The Dyslexia Controversy: A Myth That Became an Industry

[Social Media]

 

Who will be the one to tell Jamie Oliver that dyslexia may not exist? And when they do, will the famous chef be relieved to be freed from this supposed burden, or will he be upset? Most likely, the latter. Dyslexia, much like its equally debated counterpart ADHD, is one of those rare conditions people seem eager to claim. Neither has an objective, testable, or scientifically verifiable diagnosis, yet both come with certain advantages for those labeled with them.  

 

Individuals diagnosed with dyslexia may receive special accommodations, including extended time for exams, the assistance of a scribe, or access to specialized software and modified test papers. There are even free or discounted laptops equipped with spelling support software. Similarly, ADHD diagnoses can grant access to untaxed welfare benefits that are not means-tested. Prescriptions for stimulant medication—closely related to illegal amphetamines—are readily available and even circulate in black markets. Fortunately, there is no specific pill for dyslexia yet.  

 

This is a thriving industry, with an estimated 870,000 children in Britain classified as dyslexic. Given the scale of the industry, criticism is often met with outrage. This is why figures like Jamie Oliver, who openly identify as dyslexic, receive widespread praise. The celebrity chef is set to present a documentary on dyslexia for Channel 4 later this year, a move hailed as courageous. But is it truly brave? The real minority in this debate may not be those who claim to have dyslexia, but those who question its very existence.  

 

Speaking on the BBC, Oliver described his school years as happy but admitted he struggled with reading, writing, and spelling. He famously left school with just two GCSEs. "I was running away from words, from reading and writing. I thought it was just me. But there were hundreds of thousands of us every year." He expressed concern that children like him suffer from declining self-esteem before the age of ten. His experience is undoubtedly real—struggling to read can make school miserable. But is the explanation really dyslexia?  

 

No universal definition or objective test for dyslexia exists. Every child who struggles to read faces different challenges, yet the solution often remains the same: synthetic phonics (SP), a time-tested method in which children learn to associate sounds with letters. This is how reading was traditionally taught before so-called modern methods emerged.  

 

One London teacher, Hungarian-born Eva Retkin, maintained for years that she could teach any child to read as long as they knew the alphabet. When challenged by a national newspaper, she proved her claim. Even at 80, long past retirement, she continued to teach reading with remarkable success. "I always had about 30 pupils in my class, so I assume a few of those were dyslexic, if that's what you want to call it, but it made no difference. They all learned to read before secondary school. Every single one of them."  

 

This aligns with findings from two respected academics, Professor Julian Elliott of Durham University and Professor Elena Grigorenko of Yale University. Their book *The Dyslexia Debate* dismantles the notion of dyslexia as a distinct condition, pointing out that there is no agreed definition or diagnostic standard. Despite this, society continues to discuss dyslexia as if it were an undisputed fact.  

 

Parliament’s Science and Technology Select Committee reached a similar conclusion in 2009, stating, "There is no convincing evidence that, if a child with dyslexia is not labelled as dyslexic, but receives full support for his or her reading difficulty, that the child will do any worse than a child who is labelled dyslexic and then receives special help." The reason is simple: both groups receive the same intervention. But as Elliott and Grigorenko note, being labeled dyslexic is often seen as advantageous. It can grant access to additional resources, exam accommodations, and most importantly, relieve parents, teachers, and children of any perceived responsibility.  

 

The real issue is not with the children. They are not to blame. The failure lies elsewhere. As American author Rudolf Flesch argued in *Why Johnny Can’t Read*—a book published 70 years ago—the root of the problem is flawed teaching methods. The widespread adoption of "look and say" reading strategies in the 1930s and 1940s replaced traditional phonics, leaving generations of children struggling to read.  

 

Despite overwhelming evidence in favor of phonics-based instruction, resistance remains. A seven-year study in Clackmannanshire, Scotland, confirmed the effectiveness of synthetic phonics in teaching literacy. Since 2005, English schools have been legally required to use SP, yet many teachers remain reluctant. Opposition still comes from "progressive" educators who see SP as rigid and joyless. A recent paper by Charlotte Hacking and Dominic Wise criticizes phonics, arguing that its strict structure stifles children's learning.  

 

Until phonics-based teaching is fully embraced, the dyslexia industry will likely continue to thrive. And as long as that happens, the number of "dyslexic" children in Britain will remain high—even though, with proper instruction, many of them could learn to read just like any other child.

 

Based on a report by Daily Mail  2025-03-15