Why Dyslexia Myths Persist

What We Get Wrong About Dyslexia and Why It Matters

Dyslexia. It’s a word that sparks instant associations: letter reversals, reading words backwards, bright children struggling with spelling. These ideas are commonly repeated but they don’t hold up to what we now know from research.

Despite decades of research into the cognitive and neurological foundations of dyslexia, myths and misconceptions continue to dominate how it is understood. These myths are not harmless because they shape how dyslexia is talked about, how it is identified, and how children are supported in schools. Far too often, they stand in the way of effective teaching and timely intervention.

So what are these myths, why are they so hard to shake, and what’s the real cost of getting it wrong?

The Stickiness of a Good Story

Some myths survive simply because they’re easy to remember and explain.

Myth #1 Seeing letters the wrong way around. This is one of the most common myths about dyslexia. People often believe that children with dyslexia see letters like b and d, or p and q, the wrong way around. It’s an idea that’s easy to picture, and it often lines up with what people notice in early writing. But it’s misleading.

Let’s debunk this one! Most young children reverse letters in the early stages of learning to read and write. It’s a normal part of early development, not a sign of dyslexia. In fact, letter reversals are very common in the first few years of school even among children who go on to become strong readers.

So why does this happen?

Our brains are wired to recognise objects as the same, even when they’re turned around. This ability is called object invariance. For example, we can recognise a cup whether it’s upright, sideways, or upside down.

This is helpful in everyday life, allowing us to recognise objects like chairs or cups no matter their orientation, but not when it comes to reading. Letters like b, d, p, and q are actually the same basic shape, just flipped or rotated.

But when reading, direction matters. A b is not a d. A p is not a q. To read, we have to repurpose parts of the brain that evolved for recognising faces and objects, and train them to see letters as distinct, based on their orientation. Learning to read involves overriding a natural visual shortcut and that’s no easy task. This is something all children have to learn, not just children with dyslexia. But for some, this process takes longer and needs more explicit teaching and practice.

Myth #2 One of the most persistent and misleading ideas about dyslexia is that it only applies to children who are considered ‘bright’. This belief stems from the now widely discredited IQ-discrepancy model, which suggested that a child could only be diagnosed with dyslexia if there was a significant gap between their intelligence and their reading ability. This model led to the exclusion of many struggling readers from assessment and support simply because their IQ scores did not meet an arbitrary threshold.

Read more about cut-point scores in an article I wrote for Dystinct magazine here

But research has clearly shown that dyslexia is not defined by intelligence. It is a difficulty with accurate and fluent word-level reading that can affect children across the full range of cognitive ability. Holding on to the idea that dyslexia is a diagnosis reserved for ‘smart but struggling’ children is not only inaccurate, it’s inequitable. It creates barriers for children who need support but don’t fit an outdated model. Every child who struggles with word-level reading deserves access to timely, evidence-based intervention regardless of their IQ score.

Myth #3 There’s a seductive appeal to the idea that all dyslexic children will become budding inventors, gifted artists or future entrepreneurs. The media and well-meaning advocacy often reinforce this narrative with stories of famous dyslexic figures who overcame great odds to achieve exceptional success. It’s the feel-good story often associated with dyslexia, one that highlights hidden talents and celebrates the strengths that can come with thinking differently.

However, it sets up a narrow and unrealistic expectation: that to be valued, children with dyslexia must also be unusually gifted in other areas. This can place enormous pressure on young people who are simply trying to learn to read and write with confidence. It also shifts focus away from what truly matters: access to early, evidence-based intervention that addresses their reading difficulties directly. Strengths in areas like creativity, spatial reasoning, or problem-solving can certainly be present in children with dyslexia but they should not be seen as a consolation prize or a justification for underestimating their struggle with literacy. The truth is that dyslexia is a learning difficulty, not a superpower.

Myth #4 It’s often claimed that dyslexia affects more boys than girls. And on the surface, this seems to be backed up by referral rates as boys are more frequently flagged for assessment and support. But when we look more closely, research suggests that this pattern may reflect how dyslexia is noticed, rather than how it actually occurs.

Boys are often more likely to show external signs of struggle, such as acting out or becoming disengaged in class. These behaviours draw attention and prompt concern. Girls with dyslexia, on the other hand, may internalise their difficulties. They often develop coping strategies to mask their struggles, such as memorising texts or staying quiet in class to avoid being noticed. As a result, they are frequently overlooked, under-identified, and left without the support they need.

The truth is, dyslexia affects both boys and girls almost equally and unless we understand these differences in how children present, we risk leaving many girls behind.

Myth #5 Then there’s the widespread belief in coloured lenses or overlays as a treatment for dyslexia. These products are often marketed with persuasive anecdotes and pseudo-neuroscientific jargon, despite the lack of credible evidence to support their use. But we know from research that dyslexia is not a visual processing issue, and no colour of plastic can rewire phonological circuitry.

Why Dyslexia Myths Persist

There seems to be more at play here than a simple lack of knowledge. Dyslexia myths continue not just because they are widespread, but because they are reassuring. They offer explanations that feel familiar and emotionally satisfying, often aligning with personal anecdotes or observations. These narratives tend to simplify the complex nature of reading development and appeal to our desire for easy answers and quick fixes.

However, dyslexia is not simple, and progress does not come from shortcuts. Searching for silver bullets or miracle solutions distracts us from what research consistently shows to be effective: early identification and structured teaching that takes time, skill, and sustained effort.

I can’t say with any certainty why these myths continue to hold such sway, but what follows are some possible explanations that may help us understand why misinformation about dyslexia remains so difficult to shift, even after decades of research.

The Challenge of Changing Minds

Educational research on conceptual change helps explain why myths can be so difficult to dislodge. When people hold long-standing, intuitive beliefs, new information on its own is rarely enough to change their thinking. In the case of dyslexia, facts such as ‘it’s not a visual issue’ or ‘letter reversals are common in all early readers’ often bounce off well-established mental models.

As Posner et al. (1982) argue, conceptual change requires more than information; it also involves dissatisfaction with current beliefs and a willingness to reconstruct understanding. This is no easy task, particularly when old ideas have been reinforced over time through experience, emotion, or culture. This helps explain why myths like ‘children just need to try harder’ or ‘they’ll grow out of it’ endure, even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.

When Intuition Feels Like Truth

Part of the problem lies in what Mark Seidenberg (2017) indirectly refers to as the dominance of folk psychology in education. These are those common-sense ideas about how reading works that just feel right, even if research has a different story to tell. A common example is the belief that reading involves memorising whole words visually. If a child confuses similar-looking words or struggles to remember them, it seems natural to assume the problem is visual. But what feels right isn't always what's actually happening in the brain.

These intuitive ideas stick around, not because they're accurate, but because they match what we see on the surface. We rarely dig deeper to understand the intricate science behind how reading really develops. It's a bit like watching a magician pull a rabbit from a hat and assuming the rabbit was there all along, without understanding the clever tricks involved! And in the world of reading, these unchallenged ‘gut feelings’ often lead us down the wrong path.

The Marketplace of Misinformation

Commercial products also contribute to the persistence of dyslexia myths. Items like coloured overlays, vision therapy, or so-called ‘brain training’ tools are often marketed as solutions, despite lacking strong scientific support. These products use persuasive language and neuroscience imagery to appear credible, tapping into parental concern and the very real desire to help. Unfortunately, this attention is often diverted away from approaches that do actually work such as explicit, early, and carefully structured reading instruction supported by decades of research.

The Role of Teacher Preparation

A further reason why dyslexia myths endure is in the way we prepare teachers. In many initial teacher education programmes, there has traditionally been limited attention given to the cognitive science of reading or the specific nature of dyslexia. As a result, new teachers often rely on anecdotes, outdated advice, or what they observed during school placements.

As a teacher educator, I see this challenge first-hand, but I also see change happening. Across many programmes, there is increasing momentum to integrate structured literacy, cognitive science, and research-informed dyslexia content into teacher education. While progress is gradual, it is meaningful, and it offers real hope for disrupting the cycle of misinformation and improving outcomes for all learners.

A Shared Definition Matters

One influential factor that contributes to the persistence of dyslexia myths is rooted in the fact that researchers themselves have found it challenging to settle on a clear, shared definition of dyslexia, especially one that works across clinical, educational, and policy contexts. Even the terminology varies internationally: dyslexia may be described as a specific learning disability in the US, a specific learning difficulty in the UK and Ireland, and a specific learning difference in other jurisdictions. For years, definitions have varied from country to country, and even from classroom to classroom. For example, in some contexts, dyslexia is still framed in terms of IQ-discrepancy, which reinforces outdated assumptions.

In response to this, the 2023 Delphi Study sought to bring greater clarity and consistency. Its aim was to provide a practical, research-aligned definition that could anchor policy and practice in a shared, evidence-based understanding. Led by an international panel of experts in dyslexia research and practice, the Delphi group aimed to bring clarity and consistency to how we define, recognise, and respond to dyslexia. Below is the Delphi group agreed upon definition:

— Delphi Consensus Definition, 2023

The work of the Delphi Group has shifted the conversation about dyslexia in a number of important ways:

• It moves us beyond narrow, phonology-only models, while still acknowledging phonological processing as the most common difficulty.

• It is dimensional and emphasises that there’s no strict line between ‘dyslexic’ and ‘not dyslexic’.

• It highlights that dyslexia exists across all languages and orthographies, though it may manifest differently depending on language structure.

• It reinforces that dyslexia is not a visual issue, nor simply a mismatch between intelligence and reading performance.

This matters.

A shared, evidence-based definition allows for clearer diagnosis, more targeted intervention, and more productive public discourse. It also helps to dismantle myths by offering professionals a common framework rooted in research and science.

Prevention is Better than Cure: Early Identification and Intervention

A vast body of research shows that explicit, systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics can significantly improve outcomes for children with dyslexia, especially when it begins early (Torgesen, 2004; Snowling & Hulme, 2012). Intervention in the early years of primary school has been shown to narrow the gap, reduce the risk of long-term academic underachievement, and support more positive emotional and behavioural outcomes.

That’s why early identification is critical (Catts & Hogan, 2020). Catts (2015) highlights that, “We can reliably identify many children at risk for dyslexia as early as kindergarten, and there is little reason to wait until failure has occurred.”

Universal screening in the first years of schooling, using reliable and developmentally appropriate tools, can help flag children at risk. This allows for proactive support before reading failure sets in. It also avoids the more traditional ‘wait-to-fail’ model, where formal support is only offered after a child has already fallen significantly behind. This model at the heart of what neuroscientist Nadine Gaab has called the dyslexia paradox:

‘We often wait until children show clear signs of reading failure before intervening, yet we know that the brain differences associated with dyslexia are present long before these struggles appear’.

In other words, we now have the tools and the knowledge to identify children at risk before they fail. Yet our systems often delay support until the damage is done or provide early interventions that do not support the needs of young children with persistent reading difficulties. This delay not only affects academic outcomes but can also lead to frustration, anxiety, and a loss of confidence that lingers for years. Waiting doesn’t help children ‘catch up’ or ‘grow out of’ dyslexia. It simply allows the problem to deepen.

The Hidden Emotional Cost

And this is precisely where perpetuating these myths really hurts. Living with dyslexia, especially when the system around you misunderstands it, can come at a heavy emotional price. For many children, the early years of school are filled with confusion, frustration, and a growing, unsettling sense that something is fundamentally wrong with them.

When children are simply told to ‘try harder’ or ‘pay more attention’ without any understanding of why reading is proving so difficult for them, they often internalise their struggle. They may start to believe they are lazy, not very bright, or simply incapable. Over time, this can lead to anxiety, plummeting self-esteem, an avoidance of school, or even a complete disengagement from learning altogether.

Research has shown that the emotional effects of unaddressed dyslexia can, unfortunately, persist long after the reading difficulty itself has been remediated. Academic struggles might be the initial problem we see, but the emotional scars of being misunderstood, underestimated, or unsupported often cut far deeper. When we actively challenge these myths and offer timely, targeted support based on solid scientific understanding, we’re not just improving reading outcomes. Crucially, we’re protecting a child's confidence, preserving their natural curiosity, and giving them back the vital belief that they absolutely can learn and succeed.

Why This Matters

This isn’t just an academic debate. The myths that surround dyslexia shape real decisions about when children are identified, how they are supported in school, and whether the interventions they receive are based on evidence or on guesswork. When we misattribute reading difficulties to visual problems, lack of effort, or personality traits, we overlook what truly makes a difference: early identification and structured, explicit teaching in foundational reading skills.

We need to move beyond comforting stories and the search for quick fixes, and instead engage honestly with what the research tells us even when it challenges long-held beliefs. When teaching is guided by myth rather than research, it’s children who carry the cost.

How we talk about dyslexia matters. It influences how teachers respond, how parents advocate, and how systems intervene. Myths delay action. They excuse poor practice. And they create barriers where bridges should be built.

We know better. So now we must do better—not someday, not when things get worse, but now.

Thanks for reading! This is the final post in the Misconception May series —a month-long series confronting common myths in literacy education. If you’ve found these posts helpful, thought-provoking, or share-worthy, please consider subscribing to stay updated on future posts.