Decoding Dyslexia VA

Home » 2019

Yearly Archives: 2019

Virginia Dyslexia Advisors in Every District

DDVA SB1516 Dyslexia Advisor 2019

Visit us at https://www.decodingdyslexiavirginia.org

TO DO FOR YOU!

Does your Virginia public school district have a Dyslexia Advisor?

Help us encourage every district to hire a Dyslexia Advisor during the month of October 2019 in celebration of October being Dyslexia Awareness Month!

Check the link to confirm for your district!

(Districts self report names and contact information for their dyslexia advisors. If a name is missing, it does not mean that they don’t have an advisor.  Use the tabs on the bottom of the spreadsheet to find your region and district.)

IF YES, send an email to them in October to say thanks for taking on this role in your district. Make a connection and see how you can help them support your student and their peers.

If NO, send an email to your school board representatives and ask them if they have hired a dyslexia advisor for your district. SB1516 went into effect on July 1, 2017.

SB1516 information on VDOE website

SB1516 information from VA General Assembly

LET US KNOW IF YOUR DYSLEXIA ADVISOR HAS CHANGED OR YOU HAVE A NEW HIRE TO REPORT BY EMAILING US!  

decodingdyslexiava@gmail.com

11 ADVOCACY GROUPS RELEASE JOINT PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE EVALUATION OF STUDENTS SUSPECTED OF HAVING SPECIFIC

In collaboration with 10 partners, Decoding Dyslexia announces the release of eight principles that lay the groundwork for future best practice documents that focus specifically on SLD (dyslexia, dysgraphia and dyscalculia). The Principles are formally called: Eligibility for Special Education Under a Specific Learning Disability Classification.
The principles cover topics such as instruction and intervention, collaboration among team members, parent and family engagement, the use of screening, response to intervention, data based decision making and other important factors involved in pre-referral prevention and referral/evaluation and eligibility decisions for special education services for SLDs like dyslexia.

Click here to read “Eligibility for Special Education Under a Specific Learning Disability Classification.”
It is important to note that this is a consensus document. The Principles are not 100% aligned to DDVA’s views on usage of terms, the specific value of cognitive evaluations, and robust parent engagement. DD partners will carefully attend to the work being done and in guidance and advocacy to continue to inform and advocate.
However, the benefits of participating in the working group afford dyslexia advocates the opportunity to develop best practice documents as well as work alongside national groups who, until recently, did not “say dyslexia”. Working group members hope to continue to build relationships and understanding around the needs of the dyslexia community.
The next steps include development and release of several Best Practice documents. In the coming months, these organizations will recommend specific best practices for eligibility processes, cognitive evaluations, response to intervention/MTSS (done well and including dyslexia), parent engagement & a dyslexia guidance.
Future additions will be found here: www.ncld.org/SLDeligibility.
General advocacy information for learning disability can be found here: https://www.ncld.org/action-center
Thanks to Decoding Dyslexia Maryland who originally published this article in their email Newsletter.

First Step Act of 2018, S. 756: Enacted, Dec. 21, 2018

Link to Congressional site.

On December 21, the U.S. Congress passed and the President signed a bill that includes dyslexia screening and interventions for all federal and state incarcerated inmates.

Dyslexia is a leading cause of illiteracy, so to address illiteracy and incarceration, we must better address dyslexia.” Senator Bill Cassidy.
A study found that 80 percent of prison inmates at the state prison in Huntsville, Texas, were functionally illiterate and 48 percent were dyslexic.

_____________________________________________

Section language from Title I, Subchapter D that include dyslexia are listed below:

TITLE I—RECIDIVISM REDUCTION

SEC. 101. RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT SYSTEM.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 229 of title 18, United States Code,

is amended by inserting after subchapter C the following:

‘‘SUBCHAPTER D—RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

‘‘Sec.

‘‘3631. Duties of the Attorney General.

‘‘3632. Development of risk and needs assessment system.

‘‘3633. Evidence-based recidivism reduction program and recommendations.

‘‘3634. Report.

‘‘3635. Definitions.

Title I: Section 3631: Duties of Attorney General

‘‘(B) to address the specific criminogenic needs of the

prisoner; and

‘‘(C) all prisoners are able to successfully participate

in such programs;

‘‘(6) determine when to provide incentives and rewards

for successful participation in evidence-based recidivism reduction

programs or productive activities in accordance with subsection

(e);

‘‘(7) determine when a prisoner is ready to transfer into

prerelease custody or supervised release in accordance with

section 3624; and

‘(8) determine the appropriate use of audio technology

for program course materials with an understanding of dyslexia.

In carrying out this subsection, the Attorney General may use

existing risk and needs assessment tools, as appropriate.

Title I: Section 3632: Development of Risk and Needs Assessment System

‘‘(h) DYSLEXIA SCREENING .—

‘‘(1) SCREENING .—The Attorney General shall incorporate

a dyslexia screening program into the System, including by

screening for dyslexia during—

‘‘(A) the intake process; and

‘‘(B) each periodic risk reassessment of a prisoner.

(2) TREATMENT .—The Attorney General shall incorporate

programs designed to treat dyslexia into the evidence-based

recidivism reduction programs or productive activities required

to be implemented under this section. The Attorney General

may also incorporate programs designed to treat other learning

disabilities.

Title I: Section 3633: Evidence Based Recidivism Reduction Program and Recommendations

‘‘(C) the addition of any new effective evidence-based

recidivism reduction programs that the Attorney General

finds.

‘‘(b) REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DYSLEXIA

MITIGATION .—In carrying out subsection (a), the Attorney General

shall consider the prevalence and mitigation of dyslexia in prisons,

including by—

‘‘(1) reviewing statistics on the prevalence of dyslexia, and

the effectiveness of any programs implemented to mitigate the

effects of dyslexia, in prisons operated by the Bureau of Prisons

and State-operated prisons throughout the United States; and

‘‘(2) incorporating the findings of the Attorney General

under paragraph (1) of this subsection into any directives given

to the Bureau of Prisons under paragraph (5) of subsection

(a).

Title I: Section 3634: Report

‘‘(iii) promote crime reduction programs using evidence-

based practices and strategic planning to help

reduce crime and criminal recidivism.

‘‘(8) Statistics on—

‘‘(A) the prevalence of dyslexia among prisoners in

prisons operated by the Bureau of Prisons; and

‘‘(B) any change in the effectiveness of dyslexia mitigation

programs among such prisoners that may be attributed

to the incorporation of dyslexia screening into the System

and of dyslexia treatment into the evidence-based recidivism

reduction programs, as required under this chapter.

Title I: ‘‘§ 3635. Definitions

‘‘In this subchapter the following definitions apply:

(1) DYSLEXIA .—The term ‘dyslexia’ means an unexpected

difficulty in reading for an individual who has the intelligence

to be a much better reader, most commonly caused by a difficulty

in the phonological processing (the appreciation of the

individual sounds of spoken language), which affects the ability

of an individual to speak, read, and spell.

‘‘(2) DYSLEXIA SCREENING PROGRAM .—The term ‘dyslexia

screening program’ means a screening program for dyslexia

that is—

‘‘(A) evidence-based (as defined in section 8101(21) of

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20

U.S.C. 7801(21))) with proven psychometrics for validity;

‘‘(B) efficient and low-cost; and

‘‘(C) readily available.

%d bloggers like this: