AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, relative to dyslexia.
Summary
SB1056 amends Tennessee education law to require dyslexia screening for every student and to direct schools to use the Orton-Gillingham method in specified instructional settings. The bill adds a new requirement that students in kindergarten through grade 5 who are identified for dyslexia-related support be taught using the Orton-Gillingham method, and it also inserts that method into existing dyslexia-related instructional language in state law.
The bill further changes the state’s intervention framework for students with dyslexia by replacing a broader reference to “scientific research and brain-based multisensory intervention methods and strategies” with the more specific Orton-Gillingham method in the statute governing reading intervention. It takes effect immediately for teacher training purposes, while the substantive instructional changes apply beginning with the 2025-2026 school year.
Impact
This bill would revise Title 49 of the Tennessee Code by making dyslexia screening universal and by narrowing the instructional approach for certain students to the Orton-Gillingham method. It affects public schools, teachers, and students receiving dyslexia screening or intervention services, and it creates a statewide mandate for training educators to use the specified method before the school-year implementation date.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears supportive and policy-driven, with the bill framed as a targeted education intervention for students with dyslexia. There is no documented opposition in the supplied context, but the specificity of the required instructional method suggests the measure is intended to standardize practice rather than leave implementation to local discretion.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s requirement that schools use the Orton-Gillingham method, which replaces broader language that previously allowed multiple scientifically based, multisensory approaches. Supporters would likely favor the clarity and consistency of a single structured literacy approach, while critics could argue that the mandate is too prescriptive, limits educator flexibility, or excludes other evidence-based interventions. Another possible issue is the training burden on school systems, since the act requires teacher training before full implementation.