On face, HB 1291 looks like a good idea. "An Act to allow students who have dyslexia to receive special education or special education and related services" -- who would argue with that? It inserts one word, dyslexia, into the administrative rules governing special education referrals.
But a conversation I had yesterday with a teacher alerted me to the difference -- in this case, the possibly harmful difference -- one word can make. Adding dyslexia to the list of disabilities qualifying students for special education and related services sounds perfectly benign, but it may end up reducing the help kids are getting right now.
Now this is friend-of-a-friend stuff: my teacher friend was telling me about the arguments made against this bill by her friends in school psychology and counseling, including Dr. Roxana Uttermark, a nationally certified school psychologist with the North Central Special Education Cooperative (in other words, folks who know a lot more about special education than I or any of our well-intentioned legislators). Here goes:
Right now, dyslexia is already addressed by federal legislation (IDEA). This gives your school counselors enough authority to address dyslexia right now. However, says Dr. Uttermark, dyslexia is a "very non-specific term that does little for the treatment of children" [personal communication, 2008.02.08]. So the special ed folks find that instead of trying to nail down a formal diagnosis of dyslexia, they can serve children better by making a general diagnosis of a reading problem. The psychologists and special ed teachers have really good research-based reading programs, like Put Reading First, that they see helping kids right now in the classroom. Whether the kids have dyslexia or some other disability, these programs are working.
So how does HB 1291 get in the way? Right now, an ed psych works with a child, can see clearly the child has trouble reading, and whether it's dyslexia or something else can right there recommend the reading assistance the specialists know can help. Pass HB 1291, add dyslexia to the state rules, and a child has to get a formal diagnosis of dyslexia to get help. According to Dr. Uttermark, you can't diagnose dyslexia without doing medical testing: that means brain scans. Instead of simply obtaining some reading program materials that may cost $1200, the school will have to send the child to Sioux Falls for an $8000+ brain scan. And brain scans are more likely to show that the kids referred don't have dyslexia, meaning kids who are getting help under the current system would be denied help once required to undergo formal medical diagnosis.
Consider this now from a practical point of view: Right now, if the in-school specialist checks "dyslexia" as a possible problem, the school might spend $1200 on a reading program, and whether the child is dyslexic or not, the child can get some practical reading assistance with proven results. Under HB 1291, the specialist checks "dyslexia," and the kid misses a day of school traveling to the nearest hospital with proper medical equipment, the school spends over $8000, and the diagnosis is more likely to deny the kid the reading help the kid gets under the current system.
And this assumes the cash-strapped school administration doesn't pressure the specialist not to mark "dyslexia" in the first place and trigger that extra cost. That sounds cycnical -- what decent educator would deny a child help just to save money? But as long as the Legislature and Governor Rounds refuse to carry out there Constitutional duty to fully fund education, school administrators have to make exactly those hard choices. $8000 spent on a brain scan is $8000 that can't be spent on other services, and school administrators will have to make some cold, hard calculations about how to use their resources.
Between the increased chances of a negative test result and the ballooned costs (which HB 1291 is not proposing to cover), it is therefore possible that, instead of increasing access, HB 1291 will make it harder for schools to give kids the help they need.
It sounds counter-intuitive, but well-intentioned laws can backfire. The House has already passed HB 1291 38-29 last week; it now awaits the Senate Education committee's assessment. HB 1291 looks like a perfectly nice bill to help kids, but our senators should study this bill closely and listen to the experts to make sure their vote will actually do more good than harm.
Update 08:32 CST: Mrs. Madville Times attended the Madison crackerbarrel Saturday and heard Chester superintendent Mark Greguson include HB 1291 on his list of education bills that should be killed. We already have the policies and programs we need to address reading disabilities, he said; no new legislation is needed.
Update 16:12 CST: Dakota War College dovetails with more good reason to oppose HB 1291.
RIP Quincy Jones
-
Probably one of the greatest music producers EVER! I have to tell you, I
have been beside myself, I get it, he was old, but everything you listened
to deca...
10 hours ago
Cory:
ReplyDeleteI really don't thing there is a dog.
Todd
Good article.. I had a chance to dovetail off of it myself.
ReplyDeletePass HB 1291, add dyslexia to the state rules, and a child has to get a formal diagnosis of dyslexia to get help. According to Dr. Uttermark, you can't diagnose dyslexia without doing medical testing: that means brain scans.
ReplyDeleteWhat is Uttermark smoking? Dyslexia isn't a "medical diagnosis". MRIs and fMRIs ("brain scans") are not used in diagnosing whatever you call it -- specific learning disability - reading or DSM-IV 315.00: Reading Disorder. (Brain imaging is used in researching the reading brain, which may be the source of the confusion.
Whatever you call it, physicians are rarely involved (other than to check that the child has normal hearing and visual acuity).
The old idea on spotting learning disabilities is the "discrepancy formula", (or "wait to fail"). IDEA 2004 endorsed the Response to Intervention (RtI) approach.
The jury is still out on the effectiveness of RtI -- as always, the devil is in the details.
Since "specific learning disabilities" are already covered, why add "dyslexia"?
Roxana Uttermark is not a Dr. She has a Master's & a Specialist, but no Doctorate or Medical degree.
ReplyDelete