BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1369
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 1369
(Frazier) - As Amended April 14, 2015
SUBJECT: Special education: dyslexia
SUMMARY: Requires schools to annually screen all students in
Kindergarten and grades 1 through 3 for dyslexia, identify
students with dyslexia with a specified screening instrument,
and instruct students with dyslexia with a specified
instructional approach. Requires the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI) to adopt program guidelines, a screening
instrument, and an instructional approach for this purpose.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, commencing
with the 2016-17 academic year, to require institutions of
higher education that provide teacher training programs to
include instruction in the recognition of, and appropriate
evidence-based teaching methodologies for, dyslexia, or other
reading and writing dysfunctions, including dyscalculia,
dysgraphia, auditory and visual processing disabilities, and
related disorders.
2)Defines "dyslexia" to mean a specific learning disability that
is neurological in origin and characterized by difficulties
AB 1369
Page 2
with accurate or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling
and decoding abilities. Further defines dyslexia:
a) states that these difficulties typically result from a
deficit in the phonological component of language that is
often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities
and the provision of effective classroom instruction
b) states that secondary consequences may include problems
in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience
that can impede the growth of vocabulary and background
knowledge
c) states that other characteristics include, but are not
limited to, difficulty in acquiring language skills;
inability to comprehend oral or written language;
difficulty in rhyming words; difficulty in naming letters,
recognizing letters, matching letters to sounds, and
blending sounds when speaking and reading words; difficulty
recognizing and remembering sight words; consistent
transposition of number sequences, and letter reversals,
inversions, and substitutions; and difficulty in
replication of content
1)Defines "specific learning disability" to include dyslexia,
dyscalculia, dysgraphia, auditory and visual processing
disabilities, and related disorders.
2)Requires that, on or before January 1, 2017, the SPI to
AB 1369
Page 3
develop program guidelines for dyslexia or other reading and
writing dysfunctions to be used to assist regular education
teachers, special education teachers, and parents to identify,
assess, plan, provide, evaluate, and improve educational
services to pupils.
3)Requires the program guidelines include characteristics
typical of pupils with dyslexia or other reading and writing
dysfunctions, and evidence-based strategies for their
remediation.
4)Requires the SPI to consult with teachers, administrators,
school psychologists, and other educational professionals
involved in the identification and treatment of dyslexia or
other reading and writing dysfunctions.
5)Requires the SPI to disseminate the program guidelines and
provide technical assistance regarding their use and
implementation to parents, teachers, administrators, other
education professionals, and faculty members in teacher
training programs of institutions of higher education.
6)Requires local in-service training programs for school
psychologists, regular education teachers, and special
education teachers in local educational agencies (LEAs) to
include a component on the recognition of, and appropriate
evidence-based teaching methodologies for, dyslexia, or other
reading and writing dysfunctions, including dyscalculia,
dysgraphia, auditory and visual processing disabilities, and
related disorders.
AB 1369
Page 4
7)Requires, on or before January 1, 2017, the SPI to adopt both
the following:
a) an evidence-based screening instrument to identify
pupils who have dyslexia or other reading and writing
dysfunctions.
b) an evidence-based, multisensory, direct, explicit,
structured, and sequential approach to instructing pupils
who have dyslexia or other reading and writing
dysfunctions.
1)Requires that, commencing with the 2017-18 academic year, LEAs
use the screening instrument to identify students who have
dyslexia or other reading and writing dysfunctions.
2)Requires that, commending with the 2017-18 academic year, LEAs
use the evidence-based multisensory approach.
3)Requires LEAS to ensure that teachers receive appropriate
training on the screening instrument and the instructional
approach.
4)Requires that LEAs screen all students enrolled in
kindergarten and grades 1 to 3, at least once per year, to
identify dyslexia. If the screening identifies dyslexia or
other reading and writing dysfunctions in a pupil, the LEA
would be required to notify the student's parent or legal
guardian in writing within 30 calendar days.
AB 1369
Page 5
EXISTING LAW:
1)Encourages institutions of higher education to provide, in
teacher training programs, increased emphasis on the
recognition of, and teaching strategies for, specific learning
disabilities, including dyslexia and related disorders.
2)Encourages the inclusion, in local in-service training
programs for regular education teachers and special education
teachers in local educational agencies, of a component on the
recognition of, and teaching strategies for, specific learning
disabilities, including dyslexia and related disorders.
3)Defines a specific learning disability, as defined in Section
1401(30) of Title 20 of the United States Code, as "a disorder
in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved
in understanding or in using language, spoken or written,
which may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen,
think, speak, read, write, spell, or perform mathematical
calculations. The term "specific learning disability" includes
conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury,
minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental
aphasia. That term does not include a learning problem that is
primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor
disabilities, of intellectual disabilities, of emotional
disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic
disadvantage."
4)Requires that a student who is assessed as being dyslexic and
meets eligibility criteria for the category of specific
learning disabilities is entitled to special education and
AB 1369
Page 6
related services.
5)Requires that if a student who exhibits the characteristics of
dyslexia or another related reading dysfunction is not found
to be eligible for special education and related services, the
pupil's instructional program shall be provided in the regular
education program.
6)States the intent of the Legislature that the program
guidelines for specific learning disabilities, including
dyslexia and other related disorders, be available for use by
teachers and parents in order for them to have knowledge of
the strategies that can be utilized with pupils for the
remediation of the various types of specific learning
disabilities.
7)Requires, in an uncodified section, the SPI to develop program
guidelines for specific learning disabilities, including
dyslexia and other related disorders, for use by regular and
special educators and parents to assist them in identifying
assessing planning, providing, evaluating, and improving
education services to pupils.
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill has been keyed as a state-mandated
local program by the Office of Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS:
Definition of specific learning disabilities, including
dyslexia. Federal law establishes 13 disability categories
which states use to determine if students qualify for services.
AB 1369
Page 7
The category of Specific Learning Disability is defined in
federal law as follows [emphasis added]: "Specific learning
disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic
psychological processes involved in understanding or in using
language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the
imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell,
or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as
perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain
dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia." California
law mirrors the federal definition in Education Code Section
56377.
According to the author, the definition of dyslexia in this bill
reflects the definition used by the International Dyslexia
Association and the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (National Institutes of Health). The bill also
seeks to broaden the number of conditions defined as specific
learning disabilities beyond what is included in federal and
state law.
Number of students with specific learning disabilities.
According to the CDE, over 700,000 California students received
Special Education services in the 2013-14 academic year, and of
these, the largest group (over 280,000 students) were provided
services for a Specific Learning Disability. The subset of
those who are diagnosed with dyslexia is not reported, but is it
believed to be a significant portion of the total. The next
largest category of disability is Speech or Language Impairment,
with over 160,000 students served.
AB 1369
Page 8
How do schools determine if a student has a specific learning
disability, such as dyslexia? Federal law requires several steps
to be taken to determine if a student has a specific learning
disability or another disability.
When a student is identified as struggling, the school must
first try to meet a student's needs through the general
education program. Schools generally use Student Study Teams
(SSTs) or an approach called Response to Intervention (RtI).
RtI is an instructional approach designed to identify struggling
students and provide interventions explicitly targeted to meet
their needs. If the school finds that these actions do not meet
a student's needs, they refer the student (with parental
consent) for a professional evaluation. The evaluator assesses
the student to determine if the student has a disability and
whether that disability interferes with the student's education.
If the student meets both criteria federal law requires that
services be provided, and a team of stakeholders come together
to prepare an individualized education plan (IEP), which
determines the services which must be provided for that student.
Federal law and state regulations require that no single score
or product of scores be used as the sole criterion for the
decision regarding a child's eligibility for special education.
AB 1369
Page 9
What precedent does this bill set? Staff is unaware of any
precedent in California law for a number of requirements in this
bill, including:
defining a disability in state law in a manner that is
different than federal law
expanding the definition of a federal disability
category
universal screening for a disability
requiring the identification of a single screening tool
for determining eligibility for services
requiring the identification of a single instructional
approach for the education of students with a disability
mandating the use of a single screening tool
mandating the use of an instructional approach
establishing a process for determining eligibility for
services which is separate from the process in federal law
AB 1369
Page 10
In reviewing this legislation, the Committee may wish to
consider whether the problems identified by the proponents merit
such a significant departure from current policy (with
associated mandated costs), and what precedent it might set for
other disability categories.
What is at the root of the problem the proponents wish to fix?
This bill is motivated by concerns among parents that many
students who are dyslexic are not being identified as such, and
as a result are being deprived of needed educational services.
Proponents also argue that current instructional methods for
students identified as dyslexic are deficient.
The first concern of the proponents has to do with what they
view as the under-identification of students with dyslexia. As
described above, federal definitions of disabilities are used by
California in identifying students with special needs. Dyslexia
is one condition listed in the federal (and state) definition of
a specific learning disability. Federal law states that a
specific learning is disability a disorder in a psychological
process.
State regulations (5 CCR § 3030) specify these psychological
processes:
AB 1369
Page 11
The basic psychological processes include attention, visual
processing, auditory processing, sensory-motor skills,
cognitive abilities including association, conceptualization
and expression.
Not included in that list of processes is a phonological
processing deficit, which proponents of this bill say is a
hallmark of dyslexia. They state that when school districts
review assessment data for a given student, school personnel
look for visual and auditory processing deficits - but often
ignore evidence of phonological deficits - because visual and
auditory deficits are specified in the above definition. They
note that dyslexia is not a visual or auditory deficit and that
not all individuals with dyslexia have processing deficits.
Staff notes that these regulations are written in a manner which
allows school districts to identify more processes than are
delineated in this regulation, so there is nothing preventing
school districts from using evidence of phonological deficits in
their determinations.
The Committee may wish to consider that, if this definition is
at the root of the problem, the solution, rather than the
numerous mandates in this bill, may be to instead amend statute
so that the list of psychological processes identified in state
regulations (5 CCR § 3030) includes - or may include -
phonological processing.
AB 1369
Page 12
The second concern expressed by the proponents is that that
current instruction for dyslexic students who do qualify as
having a specific learning disability is often not appropriate
for students' needs. They argue that an effective approach is
one which is "evidence-based, multisensory, direct, explicit,
structured, and sequential." This bill requires the
identification and use of such an approach. If this approach is
indeed effective, the state may have an interest in providing
information on it to school districts and institutions of higher
education so that they may more effectively meet the needs of
dyslexic students and train new teachers, respectively.
There is precedent for this, and it is very similar to several
provisions of this bill. Staff notes that current law AB 3040
(Speier), Chapter 1501, Statutes of 1990, enacted 25 years ago
as an uncodified section, actually requires the CDE to develop
program guidelines which would do the above. Specifically,
existing law is as follows.
The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall develop program
guidelines for specific learning disabilities, including
dyslexia and other related disorders, for use by regular and
special educators and parents to assist them in identifying
assessing planning, providing, evaluating, and improving
education services to pupils. The program guidelines shall
include characteristics typical of pupils with dyslexia and
related disorders and include strategies for their
remediation. The superintendent shall consult with teachers,
AB 1369
Page 13
administrators, other education professionals, medical
professionals, parents, and professionals involved in the
identification and treatment of specific learning
disabilities, including dyslexia and other related disorders.
The program guidelines shall be completed in time for use no
later than the beginning of the 1992-93 academic year. Once
the program guidelines are completed the superintendent shall
disseminate them, and provide technical assistance regarding
their use and implementation, to parents, teachers,
administrators, and faculty members and teacher training
programs of institutions of higher education. (Also states
that the CDE is to use available discretionary federal funds
for this purpose.)
The Committee may wish to consider if the above sections,
updated for current conditions and limited to dyslexia, could
address the second problem raised by the proponents. Should the
Committee wish to require such a project again, staff would
recommend that 1) the to meet the requirement of dissemination
of the guidelines the CDE be required to post them on its
website, 2) the guidelines also identify which symptoms, such as
letter reversals, are a normal part of growth and development,
and 3) require that the guidance regarding instruction focus on
an instructional approach which is "evidence-based,
multisensory, direct, explicit, structured, and sequential," 4)
limit the scope to dyslexia (not other specific learning
disabilities or "related disorders"), and 5) require the
completion of the guidelines by [a specified date to be
determined in consultation with the CDE].
Arguments in support. The Southern California Tri-Counties
Branch of the International Dyslexia Association writes: "Our
AB 1369
Page 14
dyslexic students struggle to gain essential literacy skills
because of their specific learning disability. Dyslexia is the
most common learning disability, affecting over 1 million
students in California public schools. Although dyslexia has
been in our California Education Code since 1990, it is still
not recognized by most public schools. Teachers and
psychologists are not trained to either recognize when a student
is dyslexic nor provide evidence-based interventions, and
students do not receive early screening to identify their
learning disability. AB 1369, by requiring early screening,
improving teacher training, and setting high standards for
evidence-based interventions, will benefit hundreds of thousands
of California students and their families by providing those
students the opportunity to achieve proficient literacy skills."
The sponsor of this bill, Decoding Dyslexia California writes:
"[There is] a tremendous amount of evidence about how dyslexia
manifests in the brain, how it manifests in the classroom, the
genetic component of dyslexia, but more importantly, we know
what type of instruction works for students with dyslexia.
This intervention is a multisensory, explicit, systematic
investigation of the structure of the English language which is
implemented by someone trained in not only the strategies of
this type of intervention but who also understands why a student
with dyslexia needs this type of intervention. This intervention
is not disguised as Balanced Literacy, but is the deep
instruction into how words are built based on language patterns.
Despite this mountain of research, parents and advocates attend
IEP and school meetings on a regular basis where the IEP team
repeatedly tells these parents and advocates that dyslexia does
AB 1369
Page 15
not exist, that it is a broad term (which it is not, it is SLD
that is the broad term), that public schools do not work with
dyslexia - the list of unfounded comments goes on and on. Our
concern is that these bright children are marginalized despite
the vast amount of research. They are held back and asked to
change, when the instruction is what needs to change. They are
denied their potential due to schools continued lack of
education in the area of dyslexia."
The author states, "Current law does not provide for appropriate
screening for dyslexia. Currently, assessment/screenings focus
on visual, auditory or processing deficits. Dyslexia is not a
visual or auditory deficit and not all individuals with dyslexia
will have a processing deficit. This bill would establish
appropriate screening requirements that would include
identification of a phonological processing deficit in the areas
of reading and writing."
Arguments in opposition. The California Teachers Association
writes, "CTA believes testing of students should not detract
from time allocated for the delivery of required curriculum or
cause negative impact on students' academic performance. Mass
testing of all students in early grades will result in
over-identifying dyslexia, other specific learning disabilities,
or other related disorders. Many young children display
behaviors that can be misidentified as learning issues, when
those behaviors are developmentally appropriate and will not be
manifested as lifelong learning disabilities. New mandated
screening/testing of all students in grades K-3 lessens the
instructional time available for learning required curriculum;
and adversely affects students' ability to learn the curriculum
AB 1369
Page 16
in a timely manner to master grade level skills and academic
state standards. Local educational agencies have adequate
systems in place for identifying students who may need special
education services."
The SELPA Administrators of California write, "While we
appreciate the author's intent with this proposal, our concerns
are as follows. First and foremost, reversals in numbers,
letters or words are a part of normal growth and development up
through second grade. Therefore, screening for reversals prior
to this time is inappropriate because most children simply
outgrow them. In fact, dyslexia has been dropped from the fifth
edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM-V), released in May 2013 by the American
Psychological Association.
Second, screening for dyslexia as proposed by this bill would
create an unfunded mandate that would not result in any benefit
for students in terms of early intervention. We do not believe
this mandate is necessary because the federal Individuals with
Disabilities Act (IDEA) does in fact provide for identification
of children with specific learning disabilities, including
visual and motor impairments, after normal growth and
development has been ruled out. This includes vision and
hearing screenings early on but not for reversals for the
reasons noted above."
AB 1369
Page 17
The California School Boards Association writes, "CSBA is
supportive of including components on recognizing and addressing
dyslexia and other reading and writing dysfunctions in teacher
preparation programs, along with providing in-service training
to currently credentialed school personnel. As more children
with special needs are being mainstreamed in general education
classrooms, teachers need to be better prepared to address their
issues. However, we must strongly oppose the provisions of your
legislation that would have every student in Kindergarten and
grades 1 through 3 screened for dyslexia each year."
Special Education Task Force report. Earlier this year the
Special Education Task Force, convened by the CDE, the State
Board of Education, and the Commission on Teacher Credentialing
issued a report entitled "One System: Reforming Education to
Serve ALL Students." The report contains a broad set of
recommendations for the reform of Special Education programs.
It does not contain recommendations specific to dyslexia
screening or instruction.
Prior legislation. AB 1938 (Speier) of the 1999-2000 Session,
as heard in the Assembly, would have re-enacted the Miller-Unruh
Basic Reading Act of 1965 and required school districts to
provide in-service training that included a learning disability
component. That bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
AB 1369
Page 18
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Decoding Dyslexia California (sponsor)
International Dyslexia Association, Southern California
Tri-Counties Branch
Learning Ally
Literate Nation California Coalition
Congresswoman Julia Brownley
5,500 letters from individuals
Opposition
California School Boards Association
California Teachers Association
SELPA Administrators of California
AB 1369
Page 19
Analysis Prepared by:Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087