District level advocacy results in change

District level advocacy results in change:
Lessons from San Francisco Unified School District

Years of advocating for improvements to San Francisco Unified School District’s literacy plan are finally paying off. What started as a few people speaking up at occasional board meetings has grown to an energized movement that has won the attention of district leadership, the school board, local community, and the media. 

San Francisco USD has been a balanced literacy district for many years. Some of the most well known balanced literacy programs include Lucy Calkins Units of Study, Fountas & Pinnell Classroom, Fountas & Pinnell LLI, and Reading Recovery. You will find all of these programs in SFUSD schools. Balanced literacy materials and methods do not work for a large percentage of kids, and are especially inappropriate, even harmful, to those with dyslexia, yet SFUSD has stood by this model for many years, until now. As a result of growing advocacy, the district may be on the cusp of change.

What lessons can we learn from San Francisco, to help build a movement in other districts:

1. Build a coalition
The San Francisco Dyslexia Parent Support Group served as a critical space for parents to meet, learn from one another, and join forces. At their monthly virtual meetings, parents helped one another understand their children’s needs and how to get them help. Fed up with what they had to go through, many parents then turned their energy towards improving the system so others won’t experience the same heartache and expense. 

Teachers who understand the problem also joined the movement. As a result of a wave of recent media attention and exploding facebook groups on the topic, many educators have realized they weren’t sufficiently prepared to teach kids to read.  Teachers are learning the district-provided materials and the assessment and intervention practices they are told to follow are ineffective. Not all teachers feel safe raising criticisms of their employer, which is why the voices of those who choose to speak out are so important. 

A variety of other professionals, including psychologists, a pediatrician, and leaders from business and the public sector, added diverse perspectives on the problem. The literacy coalition also connected with other parent and community groups, which helped to amplify their message.

2. Expose the problem
Having the statistics on student performance in your district is critical. You need to know where the gaps are because the general district data often does not reveal which students’ needs are not being met. Two helpful resources are here and here.

In the case of San Francisco, the student achievement data showed a catastrophic problem. But, it was the findings of a K-5 curriculum audit, which elevated the conversation. All of a sudden, the typical excuses weren’t acceptable, as the findings of the audit pointed to a new why behind low reading performance: majorly deficient curriculum and methods of instruction. 

3. Get involved
In San Francisco, members of the Community Advisory Committee for Special Education have advocated for screening for risk of dyslexia and structured literacy for years.

Every district has stakeholder groups, such as CACs, LCAP Advisory Committees, School Site Councils and parent groups such as PTAs. These bodies offer important platforms for advocacy. When people advocate from across diverse committees and associations, leadership listens.

Connect with one of the eighteen Decoding Dyslexia CA parent support groups. If there is not a group in your community, we’ll help you get one started. You can email us at info@decodingdyslexiaca.org.

4. Spread the message
In just this past school year, members of the San Francisco coalition wrote op-eds, hosted inspiring talks and informational events, and brave teachers fed up with SFUSD’s practices were even radio show guests. Love it or hate it, social media is also important in growing a movement, and advocates got vocal there too.

So, the work is not near over yet, but the real conversation has begun. San Francisco advocates await the second wave of curriculum audit findings, expected in September, and from there they hope the district will develop a literacy plan based in the science of reading that San Francisco students deserve.

You Asked! – Question 23

Download a PDF version of this You Asked question and answer HERE.

Q23:  Must my student have a “severe discrepancy” in order to be found eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability?

A:  Under CA law, the use of a “severe discrepancy” model may be considered but must not be required [34 CFR 300.307(a)(1) and 5 CCR 3030(b)(10)(B)].*

California has regulations that guide the process for determining whether a student has a specific learning disability. Dyslexia is specifically listed as an example of a qualifying condition under Specific Learning Disability [5 CCR 3030(b)(10)].  In general, three alternatives are permitted:

  1. The student has a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning. The decision as to whether or not a severe discrepancy exists shall take into account all relevant material which is available on the pupil [5 CCR 3030(b)(10)(B)].

OR

  1. The student does not achieve adequately for his age or to meet state-approved grade-level standards in one or more specified areas when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the student’s age or state-approved grade-level standards, even when educators use processes based on the student’s response to scientific, research-based intervention [5 CCR 3030(b)(10)(C)(1) and 5 CCR 3030(b)(10)(C)(2)(i)], such as RtI2 or MTSS.

OR

  1. The student exhibits a pattern of strengths or weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, state-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments…” [5 CCR 3030(b)(10)(C)(2)(ii)].

Ask the IEP team which of the above alternatives were considered in determining a student’s eligibility for special education.

Use of severe discrepancy models has been highly criticized by the US Department of Education (USDOE).  The USDOE states that there are many reasons why the use of the “severe discrepancy” model “should be abandoned” stating that using it is “potentially harmful to students as it results in delaying intervention until the student’s achievement is sufficiently low so that the discrepancy is achieved.”  USDOE referred to the use of the severe discrepancy model as a flawed “wait to fail” model [USDOE Commentary and Explanation About Proposed Regulations for IDEA 2004].

As a side note, according to dyslexia expert, Dr. Louisa Moats, “since the 1980s scientists have debunked the practice of using IQ tests in reading disability diagnoses and relying on discrepancy formulas to identify students who are eligible for special instruction in reading (Siegel, 1989; Stanovich, 1991; Fletcher et al., 2007). Compulsory IQ testing in child evaluations leads to under-identification of reading disabled students in the lower half of the IQ continuum. These students in the lower half of the IQ distribution are often those from less advantaged life circumstances, but their reading difficulties are not distinguishable in cause or remedy from students with higher IQs. The use of IQ-achievement discrepancy as a classification tool or gateway to remedial instruction is prejudicial, unnecessary, and invalid and should have been abandoned decades ago.” [Source: “Can Prevailing Approaches to Reading Instruction Accomplish the Goals of RTI?” IDA Perspectives on Language and Literacy, Summer Edition, Volume 43, pgs. 15-22].

* –  Please be advised that in California, IQ testing of African-American students is prohibited [refer to Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926 (N.D. Cal 1979), 793 F. 2d 969 (9th Cir. 1984), 37 F. 3d 485 (9th Cir. 1994).  Also, see article from CA Association of School Psychologists (CASP Today Spring 2013 – Larry P. Edition, pgs. 7, 17)].

For more YOU ASKED questions and answers click HERE.