A family sits across from me with a recommendation from a neuropsychologist: get a comprehensive audiology evaluation. Over the years, I've seen other families arrive with different recommendations — pursue elaborate visual processing testing, consider genetic testing, dig through medical histories looking for evidence of ear infections or adenoid issues that might have contributed to their child's dyslexia. And then one family explained their budget constraint: ten thousand dollars for the next several months. That's all they have for dyslexia-related concerns. So the question became urgent and practical: given limited resources, what will provide the most effective, immediate, and long-lasting benefit?

In the past three weeks, America's approach to literacy education has crystallized into three stark moments. First, the House Education and Workforce Committee passed the Science of Reading Act with unanimous bipartisan support—a historic affirmation that evidence-based instruction works and signals it's likely to reshape how we teach reading nationwide. Second, Minnesota Republicans moved to strip diversity and inclusion from their state's science of reading law—reducing literacy to pure mechanics and removing the humanities that teach us who we are. Third, Donald Trump proved both sides right and both sides wrong simultaneously: he attacked Gavin Newsom's fitness for office because of dyslexia, revealing exactly why diversity, equity and inclusion instruction matter, while highlighting Gavin Newsom - a success story who is the product of structured literacy instruction. These three moments aren't separate stories.