This article provides an overview of recent changes to state-level dyslexia legislation. It begins by applying a variant of Kingdon’s multiple streams approach to explain how the dyslexia education “policy window” came to be opened. The article then describes the most likely effects and side effects of the new laws. Likely short-term effects include (a) a greater focus in schools on dyslexia screening and intervention, (b) greater use of multitiered systems of support and explicit instruction, and (c) changes in teacher preparation and training. Possible long-term effects include a reconceptualization of what constitutes “normal” school practice.
AaronP. (1994). Dyslexia and hyperlexia: Diagnosis and management of developmental reading. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2.
AdamsM. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
AllingtonR. (2006). Reading lessons and federal policy making: An overview and introduction to the special issue. The Elementary School Journal, 107, 3-15. doi:10.1086/509523
4.
AppleM. W. (1981). Curricular form and the logic of technical control. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 2, 293-319. doi:10.1177/0143831X8123002
5.
BargaN. K. (1996). Students with learning disabilities in education: Managing a disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 413-421. doi:10.1177/002221949602900409
6.
BélandD.HowlettM. (2016). The role and impact of the multiple-streams approach in comparative policy analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 18, 221-227. doi:10.1080/13876988.2016.1174410
7.
BonawitzE.ShaftoP.GweonH.GoodmanN. D.SpelkeE.SchulzL. (2011). The double-edged sword of pedagogy: Instruction limits spontaneous exploration and discovery. Cognition, 120, 322-330. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.001
8.
BowenG. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. doi:10.3316/QRJ0902027
BrewerC.KnoeppelR. C.LindleJ. C. (2015). Consequential validity of accountability policy: Public understanding of assessments. Educational Policy, 29, 711-745. doi:10.1177/0895904813518099
11.
BrunswickN.MartinG. N.MarzanoL. (2010). Visuospatial superiority in developmental dyslexia: Myth or reality?Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 421-426. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.007
12.
BurdenR. (2008). Is dyslexia necessarily associated with negative feelings of self-worth? A review and implications for future research. Dyslexia, 14, 188-196. doi:10.1002/dys.371
13.
CairneyP.JonesM. D. (2016). Kingdon’s multiple streams approach: What is the empirical impact of this universal theory?Policy Studies Journal, 44, 37-58. doi:10.1111/psj.12111
Cohen-VogelL.Tichnor-WagnerA.AllenD.HarrisonC.KainzK.SocolA. R.WangQ. (2015). Implementing educational innovations at scale: Transforming researchers into continuous improvement scientists. Educational Policy, 29, 257-277. doi:10.1177/0895904814560886
16.
CookB. G.OdomS. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79, 135-144. doi:10.1177/001440291307900201
17.
CottonS. M.CrewtherD. P.CrewtherS. G. (2005). Measurement error: Implications for diagnosis and discrepancy models of developmental dyslexia. Dyslexia, 11, 186-202. doi:10.1002/dys.298
CoxA. R.HutchesonL. (1988). Syllable division: Prerequisite to dyslexics’ literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 226-242. doi:10.1007/BF02648258
20.
DavisR.BraunE. (2010). The gift of Dyslexia: Why some of the smartest people can’t read…and how they can learn, revised and expanded edition. New York, NY: A Perigree Book.
21.
DeBrayE.ScottJ.LubienskiC.JabbarH. (2014). Intermediary organizations in charter school policy coalitions: Evidence from New Orleans. Educational Policy, 28, 175-206. doi:10.1177/0895904813514132
DeeT. S.JacobB.SchwartzN. L. (2013). The effects of NCLB on school resources and practices. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 252-279. doi:10.3102/0162373712467080
24.
DowdyE.RitcheyK.KamphausR. W. (2010). School-based screening: A population-based approach to inform and monitor children’s mental health needs. School Mental Health, 2, 166-176. doi:10.1007/s12310-010-9036-3
25.
DragosetL.ThomasJ.HerrmannM.DekeJ.James-BurdumyS.GraczewskiC.. . . WeiT. (2016). Race to the top: Implementation and relationship to student outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174001/pdf/20174001.pdf
26.
DubinskyJ. M.RoehrigG.VarmaS. (2013). Infusing neuroscience into teacher professional development. Educational Researcher, 42, 317-329. doi:10.3102/0013189X13499403
27.
EideB.EideF. (2012). The dyslexic advantage: Unlocking the hidden potential of the dyslexic brain. New York, NY: Penguin.
28.
ElliotJ.GrigorenkoE. (2014). The dyslexia debate. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93-99. doi:10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4
30.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.SteckerP. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301-323. doi:10.1177/001440291007600304
31.
GabrielR. (2018). Preparing literacy professionals: The case of dyslexia. Journal of Literacy Research, 50, 262-270. doi:10.1177/1086296x18765917
32.
GabrielR.WoulfinS. (2017). Reading and dyslexia legislation: Analytic techniques and findings on the framing of dyslexia. In LesterJ.LochmillerC.GabrielR. (Eds.), Discursive perspectives on education policy and implementation (pp. 197-217). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
33.
GerstenR.DiminoJ.JayanthiM.KimJ. S.SantoroL. E. (2010). Teacher study group: Impact of the professional development model on reading instruction and student outcomes in first grade classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 694-739. doi:10.3102/0002831209361208
34.
GillinghamA.StillmanB. (1960). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
35.
HornstraL.DenessenE.BakkerJ.van den BerghL.VoetenM. (2010). Teacher attitudes toward dyslexia: Effects on teacher expectations and the academic achievement of students with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 515-529. doi:10.1177/0022219409355479
36.
HowlettM.McConnellA.PerlA. (2015). Reconciling Kingdon and policy process theory: Streams and stages. European Journal of Political Research, 54, 419-434. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12064
37.
HrubyG. G. (2012). Three requirements for justifying an educational neuroscience. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 1-23. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02068
JohnsonJ.LynamD. (2015). The parent grassroot movement. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 41(4), 25-28.
43.
JonesR. L. (1972). Labels and stigma in special education. Exceptional Children, 38, 553-564. doi:10.1177/001440297203800705
44.
Kame’enuiE. J. (1996). Shakespeare and beginning reading: “The readiness is all.”Teaching Exceptional Children, 28, 77-81. doi:10.1177/004005999602800218
45.
KingdonJ. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
46.
KirschnerP. A.SwellerJ.ClarkR. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
47.
LabareeD. (1992). Power, knowledge, and the rationalization of teaching: A genealogy of the movement to professionalize teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 123-155. doi:10.17763/haer.62.2.h73x7422v3166102
48.
LabareeD. (2011). The lure of statistics for educational researchers. Educational Theory, 61, 621-632. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2011.00424.x
49.
LavrakasP. (Ed.). (2008). Reactivity. In Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781412963947.n448
LeitãoS.DzidicP.ClaessenM.GordonJ.HowardK.NaytonM.BoyesM. E. (2017). Exploring the impact of living with dyslexia: The perspectives of children and their parents. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19, 322-334. doi:10.1080/17549507.2017.1309068
53.
LyonG. R. (1995a). Research initiatives in learning disabilities: Contributions from scientists supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Journal of Child Neurology, 10, 120-126.
54.
LyonG. R. (1995b). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 1-27. doi:10.1007/BF02648210
55.
LyonG. R. (1996). Learning disabilities. The Future of Children, 6(1), 54-76. doi:10.2307/1602494
56.
LyonG. R.ChhabaV. (1996). The current state of science and the future of specific reading disability. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Review, 2, 2-9.
57.
LyonG. R.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1-14. doi:10.1007/s11881-003-0001-9
58.
McGuinnessC. (1997). Why our children can’t read and what we can do about it: A scientific revolution in reading. New York, NY: Touchstone.
59.
MehtaJ. (2013a). From bureaucracy to profession: Remaking the educational sector for the twenty-first century. Harvard Educational Review, 83, 463-488. doi:10.17763/haer.83.3.kr08797621362v05
60.
MehtaJ. (2013b). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy, 1980–2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 285-324. doi:10.3102/0002831212471417
61.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
62.
MilleiZ.JoronenM. (2016). The (bio)politicization of neuroscience in Australian early years policies: Fostering brain-resources as human capital. Journal of Education Policy, 31, 389-404. doi:10.1080/02680939.2016.1148780
63.
MoatsL. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-102. doi:10.1007/BF02648156
64.
MoatsL. C. (2009). Still wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 387-391. doi:10.1177/0022219409338735
65.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.WuQ. (2011). Kindergarten children’s growth trajectories in reading and mathematics: Who falls increasingly behind?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 472-488. doi:10.1177/0022219411414010
66.
MorganP. L.FriscoM. L.FarkasG.HibelJ. (2010). A propensity score matching analysis of the effects of special education services. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 236-254. doi:10.1177/0022466908323007
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (Reports of the subgroups). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
69.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
PearsonP. D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18, 216-252. doi:10.1177/0895904803260041
77.
PearsonP. D.HiebertE. H. (2010). National reports in literacy: Building a scientific base for practice and policy. Educational Researcher, 39, 286-294. doi:10.3102/0013189X10370205
78.
Phi Delta Kappan. (2015). Testing doesn’t measure up for Americans: The 47th Annual PDK/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(1), NP1-NP32. doi:10.1177/0031721715602231
79.
PolikoffM. S.HardawayT.MarshJ. A.PlankD. N. (2016). Who is opposed to Common Core and why?Educational Researcher, 45, 263-266. doi:10.3102/0013189X16651087
80.
RamusF. (2014). Should there really be a “Dyslexia debate?”Brain, 137, 3371-3374. doi:10.1093/brain/awu295
81.
RaudenbushS. W. (2015). Value added: A case study in the mismatch between education research and policy. Educational Researcher, 44, 138-141. doi:10.3102/0013189X15575345
82.
RawsonM. B. (1971). Perspectives of specific language disability: I. The past—What has been learned?Bulletin of the Orton Society, 21, 22-34. doi:10.1007/BF02663707
RiddickB. (2000). An examination of the relationship between labelling and stigmatisation with special reference to dyslexia. Disability & Society, 15, 653-667. doi:10.1080/09687590050058233
85.
RitchieS. J.LucianoM.HansellN. K.WrightM. J.BatesT. C. (2013). The relationship of reading ability to creativity: Positive, not negative associations. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 171-176. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.02.009
SaundersB.SimJ.KingstoneT.BakerS.WaterfieldJ.BartlamB.. . . JinksC. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52, 1893-1907. doi:10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
88.
ShaywitzS. (September, 2014). Testimony of Dr. Sally Shaywitz, Audrey G. Ratner Professor in Learning Development, Yale University School of Medicine and co-director, Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity, Yale University. Presented at the Science of Dyslexia, Hearing Before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/document/321962881/HOUSE-HEARING-113TH-CONGRESS-THE-SCIENCE-OF-DYSLEXIA
Spear-SwerlingL.SternbergR. J. (2018). Off track when poor readers become learning disabled. Boulder, CO: Routledge.
93.
Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association. (2006). Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33-40. doi:10.3102/0013189X035006033
94.
StanovichK. E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590-604. doi:10.1177/002221948802101003
95.
SteinJ. F. (2018). Does dyslexia exist?Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33, 313-320. doi:10.1080/23273798.2017.1325509
VarmaS.McCandlissB. D.SchwartzD. L. (2008). Scientific and pragmatic challenges for bridging education and neuroscience. Educational Researcher, 37, 140-152. doi:10.3102/0013189X08317687
104.
VellutinoF. R.FletcherJ. M.SnowlingM. J.ScanlonD. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades?Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2-40. doi:10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00305.x
105.
WagnerR. F. (1973). 5. Rudolf Berlin: Originator of the term dyslexia. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 23, 57-63. doi:10.1007/BF02653841
106.
WeissJ. A. (1989). The powers of problem definition: The case of government paperwork. Policy Sciences, 22, 97-121. doi:10.1007/BF00141381
107.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2016). Dyslexia and specific learning disabilities. Madison: Author.
108.
YehS. S. (2006). Reforming federal testing policy to support teaching and learning. Educational Policy, 20, 495-524. doi:10.1177/0895904805284119
109.
YoumanM.MatherN. (2013). Dyslexia laws in the USA. Annals of Dyslexia, 63, 133-153. doi:10.1007/s11881-012-0076-2
110.
YoumanM.MatherN. (2015). Dyslexia laws in the USA: An update. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 41(4), 10-18.
