





































 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

Dyslexia and Georgia Senate Bill 48 

Nora W. Schlesinger 

Kennesaw State University 

 
 
 
The interest in and understanding of dyslexia has become increasingly important in educational fields 
and the legislative process in the United States. This article provides information on what dyslexia is, the 
history of research on dyslexia, dyslexia laws across the US, and Georgia’s Dyslexia Law: Senate Bill 48 
and its impact on educational entities. 
 
keywords: dyslexia, laws, Senate Bill 48, dyslexia intervention 

 

 

In recent years there has been 

an expansion of disability legislation 

in the US, specifically dyslexia 

legislation. In fact, Georgia has a new 

dyslexia law, Senate Bill (SB) 48, 

which was signed into law on May 2, 

2019. This article is written to provide 

information on dyslexia, including 

past and present dyslexia research, as 

well as information about dyslexia 

legislation in the US. In addition, the 

article presents how SB 48 may 

impact colleges of education, local 

educational agencies, and classroom 

teachers. 

 

Dyslexia Defined 

 

The International Dyslexia 

Association (IDA) and the National 

Institute of Neurological Disorders 

and Stroke (NINDS) defines dyslexia 

as a neurobiological disorder. 

Characteristics include difficulty with 

accurate and/or fluent word reading 

and poor spelling and decoding 

abilities. Typically, difficulties result 

from deficits in the phonological 

component of language that are 

unexpected in relation to other  

cognitive abilities and unexpected in 

relation to the provisions of effective 

classroom instruction. This may 

cause concerns with reading 

comprehension and reduced reading 

experiences that impede vocabulary  

growth and background knowledge. 

Individuals with dyslexia do not 

exhibit cognitive concerns (IDA, 

2019; NINDS, 2019). The reading 

concerns are unexpected for the 

child’s age and other academic 

abilities (Lyon et al, 2003; Shaywitz 

et al., 2008). For example, the 

explanation for the reading concerns 

cannot be explained by sensory 

deficits, cognitive difficulties, poor 

motivation, or lack of reading 

instruction (Lyon et al, 2003). 

Neuroimaging studies imply that 

Page 6 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

dyslexia is associated with 

differences in the neuro networking 

of brain regions associated with 

typical reading development 

(D’Mello & Gabrielli, 2018; 

Shaywitz et al., 2008).  

Dyslexia is a 

multidimensional learning difference. 

Individuals with this disorder have 

difficulties with reading and other 

language skills. They often have 

difficulty with spelling, writing, and 

pronouncing words (IDA, 2019; 

Simon, 2000). Dyslexia is a persistent 

chronic condition and is not transient 

in nature (Berninger et al., 2008; 

Berninger et al., 2009; IDA Basics, 

2019; Shaywitz, 1998). It is referred 

to as a learning disability because 

dyslexia makes it hard for students to 

succeed within the general 

educational classroom. Depending on 

the severity of their deficit, many 

students with dyslexia qualify for 

special education, special 

accommodations, or extra support 

services (IDA Basic, 2019). 

However, like most disorders, the 

impact of dyslexia may present 

varying degrees of severity across 

timelines (Shaywitz et al., 2008). For 

example, the impact of dyslexia may 

be profoundly felt in early elementary 

when learning to read. Even with 

successful early intervention, the 

disorder may significantly impact 

learning again in middle school and 

high school, when more technical and 

sophisticated content vocabulary and 

discourse are introduced (Kamil et al., 

2008), as well as when trying to meet 

requirements for learning a foreign 

language (Schneider & Crombie, 

2003; Simon, 2000).  

 

Past and Present Research on 

Dyslexia 

 

Dyslexia is the most common 

neurobehavioral disorder that affects 

children, with estimated prevalence 

rates ranging from 3 to 10 percent to 

upwards of 17percent (e.g., Gabrieli, 

2009; Shaywitz, 1998; Shaywitz et 

al., 1994; Snowling & Hulme, 2011). 

It affects about 80% of individuals 

identified as learning disabled 

(Lerner, 1989). Different theories 

have been proposed for the 

underlying causes of dyslexia. 

Suggested causes include 

abnormalities with the visual system 

(Stein, 2001), language system 

(Liberman, 1973; Liberman et al., 

1974), working memory (Berninger, 

et al., 2006; Swanson & Ashbaker, 

2000; Swanson & Siegel, 2001), as 

well as other factors such as temporal 

processing of stimuli within these 

systems (Neville et al., 1993; Stein & 

Walsh, 1997). However, the vast 

body of research suggests dyslexia is 

primarily a phonological processing 

disorder (e.g., Berninger et al., 2006; 

IDA, 2019; Peterson & Pennington, 

2012, Stanovich, 1988; Wagner & 

Torgesen, 1987).  

 

Past Research  

 

Prior to the adoption of 

current technology, postmortem 

Page 7 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

evaluations provided cerebral 

anatomy advances regarding 

dyslexia. Paul Broca, a French 

surgeon in the 1860s, noted 

individuals with trauma to the brain 

exhibited a specific type of aphasia, 

an inability to understand or express 

speech (Carroll, 2008). These 

individuals often spoke in a halting 

manner primarily using nouns and 

verbs with omission of function 

words. However, they were able to 

demonstrate intact comprehension. 

Post-mortem examinations revealed 

damage to frontal regions of the left 

hemisphere in these individuals. This 

region of the brain is now known as 

Broca’s area (Carroll, 2008; Hallahan 

& Mercer, 2007). Shortly after 

Broca’s discovery a German surgeon, 

Carl Wernicke, discovered a different 

form of aphasia in which patients 

exhibited fluent nonsensical speech 

but impaired comprehension. The left 

temporal lobe, near the auditory 

cortex, was damaged in these patients 

and is now known as Wernicke’s area 

(Carroll, 2008; Hallahan & Mercer, 

2007), see Figure 1. Both physicians’ 

work has stood the test of time and 

added substantially to the scientific 

community’s knowledge of the left 

hemispheric dominance of language. 

Descriptions of specific 

reading impairments both acquired 

and congenital began to emerge in the 

1870s. In the mid-1890s, journal 

correspondences between John 

Hinshelwood, a French physician, 

and W. Pringle Morgan, a British 

physician, shifted the understanding 

of acquired reading impairment from 

adults to children with congenital 

reading deficits (Hallahan & Mercer, 

2007). Samuel Orton, a neurologist 

(Henry, 1998) and a neuropathologist 

(Orton et al., 1975; Rawson, 1987)  in 

the United States, began to study 

reading disabilities and noted, using 

newly designed intelligence quotient 

tests, many of the children he studied 

had average to above average 

intelligence (Hallahan & Mercer, 

2007). Orton also suggested familial 

tendency for reading disabilities. He 

was among the first to suggest a 

neurological basis for the reading 

disorder and to associate the disorder 

with speech and language (Orton et 

al., 1975). Dr. Orton also addressed 

the comorbid nature of dyslexia with 

emotional and behavioral issues 

(Henry, 1998).  

Norman Geschwind’s (1965) 

work in aphasia, apraxia, and 

hemispheric dominance continued 

the advancement of the 

neurobiological understandings of 

dyslexia. Geschwind observed that a 

majority of non-impaired individuals 

had brain asymmetry with a larger left 

planum temporale than right in 

Wernicke’s area (see Figure 2). He 

hypothesized the larger planum 

temporale of the left side may explain 

the dominance of the left hemisphere 

for language (Geschwind & Levitsky, 

1968). It was later found individuals 

with dyslexia did not show the same 

asymmetry in this area. Together, 

Geschwind and Albert Galaburda 

brought forth the idea that dyslexia 

Page 8 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

may be a result of early 

developmental changes in the 

cerebrum (Galaburda et al., 1985; 

Springer, 1987). 

Liberman’s seminal research 

in the 1970’s stressed the importance 

of phonological awareness in reading 

acquisition (Liberman, 1973; 

Liberman et al., 1974) and promoted 

the belief that there is an underlying 

core phonological deficit in dyslexia. 

A decade later Bradley and Bryant’s 

(1983) longitudinal study indicated 

that children’s awareness of rhyming 

and alliteration prior to formal 

education influenced later reading 

and spelling. In the late 1980s 

Wagner and Torgesen (1987) 

expanded the phonological 

processing concerns in dyslexia.  

 

Present Research  

 

The causes of any disorder are 

layered; they may have internal as 

well as environmental factors 

(Cowan, 2010). In addition, it is 

important to bear in mind that the 

causes of developmental disabilities 

are multifaceted; there may not be 

one single cause, but rather several 

different causes (Cowan, 2010). 

Advances in the epidemiology of 

dyslexia from neurobiology, genetics, 

and cognitive influences have 

allowed practitioners to approach 

dyslexia within a traditional medical 

framework (e.g., Alexander & 

Slinger-Constant, 2004; Gabrieli, 

2009; Shaywitz, 1998). Data from 

epidemiologic studies indicate 

dyslexia fits a dimensional model, 

such that individuals with dyslexia 

present the disorder along a 

continuum with varying degrees of 

severity. However, the etiological 

research supports the belief of a 

phonological core deficit in the 

disorder (Stanovich, 1988; Wagner & 

Torgesen, 1987). This view is 

supported by the IDA (2019) and the 

National Institute of Neurological 

Disorders and Stroke (NINDS, 2019). 

In addition, recent research indicates 

dyslexia is a genetic disorder, and a 

number of genes have been identified 

that may predispose a person to 

dyslexia (NINDS, 2019). 

Today’s researchers have 

access to digital technology to study 

the working brain. Doctors Sally and 

Bennett Shaywitz from Yale (2005) 

utilized the noninvasive imaging of 

functional magnetic resonance 

imaging (fMRI) to analyze the brains 

of individuals with dyslexia and 

typical readers at work completing a 

set of hierarchical structured 

language tasks. The Shaywitz team’s 

finding demonstrated individuals 

with dyslexia do in fact present 

different activation patterns while 

engaged in reading activities 

compared to unimpaired counterparts 

(Shaywitz et al., 1998). The activities, 

in order of simplest to complex 

language demands, consisted of 

visual-spatial processing, 

orthographic processing, simple 

phonological analysis, complex 

phonological analysis, and lexical-

semantic decisions (Shaywitz et al., 

Page 9 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

1998). An evaluation of brain 

activation patterns across tasks 

resulted in significant findings of 

group-task interactions in four 

posterior regions.  

Consistent with modern 

neuroimaging, posterior cortical 

regions have been postulated to be 

important to the reading process 

(Geschwind, 1965). Please refer to 

Figure 2 for depiction of the posterior 

hemispheric region. Wernicke’s area, 

the angular gyrus, and the striate 

cortex have been shown to be 

activated by typical readers when 

increasing orthographic and 

phonological demands were 

presented (Shaywitz et al., 1998). 

However, under-activation of these 

areas was shown to be statistically 

significant in individuals with 

dyslexia (Shaywitz et al., 1998). In 

addition to under-activation, 

individuals with dyslexia had over-

activation in anterior regions of the 

brain compared to typical readers. 

The inferior frontal gyrus of 

individuals with dyslexia showed 

significantly greater activation in 

comparison to typical readers when 

presented with demands of increasing 

phonological difficulty (Shaywitz et 

al., 1998). 

In addition to differences 

found in activation patterns in the left 

hemispheres, fMRI images of typical 

readers and those with dyslexia have 

shown different right hemispheric 

activation (Shaywitz et al., 1998). 

The readers without reading 

impairments showed greater 

activation in the left hemisphere for 

these areas, while individuals with 

dyslexia had greater activation in the 

right hemisphere. It is important to 

note these activation patterns were 

evident across all tasks (Shaywitz et 

al., 1998). 

Neuroimaging has provided a 

neuro-signature (Gabrieli, 2009) for 

dyslexia and as a result there is 

general agreement within the 

scientific community that 

phonological deficits are at the heart 

of developmental dyslexia. Currently, 

however, there is not consensus as to 

the neural and sensory causality of the 

deficit (Goswami et al., 2011). As 

advances in medical technology 

continue, future research may be 

better able to synthesize the intricate 

complexities of the brain processes 

involved in developmental dyslexia.  

Neuroimaging has also shown 

the positive impact on the brain when 

individuals with dyslexia receive 

proper intervention. Imaging studies 

have shown the brain’s ability to 

increase activation, based on effective 

intervention, in regions associated 

with typical reading (e.g., Alexander 

& Slinger-Constant, 2004; Gabrieli, 

2009).  Normalization for 

phonological processing has been 

shown in the left temporo-parietal and 

frontal regions upon receiving 

effective dyslexia intervention. In 

addition, increased right-hemisphere 

activation has been shown 

immediately after intervention 

(Gabrieli, 2009). Though typical 

readers have decreased right 

Page 10 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

hemispheric activation, for 

individuals with dyslexia the 

increased right-hemisphere 

engagement may indicate a 

covenanted time where both the right 

and left hemispheres are activated to 

support reading (Gabrieli, 2009). For 

a review of studies indicating 

significant brain physiological 

changes please see Alexander and 

Slinger-Constant (2004) and D’Mello 

and Gabrieli (2018). 

Hruby et al. (2011) point out 

current neuroscience studies of 

reading focus primarily on neuro 

structures and processes associated 

with decoding. This focus is not in 

tandem with the general scholarship 

found in reading and literacy 

education (Hruby et al., 2011). 

Therefore, it is important to keep in 

mind the complexities of reading and 

the very purpose of reading, to make 

meaning. Critical components of 

reading and reading scholarship 

include comprehension and related 

strategies, motivation, text selection, 

multiple literacies, and sociocultural 

relevant pedagogy (e.g., Allington, 

2002, 2013; Boardman et al., 2008; 

Duke & Pearson, 2011; Guthrie, 

2015; Rueda, 2013). Therefore, 

omission of these important reading 

components does not 

comprehensively represent the act of 

reading (Hruby et al., 2011).   

 

Dyslexia Laws across the US 

 

In 2013 there were only 22 

states with dyslexia legislation 

(Youman & Mather, 2018). During 

2018 the US witnessed an expansion 

of dyslexia legislation. From January 

to March of 2018 there were 33 

dyslexia related bills introduced 

(Youman & Mather, 2018). The 

increase of dyslexia related 

legislation is in part compelled by 

grassroots organizations, such as 

Decoding Dyslexia (Youman & 

Mather, 2018), and individuals who 

have been impacted by dyslexia (Bhat 

et al., 2000; Rose & Zirkel, 2007), as 

is the case for SB 48.  

The growth in dyslexia 

legislation has continued into 2019. 

Per the website, Dyslegia (2019), 

there were 75 dyslexia bills with 

either pending legislation or 

legislation being acted upon. The 

focus of current laws includes a) 

dyslexia awareness, b) screenings and 

intervention pilots, c) educator 

training, d) dyslexia provisions for 

accommodations and interventions 

and, e) rights for individuals with 

dyslexia (Youman & Mather, 2018). 

 

Dyslexia Awareness 

 

The label of dyslexia as a 

neurobiological disorder, as defined 

by the IDA (2019) and NINDS 

(2019), has received increased focus. 

This is in contrast to reading related 

impairments categorized within the 

Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Improvement Act (IDEA) 

as one type of specific learning 

disability (U.S. Department of 

Education, 2018) or the Diagnostic 

Page 11 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

and Statistical Manual of Mental 

Disorders-5 that uses an overarching 

terminology for a specific learning 

disorder with the addition of the 

specific academic area of concern 

(Petretto & Masala, 2017). For 

reading impairments the 

specifications for abilities of concern 

include word reading accuracy, 

reading rate or accuracy, and/or 

reading comprehension (Petretto & 

Masala, 2017). Many states have 

begun to define dyslexia per the IDA 

guidelines as a neurobiological 

disorder (Youman & Mather, 2018). 

Georgia is one such state. The 

adoption of a precise definition for 

dyslexia has helped to establish a 

model of identification based on 

inclusionary criteria versus 

exclusionary criteria (Adolf & 

Hogan, 2018; Odegard, 2019). 

Another reason for the 

increase in dyslexia advocacy is that 

historically local education agencies 

(LEA) prohibited, or at the very least 

discouraged, educators from using the 

terminology, dyslexia (Macdonald, 

2009; Youman & Mather, 2018). Due 

to the pervasiveness of LEA not using 

the word dyslexia, the executive 

director of the National Center for 

Learning Disabilities in May of 2015 

requested the federal office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative 

Services to issue guidance to LEA 

regarding the use of appropriate terms 

and provisions for accommodations 

(Wendorf, 2015). The office of 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services did in turn inform school 

districts in October 2015 of the 

unique educational needs of children 

with dyslexia, dyscalculia, and 

dysgraphia. The 2015 letter set forth 

that IDEA does not restrict the use of 

the terms, dyslexia, dyscalculia, and 

dysgraphia in evaluations, eligibility 

requirements, or individual education 

plans (Youman & Mather, 2018; 

Yudin, 2015).  

 

Screenings and Intervention Pilots  

 

Per the Center on Response to 

Intervention (RTI) at American 

Institutes for Research (2019) a 

screener is used to predict students 

whose academic learning may be at 

risk. Screeners are brief and all 

students of a specific grade level are 

assessed, then typically followed with 

additional testing or progress 

monitoring (Center on RTI at 

American Institutes for Research, 

2019).  

Research indicates dyslexia 

may be predicted and possibly 

prevented in young children 

(Gabrieli, 2009; Shaywitz et al., 

2008). A diagnosis of dyslexia is 

commonly made, in the United States, 

around grade 2 when a child is 7 to 8 

years of age (D'Mello & Gabrieli, 

2018; Gabrieli, 2009). The earlier the 

disorder is diagnosed and proper 

intervention is initiated, the length 

and intensity of intervention needed 

decreases (Gabrieli, 2009; Shaywitz 

et al., 2008; Torgesen et al., 2001). 

Early intervention is especially 

important for later fluency concerns 

Page 12 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

(Gabrieli, 2009; Torgesen et al., 

2001). Therefore, recent legislation in 

the U.S. has included mandated 

universal screening and intervention 

(Youman & Mather, 2018) with the 

hopes of early prevention and 

intervention.  

Some legislative action has 

specified universal screeners for all 

kindergarten students (Georgia 

General Assembly Legislation, 2019) 

or when students are first enrolled in 

school as a kindergartener or first 

grader (Youman & Mather, 2018). 

Screeners include: common 

processes correlated with dyslexia 

such as phonological awareness, 

rapid automatic naming, and letter to 

sound correspondence; and familial 

history of difficulty with literacy 

acquisition (Youman & Mather, 

2018). Some states have 

supplemented screeners by requiring 

progress monitoring (Youman & 

Mather, 2018). 

 

Educator Training  

 

Though there has been an 

increase in legislation requiring 

universal screeners and appropriate 

intervention, often clarification on 

who will be responsible for 

implementing and monitoring 

screeners and outcomes is not 

adequately addressed (Youman & 

Mather, 2018). Some states have 

hired individuals with specialized 

training in dyslexia (Lonergan & 

Duthie, 2018) and in some cases the 

dyslexia specialist is at the district 

level. The dyslexia specialist may 

serve both special and general 

education students, but also increase 

dyslexia awareness and provide 

training to educators to work with 

individuals with dyslexia (Lonergan 

& Duthie, 2018; Youman & Mather, 

2018). In addition, some states have 

stipulated special education teachers 

or other educators attend professional 

certification programs for the 

diagnosis and remediation of literacy 

related difficulties (Youman & 

Mather, 2018).  

 

Dyslexia Provisions for 

Accommodations and Interventions 

 

Legislative mandates for 

intervention have accentuated explicit 

instruction on essential components 

of reading (National Reading Panel 

[NRP], 2000). Research shows 

reading instruction that addresses 

core phonological deficits, such as 

phonemic awareness and spelling, is 

essential to support reading 

acquisition for students with dyslexia 

(e.g., Berninger & Amtmann, 2003; 

Gabrieli, 2009; Graham, Harris, & 

Chorzempa, 2002; Moats, 2006; 

Schlesinger & Gray, 2017, Snowling 

& Hulme, 2011). Bolstered by 

decades of reading research, 

mandates for reading intervention for 

individuals with dyslexia stress 

explicit and systematic instruction in 

phonemic awareness, phonics, 

fluency, and vocabulary and spelling 

(e.g., Berninger, Lee, Abbott, & 

Breznitz, 2013; Bradley & Bryant, 

Page 13 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

1983; Liberman et al., 1974; 

Shaywitz et al., 2008). Recent 

legislative actions are mandated and 

noncompliance may result in LEA 

losing government funding and 

possibly be subjected to legal action 

from parents (Youman & Mather, 

2018). 

 

Rights for Individuals with Dyslexia 

Individuals with dyslexia who 

do not receive adequate support and 

intervention are subjected to dire 

consequences (Lonergan & Duthie, 

2018). The persistent nature of 

dyslexia has marked consequences on 

reading outcomes for early 

elementary to high school students. 

Students who struggle with reading in 

grade 1 have a 90% prospect of 

reading poorly in grade 4 (Gabrieli, 

2009), furthermore struggling readers 

in grade 3 have a 75% probability of 

continued reading concerns in high 

school (Francis et al., 1996; Gabrieli, 

2009). Poor reading in early 

elementary grades has a negative 

impact on reading to learn in later 

educational years (Gabrieli, 2009). 

Therefore, legislation is necessary to 

mitigate the negative long-term 

effects of dyslexia (Lonergan & 

Duthie, 2018). In addition to schools 

and school districts, the new 

legislative action affects other areas 

such as the protocol for college 

entrance exams and protection in the 

work place. Please see Youman & 

Mather (2018) for specific laws. 

 

Georgia’s Dyslexia Law: Senate 

Bill 48 

 

Dyslexia Awareness 

 

Georgia was one state that 

passed significant dyslexia legislation 

in 2019. The State’s dyslexia law, 

Senate Bill (SB) 48, was signed into 

law in May 2019. The new law 

defines dyslexia as a neurobiological-

based disorder and provides 

definitions and characteristics of 

dyslexia and disorders, as well as 

terminology associated with dyslexia 

and dyslexia intervention. [(Georgia 

General Assembly Legislation, 2019: 

SB48. Passed. Reg. Sess. 2019-2020. 

20-2-159.6. Sect. 1 (a)(1-8)]. The 

definitions and terminology provide 

common language for parents and the 

educational community and will 

hopefully prevent LEA from not 

using the word dyslexia and other 

related terminology. The term 

Structured Literacy™ is referred to in 

SB 48 and is defined as in the IDA 

Structured Literacy™ Introductory 

Guide (IDA, 2019). The term 

indicates the principals of effective 

literacy instruction are followed and 

includes, (a) the modeling of 

instructional tasks, (b) explicit 

instruction is provided for 

foundational skills and higher-level 

literacy concepts, (c) prerequisite 

skills are taught before more 

advanced skills, (d) meaningful 

language interactions are embedded 

in lessons, (e) multiple practice 

opportunities are provided, (f) 

Page 14 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

corrective feedback to student 

responses, (g) student effort is 

encouraged, (h) student engagement 

is monitored and scaffolded during 

teacher modeling (i) independent 

student work is monitored and 

facilitated, (h) students must meet 

lesson criterion before moving on to 

more advanced skills (IDA, 2019). 

 

Screenings and Intervention Pilots 

 

As in other states’ legislation, 

SB 48 stipulates universal screeners 

and pilot programs. Under SB 48, no 

later than July 1, 2020 the State Board 

of Education must have procedures in 

place for referring students 

kindergarten through grades 3 for 

dyslexia screening who have been 

identified through the LEA RTI 

process as having concerns for 

dyslexia and/or other disorders. The 

State Board of Education is to provide 

a list of approved qualified dyslexia 

screening tools. Screeners must 

include phonological and phonemic 

awareness, sound symbol 

recognition, alphabet knowledge, 

decoding and encoding skills, and 

rapid automatic naming, [(Georgia 

General Assembly Legislation, 2019: 

SB48. Passed. Reg. Sess. 2019-2020. 

20-2-159.6. Sect. 1 (b)(1)(2)(A-

F)(3)]. 

 

Educator Training  

 

Additional advocacy 

measures require the Georgia 

Department of Education to issue a 

dyslexia informational handbook by 

December 1, 2019. The handbook 

will provide information and 

guidance to LEA for the 

implementation of evidence based 

practices for educating students 

exhibiting characteristics of dyslexia. 

The handbook information pertains to 

kindergarten through grade 3 students 

who have been identified through the 

RTI process as exhibiting concerns 

for dyslexia. The handbook will 

provide information regarding 

evidence based and targeted 

pedagogy designed specifically for 

dyslexia, guidance on the 

development of instructional plans 

for students exhibiting concerns, 

meaning-centered literacy utilizing 

best practices, curricula that is 

developmentally appropriate with 

engaging materials and pedagogy, 

structured multisensory approaches 

to language and reading skills, and 

suggested training programs to meet 

the needs of students with dyslexia 

concerns. [(Georgia General 

Assembly Legislation, 2019: SB48. 

Passed. Reg. Sess. 2019-2020. 20-2-

159.6. Sect. 1 (c)(1-7)]. In addition, 

the Georgia Department of Education 

(DOE) in collaboration with the 

Professional Standards Commission 

will be required to update 

professional development 

opportunities for training specifically 

related to dyslexia. The intent is to 

focus training and coaching on 

dyslexia and other disorders. The 

DOE is to identify high-quality 

trainers to provide support to LEA 

Page 15 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

utilizing a coaching model to develop 

school level dyslexia experts 

[(Georgia General Assembly 

Legislation, 2019: SB48. Passed. 

Reg. Sess. 2019-2020. 20-2-159.6. 

Sect. 1 (d) (1-2)]. Furthermore, the 

DOE is mandated to develop training 

modules for all instructional 

personnel regarding dyslexia, and to 

provide structured multisensory 

approaches to teach language and 

literacy as well as accommodations 

for students exhibiting dyslexia and 

related concerns. Lastly, training is 

required to focus LEA and school 

system policies and procedures as 

related to RTI in addressing literacy, 

mathematics, and behavior with 

educators being notified annually of 

changes in policy, procedures, and 

specific instructional methodologies 

[(Georgia General Assembly 

Legislation, 2019: SB48. Passed. 

Reg. Sess. 2019-2020. 20-2-159.6. 

Sect. 1 (d)(3-5))]. 

 

Dyslexia Provisions for 

Accommodations and Interventions  

 

Starting in the academic year 

2020-2021 a three year pilot program 

will be established to demonstrate and 

evaluate the effectiveness of early 

reading support for students with 

dyslexia concerns. Three districts, at 

minimum, will be selected by the 

State School Superintendent. 

Preference is for an LEA in an urban 

setting, suburban setting, and a rural 

setting. The Superintendent will 

consult with recognized 

organizations that specialize in 

Structured Literacy™ for instructing 

students with concerns of dyslexia to 

establish and operate the pilot 

program [(Georgia General 

Assembly Legislation, 2019: SB48. 

Passed. Reg. Sess. 2019-2020. 20-2-

159.6. Sect. 1 (e)(1)]. Per SB 48, the 

application processes for LEA 

interested in applying for the pilot 

program are to include: (a) a method 

for screening for low phonemic 

awareness, rapid automatic naming, 

and dyslexia characteristics, (b) 

provisions for students with dyslexia 

concerns to receive an IDA approved 

reading program via a teacher trained 

in Structured Literacy™ per the 

IDA’s Knowledge and Practice 

Standards, and (c) a manner for 

evaluating the effects of the reading 

program on students with dyslexia 

concerns. [(Georgia General 

Assembly Legislation, 2019: SB48. 

Passed. Reg. Sess. 2019-2020. 20-2-

159.6. Sect. 1 (e)(2)(A-C)].  

 

Rights for Individuals with Dyslexia 

 

Once selected, the LEA will 

be required to screen all kindergarten 

students for characteristics of 

dyslexia, and may screen for other 

disorders. In addition, students in 

grade 1 through 3 who have been 

identified via the LEA’s RTI as 

having concerns for dyslexia will be 

screened for dyslexia and may be 

screened for other disorders. The 

LEA will provide appropriate reading 

intervention support for students 

Page 16 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

identified for dyslexia concerns and 

ascertain if the intervention provided 

improves students’ language 

processing and reading skills. All 

LEA participating in the pilot study 

will be mandated to comply with all 

applicable state and federal laws and 

require parents or guardians of 

students with dyslexia concerns to 

communicate in writing that they 

voluntarily and knowingly consent to 

their child’s participation in the pilot 

program for reading intervention 

services. In addition, the LEA will 

provide the parents or guardians with 

information about dyslexia and 

recommended interventions. 

[(Georgia General Assembly 

Legislation, 2019: SB48. Passed. 

Reg. Sess. 2019-2020. 20-2-159.6. 

Sect. 1 (e)(3-4)].  

 

Impact on Education Preparation 

Providers  

 

It is important to 

systematically support struggling 

readers with dyslexia and provide 

educators with the necessary training 

to work with individuals with 

dyslexia. Senate Bill 48 will have an 

impact on Education Preparation 

Providers (EPP), the institutions that 

provide undergraduate teacher 

candidate instruction as well as 

instruction for candidates in graduate 

teaching programs. Section 2 of SB 

48 amends Subpart 1 of Part 6 of 

Article 6 relating to certified 

professional personnel in elementary 

and secondary education. Per the new 

Code section, by December 30, 2019, 

the Professional Standards 

Commission (PSC) is mandated to 

create a dyslexia endorsement for 

teachers to be trained in recognizing 

and responding to students with 

concerns for dyslexia and language-

based disorders, for example 

expressive or receptive language 

concerns. The development of the 

GAPSC rules were in association 

with the Georgia Department of 

Education and a Dyslexia Task Force. 

The task force included individuals 

from across the state of Georgia with 

literacy expertise, including college 

and university literacy faculty, 

qualified practitioners (e.g., 

psychologists, speech language 

pathologists, dyslexia practioneers), 

and other community stakeholders 

(e.g., administrators). The 

requirements for the dyslexia 

endorsement may include training on 

the use of universal screeners for 

identification of students at risk for 

dyslexia, providing support and 

guidance to parents, and providing 

training/guidance to other educators 

and school personnel. Lastly, the PSC 

are to establish measures to assess 

fidelity of teacher training and 

implementation for teachers who 

receive a dyslexia endorsement 

[(Georgia General Assembly 

Legislation, 2019: SB48. Passed. 

Reg. Sess. 2019-2020. 20-2-208. 

Sect. 2 (a-c)].  

Section 3 of SB 48 concerns 

certification of teachers in elementary 

and secondary education. Section 3 

Page 17 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

adds a new Code section, 20-2-208.1, 

which mandates standards for teacher 

preparation programs for elementary 

and secondary education to include 

instruction on the following: (a) the 

definition and characteristics of 

dyslexia and other disorders, (b) 

evidence based interventions and 

accommodations for students with 

characteristics of dyslexia and other 

disorders, and (c) core elements of a 

RTI framework to address reading, 

writing, mathematics, and behavior. 

The RTI framework should include 

universal screening, scientific, 

research-based interventions, 

progress monitoring of the 

effectiveness of interventions, and 

data-based decision-making 

procedures. The related data-based 

decision procedures are to include 

determining intervention 

effectiveness, determining if the 

intervention should continue, be 

altered, or discontinued, and if further 

evaluation of the student’s needs 

should be conducted. Lastly, 

instruction should be provided on the 

application and implementation of 

RTI and dyslexia instructional 

practices in the classroom [(Georgia 

General Assembly Legislation, 2019: 

SB48. Passed. Reg. Sess. 2019-2020. 

20-2-208.1. Sect. 3 (1-3)(A-D)(i-

ii)(E)].  

In addition, the GAPSC Rule 

505-3-.14 Elementary Education (P-

5) Program Requirements, Teaching 

of Reading stipulates education 

preparation programs prepare 

education professionals to meet the 

standards for the Reading 

Endorsement per GAPSC Rule 505-

3-.01 (Georgia Professional 

Standards Commission, 2016: Rule 

505-3-.14 (2) 9). This rule stipulates 

graduates of EPP elementary 

education programs in Georgia who 

meet the required standards graduate 

with a reading endorsement. It is 

probable that individuals with reading 

endorsements will be called upon to 

implement the universal screeners 

called for in SB 48. Therefore, 

education preparation programs will 

likely need to train teacher candidates 

to give screeners with fidelity and to 

interpret student data with reliability 

in their initial certification program of 

study.  

Importantly, a theoretical 

understanding of the cause of learning 

disorders, assessment measures, and 

the required intervention lead to 

effective evidence- based 

intervention (Snowling & Hulme, 

2012). Therefore, it would be 

advantageous for an EPP to provide 

instruction regarding the relationship 

among language, reading, and 

language impairments along a 

spectrum of reading disorders (see 

Figure 3); (Bishop & Snowling, 2004; 

Snowling & Hulme, 2012). The 

figure depicts the spectrum of reading 

disorders within the relationships of 

language. At the top of the figure, 

individuals with intact phonology, but 

poor language often are poor 

comprehenders. However, typical 

readers are individuals with both 

intact phonology and language. The 

Page 18 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

bottom half of the figure shows the 

dyslexia with comprehension issues 

as individuals with poor phonology 

and language. Individuals with poor 

phonology, but have intact language 

are depicted as persons with dyslexia. 

The severity of reading disorders 

follows on a continuum depending 

how the deficits with phonology 

and/or language (Bishop & Snowling, 

2004; Snowling & Hulme, 2012).  

 

Impact on Local Education 

Agencies 

 

Early identification and 

intervention of educational concerns 

for dyslexia has been shown to play a 

crucial role in academic obtainment 

(Snowling & Hulme, 2012; Shaywitz 

et al., 2008). In order to meet 

mandates set forth by SB 48, such as 

early elementary schools screeners, 

LEA will need to start to plan now to 

ensure district curriculum and 

educator in-service are aligned to 

meet SB mandates. However, 

researchers and practioneers should 

take a critical eye when selecting 

commercially available programs for 

addressing the needs of individuals 

with dyslexia. Snowling and Hulme 

(2012) suggest a virtuous circle, 

where theory inform practice and vice 

versa. Each LEA will need to ensure 

individuals making decisions for 

effective programs have a solid 

understanding of principles of 

interventions, and which children are 

suitable for selected interventions 

(Snowling & Hulme, 2012). Effective 

instruction for early signs of dyslexia, 

per Snowling and Hulme (2012), has 

more than one targeted component. 

For children who may have poorly 

developed language, instruction 

should target oral language. Activities 

should focus on speaking, listening, 

and vocabulary instruction and 

training in oral narration. Other 

targeted areas should include 

phonemic awareness (segmenting 

and blending), letter-sound 

knowledge, and reading from texts at 

the students’ appropriate level. Please 

see Snowling and Hulme (2012) for 

program details. For older students 

with concerns for dyslexia it is 

recommended evidence based 

intervention pedagogy be explicit, 

systematic, well structured, 

multisensory, and incorporate direct 

teaching, learning, (e.g., Berninger & 

Amtmann, 2003; Gabrieli, 2009; 

Graham et al., 2002; Moats, 2006; 

NRP, 2000; Schlesinger & Gray, 

2017; Snowling & Hulme, 2011) and 

time (Snowling & Hulme, 2012) for 

students to consolidate what has been 

taught. In all situations, structured 

language concepts should be coupled 

with the practice of applying the 

concepts taught via authentic reading 

and writing (Adams, 1990; Pearson, 

2004). Furthermore, our struggling 

readers and writers should receive 

instruction from highly qualified 

practitioners (Allington, 2013). To 

meet mandates, LEA will need to 

prepare so that classrooms have 

quality authentic literature, and direct 

educators to available trainings or 

Page 19 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

provide the trainings themselves from 

qualified individuals or organizations 

such as state colleges and universities 

of education.  

 

Impact on teachers and classroom 

instruction 

 

Typically it rests on the 

shoulders of general education 

teachers to notice and provide early 

intervention for reading concerns 

(Otaiba, et al., 2019). As time goes on 

other educators, such as speech 

pathologists (Lonergan & Duthie, 

2018), reading specialists or dyslexia 

specialists (Otaiba et al., 2019), will 

be involved with addressing concerns 

for dyslexia. Teachers will need to be 

well informed on the structure of the 

English language, for example 

understanding the progression of 

early reading skills from 

phonological awareness to alphabetic 

principle, from phonics to word study 

skills (Otaiba et al., 2019). Teachers 

will need to be able to interpret and 

address student needs based on 

universal screener’s results, provide 

differentiated instruction, implement 

scientifically-based literacy 

instruction for students with concerns 

for dyslexia, and understand and 

become involved in their district’s 

RTI (Otaiba et al., 2019; Youman & 

Mather, 2018).  

 

Conclusion 

 

 In conclusion, SB 48 has 

brought dyslexia and the teaching of 

reading to the forefront of education 

in Georgia. Reading is a complex 

process and extends beyond the act of 

teaching phonics (e.g., Adams, 1990, 

NRP 2000, Carlisle, 2000; Carlisle et 

al., 2011; Pearson, 2013). Senate Bill 

48 aims to address components of 

reading that research has shown are 

essential for individuals with dyslexia 

(e.g., Gabrieli, 2009; Shaywitz et al., 

2008; Torgesen et al., 2001). The 

tenets of the bill are aligned with 

dyslexia advocacy that has occurred 

over the last few years in the U.S. The 

bill defines dyslexia as a 

neurobiological-based disorder and 

provides definitions to encourage the 

use of dyslexia and dyslexia related 

terminology. Universal screening of 

kindergarten students, as well as 

kindergarten through grade three 

students who demonstrate concern for 

dyslexia based on LEA RTI is 

stipulated in the law. A three-year 

pilot study will be initiated in 

academic year 2020-2021, which will 

evaluate the effectiveness of early 

reading support for students with 

concerns for dyslexia. A component 

addressing professional learning 

opportunities is included in the 

dyslexia handbook that will be 

available December 1, 2019. In 

addition, the law sets forth the process 

for the PSC to establish standards for 

a dyslexia endorsement. There is no 

doubt that SB 48 will have an impact 

on EPP, LEA, and teachers in the 

classroom. The result is hoped to have 

a positive influence on literacy gains 

for students in Georgia with literacy 

Page 20 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

concerns.  

 

References 

Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to 

read: Thinking and learning 

about print. University of 

Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign.  

Adolf, S., & Hogan, T. (2018). 

Understanding dyslexia in the 

context of developmental 

language disorders. 

Language, Speech, and 

Hearing Services in Schools, 

49, 762-773. 

Alexander, A. W., & Slinger-

Constant, A. M. (2004). 

Current status of treatments 

for dyslexia: Critical review. 

Journal of Child Neurology, 

19, 744-758. 

Allington, R. L. (2002). What I've 

learned about effective 

reading instruction: From a 

decade of studying exemplary 

elementary classroom 

teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 

83, 740-747. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/00317

2170208301007 

Allington, R. (2013). What really 

matters when working with 

struggling readers. The 

Reading Teacher, 66, 520-

530. 
http://doi:10.1002/TRTR.115

4 

Baars, B. J., & Gage, N. M. (2020). 

Brodmann Area 41: 2.2.1 

Auditory cortical anatomy. 

Retrieved from 

ScienceDirect: 

https://www.sciencedirect.co

m/topics/neuroscience/brodm

ann-area-41. 

Berninger, V., & Amtmann, D. 

(2003). Preventing written 

expression disabilities 

through early and continuing 

assessment and intervention 

for handwriting and/or 

spelling problems: Research 

into practice. In L. Swanson, 

K. Harris, & S. Graham 

(Eds.), Handbook of Learning 

Disabilities (pp. 345-363). 

The Guildford Press. 

Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Thomson, 

J., & Raskind, W. (2001). 

Language phenotype for 

reading and writing disability: 

A family approach. Scientific 

Studies of Reading, 5, 59-106. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15

32799XSSR0501_3 

Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Thomson, 

J., Wagner, R., Swanson, L., 

Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. 

(2006). Modeling 

phonological core deficits 

within a working memory 

architecture in children and 

Page 21 of 68

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F003172170208301007
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F003172170208301007


 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

adults with developmental 

dyslexia. Scientific Studies of 

Reading, 10, 165-198. 

https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532

799xssr1002_3 

Berninger, V., Lee, Y. L., Abbott, R., 

& Breznitz, Z. (2013). 

Teaching children with 

dyslexia to spell in a reading-

writer's workshop. Annals of 

Dyslexia, 63, 1-24. http://doi 

10.1007/s11881-011-0054-0 

Berninger, V., Winn, W., Stock, P., 

Abbott, R., Eschen, K., Lin, S. 

J., . . . Nagy, W. (2008). Tier 

3 specialized writing 

instruction for students with 

dyslexia. Reading and 

Writing, 21, 95-129. 

https://doi 10.1007/s11145-

007-9066-x 

Bhat, P., Rapport, M. K., & Griffin, 

C. (2000). A legal perspective 

on the use of specific reading 

methods for students with 

learning disabilities. Learning 

Disability Quarterly, 23, 283-

297.  

Bishop, D., & Snowling, M. (2004). 

Developmental dyslexia and 

specific langauge impairment: 

Same or different? 

Psychological Bulletin, 130, 

858-886. http://doi: 

10.1037/0033-

2909.130.6.858 

Boardman, A. G., Roberts, G., 

Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., 

Murray, C. S., & 

Kosanovich, M. (2008). 

Effective instruction for 

adolescent struggling 

readers: A practice brief. 

Research Corporation, Center 

on Instruction. 

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). 

Categorizing sounds and 

learning to read-a causal 

relationship. Nature, 301, 

419-421. 

Carlisle, J. (2000). Awareness of the 

structure and meaning of 

morphologically complex 

words: Impact on reading. 

Reading and Writing: An 

Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 

169-190. 

Carlisle, J., Kelcey, B., Berebitsky, 

D., & Phelps, G. (2011). 

Embracing the complexity of 

instruction: A study of the 

effects of teachers' instruction 

on students' reading 

comprehension. Scientific 

Studies of Reading, 15, 409-

439. 

Carroll, D. (2008). Psychology of 

language: Fifth edition. 

Thomson Higher Education. 

Center on Response to Intervention at 

American Institutes for 

Research. (2019, November). 

Universal Screening. 

Retrieved from The Essential 

Components of RTI: 

https://rti4success.org/essenti

Page 22 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

al-components-rti/universal-

screening 

 

Cowan, N. (2010). Multiple 

concurrent thoughts: The 

meaning and development of 

neuropsychology of working 

memory. Developmental 

Neuropsychology, 35, 447-

474. 
http://doi:10.1080/87565641.

2010.494985 

D'Mello, A., & Gabrieli, J. (2018). 

Cognitive neuroscience of 

dyslexia. Language, Speech, 

and Hearing Services in 

Schools, 49, 798-809. 

https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_

LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0020 

Duke, N., Pearson, D., Strachan, S. 

L., & Billman, A. (2011). 

Essential elements of 

fostering and teaching 

reading comprehension. In S. 

J. Samuels, & A. E. Farstrup 

(Eds.), What reasearch has to 

say about reading instruction 

(4th ed., pp. 51-93). 

International Reading 

Association. 

Dyslegia. (2019). Pending legislative 

table. Retrieved from 

dyslegia.com: 

https://www.dyslegia.com/20

19/01/2019-pending-

legislation-table/ 

Francis, D., Shaywitz, S., Stuebing, 

K. K., Shaywitz, B., & 

Fletcher, J. (1996). 

Developmental lag versus 

deficit models of reading 

disability: A longitudinal, 

individual growth curves 

analysis. Journal of 

Educational Psychology, 88, 

3-17. 

Gabrieli, J. D. (2009). Dyslexia: A 

new synergy between 

education and cognitive 

neuroscience. Science, 325, 

280-283. 

Galaburda, A., Sherman, G., Rosen, 

G., Aboitiz, F., Biol, M., & 

Geschwind, N. (1985). 

Developmental Dyslexia: 

Four consecutive patients 

with cortical anomolies. 

Annals of Neurology, 18, 222-

233. 

Georgia General Assembly 

Legislation. (2019). 2019-

2020 Regular Session - SB 48. 

Retrieved from Georgia 

General Assembly 

Legislation: 

http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis

lation/en-

US/Display/20192020/SB/48 

Georgia General Assembly 

Legislation. (2019). Georgia 

State Senate: Signed by 

Governor. Retrieved from 

Georgia General Assembly: 

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legi

Page 23 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

slation/en-

US/SignedByGov.aspx  

 

 

Georgia Professional Standards 

Commission. (2016, 

September 26). Educator 

Preparation Rules: 505 -3-.14 

Elementary Education (P-5) 

Program. Retrieved from 

Georgia Professional 

Standards Commission: 

Educator Preparation 

Division: 

https://www.gapsc.com/Rule

s/Current/EducatorPreparatio

n/505-3-

.14.pdf?dt=%3C%#Eval('strT

imeStamp')%20%%3E 

Geschwind, N. (1965). Disconnexion 

syndromes in animals and 

man. Brain, 88, 585-644. 

Geschwind, N., & Levitsky, W. 

(1968). Human brain: Left-

right asymmetries in temporal 

speech region. Science, 161, 

186-187. 

Goswami, U., Fosker, T., Huss, M., 

Mead, N., & Szucs, D. (2011). 

Rise time and format 

transition duration in 

discrimination of speech 

sounds: The Ba-Wa 

distinction in developmental 

dyslexia. Developmental 

Science, 1, 34-43. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467

-7687.2010.00955.x 

Graham, S., Harris, K., & 

Chorzempa, B. (2002). 

Contribution of spelling 

instruction to the spelling, 

writing, and reading of poor 

spellers. Journal of 

Educational Psychology, 94, 

669-686. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

0663.94.4.669Guthrie, J. 

(2015). Best practices for 

motivating students to read. In 

L. B. Gambrell, & L. M. 

Morrow (Eds.), Best practices 

in literacy instruction (5th ed., 

pp. 61-82). Guilford Press. 

Hallahan, D. P., & Mercer, C. D. 

(2007, November 19). 

Learning Disabilities: 

Historical Perspectives. 

Retrieved from National 

Research Center on Learning 

Disabilities: 

http://www.nrcld.org/resourc

es/ldsummit/hallahan2.html 

Henry, M. (1998). Structured, 

sequential, multisensory 

teaching: The Orton legacy. 

Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 3-26. 

Hruby, G. G., Goswami, U., 

Frederiksen, C. H., & Perfetti, 

C. A. (2011). Neuroscience 

and reading: A review for 

reading education 

researchers. Reading 

Research Quarterly, 46, 156-

172. 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1

0.2307/41203419 

Page 24 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

International Dyslexia Association. 

(2019, March 26). Definition 

of Dyslexia. Retrieved from 

International Dyslexia 

Association: 

https://dyslexiaida.org/definit

ion-of-dyslexia/ 

International Dyslexia Association. 

(2019, November 12). 

Dyslexia Basics. Retrieved 

from International Dyslexia 

Association: 

https://dyslexiaida.org/dyslex

ia-basics-2/ 

International Dyslexia Association. 

(2019). Structured 

Literacy™: An introductory 

guide. Retrieved from 

International Dyslexia 

Association: 

https://app.box.com/s/mvuvh

el6qaj8tghvu1nl75i0ndnlp0y

z  

Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Kral, C. 

C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, 

J. (2008). Improving 

adolescent literacy: Effective 

classroom and intervention 

practices: A Practice Guide. 

Retrieved from (NCEE 

#2008-4027). Washington, 

DC: National Center for 

Education Evaluation and 

Regional Assistance, Institute 

of Education Sciences, U.S. 

Department of: Retrieved 

from 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc 

Kalat, J. W. (2019). Biological 

psychology (13th ed.). 

Cengage Publishers. 

Lerner, J. (1989). Educational 

Interventions in Learning 

Disabilities. Journal 

American Academy Child and 

Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 

326-331. 

Liberman, I. Y. (1973). Segmentation 

of the spoken word and 

reading acquisition. Bulletin 

of the Orton Society, 23, 65-

77. 

Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., 

Fisher, F. W., & Carter, B. 

(1974). Explicit syllable and 

phoneme segmentation in the 

young child. Journal of 

Experimental Child 

Psychology, 18, 201-212. 

Lonergan, J., & Duthie, J. (2018). The 

state of dyslexia: Recent 

legislation and guidelines for 

serving school-age children 

and adolescents with dyslexia. 

Language, Speech, and 

Hearing Services in Schools, 

49, 810-816. 
https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_

LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0002 

Lyon, R. G., Saywitz, S., & Saywitz, 

B. (2003). Part I: Defining 

dyslexia, comorbidity, 

teacher's knowledge of 

language and reading. Annals 

of Dyslexia, 53, 1-14. 

Page 25 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

Macdonald, S. (2009). Towards a 

social reality of dyslexia. 

British Journal of Learning 

Disabilities, 38, 271-279. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468

-3156.2009.00601.x 

Misssissippi Department of 

Education. (2019, 

November). Universal 

Screener and Diagnostic 

Assessment. Retrieved from 

Mississippi Department of 

Education: 

https://www.mdek12.org/OS

A/USDA 

Moats, L. (2006). How spelling 

supports reading. American 

Educator, 29, 12-43. 

National Institute of Neurological 

Disorders and Stroke. (2019, 

March 03). Dyslexia 

Information Page. Retrieved 

from NIH: National Institute 

of Neurological Disorders and 

Stroke: 

https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Di

sorders/All-

Disorders/Dyslexia-

Information-Page 

National Reading Panel. (2000). 

Teaching children to read: An 

evidence based assessment of 

scientific research literature 

on reading and its 

implications for reading 

instruction. Retrieved from 

National Institute of Child 

Health and Human 

Development: 

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/pu

blications/nrp/report.htm 

Neville, H., Coffey, S., Holcomb, P., 

& Tallal, P. (1993). The 

neurobiology of sensory and 

language processing in 

language-impaired children. 

Journal of Cognitive 

Neuroscience, 5, 235-253. 

Odegard, T. (2019). Dyslexia 

defined: Historical trends and 

the current reality. 

Perspectives on Language 

and Literacy, 45, 11-14. 

Orton, J. L., Orton, S., Thompson, 

L., Bucy, P. C., Bender, L., 

Robinson, M. H., & Rome, P. 

D. (1975). Part I. 

Biographical Sketch and 

Personal Memories. Bulletin 

of the Orton Society, 25, 145-

155. 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2

3769583 

Otaiba, S., Allor, J. H., Baker, K., 

Conner, C., Stewart, J., & 

Mellado de la Cruz, V. 

(Summer 2019). Teaching 

phonemic awareness and 

word reading skills: Focusing 

on explicit and systematic 

approaches. Perspectives on 

Language and Literacy, 45, 

11- 20. 

Pearson, P. D. (2004). The reading 

wars. Educational Policy, 18, 

216-252. 

Page 26 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

https://doi.org/10.1177/08959

04803260041 

 

 

Pearson, P. D., & Cervetti, G. (2013). 

The psychology and 

pedagogy of reading 

processes. In W. Reynolds, & 

G. Miller, (Eds.), Educational 

Psychology, V.VII, of 

Handbook of Psychology 2nd 

Edition (pp. 507-554). New 

York: John Wiley & Sons. 

Pennington, B. F. (2003). 

Understanding the 

comorbidity of dyslexia. 

Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 15-22. 

Peterson, R., & Pennington, B. 

(2012). Seminar: 

Developmental dyslexia. 

Lancet, 379, 1997-2007. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S014

0-6736(12)60198-6 

Petretto, D. R., & Masala, C. (2017). 

Dyslexia and specific learning 

disorders: New international 

diagnostic criteria. Journal of 

Childhood and 

Developmental Disorders, 3, 

1-5. https://doi.10.4172/2472-

1786.100057 

Rawson, M. B. (1987). The Orton 

trail: 1896-1986. Annals of 

Dyslexia, 37, 36-48. 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2

3769279 

Rose, T. E., & Zirkel, P. (2007). 

Orton-Gillingham 

methodology for students 

with reading disabilities: 30 

years of case law. The Journal 

of Special Education, 41, 171-

185. 

Rueda, R. (2013). 21st-century skills: 

Cultural, linguistic, and 

motivational perspectives. In 

D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, 

& R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), 

Theoretical models and 

processes (6th ed., pp. 1241-

1267). International Reading 

Association. 

Schlesinger, N. W., & Gray, S. 

(2017). The impact of 

multisensory instruction on 

learning letter names and 

sounds, word reading and 

spelling. Annals of Dyslexia, 

67, 219-258. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s1188

1-017-0140-z 

Schneider, E., & Crombie, M. (2003). 

Dyslexia and Foreign 

Language Learning. NY: 

David Fulton. 

Shaywitz, S. (1998). Dyslexia. The 

New England Journal of 

Medicine, 338, 307-312. 

Shaywitz, S. E., Fletcher, J. M., & 

Shaywitz, B. A. (1994). Issues 

in the definition and 

classification of attention 

deficit disorder. Topics in 

Page 27 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

Language Disorders, 14, 1-

25. 

 

 

Shaywitz, S. E., Morris, R., & 

Shaywitz, B. A. (2008). The 

education of dyslexic children 

from childhood to young 

adulthood. Annual Review of 

Psychology, 59, 451-475. 

https://doi.org/10.1146/annur

ev.psych.59.103006.093633 

Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2005). 

Dyslexia (specific reading 

disability). Biological 

Psychiatry, 57, 1301-1309. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biop

sych.2005.01.043 

Shaywitz, S., Shaywitz, B., Pugh, K., 

Fulbright, R., Constable, R., 

& et al. (1998). Functional 

disruption in the organization 

of the brain for reading in 

dyslexia. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of 

Sciences, 95, 2636-2641. 

Simon, C. (2000). Dyslexia and 

learning a foreign language: A 

personal experience. Annals 

of Dyslexia, 50, 155-187. 

Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2011). 

Evidence based interventions 

for reading and language 

difficulties: Creating a 

virtuous circle. British 

Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 81, 1-23.1 

Snowling, M., & Hulme, C. (2012). 

Children's reading 

impairments: From theory to 

practice. The Japanese 

Psychological Association, 

55, 186-202. https://doi: 

10.1111/j.1468-

5884.2012.00541.x 

Springer, S. (1987). Review work(s): 

Cerebral lateralization: 

Biological mechanisms, 

associations, and pathology. 

The Quarterly Review of 

Biology, 62, 462-463. 

Stanovich, K. (1988). The right and 

wrong places to look for the 

cognitive locus of reading 

disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 

38, 154-175. 

Stein, J. (2001). The magnocellular 

theory of developmental 

dyslexia. Dyslexia, 7, 12-36. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1

86 

Stein, J., & Walsh, V. (1997). To see 

but not to read; the 

magnocellular theory of 

dyslexia. Trends in 

Neuroscience, 20, 147-152. 

Swanson, L., & Ashbaker, M. 

(2000). Working memory, 

short-term memory, speech 

rate, word recognition and 

reading comprehension in 

learning disable readers: 

Does the executive system 

have a role? Intelligence, 28, 

1-30. 

Page 28 of 68



 
 

Georgia Journal of Literacy  Volume 43, Spring 2020 
 

 

 

Swanson, L., & Siegel, L. (2001). 

Learning disabilities as a 

working memory deficit. 

Issues in Education, 7, 1-48. 

Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., 

Wagner, R. K., Roshotte, C. A., 

Voeller, K., & Conway, T. (2001). 

Intensive remedial instruction for 

children with severe reading 

disabilities: Immediate and long-

term instructional approaches. 

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 

33-58. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2018, 

May 25). IDEA: Section 

300.309 determining the 

existence of a specific 

learning disability. Retrieved 

from U.S. Department of 

Education: 

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/

b/d/300.309 

U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. (2017, 

March 6). Aphasia. Retrieved 

from National Institute on 

Deafness and Other 

Communication Disorders: 

https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/he

alth/aphasia 

Wagner, R., & Torgesen, J. (1987). 

The nature of phonological 

processing and its causal role 

in the acquisition of reading 

skills. Psychological Bulletin, 

10, 192-212. 

Wendorf, J. (2015, May 21). 

Retrieved from National 

Center for Learning 

Disabilities: 

https://www.ncld.org/wp-

content/uploads/2015/07/NC

LD-letter-to-USED-05-21-

15.pdf 

Youman, M., & Mather, N. (2018). 

Dyslexia laws in the USA: A 

2018 update. Perspectives of 

Language and Literacy, 44, 

37-41. 

Yudin, M. (2015, October 23). U.S. 

Department of Education. 

Retrieved from 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/s

peced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs

/guidance-on-dyslexia-10-

2015.pdf 

Page 29 of 68




