Beyond the “Wait-to-Fail” Model

For decades, the American public education system has treated dyslexia under the traditional “wait-to-fail” model. This reactive approach only provides specialized language support once a student demonstrates a significant learning gap in comparison to their peers. Typically, without testing, a student’s learning challenges remain invisible until third grade. Recently, the national outlook on education has shifted. This school year (2025-2026), California will become the 43rd state to mandate universal dyslexia screenings for students in kindergarten through second grade. While this legislative effort marks a major milestone for education, it has sparked a debate about the practicality of testing millions of young students.

Universal screenings can result in false positives, flagging a student who does not have dyslexia as a risk. False positives may cause avoidable emotional distress for families and unnecessarily limit a school’s special education resources. However, the neurological risks of false negatives, not flagging a student who does have dyslexia, are far more dangerous. For one, a student’s peak neuroplasticity for language processing begins to degrade after second grade. Universal screening during kindergarten through second grade is necessary to ensure that at-risk students receive appropriate intervention during a prime developmental window. Furthermore, if dyslexia is identified early in a child’s learning, schools can finally abandon the outdated wait-to-fail model, which often leaves undiagnosed students with poor self-esteem and unmotivated tendencies that make later interventions far more difficult and less effective.

The outdated “wait-to-fail” model assumes that, due to the unevenness of early childhood development from student to student, language processing deficiencies are unidentifiable until third grade or later. However, research shows this assumption is incorrect; early signs of dyslexia can be observed as early as preschool. A study in New England observed 1,200 kindergarten students, identifying six independent learning development trajectories, with three being dyslexia risk profiles. They found these profiles to be remarkably stable over three years (Gaab). Measurable patterns associated with dyslexia were already present at kindergarten, not vague delays or temporary immaturities. The study demonstrates that kindergarten indicators are a reliable source for predicting future outcomes, showcasing the meaningful nature of those early markers.

Early identification is a crucial step in providing effective and successful intervention because the human brain is significantly less plastic after second grade. In a 2024 interview with the National Institutes of Health, Jack Fletcher explained the connection between neuroplasticity and reading development, noting that “to develop reading skills, your brain has to reorganize itself” (Fletcher). Learning to read requires the brain to create new neural pathways, often developed through instruction. For students with dyslexia, traditional education does not lead to the formation of new neural networks. Dyslexic students need a specialized curriculum, known as intervention, to properly wire their brains for literacy. 

As children age, their neuroplasticity decreases, making brain reorganization less efficient. Maureen W. Lovett’s research emphasizes the importance of this early window of kindergarten through second grade. Her study found that identifying a child’s reading difficulties and providing specialized instruction in first or second grade makes intervention twice as effective as in third grade and beyond (Lovett et al.). The brain’s high adaptability during the kindergarten through second grade window means a child can catch up quickly. It is the decrease in neuroplasticity that causes learning gains to diminish after third grade, making intervention a much longer process. These findings suggest that delayed identification does not make improvement impossible, but it does make remediation more intensive and less efficient. Lovett’s research reinforces the idea that early screening and intervention are not merely beneficial but essential, as they take advantage of the brain’s natural capacity for change before that window begins to close.

Beyond its neurological advantages, early identification and intervention also provide a safeguard against the emotional damage that can occur when a child’s attempts to process language constantly fail. The dyslexic experience involves an imbalance in the effort-to-reward ratio of reading. A student may spend twenty hours trying to achieve what a peer can complete in just one. For the dyslexic student, the payoff does not match the effort required. Without early intervention, a student can fall into a cycle known as avoidance, where reading is grueling, and motivation naturally dips (Nixon). This imbalance between effort and reward leads to a state of learned helplessness. The student concludes that their failure is an inherent characteristic rather than a manageable disorder. By the time a student reaches third grade, they may have developed self-esteem issues and unmotivated behaviors, both of which reduce a student’s willingness to engage in intervention, persevere through challenges, and keep the sustained level of effort needed for successful reading instruction (Snowling). By catching dyslexia early, a student’s academic confidence and excitement for reading are maintained, preventing the transition from a student who struggles to read to one who believes they are incapable of learning.

Critics of universal mandates argue that the emotional toll of a false positive can cause unnecessary stress for a family. These concerns are rooted in a misunderstanding between a dyslexia diagnosis and a brief screener. The most commonly used screening tools are brief, lasting only three to five minutes. These screeners are known to be a “rapid triage of an entire classroom,” not a definitive label (Fletcher et al.). They are designed to be checkups, not diagnoses. Furthermore, teachers are not even qualified to perform a diagnostic assessment. Those tests must be conducted by medical professionals through a more formal, longer testing process. Researchers and educators must do a better job at communicating and collaborating on universal dyslexia screening tools (Bakhti et al.). Through this communication, schools can better understand the purpose of a screening tool and, in turn, explain that difference to parents. With proper transparency, parents will be less anxious about screening results, and the emotional burden of a false positive is reduced.

In addition to transparency, there is a clear misunderstanding of what constitutes a successful intervention program. While there is fear that a false positive leads to unnecessary specialized instruction that hinders a student’s natural progression, intervention rarely sets a child back. Effective dyslexia intervention utilizes multisensory and phonetic strategies. Students are taught the relationship between sounds and letters through a visual and auditory process that emphasizes patterns, syllables, and roots (International Dyslexia Association). After analyzing key statistics across a multitude of studies, the National Reading Panel concluded that phonics instruction produces significant reading and spelling benefits for children from kindergarten through sixth grade, regardless of their initial ability level (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development). The very core of dyslexia intervention is a method proven to help all students. Providing a false positive student with a dyslexia-specific curriculum does not set them back; it accelerates the foundational skills identified by the National Reading Panel as essential for literacy.

The cost of dyslexia screenings is funded by a school’s already limited special education budget. Mandating screenings could force an unsustainable strain on school resources, as students who do not need individualized instruction receive extra help due to false positives. However, this strain is not an inherent flaw of screening, but rather a consequence of rushed implementation. When schools treat a one-time dyslexia screening as a gatekeeper for expensive special education, over-identification is inevitable. To avoid this pitfall, schools should use a multi-tiered approach. Rather than moving every student flagged as a risk onto an intervention plan, the school should use the initial screening to move those students into a brief, small-group instruction. Then, schools can monitor how each child reacts to the initial targeted instruction and differentiate between those with a developmental delay and those with dyslexia (VanDerHeyden and Burns). By employing an effective screening strategy, the tool avoids becoming a resource burden and instead improves efficiency by reducing false positives and accurately identifying individuals with the disorder.

The nationwide trend of mandated universal dyslexia screenings is a necessary shift that replaces the reactive wait-to-fail model with a proactive approach that prioritizes success for all students. That said, to be effective, this mandate must be accompanied by clear transparency and a proper implementation plan. Researchers need to communicate with educators, and schools must convey to parents the meaning of screening results. Screeners only identify a potential risk, and not a definitive label. Schools must also implement a multi-tiered approach to screening. This approach limits the strain on resources. Early identification lets educators capitalize on peak neuroplasticity and protects children from the emotional turmoil associated with reading failure. Because the neurological and psychological benefits of early intervention far outweigh the manageable risk of false positives, universal dyslexia screenings for kindergarten through second-grade students should be mandated by every state. This mandate ensures that all students receive the literacy support they need for long-term academic success.

Bibliography

Bakhti, Rinad, et al. “A Narrative Review of School-Based Screening Tools for Dyslexia among Students.” Frontiers in Public Health, vol. 13, 23 Oct. 2025, article 1654470, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1654470.

“California to Screen 1.2 Million Kids for Reading Challenges Earlier Than Ever Before.” Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, 17 Dec. 2024, www.gov.ca.gov/2024/12/17/california-to-screen-1-2-million-kids-for-reading-challenges-earlier-than-ever-before.

Fletcher, Jack. “Dr. Jack Fletcher on Dyslexia.” NIH News in Health, Feb. 2024, newsinhealth.nih.gov/2024/02/dr-jack-fletcher-dyslexia.

Fletcher, Jack M., et al. “Early Detection of Dyslexia Risk: Development of Brief, Teacher-Administered Screens.” Learning Disability Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 3, 2021, pp. 145–157, https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720954552.

Gaab, Nadine. “It’s a Myth That Young Children Cannot Be Screened for Dyslexia!” International Dyslexia Association, 2017, dyslexiaida.org/its-a-myth-that-young-children-cannot-be-screened-for-dyslexia.

International Dyslexia Association. “Structured Literacy: An Introductory Guide.” International Dyslexia Association, 2019, dyslexiaida.org/structured-literacy-an-introductory-guide/. 

Lovett, Maureen W., et al. “Early Intervention for Children at Risk for Reading Disabilities: The Impact of Grade at Intervention and Individual Differences on Intervention Outcomes.” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 109, no. 7, 2017, pp. 889–914.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000, www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/findings.

Nixon, Geoff. “Dyslexia and Mental Health.” Gemm Learning, 2024, www.gemmlearning.com/blog/dyslexia/dyslexia-mental-health/.

Paly, B. J., et al. “A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Four Approaches to Universal Screening for Reading Risk in Upper Elementary and Middle School.” Journal of School Psychology, vol. 92, June 2022, pp. 246–264, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2022.03.009.

Snowling, Margaret J. “Early Identification and Interventions for Dyslexia: A Contemporary View.” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, vol. 13, no. 1, 2013, pp. 7–14, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01262.x.

VanDerHeyden, Amanda M., and Matthew K. Burns. “Four Dyslexia Screening Myths That Cause More Harm than Good in Preventing Reading Failure and What You Can Do Instead.” Communiqué, vol. 45, no. 7, May 2017, pp. 1+.