Myth 1: In English-speaking countries, those with dyslexia form a discrete and identifiable (diagnosable) category of people who are persistently slow and inaccurate word decoders.
What was for a great length of time the most commonly used definition of dyslexia (‘IQ discrepancy’ where reading age is considerably lower than IQ would predict) was discredited a long time ago. No operational definition has appeared to take its place. Without an operational definition, there is no scientifically valid way of separating the ‘dyslexics’ out as a special group. This means that all who have a persistent difficulty accurately decoding single words could be correctly described as dyslexic. In short, dyslexia is a descriptive, not a diagnostic term.
Myth 2: This is the BIG one: those professionally diagnosed with dyslexia have inherited a brain defect. As a result of this ‘neurodevelopmental flaw’, they lack phonemic awareness and manipulation ability (PA), having failed to progress normally through what is believed to be the biologically-dictated development of speech-sound awareness: beginning with whole words, progressing down in size through syllables, then rhymes to the smallest units of sound: the phonemes. This final stage is supposed to occur naturally in children without the brain glitch by the age of 6-7.
See Balanced Approach to Word Reading
Skipping over the supposed earlier speech-sound awareness stages by explicitly teaching phoneme-grapheme correspondences from the very beginning of instruction, as happens in high-quality phonics programmes, especially if children are younger than 6-7, is believed to be potentially damaging to children’s ‘natural’ development of PA, likely to exacerbate the difficulties of those who harbour the faulty brain wiring and could harm children’s love of reading.
The ability to identify and process the individual phonemes in the speech streams of the people talking to and around them, on their journey to develop speech, is innate and universal in young babies. Babies use it in order to acquire their native language, but they are not consciously aware of this natural aptitude.
”In fact, no one needs to be explicitly aware of phonemes unless they have to learn an alphabetic writing system.” (italics added. McGuinness LDLR p36).
Explicit phonemic awareness (PA) develops largely as a consequence of being taught an alphabetic (graphophonemic) writing system using high-quality phonics (uses phonemes exclusively from the start of instruction). ”Much evidence suggests that children do not in fact develop phoneme awareness skills until they possess quite a high level of letter-sound knowledge” (Macmillan. RRF 49 p13).
In countries that use a syllabic or diphonic writing system, children do not acquire PA as a result of being taught how to read and write. Studies ”show the strong impact of the type of writing system and type of instruction on the development of phonemic awareness – an environmental effect, and restates the point that you do not acquire this aptitude unless you need it.” (McGuinness. WCCR p135).
Because of the opaqueness of the English writing code, the vast majority of children need an extended period of phonics instruction in order to become fluent and accurate decoders and spellers.
Even when taught by expertly trained teachers, using high-quality phonics instruction, children will not learn to decode at the same rate. ”(T)he ability to access the phoneme level of speech is heritable…on a continuum of innate ability.” (McGuinness. WCCR. p151).
A child’s position low on the explicit PA acquisition curve is unlikely to be apparent (IQ, vocabulary size and rhyming ability are poor indicators) when they begin school, so providing all children with best-practice phonics instruction, along with ‘keep-up’ tutoring for some from the start of Tier/Wave1 teaching, is essential to prevent decoding difficulties appearing.
”Dyslexia does not develop when children begin with a good SSP programme and when children who fall behind are identified early and given extra practice and teaching with SSP in order to keep up.”
Individuals who fall on the lower end of the normal distribution curve for explicit PA acquisition do not have a brain defect. All children, apart from the 2-3% with severe cognitive or perceptual impairments, can be taught to consciously identify and manipulate the individual phonemes of the English language, using high-quality phonics instruction which includes the graphemes1.
Dyslexia: Still Not a Neurodevelopmental Disorder: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/9/1/9 “We recently pointed out that there is no evidence to support the commonly held view that there is something wrong with the brains of children who have great difficulty learning to read”
1”Phoneme analysis sufficient to be able to decode is acquired much more rapidly in the context of print than in isolation.” (McGuinness. Response to Hulme) ”Lots of studies show kids do better when phonemic awareness tasks are tied to print. Phonemes emerge in part from exposure to print.” (Prof. Mark Seidenberg) ”Teaching children to manipulate phonemes using letters produced greater effects than teaching without letters.” (National Reading Panel)
Further reading: D. McGuinness’s book: Language Development & Learning to Read p21-> The Origin of the Theory of Phonological Development & p37-> A Theory Becomes Dogma.
Myth 3: Children who fail to learn how to decode and spell accurately from a school’s whole-class (Wave/Tier 1) reading instruction, and continue to fail despite being subjected to one or more Wave/Tier 2/3 interventions (see Room 101 for interventions to avoid), are ”phonemically deaf” and ”treatment resisters”. They can, at last, be legitimately diagnosed as dyslexic.
Unless the pupil falls into the tiny percentage of the population who have severe cognitive or perceptual impairments, the most likely reason why they struggle to decode single words accurately is ‘dysdidaxia’, a problem with the teaching (B. Macmillan p134). ”We know that the intellectual crippling of children is caused overwhelmingly by faulty instruction -not by faulty children.” (Engelmann&Carnine 1982. Theory of instruction). ”(F)ailure to read is often to do with the nature of the teaching rather than the nature of the child.” (Rose 2009 p60)
”The Response to Intervention [RTI] framework was devised as an alternative to the discredited IQ/Achievement Discrepancy “Model” for the designation of “Learning Disability.” Schools and teachers find the newer “Model” attractive because it takes the “problem kids” out of mainstream instruction while sustaining present instructional practices and maintaining the turf of psychologists and “Special Education” specialists. Parents find it attractive because the children involved are receiving increased personal and specialized instructional attention. By the time a child has gone through Tier 3 [England. Wave 3], the child, parents, and school personnel are thoroughly convinced that the child has a “disability.” The tragedy/travesty is that the “problem” the child had when first identified as “at risk” has morphed into a “really big problem” for which the child bears the full responsibility.” (Prof. Schutz)
”I think many do not understand RTI, specifically the need for Tier 2 to intensify good practice from Tier 1. Even a sound Tier 2 program won’t help if Tier 1 is based on ineffective practices such as balanced literacy.” (Dr. Kate de Bruin. Twitter)
”Phonemically deaf” children are rare in mainstream schools that teach high-quality phonics, along with ‘keep-up’ tutoring for some, from the outset: at St George’s primary school in Wandsworth, London, an area of high deprivation, all the children (boys and girls, summer-born, EAL, in receipt of free school meals…) reached the expected standard in the phonics decoding check 6 years in a row, and all the children in Y1 and Y2 (2018) spell at CA or better.
Myth 4: The prevalence of dyslexia is estimated to be somewhere between 4%- 8% of the UK population (Rose 2009 p11) and up to 20% in the USA.
”Any attempt to determine the prevalence of dyslexia should be treated with caution.”
”In the absence of a definition that provides unequivocal identification criteria, all statements about prevalence are guesses; they are value judgements, not scientific facts…The British Dyslexia Association’s prevalence estimates of either 4 per cent for severe dyslexia or 10 per cent to include mild dyslexia have been described as both theoretically and technically contentious.”
(Rice & Brooks p19-20)
All that can be said with any certainty is that in every English-speaking country a significant percentage of the population has single word decoding and spelling difficulties varying from mild to severe.
Myth 5: Those who have been professionally diagnosed as having ”specific learning difficulties consistent with dyslexia” need a special sort of intervention that is different from that deemed suitable for ‘common-or-garden’ struggling decoders and spellers. Furthermore, this special instruction should only be delivered by qualified teachers who have undertaken a long and expensive training course approved and accredited (and often provided) by one of the powerful dyslexia lobby groups2.
Having thoroughly checked the government’s use of evidence in policy-making on dyslexia, the UK Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee concluded, ”The government should stop talking about specialist dyslexia teaching. Children diagnosed with dyslexia and children who struggle with reading for other reasons, are taught how to read in exactly the same way.” The committee also said that ”(T)he Government should be more independently minded in the formulation of dyslexia policy: priorities appear to be based on pressures from lobby groups rather than on research.” (S&T Committee press notice 18/12/09)
Whatever their age or IQ, students who have difficulties with single word decoding and spelling need high-quality phonics tutoring, not ”something different (from phonics)”.
Myth 6: Those professionally diagnosed with dyslexia have other difficulties such as short-term memory and sequencing problems and rapid automatic naming (RAN) deficits in addition to their very slow and inaccurate decoding and spelling. These other difficulties are used to confirm the diagnosis of dyslexia The number and type of co-occurring difficulties vary from one dyslexic person to another, as does the severity.
These are ‘soft’ signs – not based on data that is readily quantifiable or amenable to experimental verification.
”Forget about letter reversals, clumsiness, inconsistent hand preference and poor memory – these are commonly found in people without reading difficulties, and in poor readers not considered to be dyslexic.” (Prof. Elliott. TES)
”(D)yslexia has been linked erroneously to left-handedness, balance deficits, the persistence of infant reflexes, visual perceptual abnormalities and nutritional deficiencies.” (M. Snowling. BDA website news 17)
”The fact that RAN (rapid automatic naming) tasks using digits and letters predict reading so much better than RAN colours and objects do, means that naming speed per se is not a factor in learning to read.” (McGuinness. LDLR p388)
”Naming objects and colours is a truer reflection of natural or biological based ability.”
(McGuinness. WCCR p131)
Myth 7: Dyslexia is caused by inherited, faulty genes with evidence coming from studies of twins.
As there is no operational definition of dyslexia, it is not possible to accurately identify ‘dyslexic’ individuals as subjects for a scientifically valid study. This means that the results of all the heritability studies and genetic models of dyslexia are invalid: ‘’The twin studies leave a lot to be desired, starting with the identification of their subject ‘dyslexics’. Most such work is done with the University of Colorado and their Prof. Olsen has recently (after the IQ-achievement criterion died) stated that the bottom x% of the bell curve of reading ability can be considered ‘dyslexic’ and this is great because ”if we deploy the bell curve of normal distribution we can bring the big guns of statistics to bear”. This is outrageous, of course. The bottom x% are not to be presumed all to have the same neurological deficit (or any at all) with no demonstration of same.” (Kerr. RRF message board 29/09/09)
Claims to link a complex, learned behaviour that has to be taught (not part of a species-specific trait) to a gene complex, can only be bogus. ”Thus, contrary to what practitioners may sometimes suppose, family relationship (familiarity) alone is not a reliable indicator of genetic heritability.” (Rice & Brooks p32)
In English-speaking countries, where every year at least 20% of children leave school functionally illiterate, nearly everyone has a relative (or several) who failed to learn to read.
Myth 8: Dyslexia is a visual problem – dyslexics sometimes see letters reversed, words transposed or moving ”and this movement can make the words go in and out of focus, float on the page or drift up and down or sideways” (ChromaGen).
Prof. Vellutino showed this was incorrect when he ”asked dyslexic and non-dyslexic American children to re-produce Hebrew letters none of them had seen before… the poor readers performed as well as the normal readers in reproducing Hebrew letters from memory…Absolutely no differences between the two groups. If anything the normal readers made more errors than the poor readers, so the poor readers could see the materials as well as the normal readers.” (Mills. The Dyslexia Myth)
”Teams from Bristol and Newcastle universities carried out eye tests on more than 5,800 children and did not find any differences in the vision of those with dyslexia…Where there were dyslexic children with eye problems, the occurrence was no more likely than for non-dyslexics, the study found. And a large majority of dyslexic children were defined as having “perfect vision”
A subset of this myth is that dyslexics can be helped to overcome their decoding difficulties by providing them with reading materials printed using a special font or altered text (Comic Sans, Dyslexie, Bionic Reading…), preferably on tinted paper:
Does Comic Sans really help dyslexic learners?
“I think teachers should mostly focus on appropriate teaching of reading, not too much on how the materials are presented.” (Dr. Eva Marinus). “The research says, though, that what really works is doing the long-term, everyday grind work of a high-quality, systematic phonics programme.” (Dr. Holly Joseph).
Dyslexie font https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/dys.1527
See Room 101 for full information on ‘Visual Therapies’, especially the use of coloured lenses, overlays and tinted paper.
Myth 9: Brain scan studies show that dyslexics’ brains work differently from non-dyslexics’ brains.
In addition to the impossibility of identifying ‘dyslexics’ as subjects for a scientifically valid study, ”The recent studies using fMRI, convincingly show what everybody who knows anything about the brain can tell you, that when someone can’t read, images of his brain taken while he is trying to read will look different to someone who can read. Furthermore, when the poor reader is taught to read, the patterns of his brain metabolism will look identical to someone who can!” (McGuinness. Response to Hulme)
”(T)here is a mistaken belief that current knowledge in [genetics and neuroscience] is sufficient to justify a category of dyslexia as a subset of those who encounter reading difficulties” (Elliott & Gibbs p475)
Myth 10: The planum temporale area of the brain is ‘abnormally symmetrical’ in dyslexics.
This claim is based on the dissection of just a small number of brains taken from people previously diagnosed as ‘dyslexic’. The lack of an operational definition for dyslexia, along with the tiny number of research subjects, makes this study’s conclusions scientifically invalid. Furthermore, ”35 percent of the population have symmetrical brains. Symmetry is not pathology.” (McGuinness. WCCR p118)
Myth 11: Short-term memory deficit is a hallmark of dyslexia.
Poor short-term memory ”is the symptom most often quoted as distinguishing dyslexics from other poor readers, and those who have difficulty reading are more likely to suffer from it. Yet, however disabling poor short-term memory may be, evidence suggests it neither causes reading difficulties nor predicts the outcome of intervention. In a highly regarded study conducted by Joseph Torgesen, a psychologist at the University of Florida, out of 60 children with severe reading difficulties, only eight had poor short-term memories, while almost as many – seven – had very good short-term memories”
(David Mills. The Telegraph. Dyslexia: A big, expensive myth.)
Myth 12: Dyslexia is an incurable brain defect. It ”will not go away with tuition, practice, hard work etc.” (Klein quoted in Kerr p113)
”Shaywitz and others in the Connecticut Longitudinal Study followed children to see if the discrepancy diagnosis of dyslexia was constant from one grade to another. 25 children were diagnosed dyslexic in first grade and 31 in grade 3, but only 7 were classified as dyslexic in both grades. Of the 24 children classified as dyslexic at fifth grade, only 14 were also dyslexic in third grade.”
(McGuinness. WCCR p136-7)
James and Dianne Murphy illustrated the power of instruction with ”a well-known paper by Vellutino, Fletcher and Snowling (2004). All the Year 1 children in a US school district were assessed for reading, and 9% were found to fit a dyslexic profile. These children were taught with an explicit, systematic approach, with high attention to fidelity of delivery. After one semester, 95% were no longer deemed ‘dyslexic’.”
(J & D. Murphy. The Bridge Over The Reading Gap. 2020)
If struggling decoders are given expertly taught, high-quality phonics intervention as early as possible (large differences in reading practice begin to emerge as early as the middle of the first-grade year (Stanovich p162), in virtually all cases their ‘dyslexia’ will go away. Sadly, unless high-quality phonics tutoring is put into place extremely quickly, along with complete cessation of multi-cue word guessing, the negative side effects of early mal-instruction, such as the ‘bad habit’ of guessing and a dislike of reading and writing, are likely to persist and fluency is unlikely to ever be achieved. If newly taught code knowledge and skills are not practised extensively they are bound to erode too.
Myth 13: Dyslexics are compensated for their lack of phonemic awareness and weak decoding skills by being naturally gifted in the creative/visual-spatial sphere: Famous dyslexic chef Jamie Oliver thinks that ”children with dyslexia are ‘lucky”. In his book, David and Goliath, Malcolm Gladwell describes dyslexia as ”a desirable difficulty” (see Prof. Seidenberg’s book Language at the Speed of Sight p178-185 for a critique). The ‘Made by Dyslexia’ charity suggests that ”Dyslexia can be a blessing” (The Times. Oct. 2020) whilst The Telegraph (July. 2022) has the headline ‘Why dyslexia is not a ‘disorder’ but an evolutionary advantage’. The article goes on to say ”Scientists claim that people with the condition are naturally more skilled in discovering, inventing and creating new things.”
Comforting though this idea is for some, it is simply ‘opinion bolstered by anecdote’.
”Being unable to read is not a gift, not a superpower and sending this message of dyslexics being special is really unhelpful.” (Amanda, parent of a ‘dyslexic’ child. Twitter)
The late Martin Turner, formerly head of psychology at Dyslexia Action, said that it was a ‘travesty’ to talk about dyslexia as a bonus when it caused such suffering: ”It’s a myth that there are compensatory gifts. Dyslexics go into the visual arts like sheep head for a gap in the hedge. They aren’t more creative, they are more stressed.” (Jardine)
In a review of the research on dyslexia, Dr Rice and Professor Brooks came to the same conclusion. ”On anecdotal evidence, the belief that ‘difficulty in learning to read is not a wholly tragic life sentence but is often accompanied by great talents’ may seem attractive. However, systematic investigation has found little if any support for it.” (Rice & Brooks p18)
The late dyslexic journalist AA Gill confirmed this view when he wrote, ”In truth, of course, dyslexics end up in the art room or the music studio or the drama class after school, because it’s the only place they aren’t special-needs remedial. They get good because they can’t do anything else.” (Times 08/04/07)
When researchers at the University of Edinburgh ”tested the hypotheses that those with reading disability are compensated with enhanced creativity”, they found that ”Stronger reading was in fact linked to higher creativity, controlling for IQ.”
More recently, researchers in Chile explored the links between reading skills and creativity. Their findings did ”not support the hypothesis that specific reading disability is associated with better performance on creative tasks.”
”The war of words over dyslexia: now it’s a blessing, not a curse” (Leah Hardy. The Telegraph. Oct 2020) https://iferi.org/iferi_forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1383
Myth 14: Dyslexia can be accurately diagnosed by an educational psychologist or a ‘specialist dyslexia teacher’ using special tests.
No scientifically valid tests are available that can differentiate those with ‘dyslexia’ from other poor decoders: ”After three decades as an educationalist, first as a teacher of children with learning difficulties, then as an educational psychologist and, latterly, as an academic who has reviewed the educational literature, I have little confidence in myself (or others’) ability to offer a diagnosis of dyslexia.” (Prof. Elliott. TES)
Because of their inability to give a legitimate diagnosis (there is no operational definition, or legal definition of dyslexia in England (Singleton p16), a specialist dyslexia teacher or educational psychologist’s written report is very unlikely to include the concrete label of dyslexia. Instead, it will substitute words such as, ”has a specific weakness in phonological development” (see Myth 2), or it will be hedged about with words that avoid commitment to a definitive diagnosis: ”exhibited a pattern of difficulties characteristic of dyslexia” (see Myth 6), ”has a dyslexic profile” or ”is at risk for Dyslexia-SpLD”, with the discrete ‘dyslexia’ diagnosis and label only given to parents verbally.
Myth 15: Dyslexia can be found worldwide.
”In English-speaking countries, tests of decoding accuracy (word recognition, word attack) are the
major tests (often the only tests) that educators and researchers rely on to measure reading skill and to define ‘dyslexia” (McGuinness. RRF 49 p19).
In countries with transparent alphabet codes such as Austria, Finland and Greece (Philip Seymour. The Science of Reading p299), it is rare to find people who are inaccurate single word decoders i.e. dyslexic in the English-speaking countries’ sense of the word.
Because of the very high level of word reading accuracy in countries with transparent alphabet codes, tests of decoding accuracy are not used and reading fluency and comprehension are assessed instead i.e. the term dyslexia means something completely different in these countries
(McGuinness. RRF 49 p19/Philip Seymour. The Science of Reading p297).
”If dyslexia [as a distinct and diagnosable decoding disorder] really existed then countries as diverse as Nicaragua and South Korea would not have been able to achieve literacy rates of nearly 100%” (Stringer).
Myth 16: It is possible to correctly identify and diagnose those with dyslexia living in countries that have transparent writing codes, by testing students’ reading fluency (speed) and comprehension, because those with this specific brain defect, despite being accurate single word decoders, find reading effortful and slow.
”Some children in countries with transparent alphabets do have reading problems, but these have to do with fluency and comprehension. Yet even this is relative.” (McGuinness. RRF 49 p19)
When researchers Landerl, Wimmer and Frith (1997) compared Austrian dyslexic children (very slow readers) with English dyslexic children (very inaccurate readers), the Austrian dyslexics were not only far more accurate (7% v 40% word reading accuracy) but also read twice as fast as the English dyslexics.
”Slow reading’ is relative; the optimal reading rate varies across writing systems. ‘Slowness’…is a function of the writing system, not a property of the child.” (McGuinness. ERI p191-2)
Reading speed isn’t an isolated skill. It’s a function of decoding accuracy, text difficulty and general language ability.” (McGuinness. GRB p14). ”When reading skill is so entirely tied to a particular writing system, there can be no validity to the notion that poor reading or ‘dyslexia’ is a property of the child…” (McGuinness. RRF 49 p20).
Myth 17: Dyslexia can be cured or helped by balancing exercises, fish-oil capsules, glasses with tinted lenses, tinted overlays or paper, vision exercises, listening exercises, NLP magical spelling, modelling words in clay, inner-ear-improving medications, training ‘primitive reflexes’, eye patching, special fonts (see Myth 8), rhyme-analogy games, acupressure…
Empirical evidence does not support the use of any of the above remedies – see Room 101
Does Dyslexia [as a distinct and diagnosable decoding disorder] Exist?
SEN Magazine (no.49. Nov/Dec 2010) – scroll down to read Susan Godsland’s article:
‘Six myths about dyslexia’ www.rrf.org.uk/docs/SEN49_Dyslexia_myths.pdf
2BDA: ”Specialist dyslexia teaching: an umbrella term for approaches that are used by teachers who have attained accredited specialist qualifications in the teaching of children and adults with dyslexia. Training courses are accredited by the British Dyslexia Association” (Rose 2009 p199)
Patoss: The Professional Association of Teachers of Students with SpLD. ”(O)nly those who have passed a BDA accredited course can become specialist members of this professional association” (Rose 2009 p95)
Dyslexia Action went into administration in 2017. It no longer offers student assessments or tutoring. It continues to provide ”training for teachers to become specialist dyslexia teachers” (Rose 2009 p190)
Helen Arkell Dyslexia Centre: ”The Centre offers training to professionals who wish to develop their skills in addressing dyslexia -including training to become a specialist dyslexia teacher” (Rose 2009 p193)