Compared to decades ago, when dyslexia was little known and even less understood, there is widespread awareness of this learning difference today. That’s good news for students and their families. However, persistent myths about dyslexia continue to mislead many schools as they shape literacy instruction. For district leaders working to improve reading outcomes, understanding and addressing common dyslexia myths is essential to ensuring that all students receive the evidence-based instruction they need to succeed.
By understanding dyslexia better, schools can more effectively address other literacy issues, too. Given how many students struggle with reading today, school leaders must look beyond individual diagnoses and examine the quality and alignment of core instruction itself. To support such a shift, here are five common myths about dyslexia that may be standing in the way of effective literacy practices.
One of the most widespread misconceptions is that dyslexia affects only a small number of students. In reality, the International Dyslexia Association estimates that up to one in five students—or approximately 15–20% of the population—may have this learning difference.
However, literacy challenges extend far beyond dyslexia. In some schools, 80% or more of students in a school struggle with decoding and word recognition. As education consultant Janine Walker-Caffrey has noted, “When we see a majority of students in a school or district requiring reading interventions, we must redirect our focus from diagnosing learning issues to examining how we’re teaching reading from the start.”
The idea that students with dyslexia simply need to work harder or be given more time to complete reading tasks fails to account for one key fact: Dyslexia is a neurobiological condition, not a matter of effort, intelligence, or motivation. Without explicit, systematic instruction in foundational reading skills, even the most dedicated students will continue to struggle.
This is why Structured Literacy approaches are so critical—they provide the direct, systematic teaching of word-identification and decoding skills that students with dyslexia require to become proficient readers.
Structured Literacy systematically teaches word-identification and decoding through active teacher-student interaction that covers all essential components of reading—phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
Research consistently shows that Structured Literacy benefits all students, but a persistent myth holds that only students with dyslexia need it. As a result, many schools miss out on an instructional practice that could strengthen outcomes for all learners.
When core instruction is aligned with how the brain learns to read, fewer students fall behind, and interventions become more targeted and effective.
While intervention plays a crucial role, it’s not the full solution. The most effective approach combines strong core instruction grounded in the science of reading with targeted, complementary intervention for students who need additional support.
This myth can be a costly one, as it can lead districts to invest heavily in disconnected, standalone intervention programs while leaving core instruction unchanged. The result is often conflicting instructional methods—one in the general education classroom and another during intervention time. Instead, schools should strive to ensure that Structured Literacy principles guide all literacy instruction—not just intervention.
When many students need reading help, it’s natural to focus on them: their test scores, learning progress, or deficits. But this focus can obscure what really needs attention: instruction. As Walker-Caffrey points out, even experienced educators might not recognize when their instructional methods are misaligned with student needs. While dyslexia is common and requires specific support, widespread reading difficulties often signal a different problem: instructional methods that don't align with how the brain learns to read. This kind of misalignment is sometimes referred to as "dysteachia," meaning instruction that is inconsistent with the science of reading.
Misaligned teaching can mask or even worsen dyslexia-related challenges. Before referring students for intervention or formal evaluation, schools should evaluate whether their literacy practices are explicit, systematic, and aligned with the science of reading.
By addressing these persistent myths and embracing Structured Literacy, schools can create learning environments where students with dyslexia—and all striving readers—receive the literacy instruction they deserve. For some schools, this will require a renewed commitment to using data more effectively to identify student literacy gaps, as well as supporting teachers with professional learning and all the necessary tools and resources to bring about change in their classrooms. Again, the goal is not just to provide more intervention for students with dyslexia—though intervention is certainly warranted much of the time—but to ensure that from the very beginning, every student has access to instruction aligned with how the brain learns to read.