Stop Saying “You’re Fine”: Why Struggling Students Deserve the Truth and Real Help

In the field of speech language pathology and allied services, we carry the immense responsibility of identifying and supporting children who struggle with language and literacy. Yet all too often, our good intentions are undercut by poor testing practices, superficial conclusions, and a harmful tendency to reassure students by telling them “there’s nothing wrong with you”—even when they are clearly struggling.

This is not comfort. This is gaslighting.

Children with language and literacy needs are not oblivious to their challenges. In fact, they are often painfully aware of them. Research shows that children as young as 7 can accurately self-report their academic difficulties, particularly when related to language or reading (Chapman & Tunmer, 2003). They know when words don’t come easily. They feel the weight of confusion during a lesson that seems effortless to others. They notice the looks from peers, the extra time it takes to read a sentence, the missed joke, the blank page during writing time. So when a professional—especially one in a position of trust—tells them everything is fine based on incomplete or psychometrically weak testing, it creates a jarring disconnect between their lived experience and the message they’re receiving.

And that disconnect can cause real harm. This misalignment between their lived experience and adult feedback has emotional consequences. According to Snowling, Muter & Carroll, 2007, students with undiagnosed language or literacy difficulties are at significantly greater risk for anxiety, low academic self-concept, and depression—especially when their challenges are minimized or invalidated.

The Emotional Toll of Being Dismissed

Imagine what it feels like to summon the courage to say, “I don’t get it,” only to be told that you’re imagining things. That “you just need to try harder.” Or worse, “you’re fine.”

The internal message a child receives is: “If I’m fine, then I must be the problem.”

That shame doesn’t motivate. It shuts kids down.

We need to do better.

The Impact of Getting Evaluations Right

What changes everything is quality, comprehensive testing—grounded in evidence-based practices, sensitive to subtle deficits, and reflective of the student’s real-world functioning.

When assessments are done well, they validate a student’s experience (Miciak, Taylor, Denton, & Fletcher, 2015). They show why reading is hard, why it takes longer to finish assignments, why speaking up in class is difficult. And with that explanation comes relief. Not weakness. Not a label to fear. But an answer.

Time and again, students—especially older ones—say it outright: “I always knew something was wrong. I’m glad someone finally listened.”

And when professionals follow up that validation with a plan—“Here’s what’s happening, and here’s what we’re going to do about it”—the shift is palpable. Empowerment replaces anxiety. Hope replaces helplessness. The student now sees a path forward, guided by someone who truly sees them.

Honesty Doesn’t Hurt—It Empowers

We must stop assuming that shielding children from their own struggles protects them. It doesn’t. Honest, compassionate conversations about language and literacy differences do not break a child’s spirit. They build it. When done thoughtfully and empathetically, helping a student understand their challenges fosters empowerment—not shame (Lindsay & Dockrell, 2012). In fact, studies show that children who receive clear explanations about their learning profile and targeted intervention experience increased self-efficacy and academic motivation over time (Humphrey & Mullins, 2002).

But meaningful support is only possible when we’ve done our due diligence—when we’ve used the right tools. Assessments that are poorly normed, lack sensitivity to subtle processing differences, or narrowly focus on surface-level skills (such as single-word reading accuracy) risk overlooking significant challenges in oral language, working memory, narrative formulation, and reading comprehension (Ukrainetz & Blomquist, 2002; Bogue, DeThorne, & Schaefer, 2014). To truly understand a student’s needs, we must go beyond superficial screeners and psychometrically weak measures (Betz, Eickhoff & Sullivan, 2013; Peña, Spaulding and Plante,  2006). We must take a deep, nuanced look at comprehension, expressive language, pragmatics, decoding, spelling, writing, and beyond. And importantly, we must ask the right questions—not just of the tests, but of the teachers, the parents, and the student themselves.

Because the truth is: kids know. They may not always have the words, but they have the awareness. When we deny their experience, we undermine their self-trust. When we validate it, we build their resilience.

Our Professional Obligation

As educators, speech-language pathologists, psychologists, and other specialists, we are obligated—ethically and humanely—to do better than “you’re fine.” We must:

• Use high-quality, psychometrically sound standardized tests
• Supplement standardized measures with thoughtful clinical grade level assessments
• Consider the student’s full developmental and academic history
• Listen closely to the parents and the child’s own account of their experiences
• Interpret results thoughtfully, not just by test scores alone
• Share findings in a way that highlights how the child’s strengths can support their growth in areas of need
• Provide concrete, evidence-based interventions rooted in need—not guesswork

When we do this, we don’t just identify deficits. We restore dignity.

So let’s retire the hollow reassurance that “you’re fine.” Instead, let’s offer something far more powerful:

“You weren’t imagining it—what you’ve been feeling is real. We see it too, and we’ll figure it out together.”

References:

1. Betz, Eickhoff, & Sullivan,( 2013) Factors Influencing the Selection of Standardized Tests for the Diagnosis of Specific Language Impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44, 133-146.
2. Bogue, E. L., DeThorne, L. S., & Schaefer, B. A. (2014). A psychometric analysis of childhood vocabulary tests. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 41, 55-69.
3. Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (2003). Reading difficulties, reading-related self-perceptions, and strategies for overcoming negative self-beliefs. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19(1), 5–24.
4. Humphrey, N., & Mullins, P. M. (2002). Personal constructs and attribution for academic success and failure in dyslexia. British Journal of Special Education, 29(4), 196–203.
5. Lindsay, G., & Dockrell, J. (2012). The relationship between speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) and behavioural, social and emotional difficulties (BESD). Department for Education (UK).
6. Miciak, J., Taylor, W. P., Denton, C. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (2015). The effect of achievement test selection on identification of learning disabilities within a patterns of strengths and weaknesses framework. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(3), 321–334.
7. Norbury, C. F., Gemmell, T., & Paul, R. (2014). Pragmatics abilities in narrative production: a cross-disorder comparison. Journal of child language, 41(03), 485-510.
8. Peña ED, Spaulding TJ, and Plante E. ( 2006) The composition of normative groups and diagnostic decision-making: Shooting ourselves in the foot. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 15: 247–54.
9. Snowling, M. J., Muter, V., & Carroll, J. (2007). Children at family risk of dyslexia: A follow-up in early adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(6), 609–618.
10. Spaulding, T. J., Plante, E., & Farinella, K. A. (2006). Eligibility criteria for language impairment: Is the low end of normal always appropriate? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 61-72.
11. Ukrainetz, T. A., & Blomquist, C. (2002). The criterion validity of four vocabulary tests compared with a language sample Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 18, 59–78.
12. Vance, R., & Plante, E. (1994). Selection of preschool language tests: A data-based approach. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 15-24.