Dyslexia means difficulty with the written word and is a descriptive, NOT a diagnostic term.

What was for a great length of time the most respected and used definition of dyslexia (the 'IQ discrepancy' definition where reading age was considerably lower than IQ would predict) was discredited several years ago. 'The diagnosis for many years was based on these assumptions: if a child has a serious reading problem, but normal or above normal intelligence, the child must have a special type of reading disability- 'dyslexia'. Children with low reading scores and low intelligence are supposed to read badly because they have low intelligence.' (Prof. D. McGuinness WCCR p134) 'The underlying difficulty appears to be the same, the way these children respond to treatment appears to be the same, there appears to be no justification whatsoever for going in and trying to carve out a special group of poor readers. This is what 15 years of research, all over the world has shown can’t be justified on a scientific or empirical basis (Prof.Stanovich. Mills. The Dyslexia Myth)

Without an "operational" definition of dyslexia - which is the first step in scientific research, meaning that there must be a precise (infallible) measure of what it is you're going to study, genuine diagnosis and empirical research cannot take place. This means, of course, that ALL past (and present) research that used the 'IQ discrepancy' definition to select 'dyslexic' subjects is null and void, as is research based on any of the other many definitions. 'When reading literature claiming that ''dyslexics‟ exhibit this or that symptom, or behaviour, it obviously behoves us to ascertain how the sample of ''dyslexics‟ was arrived at – how were they diagnosed. If it was by the discrepancy model of diagnosis, as is almost always the case, the findings are thereby rendered invalid and should, properly, be ignored. They seldom are. Indeed, such findings regularly march cheerfully on, underpinning and ''validating‟ later work, in bibliography after bibliography. The ''borders of pseudoscience‟ indeed' (Kerr p97)

Dyslexia researchers recently devised a new way to define and diagnose dyslexia that doesn't require an IQ test; the 'Response To Instruction/Intervention' (RTI) definition where a 'student does not learn (to read) even when provided with quality instruction that produces learning and achievement in the majority of students' (Reid Lyon). Unfortunately for the researchers, this new definition is as inprecise and as questionable as the old one.

'(C)hildren with general language delays, weak auditory or verbal short-term memory, or other perceptual and cognitive deficits could have problems learning to read and spell.  But these are language and memory problems, not “reading disorder” problems.  These children are few and far between, constituting less than 5% of the population' (D. McGuinness RRF 2995 -see link below) They can still be taught to read with expert, one-to-one teaching using a genuine, synthetic phonics, intervention programme -see Sound Reading System.

There is no need to manufacture an innate and specific 'brain disorder' to explain the widespread difficulties English-speaking children have with learning to read and spell. The evidence-based explanation is simple: "The cross-cultural comparisons reveal that the source of English-speaking children's difficulties in learning to read and spell is the English spelling system and the way it is taught. These comparisons provide irrefutable evidence that a biological theory of "dyslexia'', a deficit presumed to be a property of the child is untenable, ruling out the popular "phonological-deficit theory" of dyslexia. For a biological theory to be accurate, dyslexia would have to occur at the same rate in all populations. Otherwise, some type of genetic abnormality would be specific to people who learn an English alphabet code and be absent in people who live in countries with a transparent alphabet, where poor readers are rare. A disorder entirely tied to a particular alphabetic writing system is patently absurd and has no scientific basis. English-speaking children have trouble learning to read and spell because of our complex spelling code and because of current teaching methods, not because of aberrant genes' (D.McGuinness ERI p3)

The first study to show clearly that dyslexia is due to 'the English spelling system and the way it is taught' was that done by Heinz Wimmer in Austria (1993). German is spoken in Austria. It has a transparent written code and is taught using synthetic phonics. Wimmer tested all the worst readers in Salzburg sent to him by their teachers and found that they scored 100% correct on reading accuracy and nearly as well in spelling. Their only difficult was in reading speed. Next, Wimmer collaborated with an English researcher Goswami (1994). They compared normal readers in Salzburg (7 yr.olds with 1 yr. of instruction) and London (9 yr.olds with 4-5 yrs. of instruction) reading comparable material. The Austrian children read the material as fluently and accurately as the English 9yr.olds and made half as many errors. A third study by the researchers Landerl, Wimmer and Frith (1997) compared Austrian 'dyslexic' children (very slow readers) with English 'dyslexic' children (very inaccurate readers and spellers). The Austrian 'dyslexics' were not only far more accurate but also read twice as fast as the English dyslexics.

Researchers Geva and Siegel studied the word recognition skills of a large group of Canadian children from primarily English-speaking homes attending a bilingual English-Hebrew day school. Hebrew has a transparent orthography. Accuracy of decoding Hebrew in Grade 1 (79%) already matched the level achieved in English in Grade 5 (78%).

The empirical evidence suggests that dyslexia (very inaccurate reading and spelling) occurs in a large percentage of English-speaking children when they need to learn,**quickly, what is a deeply opaque orthography without explicit and comprehensive instruction in the English alphabet code. When correct teaching is absent, incomplete, muddled or delayed many children do, luckily (and amazingly), still discover the alphabetic principle for themselves but those who don't, will, out of necessity, have to form their own strategies to access the code - see method 2 for a description of those strategies.

Dyslexia, due to poor teaching, occurs in all social classes and, as Tom Burkard of the Promethean Trust says, 'There would not be such a huge industry charging obscene amounts of cash to (supposedly) remedy reading failure if it were not just as common with middle-class kids as with others.'(Burkard. RRF messageboard 20/12/04) Ruth Miskin, a synthetic phonic programme developer and past headteacher, says, 'Parents be warned. We’re not talking about poor kids here, from homes where televisions are always on. I’ve seen plenty of kids from affluent families,... pupils at private schools, the 4x4 parked in the drive. These children are often labelled dyslexic or SEN (with special educational needs). Not a bit of it: what they are is, to borrow an American acronym, ABT — ain’t being taught (Miskin)

'So it is mainly the middle class children - whose parents believe government propaganda about improving schools, or who buy poor-quality private schooling in the sad belief that the writing of a cheque guarantees quality teaching - who get involved in the great 'dyslexia' fantasy. They know that something is wrong. The 'dyslexia' lobby persuades them that it is their children who are at fault. This helps relieve parents and schools of any responsibility for the problem. The children, too, are led to believe that they are in the grip of some force that is beyond their control. This is why so many people willingly co-operate in their own victimhood.' (P. Hitchens. MailonSunday 04/06/07)

**Early difficulties with reading as a result of poor, absent or delayed instruction lead extremely quickly to generalised cognitive, behavioural, and motivational problems, '...skill at spelling-to-sound mapping (must) be in place early in the child's development, because their absence can initiate a causal chain of escalating negative side effects ... extremely large differences in reading practice begin to emerge as early as the middle of the first-grade year'(Stanovich p 162)

www.societyforqualityeducation.org/newsletter/archives/dreaded.pdf The Dreaded Dyslexia: It's caused by a teaching disability not a learning disability.

www.rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?t=2995 D. McGuinness' critique of Goswami's TES article on 'dyslexia' across different languages.

www.societyforqualityeducation.org/newsletter/archives/dyslexia.pdf Dyslexia or dysteachia?

www.societyforqualityeducation.org/newsletter/archives/mythabilities.pdf Learning mythabilities.

www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/seduced_by_the_flickering_ligh.php?page=1 Seduced by the Flickering Lights of the Brain

http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2008/06/must_read_paper_on_fmri_and_th.php?utm_source=readerspicks&utm_medium=link fMRI paper.

http://www.rrf.org.uk/newsletter.php?n_ID=117 Illiterate boys: The new international phenomenon

www.nrrf.org/29_labeled_dyslexic.html When a child is labeled dyslexic.

http://homeparents.about.com/library/weekly/uc_lang4.htm Is the shoe perhaps on the wrong foot?

www.xs4all.nl/~pmms/Seymour_Aro_Erskine.pdf Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies

www.nrdc.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_166.pdf Developmental dyslexia in adults: a research review

www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3809/is_200301/ai_n9226146 The search for a 'New' definition of dyslexia

http://leo.oise.utoronto.ca/~kstanovich/pdfs/reading/RRQ86.pdf Stanovich: Matthew Effects in Reading.

The TV programme 'Dispatches: The Dyslexia Myth' is available to view here - Online videos
http://www.millsproductions.co.uk/dyslexia/resources/dyslexia_myth_script.doc Complete script for 'The Dyslexia Myth'.

www.ednews.org/articles/431/1/An-Interview-with-Julian-Elliott--About-quotDyslexiaquot/Page1.html An interview with Julian Elliott: About 'dyslexia'.

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2007/01/15/hdyslexia15.xml&page=1 Dyslexia: a big, expensive myth.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/06/does_dyslexia_e.html Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens asks, 'Does dyslexia exist?'

©