Prevention Is More Effective (and Less Costly) Than Remediation: Key Insights From Vaughn & Fletcher (2020)
Why do some children seem to learn to read effortlessly while others experience years of difficulty? In their influential article, Identifying and Teaching Students with Significant Reading Problems, Vaughn and Fletcher (2020) remind us of a foundational truth from reading science: reading is not a natural process.
Unlike walking or talking—skills our brains are evolutionarily wired to develop—reading requires the brain to repurpose existing neural circuits. Language and visual-processing systems must reorganize to support literacy. One neural circuit builds a child's ability to understand how sounds map to print (the alphabetic principle). Another—originally designed for face and object recognition—must transform into a fast and efficient letter and word processor.
This reorganization takes years, meaningful exposure to print, and explicit instruction. When students have difficulty mastering the alphabetic principle early on, the reading system does not develop efficiently. Reading remains slow, effortful, and frustrating.
This is why Vaughn and Fletcher assert that “prevention is more effective and less costly than remediation.” Early identification and targeted support ensure these neural pathways develop on time—before difficulties compound and motivation declines.
Common Misunderstandings About Dyslexia
Despite decades of research, myths about dyslexia remain widespread. Vaughn and Fletcher address several misconceptions:
“They just need to read more.”
While increased reading opportunities benefit all students, practice alone does not correct dyslexia. Students with dyslexia need explicit instruction in decoding, fluency practice with feedback, and structured comprehension support.
“Colored lenses or overlays improve reading.”
There is no evidence supporting the use of tinted lenses or overlays. Similarly, multisensory instruction is not a requirement for effective dyslexia intervention, although many structured programs incorporate multisensory elements.
“Dyslexia is mainly a comprehension problem.”
Comprehension difficulties stem from word-level reading weaknesses—inaccurate, labored decoding—not from a lack of understanding. Teaching comprehension strategies alone is insufficient.
“Dyslexia is rare and kids grow out of it.”
Dyslexia affects 5–15% of learners worldwide, across all writing systems. While effective intervention can lessen its impact, many individuals continue to read slowly throughout life.
“Home literacy is the cause—or the cure.”
Strong home literacy is valuable, but it neither causes nor resolves dyslexia. The roots of dyslexia lie in brain structures and genetics—not in parenting.
“Brain training or medication can fix dyslexia.”
Cognitive training programs that are not connected to evidence-based reading instruction do not generalize to improved reading outcomes. There is also no medication that addresses word-level reading difficulties.
What Is True About Dyslexia?
Dyslexia exists on a continuum.
Severity ranges from mild to profound, and no two learners present exactly the same profile.
Many individuals with dyslexia also struggle with spelling and handwriting.
Effective instruction must target reading, spelling, and writing.
Dyslexia has strong genetic ties.
Up to 45% of individuals with a family history of dyslexia also experience reading difficulties.
Teachers play a crucial role.
Classroom teachers—armed with evidence-based knowledge—can profoundly shape a dyslexic student’s academic and emotional trajectory.
Many educators have not received adequate training.
Research shows that teachers often feel underprepared to screen, identify, and intervene with students who have dyslexia. Increasing educator knowledge is essential for prevention and early intervention.
Instructional Guidance for Supporting Students With Dyslexia
Vaughn and Fletcher provide five powerful, practical recommendations for educators:
1. Use the One-Minute Lesson
Small, targeted instructional bursts—focused on a skill the student is still mastering—can make a surprising impact. Think: a quick review of a phonics pattern, two minutes of word reading with feedback, or a rapid fluency warm-up.
2. Customize Instruction to Students’ Needs
Analyze screening and progress monitoring data to identify each learner’s highest-priority skills. Then tailor instruction—through brief individual lessons or small groups—to address these specific needs with repeated practice and feedback.
3. Teach in Small Groups, Pairs, or One-on-One
Students with reading difficulties benefit from more intensive formats where teachers can provide immediate correction, additional modeling, and supportive scaffolds.
4. Offer Many Opportunities to Read a Range of Texts
Struggling readers need exposure to:
narrative, informational, and hybrid texts
digital and print formats
texts at varied difficulty levels
Students can often comprehend texts above their independent reading level when they have background knowledge, motivation, or instructional support.
5. Provide Explicit Instruction With Clear Feedback
Explicit instruction is a hallmark of effective intervention. This includes:
clearly stating what students are expected to learn
modeling the task
providing guided practice
giving precise corrective feedback
gradually increasing task difficulty
ensuring high success and engagement
These instructional moves are essential—not optional—for supporting students with dyslexia.
In Conclusion, Vaughn and Fletcher’s (2020) work reinforces what reading science tells us: intervening early matters, misconceptions must be replaced with evidence, and teachers hold extraordinary power to change reading trajectories.
By understanding the nature of reading development, dispelling myths about dyslexia, and implementing targeted, explicit instruction, we can ensure that struggling readers receive the support they deserve—before gaps widen and confidence diminishes.
To explore the full article, see:
Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2020–2021, Winter). Identifying and teaching students with significant reading problems.American Educator, 44(4), 4–11
