Myth 1: In English-speaking countries, those with dyslexia form a distinct and identifiable (diagnosable) subgroup of those who have severe and persistent difficulty with word decoding accuracy.
Facts:
What was, for a great length of time, the most commonly used definition of dyslexia (IQ-achievement discrepancy, where reading age is considerably lower than IQ would predict) was discredited a long time ago and no universally agreed operational definition of dyslexia has replaced it. As Prof McGuinness said, ”Dyslexia means “poor reader” in Greek. That is all it means.” (McGuinness. 2009). In short, ‘dyslexia’ is a descriptive, not a diagnostic term.
”There is no agreed-upon prevalence figure; that’s why we should not be talking about dyslexia as if it were a well-defined diagnosis for a well-defined group. I use the word as a descriptor for word-level reading difficulties…”
(Dr Louisa Moats)
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 explicit phonemic awareness and manipulation ability (explicit PA), having failed to progress normally through what many educators believe to be the biologically dictated, incremental development of speech-sound awareness: beginning with whole sentences, then whole words, progressing down in size through syllables, then onsets & rimes to, finally, the smallest discernible units of sound: the phonemes. This final stage develops ‘naturally’ in children around the age of 7, unless they have inherited the dyslexia brain glitch.
Skipping over the earlier developing speech-sound awareness stages by teaching phoneme-grapheme correspondences from the very beginning of instruction, as happens in high-quality phonics programmes, especially if children are much younger than 7, is widely believed to be potentially damaging to children’s natural development of explicit PA, likely to exacerbate the difficulties of those who harbour the faulty brain wiring (APPG on Dyslexia. 2021), and could harm children’s love of reading (Open EYE conference ’08 https://openeyecampaign.wordpress.com/)
Facts:
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 babies, but they are not consciously aware of this inborn ability. In contrast, explicit PA does not emerge naturally in children as the result of a biological process but is acquired as a result of learning an alphabetic/graphophonemic writing code.
Explicit PA is learnt most efficiently as a result of high-quality phonics teaching; it is the process of learning the grapheme-phoneme correspondences, translating the letters into sounds in words and vice versa, which makes the phonemes explicit:
– ”Rather than being the precursor to reading, ‘phonemic awareness’ results from progress in learning to read alphabetic writing.” (Seidenberg. Blog ‘On the phonemes in ‘phonemic awareness’. 2024)
– ”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. 2002).
In countries that use a syllabic or a consonant-vowel diphone writing code, children do not acquire explicit 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. 1998).
Because of the extreme complexity of the English alphabetic writing code, most children need an extended period (around 3 years) of high-quality 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 for a multitude of reasons (Miskin R. 2010), not least that ”the ability to access the phoneme level of speech is heritable…on a continuum of innate ability.” (McGuinness. 1998).
A child’s position low on the left side of the bell curve for explicit PA acquisition is unlikely to be apparent (IQ, vocabulary size and rhyming ability are poor indicators) when they begin school, so providing all children with whole-class, high-quality phonics instruction from the beginning of reception year, with immediate, additional ‘keep-up’ tutoring for the 5-9% of children who are much slower to learn phonics (Grant M. 2021), is essential to prevent serious decoding and spelling difficulties from developing – see ‘Primary School Phonics: Keep-Up and Catch-Up’:
https://www.dyslexics.org.uk/options-for-intervention/
Children who fall low on the normal distribution curve for explicit PA acquisition do not have a neurodevelopmental defect. All children, apart from a tiny 2-3% with profound and multiple learning disabilities, can be taught to identify and manipulate the individual phonemes of the English language using high-quality phonics instruction:
– ”Phoneme analysis sufficient to be able to decode is acquired much more rapidly in the context of print than in isolation.” (McGuinness. 2006. THES)
– ”Lots of studies show kids do better when phonemic awareness tasks are tied to print. Phonemes emerge in part from exposure to print.” (Mark Seidenberg)
Further reading: Diane McGuinness’s book: Language Development & Learning to Read. 2005 p.21-> The Origin of the Theory of Phonological Development & p.37-> A Theory Becomes Dogma.
Myth 3: The prevalence of dyslexia is estimated to be somewhere between 4% and 10% of the UK population (Rice & Brooks. 2004, Rose. 2009 p.11), and up to 20% of the population in the USA (Shaywitz et al. 2021).
Facts:
”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. 2004)
All that can be said with any certainty is that in every English-speaking country, a significant percentage of the population has word decoding and spelling difficulties varying from mild to severe.
Myth 4: Students who have been professionally diagnosed as having dyslexia need a special type of reading intervention1. This particular type of intervention is widely believed to be the gold standard* intervention for struggling readers diagnosed with dyslexia. Importantly, it should only be delivered by teachers who have undertaken a long and expensive training course, approved and accredited (and usually provided) by one of the powerful dyslexia lobby groups2. Other students, who also have severe difficulty with word decoding accuracy but lack a professional diagnosis of dyslexia, are not eligible for this special teaching.
Facts:
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 ”the 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.”
(UK Parliament 2009. S&T Committee press notice).
”The notion that those hitherto diagnosed as dyslexic require an instructional approach that is different from that appropriate for other struggling readers should be actively dispelled.”
(Elliott & Grigorenko. 2024. Annals of Dyslexia).
Whatever their age or IQ, and with or without a professional diagnosis of dyslexia, all students who struggle with word decoding and spelling accuracy need high-quality phonics teaching.
Note, UK-style synthetic phonics and linguistic phonics programmes have much in common but they both differ significantly from programmes found under the Orton-Gillingham / Structured Literacy® / Specialist Dyslexia Teaching (UK) umbrella.
1See Room 101 and scroll down to the heading ‘Orton-Gillingham (O-G) / Structured Literacy® / Specialist Dyslexia Teaching (UK)’.
2BDA. British Dyslexia Association: ”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 p.199)
2Patoss. 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 p.95)
*The Reading Gold Standard That Isn’t. Ashley Mills.
https://open.substack.com/pub/davinciandme/p/the-gold-standard-that-isnt
”When my son needed support, it was the only program anyone recommended. Even after further evaluation, every expert pointed to the same place. I now realize that it wasn’t necessarily because OG is the best—it’s because it’s the only one most educators know.”
Myth 5: Individuals professionally diagnosed with dyslexia usually have a number of other difficulties such as poor short-term memory, rapid automatic naming (RAN) deficits and/or ADHD, in addition to their slow and inaccurate word decoding and spelling.
”I think practitioners have known for a long time, that individuals with dyslexia can often have other patterns of co-occurring difficulties, as explained by the multiple deficit model. These might include dyspraxia or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.” (Carroll in Peirson-Hagger E. 2025). 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.
Facts:
Descriptions of dyslexia usually include many soft signs i.e., they are not based on data that is readily quantifiable or amenable to experimental verification. Soft signs ”are found in some people without learning problems and absent in others who experience learning difficulties.” (Rice & Brooks 2004 p22). Furthermore, ”Soft signs are not additive in the traditional sense: (T)he presence of more than one soft sign does not make a hard sign.” (Encyclopedia of Special Education. Vol 3. p.1887).
– ”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.” (Elliott. 2005. TES)
– ”(D)yslexia has been linked erroneously to left-handedness, balance deficits, the persistence of infant reflexes, visual perceptual abnormalities and nutritional deficiencies.” (Prof Snowling. BDA)
– Poor rhyming skills (Rose. 2009 p.32) ”Sensitivity to rhyme has not been shown to be a strong predictor of reading skill.” (McGuinness. 1998 p.148)
– ”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. 2005 LDLR p.388). ”Naming objects and colours is a truer reflection of natural or biological based ability.” (McGuinness. 1998 p.131).
– ”Rapid naming, phonological awareness, and reading. A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. The results suggested that the importance of RAN and PA measures in accounting for reading performance has been overstated.” (Swanson et al. Review of Educational Research.73. 2003). For more research on RAN, see Elliott & Grigorenko’s The Dyslexia Debate Revisited 2024.
– “Hospitals are complaining that their clinics are being filled with kids who are being referred for things like Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder” said Dr Rowe, “But once the paediatricians sort out the children’s literacy problems, the behaviour problems disappear. What is essentially an education issue has become a health issue.” (‘Children in crisis: The real diagnosis.’ The Age. Australia. 2004)
– ”When children are highly distractible, overly disruptive and unable to stay ‘on task’, this usually means they can’t do the task.” (McGuinness.1998 WCCR p.188). See also, McGuinness D. 1985. Ch 9. ‘Hyperactivity: A Diagnosis in Search of a Patient’.
– ”Distinguishing cause from effect – many deficits associated with developmental dyslexia may be a consequence of reduced and suboptimal reading experience.”
(Huettig F. et al. 2018. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience)
Myth 6: Dyslexia is caused by inherited, faulty genes with evidence coming from studies of twins.
Facts:
‘’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.”
(Hugo Kerr. RRF forum)
Rutter and Yule ”point out that if dyslexia was a true genetic ‘syndrome’, then the heritability should be identical in different geographic regions. Yet the poor readers scoring in the bottom range were four times greater in London than on the Isle of Wight, evidence for an environmental effect.”
(McGuinness. 1998 p.135, Rutter&Yule. 1975 p.194).
‘‘The idea that people are born with dyslexia because they have bad genes and bad brains is an outmoded notion that should be replaced with concepts of risk and malleability that are dependent on instruction and early intervention.’’
(Miciak & Fletcher. 2020 p.7, quoted in Elliott & Grigorenko. 2024 Annals of Dyslexia)
”Thus, contrary to what practitioners may sometimes suppose, family relationship (familiarity) alone is not a reliable indicator of genetic heritability.”
(Rice & Brooks 2004 p.32).
Myth 7: Dyslexia is a visual problem – dyslexics see individual letter shapes and even whole words reversed and/or moving around; this movement can make the words go in and out of focus, float on the page or drift up and down or sideways:
”In the survey of 275 dyslexia professionals, the most common myth – which is not backed up by solid evidence – was that people with dyslexia read letters in reverse order, believed by 61% of specialists. Just over 30% of professionals also believed that letters jumping around is a key feature of dyslexia.”
(Durham University News ’24 – see Daniel, Clucas & Wang. 2024).
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 colour-tinted paper.
Facts:
Prof. Vellutino ”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. D. 2005)
”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.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32836733
Does Comic Sans really help dyslexic learners? (Severs. J. TES 2020):
“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).
See Room 101 for full information on ‘Visual Therapies’, including the use of coloured lenses, overlays and colour-tinted paper.
Myth 8: Brain scan images, used in some dyslexia studies, reveal that dyslexics’ brains work differently from non-dyslexics’ brains.
Facts:
In addition to the impossibility of identifying ‘true’ 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. 2006 THES, Simos et al. 2002, Yoncheva, Wise & McCandliss 2015).
”(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 2008)
Myth 9: The planum temporale area of the brain is ‘abnormally symmetrical’ in dyslexics.
Facts:
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 universally agreed 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.1998 p.118)
Myth 10: Short-term memory deficit is a hallmark of dyslexia.
Facts:
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.”
(Mills. D. 2007)
Myth 11: Dyslexia is an incurable brain defect. It ”will not go away with tuition, practice, hard work etc.” (Klein quoted in Kerr. 2008)
Facts:
”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. 1998. pp.136-7)
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. Thinking Reading. The Bridge Over The Reading Gap revisited part 6. 2020)
Sadly, unless high-quality phonics tutoring is put into place rapidly, the disabling side effects of early mal-instruction, such as the taught 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 12: Dyslexics are compensated for their lack of phonemic awareness and weak decoding skills by being naturally gifted in the creative/visual-spatial sphere:
– 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 pp.178-185 for a critique).
– The ‘Made by Dyslexia’ charity suggests that ”Dyslexia can be a blessing” (The Times. Oct. 2020).
– The Telegraph (July. 2022) had an article with 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.”
Facts:
Comforting though this idea is for some, it is simply an ‘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/X).
”There is no evidence that dyslexia bestows these capacities and talents on people. I understand it’s feel-good stuff, but it should matter if it’s true or not. It should also matter that these ideas can have unintended negative consequences.” (Miriam Fein. Twitter/X)
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. 2001)
In a review of the research on dyslexia in adults, 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 2004 p.18)
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.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104160801300040X
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.”
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/spanish-journal-of-psychology/article/abs/reading-skills-creativity-and-insight-exploring-the-connections/FFE2FF6477EB81B0C4C05008B85E4FC5
”The war of words over dyslexia: now it’s a blessing, not a curse.” (Leah Hardy. The Telegraph. Oct 2020)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education-and-careers/2020/10/12/war-words-dyslexia-now-blessing-not-curse/
Myth 13: Dyslexia can be accurately diagnosed by an educational psychologist or a ‘specialist dyslexia teacher’ using special tests.
Facts:
No scientifically valid tests are available that can accurately differentiate those with a specific learning difficulty ‘dyslexia’ from a group of struggling word decoders and spellers.
”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.”
(Elliott. 2005. TES)
”Quite aside the perennial challenge of specifying how dyslexia can be diagnosed as a distinct subgroup of struggling readers and writers (spoiler alert: it can’t), there is no link between a diagnosis of dyslexia and what needs to be done to support a young person with their literacy.”
(Joanna Stanbridge. Senior Educational Psychologist 2022. https://edpsy.org.uk/blog/2022/response-to-the-hancock-bill-no-starfish-left-behind/)
Dyslexia misconceptions among dyslexia assessors:
https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/dyslexia-misconceptions-among-dyslexia-assessors
Because of their inability to give a legitimate diagnosis (there is no universally agreed operational definition, or legal definition of dyslexia in England – Singleton. 2009 p.16), a specialist dyslexia teacher or educational psychologist’s written report is unlikely to use the discrete ‘dyslexia’ label. Instead, it will substitute a description of the child’s difficulties such as, ”has a specific weakness in phonological development” (see Myth 2), or the label will be hedged about with words that avoid commitment to a definitive diagnosis: ”exhibited a pattern of difficulties characteristic of dyslexia” (see Myth 5), ”has a dyslexic profile” or ”is at risk for Dyslexia-SpLD”.
Myth 14: Dyslexia can be found worldwide.
Facts:
”In English-speaking countries, tests of decoding accuracy are the major tests (often the only tests) that educators and researchers rely on to measure reading skill and to define ‘dyslexia.”
(McGuinness. 2002).
In countries with transparent alphabetic codes such as Austria, Finland and Greece (Seymour. 2007), it is rare to find individuals who are very inaccurate single-word decoders, i.e., they are ‘dyslexic’ in the English-speaking countries’ understanding of the word. Because word reading accuracy is nearly 100% in countries with transparent codes, tests of decoding accuracy are not used, and reading fluency (speed and comprehension) is assessed instead, i.e., the term dyslexia means something completely different in these countries (McGuinness. 2002, Seymour. 2007).
”If dyslexia really existed then countries as diverse as Nicaragua and South Korea would not have been able to achieve literacy rates of nearly 100%.”
(Stringer. 2009)
Myth 15: It is possible to correctly identify those with SpLD-dyslexia, who live in countries which use transparent alphabet codes. In these countries reading fluency is assessed instead of word reading accuracy because those with this specific neurodevelopmental defect, despite being accurate single word decoders, find reading a slow and laborious task.
”Highly accurate but slow, effortful reading is the defining feature of dyslexia in so-called “regular” or “transparent” orthographies such as German and Italian.”
(Share D. L. 2025).
“We’ve tried to give a key role for reading fluency in our [Delphi] definition…“We wanted to get across that that can still be considered dyslexia. We shouldn’t just be focusing on accuracy.”
(Carroll in Peirson-Hagger E. 2025)
Facts:
”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. 2002)
When researchers Landerl, Wimmer and Frith (1997) compared Austrian (German-speaking) dyslexic children with English dyslexic children, the Austrian dyslexics were not only far more accurate, they 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. 2004 ERI pp.191-2).
– ”Reading speed isn’t an isolated skill. It’s a function of decoding accuracy, text difficulty and general language ability.” (McGuinness. 2004 GRB p.14).
– ”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. 2002).
– ”Reading fluency is a by‐product of the instruction that teaches children how to read. It is not something that can be instructed directly. Reading rate and prosody are always text‐specific and reader‐specific.” (Prof Schutz. 2009)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The dyslexia debate: Some key myths. Learning Difficulties Australia Bulletin 46. 2014. Prof Elliott.
https://www.dyslexics.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/LDA-BULLETIN_2014ElliottDyslexiaMyths.pdf
‘Six myths about dyslexia’. Susan Godsland.
https://www.dyslexics.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Six-myths-about-dyslexia.pdf