literacy education researchers, literacy teacher educators, and literacy specialists avoid the term dyslexia because it is so vague that it “has lost any real value for educators” (Elliott & Grigorenko, 2014; Harris & Hodges, 1981, p. 9).
Nevertheless, an authoritative discourse (AD; Bakhtin, 1981) that speaks of a definitive definition, a unique set of characteristics, and a specific form of intervention saturates policy and practice around dyslexia. As educators and parents search for answers about their children’s struggles with reading, they encounter this discourse, which may persuade them to trust ideas and approaches that are not well supported by research and that may not be in their children’s best interests.
Review of Research
In our examination of research across a range of fields, we found many contradictions, inconsistencies, and questions, and few areas of consensus about dyslexia. For instance, early researchers and educators believed dyslexia resulted from visual deficits characterized by letter and word reversals, which are now known to be common in inexperienced readers (Lieberman, 1985). Researchers now agree that dyslexia is related to language rather than vision and that the predominant challenge in what is termed dyslexia is accurate and fluent decoding (Elliott & Grigorenko, 2014; Vellutino et al., 2004).
For many years, researchers have searched for clear distinctions between learners considered dyslexic due to a discrepancy between achievement and IQ and those without such a discrepancy. However, in research comparing the spelling and reading of students identified as dyslexic, poor readers, and normally achieving readers matched for achievement level, researchers have not been able to consistently identify “idiosyncratic processes” or signature patterns of dyslexia (Cassar, Treiman, Moats, Pollo, & Kessler, 2005; Ramus & Szenkovits, 2008). These findings are consistent with the perspective, supported by research, that reading proficiency occurs on a continuum and that there is no well-identified cutoff point that separates dyslexia from other reading difficulties (Shaywitz, Morris, & Shaywitz, 2008; Vellutino et al., 2004). Ellis asserts:
Dyslexia is not a disease like measles, which a person can be clearly diagnosed as either having or not having. There is a gradient from good through average to very poor reading, and it is largely arbitrary where one draws the line and says that children below this line are candidates for the label “dyslexic.” (p. 95)
Similarly, there are no universally employed measures or procedures for identifying dyslexia. Practices, instruments, and interpretation used in diagnosis of learning disabilities and dyslexia vary from place to place, even within the same city or state (Elliott & Grigorenko, 2014; Moats & Lyon, 1993).
Across a variety of perspectives on reading instruction, researchers and educators agree decoding instruction is an essential component of reading instruction. For students with decoding challenges, including those identified as dyslexic, more intensive instruction is needed. However, there is no best method for teaching decoding (National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Shaywitz et al., 2008). Yet, many sources, including the International Dyslexia Association (IDA; Just the facts…, 2009) and various state guidelines (Youman & Mather, 2013), authoritatively recommend variations of the Orton-Gillingham approach (O-G), which focuses on the teaching of phonograms, syllable types, and syllable juncture rules for decoding and spelling (Gillingham & Stillman, 1936, 2014). In a comprehensive review of research on such programs (e.g., Alphabet Phonics, Herman Method, Project Read, Wilson), Ritchey and Goeke (2006) pronounced the existing research “inadequate, both in number of studies and in the quality of research methodology, to support that O-G interventions are scientifically valid” (p. 182). Similar results were found by What Works Clearinghouse (2010). Further, researchers from a variety of perspectives agree that all students need a comprehensive, meaning-based approach to reading instruction that includes decoding as one component (Johnston, 2011; Shaywitz et al., 2008; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002).
From a review of research published between 1960 and 2011, Lopes (2012) concluded that the vast majority of dyslexia research is published in medical or psychology journals and that the “education perspective is underrepresented in published research about dyslexia” (p. 215). Lopes found that the top 10 most published authors of dyslexia research were physicians, psychologists, and neuropsychologists; none were teacher educators or literacy education researchers. Our literature review supports Lopes’s conclusion. Further, dyslexia research is conducted outside of classrooms, using tasks based on a narrow view of reading (e.g., reading isolated words, pseudowords, or test passages) in which students’ background and affective factors, among others, are minimized.
Theoretical Framework
Bakhtin’s (1981) writings about discourse provide a useful frame for examining dyslexia research and legislation. As humans develop their worldviews (what Bakhtin calls “ideological becoming”), they encounter various points of view expressed as often-oppositional discourses. One type of discourse is internally persuasive discourse (IPD), which is grounded in multiple perspectives, exploration of ideas, and negotiation of meaning. IPD fosters dialogue and an attitude of inquiry. For this research, we employed Bakhtin’s writings about a contrasting form of discourse, “authoritative discourse” (AD), which has a single, static, inflexible meaning. According to Bakhtin, “It enters our verbal consciousness as a compact and indivisible mass…It is indissolubly fused with its authority” (p. 343). Because AD is not open to interpretation or questioning, it limits possibilities for multiple perspectives.
Research and practice focusing on learning difficulties is replete with AD and “taken-for-granted assumptions,” often stemming from biological and cognitive perspectives that consider learning differences to be intrinsic and pathological (Skrtic, 2005, p. 509). In our experience, we have found that dyslexia policies and practices advance similar assumptions, conveyed with certainty, and expressed as “generally acknowledged truths of the official line” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 344). Some assumptions around dyslexia that are present in policy, practice, and the media are that it is a neuropathological condition with unique characteristics that set it apart from other reading difficulties, that dyslexia only occurs in students with average to above-average intelligence, that dyslexic individuals are creative, that dyslexia affects one in five people, and that dyslexia can only be addressed with a specific type of instruction provided by educators with training in that method. For this research, we employed AD as a lens to examine the historical roots and current iterations of dyslexia legislation and policies. We chose three states in which we are teachers and teacher educators. These states represent various histories of legislation and stages of policy implementation: (a) Texas, which passed the first law in 1985; (b) Indiana, which passed its first law in 2015; and (c) Florida, which proposed a bill in 2015 that was not passed.
Method
The researchers include current and former elementary classroom teachers and reading specialists, as well as teacher educators and researchers. We have seen increased attention to dyslexia in recent years, and we share an interest in learning about dyslexia policies and how they affect teachers and students.
Data sources varied by state and included dyslexia bills, laws, and accompanying documents that shaped or were shaped by dyslexia policy. Each state’s research group engaged in a recursive process of analysis, starting with examining that state’s documents using inductive analysis to generate open codes, meeting together to discuss and refine the codes, returning to the data to test them, and then combining the codes into categories that best represented the data (Patton, 2001). Next, each group posted their categories on a shared online document and met to discuss our initial analysis for each state and combine the codes we had generated into broader cross-state categories. At this phase, we examined additional relevant sources. For example, the website and newsletters from the IDA helped explain word choices used in development of state policies. The final phase of analysis consisted of rereading the state documents, comparing their content to the themes generated in team meetings, refining the themes, and returning to the data to test and refine them further. We continued this process until we came to consensus on three themes that represented the major ideas in the data: (a) There is a specific discourse of dyslexia that saturates dyslexia policy; (b) this discourse exists in a closed circle of organizations that largely excludes teachers and teacher educators; and (c) dyslexia legislation parallels the emergence of the learning disabilities construct. We begin the findings by describing dyslexia legislation in each state. Next, we present the cross-state themes.
Findings
Dyslexia Legislation
Texas: Where it all began
The major data source for the Texas analysis was the most recent update of the Texas Dyslexia Handbook (Texas Education Agency, 2014). The first Handbook was developed by the state in 1992 to provide guidelines to school districts for implementing dyslexia legislation. The Handbook has been updated and revised periodically to keep up with changing laws and guidelines (1998, 2001, 2007, 2010, and 2014). The 179-page document details the dyslexia definition and characteristics, assessment and identification procedures, and instructional guidelines. Appendices for the most recent (2014) revision include the laws, rules, and state statutes, and “The story of the Texas Dyslexia Laws,” authored by Geraldine “Tincy” Miller that provides a timeline and explanation of Texas dyslexia legislation milestones.
Miller, who believed her son did not get the help he needed in school, spearheaded the original legislation. She had worked as a dyslexia interventionist and was appointed to the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) by Governor White. The first Texas laws concerning dyslexia identification, screening, and treatment passed in 1985. Since then, Texas has passed dyslexia legislation on a range of issues. As in other parts of the nation, the education system in Texas has become increasingly focused on testing and accountability, and a dyslexia law in 1991 required testing accommodations for students labeled with dyslexia. The 1997 law addressed early identification.
Among most researchers, the term dyslexia is used interchangeably with Specific Learning Disability (SLD) (Shaywitz et al., 2008; Vellutino et al., 2004). However, laws in Texas and a growing number of other states treat dyslexia separately from SLD (Youman & Mather, 2013). In Texas, this distinction allows districts to bypass the 2004 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA; U.S. Department of Education, n.d.), which directs schools to employ response to intervention (RTI) before considering a diagnosis of SLD in reading. The Dyslexia Handbook states, “Progression through a tiered intervention is not required in order to begin the identification of dyslexia” (Texas Education Agency, 2014, p. 14). The wording opens the door to the use of IQ tests in identification of dyslexia, even though decoding ability is largely independent of IQ (see, e.g., Gunderson & Siegel, 2001), notwithstanding the cultural biases inherent in tests of intelligence (Shepard, 1987). The separation of dyslexia from other forms of reading difficulty is also seen in the state’s laws requiring the licensing of dyslexia “practitioners” and “specialists,” educators who must be trained in specific “multisensory, structured, phonics” programs provided almost exclusively outside of teacher preparation programs. These laws indicate a marked difference between how the state sanctions expertise in dyslexia and expertise in other reading difficulties. Particularly, the specific term “multisensory” is prevalent in legislation. Although the legislation and the Handbook provide only general guidelines for implementation, as opposed to specific measures or instruments, this language points to a specific method of instruction and limits the authorization of institutions from which dyslexia expertise can be obtained, specifically those with a “multisensory structured language education training program” (Texas Education Agency, 2014, p. 50) and not those that have traditionally prepared reading specialists. Additional legislation mandates instruction in dyslexia detection and education in teacher education programs, specifically requiring information on “effective, multisensory strategies for teaching students with dyslexia” (p. 43). The state also requires education in dyslexia research and practices as part of ongoing education requirements for educators who teach students with dyslexia, including classroom teachers.
Indiana: How a bill became a law
In May 2015, Indiana Governor Pence signed the state’s first dyslexia law, Indiana House Bill 1108 (Indiana General Assembly, 2015a). Cheryl Clemens, mother of three children diagnosed with dyslexia and a leader of Decoding Dyslexia Indiana (DDI), enlisted the help of Representative Woody Burton to introduce the bill. In a video recording of a special committee hearing posted by DDI (2015), Burton explained that he and Clemens met at a Town Hall meeting he was hosting. She was the only person to attend the meeting, so she had the opportunity to share her experiences as a mother of children diagnosed with dyslexia and as someone trained to use O-G. Her advocacy, along with the support of Burton, greatly influenced the development and passage of the bill.
The first version of the bill defined dyslexia as a “specific learning disability” affecting “decoding, fluent word recognition, and related skills, and is neurological in origin,” in which the reading difficulties must be “unexpected” in relationship “to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction” (Indiana General Assembly, 2015a, p. 1). The first version of the bill also outlined additional requirements for teacher preparation programs to teach preservice teachers the characteristics of “specific learning disabilities related to reading, including dyslexia” (Indiana General Assembly, para. 1).
After the bill was introduced, it was sent to the education committee. During the committee hearing, misunderstandings about dyslexia abounded. For example, one of the committee members, a retired special education teacher, shared a brief story about a student whom she recalled having dyslexia because the student reversed letters d and b. Burton himself shared that—after learning more about dyslexia—he had discovered that he might have dyslexia because he sometimes had to read things more than once. Clemens and Burton reminded the committee that these children are “smart,” with “average to above average” intelligence, negating the possibility that someone who scored below average on a measure of intelligence might also have dyslexia. After her testimony in the committee hearing, committee members asked Clemens about the effectiveness, the cost, and the ease with which she learned to implement Orton-Gillingham. At that time, committee members began to weigh whether to add proficiency with the Orton-Gillingham program to the bill for teacher education certification requirements. The Indiana legislature did not move forward with teacher certification requirements.
The second version provided education service centers authority to offer “courses for teachers on dyslexia screening and appropriate interventions” (p. 2), specifically naming “Orton-Gillingham” as the program of choice for intervention (Indiana General Assembly, 2015b, p. 2). However, in the final version, Orton-Gillingham was no longer specifically named; it was replaced with “a structured literacy approach that is systematic, explicit, multisensory, and phonetic” (Indiana General Assembly, 2015c, p. 2). This move away from specifically naming Orton-Gillingham reflects the decisions made by the IDA, who chose “structured literacy” as an “umbrella” term for IDA approved approaches to teaching reading (Malchow, 2014, para. 6).
Florida: A dyslexia magnet school and a failed bill
The data sources for Florida included the state bill authored by Florida Senator Aaron Bean, as well as news reports and blogs relevant to the history and controversy surrounding the bill. Florida’s foray into dyslexia legislation began with Guiding, Reading, and Accelerating Student Performance (GRASP) Academy, the nation’s first, and thus far only publicly funded school for dyslexia. Located in Jacksonville, Duval county, GRASP offers small classes, mentoring, and free transportation to students across the county identified as dyslexic. The school “specializes in teaching bright students with a dyslexic profile” (GRASP Academy, n.d., para. 1), and the curriculum “utilizes multi-sensory learning environments, Orton-Gillingham based prescriptive intervention” (GRASP Academy/Homepage, n.d., para. 2). The school’s founder is Duval County Superintendent Nicolai Vitti; Vitti and his two sons are identified as dyslexic. Mr. Vitti was criticized for the disproportionate amount of resources spent on students in the school (Thompson, 2015) and for putting “his own children first” while “other people’s children aren’t having their needs tailored to let alone met” (Education Matters, 2015, para. 2). Rachel Vitti, Mr. Vitti’s wife, enlisted the financial support of donors to spearhead a bill for a pilot program, modeled after GRASP, that would create a “Dyslexia Choice Academy in five participating school districts to provide evidence-based instruction to meet the needs of students with dyslexia” (Florida Senate, 2016). Like GRASP, the Choice Academies would have small classes, specialized curriculum, mentoring, and free transportation. The Florida legislature considered the bill (Pillow, 2015), but it did not pass, possibly because of the controversy surrounding it and because GRASP fared poorly in the state’s accountability program, receiving a grade of “F” (Amos & Phillips, 2016).
Themes
Discourse of dyslexia
Our analysis suggests that legislation and policy documents are infused with an “official” AD around dyslexia, which has become common in practice. It includes a set of “generally acknowledged truths” about the definition, identification, and instruction of students identified as dyslexic (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 344). Much of the discourse stems from the medical field and features terms such as diagnosis, screening, specialist, treatment, and intervention. It also includes language such as “neurobiological in origin,” and “often unexpected in relation to other cognitive” abilities from the IDA’s definition of dyslexia (Definition of Dyslexia, n.d.), which is also the definition used by the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development. The IDA also describes dyslexia traits, such as “different wiring of the brain,” and that it is a lifelong condition with “no cure” (Dyslexia at a Glance, para. 2). The discourse used in IDA’s descriptions of Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-based approaches—intensive, multisensory, phonetic methods—is recycled and replicated in legislation, policy documents, and dyslexia training programs. These descriptors appear 22 times in the Texas Dyslexia Handbook and are in the dyslexia bills or laws of every state as a guideline for intervention (Youman & Mather, 2013).
Another example of authoritative dyslexia discourse comes from reactions to APA’s decision to drop dyslexia as a separate category of mental disorder from the DSM-5 (APA, n.d.). A group of attorneys and neuroscientists from the Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity (Colker, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, & Simon, n.d.) requested that APA reconsider its decision. Their response uses language and ideas consistent with the authoritative discourse of dyslexia, including the idea that dyslexia is well defined:
Dyslexia is a well-described and long-standing entity that adheres to a well-specified medical model including, known neurobiology, pathophysiology, symptoms and developmental manifestations, treatment, and long term outcome. In contrast to the other domains included under SLD, dyslexia is not a feature but a well described disorder. (p. 2)
Couched in medical language, this message is conveyed with the certainty that characterizes AD (Bakhtin, 1981), despite the fact that research does not support the claim that dyslexia is a “well-described” disorder with “well-specified” origin, symptoms, and treatment.
Closed circle
Our analysis also showed that dyslexia discourse is propagated by a closed circle of intricately connected organizations including, but not limited to, the IDA, the Academic Language Therapy Association (ALTA), and the International Multisensory Language Education Council (IMSLEC). For example, IMSLEC started as an IDA committee, and ALTA certifies dyslexia specialists in the multisensory language approach, which in turn is consistent with IDA’s standards for educator preparation in reading (Knowledge and Practice Standards, n.d.). The IDA began certifying teachers in 2016, in addition to accrediting dyslexia teacher training programs. The websites of each of these organizations contain information and links to each other and to Decoding Dyslexia, a network of parent organizations with chapters in every state. All Decoding Dyslexia sites employ language from IMSLEC and IDA in their lobbying materials and mission statements.
These organizations advance the view that there is a definitive definition and discrete characteristics of dyslexia and that only one kind of program is appropriate for instruction. Although these views clash with research, as shown in the literature review, they have become common in policy and practice and thus are “institutionally sanctioned” (Brantlinger, 1997, p. 509). The social status and authority of such language can intimidate those outside of the circle and by the same token make the language untouchable (BaglierI, Valle, Connor, & Gallagher, 2011). The closed circle creates a kind of vacuum that does not include major teacher education institutions or major literacy education and research organizations like the International Literacy Association, Literacy Research Association, and National Council of Teachers of English.
The IDA explicitly excludes “many” public school teachers, and by implication teacher educators, by questioning teachers’ knowledge: “In public school settings where many teachers are not knowledgeable about this condition, students with dyslexia may be considered stupid or lazy” (Dyslexia at a Glance, n.d., para. 3). The IDA draws parents of children diagnosed with dyslexia into the circle through this language, which positions educators as part of the problem, as well as through Decoding Dyslexia organizations, which also dismiss educational perspectives. For example, in their “Steps to Lobby for Dyslexia Legislation,” Decoding Dyslexia Massachusetts (n.d.) advises parents to:
Respectfully request that biology and neuroscience guide the definition [of dyslexia] and not educational theories or previous misguided educational regulations. Teachers and educational administrators and policymakers should be guided by facts and science in matters of students with well-researched disabilities like dyslexia. (“Dyslexia Talking Points,” para. 6)
IDA also implicitly advises parents to bypass schools, recommending that they “seek out reading instruction that is based upon a systematic and explicit understanding of language structure, including phonics” (Dyslexia at a Glance, n.d., para. 3).
In a move to tighten the circle further, IDA published a new marketing strategy proposing to unify these programs with a new name, “structured literacy,” which refers to the “many programs that teach reading in the same way.” The site explicitly criticizes reading approaches used in some schools as “not effective for struggling readers” and as “especially ineffective for students with dyslexia.” Further, IDA implies that structured literacy should be more widely used: “This approach not only helps students with dyslexia, but there is substantial evidence that it is more effective for all readers.” According to the IDA, the purpose of this new name is “to help us sell what we do so well” (Malchow, 2014, para. 6).
Parallels with the emergence of learning disabilities
Our analysis of dyslexia laws and policies suggests that the emergence of dyslexia as a discrete reading disorder parallels the history of learning disability (LD or SLD), as seen in Sleeter’s (1987) critical analysis. According to Sleeter, the LD legislation was spearheaded by middle-class parents and “the category offered their children a degree of protection from probable consequences of low achievement because it upheld their intellectual normalcy and the normalcy of their home backgrounds” (p. 210). Commenting on Sleeter’s article, Blanchett (2010) added that students identified as LD were
deemed intellectually superior or privileged compared to their peers because they are reported to have average or above intelligence, which set them apart from students identified with developmental disabilities, who are reported to have significantly lower levels of intellectual ability. (“Learning Disabilities: A Category of Privilege for the Privileged,” para. 3)
The central tenet of LD was its designation as a learning challenge that is unexpected in relation to intellectual ability and adequate opportunity. The 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act IDEA (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.) discontinued the use of intelligence tests in LD identification, substituting RTI. Thus, LD no longer served as a means to separate students who scored high on intelligence tests. We suggest that this change may have led to the current focus on dyslexia as a unique disorder and, in some states, as separate from LD. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that unexpectedness is also key to the definition of dyslexia and that 35 of 37 states with dyslexia legislation passed their first dyslexia laws after 2004. Further, the language in definitions of dyslexia is strikingly similar to the language in LD definitions and policy in its focus on “adequate intelligence” and “sociocultural opportunity” (Texas Education Agency, p. 8). As they were with LD, these language and ideas are conveyed in policy documents, making them officially sanctioned (Bakhtin, 1981).
Importance and Implications of the Research
Reading difficulties are real, and they are perplexing. Parents and children who are affected by reading difficulties understandably want to find answers. Unfortunately, when parents, teachers, legislators, and other education stakeholders search for information about dyslexia, they do not generally hear the perspectives of professionals who prepare teachers and reading specialists. That silence is often filled by the AD of dyslexia organizations, whose central message is that dyslexia is a discrete, easily identifiable disorder that can be remediated only through a specific approach to instruction (Malchow, 2014). This message, delivered with certainty, might be pleasing to people in search of definitive answers, but it is not supported by research. Even so, it has become officially sanctioned through legislation in many states and has had a profound effect on policy and practice.
Another finding from our research is that the language of legislation and policy in some states effectively separates dyslexia from other reading difficulties in ways that parallel the construct of LD. The language in dyslexia laws can be interpreted in ways that allow districts to employ the construct of intelligence despite IDEA’s 2004 recommendations for RTI and despite research showing the independence of decoding and intelligence. Thus, the designation of dyslexia separates students with unexpected reading difficulties from other struggling readers without a specific challenge in reading and who may somehow be considered to have inadequate sociocultural opportunity. These other students are too often placed in low-ability groups and tracks rather than receiving attention and intervention. By privileging students who are labeled with dyslexia, these policies disadvantage students who are not afforded the label. If dyslexics are creative and smart, what does that make nondyslexic struggling readers by default?
The dyslexia label may also lead teachers and parents to feel their children will “get the help they need” (Michigan Medicine, n.d.), but if that help consists of a program that looks the same for all students, is focused primarily on decoding, and does not provide students with opportunities to read engaging materials, we question if it is in students’ best interests. Decades of research on these reading interventions have failed to support their effectiveness (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006; What Works Clearinghouse, 2010). When emotions are involved, as they are when children have reading challenges, claims of expertise and straightforward guidance can be easier to digest than the message from many literacy educators and researchers that reading difficulties are complicated and that there are no easy answers (International Literacy Association, 2016; Johnston, 2011).
By not engaging in the discourse or using the word “dyslexia,” literacy researchers and educators place themselves outside of a closed discourse circle that influences policy and practice and deeply affects students. Their understandings of literacy can serve to provide additional perspectives on the topic of reading difficulties and ensure that practice is being guided by an established research base. Ferri, Connor, Solis, Valle, and Volpitta (2005) suggest that if we want to be heard, we will need to engage in the discourse and dominant ideologies and to cultivate dialogue rather than respond with “righteous authority” when responding to others’ perspectives and ideas that might differ from our own. The International Literacy Association began such a dialogue in the form of a research directive on dyslexia (2016). The directive described research consensus and myths and highlighted the message that reading difficulties are complex and variable and there is no substitute for knowledgeable teachers, careful assessment, responsive instruction, and a comprehensive approach to reading instruction that includes plenty of opportunities to read engaging texts.
It is important to remember that the central issue in the conversation about dyslexia is that there are children who struggle mightily with reading, and the goal is meeting their needs. We seek to promote dialogue with anyone who shares this goal, with the hope that our conversations will enrich our mutual understandings of reading difficulties. The parents who are behind dyslexia legislation are fighting for their children and for other children affected by reading challenges. As literacy educators, we can learn a lesson from parents who actively seek a forum for their voices, even when we might not agree with their message. In the spirit of IPD (Bakhtin, 1981), Morson (2004) reminds us that “difference may best be understood not as an obstacle but as an opportunity for continued growth and learning” (p. 317).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
|
American Psychiatric Association . (n.d.). Specific learning disorder. [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from file:///Users/worthymj/Downloads/APA_DSM-5-Specific-Learning-Disorder%20(3).pdf Google Scholar | |
|
American Psychiatric Association . (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Amos, D., Phillips, A. (2016, 7 9). Duval schools improve, most First Coast districts keep A grades. Retrieved from http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2016-07-08/story/duval-schools-improve-most-first-coast-districts-keep-grades Google Scholar | |
|
Baglieri, S., Valle, J. W., Connor, D. J., Gallagher, D. J. (2011). Disability studies in education: The need for a plurality of perspectives on disability. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 267–278. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Blanchett, W. J. (2010). Telling it like it is: The role of race, class, & culture in the perpetuation of learning disability as a privileged category for the white middle class. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30. Retrieved from www.dsq-sds.org/article/view/1233/1280 Google Scholar | |
|
Brantlinger, E. (1997). Using ideology: Cases of nonrecognition of the politics of research and practice in special education. Review of Educational Research, 67, 425–459. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Cassar, M., Treiman, R., Moats, L., Pollo, T., Kessler, B. (2005). How do the spellings of children with dyslexia compare with those of nondyslexic children? Reading and Writing, 18, 27–49. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Colker, R., Shaywitz, S., Shaywitz, B., Simon, J. (n.d.). Comments on proposed DSM-5 criteria for specific learning disorder from a legal and medical/scientific perspective. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from http://dyslexia.yale.edu/CommentsDSM5ColkerShaywitzSimon.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Council for Exceptional Children . (n.d.). LD online: Understanding the differences between IDEA and Section 504 [blog]. Retrieved from www.ldonline.org/article/6086/ Google Scholar | |
|
Decoding Dyslexia Indiana . (2015, 2 2). HB 1108 Jan 15 meeting Introduction to the Bill [Video file]. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4ea77H1sEI Google Scholar | |
|
Decoding Dyslexia Massachusetts . (n.d.). Steps to lobby for dyslexia legislation [web page]. Retrieved from www.decodingdyslexiama.org/ma-dyslexia-legislation.html Google Scholar | |
|
Definition of Dyslexia . (n.d.). International Dyslexia Association [web page]. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/definition-of-dyslexia/ Google Scholar | |
|
Duane, D. (1985). Written language underachievement: An overview of theoretical and practical issues. In Duffy, F., Geschwind, N. (Eds.), Dyslexia: A neuroscientific approach to clinical evaluation (pp. 2–32). New York, NY: Little, Brown. Google Scholar | |
|
Dyslexia at a Glance . (n.d.). International Dyslexia Association [web page]. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/dyslexia-at-a-glance/ Google Scholar | |
|
Education Matters . (2015, 11). The real problem with the Grasp Academy [blog]. Retrieved from http://jaxkidsmatter.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-real-problem-with-grasp-academy.html Google Scholar | |
|
Eide, F. (2017, 1 11). Dyslexia laws 2017. Dyslexic advantage [blog]. Retrieved from www.dyslexicadvantage.org/progress-passed-dyslexia-laws-in-the-united-states-2016/ Google Scholar | |
|
Elliott, J., Grigorenko, E. (2014). The dyslexia debate. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Ellis, A. (1984/2016). Reading, writing, and dyslexia: A cognitive analysis (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Ferri, B. A., Connor, D. J., Solis, S., Valle, J., Volpitta, D. (2005). Teachers with LD: Ongoing negotiations with discourses of disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 62–78. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Florida Senate . (2016). State Bill 472: Exceptional student legislation. Retrieved from www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2016/0472/BillText/Filed/PDF Google Scholar | |
|
Gillingham, A., Stillman, B. (1936, 2014). The Gillingham manual: Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship (8th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service. Google Scholar | |
|
Govtrack.us . (2016). H.R. 3033: READ Act. Retrieved from www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr3033 Google Scholar | |
|
GRASP Academy . (n.d.). Retrieved from www.schoolius.com/school/568256756625137/GRASPAcademy Google Scholar | |
|
GRASP Academy/Homepage . (n.d.). Retrieved from www.duvalschools.org/grasp Google Scholar | |
|
Guardiola, J. (2001). The evolution of research on dyslexia. Annuario de Psicología, 32, 3–30. Google Scholar | |
|
Gunderson, L., Siegel, L. (2001). The evils of the use of IQ tests to define learning disabilities in first- and second-language learners. The Reading Teacher, 55, 48–55. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Harris, T., Hodges, R. (1981). Dictionary of reading and related terms. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Google Scholar | |
|
Indiana General Assembly . (2015a). House Bill 1108: Introduced House Bill. Retrieved from https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/house/1108#document-013c051e Google Scholar | |
|
Indiana General Assembly . (2015b). House Bill 1108: Revision 2. Retrieved from https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/house/1108#document-8f4cca47 Google Scholar | |
|
Indiana General Assembly . (2015c). House Enrolled Act 1108. Retrieved from https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/house/1108#document-2b53ae4c Google Scholar | |
|
International Literacy Association . (2016). Research advisory: Dyslexia. Retrieved November 17, 2016, from http://literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-dyslexia-research-advisory.pdf?sfvrsn=6 Google Scholar | |
|
Johnston, P. (2011). Response to Intervention in literacy: Problems and possibilities. Elementary School Journal, 111, 511–534. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading . (n.d.). International Dyslexia Association [web page]. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/knowledge-and-practices/ Google Scholar | |
|
Lieberman, I. (1985). Should so-called modality preferences determine the nature of instruction for children with reading disabilities? In Duffy, F., Geschwind, N. (Eds.), Dyslexia: A neuroscientific approach to clinical evaluation (pp. 93–103). New York, NY: Little, Brown. Google Scholar | |
|
Lopes, J. (2012). Biologising reading problems: The specific case of dyslexia. Contemporary Social Science, 7, 215–229. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Malchow, H. (2014). Structured Literacy: A new term to unify us and sell what we do. International Dyslexia Association [web page]. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/ida-approach/ Google Scholar | |
|
Michigan Medicine . (n.d.). Dyslexia and reading problems [web page]. Retrieved from www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/dyslexia.htm Google Scholar | |
|
Moats, L., Lyon, G. (1993). Learning disabilities in the states: Advocacy, science, and the future of the field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 282–294. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Morson, G. S. (2004). The process of ideological becoming. In Ball, A. F., Freedman, S. W. (Eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning (pp. 317–332). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Multisensory structured language teaching . (n.d.). International Dyslexia Association [web page]. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/multisensory-structured-language-teaching/ Google Scholar | |
|
National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development . (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read (NIH Publication No. 00-4769), Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Development. Google Scholar | |
|
Patton, M. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | |
|
Pillow, T. (2015). Bill would create new choice schools for students with dyslexia [blog]. Retrieved from www.redefinedonline.org/2015/10/bill-would-create-new-choice-schools-for-florida-students-with-dyslexia/ Google Scholar | |
|
Ramus, F., Szenkovits, G. (2008). What phonological deficit? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 129–141. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Ritchey, K., Goeke, J. (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-based reading instruction: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 40, 171–183. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Shaywitz, S., Morris, R., Shaywitz, B. (2008). The education of dyslexic children from childhood to young adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 451–475. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Shepard, L. (1987). The case for bias in tests of achievement and scholastic aptitude. In Modgill, S., Modgill, C. (Eds.), Arthur Jensen: Consensus and controversy (pp. 210–226). London, England: Falmer Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Skrtic, T. (2005). A political economy of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 149–155. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Sleeter, C. E. (1987). Why is there learning disabilities? A critical analysis of the birth of the field with its social context. In Popkewitz, T. S. (Ed.), The formation of school subjects: The struggle for creating an American institution (pp. 210–237). London, England: Palmer Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Texas Education Agency . (2014). The Texas dyslexia handbook revised 2014: Procedures concerning dyslexia and related disorders. Austin: Texas Education Agency. Google Scholar | |
|
Thompson, R. (2015). Vitti says special-needs school doesn’t get special treatment [blog] Retrieved from http://jacksonville.com/news/schools/2015-11-11/story/vitti-says-special-needs-school-doesnt-get-special-treatment# Google Scholar | |
|
U.S. Department of Education . (n.d.). Building the legacy: IDEA, 2004. Retrieved from http://idea-b.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,dynamic,QaCorner,8,.html Google Scholar | |
|
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J., Snowling, M. J., Scanlon, D. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2–40. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M. (2002). The interactive strategies approach to reading intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 573–635. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
What Works Clearinghouse . (2010). Students with learning disabilities [report]. US Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_ortongill_070110.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity . (n.d.). Response to DSM-5 criteria—Act Now! Retrieved from http://dyslexia.yale.edu/POL_DSM5comments.html Google Scholar | |
|
Youman, M., Mather, N. (2013). Dyslexia laws in the USA. Annals of Dyslexia, 63, 133–153. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
Author Biographies
Jo Worthy is professor of language and literacy studies at the University of Texas, Austin. A former elementary and middle school teacher, her research concerns classroom contexts and instruction that foster language and literacy learning for marginalized students.
Doris Villarreal is a doctoral candidate in language and literacy studies in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Texas at Austin. She is a former bilingual teacher with 13 years of experience, and her research interests are biliteracy development and identity construction with a focus on Latinx children.
Vickie Godfrey is a PhD student in language and literacy at the University of Texas, Austin. Formerly an elementary teacher, her areas of interest include student–teacher relationships and language and literacy learning for marginalized students.
Sam DeJulio is a former elementary school teacher and a current graduate student in language and literacy studies at the University of Texas at Austin. His work focuses primarily on preservice teacher education.
Angela Stefanski is a former literacy specialist and classroom teacher who is now an assistant professor of literacy education at Ball State University. Her research interests include preservice literacy teacher education and instruction for students who struggle with language and literacy in classroom contexts.
Amy Leitze is an instructor in elementary education at Ball State University. Her interests are primarily in the areas of literacy instruction and preservice teacher preparation.
Jennifer Cooper is a former elementary teacher and intermediate literacy coach and is an instructor in Elementary Education at Ball State University. Her interests and research revolve around writing instruction and preservice teacher preparation.
