# data[].attributes.body
Language and Oral and Written:

Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL-2)

Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool, Second Edition (CELF-Preschool 2)

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition (CTOPP-2)

Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning (DIAL-3)

Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (EOWPVT-4)

Expressive Vocabulary Test, Second Edition (EVT-2)

MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories-Words and Gestures (CDI)

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-4)

Test of Orthographic Competence (TOC)

Reading

Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised (WRMT-R)

Achievement

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II)

Oral and Written Language Scales: Written Expression (OWLS-2 Written Expression)

Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG)

Intelligence

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II)

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales for Early Childhood, Fifth Edition (Early SB5)

Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, Third Edition (WPPSI-III)

Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG)

Articulation

Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation, Second Edition (GFTA-2)

Kaufman Speech Praxis for Children (KSPT)

Photo Articulation Test–3rd Edition (PAT-3)

Social

Ages and Stages Questionnaires: A Parent-Completed, Child-Monitoring System, Second Edition (ASQ)

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (Vineland-II)

# data[].attributes.body
This video shares insight about dyslexia such as the brain function, statistics, experiences, and neurodiversity (Sandman-Hurley, 2013). In the video Kelli shares with viewers about what neurodiversity is and how people learn differently should be celebrated (Sandman-Hurley, 2013).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is dyslexia? - Kelli Sandman-Hurley

# data[].attributes.body
The audience for this specific padlet is to inform educators and parents about dyslexia. Dyslexia is a common learning disability that approximately 15% of people have. Educators and parents need to be informed about dyslexia because students can be impacted by this learning disability, especially if they do not receive the intervention that is legally required. This padlet shares a variety of useful information such as laws about dyslexia, testing resources or toolkit, descriptors, and other useful resources.

# data[].attributes.body
This video shares information about how a person with dyslexia learns and how their brain works and retrieves  information (Understood, 2016). The focus of the video is to help it's viewers understand the brain in terms of dyslexia (Understood, 2016).

# data[].attributes.body
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides useful information about learning disorders in children. It provides details about the different learning disorders along with a list of symptoms of learning disorders. The resources also provides useful information for parents, information about treatment, and the role of a health care provider.

# data[].attributes.body
The Dyslexia Handbook is a useful tool that provides laws, identifying tools, facts, and beneficial information about dyslexia.

# data[].attributes.body
This resource provides information and facts about what a learning disability is and what academic areas a disability may occur.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A learning disability is a neurologic disorder that causes difficulties in learning that cannot be attributed to poor intelligence, poor motivation, or inadequate teaching. Dyslexia is perhaps the most common form of learning disability. Learning disabilities may occur in the following academic areas:

Language, both spoken and written (often difficulties with reading, writing and spelling); and,

Arithmetic (difficulty in performing arithmetic functions or in comprehending mathematical concepts).

As many as 80% of all people with learning disabilities have dyslexia. Dyslexia is often thought to be characterized by writing letters backwards but in fact it is much more. Dyslexia is a "reading disability," and is characterized by an unexpected difficulty in reading by people who possess the intelligence, motivation, and schooling necessary to read.

It is a persistent, chronic condition rather than a transient developmental lag.

The process of reading involves two processes: decoding the written word and comprehending the word. People with dyslexia usually have no difficulty with comprehension; they generally have adequate reasoning skills, vocabulary and syntax. The problem is that people with dyslexia cannot use these skills until the printed word has first been decoded and identified. For example, a woman may know the precise meaning of the spoken word "eligibility"; however, until she can decode and identify the printed word on the page, she will not be able to use her knowledge of the meaning of the word and it will appear that she does not know the word's meaning. New advances have documented that people with reading disabilities have different pattern of brain activity than individuals without reading disabilities.

Reading disabilities are perhaps the most common neurobehavioral disorder affecting children in this country. It is estimated that between five and ten percent of the population experiences learning disabilities.
Sources:
Dr. Sally E. Shaywitz, "Current Concepts: Dyslexia," 338 New England Journal of Medicine 307 (Jan. 29, 1998).

Coordinated Campaign for Learning Disabilities, "ABCs of LDD/ADD," (last modified May 4, 1998) <http://www.ldonline.org>

"Clue to Dyslexia Found," Washington Post, March 2, 1998 at A1.
Return to NCAA Consent Decree Return to Enforcement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ADA Home Page provides access to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations for businesses and State and local governments, technical assistance materials, ADA Standards for Accessible Design, links to Federal agencies with ADA responsibilities and information, updates on new ADA requirements, streaming video, information about Department of Justice ADA settlement agreements, consent decrees, and enforcement activities and access to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ADA material

# data[].attributes.body
Texas state law (TEC §38.003) "requires that public school students be screened and tested as appropriate for dyslexia and related disorders at appropriate times in accordance with a program approved by the SBOE. The program approved by the SBOE must include screening for each student at the end of the kindergarten year and then again during first grade" (Texas Education Agency, n.d.).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Texas state law (TEC §38.003) requires that public school students be screened and tested as appropriate for dyslexia and related disorders at appropriate times in accordance with a program approved by the SBOE. The program approved by the SBOE must include screening for each student at the end of the kindergarten year and then again during first grade.

Texas Education Code §38.003 does not explicitly state when first grade students must be screened. The SBOE, through approval of the rule which requires adherence to the Dyslexia handbook (TAC §74.28) has determined that students in first grade must be screened no later than the middle of the school year. Screening of first-grade students can begin anytime in the fall as the teacher deems appropriate. Grade 1 screening must conclude no later than January 31 of each year.

Each LEA is required to report information regarding the number of students enrolled in the LEA or school who are identified as having dyslexia in the Texas Student Data System (TSDS) Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS)( (TEC §42.006(A-1)). The Department of Review and Support will engage in data validation in October of each year to ensure LEAs have met the required components of the dyslexia screening statute.

At the conclusion of the data validation process, the TEA will provide correspondence to the LEA acknowledging compliance with dyslexia screening requirements and may request additional information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Texas state law (TEC §38.003) requires that public school students be screened and tested as appropriate for dyslexia and related disorders at appropriate times in accordance with a program approved by the SBOE. The program approved by the SBOE must include screening for each student at the end of the kindergarten year and then again during first grade.

# data[].attributes.body
Individual With Disabilities Act , 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (2013). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-i/1401

Sandman-Hurley, K. (2013, July 15). What is dyslexia. [YouTube]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zafiGBrFkRM

Snowling M. J. (2013). Early identification and interventions for dyslexia: a contemporary view. Journal of research in special educational needs : JORSEN, 13(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01262.x

Tennessee Center for the Study and Treatment of Dyslexia (2020). FAQs about dyslexia. https://www.readingrockets.org/article/faqs-about-dyslexia

Texas Education Agency. (n.d.). Sec. 48.009.  REQUIRED PEIMS REPORTING. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/ED/htm/ED.48.htm

Texas Education Agency. (2018). Dyslexia Handbook. https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/2018-Dyslexia-Handbook_Approved_Accomodated_12_11_2018.pdf

Texas Education Code section 38.003 - screening and treatment for dyslexia and related disorders... (n.d.). Retrieved September 30, 2021, from https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._educ._code_section_38.003.

Understood, (2016, October 14). Dyslexia and the brain [YouTube]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrF6m1mRsCQ

# data[].attributes.body
The International Dyslexia Association is a beneficial association that provides resources about dyslexia. The Association provides fact sheets, infographics, conferences, workshops, advocacy toolkit, and other resources that pertain to dyslexia.

# data[].attributes.body
Students who show signs of dyslexia can receive research-based instructional strategies to help them learn such as (Reading Plus, 2020):

1.) Multisensory Learning Modalities
2.) Explicit Instruction
3.) Fluent and Automatic Reading
4.) Vocabulary
5.) Morphology
6.) Diagnostic Teaching
7.) Systematic and Cumulative Instruction
8.) Syntax and Semantics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One in five students has a language-based learning disability, the most common of which is dyslexia. Of students with reading difficulties, up to 80 percent are likely to have some form of dyslexia. Unfortunately, many of these children go undiagnosed until well after the primary grades, leading to significant difficulty with reading and subject-area studies.

Fortunately, awareness of dyslexia is rapidly growing. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Education issued a new policy affirming that students with dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia are specifically eligible for school support funded through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Today, 43 states now have dyslexia laws, and an increasing number of school districts are increasing diagnostic and instructional services for students with signs of dyslexia. While state mandates are not always fully funded, the fact is that there is strong research supporting specific evidence-based instructional practices that enable dyslexic students to become successful readers and strong academic achievers.

Reading Plus, for example, is a comprehensive reading development program with a strong research foundation that addresses the critical elements of reading success for all students, including those with signs of dyslexia. It has been developed with particular attention to the issues and challenges related to the physical act of reading text, which involves navigating the eyes from left to right across lines of text in a sequential and efficient fashion. Inefficient reading prevents the development of silent reading fluency, comprehension, and motivation among students, and it's a challenge for those with dyslexia.

The Reading Plus Guided Window, shown to the left, is one of several program components that help readers build the physical skills to efficiently navigate text, a critical need for students with signs of dyslexia. It gradually increases the student's comprehension-based silent reading pace to grade-level norms and beyond.

What else do students with signs of dyslexia need to develop as readers?

Here are the International Dyslexia Association's recommended reading instruction practices for students with signs of dyslexia.

8 Research-Based Instructional Recommendations for Students with Signs of Dyslexia

1. Multisensory Learning Modalities

Multisensory learning is a method of learning that includes more than one sense, such as visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile. Because multisensory learning activates multiple parts of the brain, it's been shown to increase engagement and enhance memory in all learners-but especially those with dyslexic characteristics.

IDA recommends incorporating two or three of the senses into reading instruction to help dyslexic children better understand new information and make the lesson stick.

2. Explicit Instruction

Explicit instruction, as defined by the IDA, is "the deliberate teaching of all concepts with continuous student-teacher interaction. It is not assumed that students will naturally deduce these concepts on their own."

This student-teacher interaction is critical because very few students have the motivation or confidence to teach themselves, especially if they're already struggling with dyslexic symptoms.

3. Fluent/Automatic Reading

When a student has achieved adequate reading fluency, that means that they're able to read text quickly, smoothly, and accurately. When they're reading aloud, they can place the proper expression and intonation on the words, and they can comprehend what they're reading without pausing to decode each individual word.

Poor reading fluency is a very common symptom of dyslexia and other reading disabilities; problems with reading fluency can linger even when students' accuracy in word decoding has been improved through effective phonics intervention.

However, when students switch from oral reading practice to silent reading practice, you can no longer hear these pauses or mispronunciations, so it's much more difficult to discern whether or not a student is struggling with fluency.

To help dyslexic students develop fluency, the IDA recommends that teachers:

Interpret fluency assessments accurately to understand each students' fluency level

Provide appropriate types and levels of texts for reading instruction

Encourage students to engage in independent reading practice, and

Provide structured fluency interventions for students as needed.

4. Vocabulary

Knowledge of word meanings is critical to comprehension. When we read, we recognize words and word families we know. That's why vocabulary acquisition is an essential element of reading growth.

In fact, cognitive scientists have suggested that vocabulary is one of the greatest predictors of reading comprehension.

As the IDA states, "research supports both explicit, systematic teaching of word meanings and indirect methods of instruction such as those involving inferring meanings of words from sentence context or from word parts."

5. Morphology

A morpheme is the smallest unit of language that still holds meaning. Morphology, then, is the study of base words, roots, prefixes, and suffixes.

When educators incorporate morphology into reading instruction for students with dyslexic characteristics, they help them more quickly and easily decipher unfamiliar words in a text.

For example, when a student understands that the word expectation means "a belief about the future," then they can also easily infer the meanings of expected, expectancy, and unexpected.

6. Diagnostic Teaching

Diagnostic teaching is an instructional approach that aims to pinpoint exactly why a particular student is struggling and then provide individualized instruction to meet that student's needs.

The IDA recommends that educators take both informal (for example, by observing the student in explicit instruction) and formal assessments (for example, by assigning standardized tests) of their students' needs.

7. Systematic and Cumulative

According to the IDA, effective reading instruction for students with signs of dyslexia is both:

Systematic, meaning that the reading material is organized in a logical, coherent manner, beginning with the most basic concepts and progressing to more difficult ones; and

Cumulative, meaning that each step builds upon concepts previously learned.

Rather than allowing students to fall back into less difficult texts or frustrate themselves by moving ahead too quickly, you should structure the lessons in a way that enables students to strengthen their existing skills while developing new ones.

8. Syntax and Semantics

Syntax and semantics deal with the grammatical, mechanical, and sensible structure of language. They are the set of rules and principles that allow us to both convey and decipher meaning in a text.

The IDA recommends that educators include instruction in both syntax and semantics to help students with signs of dyslexia understand the mechanics of language, the relationship between words, and the contextual meaning of texts.

The Evidence-Based Reading Intervention Program for Students with Signs of Dyslexia

Incorporating all eight IDA recommendations into the ELA curriculum can be difficult. Fortunately, research has shown that Reading Plus is effective in meeting the needs of students with various reading needs, including those with signs of dyslexia.

The program is designed to help students establish efficient reading habits that enable them to spend their mental resources on interpreting and appreciating what they read, rather than battling with the mechanics of reading. Key components of the program specifically meet the IDA recommendations.

Additionally, the program helps educators use data to diagnose individual student needs and drive effective literacy instruction for all learners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Research-Based Instructional Recommendations for Students with Signs of Dyslexia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One in five students has a language-based learning disability, the most common of which is dyslexia. Of students with reading difficulties, up to 80 percent are likely to have some form of dyslexia. Unfortunately, many of these children go undiagnosed until well after the primary grades, leading to significant difficulty with reading and subject-area studies.

# data[].attributes.body
Individual with Disabilities Education Act (20 USC § 1401(3)) defines a child with learning disability as someone who has impairments in hearing, speech or language, vision, orthopedic, health, and emotional disturbance and therefore needs special education or related services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
20 U.S. Code § 1414 - Evaluations, eligibility determinations, individualized education programs, and educational placements

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
US Code - Title 20 > CHAPTER 33 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 1414

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
IDA Dyslexia Handbook: What Every Family Should Know - International Dyslexia Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In addition to offering valuable information about dyslexia and its characteristics, this handbook provides information on assessments, effective teaching

# data[].attributes.body
"The International Dyslexia Association’s (IDA) professional ethical principles and practice standards are intended to safeguard and promote the well‐being of individuals with dyslexia and related learning difficulties.   IDA’s employees, members, partners, and recipients of IDA-recognized certificates and certifications are to uphold the following professional ethical principles and practice standards" (International Dyslexia Associations, 2021):

1. Strive to do no harm, maintain confidentiality, and to act in the best interest of struggling readers and readers with dyslexia and other reading disorders.

2. Respect confidentiality of students or clients.

3. Support just treatment of individuals with dyslexia and related learning difficulties.

4. Maintain the public trust by providing accurate information about currently accepted and scientifically supported best practices in the field.

5. Avoid misrepresentation of the efficacy of educational or other treatments or the proof for or against those treatments.

6. Avoid making unfounded claims of any kind regarding the training, experience, credentials, affiliations, and degrees of those providing services.

7. Respect objectivity by reporting assessment and treatment results accurately, honestly, and truthfully.

8. Respect the training requirements of established credentialing and accreditation organizations supported by IDA.

9. Avoid conflicts of interest when possible and acknowledge conflicts of interest when they occur.

10. Respect the intellectual property of others.

11. Engage in fair competition.

# data[].attributes.headline
Early Identification and Intervention for Dyslexia 

# data[].attributes.subject
Early Identification and Intervention for Dyslexia 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
J Res Spec Educ Needs. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 Aug 17.

Published in final edited form as:

Abstract

This paper reviews current proposals concerning the definition of dyslexia and contrasts it with reading comprehension impairment. We then discuss methods for early identification and review evidence that teacher assessments and ratings may be valid screening tools. Finally, we argue that interventions should be theoretically motivated and evidence based. We conclude that early identification of children at risk of dyslexia followed by the implementation of intervention is a realistic aim for practitioners and policy-makers.

Keywords: Dyslexia, reading impairment, reading comprehension, early identification, intervention

Scientific research on dyslexia has burgeoned during the past 50 years, and a great deal is now known about its nature, aetiology and assessment. Against this backdrop, it should be possible for educators to recognise the signs which suggest that a child is at risk of reading failure. Such early identification should allow interventions to be implemented before a downward spiral of underachievement, lowered self-esteem and poor motivation sets in. This paper begins by reviewing the new proposals for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual's (DSM-V) definition of dyslexia and proceeds to examine whether children with dyslexia and related literacy difficulties can be identified based on their response to good quality reading instruction. This aspiration was at the core of the recent independent review on dyslexia for UK government, conducted by Sir Jim Rose (2009). The review advocated a three-tier system beginning with high-quality mainstream teaching delivered to all, proceeding with adaptations and catch-up programmes for those 'at risk' and finally individualised teaching for those at greatest need. A growing evidence base of effective interventions suggests that this aim could become a reality.

Children's literacy difficulties

Dyslexia

Dyslexia is a neurodevelopmental disorder with a probable genetic basis, and it is generally agreed that more boys than girls are affected (although the gender ratio is higher in referred samples). The core feature of dyslexia is a problem with word decoding, which in turn impacts spelling performance and the development of reading fluency. Dyslexia is persistent across the lifespan, and adult outcomes are variable; although some young people with dyslexia proceed to a university education, others leave school with minimal qualifications. Most adults with dyslexia complain of slow reading, problems of spelling and difficulties with written expression. In addition, problems with working memory, attention and organisation are frequently reported.

For many years, dyslexia was conceptualised as a specific reading difficulty affecting children for whom reading achievement was below that expected on the basis of a child's age and intelligence quotient (IQ). Gradually, this 'discrepancy definition' of dyslexia has fallen from use, and it is now recognised that dyslexia occurs across the IQ spectrum, although it needs to be borne in mind that, in terms of reading comprehension, those with higher IQ are likely to do better.

Within the primary school sample, 10.5% of pupils obtained a standard score below 77.5 and 3.9% below 70 in single-word reading. In addition, 3.3% of sample showed a significant discrepancy between good reading comprehension (from the prose reading task) and poor reading accuracy (16-41 standard score points), a profile sometimes associated with discrepancy-defined dyslexia. Within the secondary school sample, rates of reading impairment were similar as expected given the cut-offs and 4.9% of the sample showed a significant 'discrepancy' between decoding and reading comprehension.

More boys than girls were poor decoders in primary school, and the proportion of pupils with EAL was significantly higher among these children than in the remainder of the sample. Decoding difficulties were also more common among children from socially deprived areas. Together, these data remind us that social and cultural factors influence the prevalence of reading difficulties: dyslexia is more than a constitutional difficulty.

Problems of reading comprehension

Some children with dyslexia have problems with reading comprehension, which are attributable to slow and inaccurate word reading, leaving few attentional resources available for comprehension. However, reading comprehension impairment can occur in the absence of poor decoding, suggesting that it is a distinct disorder. Indeed, the profile of reading comprehension impairment contrasts markedly with dyslexia. These children (sometimes referred to as 'poor comprehenders') can decode and spell words accurately but have problems understanding the meaning of what they read. Poor comprehenders have been much less studied than children with dyslexia and the condition is not well recognised by teachers (see Hulme and Snowling, 2011 for a review). However, data from the YARC standardisation (discussed earlier) revealed that 5.3% of the primary sample and 5% of the secondary school sample could be defined as poor comprehenders. Reading comprehension impairment is therefore quite a common disorder that at present is a 'hidden' disability in the classroom setting.

The distinction between dyslexia and reading comprehension impairment is consistent with the simple view of reading ( Gough and Tumner, 1986). According to the simple view, reading comprehension skill is the product of decoding and listening comprehension. Thus, there are three sorts of poor readers - those with poor decoding (dyslexia), those with poor listening comprehension (poor comprehenders) and those with impairments in both decoding and listening comprehension. Taking this view as a starting point, Bishop and Snowling (2004) reviewed a large body of literature on the relationship between reading and language impairments and proposed that to understand reading disorders, it is important to take this two-dimensional view (see Figure 1 ). Further, children who enter school with poor phonology are at risk of decoding difficulties, while children with broader language impairments are at risk of reading comprehension difficulties. Children with clinically diagnosed specific language impairment generally have pervasive reading disorders with both processes affected.

In short, dyslexia is not a clear-cut diagnostic category. Rather, in keeping with other neurodevelopmental disorders that affect learning, it can be thought of as the behavioural outcome of a multiple risk factors, both genetic and environmental ( Hulme and Snowling, 2009). It is also increasingly recognised that dyslexia co-occurs with other disorders; in particular, many children with dyslexia have language impairments ( McArthur et al., 2000), symptoms of inattention ( Carroll et al., 2005), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( McGrath et al., 2011) and problems of motor coordination ( Rochelle and Talcott, 2006). This nuanced view of dyslexia as a dimension that has continuities and comorbidities with other disorders has significant implications for contemporary theory and practice (see Snowling, 2009 for a review and access to related papers).

DSM-V proposals for the classification of learning disorders

The DSM of the American Psychiatric Association, currently in its fourth edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) is a classification system of disorders of mental health in children and adults. It is the guide to US psychiatric practice and has a global influence on how disorders are diagnosed. However, because it is based on a medical model, there are tensions surrounding its use in education. Current proposals for the new edition of the manual (DSM-V) make significant changes to the way in which learning (and hence reading) disorders are classified ( http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=429).

Within DSM-V, learning disorder is the generic term used to describe the disorders with onset in childhood, characterised by difficulties in learning, which significantly affect academic achievement. Learning disorders are grouped together with communication disorders (both are described as neurodevelopmental disorders) to reflect their early onset; they include dyslexia, dyscalculia and disorder of written expression. Reflecting the dimensional view, DSM-V drops the need for the individual to fulfil a discrepancy criterion, but it retains the possibility of using the term 'dyslexia' when an individual performs less well than expected - 'not consistent with the person's intellectual abilities'.

Thus, the proposed definition of dyslexia for DSM-V is:

Difficulties in accuracy or fluency of reading that are not consistent with the person's chronological age, educational opportunities or intellectual abilities. Multiple sources of information are to be used to assess reading, one of which must be an individually administered, culturally appropriate and psychometrically sound standardised measure of reading and reading-related abilities.

It is worth discussing some of the features of the proposed diagnostic criteria from an educational perspective. First, it is noteworthy that the term dyslexia is used for the first time, and reading fluency is recognised as relevant to diagnosis; this is particularly important when assessing older pupils and adults. Second, a drawback is that there is no mention of spelling difficulty; rather this is to be considered under 'disorder of written expression'. This strategy is potentially misleading because, in principle, poor spellers could be good at writing - indeed some are poets Third, and most worryingly given our previous discussion, specific difficulties with reading comprehension (previously coded within reading disorder) are not recognised here. In fact, the 'poor comprehender' profile is briefly referred to as feature of language impairment. More generally, the apparent separation of learning and communication disorders downplays the overlap between reading and language impairments ( Snowling and Hulme, 2012).

DSM-V has faced a number of theoretical issues concerning how best to diagnose developmental disorders, and the proposed form of classification has been questioned ( Rutter, 2011). A key issue is the extent to which apparently different disorders might reflect the same underlying condition at different stages in development ( Hulme and Snowling, 2009, ch. 9). This issue is brought into focus with regard to the relationship between learning and communication disorders. As discussed earlier, children with difficulties of language and communication are at high risk of literacy problems ( Bishop and Snowling, 2004). Moreover, among children at risk of dyslexia, it is clear that poor oral language is a primary risk factor for reading failure ( Snowling, Gallagher and Frith, 2003); on the other hand, intact language skills can provide a compensatory resource for children with word-level reading difficulties ( Nation and Snowling, 1998). It falls to theoreticians and practitioners alike to recognise the interrelationships between spoken and written language if they are to be tuned to the continuities between delays and difficulties in oral language development and dyslexia - yet this is not mentioned in the proposed definition. Arguably, recognition of the overlap should set the agenda for early identification and intervention for reading and language disorders.

Early identification of children at risk of literacy problems

For many years, the importance of early identification and intervention for children with dyslexia has been stressed. Accordingly, much research has been directed towards establishing precursors of dyslexia in the preschool years in international studies of children at family risk of reading problems (e.g., Gallagher, Frith and Snowling, 2000; Lyytinen et al., 2006; McBride-Chang et al., 2008). Although significant progress has been made in identifying cognitive skills that predict literacy outcomes on a group basis (e.g., letter-sound knowledge and phoneme awareness; Muter et al., 2004), at the individual level, it is much harder to make accurate predictions ( Puolakanaho et al., 2007). In this light, the merits of costly screening and assessment procedures must be questioned.

An alternative approach to screening and assessment pioneered in the US is 'response to intervention' (RTI; see Fletcher et al., 2007 for a review). This method, as its name suggests, involves monitoring the progress of a group of children through a programme of intervention rather than undertaking a static assessment of their current skills. Children with the most need are those who fail to respond to effective teaching, and they are readily identified using this approach. Indeed, such a strategy was advocated by the Rose (2009) Review on identification and teaching of dyslexia and other literacy difficulties. Ideally, each child in wave 1 receives 'quality first' teaching in mainstream classes, perhaps adapted for the slower learners in the class. Following this, at wave 2, a small group or catch-up programme is offered and at wave 3, an individualised intervention. Within this approach, a child need not wait to fail sufficiently to fulfil diagnostic criteria but will be offered support as soon as they are dropping behind.

In the UK, at the time of writing, most children are recipients of a National Curriculum, and reading is taught using systematic phonics instruction. More importantly for present purposes, a considerable amount of data is routinely collected on individual children by teachers, schools and local authorities. An important question concerns whether these data be used to identify children 'at risk' of underachievement. We will discuss later findings from one local authority that suggest that this is indeed the case.

The validity of the Early Years Foundation Profile Stage (EYFS) to screen for language and literacy difficulties

In 2003, the assessment of children's progress at the end of the Foundation Stage (from 3 years to 5 years) was formally introduced into English schools. Subsequent to this, it became mandatory for all schools and early years providers to deliver a curriculum consistent with what was renamed the EYFS for children from birth to 5 years.

To investigate whether an assessment undertaken by teachers at the end of the EYFS (after children had been in school for 1 year) could provide a screening tool for the identification of children at risk of dyslexia, we investigated pupils' data from the EYFS profile (EYFSP) in one local education authority. Data were available from three cohorts of children entering all 50 maintained primary schools within the authority from September 2006 to July 2009. We have followed the progress of these children in acquiring literacy skills ( Snowling et al., 2011; http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFE-RR172a.pdf). Here, we focus on the data from the EYFSP and its relationship to later literacy attainments.

The EYFSP ( Department of Children, Schools and Families, 2008a) comprised 13 scales within six areas of learning, each containing nine scale points. The areas of learning were personal, social and emotional; communication, language and literacy; problem solving, reasoning and numeracy; knowledge and understanding of the world; physical development; and creative development. On each scale, scale points 4-8 are the early learning goals, and scale point 9 describes the attainment of a child who is working consistently beyond early learning goals. Points 1-3 describe attainment below the early learning goals. The longitudinal data we collected included National Curriculum attainment levels at the end of Key Stage 1 (year 2), and language and literacy data from a representative sample of children followed up in year 3.

We first examined correlations between the EYFS measures and the Key Stage 1 Attainments, focusing on both the total score on the EYFSP and the more specific score for communication, language and literacy (CLL) total. At the end of Key Stage 1, teacher assessments are informed by statutory tasks and tests usually administered during May of year 2. The data analyses revealed moderate to strong correlations between EYFSP scores and Key Stage 1 attainments. More specifically, the score for CLL correlated strongly with performance 2 years later at the end of year 2 in reading (0.71) and writing (0.69) attainments. Our next question concerned how much of the differences (variance) in children's attainments at the end of Key Stage 1 was accounted for by the CLL scale of the EYFSP at the end of reception year. We found that about 50% of the differences between children in statutory assessments (at approximately age 7) could be accounted for by teachers' ratings of their CLL at the end of Early Years (around age 5) on the EYFSP.

These findings are promising and provide some validation for teacher ratings. However, a critic might argue that, as both EYFSP scale scores and Key Stage 1 assessments are based on teacher ratings, these are not as objective as would be desirable for identifying children whose literacy development is slow. Accordingly, we assessed a representative subsample of 360 of the children in year 3 on a battery of objective tests.

The findings of this follow-up study confirmed that the EYFSP score for CLL was a good predictor of later literacy attainments (slightly better than the EYFSP total score). Indeed, it showed moderate correlations with measures of reading, spelling and reading comprehension in year 3, and the correlation between children's CLL and the literacy factor was 0.59.

Together, these findings show that teacher assessment at 5 years, based on ongoing observation, provides a valid measure of children's current development and is a reasonable predictor of literacy attainments 2 years later. The findings underline the importance of the Early Years as providing a critical foundation for learning. They also provide evidence relevant to current proposals for the revision of the EYFS framework ( Tickell, 2011, Review) by highlighting that key elements of development can be assessed at age 5; assessments at the end of Early Years can be used to identify children who are at high risk of educational difficulties; and the best predictors of educational success are measures of language, communication and literacy.

Screening for dyslexia using RTI

The findings from the EYFSP suggest that the risk of reading and writing difficulties are apparent early in development, and a screening tool targeting early language, literacy and communication skills has the potential to identify children who will go on to be dyslexic. However, no screening tool is perfect, and hence it is important to include additional checks on children's development to reduce the probability of over- and underidentification of learning difficulties. In this regard, the RTI approach offers a useful adjunct to a screening tool as it involves monitoring the progress of children in receipt of a given curriculum.

The local authority with which we had worked for the EYFSP research had implemented a systematic phonics curriculum from 2006. Moreover, in line with policy recommendations, teachers were trained to track pupils' progress through a series of developmental phonic phases, with each phase being quantified by a number of phonic-related skills ( Department of Children, Schools and Families, 2008b). The phases move from sensitivity to rhyme and alliteration at phase 1 to confident and fluent use of letter-sound knowledge (grapheme-phoneme correspondences) for reading and spelling unfamiliar words at phase 6. Because we had collected data from whole cohorts of children on a termly basis, we were able to use this to identify children who were 'failing to thrive' in terms of their phonics progress. We decided to carry this out when the children were about 6 years of age and had been in receipt of reading instruction for just over 1 year ( Snowling et al., 2011).

Using school records, our criterion for 'dyslexia risk status' was taken to be 'not secure in phonic phase 2 at the end of the fourth term in school'. Phonic phase 2 requires the child to be able to provide the sound when shown any grapheme that has been taught - particularly being secure with the sounds of s, a, t, p, i and n; to select the correct grapheme to represent any of the 19 phonemes taught in this phase; and to blend and to segment CVC and VC words. Based on these criteria, 16.4% of the school population was assessed as 'behind expectation' in phonic skills. Because this is well above reported prevalence rates for dyslexia (typically 7-10%), it is clear that these judgments alone would over-identify children who subsequently go on to be 'free' of difficulty. However, to assess the validity of the teacher judgments, we proceeded to assess the same children at the end of year 1, some 6 months later, on objective tests of reading and related skills, comparing them with a representative sample of children from the same classrooms, matched on age and gender.

The findings of our study were clear: teachers were good judges of their pupil's progress, and their assessments predicted 50% of the variability in children's reading skills at the end of the school year (when considering this finding, it is important to bear in mind that objective test scores rarely produce better agreement over two points in time). However, a further question we wanted to address was whether these children could be described as dyslexic? To address this question, we turned to a working definition of dyslexia proposed by the expert advisory group serving the Rose (2009) review. This definition goes beyond that of DSM-V in describing the typical cognitive profile associated with the condition:

' Dyslexia is a learning difficulty that primarily affects the skills involved in accurate and fluent word reading and spelling. Characteristic features of dyslexia are difficulties in phonological awareness, verbal memory and verbal processing speed'. ( Rose, 2009, p. 9)

We proceeded to ask whether the group of children identified as 'at risk' showed the core characteristics of dyslexia - poor phonological awareness, poor verbal memory and slow verbal processing speed. This was indeed the case, and on tests of phoneme deletion, verbal working memory and rapid automatised naming, the children we identified showed impairments relative to their peers.

In summary, although there are many commercially available screening tests designed to identify 'children at risk of dyslexia', our findings suggest that there is no need to implement such costly procedures. There are already many data in schools that can be used by teachers to identify children who are failing to respond to mainstream teaching. A distinct advantage of teacher assessments is that they occur on a regular basis and can avoid delays in the implementation of good-quality evidence-based intervention. Ideally, school systems should embed such procedures in their policies and empower teachers to identify children with additional learning needs early (at the end of reception year or in year 1).

Interventions to ameliorate dyslexia

Early interventions at the foundations of literacy

We have seen that the RTI approach to assessment and intervention appears to hold promise for the early identification of children who are failing to learn to read at the expected rate. A further question is whether interventions can strengthen the foundations of literacy skills in children who show 'at risk' signs.

Bowyer-Crane et al. (2008) set out to address this question in a randomised controlled trial comparing two interventions designed for children who enter school with poorly developed language skills - the primary risk factors for poor literacy. Here, we will focus on the impact of the programme that targeted the development of decoding skills [phonology with reading programme (P + R)], comparing it with the alternative intervention that was designed to improve spoken language skills [oral language programme (OL)]. The programme comprised training in letter-sound knowledge, segmenting and blending and reading from texts, which were selected to be at the appropriate level following the administration of a 'running record'. It was delivered each day for 20 weeks to children in reception and year 1 classes by trained teaching assistants, alternating between small group and individual teaching sessions (see Carroll et al., 2011 for details of both programmes).

We found that the children who received the P + R programme did significantly better than those who received the OL programme on tests of phoneme awareness, letter-sound knowledge and reading and spelling skills at the end of the intervention. The gains were maintained after the intervention had stopped. Furthermore, it appeared that the P + R intervention programme had 'lifted' many of the children from the 'at risk' to the typical range of reading skills for their age such that, while 68.1% of the OL group remained at risk for literacy difficulties, this was only the case for 50% of the P + R group. In fact, 7.1% of children in the P + R group now had above average reading scores.

Of course, no intervention programme benefits all children, and inevitably there is variation in children's response. We found that one factor which predicted progress was nonverbal IQ, such that children with more specifi c language impairment tended to do better than children with general language delay ( Bowyer-Crane et al., in press). However, our sample size was small for exploring predictors of response, and it is important at this stage to be cautious about such findings.

Treating dyslexia

Beyond the early years, there are now many evidence-based interventions for children with reading difficulties/dyslexia ( Duff and Clarke, 2011; Fletcher et al., 2007; Snowling and Hulme, 2011). A good starting point for developing an intervention is understanding the causes of a disorder. Indeed, targeting of impaired processes provides the theoretical motivation for the design and content of an intervention. Unfortunately, the field of dyslexia is plagued with supposed 'cures' that have no proper evidence base. It is therefore important for professionals to critically review the content of available programmes to ensure their suitability. A useful website developed to complement the Rose Review is http://www.interventionsforliteracy.org.uk/schools/.

More generally, there is still typically too long a lag between the identification of children's reading difficulties and the implementation of interventions. It is also the case that many interventions are short and do not take account of the ongoing needs of children who have dyslexia. Given this, there is an urgent need for the evaluation of approaches to the education of children with special education needs who receive school-based intervention programmes.

Conclusions

As knowledge of dyslexia and related difficulties has increased, not only in readers of English but also other languages ( Caravolas, 2005), there remains a pressing need for theory to influence practice. This paper has attempted to demonstrate how an understanding of dyslexia can be used to ensure that children in our school systems who are at risk of dyslexia can be identified early before a sense of failure sets in. The emphasis has been on dyslexia as a dimensional disorder rather than a discrete diagnostic category. Finally, evidence showing that children with dyslexic difficulties can be helped by specific interventions underlines the need for timely action rather than waiting for diagnosis.

Acknowledgement

This paper was prepared with support of Wellcome Trust Programme Grant 08 2036/2/07/Z. The author would like to thank Charles Hulme for his comments on an earlier draft.

References

Bowyer-Crane C, Duff F, Hulme C, Snowling MJ. The response to intervention of children with SLI and general delay. Journal of Learning Disabilities. (in press) **, pp. **-**. [Google Scholar]

McGrath LM, Pennington BF, Shanahan MA, Santerre-Lemmon LE, Barnard HD, Willcutt EG, et al. A multiple deficit model of reading disability and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: searching for shared cognitive deficits. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2011;52(5):547-57. [[PMC free article] [PubMed] Google Scholar]

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 subgroups. 2000. NICHD.

Rose J. Identifying and teaching children and young people with dyslexia and literacy difficulties. 2009. **: DCSF, DCSF- 00659-2009.

Snowling MJ, Hulme C. The Nature and classification of reading disorders: a commentary on proposals for DSM-5. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2012 **, pp. **-**. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01129.x. [[PMC free article] [PubMed] Google Scholar]

Stothard SE, Snowling MJ, Hulme C. (**) Prevalence of poor decoding and poor comprehension in a large representative sample of English schoolchildren. in preparation.

Tickell C. The Tickell review - the early years: foundations for life, health and learning. Department for Educaton; London: 2011. < [http://www.education.gov.uk/tickellreview> (accessed ** ** **) Google Scholar]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Early identification and interventions for dyslexia: a contemporary view

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This paper reviews current proposals concerning the definition of dyslexia and contrasts it with reading comprehension impairment. We then discuss methods for early identification and review evidence that teacher assessments and ratings may be valid screening ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get quick answers to seven common questions that parents ask about dyslexia, including causes and assessment.

# data[].attributes.body
TEC laws regarding dyslexia align with the Dyslexia Handbook, which requires the provision of "dyslexia screenings, treatment and licensed therapists to those determined to have dyslexia or a related disorder"(Texas Education Agency, 2018).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Nessy goal is to help transform how children with dyslexia are being educated and invite parents and teachers to join the cause. Early identification of dyslexia is critical because 1 in 5 people have the learning disorder and the earlier intervention can begin the easier it is to remediate.

In fact, Hall and Moats have found that inexpensive screening identifies at-risk children in mid-kindergarten with 85% accuracy and if intervention is not provided before age 8 the probability of reading difficulties continuing into high school is 75%. Nessy firmly believes in early identification and intervention.

We've teamed up with Tiffany James and The Reading Center, Midland Texas to provide an affordable and accessible literacy program with proven results.

Contents

State Dyslexia Law

In Texas it is a requirement for a district's board of trustees to provide dyslexia screenings, treatment and licensed therapists to those determined to have dyslexia or a related disorder.

The Department of Education have also produced a Dyslexia Handbook containing guidelines for school districts to follow as they identify and provide services for students with dyslexia.

What This Means

Every child in Texas should have the appropriate screening, intervention and help at hand in accordance to state law however recent studies have found that this is often capped at 5%.

How Do I Follow These Laws?

We don't want any child to fall behind so Nessy aims to help implement screening and intervention at cost-effective rates so all schools can help their struggling students.

Dyslexia Quest Screening Tool

It's important for parents/guardians to know that they have the right to request a referral for a dyslexia assessment at any time.

Screen online for dyslexia in just 20-minutes. The test provides a snapshot of learning abilities linked to dyslexia and because it's games based, students have fun without realizing they are being assessed. Receive a detailed report outlining the likelihood of dyslexia, designed to be the perfect, affordable tool schools need.

Nessy Professional Development

Nessy's Professional Development course aims to increase dyslexia awareness, identification and help in the classroom. Designed for educators and LSA's, the course is online and just 2-hours so you can easily fit it in throughout the year. There are 6 modules in total with a quiz at the end of each module and a certificate upon completion. In states such as Iowa, Nessy PD is now available to all educaters as part of on-going teacher training.

Intervention

Nessy Reading & Spelling is an intervention program for ages 5-12. The program guides you through 10 islands of 100 lessons with games, videos and worksheets, utilising the evidence-based Orton-Gillingham approach.

Nessy Reading and Spelling covers the content in the TEKS elementary levels for English Language Arts and Reading Kindergarten, grades 1-5.

Reading instruction is comprehensive and students receive instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding, and word attack skills while simultaneously being taught vocabulary, comprehension and reading strategies.

You can take a 7-day free trial here and read more about the efficacy of Nessy Reading & Spelling here.

The Reading Center, Texas

The Reading Center, located in Midland Texas is an Orton-Gillingham provider, utilizing the Barton Reading & Spelling System, and providing one-on-one tutoring services.

Tiffany James the owner and founder has created STRIVE, which addresses the varied developmental literacy needs of students across Texas.

STRIVE

The STRIVE reading program was developed in 2013 by reading specialist Tiffany James to address the varied developmental literacy needs of the students in a school in Midland, Texas. At that time, the school had less than half of their students reaching grade level minimum benchmarks. This is consistent with national statistics. The US Department of Education finds that only 35% of American 4th graders score at or above the proficient level in reading.

As of March 2014, 90% of first graders participating in STRIVE teaching were showing pronounced growth. Some students had gained 9-18 months or more in reading level in four months of instruction.

Furthermore, teachers reported seeing an improvement of 95% in classroom performance of STRIVE students and 100% of parent surveys stated that working with a STRIVE teacher was improving their child's language or reading skills.

How to Get Involved

Click here to read in detail about the STRIVE program and how you can participate.

State Dyslexia Organizations
International Dyslexia Association - Austin Branch International Dyslexia Association - Dallas Branch Decoding Dyslexia Texas Education Agency for Central & Southern Texas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Nessy goal is to help transform how children with dyslexia are being educated and invite parents and teachers to join the cause. Early identification of dyslexia is critical because 1 in 5 people have the learning disorder and the earlier intervention can begin the easier it is to remediate.

# data[].attributes.body
Under Education Code (TEC § 38.003), screening students for dyslexia and other related disorders is required in kindergarten and first grade (Texas. Public. Laws. 2021). The universal screener tool that is used measures different reading components such as sound-symbol recognition, phonological awareness, letter knowledge,  and other literacy skills (Texas. Public. Laws. 2021).

# data[].attributes.body
Texas Education Code § 48.009 suggest that school counselors are required 40 hours of counseling services a week and the commissioner by rules all school districts and open-enrollment must report through Public Education Information Management System the number of students who is classified as dyslexic (Texas Education Agency, n.d.). The total number of students classified with dyslexia should receive the appropriate amount of intervention and strategies (Texas Education Agency, n.d.).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EDUCATION CODE CHAPTER 48. FOUNDATION SCHOOL PROGRAM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EDUCATION CODE TITLE 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION SUBTITLE I. SCHOOL FINANCE AND FISCAL MANAGEMENT CHAPTER 48. FOUNDATION SCHOOL PROGRAM SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 48.001. STATE POLICY.