Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dyslexia And Literacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears mixed views on proposed dyslexia resolution; members suggest broadening language beyond a single named method
Summary
Board members and staff discussed a resolution urging legislative support for dyslexia‑focused interventions but raised concerns about naming a single method (Orton‑Gillingham) in law; staff said the district already uses structured‑literacy screening and interventions and suggested broadening the resolution’s language.
A board resolution introduced by a member urged legislative action referencing Orton‑Gillingham‑aligned instruction for students with characteristics of dyslexia. Board discussion focused on whether naming a single method in a resolution or in state law could be limiting or costly, and on whether the district’s current screening and intervention approach already aligns with structured‑literacy practice.
Board member Betsy Henderson (resolution sponsor) said the resolution was parent‑driven and intended to express the board’s priorities to the legislature. Several board members and staff recommended broadening the language to reference “Orton‑based” or “science‑of‑reading” methods rather than naming a single proprietary or trademarked program.
Ms. Jones, a district staff member who works on literacy interventions, described the district’s current practice: universal screening with AIMSweb Plus (K–8), supplemental quick phonics and quick spelling assessments that drill down into skill deficits, targeted interventions, progress monitoring and an Individual Learning Plan (ILPD) process for students with characteristics of dyslexia. She said new screening components were implemented in the prior year and that, since the expanded screening and monitoring, the district had created hundreds of ILPDs across grade bands.
“I mean, we do a universal, reading screener with aimsweb plus for kindergarten through eighth grade,” Jones said. “...we have actually this year in the implementation of that QPA and QSA have actually seen students go into intervention, get the things they need, and be exited out of, which is the intent.”
Board members and local advocates raised procedural and substantive concerns. Some cited an International Dyslexia Association Tennessee chapter statement advising against naming a single method as the sole allowable option; others recommended language that would direct funding or require state‑provided professional development while leaving districts flexibility on curriculum choices.
Board members asked staff whether the state would fund associated training or implementation costs if the legislature mandated a specific program; staff said they would investigate and report back. Several board members suggested amending the resolution to use broader language (for example, “science‑of‑reading methods” or “Orton‑based interventions”) and to clarify funding expectations before the board sends its statement to legislators.
