The Myths of Dyslexia

Myth: Dyslexics form a special and identifiable (diagnosable) 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 there is no credible way of separating the 'dyslexics' out as a special group, either ALL poor readers are 'dyslexic', or none are -see What is dyslexia?

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 or 'acquire the alphabetic principle' (Rose 2009 p33) from conventional instruction by the age of 7-8 years, have 'a specific learning difficulty consistent with dyslexia'.
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). '(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 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- 8% of the population (Rose 2009 p11) 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 a significant percentage of the population have reading difficulties varying from mild through to severe.

Myth: Those 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 qualified teachers who have undertaken a long and expensive training course which has been approved and accredited (and often provided) by one of the powerful dyslexia lobby groups **
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 struggling readers, whatever their age or IQ, need intensive, one-to-one (preferably), synthetic phonics reading instruction. There are a handful of fast and extremely 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 What can a non-professional do? (scroll down)

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 rapid naming deficits (RAN). 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) '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.' (D.McGuinness LDLR p388) 'Naming objects and colours is a truer reflection of natural or biological based ability' (D. McGuinness WCCR p131) 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 with evidence coming from studies of twins.
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 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 (Olson) 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 behavior that has to be taught (not part of species specific trait) to a gene complex, can only be bogus' (D. McGuinness) 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: 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 impossibility 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) '(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) Also, see Room 101

Myth: The planum temporale 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: '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' (D.McGuinness. OQE. '97). If struggling readers are given expert tuition with an evidence-based intervention such as the Sound Reading System early enough in their education, their 'dyslexia' (inaccurate reading and spelling) can be made to 'go away'. Sadly, unless an 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 the 'bad habit' of guessing and a dislike of reading 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 'Should I have my Child Assessed?'

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 balancing exercises, fish-oils, glasses with tinted lenses, vision exercises, NLP magical spelling, modeling clay letters, inner-ear-improving medications, training primitive reflexes, eye occlusion (patching)....
Fact: None of these cures or remedies is based on good empirical evidence - see Room 101:Fad, fraud and folly in 'dyslexia' and the teaching of reading

** - BDA: '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: 'provides 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)

....Myths about Synthetic Phonics