AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, relative to dyslexia.
Summary
HB1124 amends Tennessee education law to require dyslexia screening for every student and to direct the use of the Orton-Gillingham method in certain dyslexia-related instruction. For students in kindergarten through grade 5, the bill specifically requires that the Orton-Gillingham method be used for teaching, and it also adds that this method be included in instruction for students with dyslexia more generally. The bill further replaces existing language in the state’s dyslexia intervention provisions that referred to “appropriate scientific research and brain-based multisensory intervention methods and strategies” with a direct reference to the Orton-Gillingham method.
The bill’s practical effect is to make Orton-Gillingham the prescribed instructional approach in Tennessee’s dyslexia framework, while also expanding screening obligations to all students. It affects the Tennessee Code Annotated provisions governing student screening, dyslexia intervention, and teacher training, and it applies to the 2025-2026 school year and later, with immediate effect for training teachers to use the method. Schools, educators, and state education agencies would need to align screening, intervention, and professional development practices with the new statutory requirements.
Impact
HB1124 changes Tennessee’s Title 49 education statutes by mandating universal dyslexia screening and by substituting a specific instructional method, Orton-Gillingham, for broader language about evidence-based multisensory interventions. It narrows discretion for schools and educators in how dyslexia instruction is delivered, and it likely requires updates to screening procedures, intervention plans, and teacher training programs statewide. The bill also creates an immediate implementation obligation for training, even though the instructional requirements apply beginning with the 2025-2026 school year.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a straightforward education policy change rather than a controversial partisan issue. The bill’s structure suggests support for stronger dyslexia identification and more uniform intervention practices. However, the lack of transcripts or vote history means there is no documented public sentiment in the provided record beyond the bill’s clear policy intent.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s decision to mandate a single instructional approach, Orton-Gillingham, instead of allowing schools to choose among multiple scientifically supported dyslexia interventions. Supporters would likely view the specificity as ensuring consistency and fidelity in dyslexia instruction, while opponents may argue it reduces flexibility for educators, limits local control, or elevates one method over other evidence-based practices. Another possible issue is the universal screening requirement, which could raise implementation, staffing, and cost concerns for school districts.