DYSLEXIA; EDUCATION S.B. 380 (S-2)-383 (S-2):
SUMMARY OF BILL
REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE
Senate Bill 380 (Substitute S-2 as reported)
Senate Bill 381 (Substitute S-2 as reported)
Senate Bill 382 (Substitute S-2 as reported)
Senate Bill 383 (Substitute S-2 as reported)
Sponsor: Senator Jeff Irwin (S.B. 380)
Senator Lana Theis (S.B. 381)
Senator Dayna Polehanki (S.B. 382)
Senator Jim Runestad (S.B. 383)
Committee: Education and Career Readiness
CONTENT
Senate Bill 380 (S-2) would amend the Revised School Code to do the following:
-- Require the board of a school district or intermediate school district (ISD) or the board of directors of a public school academy (PSA) to ensure that, by the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year and each subsequent year, qualifying pupils enrolled in that district, ISD, or PSA were screened for characteristics of dyslexia and difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently using a reliable and valid universal screening assessment.
-- Requires a district, ISD, or PSA, beginning with the 2024-2025 school year to ensure that additional assessment data pertaining to the pupil were gathered and to determine whether the pupil had difficulties with word reading in making a decision regarding intervention placement.
-- Require the board of a school district, ISD, or PSA to ensure, beginning with the 2024-2025 school year, that a pupil who was an English language learner was provided with one year of English language development skills before an assessment was administered.
-- Require a school district, ISD, or PSA to ensure that, by the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year, a pupil who exhibited characteristics of dyslexia was provided a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) and prescribe the requirements an MTSS would have to meet.
-- Prohibit instructional methods and curriculum resources that included methods that minimized the importance of primarily using letter-sound information to decode or recognize unknown words, among other methods.
-- Require a pupil's individual reading improvement plans to be reconciled with the bill's requirements.
-- Require the board of a school district, ISD, or PSA to ensure that the necessary accommodations or equipment was provided to a pupil with characteristics of dyslexia.
-- Specify that, beginning with the 2024-2025 school year, if a district or PSA determined that a pupil needed tier 2 support or was going to be given an individual reading improvement plan, the board of the district, ISD, or PSA would have to ensure the pupil's parent or guardian was sent a notification, and specify the information that would have to be included in the notice.
-- Require the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) to provide guidance on the development of dyslexia expertise for individuals responsible for supporting the development of certain methods and infrastructures to meet the needs of pupils with dyslexia.
-- Require the MDE, by January 1, 2024, and in conjunction with the advisory committee, to develop or adopt and make available to the public a dyslexia resource guide.
-- Require the MDE, in consultation with districts, ISDs, and PSAs, to ensure that, by the 2026-2027 school year, certain teachers and other personnel received professional learning regarding dyslexia and dyslexia-related information.
-- Require the MDE to ensure that each certificated teacher in Michigan received the professional learning, unless that teacher had already received that learning.
-- Require the MDE to update, between January 1, 2024, and April 1, 2024, its approval of valid and reliable screening, formative, and diagnostic reading assessment systems for selection and use by districts and PSAs.
-- Require each district and PSA to update, by August 1, 2024, its selection of a reading assessment system.
Senate Bill 381 (S-2) would amend the Revised School Code to prohibit, beginning September 30, 2023, the Superintendent of Public Education (SPI) from approving a teacher preparation institution or alternative teaching program unless the institution or program offered specified instruction regarding dyslexia. Additionally, by September 30, 2023, the SPI would have to revoke the approval of a teacher preparation institution or alternative teacher program that prepared individuals to serve as certain pre-K to grade 12 personnel unless it provided the prescribed instruction.
Senate Bill 382 (S-2) would amend the Revised School Code to prohibit the SPI, beginning July 1, 2026, from advancing an individual's certification, if he or she held a teaching certificate, to professional certification unless he or she had successfully completed at least a three-credit course of study or professional learning hours that included or covered elements related to dyslexia.
Senate Bill 383 (S-2) would amend the Revised School Code to require the SPI to appoint 10 members to an advisory committee within the MDE that would have to aid the MDE in developing or adopting and updating the dyslexia resource guide proposed under Senate Bill 380 (S-2).
The bills are tie-barred.
Proposed MCL 380.1280i (S.B. 380) Legislative Analyst: Eleni Lionas
Proposed MCL 380.1531e (S.B. 381)
MCL 380.1531 (S.B. 382)
Proposed MCL 380.1280h (S.B. 383)
FISCAL IMPACT
Senate Bill 380 (S-2) would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on State and local government.
The bill would require screening of all pupils in grades K-3, plus select pupils in higher grades if they demonstrated certain behaviors, multiple times during the school year. Currently, the third grade reading law requires the testing of all students in grades K-3. If many of the existing screeners test for dyslexia, then districts should be able to use those to satisfy the bill's requirements. Also, Section 35a of the School Aid Act allows a district to use up to 5.0% of its allocation for additional reading instruction time to administer screening and diagnostic tools, so the requirement to screen for dyslexia either should be available with existing screening tools or could be funded with existing early literacy funding under Section 35a.
Potentially more expensive would be the requirement to provide the MTSS if the screening tool indicated a risk for dyslexia. However, Section 31a (at risk) requires districts to use MTSS already. The structure of MTSS should be in place in the majority of districts; additional costs could arise if additional MTSS were needed beyond the existing structure. Most of the bill's requirements appear to be centered around staff intervention and assistance. The Michigan Dyslexia Institute states there is an estimated 5-17% prevalence for dyslexia among school children. If those figures are applied only to K-3 counts, that would yield 19,000-64,000 children at risk for dyslexia (plus the potential for more students in later grades).
The first tier of MTSS would occur in the general classroom; any additional costs in this tier of supports would be related to providing ongoing professional learning opportunities focused on structured literacy. The second tier of MTSS would occur in the general classroom with smaller groups and could include paraprofessionals or teaching assistants. Districts would have to provide intensive, tier 3 support to students who did not make measurable progress in tier 2, using evidence-based instructional adaptations within an individual reading improvement plan. A requirement to move to tier 3 could result in additional costs; however, if more focus were placed on reading in tiers 1 and 2, there could be lesser need for tier 3 support. Whether a district could use its existing MTSS to meet the bill's requirements, or whether a district would have to expand or adopt MTSS, is unknown, and any fiscal impact would be commensurate with how a district's existing MTSS (or lack thereof) met the requirements.
Districts also would have to employ both classroom and reading-intervention teachers trained in dyslexia and structured literacy programs. If existing teachers met the bill's requirements, no fiscal impact would be incurred. If existing teachers needed additional professional development, costs could be incurred if that professional development were more costly than existing professional development, or if that training were necessary on top of other professional development. New teachers coming into the system would have the necessary background because of the increased hours of literacy training required to be taught by the teacher preparation institution.
Districts would have to ensure that each pupil who is an English language learner be provided with one year of English language development instruction before the pupil was screened as required under the legislation. This requirement would be waived if the screening is recommended by a multidisciplinary team.
There could be long-term savings associated with the bill if it resulted in the earlier identification of more students with dyslexia and if those students were given interventions and supports to learn to read. It is possible that identification for special education programs could be reduced if the interventions resulted in higher reading proficiency.
Senate Bills 382 (S-2) and Senate Bill 383 (S-2) would have a negative fiscal impact on the MDE. Specifically, the MDE would incur costs to develop dyslexia expertise to provide technical assistance. This could be approximately five staff (likely four consultants and one support staff); however, a discussion with MDE on these bills is recommended. Apparently, the MDE already contracts with MiMTSS for literacy expertise; if this expertise satisfied the bill's requirements, the MDE would not need to hire staff directly. The requirement that the Department develop or adopt a model dyslexia professional development course likely would not result in a large fiscal impact. The requirement that MDE develop or adopt, and make available, a dyslexia resource guide could result in some costs related to the support of the advisory committee that would develop this guide (which would be established under Senate Bill 383 (S-2)). Department support for an advisory committee typical costs between $50,000 and $300,000.
Senate Bill 381 (S-2) would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on State government. Teacher preparation institutions that wanted to retain their approved status could incur costs to comply with the bill's requirements. The State Board of Education has approved an increase in credit hours in literacy training; if a university needed to add staff to comply with this increase, it would incur additional costs. If, instead, a university used existing faculty and could connect research to practice for teachers in training, the cost likely would be minimal or nonexistent. Universities are not considered local units of government. Accordingly, potential costs are noted in this analysis, but these would be the responsibility of the teacher preparation universities.
Date Completed: 3-30-22 Fiscal Analyst: Cory Savino
Kathryn Summers
This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.