ISTOCK.COM/NAMBITOMO

Dyslexia affects approximately 20% of the population (Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). Although many students with dyslexia are identified during elementary school, it is not something that students grow out of, and it often goes undiagnosed. Therefore, it’s imperative that secondary school leaders stay up to date on the relevant law and best practices.

Dyslexia is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders (Carroll et al., 2025). It is not a visual impairment where students see letters backwards. Instead, the International Dyslexia Association (IDA, 2002) defines dyslexia in part as “a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin.” This reading disability affects decoding (translating text to speech) and encoding (translating speech to text or spelling). Students often have difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition. As a result, students with dyslexia can also face challenges with reading comprehension which can limit their vocabulary (IDA, 2002). Overall, students with dyslexia may experience unexpected difficulty attaining reading, writing, and spelling skills (Carroll et al., 2025).

Federal Legislation

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides entitlements to students with dyslexia through the specific learning disability (SLD) category; however, some assert that dyslexia warrants its own category. When dyslexia is grouped under the broader SLD category, the prevalence of students receiving intervention for dyslexia goes untracked. Some are also concerned that students may not receive the individualized education that they are entitled to receive without a standalone category
for dyslexia.

In attempts to ensure special protections for students with dyslexia, policymakers unsuccessfully proposed the 21st Century Dyslexia Act in 2021 and 2023 (Zagata, 2024). In 2015, the U.S. Department of Education published policy guidance recommending that schools may need to specify in an Individualized Education Program (IEP) that a student has dyslexia so that personnel provide appropriate supports, accommodations, and modifications. Some students with dyslexia, however, are not covered by federal law because they do not need specialized instruction under IDEA nor accommodations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Zirkel, 2023).

State Legislation

All states have enacted dyslexia-specific legislation regulating a variety of aspects including identification, screening, and intervention. The first dyslexia legislation was passed in the 1980s (Youman & Mather, 2015), but most have been passed in the last decade (Zagata, 2024). The increased attention is partially due to a parent advocacy group called Decoding Dyslexia which was formed by eight parents who met on a train headed to a National Center for Learning Disabilities luncheon almost 15 years ago. The advocacy group is now active in every state (Ward-Longergan & Duthie, 2018).

Despite the recent increase in dyslexia legislation, drafting these laws is complicated due to challenges in the definition of dyslexia, how it is assessed, and the political landscape surrounding reading instruction (Gearin et al., 2020). Nonetheless, dyslexia policies appear to primarily mandate these seven objectives: 1) common definitions, 2) early intervention, 3) universal screening, 4) evidence-based and multisensory instruction, 5) structured approaches to instruction, 6) state resource allocation, and 7) university preservice training requirements (Gearin et al., 2020, p. 1045). The primary focus appears to be screening, identification, teacher training, and intervention (Zagata, 2024). Overall, state dyslexia laws vary widely in content and strength; typically, lacking a private right of action to sue
(Zirkel, 2023).

The expansion in dyslexia legislation has occurred simultaneously with a sharp increase in science of reading laws. These signal the latest chapter of the debate over how to teach reading—dubbed the reading wars—which has endured for over 100 years. Starting in 2013—and increasing rapidly since 2021—the science of reading movement has swept through statehouses. At least 40 states have implemented science of reading laws or policies. These laws require “schools to use evidence-based methods for teaching young students how to read. These mandates touch on many different components of instruction, including teacher training, curriculum,
and how students are identified for extra support” (Schwartz, 2024).

Some believe these laws provide a positive antidote which is needed to improve the post-pandemic dip in students’ reading achievement. Others are hesitant to favor the legislation until research shows the science of reading can be successfully implemented and results in increased reading achievement.

Case Law

In 2025, a college freshman who graduated high school with honors sued her Connecticut school district claiming she could not read or write. In her complaint, she argued that teachers thought she had dyslexia, and she persistently sought testing, but she was not evaluated for dyslexia until the last day of her senior year. Although her lawsuit, in which she is seeking $3 million, is pending, another student with dyslexia prevailed in his recent lawsuit. In William v. Clarksville-Montgomery County School System (2025), a Tennessee school allowed a student to graduate with a 3.4 GPA, but he was unable to read. His parents claimed that IDEA was violated because the student had not made progress in reading fluency during middle and high school. The school provided one-on-one language instruction and speech therapy; however, after realizing their son continued to struggle, his parents paid for private tutoring for his dyslexia. Throughout his secondary schooling, the student’s IEP mostly stayed the same, as did his reading skills; he tested below the tenth percentile and did not meet his IEP’s fluency goals. A special education teacher emailed school administrators stating, “This kid can’t read.” However, the school did not identify his dyslexia until his junior year
(p. 658).

An administrative law judge determined the school had violated IDEA by not providing the student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and ordered an additional 888 hours of tutoring. The appellate courts agreed with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals explaining that the school had not provided a FAPE because the student’s IEPs focused on fluency instead of foundational reading skills. Like the Connecticut student, this student had “relied on a host of accommodations that masked his inability to read” such as speech-to-text software, ChatGPT, Grammarly, and extended time (p. 660). The Court determined these accommodations likely masked his inability to read rather than effectively helping him. Responding to the district’s argument that IDEA does not guarantee specific academic outcomes, the court countered, “But when a child is capable of learning to read, and his IEP does not aim to help him overcome his particular obstacles to doing so, that IEP does not provide him the [FAPE] to which he is entitled” (p. 660).

Recommendations

Clearly this court decision highlights why secondary school leaders must ensure that school staff are carefully monitoring the progress of their students’ fundamental reading skills and not merely enabling assignments to be completed. School leaders should also consider these five recommendations:

1.  Continue to prioritize identification. Do not assume that all students with dyslexia were properly identified in elementary school.

2.  Be skeptical of providing too many accommodations, especially voice-to-text and read-aloud software. Remediation cannot be substituted by simply providing accommodations.

3.  Increase your knowledge about dyslexia. Legal violations and lawsuits can be prevented by proactively seeking updated guidance from reliable sources including the National Center for Improving Literacy and the International Dyslexia Association (for additional resources, see Zagata, 2025a; Zagata, 2025b).

4.  Educate staff specifically about dyslexia. Because dyslexia is the most common SLD, educators should receive professional development to prepare them to screen and identify students with dyslexia who may be falling through the cracks (Zagata, in press). Additionally, staff should be trained to effectively implement instructional methodologies to ensure students with dyslexia receive the FAPE they are entitled to receive.

5.  Understand and implement your specific state’s dyslexia law(s). The National Center on Improving Literacy provides this website listing each state’s law(s): stateofdyslexia.org.

Janet R. Decker, JD, PhD, is an associate professor of education law at Indiana University and a coauthor of Legal Rights of School Leaders, Teachers, and Students. James Zavodjancik, EdD, is the Chief Academic Officer for the Fairfield Public Schools and adjunct professor of educational leadership at Sacred Heart University in Connecticut. Elizabeth Zagata is a special education systems improvement specialist at WestEd and author of “Legal Issues Around Dyslexia” in the upcoming A Guide to Special Education Law (2nd ed.).

References

Carroll, J. M., Holden, C., Kirby, P., Thomson, P. A., & Snowling, M. J. (2025). Toward a consensus on dyslexia: Findings from the Delphi study. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, (66)7, 1065–1076. doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.14123

Gearin, B., Turtura, J., Kame’enui, E. J., Nelson, N. J., & Fine, H. (2020). A multiple streams analysis of recent changes to state-level dyslexia education law. Educational Policy, 34(7), 1036–1068. doi.org/10.1177/0895904818807328

International Dyslexia Association. (2002, November 12). Definition of dyslexia. dyslexiaida.org/definition-of-dyslexia/

Schwartz, S. (2024, November 5). Which states have passed ‘science of reading’ laws? What’s in them? Education Week. edweek.org/teaching-learning/which-states-have-passed-science-of-reading-laws-whats-in-them/2022/07

Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, J. (2020). Overcoming dyslexia: Second edition. Knopf.

Ward-Lonergan, J. M., & Duthie, J. K. (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(4), 810–816. DOI: 10.1044/2018_LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0002

William A. v. Clarksville-Montgomery Cnty. Sch. Sys., 127 F.4th 656 (6th Cir. 2025).

Youman, M., & Maher, N. (2013) Dyslexia laws in the USA. Annals of Dyslexia, 63, 133–153. doi.org/10.1007/s11881-012-0076-2

Zagata, E. (2024, March). DLD policy brief: A synopsis of federal-level dyslexia law. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 39(2), 57–59. doi.org/10.1177/09388982241230759

Zagata, E. (2025a). Resources on Literacy Legislation. ResearchGate. researchgate.net/publication/389590802_Resources_on_Literacy_Legislation

Zagata, E. (2025b). Legislating literacy at the state level: Six considerations for supporting students with disabilities. WestEd. wested.org/resource/legislating-literacy-at-the-state-level

Zagata, E. (in press). Legal issues around dyslexia. In R. Umpstead Pratel, K. Brady, & T. Puckett (Eds.), A Guide to Special Education Law (2nd ed.). Education Law Association.

Zirkel, P. A. (2023, July 6). Identification and intervention of students with dyslexia: The latest legal update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 411, 903. perryzirkel.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/zirkel-dyslexia-article-update-2023.pdf