Almost 30% of American high school seniors graduate virtually unable to read, disproportionately from low-income homes or students of color. These students face higher rates of unemployment, depression, incarceration, and suicide. In American schools, three methods of reading instruction vie for dominance: structured literacy, balanced literacy, and whole language. Science-based reading research indicates that beginning readers, English language learners, and struggling readers require structured literacy to read. This qualitative study investigated the gap between science-based reading research and university preparation for general education and special education teacher candidates and teachers seeking a Master's of Literacy. Areas of focus were reading differences, dyslexia, and factors influencing teacher preparation curricula. Semistructured interviews with 13 professors from six state universities provided data, augmented by syllabi and university websites. Analysis was conducted using deductive and inductive coding. Findings revealed that intervention for reading differences related to professors' reading orientation, dyslexia was not mentioned in most programs, professors claimed autonomy in creating curricula, and the impetus for change in reading instruction originated from parents, then teachers, but not from universities. Universities lag in the execution of science-based research to the detriment of students who require structured literacy to read. Universities must hire professors knowledgeable about structured literacy and their own reading biases, and the topic of dyslexia must be embedded in teacher preparation curricula. Future studies could compare these findings with teacher preparation in research-based universities and private colleges.