DYSLEXIA; EDUCATION                                                                          S.B. 380-383:

                                                                                 SUMMARY OF INTRODUCED BILL

                                                                                                         IN COMMITTEE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Bills 380 through 383 (as introduced 4-22-21)

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

 

Date Completed:  6-22-21

 


CONTENT

 

Senate Bill 380 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 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.

 --   Require each pupil enrolled in a district or PSA to be screened for dyslexia as prescribed the bill.

 --   Require a school district, ISD, or PSA to use a reliable and valid universal screening assessment to screen applicable pupils for characteristics of dyslexia.

 --   Require a district, ISD, or PSA to ensure that a pupil who exhibited characteristics of dyslexia was provided a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) and prescribe the requirements for the MTSS.

 --   Prohibit instructional methods and curriculum resources that included instructional 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 district, ISD, or PSA to ensure that the necessary accommodations or requirement was provided to a pupil with characteristics of dyslexia.

 --   Require the board of a district, ISD, or PSA in which a pupil was enrolled to notify that pupil's parent or legal guardian regarding the pupil's performance on the universal screening assessment.

 --   Require the board of a district, ISD, or PSA to ensure that, by no later than the 2023-2024 school year, that it employed both classroom and reading-intervention teachers whose training met certain qualification regarding dyslexia.

 --   Require the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) to provide guidance on the development of coaching 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 no later than January 1, 2023, 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, by no later than the 2023-2024 school year, to ensure that 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 its approval of valid and reliable screening, formative, and diagnostic reading assessment systems for selection and se by districts and PSAs.

 --   Require each district and PSA, but no later than 180 days after the MDE updated its assessment systems selection, to update its selection of a reading assessment system.

 

Senate Bill 381 would amend the Revised School Code to prohibit the Superintendent of Public Education (SPI) from approving a teacher preparation institution unless the institution offered instruction regarding dyslexia to individuals who were enrolled in that institution in a K to 6 program.

 

Senate Bill 832 would amend the Revised School Code to do the following:

 

 --   Require the SPI, beginning July 1, 2024, to only issue a teaching certificate to an individual who met the reading credit requirements, including coverage regarding dyslexia.

 --   Require the reading credit requirements to include information and training regarding dyslexia.

 --   Prohibit the SPI, beginning July 1, 2024, from advancing an individual's certification to professional certification unless that individual had successfully completed at least a three-credit course of study or professional learning hours that included or covered elements related to dyslexia.

 --   Allow the SPI, beginning July 1, 2024, to only issue an initial standard elementary level teaching certificate to an individual who had earned at least 12 early elementary credits and at least nine later elementary credits in teaching and reading.

 --   Specify what elements early and later elementary credits would have to include instruction in.

 --   Require the SPI to issue to an individual who held a teaching certificate from another state a Michigan teaching certification if that individual met the amended reading requirement specified under the bill.

 --   Require the teacher examination advisory committee to include at least one representative of an education organization or association in Michigan that had expertise in dyslexia and evidence-based reading instruction based on cognitive science.

 

Senate Bill 383 would amend the Revised School Code to require the SPI to appoint seven 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.

 

The bills are tie-barred.

 

 

Senate Bill 380

 

Definitions

 

"Dyslexia" would mean both of the following:

 

 --    A specific learning disorder that is neurobiological in origin and characterized by difficulties with accurate or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities that 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.

 --    A specific learning disorder that may include secondary consequences, such as problems in reading comprehension and a reduced reading experience that can impede the growth of vocabulary and background knowledge and lead to social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties.

 

"Decodable text" would mean text that meets both a) includes a high proportion of words containing sound-symbol associations and high frequency words that have been explicitly taught; and b) allows pupils to depend on their knowledge of the alphabetic code rather than guessing, using picture clues, or rote memorization. "Explicit" would mean direct and deliberate instruction through continuous pupil-teacher interaction that includes teacher modeling, guided practice, and independent practice.

 

"Evidence-based" would mean an activity, program, process, service, strategy, or intervention that demonstrates statistically significant effects on improving pupil outcomes or other relevant outcomes and that meets at least both of the following:

 

 --    At least one of the following: a) Is based on strong evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study, b)  Is based on moderate evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study, c) is based on promising evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias, d) demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality research findings or positive evaluation that the activity, program, process, service, strategy, or intervention is likely to improve pupil outcomes or other relevant outcomes.

 --    Includes ongoing efforts to examine the effects of the activity, program, process, service, strategy, or intervention.

 

"Code emphasis" would mean direct, explicit instruction on the code system of written English at the sound, syllable, morpheme, and word level so pupils develop automaticity in accurate sound-symbol associations used for word recognition and for developing a robust sight-word vocabulary.

 

"Cognitive science" would mean the study of the human mind. It is an interdisciplinary field combining ideas and methods from psychology, computer science, linguistics, philosophy, and neuroscience with the goal of characterizing the nature of human knowledge and how that knowledge is used, processed, and acquired.

 

"Leveled text" would mean text that has characteristics of predictable text and text focused on teaching high-frequency words without regard to sound-symbol associations. Leveled texts are assigned a level based on a difficulty scale according to print features, content, themes, ideas, text structure, language, and literary elements. Leveled texts do not provide pupils opportunities to apply newly learned phonological and orthographic knowledge. "Predictable text" means text that replicates language patterns using rhythm and rhyme to teach pupils phrasing and cadence.

 

"Reliable" would mean means something that is based on the consistency of a set of scores that are designed to measure the same thing.

 

"Reliable and valid universal screening assessment" would mean means an assessment that includes brief measures designed to identify underlying difficulties impacting a pupil's ability to learn to decode and to recognize words accurately and efficiently and that aligns with assessment guidelines concerning grade levels in which, and times of the school year when, specific universal screening assessment measures must be administered. The range of the assessment described in this subdivision must be equipped to identify difficulties impacting a pupil's ability to learn to decode and recognize words and, at a minimum, must include the following in alignment with the guidelines described in this bill:

 

 --    Phonemic awareness.

 --    Rapid automatized naming.

 --    Letter-sound correspondence.

 --    Single-word reading.

 --    Nonsense-word reading.

 --    Oral passage reading fluency.

 

"Valid" would mean a degree to which a method assesses what it claims or intends to assess. "Phonemic awareness" would mean the conscious awareness of all the following:

 

 --    Individual speech sounds, including consonants and vowels, in spoken syllables.

 --    The ability to consciously manipulate through, including, but not limited to, matching, blending, segmenting, deleting, or substituting, individual speech sounds.

 --    All levels of the speech sound system, including, but not limited to, word boundaries, rhyme recognition, stress patterns, syllables, onset-rime units, and phonemes.

 

"Cumulative" would mean practice of basing new concepts on those previously learned and maximizing retention of concepts through regular, systematic review to gain automaticity and fluency. "Systematic" would mean following the logical order of language and moving from the most basic concepts to the more advanced

 

"Diagnostic instruction" would mean continuous assessment and individualization of instruction to meet each pupil's instructional needs.

 

"Structured language and literacy" would mean systematic, direct, explicit, cumulative, and diagnostic instruction that integrates listening, speaking, reading, and writing and emphasizes the structure of language across the speech sound system (phonology); the writing system (orthography); the structure of sentences (syntax); the meaningful parts of words (morphology); the meaning of words, phrases, sentences, and text (semantics); and the processing of oral and written discourse.

 

Dyslexia Screening; Pupils

 

The bill would require the board of a district, ISD, or PSA to ensure that all of the following pupils were screened, with fidelity, for characteristics of dyslexia and difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently using a reliable and valid universal screening assessment:  

 

 --    Each pupil during kindergarten and grades 1 through 3.

 --    Each pupil who was in kindergarten or grades 1 through 3 who had transferred to the district or PSA from another district or PSA in Michigan and who had not been screened for dyslexia using a reliable and valid universal screening assessment.

 

Additionally, each pupil who was in any grades 4 to 8 who, as determined by that pupil's teacher, educational-support staff, or the pupil's parent or legal guardian, showed any of the following would have to be screened:

 

 --    Escape or avoidance behaviors when asked to engage in reading or writing activities.

 --    Effortful or laborious reading.

 --    Reading-comprehension difficulties caused by inaccurate or inefficient word reading.

 --    Significant spelling or encoding difficulties not caused by fine-motor or visual-motor difficulties.

 

Under the bill, each pupil who was in kindergarten or grades 1 to 3 who had transferred to the district or PSA from a school outside of Michigan would have to be screened unless he or she presented written documentation to the district, ISD, or PSA showing that the pupil was subject to a reliable and valid universal screening assessment, or was exempt from screening under the bill, as determined by MDE.

 

Pupils in kindergarten and grade 1 to 3, including those who transferred to a district or PSA from another district or PSA within or outside of Michigan, would have to be screened at least three times during the school year.

 

For a pupil enrolled in grades 9 through 12 who exhibited any of the following, the board of the district or PSA in which the pupil was enrolled would have to ensure that the pupil was screened for characteristics of dyslexia using an applicable screening assessment:

 

 --    Low performance on school-district-, ISD-, or PSA-approved English language arts standards.

 --    Low performance on school-district-, ISD-, or PSA-approved standardized assessments.

 --    Escape or avoidance behaviors when asked to engage in reading or writing activities.

 --    Effortful or laborious reading.

 --    Reading-comprehension difficulties caused by inaccurate or inefficient word reading.

 --    Significant spelling or encoding difficulties not caused by fine-motor or visual-motor difficulties.

 

"Standardized assessment" would mean an assessment that is administered and scored in a consistent or standard manner.

 

For a pupil enrolled in grades 9 through 12 as described above, the district or PSA in which he or she was enrolled would have to ensure that additional assessment data pertaining to the pupil were gathered, as available, and would have to determine whether the pupil had difficulty with word reading in making a decision concerning intervention placement for the pupil, as needed.

 

Multi-Tiered System of Support

 

If a reliable and valid universal screening assessment indicated that a pupil was exhibiting characteristics of dyslexia or was experiencing difficulty in learning to decode accurately and efficiently, the district or PSA in which that pupil was enrolled would have to ensure that an MTSS was provided to the pupil. "Multi-tiered system of support" would mean a comprehensive framework that includes three distinct tiers of instructional support and is composed of a collection of evidence-based strategies designed to meet the individual needs and assets of a whole pupil at all achievement levels.

 

The MTSS would have to meet all the following:

 

 --    Be a comprehensive framework composed of a collection of evidence-based strategies designed to meet the individual needs and assets of the whole pupil at all achievement levels.

 --    Include three distinct tiers of instructional support.

 

Tier 1 support would have to meet, at a minimum, all the following:

 

 --    Encompass a combination of evidence-based strategies that were available to all learners.

 --    Effectively meet the needs of most pupils.

 --    The instructional methods and curriculum resources under tier 1 that were used to address the decoding and word-recognition components of reading would have to use code emphasis instructional approach and would have to be supported by cognitive science; the instructional methods and curriculum resources could not include instructional methods that minimized the importance of letter-sound information to decode or recognize unknown words.

 

Tier 2 support would have to be provided to small groups of pupils to whom at least one of the following applied:

 

 --    Screening-assessment data indicated a need for intervention to address difficulties in learning to decode and recognize words accurately and efficiently.

 --    Tier 1 instructional dated indicated a need for intervention to address difficulties in learning to decode and recognize words.

 

Tier 2 support would have to include instructional methods and curriculum resources that used a code emphasis approach to address the decoding and word-recognition components of reading and that were supported by cognitive science. These would have to include specialized instructional procedures, duration, and frequency; however, these methods and resources could not include instructional methods that minimized the importance of primarily using letter-sound information to decode or recognize unknown words.

 

Pupils who received tier 2 support would have to be provided reading intervention and would have to have their progress monitored by individuals providing the intervention instruction using progress monitoring assessments in order to determine their response to intervention instruction. If pupils who had received tier 2 support were not making measurable progress in response to reading intervention at a rate that would result in meaningful improvements in performance, then intensive, tier 3 support would have to be provided to that pupil using evidence-based instructional adaptation that would have to be documented in the pupil's individual reading improvement plan, if applicable, or, if the pupil had not been provided with  a plan, the pupil's individual reading improvement plan developed as specified below.

 

Beginning on the bill's effective date, the MTSS would have to provide that, if a pupil had an individual reading improvement plan and his or her plan did not include at least all of the following, the district or PSA in which he or she was enrolled would have to ensure that the pupil's plan was updated to include at least all of the following elements:

 

 --    A description of the focus of the intervention that would be provided.

 --    An outline of the curriculum resources and evidence-based practices that would be used as part of the intervention.

 --    A summary describing why the intervention resources and evidence-based practices selected for intervention were best suited to address the pupil's needs.

 --    Information concerning the frequency and duration of the intervention that would be provided.

 --    A description of the assessment data that would be used to determine pupil progress and adaption to the intervention instruction.

 --    Information concerning adjustments that could be made to intensify the intervention instruction.

 --    Assurance that the intervention would be implemented with fidelity.

 

Also, beginning on the bill's effective date, the MTSS would have to provide that if an applicable pupil did not have an individualized reading improvement plan, a multi-disciplinary team at the district or PSA in which that pupil was enrolled would develop a plan that included the elements specified under the bill.

 

The MTSS would have to provide that a multi-disciplinary team at the district or PSA in which an applicable pupil was enrolled would have to refine the pupil's individualized reading improvement plan with the teacher who provided the intervention instruction to meaningfully accelerate reading outcomes.

 

The MTSS also would have to provide that, if a pupil's response to the intervention were insufficient for accelerating reading outcomes after repeated attempts to adapt and intensify the instruction, then, subject to State and Federal laws concerning special education, the district, ISD, or PSA, would have to consider referring the pupil for a comprehensive evaluation to determine whether or not the pupil was eligible for special education services.

 

Evidence-Based Intervention Services

 

If a reliable and valid universal screening assessment indicated the need for intervention, the district or PSA in which the pupil was enrolled would have to provide the pupil with evidence-based intervention services that would have to be grounded in cognitive science and the principles of structured language and literacy approaches or program that would have to include systematic, direct, explicit, cumulative, and diagnostic instruction that integrated listening, speaking, reading, and writing and emphasized the structure of language across the speech sound system (phonology); the writing system (orthography); the structure of sentences (syntax); the meaningful parts of words (morphology); the meaning of words, phrases, sentences, and text (semantics); and the processing of oral and written discourse.

 

If it were determined that a pupil had functional difficulties in the academic environment due to characteristics of dyslexia or underlying factors that placed pupils at risk for difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently, the board of a district or PSA in which the pupil was enrolled would have to ensure that the necessary accommodations or equipment were provided to the pupil as required under Federal law.

 

Notification

 

If a pupil's performance on a reliable and valid universal screening assessment indicated a need for intervention services, within 10 days after the administration of the screening assessment, the board of the district or PSA in which the pupil was enrolled would have to ensure that the pupil's parent or legal guardian was sent a written notification that included all of the following:

 

 --    Information from the screening assessment related to the pupil's reading development with specific information about indicators that suggested, as applicable, that the pupil struggled with decoding and word recognition.

 --    Evidence-based instructional practices that were grounded in cogitative science and the principles of structure language and literacy that were designed for pupils exhibiting the characters of dyslexia.

 --    Educational accommodations for pupils who exhibited the characteristics of dyslexia or difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently.

 --    Information that described the MTSS framework.

 

If the parent or guardian of a pupil had an independent, comprehensive dyslexia evaluation conducted, the board of the district or PSA in which the pupil was enrolled would have to do both of the following:

 

 --    Consider the diagnosis included in the evaluation in consultation with individual who have experience in dyslexia, which included knowledge in the screening of, identification of, treatment for, and accommodations for pupil who displayed the characteristics of dyslexia and pupil who had been identified as having dyslexia and who were trained in evidence-based, structured language and literacy approaches or programed that would have to include, at a minimum, systematic, direct, explicit, cumulative, and diagnostic instruction that integrated listening, speaking, reading, and writing and that emphasized phonology, orthography, syntax, morphology, semantics, and the processing of oral and written discourse.

 --    Ensure that appropriate interventions, as determined by the board of directors, in conjunction with individual within the school district  or PSA who were trained in the characteristics of dyslexia and difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently and who had expertise in providing structured language and literacy intervention, were provided to the pupil.

 

Department Guidance & Teacher Training

 

Beginning no later than the 2023-2024 school year, the MDE would have to develop dyslexia expertise to provide technical assistance to districts and PSAs regarding dyslexia and underlying factors that placed pupils at risk for difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently. The MDE would have to offer expertise by providing guidance on at least all the following:

 

 --    Screening for, the identification of, and treatment of pupils who were at risk for dyslexia and pupil who displayed difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently.

 --    Structured language and literacy.

 --    Best-practices interventions for pupils who exhibited the characteristics of dyslexia or pupil who had difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently that included instructional methods and curriculum resources that used a code emphasis approach to address the decoding and word-recognition complements of reading and that were supported by cognitive science; the instructional methods and curriculum resources could not include instructional methods that minimized the importance of primarily using letter-sound information to decode or recognize unknown words.

 --    Professional learning about dyslexia to districts, ISDs, and PSAs.

 

The MDE also would have to provide guidance on the development of coaching expertise for individuals responsible for supporting, at a minimum, all the following:

 

 --    Methods to develop schoolwide and classroom infrastructures to meet the collective and individual needs for pupils that used a MTSS framework.

 --    High-quality administration, scoring, and interpretation of screening assessment.

 --    The use of best-practices interventions for pupils who displayed the characteristics of dyslexia.

 --    Methods to intensify decoding and word recognition intervention instruction.

 

Beginning no later than the 2023-2024 school year, the board of a district or ISD or the board of directors of a PSA would have to ensure that it employed both classroom and reading-intervention teachers trained in all the following:

 

 --    Evidence-based, structured language and literacy approaches or programs that were grounded in cognitive science that included systematic, direct, explicit, cumulative, and diagnostic instruction that integrated listening, speaking, reading and writing, and emphasized the structure of language across, phonology, orthography, syntax, morphology, semantics, and the processing of oral and written discourse.

 --    The characteristics of dyslexia and underlying factors that placed pupils at risk for difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently.

 --    Secondary consequences of dyslexia, such as problems in reading comprehension and a reduced reading experience that could impede the growth of vocabulary and background knowledge and lead to social, emotional, and behavior difficulties.

 --    Accommodations for pupils with dyslexia and accommodation for addressing underlying factors that placed pupils at risk for difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently.

 

By no later than January 1, 2023, to support the implementation of the bill, the MDE, in conjunction with the advisory committee would have to develop or adopt and make available to the public a dyslexia resource guide based on current research to be used by school districts, ISDs, and PSAs and that would have to include information regarding the education of pupils with dyslexia.

 

Beginning no later than the 2023-2024 school year, the MDE, in consultation with districts, ISDs, and PSAs, would have to ensure that each K to 6 certificated teacher, K to 12 certificated special education teacher, speech-language pathologist, school psychologist, school district principal and administrator responsible for curriculum, instruction, and assessment decisions, and all K to 12 school personnel who provided reading intervention to pupil in Michigan received professional learning regarding all the following:

 

 --    The characteristics of dyslexia and underlying factors that placed pupils at risk for difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently.

 --    Secondary consequences of dyslexia, such as problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that could impede the growth of vocabulary and background knowledge and lead to social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties.

 --    Evidence-based instructional practices that were grounded in cognitive science and the principals of structured language and literacy that were designed for pupils with dyslexia and pupil at risk for difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently.

 --    Accommodations for pupils with dyslexia and accommodations to address the underlying factors that placed pupils at risk for difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently.

 --    Methods to develop schoolwide and classroom infrastructure to meet the collective and individuals needs of pupils using a MTSS framework.

 

Beginning no later than the 2023-2024 school year, the MDE, in consultation with districts, ISDs, and PSAs, would have to ensure that each certificated teacher in Michigan received the professional learning described above, unless that teacher had already received it.

 

If a valid and reliable screening, formative, and diagnostic reading assessment system selected by the board of a district or PSA included a reliable and valid universal screening assessment, that assessment system could be used to meet the bill's requirements.

 

Beginning on the bill's effective date, the MDE would have to update its approval of valid and reliable screening, formative, and diagnostic reading assessment systems for selection and use by districts and PSAs to ensure that all approved assessment systems for selection used by districts and PSAs, if they did not already, included a reliable and valid universal screening assessment. Within 180 days after doing so, each district and PSA would have to update its selection of a reading assessment system to ensure that the selected system included a reliable and valid universal screening assessment, it if did not do so already.

 

Senate Bill 381

 

The bill would amend the Revised School Code to prohibit the SPI from approving a teacher preparation institution as provided under the Code and the Michigan Administrative Code unless the institution offered instruction regarding all the following to individuals who were enrolled in the institution in a K to 6 program:

 

 --    The characteristics of dyslexia and underlying factors that placed pupils at risk for difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently.

 --    The secondary consequences of dyslexia, such as problems in reading comprehension and a reduced reading experience that could impede the growth of vocabulary and background knowledge and that could lead to social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties.

 --    Evidence-based intervention that were grounded in the principles of structured language and literacy and cognitive science for pupils with dyslexia and pupils at risk for difficulties in learning and decode accurately and efficiently.

 --    Accommodations for pupils with dyslexia and accommodation for addressing underlying factors that placed pupils at risk for difficulties and learning to decode accurately and efficiently.

 --    Methods for developing schoolwide and classroom infrastructure that met the collective individual needs of pupils using an MTSS framework.

 

"Cognitive science", "dyslexia", "evidence-based", "multi-tiered system of support (MTSS)", and "structured language and literacy" would mean those terms as defined under Senate Bill 380.

 

Senate Bill 382

 

Generally, under the Revised School Code, the SPI must determine the requirements for all licenses and certificates for teachers in Michigan. The SPI may issue a teaching certificate only to individuals who, among other things, has met all the elementary or secondary, as applicable, reading credit requirements established under SPI rule. Under the bill, this provision would apply only until June 30, 2024. Beginning July 1, 2024, the SPI could issue a teaching certificate only to an individual who met the reading credit requirements established under SPI rule that would have to include, except as otherwise provided, coverage of, at a minimum, all the following:

 

 --    The characteristics of dyslexia and underlying factors that placed pupils at risk for difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently.

 --    Secondary consequences of dyslexia, such as problems in reading comprehension and a reduced reading experience that can impede the growth of vocabulary and background knowledge and lead to social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties.

 --    Evidence-based interventions that were grounded in principles of structured language and literacy and cognitive science and that are designed for pupils with dyslexia and pupils at risk for difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently; this would not apply to the award of a secondary level teaching certificate.

 --    Accommodations for pupils with dyslexia and accommodations to address the underlying factors that place pupils at risk for difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently.

 --    Methods to develop schoolwide and classroom infrastructures to meet the collective and individual needs of pupils using an MTSS framework.

 

If an individual holds a teaching certificate, the SPI may not advance his or her certification to professional certification unless the individual has successfully completed at least a three-credit course of study with appropriate field experiences in the diagnosis and remediation of reading disabilities and differentiated instruction. To meet this requirement, the course of study should include certain elements, as determined by the MDE to be appropriate for the individual's certification level and endorsements. An individual may complete the course of study either as part of his or her teacher preparation program or during the first six years of his or her employment in classroom teaching. Under the bill, this provision would apply until June 30, 2024.

 

Except as otherwise provided, if an individual held a teaching certificate, beginning July 1, 2024, notwithstanding any rule to the contrary, the SPI could not advance the individual's certification to professional certification unless the individual had successfully completed at least a three-credit course of study or professional learning hours. To meet this requirement, the course of study or professional learning hours would have to include or cover the following elements, as determined by the MDE to be appropriate for an individual's certification level and endorsements:

 

 --    Appropriate field experiences in the remediation of reading disabilities and differentiated instruction; this provision would not apply to an individual who held a secondary level teaching certificate.

 --    The characteristics of dyslexia and underlying factors that placed pupils at risk for difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently.

 --    Secondary consequences of dyslexia, such as problems in reading comprehension and a reduced reading experience that could impede the growth of vocabulary and background knowledge and lead to social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties.

 --    Evidence-based interventions that were grounded in principles of structured language and literacy and cognitive science and that were designed for pupils with dyslexia and pupils at risk for difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently; this provision would not apply to an individual who held a secondary level teaching certificate.

 --    Accommodations for pupils with dyslexia and accommodations to address the underlying factors that placed pupils at risk for difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently.

 --    Methods to develop schoolwide and classroom infrastructures to meet the collective and individual needs of pupils using an MTSS framework.

 

Beginning July 1, 2024, the SPI could issue an initial standard elementary level teaching certificate only to an individual who had earned at least 12 early elementary credits and at least nine later elementary credits in the teaching of reading. These credits would have to include instruction in at least all the following:

 

 --    The interrelationship between oral and written language.

 --    Research on literacy development in young children, including typical paths and individual differences in and across specific areas.

 --    Knowledge of phonological awareness and phonemic awareness.

 --    The importance of using complex text and higher-level questioning throughout the school day.

 --    How to develop a pupil's academic vocabulary across content areas.

 --    How to assess reading development through the administration and analysis of formal and informal measures to make data-driven instructional decisions.

 --    The characteristics of dyslexia and the underlying factors that placed pupils at risk for difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently.

 --    Evidence-based interventions that were grounded in the principles of structured language and literacy and cognitive science and that were designed for pupils with dyslexia and pupils who were at risk for difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently.

 --    Accommodations for pupils with dyslexia and accommodations for addressing the underlying factors that place pupils at risk for difficulties in learning to decode accurately and efficiently.

 --    Secondary consequences of dyslexia, such as problems in reading comprehension and a reduced reading experience that can impede the growth of vocabulary and background knowledge and lead to social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties.

 --    How to teach handwriting skills using research-aligned practices.

 --    How to use an MTSS framework to appropriately prevent and remediate literacy-related difficulties and how to seek support from a specialist when appropriate.

 --    How to select reading materials appropriate for fostering each pupil's reading development, including providing complex texts.

 

If an individual holding a teaching certificate from another state applied to the SPI for a Michigan teaching certification and meets the requirements, the SPI must issue to the individual a Michigan professional education teaching certificate and applicable endorsements comparable to those the individuals holds in the other state, without requiring the individual to pass the applicable subject area examination otherwise required under the Code. Among other requirements, to be eligible to receive a Michigan professional education teaching certificate, an individual must provide evidence satisfactory to the MDE that he or she meets certain requirements. One of those requirements is the reading credit requirement established by the SPI. Under the bill, the individual would have to meet the reading requirements described above.

 

Under the Code, the SPI must appoint an 11-member teacher examination advisory committee composed of representatives of approved teacher education institutions and Michigan education organizations and associations. Under the bill, the committee also would have to be composed of at least one representative of an education organization or association in Michigan that had expertise in dyslexia and evidence-based reading instruction based on cognitive science.

 

"Cognitive science", "dyslexia", "evidence-based", MTSS", "phonemic awareness", and "structured language and literacy" would mean those terms as defined under Senate Bill 380.

 

"Elementary certification examination" means a comprehensive examination for elementary certification that has been developed or selected by the SPI for demonstrating the applicant's knowledge and understanding of the core subjects normally taught in elementary classrooms and for determining whether or not an applicant is eligible for an elementary level teaching certificate. Under the bill, the term would mean a comprehensive examination for elementary certification that has been developed or selected by the SPI for demonstrating the applicant's knowledge and understanding of the core subjects normally taught in elementary classrooms and evidence-based instruction that is grounded in the principals of structured language and literacy and cognitive science and for determine whether or not an applicant is eligible for an elementary level teaching certificate.

Senate Bill 383

 

The bill would amend the Code to require the SPI to appoint seven members to an advisory committee within the MDE that would have to aid the MDE in developing or adopting and updating the resource guide referenced under Senate Bill 380. The advisory committee would have to consist of the following seven members:

 

 --    One member with experience working in the field of dyslexia intervention, as determined by the SPI, who was employed by the MDE or an entity that represented the interest of school board members or public administrators.

 --    One member from an institution of higher education with expertise in dyslexia screening and intervention and who was conversant in current research related to dyslexia, as determined by the SPI.

 --    Two members who were or had been employed by a school district, ISD, or PSA and who had expertise in dyslexia screening and interventions, as determined by the SPI.

 --    One member who was an individual with a dyslexia diagnosis or was the parent or guardian of an individual with a dyslexia diagnosis.

 --    One member who was a speech-language pathologist with expertise in the characteristics of dyslexia and structured language and literacy.

 --    One member who was selected from a list of two or more nominees submitted by an individual who represented the interests of the Michigan Association of School Psychologist and who had expertise in the characteristics of dyslexia and structured language and literacy.

 

"Dyslexia" and "structured language and literacy" would mean those terms as defined under Senate Bill 380.

 

Proposed MCL 380.1280i (S.B. 380)                                     Legislative Analyst:  Dana Adams

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

 

The bill would require screening of all pupils in grades K-3, plus select pupils in higher grades if they demonstrated certain behaviors. 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.

 

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 Bill 380 & Senate Bill 383

 

The MDE would incur costs to develop dyslexia expertise to provide technical assistance. This could 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). Department support for an advisory committee typical costs between $50,000 and $300,000.

 

Senate Bill 381

 

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.

 

 

 

 


Senate Bill 382

 

The MDE would incur costs to update teaching certification requirements to include at additional credits on the teaching of reading and reading for pupils with dyslexia and at risk of difficulties in learning. The costs would include guideline updates and information technology costs for the Michigan Online Educator Certification System. The costs likely would be within current appropriations since the Department would have three years to update certification requirements, which would spread the costs over multiple years.

 

If the bill's requirements resulted in the certification of fewer new teachers, or fewer existing teachers advanced to the next level of certification, then there could be additional costs to the State and to districts related to teacher shortages. However, it is unknown if shortages would result from the bill's enactment or, instead, if new and existing teachers would comply with the additional requirements and certifications would remain at the rate expected had the requirements not been imposed.

 

                                                                                         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.