Advocacy - Dyslexia

September 13, 1999

Hon. Richard Mills, Commissioner New York State Education Department
State Education Building
Albany, New York 12234

Dear Commissioner Mills:

The New York State Reading Association, whose more than 6000 members include many college educators directly responsible for the preparation of future teachers, expresses substantial concern related to a specific component of the proposed changes to the Part 52 regulations scheduled to be adopted by the Board of Regents this week. This refers to the inclusion of the term "dyslexia."

In the provisions relating to programs which prepare teachers of literacy, there is a requirement that calls for identification of students with "dyslexia" (Section 52.21). We are extremely concerned over the use of this terminology. Dyslexia is a medical or neurological diagnosis with very little agreement among the medical profession as to cause, cure, or actual definition.

Among the educational community, there exists no common definition or agreement on either the term or the method of treatment. Most reading professionals do not use this term due to its ambiguity and the broad range defining the term from "a student with a mild reading difficulty" to "a student with a major neurological impairment which almost negates a child's ability to learn to read."

The term "dyslexia" has a long history of being nebulous and is more often used by those in the medical field. It is not a term generally employed by reading teachers. Instead of using the term "dyslexic," professionals in the field of reading defer to terminology such as "a student with reading difficulties or disabilities."

It is unnecessary for a specific term to be applied to define children who experience difficulties learning to read. The essential point is that future and current classroom teachers are adequately prepared and retrained to identify students who exhibit reading difficulties and to develop appropriate instructional methods, programs, and services to provide each child with the best opportunity to improve his/her reading ability.

There is no reason to employ a specific label (dyslexic). Our educational emphasis must be focused only on the diagnosis of specific reading strengths and weaknesses. We agree that future teachers must be prepared to engage in this diagnostic process and to learn to design appropriate intervention plans for individual students.

We are aware that the State Professional Standards and Practices Board for Teaching recommended that stronger language relating to "dyslexia" be included in these regulations. The New York State Reading Association had suggested nominees for this Board to ensure input from this important discipline and we were disappointed that none of the reading professionals we suggested were selected to serve. As a result, we face a major area of professional dissension related to this specific recommendation.

Reading educators disagree with any provision which places our colleges and, in turn, teachers of literacy in a compromising position of having to address a medical/neurological condition which we are not trained to diagnose nor to treat. While we can and do provide remedial and intervention services to children with a broad range of learning/reading difficulties and disabilities, we should not, as educators, be engaged in the realm of medical diagnosis.

We urge you to consider changing this provision at Section 52.21 prior to the final action to be taken by the Board of Regents. Our membership is prepared and committed to assist in redefining this section of the regulations.

Thank you for considering our concerns and recommendations.

Sincerely, Ann Stampf, President

c.c.: Honorable Members, Board of Regents