READ Act: Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and DeafBlind Working Group

Descriptive transcript

[Video opens with the cover slide from the slideshow presentation: “READ Act DHH DB Working Group”. Video transition to a presentation with the speaker on the left side window and the interpreter on the right side window. Name tag appears underneath the speaker: “Kayna Plaisted, BrightWorks”.]

>> Kayna: Welcome, everyone, and thank you for joining us. In this webinar members from our working group will provide an overview of the Minnesota READ Act Report for students who are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, or DeafBlind. We will share the collaborative work that led to this report, highlight key findings and recommendations, and discuss considerations for supporting literacy development for our students who are Deaf, Hard of Hearing or DeafBlind across Minnesota.

[Windows shuffle around so a presentation slideshow is on the left side and both the speaker and interpreter windows are stacked on the right side.]

[New slide: “Ten Minnesota Commitments to Equity”. Bulleted points: 1. Prioritize equity. 2. Start from within. 3. Measure what matters. 4. Go local. 5. Follow the money. 6. Start early. 7. Monitor implementation of standards. 8. Value people. 9. Improve conditions for learning. 10. Give students options. (Items 1 and 9 are emphasized.).]

>> Kayna: We share our MDE Ten Commitments to Equity when we connect with audiences across the state, and we highlight the specific commitments we feel most strongly align with each presentation. Today, we highlight “Prioritize equity” and “Improve conditions for learning” as they are well aligned to the focus and goals of our working group and our efforts to create meaningful, engaging, and inclusive learning opportunities for our student populations.

[Both Kayna’s and the interpreter’s windows are replaced by Danelle Gouranis’ window. Text underneath her window: “Danelle Gournaris, MN Commission of the Deaf, DeafBlind, & Hard of Hearing”.]

[New slide: “MN Commission of the Deaf, DeafBlind & Hard of Hearing”. Bullet point list: Overseen by a governor‑appointed board; Develop public policy solutions to barriers Faced (Education, Healthcare, Technology, Access to public services, Employment); Collect guidance by surveying community members, hosting focus groups, and meeting stakeholder groups.]

>> Danelle: The Governor-appointed board oversees the Minnesota Commission of Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing. We focus on developing public policy solutions to barriers faced in education, healthcare, technology access to public services, employment, and other areas that come to our attention, such as public transportation and safety, housing, and related issues. The Commission also gathers guidance through surveys of community members, focus groups, and meetings with stakeholder groups. The Commission focuses on systemic change; we do not provide 1:1 advocacy services.

[New slide: “About the Collaborative Plan”. Text: The Collaborative Plan is a network of agencies, schools, and organizations that work together to create positive, systemic changes to achieve better education, language, and career outcomes for students who are deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing. (birth to age 22).]

>> Danelle: The Commission serves as the host for the Collaborative Plan. Collaborative Plan is a network of agencies, schools, and organizations that work together to create positive, systemic changes to achieve better education, language, and career outcomes for students who are deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing. The purpose of the Collaborative Plan is to improve the educational outcomes of deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing students so they can graduate, enter the workforce, or continue higher education, and become productive members of their community. A diverse group of stakeholders developed the Minnesota Collaborative Plan. Each stakeholder is a chosen representative from an organization involved in the Collaborative Plan. The stakeholders are authorized to make decisions on behalf of their organization.

[Danelle’s window goes full screen.]

>> Danelle: The Collaborative Plan is a safe place for the community to come together and work. Whatever our beliefs, we share the same goal: to improve outcomes for children who are deaf, deafblind, or hard of hearing. Each child is unique, and they all need access to language, access to education, and the opportunity to pursue goals after graduation.

[New slide: “The Commission and the READ Act” Bulleted point list: READ Act passed 2023: Deaf/Hard of Hearing (DHH) teachers expressed concern about what that would mean for deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing students. (Collaborative Group); Quickly mobilized DHH teachers, the School Administrators, Minnesota State Academy for the Deaf (MSAD) and Metro Deaf School (MDS) via the existing Collaborative Plan network– Shared common concern with Alicia Lane, Commission’s Government Relations Director (Collaborative Group); Approached bill authors, learned Amendments in works (Commission); Joined Legislator-led group and continued to meet 1:1 with bill authors (Commission); Bills successfully passed with Commission’s support (Legislature).]

>> Danelle: When the READ Act was passed in 2023, through the Collaborative workgroups, DHH teachers expressed concern about what that would mean for deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing students. This discussion is coming from the Collaborative Group work. Quickly mobilized a meeting with DHH teachers, the School Administrators, MSAD, and MDS via the existing Collaborative Plan network– Shared common concern with Alicia Lane, the Commission’s government relations director (Collaborative Group). Through the work of the Commission, our legislative government relations director, Alicia, approached bill authors and learned about amendments in the works (Commission). Joined a legislator-led group and continued to meet 1:1 with bill authors (Commission). Bills successfully passed with the Commission’s support (Legislature).

[New slide: “READ Act new laws”. Text: Update definition to be inclusive of signed languages

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2024/0/Session+Law/Chapter/109/#laws. 4.4.0.

Establish DDBHH Working Group with report due to legislators

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2024/0/Session+Law/Chapter/115/#laws. 3.6.0.]

>> Danelle: On this slide are the links for the new READ Act laws that relate to DDBHH students. As a result of the legislative action, we have a DHH READ Act working group led by the Minnesota Department of Education. The working group is divided into three focus groups: Screeners, Curriculum, and Professional Development, in which Kayna will provide in-depth information about these workgroups and the report.

[Danelle is replaced by a window for Emily Manson, St. Paul Public Schools with the name and title underneath her window.]

[New slide: “Why is this important?” Bulleted text: The Universal Read Act Policy doesn't fit with how DHH students learn (The Minnesota READ Act mandates structured literacy for all public schools. However, sound-based approaches are structurally inaccessible to students who cannot fully access sound. This working group prevents DHH students from being left behind by creating necessary, evidence-based adaptations.);

Designing Non-Auditory Literacy Pathways (The team is actively reviewing and modifying curriculum, screeners, and professional development to prioritize visual, tactile, and bi-modal (ASL and English) alternatives to standard auditory phonics.)

Preventing Language Deprivation Statewide (By establishing statewide recommendations for screening and intervention, the group also acknowledges the impact of language deprivation and the importance of meaningful language access and exposure in early development. It is important for all education professionals to understand the impact of hearing on language and literacy).\

>> Emily: When Minnesota passed the READ Act, the goal was to ensure every child reads at grade level. But standard structured literacy relies heavily on auditory approaches to learn to read. For our Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard of Hearing students, a strictly sound-based approach creates an immediate, systemic barrier. The DHH READ Act Working Group is critical because it bridges this gap. We looked at the accessibility of screeners and curriculum to ensure that literacy abilities are not measured by hearing ability. By doing this, we protect our students from discrimination and give our educators the tools they need. Ultimately, this group matters to Minnesota as a whole because they are proving that equity in education isn't#39;t just about passing broad mandates; it’s about doing the precise, intentional work to ensure those mandates actually serve every single child.

[Kayna replaces Emily.]

>> Kayna: Before we dive into the content, we want to ensure you know where to find the report. The easiest way is to search "MN READ Act DHH DB Report" online. You can also access it directly through the PDF link on this slide or through MDE's 2025 Legislative Reports page. We encourage you to refer back to it as our brief presentation will only touch on key aspects, yet the report has much more detail.

[New slide: “Where to find the report”. Text: Google: MN READ Act DHH DB report; Report PDF Link; MDE 2025 Legislative Reports.]

>> Kayna: To help make these recommendations easily accessible, the Minnesota Department of Education has created dedicated webpages to house guidance and resources from the working group. If you navigate to the READ Act main page, you'll find the Deaf/Hard of Hearing and DeafBlind Recommendations link in the gray navigation menu on the left-hand side. This page serves as a central location for accessing the report, related resources, and additional guidance to support implementation.

[New slide: “READ Act DHH DB webpage”. Link: https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/READ/deaf/. Screenshot of the page.]

>> Kayna: The Deaf/Hard of Hearing and DeafBlind Recommendations page includes separate tabs for Deaf/Hard of Hearing and DeafBlind learners in the gray menu on the left-hand side. If you click into either section, you'll find guidance and recommendations organized by the major topics covered in the report.

[New slide: “Deaf/Hard of Hearing and DeafBlind tabs”. Two side by side screenshots of different tabs on the website.]

[New slide: “Who was involved?” Bulleted text: BrightWorks as a part of the The Minnesota Service Cooperatives (MSC); Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement (CAREI) at the University of Minnesota (UMN); Minnesota Commission of the Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing; Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) (READ Act Literacy Unit; State Specialist in Blind/Visual Impairment; State Specialist in Deaf and Hard of Hearing); Minnesota Low Incidence Projects (MLIP) (Statewide Specialist in DeafBlind; Statewide Specialist in Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI).]

[New slide: “who was involved, continued”. Bulleted text: Minnesota State Academies (MSA); Metro Deaf School (MDS); Intermediate School Districts; Regional Low-Incidence Facilitators (RLIFs); University of Minnesota (UMN) Deaf and Hard of Hearing Teacher Licensure Preparation Program (The Deaf and Hard of Hearing teacher licensure preparation program in Minnesota approved by the Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board (PELSB)); Teachers of students who are Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard of Hearing who are highly knowledgeable about literacy; Reading Researchers specializing in literacy for Deaf/Hard of Hearing and DeafBlind.]

>> Kayna: While facilitated through BrightWorks and the Minnesota Service Cooperatives, the recommendations represent the collective expertise and thoughtful contributions of many partners who shared a commitment to improving literacy outcomes for students who are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and DeafBlind.

[New slide: “Report must address…” Text: Report must address the following for students & educators who are unable to access sound-based approaches… Text below split into three columns: READ Act Approved Screeners: Review approved screeners; Recommendations for adapting; How approved items could be modified; Alternative resources. Column two: READ Act Approved Curriculum: Review approved screeners; Recommendations for adapting; How approved items could be Modified; Alternative resources. Column three: READ Act Approved Training: Review approved screeners; Recommendations for adapting; How approved items could be modified; Alternative resources.]

>> Kayna: The group’s work focused on the three areas called for in legislation: screening, curriculum, and professional development. Across all three, we reviewed approved READ Act resources, considered accessibility for students who cannot fully access sound-based approaches, developed recommendations, potential adaptations, and searched for alternative resources to support Implementation.

[New slide: “Process to create the report”. Timeline graphic below, text points: September 2024: First large group meeting; Choose focus groups; Select dates & times; First focus group meetings; October 2024: Focus group meetings; Adapting; Modification; Large group meeting for share outs & feedback; November 2024: Focus group meetings; Alternative & additional resources; December 2024: Focus group meetings; Large group meeting for share outs & feedback; Finalize draft report; January 2025: Report submitted.]

>> Kayna: This slide provides a snapshot of the process used to create the report. Beginning in September 2024, the working group met regularly over several months, using a combination of small-group work and larger group discussions. We reviewed research, explored challenges in implementing the READ Act for Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and DeafBlind learners, and developed recommendations to address them. One thing worth noting is how quickly this work moved. The group went from its initial meetings in September to a finalized report in December, giving us just a few months to gather input, review research, develop recommendations, and build consensus. While the timeline was ambitious, it also reflects the dedication and commitment of the many individuals who contributed their expertise throughout the process. The report was finalized in December and submitted to the Legislature in January 2025. From here, we will dive deeper into the report’s content, starting with the key research that underlies our efforts.

[Screen switches to a window of Leah Dolezal, with a name tag on bottom with her name and "University of Minnesota”.]

>> Leah: To consider reading, we must also consider language as they are very intertwined for DHH children. Cumulative evidence confirms the critical importance of a strong foundation of language for all children to ensure literacy success. Lack of access has broad and long-lasting negative impacts, including reading and writing, social-emotional, cognitive development, and well-being. As language delays lead to literacy delays when DHH children have reading delays they often also have language delays. As such it is vital that when assessing reading that languages are also assessed.

[Leah’s window moves to the side as the slideshow resumes on the left side.]

[New slide: “Key research citations on DHH children learning to read through alternative approaches”. Bulleted text: Strong Foundation of Language: A strong foundation of Language is critical for literacy success (Bower et al., 2023; Hecht, 2020); Lack of access has broad long lasting negative impacts (Courtin, 2000; Goodwin et al., 2022; Langdon et al., 2023; Mayberry et al., 2023; Pyers et al., 2010; Pyers & Senghas, 2009; Santos & Cordes, 2022).]

>> Leah: Language delays lead to reading delays. When you see delays in reading there are likely also language delays. Always assess both.

[Next slide: DHH children can successfully learn to read through alternative non-sound-based approaches to reading & without relying on sound. (see Sampson et al., 2026 for a review) (Courtin, 2000; Goodwin et al., 2022; Langdon et al., 2023; Mayberry et al., 2023; Pyers et al., 2010; Pyers & Senghas, 2009; Santos & Cordes, 2022).; Supporting reading and writing with sign language(s) can benefit all children (including Deaf, Hard of Hearing & hearing children) (Coppola & Walker, 2025; Lillo-Martin & Henner, 2021; Moses et al., 2015).]

>> Leah: Over 25 years of a strong body of research demonstrates DHH children can successfully learn to read without relying on sound through multiple pathways and non-sound-based approaches to literacy. Supporting literacy with sign languages and multilingual and multimodal approaches can benefit all Deaf, HH and Hearing children and causes no harm.

[New slide: “Expanded definitions” Text: We examined READ Act for sound-based words related reading English and include: phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, oral language, fluency, phonics, choral reading, orally, letter-sound correspondence, sounding out words, make sounds, voicing. Researchers in Deaf Ed from the UMN and national partners developed Expanded definitions for literacy. Here -applied to READ Act: PD, Screeners, Curriculum, Rubrics Some examples….]

>> Leah: As sound-based approaches are not fully accessible for DHH learners, our group reviewed the READ Act documents for sound-based words relating to English. To address this, researchers in the field of Deaf education from UMN and national representatives developed expanded definitions for key literacy terms to include both spoken and sign languages and multiple pathways to literacy. Here are some examples.

[Slide continued: Phonological awareness: A broad term that refers to the awareness of the sound or sign structure of a spoken or sign language, including the ability to manipulate sounds or signs. ****note: while some who access sound may benefit, research demonstrates that phonological awareness, phonemic awareness and/or phonics are not always necessary or required skills for Deaf or Hard of Hearing children learning to read. Many learn to read through alternative approaches. Oral Language change to Expressive/Receptive Language: comprehension of expressive and receptive sign language(s) or spoken language(s) Decoding: the ability to breakdown and translate a written word using sound-letter or handshape/sign-letter correspondence including the understanding of the word. Vocabulary development: The process of acquiring new words that are conceptually accurate at the word and phrase level.]

>> Leah: Phonological awareness: we define it as a broad term that refers to the awareness of the structure of a spoken or sign language including the ability to manipulate sounds or signs. It is important to note that as previously mentioned, research demonstrates that phonological awareness, including phonemic awareness and/or phonics, are not necessary or required skills for all DHH children and that while some who can access sound may benefit, most DHH children can successfully learn to read through alternative approaches. We broadened the term “oral language” as it is limited to spoken language. We use the term expressive and receptive languages instead of oral language to include both spoken and sign languages. It is important to emphasize when considering expressive and receptive language that comprehension of both is critical. We broadened the term “decoding” to include handshape/sign letter correspondence in addition to sound-letter correspondence. “Vocabulary” we broaden to ensure the new words are conceptually accurate at both the word and phrase level (to account for differences between languages)

[New slide: “Screeners”. Text: Flow Chart to determine if an approved screener is appropriate: Group found no valid/reliable reading screeners for DHH children; Group recommends a Body of Evidence Approach that gathers samples of both spoken and sign languages and literacy skills for all DHH children. Future project: Developing Body of Evidence as a screening tool for the Read Act that: Taps into expertise of DHH researchers and DHH teachers in Minnesota; Meets the needs of DHH educational settings and DHH population in Minnesota. **Colorado is supportive of us adapting theirs.]

>> Leah: As we found no valid/reliable reading screeners for DHH children and given the intersections between language and reading for DHH children we recommend a body of evidence approach for all DHH children so no one falls through the gaps, especially since reading delays may be due to language delays. To do this, we recommend gathering both samples of language levels (in both sign and spoken language), in addition to informal measures of literacy skills. We also recommend further evaluation of additional screeners as needed and, if appropriate, check whether they meet accessibility needs for individual children. Moving forward we plan to work toward developing and expanding components of a MN version of the BOE and recommend this as a READ Act approved screening tool. Colorado is supportive of us adapting their BOE to meet the varying language and literacy needs of individual DHH students in varying educational settings in Minnesota. This includes expanding what types of language and literacy samples to collect and tapping into the expertise of Minnesota DHH researchers at the UMN and DHH teachers.

[New slide: “Curriculum”. Bulleted text: Expanded definitions: READ Act Curriculum is not accessible or appropriate for DHH learners; Updates to Curriculum Rubric – Working group completed suggestions for: Accessibility and Inclusivity, Differentiation; No comprehensive literacy curriculum for DHH children: There are evidence based resources that target literacy skills for DHH vocabulary, grammar, phonological awareness, decoding and comprehension; Future projects: Create “resource pages” recommending resources for targeted skills and assessments that: Provide flexibility for teachers, Tap into resources to share how to differentiate instruction utilizing multilingual and multimodal teaching strategies, Recommendations to best utilize these resources.]

>> Leah: As mentioned, the READ Act curriculum is not accessible for DHH learners. We have also confirmed there is no comprehensive evidence-based literacy curriculum for DHH children. We have compiled a list of various evidenced based resources that target individual literacy skills for DHH children which include targeting vocabulary, grammar, phonological awareness, decoding, and reading, and language comprehension. As next steps, we plan to create a resource page with recommendations on how to utilize them. The ultimate goal is to provide alternative curriculum assessments and other resources for DHH teachers that allows them to have enough flexibility to differentiate instruction to meet the individual needs of DHH children with varying language and literacy levels while tapping into alternative pathways and multilingual and multimodal approaches.

[New slide: “Professional development”. Bulleted text: Next Steps: Create a proposal outline for professional development that: Is based on current research evidence specific for DHH learners (Sampson et al., 2026) to maximize differentiated instruction integrating multilingual and multimodal teaching strategies; Meets the needs of DHH students with varying language levels and literacy levels and educational settings in MN; Taps into the expertise of MN DHH researchers and DHH teachers; Includes feedback from educators who are DHHDB themselves and representing BIPOC communities as well; Supports Teachers and Staff; Aligns with teacher training-the UMN DHH teacher preparation program.]

>> Leah: For professional development, the next steps are to create a proposal for an outline for recommendations for PD that is based on current evidence based research for DHH learners to maximize differentiated instruction and that meets the needs of DHH students with varying language and literacy levels and in varying educational settings in MN. To develop these training we recommend tapping into the expertise of UMN DHH researchers and teachers and importantly to seek feedback from educators who are DHHDB and BIPOC themselves.

[Leah’s window is replaced by Kayna’s plus the interpreter.]

[New slide: “DeafBlind”. Bulleted text: IDEA recognizes DeafBlind (DB) as a separate disability from Deaf/Hard of Hearing as well as Blind/Visually Impaired. Thus literacy focus requires separate consideration. DB is multiplicative and not additive of DHH plus B/VI because neither sense is able to compensate for the other DHH-sighted and B/VI-hearing. Due to etiology, approximately 80-85% of children who are DB also have additional disabilities that add complexity to concept development, communication, learning, and language. Therefore, DB requires specialized materials and administration of screening tools, curriculum, and professional development.]

>> Kayna: The last section of our report focuses specifically on DeafBlind populations. DeafBlind recommendations are separate from Deaf and Hard of Hearing, as DeafBlind has distinct considerations and implications. DeafBlind is a spectrum of limited or no access to both hearing and vision, thereby affecting not only a child’s access to and understanding of spoken language but also of signed language. This is compounded by common delays in the identification of either or both hearing and vision differences, impacting acquisition and understanding of concept development, in addition to language.

[Kayna’s window is replaced by Emily’s window.]

[New slide: “Report limitations”. Bulleted text: The Compressed Timeline: The working group was tasked with retrofitting a massive, complex, sound-based state mandate with a short timeline. True systemic change takes time, and the pressure to produce rapid recommendations risks leaving critical gaps unaddressed. The Sound-Based Spectrum Misconception The READ Act assumes a baseline of auditory access. Even for students with residual hearing, partial access to sound does not equal functional access. Traditional sound-based approaches to reading often fail these students because missing subtle acoustic cues can impact reading development.]

>> Emily: While the working group is doing vital advocacy, we must be transparent about the systemic limitations we are operating under. First and foremost is time. We are trying to restructure ever-changing state- level literacy frameworks on a short timeline. Second, we have to push back against the sound-based spectrum misconceptions. The READ Act assumes that if a child has residual hearing or assistive technology, they can learn through traditional sound-based phonics. But partial access to sound is not a clean, reliable stream of data. If a child misses just a few sounds or acoustic cues, the entire phonics foundation crumbles. Each student who is Deaf, DeafBlind, or Hard of Hearing has unique needs that need to be understood and considered.

[New slide: “Report limitations continued”. Bulleted text: The "Distance Factor" in Mainstream Classrooms: During general education instruction, classroom acoustics work against the DHH student. Background noise and the physical distance between the teacher and the student severely degrade phonemic awareness and phonics activities, making real-time, sound-based learning exhausting and ineffective. Systemic Resource & Training Deficits: The recommendations from this group cannot instantly fix the statewide shortage of DHH teachers or the lack of specialized literacy training for mainstream general education teachers.]

>> Emily: Furthermore, when students are in mainstream classrooms, they face the 'distance factor.' A general education teacher leading a phonemic awareness activity from across a noisy room creates a significant acoustic barrier. The physical distance and background noise make isolating sounds nearly impossible in real time. Finally, our group can make the best recommendations, but we cannot create resources out of thin air. Minnesota faces a shortage of DHH specialists, and mainstream teachers are not currently trained to deliver non-auditory literacy. We are designing a blueprint, but it will take work from all parts of the educational system to support successful literacy implementation for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard of hearing students.

[Emily’s window is replaced by Kayna’s window.]

[New slide: “Historical efforts”. Bulleted text: Deaf and Hard of Hearing State Specialist reached out to a list of people in similar positions across the nation: Several responded, noting our populations are exempt from their state reading laws. Three states responded with interest in further discussion Colorado was doing something. Our report was mentioned in the recent Policy Brief in the Journal for Deaf Studies and Deaf Education: Avoiding unintended consequences: science of reading policies may harm deaf children (Sampson et al., 2026).]

>> Kayna: One thing we learned during this process is that many states are grappling with similar questions. When our State Deaf and Hard of Hearing Specialist reached out to states across the country, several states reported that Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and DeafBlind students were exempt from their state reading laws, while only three states expressed interest in related work. This highlighted both the need for this report and Minnesota's opportunity to contribute to a broader national conversation. We were also excited to see our report referenced in a recent policy brief in the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, as an example of a way forward for the nation, bringing additional attention to these important issues.

[Kayna’s window is replaced by Leah’s window.]

[New slide: “Summary of evidence-based recommendations”. Bulleted text: “Refrain from making one-size-fits-all policies. Instead, support teacher-led differentiated instruction that adapts to the heterogeneous needs and strengths of DHH children (Bondie et al., 2019). Develop and enact differentiated reading instruction frameworks, grounded in empirical research that acknowledges multiple pathways to literacy and that includes DHH children(Wolbers et al., 2025). Where restrictive reading mandates exist, create exemptions that allow flexibility in both assessment and instruction for diverse readers including DHH learners, as differentiated instruction leads to positive literacy outcomes (Puzio et al., 2020). Teacher preparation programs (here UMN DHH program) ensure that all DHH educators have comprehensive training in literacy instruction for DHH children, including the ability to communicate with and supports students where one of their languages is ASL. “ (Sampson et al., 2026 p.5).]

>> Leah: Here is a recent quote from Sampson and Colleagues in 2026 that provides an excellent summary of our goals. To summarize, when considering the READ Act, it is critical for DHH teachers to have flexibility to provide differentiated reading and writing instruction that meets the individual needs of DHH children that is grounded in empirical research and provides multiple pathways to literacy integrating multilingual and multimodal instructional strategies. The DHH teacher preparation at the UMN aligns with this comprehensive literacy training and will continue to ensure that any newly developed PD aligns with the preparation of new DHH teachers.

[Leah’s window is replaced by Kayna’s window.]

[New slide: “Resources”.

•Minnesota Department of Education. (2025). FY25 READ Act Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard of Hearing Working Group: Report to the Legislature. https://www.lrl.mn.gov/docs/2025/mandated/250798.pdf

•Tory Sampson, Amelia Becker, Erin E Campbell, Jennie Pyers, Wyatte C Hall, Zed Sevcikova Sehyr, Todd Czubek, Kristin DiPerri, Jon Henner, Karen Emmorey, Jennifer Petrich, Christina L Dobbs, Amy Lieberman, Marie Coppola, Clifton Langdon, Elana Pontecorvo, Paris Gappmayr, Anna Lim, Michael Higgins, Donna Jo Napoli, Nathan E Harrison, Rachel Benedict, Leala Holcomb, Franklin Jones Jr., MA, Andrew Bottoms, Emily Glenn-Smith, MA,

Diane M Clark, Rachael Gabriel, Laura Jiménez, PhD, Natalie Delgado, Naomi Caselli, Avoiding unintended consequences: science of reading policies may harm deaf children, The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2026;, enag004, https://doi.org/10.1093/jdsade/enag004.]

>> Kayna: As we conclude, we encourage you to explore these resources for additional information. The working group report provides the full set of recommendations and supporting details, while the recent policy brief offers a broader national context on literacy policies and their implications for Deaf and Hard of Hearing learners. Together, these resources help explain both the need for and the foundation of this work.

[Slideshow closes.]

>> Kayna: We hope this webinar has provided a helpful introduction to the Minnesota READ Act Report for students who are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, or DeafBlind. We encourage you to explore the full report and resources available on the MDE website for additional information and guidance as they become available. Thank you for watching and for all you do to support our students.

[New slide: “Thank you!”]

[New slide: “We would like to recognize”:

Presenters Kayna Plaisted, Emily Manson, Leah Dolezal, and Danelle Gournaris

Webinar contributors Chris Bretz, Debbie Golos, Ann Mayes, and Anne Sittner Anderson

The members of the READ Act DHH DB Working Group

Interpreters Robin Babb, Yoshiko Chino, Rania Johnson, and Kaylea Longendyke

Teleprompter Operator Debbie Bretz

Teachers of Deaf/Hard of Hearing and Teachers of DeafBlind in Minnesota, students, and families.”]