A New Yorker article on dyslexia and reading instruction

What did the widely read magazine's report say?

In an article published 22 December 2025 in The New Yorker, David Owen used the headline, “Dyslexia and the Reading Wars: Proven methods for teaching the readers who struggle most have been known for decades. Why do we often fail to use them?” In his extended article (> 6000 words; 40-min run time), Mr. Owen brought together familiar ideas about reading and reading instruction, often presented by authorities whom readers of Special Education Today will recognize, woven together around the case of his niece and the rise of special schools in New York City serving children with dyslexia and their families.

Mr. Owen approvingly mentioned research about dyslexia and reading instruction, reporting both about historical events such as James Hinshelwood’s description of “word blindness” and Rudolph Flesch’s indictment of look-say, whole-word instruction and about contemporary topics (neuropsychology, of course). Unfortunately, along the way he mentioned some ideas that are, if not completely unfounded, at least a tad off true north. For example, Mr. Owen held up the literacy methods of one school as an example of good practice, noting that the practices are “an adaptation of what’s known as the Orton-Gillingham approach to teaching dyslexics and other struggling readers.” He then proposed that Samuel Orton’s explanations of neurological aspects of dyslexia were prescient, apparently overlooking the extensive evidence that tenants of Orton’s theory have been discredited and that the Orton-Gillingham methods have not consistently proved to provide benefits to students.¹

For another example, Mr. Owen slipped a bit when discussing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. He accurately noted that the law entitles children to a free and appropriate public education, and even that the US Supreme Court required school districts to reimburse parents for the costs of private school when public resources and services were inadequate to meet a student’s needs. He went on, however, to report that “parents must submit an Individualized Education Program, a legal document that details their child’s special-education needs…plus, in some cases, a neuropsychological examination, which can cost thousands of dollars.” It seems to me that Mr. Owen was explaining that sometimes parents must go to great lengths to secure appropriate educational services for their children who have disabilities. That sympathetic point is worth making, but it’s not the responsibility of parents to submit an IEP; parents and schools negotiate the IEP and the matter of reimbursement for special programming (e.g., a day school placement) arises when the negotiations fail). Additionally, I am not so sure that a neuropsych report would be required to secure reimbursement for a special school placement…maybe some families seek neuropsychs to bolster their case that their child has a disability, but that’s at the point of identification, not the time of placement.

There’s a lot to like in Mr. Owen’s article. Learn more about him from a New Yorker bio or a Wikipedia entry. Among popular magazines, The New Yorker routinely ranks as one of the most widely circulated and read in the US.²

Footnote

1. There is a discussion about Orton’s ideas about strephosymbolia, engrams, reversals, and such in SET posts 14 June 2021 21 April 2022, 26 October 2022, 15 July 2024, and 25 June 2025.

2. For Dear Readers who are interested, there are various sources such as Alliance for Audited Media or the Gale Directory (or ERPR, Magazine Line, Press Gazette) about the reach and traffic of publications.