K-2 Universal Screening for Reading Difficulties: California's SB 114
California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed SB 114, the Education Omnibus Budget Trailer Bill which included a requirement for “K-2 universal screening for reading difficulties” (Chapter 15.5). Local Education Agencies (e.g., school boards, schools) will need to select screeners from an approved list and then begin screening by the 2025-26 school year. The state board is currently preparing a panel of experts to create the approved list of evidence-based, culturally, linguistically and developmentally appropriate screening instruments.
Is this good news?
The bill would require the state board to appoint an “independent panel of experts” by January 31, 2024 (that’s not a lot of time) to create an approved list of screening instruments to assess students in kindergarten and grades 1-2 for risk of reading difficulties including dyslexia. The panel must approve the list by December 31, 2024. By June 30, 2025, LEAs serving K-2 students must adopt one or more of the approved screening instruments. Starting in the 2025-26 school year, LEAs must annually screen K-2 students using the adopted instruments, unless the parent/guardian opts out in writing. Students identified as at-risk after screening must be provided with supports and services. Screening results cannot be used for high stakes purposes like retention or tracking. The bill appropriates $1 million to the Superintendent for the state board to appoint the expert panel.
The bill specifies that if a student is identified as being at risk for reading difficulties after being screened, the local educational agency must provide the student with supports and services appropriate to the challenges identified. These supports and services may include:
Evidence-based literacy instruction focused on the student's specific needs (Section 53008(l)(1))
Progress monitoring (Section 53008(l)(2))
Early intervention in the general education program (Section 53008(l)(3))
One-on-one or small group tutoring (Section 53008(l)(4))
Further evaluation or diagnostic assessment (Section 53008(l)(5))
The bill states that screening results are to be used as a flag for potential risk, not a diagnosis or eligibility for special education services. Results should be used to further evaluate student needs, identify instructional supports, enable targeted intervention, and allow for further diagnosis if concerns persist.
So is this good news?
Expert panels like the one described in the bill are typically populated by researchers, academics, educators, and other professionals with extensive expertise related to the topic area.
Some examples of the types of experts who might serve on a panel focused on screening instruments for reading difficulties/dyslexia could include:
Reading and literacy researchers from universities
Neuropsychologists and cognitive scientists studying reading disabilities
Special education scholars and teacher educators
Literacy specialists and reading interventionists
School psychologists and educational diagnosticians
Speech-language pathologists with expertise in literacy
Dyslexia specialists and advocates from non-profit organizations
Experienced classroom teachers certified in reading instruction
Curriculum developers and assessment designers familiar with evidence-based literacy practices
The bill specifies that the panel should be independent and members should not have any financial interests in the screening instruments under consideration. The goal is for the panel to represent a diverse, unbiased range of expertise relevant to evaluating and selecting appropriate reading assessments.
But will it?
Whilst there is a non-zero probability that the expert panel could include members who bring differing viewpoints on reading instruction, including advocates of the ‘science of reading’ approach as well as supporters (like me) of more balanced literacy models, several factors make it unlikely that someone taking an oppositional stance to the ‘science of reading’ would be appointed:
The bill calls for selecting screening instruments backed by “evidence,” which aligns more closely and commercially with a ‘science of reading’ approach.
The panel is charged with creating consensus recommendations, so individuals unwilling to achieve the stated commercial goals would be seen as counterproductive (e.g., not a team player).
Board politics could play a role. Since the state board appoints the panel, they may lean toward selecting experts aligned with their own philosophical and commercial preferences.
What about the Natural Language Acquisition model?
The Natural Language Acquisition approach (NLA), which emphasizes exposure to rich language and text, building background knowledge, and developing reading proficiency holistically, has its merits as a balanced literacy philosophy. There is room for multiple perspectives and philosophies in the ongoing debates over reading instruction, but not in this bill.
Supporters of the ‘science of reading’ note that there are reasons the approach, with its emphasis on explicit phonics instruction, tends to be favored in ‘current reading policy’:
There is a substantial body of “research evidence” demonstrating the effectiveness of systematic phonics instruction, especially for struggling readers. This gives the ‘science of reading’ stance strong empirical backing.
‘Science of reading’ aligns with the recommendations of many literacy experts and dyslexia advocates who want to see more structured literacy instruction.
Some interpretations or implementations of balanced literacy models have been criticized for not giving enough explicit attention to phonics.
There are concerns that whole language approaches minimize the challenges some students face in developing phonological and phonemic awareness skills needed to decode text.
All of these points are thoroughly destroyed in Chapter 2 of my upcoming book, Holistic Language Instruction. And, yes, I do bring receipts … pages of them.
Phonics and Gestalt Language Processors (aka, the non-verbal)
An overemphasis on phonics at the expense of other aspects of reading will marginalize groups like non-verbal autistic students who rely more on visual-spatial, gestalt processing. Here are some ways the needs of diverse learners like these could be addressed:
Screening instruments and interventions should take into account different processing strengths and challenges to avoid one-size-fits-all approaches.
The panel should include experts in special education, including autism, to help ensure universally designed, accommodating assessments.
Screening results must lead to customized supports based on each student's profile, not just default to phonics-heavy intervention.
Teacher training should increase awareness of neurodiverse learning needs and varied ways of processing language (they should all buy my upcoming book :) ).
The criteria for screening instruments specify they must be inclusive of diverse populations. The panel has a duty to uphold this.
Providing visual supports like pictures, diagrams and graphic organizers could support gestalt processors even in phonics instruction.
Their preferred ‘structured literacy programs’ can be customized to students' needs if implemented flexibly and with the knowledge that people like us exist.
“You're absolutely right, Dr. H. A rigid adherence to phonics will marginalize those like you with different learning styles.” But with inclusive screening design, personalized supports, teacher training, and flexible implementation, it is possible to take a balanced approach that serves all students. The key will be keeping equity at the forefront throughout the process - including having the people that serve on this panel aware of the issues ... all of them.
Is there hope?
Upon a closer examination, there are a few provisions that suggest attention might be paid to including special education perspectives:
The panel is charged with evaluating screening instruments for their “evidence that the tool is normed and validated using a contemporary multicultural and multilanguage sample of pupils, with outcome data for pupils whose home language is a language other than English as well as those who are native English speakers.” (53008(g)(1)(C)) In this case, nothing listed in the What Works Clearing House is fit for purpose.
The criteria specify that guidance must be provided “for educators regarding how to administer screening instruments, interpret results, explain results to families, including in pupils’ primary languages, and determine further educational strategies, assessments, diagnostics, and interventions that should be considered and that are specific to each type of pupil result.” (53008(g)(1)(E)) (Much of this is covered in Chapter 3 of my upcoming book.)
The bill states instruments shall not be used to delay special education evaluation for students who qualify. (53008(g)(2)) Not sure how this helps, but I listed it anyway.
Whilst special education could be more explicitly addressed, this language around inclusion, explaining results to families, and connecting screening to next steps implies an intention to at least consider diverse learning needs. With this in mind, the disability community should closely monitor implementation.