My son wasn’t dyslexic—he was never properly taught to read

Key points:

Structured literacy benefits all students–some will learn to read without it, but many will not
6 keys to building a high-impact summer reading program
3 ways students can use AI tools to improve their literacy skills
For more news on literacy, visit eSN’s Innovative Teaching hub

When my son Hunter was in fifth grade, his teacher told me he was struggling with reading comprehension. I nodded politely and moved on.

I was in denial.

Hunter was exceptionally bright. He could build things, solve problems, and visualize systems before they existed. Reading just seemed slower for him. I assumed he would catch up.

He didn’t.

In sixth grade, his teacher gently explained that the gap was widening. Words were getting longer. Sentences were more complex. Hunter wasn’t decoding quickly enough to keep pace with middle school’s demands.

For the first time, I understood this wasn’t something he would simply grow out of.

As a mother, that realization is painful. As someone who works in literacy education, it was humbling.

According to the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress, only about 31 percent of fourth graders and 30 percent of eighth graders read at a proficient level. That means roughly seven in 10 students are not reading at the level experts consider necessary for long-term academic success. Many are not incapable learners. They are students whose reading gaps stayed hidden because they were bright enough to compensate until the demands of school finally outpaced their ability to adapt.

Hunter was one of them.

I immediately wondered if it was dyslexia, because my father is severely dyslexic. Growing up in the 1950s, he was labeled as one of the “dumb kids” because educators didn’t understand how his brain worked. He carried those assumptions for years. I feared Hunter might face something similar.

What we eventually learned changed my understanding of reading instruction entirely.

Hunter was not dyslexic. His reading struggles simply presented that way.

Despite being highly intelligent, he had gaps in foundational reading skills that had never been explicitly taught. Like many students of his generation, Hunter had spent years in classrooms that relied on contextual guessing strategies, leveled texts, and cueing approaches rather than structured literacy and explicit decoding instruction. For a while, his intelligence helped him compensate. Until it couldn’t anymore.

One evening, a good friend of mine, literacy expert Paul Black, sat at our kitchen table and assessed Hunter. Afterward, he looked at my son and said something I will never forget:

“Hunter, your math brain is a Ferrari. You can see things before they’re even built. Your reading brain is more like a Honda Civic. It will get you there—but not as fast.”

For the first time, I saw relief wash over Hunter’s face. No shame. No labels. No suggestion that he wasn’t smart. Just clarity that provided a path forward.

In sixth grade, Hunter began using a structured literacy program, which identified exactly where his foundational gaps were and built a personalized plan through structured literacy instruction. We committed to 20 minutes a day, Monday through Thursday.

Slowly, things changed.

His teacher noticed improvements first. Then his confidence grew. Eight months later, Hunter finished the school year reading and comprehending at grade level. Today he is 16, graduating high school early with honors, and heading to Texas A&M to study engineering. The child who once struggled to decode multisyllabic words is preparing to design complex systems.

Reading changed the trajectory of his life.

For years, too many families were told that struggling readers needed more exposure to books, more time, or more confidence. Meanwhile, intelligent children quietly developed coping mechanisms that masked foundational gaps until school finally outpaced them. We cannot confuse memorization, guessing, or contextual prediction with skilled reading. And we cannot keep treating structured literacy as something reserved for students diagnosed with dyslexia.

Structured literacy benefits all students. Some will learn to read without it. Many will not. And too many bright children like Hunter fall into that middle space: capable, intelligent, full of potential, but never given the foundational instruction they needed early enough.

Children deserve explicit instruction in phonics, decoding, and language structure before frustration becomes identity.

I think about my father, who spent decades believing he was “dumb” because no one understood how his brain worked. I think about how many students today are still sitting in classrooms believing the problem is them. I think about how close Hunter came to believing the same thing, even though dyslexia was never the issue.

The problem has never been the child. The problem is what the child was never taught. Giving students the tools they need doesn’t just improve reading scores. It restores possibility.