Demystifying Dyslexia: What the Office of Administrative Hearing (OAH) Is Saying

Autor/in	Cummings, Christa
Titel	Demystifying Dyslexia: What the Office of Administrative Hearing (OAH) Is Saying
Quelle	(2023), (246 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit Psy.D. Dissertation, Alliant International University
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
ISBN	979-8-3794-5631-3
Schlagwörter	Hochschulschrift; Dissertation; Dyslexia; Court Litigation; Response to Intervention; Multi Tiered Systems of Support; Evaluation; Individualized Education Programs; Objectives; Identification; Language Usage; Parents; Methods; Tuition; Private Schools; California + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Thesis; Dissertations; Academic thesis; Dyslexics; Legasthenie; Lese-Rechtschreib-Schwäche; Rechtsstreit; Evaluierung; Individualized education program; Individualisierendes Lernen; Goal definition; Zielsetzung; Identifikation; Identifizierung; Sprachgebrauch; Eltern; Method; Methode; Unterweisung; Unterricht; Private school; Privatschule; Kalifornien
Abstract	It is estimated that twenty percent of the general population has some signs of dyslexia, and eighty percent of the students eligible for special education under Specific Learning Disability (SLD) are eligible due to reading deficits. As research on dyslexia and our knowledge of best practice identification and intervention grows, it is no surprise that the amount of litigation surrounding dyslexia at both the state and federal levels also continue to increase. In this landscape of growing litigation, the need to investigate the causes and nature of these cases also increases. In order to shed light on this, forty-eight California Office of Administrative Hearing (OAH) cases from 2010-2022 were analyzed and trends in litigation surrounding dyslexia were identified. A common focus of litigation was around child-find violations and navigating the delicate intersection between supporting Response to Intervention/Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (RTI/MTSS) initiatives and existing child-find mandates. A number of disputes also revolved around issues with inadequate assessment including neglecting to assess or include IEP goals/objectives in all areas of suspected disability, not using the word "dyslexia" in assessment reports and requests for Independent Educational Evaluations (IEE). The most litigated issue, however, was parents' requests for specific methodologies (i.e., Orton Gillingham based methodologies or structured literacy approaches) and tuition reimbursement requests for dyslexia-specific non-public or private schools. The ultimate objective for this review is to provide guidance to Local Education Agencies (LEAs), districts, and parents regarding the best practices for identifying, evaluating, and intervening with students with dyslexia and how to prevent common disputes in this area. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.] (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Tel: 800-521-0600; Web site: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01