3.4 Further criticism

As the diagnostic and interventional scope of dyslexia expanded, some controversy emerged.

In 2005, Channel 4 broadcasted a documentary called The Dyslexia Myth, which reignited public debate. The documentary argued that viewing dyslexia as a distinct neurological condition hinders effective educational support for children struggling with reading by inefficient allocation of resources at the expense of other children who could benefit from broader and more inclusive literacy programmes. The British Dyslexia Association and the Adult Dyslexia Organisation prepared submissions to Ofcom, claiming the programme ‘set back their work by years’.

The debate soon moved to the scholarly sphere, with a critical discourse emerging that questioned the very existence and diagnostic utility of the term ‘dyslexia’.

Elliott and Gibbs in their publication ‘Does Dyslexia Exist?’ referred to dyslexia as a ‘social convenience’ with ‘no clear-cut scientific basis for differential diagnosis of dyslexia versus poor reader versus reader’ that can lead to ‘stigma, disenfranchisement and inequitable use of resources’ (p. 488).

Labour MP Graham Stringer labelled dyslexia as ‘a cruel fiction’ created by the educational establishment to excuse inadequacies in teaching methods for reading and writing, suggesting that this ‘fictional malady’ was a cause for poor literacy and contributed to unemployment and criminal behaviour, and urging that ‘the dyslexia industry was killed off’ (BBC News, 2009).

Despite the Rose Report’s conceptual clarification, the debate over dyslexia continued due to ongoing research into other neurodiverse conditions. A 2014 study by Elliott and Grigorenko argued that dyslexia had outgrown its usefulness as a term with too much ‘conceptual and political baggage’ that has ‘outgrown its conceptual and diagnostic usefulness’. They argued that ‘individuals should be supported according to their literacy difficulties, rather than trying to label a subgroup of poor readers’ (2014, p. 176–8). Furthermore, in 2019, a few UK local authorities started to discourage diagnosis of dyslexia.

Abbott-Jones criticised Elliot and Grigorenko’s study for failing to recognise dyslexia’s multiple dimensions and spectrum-like characteristics (2021, p. 2). She argued that from a practitioner’s point of view, a dyslexia diagnosis provides valuable context and insights for students, affirming its continued relevance. While differing views exist, a consensus on dyslexia’s definition is needed to identify those requiring assistance (people with dyslexia and professionals supporting them). A 2020 study called ‘Current Understanding, Support Systems, and Technology-led Interventions for Specific Learning Difficulties’ by Julia Carroll et al., supported by the Government Office for Science, introduced a new definition of dyslexia.