Laura MacGrath

rehabINK Commentary

In recent years, literacy instruction and reading disabilities have become a major focus of public discourse in Canada (e.g., Ontario Human Rights Commission [OHRC], 2022; Dyslexia Canada, 2024). Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are increasingly involved in this area, given their expertise in language, reading, and writing. However, improving literacy outcomes requires more than assessment and intervention with individual students; it also demands a good understanding of system-level factors that determine how instruction and support are delivered. To this end, I aim to discuss several issues facing Canadian SLPs through the lens of my own experiences as a school SLP, SLP educator, and student researcher.

Reading and writing: taught, not caught

Written language is a relatively recent cultural invention in human history. Reading and writing are referred to as biologically secondary skills, meaning that they do not emerge spontaneously like biologically primary skills such as walking and talking (Dehaene, 2009; Wolf, 2007). Whereas young children typically develop oral language just by interacting with the people around then, the vast majority of children require formal instruction to develop written language. For this reason, diagnostic criteria for specific learning disorders in reading and writing (as well as math) require that difficulties persist despite targeted interventions (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). Instruction plays such a critical role that if you are looking only at the child in front of you, it is very difficult to tell whether difficulties are due to inadequate instruction, a true difficulty within the child, or both (Fletcher et al, 2018). Given this, it is critical to understand the systems around the child, so that we can draw reasonable conclusions about their development to inform the plan of action. 

The research-to-practice and practice-to-research gaps

Early in my career, I was operating under the assumption that schools were generally employing evidence-based methods for instruction, and that when a student had trouble with literacy, the cause was related mostly to factors within the child. However, after a couple of years, I came to understand what many researchers and practitioners had been saying for decades: schools often do not use the best methods, and crucial foundational skills of decoding and spelling are commonly underemphasized. Unfortunately, children with reading and writing difficulties are the most vulnerable to shortcomings in instructional approaches. This uncomfortable truth has been discussed extensively (e.g., OHRC, 2022; Sinclair et al., 2025) and attributed to multiple interacting factors, including chronic underfunding, provincial literacy programs and teacher training that are historically misaligned with research evidence, the inaccessibility of research findings, and persuasive commercial programs. Siloing across fields of education, psychology, neuroscience, and speech-language pathology, and a culture that emphasizes individual teacher discretion over mandated, consistent approaches compound the issue further. Critically, researchers may also lack a deep understanding of real-world practice issues, limiting the feasibility of proposed solutions. As a clinician-turned-researcher, this is something that I think about nearly every day.

In what has become a highly influential initiative in Canada, the OHRC Right to Read Inquiry investigated the state of literacy education in Ontario. Through expert advisers and interviews with students, parents, and educators, the OHRC determined that the province was not fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that all students develop adequate literacy skills. The report, released in 2022, identified gaps in foundational literacy instruction and inequitable provision of evidence-based instruction and support, and made 157 recommendations for improvement, including for an overhaul of the Ontario elementary language arts program (OHRC, 2022). Across Canada, two other provinces have also conducted investigations, with findings similar to the OHRC (Manitoba Human Rights Commission, 2025; Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, 2023). However, the movement to improve literacy has also faced some criticism. Cummins (2022, 2023) argues that the OHRC report overattributes reading difficulties to instructional approaches, while narrowly focusing on foundational literacy skills. Even with some critics, the movement to improve literacy instruction, comprising parent advocates, practitioners, and researchers, has been extremely influential, gaining traction over the past ten or so years. 

Ongoing, large-scale changes to literacy education

Largely in response to the human rights investigations, several provinces have recently updated their literacy programs to better align with research evidence on literacy instruction (e.g., Alberta Education, 2022; Government of British Columbia, 2024; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2023). These changes are substantial, necessitating the upskilling of the education workforce to build new knowledge and skills. This is a major undertaking, and in some cases rollouts have been criticized for insufficient planning and resources (Jackson, 2023). The momentum for change varies across Canada (Sinclair et al., 2025); for instance, though there are discussions at various levels, Quebec’s English Language Arts program (a first-language program taught in Quebec’s anglophone schools) has remained unchanged since 2001, despite the conspicuous absence of key foundational literacy concepts (Gouvernement du Québec, 2001). Given the variability across Canada, SLPs in different provinces should investigate the situation in their province, in order to understand the local challenges.

Despite the inconsistencies, this is overall a time of fast-paced change in literacy instruction. In my view, the changes are undoubtedly net positive overall, with increased attention to foundational skills of word reading and spelling. However, some prominent researchers caution against course over-correction, where overemphasis on basic foundational skills risks crowding out richer literacy experiences (Seidenberg, 2026). In my work over the past several years, it has been very exciting to see the enthusiasm for change and the acknowledgement that we must do better for our students with reading and writing difficulties. But I have observed that some emerging practices appear to be driven more by momentum than by a strong research evidence base, and I believe we should take seriously the concerns of Seidenberg and others. I don’t want to put a damper on positive change, but SLPs have a responsibility to ensure that their practices and their advice to educators and policy-makers are rooted in solid theory and research evidence.

Potato – potato

System-level inconsistencies are further complicated by a lack of consensus in terminology to describe reading and writing difficulties. Unlike oral language difficulties, which landed on the consensus terminology developmental language disorder (Bishop et al., 2017), there is no widely agreed-upon equivalent for literacy. Terms such as specific learning disorder/disability, (developmental) dyslexia, written language impairment/disorder, language-based learning disability disorder, and learning difficulties/difference are used inconsistently across and within fields. Often, confusion ensues. Parents have reported difficulty accessing resources due to misunderstandings about terminology (Everyone Reads Nova Scotia, 2020). Sometimes, terms are used more as descriptors by SLPs where they lack the training and/or authority to make diagnostic conclusions, and indeed current professional boundaries must be respected. It seems unlikely that we will soon arrive at a consensus that is suitable for all involved, so for now the best we can do is understand the existing terminology landscape. While children benefit most from individually tailored interventions, all of these terms suggest similar types of evidence-based interventions for reading and writing.

Whose job is this anyway?

Given the broader system context, questions commonly arise about professional roles and responsibilities. Historically, SLPs have focused more on oral language, and SLP training programs in Canada generally reflect that, though some programs now include whole courses on literacy (e.g., McGill University, 2024). Although expanding SLP involvement in literacy may raise concerns about workload, the strong alignment with our expertise makes this work a clear professional responsibility, particularly when gaps in the system leave children vulnerable to preventable reading failure. Notably, in many French-speaking regions, including Quebec, SLPs are mandated to diagnose dyslexia (Fédération nationale des orthophonistes, 2026; Ordre des orthophonistes et audiologistes du Québec, n.d.), though this is not currently the case elsewhere in Canada. Regardless of your province, literacy work across Canada involves collaboration among many professionals, including teachers, psychologists, literacy specialists, school leaders, and SLPs, whose roles often overlap. This range of perspectives is invaluable and relies on clear communication, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to improving outcomes.

Endorsed but under-resourced

The Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) model, under which falls the Response to Intervention (RTI) model, is widely accepted as the leading evidence-based systems-level approach to ensuring that the greatest number of children succeed in learning to read and write (Fletcher et al., 2018). An effective RTI set-up involves a cohesive approach to literacy instruction within a school, delivered in tiers of increasing intensity and guided by a data on student progress. Although MTSS and RTI are endorsed in principle in different provinces, the implementation of these systems has not yet followed (Sinclair et al., 2025). It is common for Canadian schools to lack sufficiently funded, coherent systems with adequate oversight and the minimum of qualified personnel necessary to bring MTSS/RTI to life. This reality helps explain why children’s difficulties frequently persist until their learning and self-esteem are severely affected. It also helps account for why people working in these systems experience burnout at high rates (Agyapong et al., 2024). Having seen these issues up close, I can attest that it really does take a toll.

The right to read & write?

In Canada, students have the right to non-discriminatory access to public education, including reasonable accommodations for disabilities, as highlighted by the recent human rights inquiries (OHRC, 2022; Manitoba Human Rights Commission, 2025; Moore v. British Columbia, 2012; Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, 2023). However, the right to education access does not equate to a guarantee of support services that are calculated to reasonably ensure progress (OHRC, 2018; see also Scharf, 2024). In practice, Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) in Canada are planning tools that may reference general supports, without specifying the nature, frequency, or duration of interventions, which are often extremely limited in practice. When a child fails to make adequate progress, families may advocate within the school system or pursue appeal mechanisms that vary by province. Parents may ultimately escalate the matter to a provincial human rights tribunal, but escalation is a difficult and draining process for children and families, often with considerable barriers to access. Consequently, even if families advocate for support, it is available only after the child has experienced significant difficulties, well beyond periods most responsive to early interventions. Many families don’t risk waiting and instead choose to pay privately for support outside of school. Families can hardly be blamed for finding outside support, but the unintended consequences are the masking of system shortcomings and the exacerbation of disparities between economically advantaged and disadvantaged children. In contrast, while Canadian children are guaranteed equal access to education, US laws are structured around the provision of specified services, and parents in the US have a far more direct and enforceable pathway to recourse (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 2004). (However, the stability of protections in the US is evolving, given the current US administration’s discussion of closing the Department of Education, which oversees the application of IDEA (Goldsmith, n.d.).)

The quiet part

It is hard to raise these issues. When you feel very much a part of these systems, talking about the problems feels like saying the quiet part out loud. But many people like me are getting out the megaphone, because these issues matter for SLPs, and more importantly, for children. Having worked in over a dozen schools and collaborated with colleagues in hundreds more, I know that there are dedicated and intelligent players in our systems. But I also know that we are currently lacking in resources, coherent systems, and high-level institutional know-how to implement effective solutions. It is critical for SLPs to understand these issues, as we navigate policy and practice constraints that shape how supports can be provided. As tempting as it is to tune out the big problems and focus on the child in front of us, we need to understand that a sustainable solution likely lies more in tackling these daunting system issues.

Raising these issues is hard, and I do so with the humility of someone who will never claim to have all the answers. However, I am confident that raising the issues is a critical step, that SLP perspectives matter, and that I can be part of the solution.

References: 

Agyapong, B., da Luz Dias, R., Wei, Y., & Agyapong, V. I. O. (2024). Burnout among elementary and high school teachers in three Canadian provinces: Prevalence and predictors. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, Article 1396461. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1396461 

Alberta Education. (2022). English language arts. https://curriculum.learnalberta.ca/curriculum/en/gfc/LANENG 

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.; DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787 

Bishop, D. V. M., Snowling, M. J., Thompson, P. A., Greenhalgh, T., & and the CATALISE-2 consortium. (2017). Phase 2 of CATALISE: A multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(10), 1068–1080. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12721

Cummins, J. (2022). Ontario Human Rights Commission Right to Read report: Sincere, passionate, flawed. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 16(1), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v16i1.7279

Cummins, J. (2023). Right to read implies opportunity to read: A contribution to the ongoing dialogue concerning the Ontario Human Rights Commission Right to Read report. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 17(1), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v17i1.7950 

Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The science and evolution of a human invention. Viking.

Dyslexia Canada. (2024). 2024 impact report. https://dyslexiacanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Dyslexia-Canada-2024-Impact-Report.pdf 

Everyone Reads Nova Scotia. (2020, January 23). [Flowchart illustrating parental support for a child with reading difficulties]. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=763564500835185&set=pb.100064377145914.-2207520000&type=3 

Fédération nationale des orthophonistes. (2026). Livret professionnel 2026.

https://fno.fr/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/LivretFno-2026-FINAL.docx-2.pdf 

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2018). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Gouvernement du Québec. (2001). English language arts: Québec education program—Primary education. https://cdn-contenu.quebec.ca/cdn-contenu/education/pfeq/primaire/programmes/PFEQ-english-language-arts-primaire-AN.pdf 

Government of British Columbia. (2024, April 16). B.C. takes action to improve literacy for students. https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024PREM0020-000563 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004). https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/individuals-disabilities/individuals-disabilities-education-act-idea 

Jackson, T. (2025). The implementation of the Ontario Language Curriculum 2023: Educator initial impressions. Language and Literacy, 27(2), 39–61. https://doi.org/10.20360/langandlit29737 

Manitoba Human Rights Commission. (2025). Supporting the right to read in Manitoba: The ABCs of a rights-based approach to teaching reading (Phase one report). https://www.manitobahumanrights.ca/education/pdf/public-consultations/supportingrighttoread.pdf 

McGill University. (2024). SCSD 614: Literacy across the lifespan. https://www.mcgill.ca/study/2024-2025/courses/scsd-614 

Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2022). Right to Read: Public inquiry into human rights issues affecting students with reading disabilities. https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/right-read-inquiry-report-0 

Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2024). Two-year update: Right to Read inquiry report. https://www3.ohrc.on.ca/en/two-year-update-right-read-inquiry-report 

Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2018). Policy on accessible education for students with disabilities. https://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Policy%20on%20accessible%20education%20for%20students%20with%20disabilities_FINAL_EN.pdf 

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2023). The Ontario curriculum, grades 1–8: Language. https://www.dcp.edu.gov.on.ca/en/curriculum/elementary-language 

Ordre des orthophonistes et audiologistes du Québec. (n.d.). Troubles d’apprentissage. https://www.ooaq.qc.ca/consulter/orthophoniste/troubles-apprentissage/ 

Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. (2023). Equitable education for students with reading disabilities in Saskatchewan’s K to 12 schools: A systemic investigation report. https://saskatchewanhumanrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Equitable-Education-for-Students-with-Reading-Disabilities-report.pdf 

Scharf, J. (2024). Is an IEP a legal document in Canada? https://jennscharf.com/iep-legal-document-canada/

Seidenberg, M. S. (2026, April 22). The “too much phonics” question. Seidenbergreading blog.

Sinclair, J., Nickel, J., Fraser, A., Brethour, M., Critch, T., Hope, L., McCallum, D., Norris, M., St. Croix, N., Vieira, A., & Worden, J. (2025). Teaching Reading in Canada: Curriculum and Assessment Policy Updates from the Provinces and Territories. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 19(5). https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v19i5.10423

Speech-Language & Audiology Canada¹. (2025, October 24). About S-LPs, audiologists and CHAs. SAC. https://www.sac-oac.ca/joining-the-profession/about-s-lps-aud-and-cha/

Speech-Language & Audiology Canada2. (2025, June). Executive summary: Role of speech-language pathologists in school-based literacy. https://www.sac-oac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Executive-Summary_Role-of-S-LPs-in-School-based-Literacy_EN.pdf

Supreme Court of Canada. (2012). Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc61/2012scc61.html 

Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. HarperCollins.