New neuroimaging evidence requires that literacy and education leaders rethink what counts as “foundational” in literacy.
The discovery of a grapheme‑related area (GRA) in the midfusiform cortex (Bouhali et al., 2019) strengthens the neuronal‑recycling framework (Dehaene, 2009) and illuminates a simple truth: writing and encoding build the neural architecture that reading later uses.
If the VWFA reflects recycled visual circuits for reading, the GRA suggests that grapheme construction, handwriting, and sequential encoding are biologically primary processes that precede efficient reading.
This has direct implications for EC–12+ systems and higher education: teacher‑prep programs, licensure frameworks, and district leadership must take serious student grapheme instruction, encoding, and structured-sequential handwriting as a core infrastructure, or prerequisite for literacy. Student mastery in encoding orthography is not enrichment, not remediation, not optional.
Despite decades of research, several myths continue to shape literacy leadership, assessment systems, and professional development. These myths persist not because the science is unclear, but because our systems have not yet aligned with what the literacy brain requires. Below, I outline three of the most persistent myths, and the research that contradicts them.
Literacy leadership is being shaped by myths that contradict what the literacy brain actually requires.
These myths drain funding, distort assessment systems, and sideline the very expertise: deep, practicum‑based Orton‑Gillingham or structured literacy leadership, that builds fluent readers.
Below are the three myths doing the most harm, and the research that disproves them.
Myth 1: “If students can decode accurately, fluency and comprehension will follow.”
Why it persists:
ORF‑heavy systems, visual‑verbal decoding PD, and “structured literacy” messaging reinforce the idea that decoding accuracy = reading readiness.
What the research shows:
Decoding accuracy is not fluency. Schwanenflugel and Kuhn (2015) show that fluency requires a separate developmental achievement: automaticity. Striving students may decode every word but still read in a “broken, flat” way that undermines comprehension. Automaticity depends on grapheme‑phoneme mastery, not visual-verbal decoding alone. Shaywitz et al. (2004) demonstrate that only phonological‑orthographic intervention builds the fast‑paced neural systems of skilled reading.
Why it matters for leaders:
Systems that over‑assess decoding and under‑assess encoding and student-generated letter‑sound fluency (not tracing) misidentify students and misallocate resources.
What leaders need instead: Assessment and instruction that prioritize grapheme‑phoneme fluency, encoding, handwriting, and orthographic mapping. This is the core of Orton‑Gillingham, structured literacy and the foundation of my SOLL (Science of Learning in Literacy) training model.
Myth 2: “Assessment should focus on decoding and oral reading rate; encoding and letter‑sound fluency are secondary.”
Why it persists:
Most school systems rely on ORF (WCPM), word lists, and pseudoword decoding because these measures are quick, inexpensive, and embedded in widely adopted screeners. This creates the impression that decoding accuracy and reading rate capture the “foundational skills” needed for literacy.
What the research shows:
Decoding and ORF alone do not reveal the skills that drive fluent reading. Schwanenflugel and Kuhn (2015) demonstrate that automaticity [rapid, accurate access to grapheme–phoneme correspondences and multiletter units] is a separate developmental achievement that cannot be inferred from decoding accuracy.
Shaywitz et al. (2004) show that only phonological‑orthographic intervention builds the fast‑paced neural systems required for skilled reading, and encoding is one of the daily instructional components that changes the brain.
Wolf’s work on naming‑speed and the double‑deficit hypothesis highlights that students with RAN deficits are often missed entirely when systems assess decoding alone.
These gaps have equity implications: as Dr. Karin Hodges notes, only ~4% of Black students score above proficient; a reflection of access, not ability.
Why it matters for leaders:
When assessment systems overlook encoding, letter‑sound fluency, orthographic mapping, and motion‑sequence accuracy, entire populations of students remain unidentified and unsupported. Leaders need assessment frameworks that capture the full architecture of automaticity, and this is precisely the work my SOLL PD equips educators to implement.
Myth 3: “Dyslexia is a gift; dyslexic individuals are naturally more creative or innovative thinkers.”
Why it persists:
This myth is appealing because it reframes struggle as strength. Popular media often highlights anecdotal success stories, and well‑meaning advocates sometimes use “strength‑based” language to reduce stigma. But these narratives drift far from what the research actually shows.
What the research shows:
Dyslexia is a phonological processing disorder, not a cognitive advantage. Shaywitz’s definition emphasizes unexpected difficulty, not enhanced creativity.
Wolf (2007) notes that some individuals may develop compensatory strengths, but she explicitly warns that these are hypotheses, not causal findings.
Schwanenflugel’s fluency research shows that dyslexia imposes processing burdens: automaticity, prosody, working memory. These all hinder comprehension and are not associated with creative advantage.
Framing dyslexia as a “gift” obscures the seriousness of the challenges dyslexic learners face and minimizes the need for early, research‑backed intervention.
Why it matters for leaders:
When dyslexia is romanticized, systems under‑identify students, delay intervention, and overlook the structured, phonological‑orthographic instruction that actually changes outcomes. Teachers, administrators and education professors require clarity, not mythology. SOLL is the only literacy and science PD that embeds a thorough, research-aligned framework to support accurate identification and effective intervention tailored to student needs.
If we want equitable literacy outcomes, we must align our systems with the architecture of the reading and writing brain.
The SOLL certification helps leaders and educators implement:
- encoding‑centered assessment
- grapheme‑phoneme fluency instruction
- structured handwriting
- orthographic mapping practices
- OG‑aligned fidelity systems
The science is clear. Our systems must catch up: the emerging evidence for the GRA does not overturn what we know, it clarifies it. Orthographic encoding is not a preference; it is a neurobiological requirement.
If we want equitable literacy outcomes, our systems must reflect the architecture of the reading brain:
- Teacher‑prep programs must include coursework in grapheme instruction, encoding, and structured-scaffolded handwriting.
- Assessment systems must measure letter‑sound (grapho-phonemic) fluency, encoding accuracy, and orthographic mapping, not just decoding and ORF.
- Schools must invest in training models with depth, practicum, implementation and teaming science that embed fidelity, not corporate shortcuts.
The science is clear. Our systems must catch up.
EXPLORE LITERACY RESOURCES 
Leave a comment