The Myths of Dyslexia

Myth: Dyslexics form a special and identifiable category of poor readers.
Fact: There is no scientifically valid way of differentiating 'dyslexics' from other poor readers. What was for a great length of time the most used definition of dyslexia (the 'IQ discrepancy' definition where reading age was considerably lower than IQ would predict) was discredited a long time ago. 'It is perhaps strange that this notion of a discrepancy definition survived as long as it did' (Miles p114) NO operational definition or scientifically acceptable way of sorting 'dyslexics' out from a group of poor readers has appeared to take its place. As cognitive scientist, Maryanne Wolf, says, 'What’s missing, ironically, is a single, universally accepted definition of dyslexia itself' (Wolf. p167) As there is no credible way of separating the 'dyslexics' out as a special group, either ALL poor readers are 'dyslexic', or none are.

Myth: This is the BIG one; dyslexia is a specific brain weakness; a genetically-based, neurological difficulty with phoneme awareness and processing skills (the ability to detect and process the smallest perceptible speech sounds).
Fact: Phoneme awareness is un-natural; it is only necessary when learning to read and spell involves using a phonetic alphabet and has to be taught. This is confirmed by the research which found that people who read and write using non-alphabetic writing systems, lack phoneme awareness (Kerr p103-4) As a consequence of normal genetic variation, NOT a brain defect, some children fall low on the bell curve of ability for learning to consciously hear and work at the level of the phoneme. The opaque English alphabet code exacerbates that lack of talent, as does whole language/ mixed methods literacy teaching. Note that, 'there is no benefit to phoneme-only training programmes as opposed to instruction using a good synthetic phonics programme from the outset, one which teaches segmenting and blending using letter symbols and lots of writing practice. Phoneme analysis sufficient to be able to decode is acquired much more rapidly in the context of print than in isolation' (D.McGuinness. Response to Hulme). For a more detailed look at the 'phonological awareness' theory see Method 3. Synthetic Phonics.

Myth: Children who fail to deduce the alphabetic code for themselves from conventional instruction by the age of 7-8 years, have specific learning difficulties (SpLD consistent with dyslexia) and need an IEP (individual education plan).
Fact: Unless the child is profoundly deaf, mute, or grossly mentally disabled the most likely reason why they can't read is 'ABT (ain't being taught!) (Miskin) or dysdidaxia (a problem with the teaching) (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) 'The reason that so many children fail to read and write is because the wrong teaching methods are used. The education establishment, rather than admit that their eclectic and incomplete methods for instruction are at fault, have invented a brain disorder called dyslexia' (Stringer). They need to be taught the complete alphabet code and the skills of segmenting, blending and phoneme manipulation, fast.

Myth: The prevalence of dyslexia is estimated to be somewhere between 4-10% of the population in English-speaking countries.
Fact: 'Any attempt to determine the prevalence of dyslexia should be treated with caution' (Miles p27).''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 there are 100's of 1000's of people who have reading difficulties varying from mild to severe.

Myth: Children and adults who have been professionally diagnosed as having 'specific learning difficulties consistent with dyslexia' need a special sort of literacy instruction which is different from that deemed suitable for 'ordinary' poor readers. Furthermore, this special instruction should only be delivered by teachers who have undertaken a long and expensive training course which has, preferably, been endorsed or accredited by one of the prominent dyslexia organisations.
Fact: Prof. Elliott points out 'the absence of clear evidence that there exists a particular teaching approach that is more suitable for a dyslexic subgroup than for other poor readers' (Elliott '05) All poor readers, whatever their age or IQ, need and benefit from one-to-one, synthetic phonics reading instruction. '(C)hildren of high IQ don’t respond any faster to interventions than children of low IQ. You would expect on average that the higher IQ group would do better, but the fact of the matter is they don’t..' (Prof.Snowling quote in Mills. The Dyslexia Myth) There are a handful of fast and effective, synthetic phonics remedial programmes which can be successfully delivered by anyone who is completely literate themselves, has undertaken a short training course and, in addition, thoroughly understands the principles of synthetic phonics -see resources 10

Myth: Dyslexics don't just have very inaccurate reading and spelling; other signs are used to identify dyslexia such as poor short-term memory, sequencing problems and inconsistent hand preference. The number and type of difficulties vary from one dyslexic person to another, as does the severity.
Fact: 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.'(Elliott .TES) '(D)yslexia has been linked erroneously to left-handedness, balance deficits, persistence of infant reflexes, visual perceptual abnormalities and nutritional deficiencies' (Snowling. BDA website news17) Many so-called dyslexia symptoms such as b/d confusion and word reversal are simply the consequence of poor literacy teaching and lack of practice.

Myth: Dyslexia is caused by inherited, faulty genes.
Fact: As there is no operational definition or indisputable way of diagnosing dyslexia it is impossible to find 'dyslexics' for a scientifically valid study. This means that the results of all the heritabilty studies and genetic models of dyslexia are invalid. Furthermore, 'Claims to link a complex, learned behavior that has to be taught (not part of species specific trait) to a gene complex, can only be bogus' (D. McGuinness) 'One reason for my misgivings... is the idea of trying to identify genes for a character that has no definition' (Richardson on IQ, quoted in White p140) 'Thus, contrary to what practitioners may sometimes suppose, family relationship (familiality) 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: Dyslexia is a visual problem - dyslexics see words backwards and letters reversed.
Fact: 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)

Myth: fMRI brain scan studies show that dyslexics' brains work differently from those of non-dyslexics.
Fact: In addition to the impossibilty of finding true 'dyslexics' 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!' (D.McGuinness.Response to Hulme)

Myth: The planum temporal area of the brain is 'abnormally symmetrical' in dyslexics.
Fact: 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 infallible definition for dyslexia, along with the tiny number of research subjects, make this study's conclusions scientifically invalid. '35 percent of the population have symmetrical brains. Symmetry is not pathology' (D.McGuinness WCCR p118)

Myth: Dyslexia is innate and incurable; permanent. It 'will not go away with tuition, practice, hardwork etc.' (Klein quoted in Kerr p113)
Fact: If dyslexics are taught to read using a genuine, synthetic phonic, remedial programme such as the Sound Reading System, their 'dyslexia' WILL disappear. Sadly, unless effective intervention is put into place extremely quickly ('large differences in reading practice begin to emerge as early as the middle of the first-grade year'(Stanovich p 162)), the negative side effects of early mal-instruction such as a dislike of reading and low motivation are likely to persist and fluency is unlikely to ever be achieved. If newly taught skills are not practised extensively they are bound to erode too.

Myth: Dyslexics are compensated for their lack of phonological ability by being gifted in the artistic / visual-spatial sphere.
Fact: Comforting though this idea may be, it is simply 'opinion bolstered by anecdote'. Martin Turner, former head of psychology at the Dyslexia Institute (now Dyslexia Action), ''thinks it is a 'travesty' to talk about dyslexia as a bonus when it causes 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) 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)

Myth: Dyslexia can be properly diagnosed by an educational psychologist using special tests.
Fact: No scientifically valid tests are available that can differentiate dyslexics from other poor readers; '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. TES) 'There’s only one question that really makes any sense: is my child behind in reading or spelling' (Burkard) See Assessments

Myth: Dyslexia can be found world-wide.
Fact: In countries which have a transparent alphabet code and synthetic phonic teaching methods (e.g. Austria, Germany) it is rare to find people who are very inaccurate readers and spellers i.e. dyslexic in the English-speaking world's sense of the word. '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).The number of poor readers in any country will be affected by the teaching methods used. If whole-language methods are imported into a country that has a transparent spelling code then poor readers will become more numerous. A literacy gender-gap will become visible too (Macmillan 2004)

Myth: Dyslexia can be cured or helped by special exercises, fish-oils, glasses with tinted lenses, vision exercises, magical spelling, modelling clay letters....
Fact: None of these cures or remedies are based on good empirical evidence - see Room 101

People working with struggling readers usually fall into one of the three following categories depending on their stance on the Dyslexia Myths above.

1. People in this first group believe that dyslexia is 'a distinct and recognisable entity despite variable symptoms' and that this 'phonological glitch' CAN be diagnosed by 'educated professionals' (Snowling) or by 'an intuitive clinical impression' (Frith) Unsurprisingly, the various dyslexia organisations such as the BDA, Dyslexia Action, Helen Arkell, Patoss and Xtraordinary People support this belief; '(T)he dyslexia lobby are so emotionally attached to their concept of 'difference' that it is an affront to them to suggest that 'dyslexia' may just be the result of poor teaching' ('maizie'. RRF messageboard 24/6/09). The various vendors of snake oil cures for dyslexia are in this group. Profs. Snowling and Frith appear to be in this group too.

2. People in this group agree with those in group 1., that some people's reading difficulties are the result of a specific brain glitch, a phonological deficit that has a 'strong neurological and genetic basis', BUT admit that, at present, there are no valid tests which can sort struggling readers into two different groups, those with dyslexia and ordinary poor readers. They cling to the hope that a clinical diagnosis of 'dyslexia' will be available in the future as a result of work going on in labs. with brain scans and genetics. Meanwhile, they advocate that scarce public funds should not be spent on unscientific assessments for 'dyslexia' or computer equipment for those with the label, but the money should be used to provide all struggling readers with phonological-based interventions until such time that a valid diagnosis comes along. It seems that Profs. Elliott, Stanovich, Olson, Tymms and Vellutino fall into this group.

3. Unlike those in groups 1&2, people in this group don't believe there is a specific brain weakness, 'dyslexia', or that one will ever be found by brain scans or genetic research in the future. These people are unlikely to have a vested interest in maintaining any of the myths. They say that what the scientific evidence shows is that the vast majority of struggling readers' problems are the result of weak, absent, muddled or delayed teaching of the extremely opaque English Alphabet Code. A tiny percentage of children who have serious language, memory or cognitive problems (not one specific brain glitch) need, from day one, additional one-to-one help alongside excellent, daily, synthetic phonics teaching in the classroom, in order to learn to read. These children should be joined by those who fall low on the bell curve of ability to learn to listen and work at the level of the phoneme; an un-natural skill which has to be taught; prevention NOT intervention. Profs. Diane McGuinness and Steven Pinker are in this group.

.....Myths about Synthetic Phonics