Bill Overview
Title: 21st Century Dyslexia Act
Description: This bill addresses the education of children with disabilities, with a particular focus on children with dyslexia. Currently, dyslexia is listed as one of the disabilities under the definition of specific learning disability in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This bill instead removes dyslexia from the definition of specific learning disability and establishes a stand-alone definition for dyslexia within IDEA. Specifically, the bill defines dyslexia for purposes of IDEA as 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. Additionally, the bill requires a local educational agency or other agency, in determining eligibility for or providing an accommodation or service under IDEA, to provide equal access to (1) children from low-income families or from families with low socioeconomic status, and (2) other children.
Sponsors: Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4]
Target Audience
Population: People with dyslexia worldwide
Estimated Size: 30000000
- Dyslexia is a common learning disability that affects approximately 5-10% of the global population.
- By reshaping the definition of dyslexia under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), this bill will specifically address educational services offered to individuals identified with dyslexia.
- The bill also mandates equitable access to accommodations or services provided under IDEA for children from low-income families, which implies that socioeconomic factors could affect access to these services.
- By removing dyslexia as a subtype under 'specific learning disabilities' and creating a standalone category, there could be a broadening of services specifically tailored to students with dyslexia.
- This specialized distinction may lead to increased resource allocation, specific instructional approaches, and targeted interventions for individuals with dyslexia.
Reasoning
- Dyslexia is a common learning disability affecting about 5-10% of the population, translating to roughly 30 million people in the US, though not all will need special educational services under IDEA.
- The focus of the policy is to specifically cater educational services to students with dyslexia, possibly improving outcomes through better-tailored resources.
- The policy budget constraints imply that while the services will be more specifically focused, there might not be enough funding to support all potentially benefitting students at an ideal level.
- Children from low-income families or with low socioeconomic status may particularly benefit due to the equitable access requirement, addressing disparities in current service provision.
- Many families may not see immediate improvements in wellbeing, as changes in educational policy can take time to manifest significant results in terms of educational achievements or emotional wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Austin, Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a teacher, I see many kids struggling with dyslexia who don't get enough help.
- This policy could make a real difference if implemented well, especially for kids in low-income areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
School Administrator (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The standalone category can focus funds and efforts more efficiently.
- Concerns about the adequacy of the budget to cater to our district needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Student (New York City, New York)
Age: 15 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's hard to keep up with schoolwork.
- Hoping this policy will get more tailored help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Software Developer (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could lead to more awareness and better tools for young kids, which I lacked growing up.
- Skeptical about whether funding will reach all students who need it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
School Psychologist (San Francisco, California)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Redefining dyslexia in IDEA might lead to more specialized interventions.
- Uncertainty about enough professionals being available to provide these services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
College Student (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supporting kids early on can change their lives.
- Unsure how quickly schools will adapt to the new requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired (Miami, Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen how desperately more support is needed for dyslexic kids.
- It's a positive change but the cost of implementation worries me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Parent (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My child needs more specialized help than they are getting now.
- I worry about fairness in distributing resources, even if the law says it's equal.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Principal (Houston, Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Broadening the definition makes it easier to allocate specific interventions.
- There's always a risk of over-bureaucratizing a solution.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Educational Policy Researcher (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Idealistic changes must be backed by realistic strategies and funding.
- Ensuring teacher readiness is as critical as legislative changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)
Year 2: $420000000 (Low: $320000000, High: $520000000)
Year 3: $440000000 (Low: $340000000, High: $540000000)
Year 5: $480000000 (Low: $380000000, High: $580000000)
Year 10: $560000000 (Low: $460000000, High: $660000000)
Year 100: $1100000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1300000000)
Key Considerations
- The reclassification may streamline the identification and management processes for dyslexia cases, increasing efficiency.
- Initial setup costs are significant due to the need for new educational resources and training, which could strain budgets in the short term.
- Potential long-term economic and social benefits from a better-educated populace with dyslexia could mitigate these initial costs.
- Ensuring equitable access to these newly defined resources is crucial, particularly for low-income students.