Louisiana education panel moves to develop dyslexia-specific instructional-materials rubric
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up FreeSummary
The Department of Education’s Division of Diverse Learners proposed a two-phase review that would require materials to meet an existing tier‑1 IMR rubric before advancing to a dyslexia-specific evaluation focused on multisensory design, diagnostic‑prescriptive features, fidelity and training requirements.
The Louisiana Department of Education’s Division of Diverse Learners proposed creating a dyslexia-specific supplemental list and review rubric for K–12 instructional materials, staff said at a Division advisory meeting. Lauren Wells, executive director of the Division of Diverse Learners, told the panel the two‑phase approach will ensure materials first meet the existing tier‑1 IMR baseline before moving to a dyslexia review that stresses multisensory instruction, diagnostic‑prescriptive design and progress monitoring.
Why it matters: The supplemental rubric aims to give districts clearer guidance about what qualifies as a high‑quality intervention for students with dyslexia and related reading difficulties. Wells said the effort is intended to align materials with the literacy vision at the Department and with requirements outlined in Bulletin 1903, the Louisiana handbook for students with dyslexia.
Panelists praised the rubric’s emphasis on teacher‑student interaction but asked for stronger language on language and vocabulary instruction. “I would stress using language, and as the language to use in there because it is a language‑based area to address and not just vocabulary instruction,” a panel member said, calling for explicit wording so the dyslexia criteria do not omit language‑based skills.
Sharon Nikas, who leads the Instructional Materials Review process at the Department, described the existing review tools and how the supplemental rubric would be a second gate: materials must achieve tier‑1 on the current IMR evaluation before a dyslexia‑specific intervention review. “We’re not gonna review anything for dyslexia if it doesn’t meet these requirements,” Nikas said, summarizing the intended vetting sequence.
Next steps and procedural note: Staff asked the panel for a motion to move forward with creating the supplemental list; the transcript records the motion language but does not show a formal roll‑call vote. Department staff said they will develop the dyslexia criteria, share drafts with the literacy commission and consult publishers before the next call for materials to ensure vendors understand the standards.
The advisory panel will continue to provide input as the Department develops the dyslexia rubric and supplemental list; staff emphasized they will return drafts for review and share review tools with publishers in advance of any formal adoption.
