Spelling Is Not Reading: Why We Shouldn’t Match Books to a Child’s Spelling Level
There’s a belief I’m seeing more and more in literacy spaces:
“If a child has gaps in spelling, we should give them books that match those gaps.”
And I understand where this comes from, because we want alignment, we want reinforcement and above all, we want success.
But here’s the problem:
👉 Reading and spelling are not the same process.
And when we treat them as if they are, we risk doing more harm than good.
🧠 Reading and spelling are cognitively different
Reading is about recognition, it’s about lifting the sounds off the page. On the other hand, spelling is about recall of letter strings, and the construction of those strings into writing.
A child might:
Read a word accurately
Understand its meaning
Move through a text with good fluency
…but still:Be unable to spell that word
Struggle to write a sentence
Have gaps in phoneme–grapheme knowledge
This is especially true for many dyslexic learners. I see these students all the time, and they are often incredibly bright and insightful, and full of ideas however, their encoding (spelling and writing) hasn’t caught up with their thinking.
💔 When we match books to spelling gaps
I often have parents come to me and say:
“My child hates reading the books sent home; they’re too easy.”
And here I like to tread very carefully, as I know many of us are still on our learning journey, however what’s happening is that the child is being given decodable texts based on their spelling gaps, instead of being given texts that reflect their actual reading ability and thinking level
👉 And that’s where the issue lies.
When we give a capable reader a book that feels far below them, we are not supporting them; we run the risk of diminishing them.
In Aotearoa, we might say:
👉 It undermines their mana.
⚖️ Decodables have a place, but not this place
Let me be really clear on this one: I am a huge advocate for structured literacy, and I firmly believe that decodable texts are powerful; however, they are most powerful when used well.
They are excellent for:
Practising new phoneme–grapheme correspondences
Supporting early readers
Building accuracy and confidence
But they are not:
A measure of intelligence
A limit on what a student can think about
The only texts a student should read
🌟 What we should be doing instead
We need to separate our thinking:
1. Teach spelling explicitly (through a scope and sequence)
Follow a structured pathway
Fill gaps intentionally
Teach phonics and morphology directly
2. Provide reading that matches thinking and comprehension
Use rich, authentic texts
Build knowledge and vocabulary
Engage curiosity and interest
👉 These two things can, and should, happen at the same time.
💡 A moment that stayed with me
Just the other day, I worked with a student who has been diagnosed with dyslexia. He is in Year 4, and already reading at 111 words per minute with lovely expression in his voice. He understands what he is reading and is incredibly bright and full of ideas.
Yet he struggles to write a coherent sentence and organise his thoughts on paper. His mum asked me:
“What dyslexic books should he be reading?”
And my answer was simple:
👉 None.
Give that child real books. Books that challenge his thinking. Books that reflect who he is, because his difficulty isn’t reading, it’s with writing and spelling. This is the area I am teaching him in explicitly, separately, and with care.
🔑 The takeaway
We need to stop asking:
“What level book should this child read based on their spelling?”
And start asking:
“What does this child need to learn in spelling, and what can they handle in reading?”
Because when we shift this perspective, we are honouring their thinking, respecting their ability, and teaching their gaps explicitly
👉 That’s when we see real growth.
💛 Final thought
Spelling is not reading, and when we treat them as the same, we limit our learners. But when we separate them and teach both with intention, we give our students the dignity, challenge, and support they truly deserve.
