Updates on Universal Screening for Reading Difficulties, Including Risk of Dyslexia, in CA

Required K-2 universal screening is coming to California in the 2025-26 school year!

On July 10, 2023, Governor Newsom signed the Education Omnibus Budget Trailer Bill (Senate Bill 114) which included annual universal screening for reading difficulties, including risk of dyslexia, for California students in Kindergarten, Grade 1, and Grade 2. (You can find more background here and excerpted language from the bill here.)

Education leaders at the state and district levels are now preparing for the rollout of the state requirement. Read the paragraphs below for a brief explanation of universal screening for reading difficulties, including risk of dyslexia, and an outline of the next stages of implementation.

What is universal screening and why is it so important?

Universal screening refers to the process of assessing all students in a given grade level to identify those who may be at risk for reading difficulties, including risk of dyslexia. It involves brief tests of discrete skills and also incorporates additional supports for screening of multilingual learners. The goal is to catch potential reading issues early, before they become more pronounced and harder to address.

The ability to read is a fundamental skill in modern society and the gateway to all academic areas. Research from multiple scientific studies is unequivocal: early identification and intervention improves literacy outcomes for students at risk of, or with, dyslexia and other struggling readers. K-2 universal screening makes system-wide early intervention possible and is the first step in closing academic gaps, before students fall behind.

The latest in neuroscience research shows that the time from birth to age eight is a critical period for literacy development due to rapid brain growth and its response to instruction. These exciting advances in neuroscience also show that, with appropriate early identification and reading interventions, the unique identifiers in the brain can be altered to resemble the reading patterns seen in the brain of a person who does not have dyslexia. Learn more about universal screening and the evidence base here.

Does universal screening diagnose dyslexia?

Universal screening does not diagnose children as having dyslexia, and it does not determine special education eligibility. Screening identifies children who are at risk for developing reading impairments. It provides information about which children are likely to encounter difficulty learning to read and need targeted support. The goal is to reduce the prevalence of reading impairments, including dyslexia, by taking preventive actions in providing evidence-based interventions in response to screening, delivered in the general education classroom.

What is happening with the new screening law and when will screening begin?

Required K-2 universal screening is coming to California in the 2025-26 school year!

In January, 2024, the California State Board of Education appointed nine experts to the Reading Difficulties Risk Screener Selection Panel. The panel is currently working to devise a list of screening instruments developed for English-speaking pupils and students learning English. The panel has convened eight times during 2024 to engage in this work. Agendas and minutes from the meetings can be found here.

The legislation calls for the State Board of Education to publish the approved list of screeners before the end of 2024. Once the list is released, Local Education Agencies (referred to as “LEAs” and means school districts, county offices of education, direct-funded charter schools, and special education local plan areas, etc.) must formally adopt screening instrument(s) from those on the approved list by June 30, 2025.   

LEAs will have until no later than the 2025-2026 academic year to begin annual screening of all pupils in Kindergarten, Grade 1 and Grade 2. Parents/guardians will receive the results of the screening, including information on how to interpret the results and the proposed supports and services for children identified as “at risk.” Proposed supports and services appropriate to the challenges identified in the screening process may include any of the following:

  1. Evidence-based literacy instruction focused on the pupil’s specific needs
  2. Progress monitoring
  3. Early intervention in the regular general education program
  4. One-on-one or small group tutoring
  5. Further evaluation or diagnostic assessment

Parents/guardians can opt-out if they do not want their child screened. There are also provisions for alternate procedures for English Learners who do not speak sufficient English to be screened using an English-language screening instrument.

What’s coming next?

DDCA was thrilled to see that the Governor’s budget included $25 million in funding for the implementation of universal screening. These funds are much needed as the legislation calls for, “guidance and resources 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” (Senate Bill 114). To support LEAs with adoption and implementation of the screenings, the California Department of Education will add a dedicated web page to their website with information about the screening requirements, Frequently Asked Questions, and informational webinars. A Reading Difficulties Risk Screener Adoption Toolkit designed to guide LEAs in their review and adoption of screening instruments will also be published. DDCA will share more about the state-provided guidance and resources as information is released.

DDCA has advocated for universal screening since 2015 and, now, almost ten years later, it’s becoming a reality in California public schools! We look forward to the release of the approved list of screeners and hope to support stakeholders as they navigate the screener selection process and prepare for screening during the 2025-26 school year. Successful implementation depends on schools being prepared to provide appropriate follow-up interventions and support, as simply identifying at-risk students is not enough without a robust system in place to help them succeed.

Please follow DDCA to learn and support the implementation of this critical legislation! You can signup for DDCA emails by clicking here.

The Question Remains: Will CA Teacher Prep Programs Be Held Accountable for Meeting the New Literacy Standards?

On April 19th, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing voted unanimously to reaffirm Mills College at Northeastern’s (MC:NU) accreditation despite a complaint filed jointly by Decoding Dyslexia CA, Families in Schools, and the California Reading Coalition. 

Our complaint found the college’s new educator preparation program failed to meet the literacy teaching requirements mandated by Senate Bill 488.

This Complaint Matters
As a result of SB 488, which passed in 2022, California has new and improved literacy standards and expectations for teacher candidates and their preparation programs. DDCA fought very hard over several years for these standards because we know the solution to children’s struggles with reading are teachers who are knowledgeable about the science of reading and evidence-based teaching methods. Our educators deserve to be prepared for the critical job of teaching kids to read. CA kids’ futures depend on it.

The new literacy standards under SB 488 demand that pre-service teachers learn how to screen students for reading difficulties, including risk of dyslexia, as well as implement structured literacy in the classroom. The new literacy standards also require that teacher preparation programs incorporate the California Dyslexia Guidelines so that new teachers are better prepared to meet the needs of students with, or at risk for, dyslexia. 

The above components were not found in the MC:NU course syllabi. Furthermore, their coursework paid insufficient attention to the five components identified by the National Reading Panel as necessary for reading. The MC:NU coursework emphasized typical balanced literacy practices such as guided reading, leveled texts, and running records and also included required course readings by controversial curriculum authors Fountas & Pinnell. The three-cueing method of reading instruction, which was debunked by cognitive science decades ago, was embedded throughout their coursework. Finally, the program didn’t mention how to provide additional help for struggling and multilingual students.

Failing to follow science fails kids!

The MC:NU program is one of the first new teacher preparation programs to apply for accreditation under the new literacy standards. If MC:NU’s program is accredited, this will set a dangerous precedent. The door will be wide open for what is deemed “acceptable” coursework and literacy instructional practices for all other California teacher prep programs. 

The 4/19 Meeting
In addition to nine written public comments, the meeting had many call-in commenters who brought passion and expertise to the topic. We urge you to listen to the voices of those who care deeply about this issue. (To listen to the public comments, please click on the images below.)

The first two audio clips are from Maryanne Wolf and Sue Sears who were two of the literacy experts appointed by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing to develop the new standards. In their public comments, they each expressed significant concern that MC:NU’s teacher prep program has fallen short of meeting the standard requirements.


“[The new literacy standards] seem to be misunderstood at Mills College at Northeastern. It is unfortunate, but from my opinion after 30 years of intervention work, this fails to meet the standards that you [the Commission] asked us to bring to every teacher so that every teacher could be prepared to teach every child.”

 

“In the case of Mills College, we have three concerns [insufficient coverage of foundational skills, very little attention to reading assessment practices, and the omission of the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, which are integral to meeting the needs of all California students]. We think the syllabi deserve further examination as does the program.”

 

“We sincerely hope the Committee on Accreditation and the Commission on Teacher Credentialing take into consideration the rigorous requirements institutions of higher ed must meet in order to adequately comply with [the literacy standards].”

 

“My team of analysts reviewed the syllabi provided by Mills College. Based on these documents, had Mills College been part of the sample of programs we reviewed for our [June 2023] report, it would have earned a grade of F for failing to provide adequate coverage of the five core components of reading instruction.”

 

“We are at a critical juncture as the literacy standards will not make a difference if the Commission does not hold our teacher prep programs accountable for complying with them… The [Commission] is required, under law, to ensure that the programs satisfy these new literacy teaching standards.”

 

“Most families simply trust. They trust that people in power, like you, will uphold the law to ensure that their children will have educators equipped to teach their children to read and to help them succeed in school. They trust the system, and so because you are the system, I am here today to ask you to investigate our complaint and ensure the law is followed so that every new teacher can effectively teach every student to read.”

 

“I urge the Commission to take appropriate and immediate action to investigate the complaint filed on the Mills College at Northeastern’s teacher preparation programs. There are fundamental issues at stake here. 2022’s SB 488 put into law specific key requirements for preparing new teachers to teach reading aligned with the best current evidence. Our young students deserve this evidence-based instruction and our new teachers deserve to be prepared. [Mills College at Northeastern] falls well short on meeting those requirements.”

 

“Running records, guided reading and three-cueing failed me as a teacher and failed my students who deserved instruction grounded in science… My story is not at all unique. Thousands of teachers are currently seeking knowledge counter to the balanced literacy methods they learned in their teacher prep [programs]. Please use your authority to enforce California’s standards for teacher preparation.”

Next Steps
The Commission voted unanimously to send the complaint back to the Committee on Accreditation (COA) for reconsideration. The COA is the body established in state statute to review programs and make final program accreditation decisions.

At the June 6-7 COA meeting, they will vote on whether to reconsider their previous approval of the MC:NU Multiple Subject program based on the complaint. 

While DDCA was disappointed the 4/19 meeting did not result in an investigation of the complaint or provide technical assistance, we are heartened that there is a next step. It is now in the hands of the COA to review and determine whether the MC:NU program upholds the new literacy standards. 

The evidence is clear to us that MC:NU is out of compliance with SB 488. We hope the COA uses their authority to uphold the law. 

For the future of 6 million public school children in California, DDCA stands on the side of science.

Read more about the complaint here: Sharp divisions over how California’s aspiring teachers will be taught to teach reading | EdSource

And, please encourage family, friends, and colleagues to sign up for DDCA emails to stay informed on all literacy-related efforts in California.