The debate about how we should understand the concept of developmental dyslexia has sometimes become oversimplified to the point that the very existence of a biologically based reading disability has been questioned. Such a position is untenable, yet it is not always understood that criticism of the scientific rigor of a given label or construct does not necessarily imply that the problems it seeks to encompass are not real or meaningful. Thus, critical concerns expressed about the value of the dyslexia construct have been incorrectly understood or reframed by some as reflecting a perception that the term serves as an “excuse” for laziness, stupidity, or poor teaching. While there remain some commentators who certainly hold such views, the great majority of critiques in the academic literature (Elliott & Gibbs, 2008; Soler, 2010; Stanovich, 1994) have sought to provide a more nuanced perspective that eschews such notions.

In 2005, the dyslexia debate gained prominence in many countries as a result of widespread coverage given to a British television program, The Dyslexia Myth (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dyslexia-myth/). The main assertion of this program was that there were many myths surrounding the nature of dyslexia and its treatment. Existing practice, where only a limited proportion of struggling readers were identified as having dyslexia, typically on the basis of extensive cognitive assessments, was resulting in delays in intervention for some and no intervention for other candidates who also needed help. The program's message, largely reflecting the perspective of the response to intervention movement, was misperceived by some as stating that biologically based reading difficulties were a myth (see, for example, Nicolson [2005] and a subsequent response to this by Elliott [2005]). Surprisingly, this perception flew in the face of clear statements to the contrary that were offered throughout the program. What was actually being questioned were the rigor, utility, and added value of a clinical diagnosis of dyslexia, not the existence of the very real underlying problems that those with complex reading difficulties typically encounter. Rather than focusing on expensive assessments, often more accessible to children from socioeconomically advantaged families (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1999b), and usually undertaken after long-term failure had been established, it was recommended that intervention should be conducted as early as possible with all those who were potentially at risk of reading difficulty, irrespective of etiology.