New state dyslexia laws show mixed results for student reading achievement

Nearly every state in the United States has passed legislation over the last two decades intended to help schools identify and support students living with dyslexia. These sweeping policy changes have not consistently altered how schools diagnose students with the condition, nor have they reliably improved student reading test scores. An analysis of national education data reveals that while a handful of states saw reading gains following new policies, a large number experienced stagnant or declining literacy outcomes among students with learning disabilities. The research was published recently in the journal Annals of Dyslexia.

Dyslexia is a learning disability originating from differences in how the human brain processes language. The condition hinders a person’s ability to decode words accurately, which makes fluent and effortless reading particularly difficult. Academic researchers estimate that the learning disability affects between five and fifteen percent of school-age children across the country.

For these students, early reading struggles often persist throughout their academic careers if left unaddressed. Children who struggle to read early in life frequently experience lower educational attainment. These early challenges can also lead to long-term consequences for their social lives, emotional well-being, and future occupational success.

To address these recognized challenges, policymakers and advocacy organizations have pushed for targeted government intervention. Before the turn of the century, state education policies rarely mentioned dyslexia by name in their public statutes. This began to shift over the last ten years as grassroots advocacy movements raised public awareness, prompting dozens of state legislatures to act.

Today, nearly every state has passed some form of educational law meant to address dyslexia directly. These measures vary widely in their actual requirements. Some states mandate early screening for all students, demand specific training for public school educators, and require specific phonics-based literacy interventions. Other states simply add a formal definition of dyslexia to their educational codes without strict requirements for classroom instruction.

Free daily newsletter

Despite widespread political action, education experts have struggled to measure whether these new rules directly benefit young students. Lead author Eric Hengyu Hu, a researcher at the University at Albany, along with colleagues Kristin L. Sayeski and Paul L. Morgan, wanted to map out exactly how legislative efforts have shaped real-world school practices. The team set out to track two primary metrics before and after states passed these laws. They looked at shifts in diagnostic rates as well as changes in reading performance.

Evaluating the impact of special education policy at a national scale presents a unique data challenge for researchers. Federal education databases do not single out dyslexia as an independent diagnostic tracking category. Instead, schools tend to classify these struggling readers under the broader umbrella of a specific learning disability. Because of this administrative overlap, counting the overall rate of specific learning disabilities provides a practical way for researchers to observe public school diagnostic trends over time.

Hu and the research team analyzed student records from the National Assessment of Educational Progress to build their study. Often referred to as the Nation’s Report Card, this extensive federal dataset assesses representative groups of fourth-grade students across the country in reading and math every two years. The researchers examined reading assessment records collected from these students between 2003 and 2022.

The researchers looked at data from forty-seven states, establishing a timeline for when each state enacted its unique dyslexia legislation. They excluded a few states like Hawaii, which had not enacted a specific law at the time of the data collection, and states like Texas, which passed its legislation decades before the tracked timeline began. By comparing periods before and after a law officially passed, the research team modeled the odds of a student receiving a disability diagnosis.

The expected surge in disability diagnoses did not materialize in most locations across the country. Across twenty-six states, or roughly fifty-five percent of those studied, the researchers found the changes in specific learning disability identification rates were not statistically significant after new laws passed. Thirteen states experienced a measurable increase in identification rates, while eight states actually saw a decrease in the proportion of students grouped into this category.

When examining the average reading scores of students categorized with a specific learning disability, the trends appeared similarly mixed. Only four states showed statistical improvement in average reading achievement following legislative action. Those academic gains emerged in Arizona, Mississippi, Nevada, and Oklahoma.

For the majority of the country, academic outcomes flatlined or dropped. Twenty states recorded a measurable decline in reading performance for students with specific learning disabilities after passing new legislation. Twenty-three states showed changes in reading scores that were not statistically significant. For many jurisdictions, reading outcomes dropped shortly after new regulations were introduced.

These divergent results highlight how loosely the term “dyslexia law” applies across the nation. In some states, a law might simply codify a formal definition of the internal reading struggle without providing extra funding. Simply recognizing the word inside a state statute book does not guarantee that a school district will alter how it tests or teaches children in a typical classroom.

The lack of an increased special education classification rate aligns with what many education experts might expect. Most states do not legally require that a student displaying characteristics of dyslexia be formally placed into special education programs. Since students can receive targeted reading support without a formal disability label, a plateau in these rates might just mean schools are handling mild reading struggles within general education settings. A decrease might even suggest that early intervention successfully kept students out of special education entirely.

Broader educational trends also complicate the student reading achievement data. Reading scores across the United States have fallen generally over the past few years, a slide exacerbated heavily by pandemic-era learning disruptions. The widespread declines in literacy observed in this study likely reflect these national headwinds rather than proving that new dyslexia mandates actively harm student learning. Still, the data indicate that policy changes alone lacked the power to reverse negative academic momentum on a broad scale.

The research team noted several boundaries to their data collection. Their analysis relied on cross-sectional survey data, which captures snapshots of different students at different times, rather than tracking the same individual students continuously over their educational careers. This approach limits the ability to directly link a state law to a specific cause-and-effect student outcome. Instead, the study highlights broad associations between the timing of a law and overall school trends.

Additionally, researchers used the year legislation passed as a benchmark for comparison in their statistical models. Passing a law on paper often precedes actual classroom implementation by several years. School districts require time to purchase new reading materials and train teachers, meaning the true benefits of a recent program might simply be delayed.

To properly gauge policy success, state education departments likely need to overhaul how they track student progress. The study authors note that separating dyslexia diagnoses from general learning disabilities in federal reporting systems would give lawmakers a clearer picture of who needs help. Without precise monitoring, educational agencies will continue to struggle to see if their early screening programs work as intended.

Ultimately, the research indicates that screening mandates require matching investments in teacher training and specialized classroom resources. The act of identifying a student at risk for reading failure only benefits the child if that screening is immediately followed by structured, highly effective instruction.

The study, “Assessing the impact of dyslexia laws on identification and reading achievement: an empirical analysis,” was authored by Eric Hengyu Hu, Kristin L. Sayeski, and Paul L. Morgan.