You may read the Substack post here. LINK
The article explores stealth dyslexia in twice-exceptional (2e) children — kids who are both highly gifted and dyslexic. Their intelligence allows them to compensate so effectively that their reading difficulties are often hidden, making them appear “fine” on most classroom measures.
For many bright, logical children—especially those labeled dyslexic—learning to read English can trigger a sudden mental shutdown. They sit in class, eyes open, but their minds check out. They hear the teacher but stop listening. What was once eager curiosity turns into blank resistance. This disengagement isn't laziness, defiance, or low intelligence. It's a logical mind protecting itself from what it perceives as nonsense.
For decades, dyslexia has been framed as a disability rooted in phonological deficits. Yet my years of teaching show a different reality: many bright, healthy children struggle not because of innate flaws, but because they are taught the wrong sounds of letters. This initial confusion snowballs. English’s inconsistent spelling system only makes matters worse, while these same children read fluently in Malay or Romanized Mandarin — proof that the issue lies in method, not mind.
For years I have argued that most children labelled “dyslexic” in English-speaking systems are not truly dyslexic. They are bright kids who shut down because of confusion introduced by poor teaching—especially the extraneous vowel sounds added to consonants (“buh” instead of pure /b/) that make blending impossible. Remove that confusion with pure sounds, structured practice, and high-frequency word automaticity, and they read fluently. I have seen it in more than eighty children I taught personally.
In Parts 1 and 2, we examined real-world evidence that most children labelled “dyslexic” in English-speaking systems are not truly dyslexic in the neurobiological sense. Singapore's top PISA reading performance (543 points in 2022, OECD average 476; 89% at Level 2 proficiency or higher) and low reported dyslexia rate (~3.5% of Primary 3 students per MOE data from 2016–2019) show what happens when explicit, pure-sound instruction prevents confusion from the start. Cross-language cases (kids reading Malay or clean Pinyin fluently but struggling in English) prove the issue is often instructional—extraneous sounds (“buh” vs. pure /b/) create artificial blending failures and shutdowns, not an innate phonological deficit.
In Part 1, we saw how Singapore's consistent top performance in PISA reading (543 points in 2022, well above the OECD average of 476, with 89% of students at proficiency Level 2 or higher) aligns with a low reported dyslexia rate (~3.5% of Primary 3 students per MOE data from 2016–2019). Their explicit, systematic early instruction—pure sounds from the start, no extraneous vowels on consonants—prevents most confusion and shutdowns that lead to labels elsewhere.
For over fifteen years I have been saying the same thing: the vast majority of children labelled “dyslexic” in English-speaking countries are not dyslexic at all. They are intelligent kids who shut down because they were taught reading in a way that created confusion. Once the confusion is removed, they read. I have seen it happen with more than eighty children I taught one-to-one between 2004 and 2019.Yet every year the numbers keep rising. In the US, UK, Australia and many other places, 10 % to 20 % of children are now being told they have dyslexia. That cannot be right. A real neurobiological condition that affects the way the brain processes spoken sounds should not suddenly explode to one in five children just because we changed the way we label it.
Singapore shows us the truth. The Singapore Evidence:
The phrase “It is better to be a wolf that everyone hates than a donkey that everyone rides” sparked an interesting discussion on LinkedIn recently.
We often hear that “the truth speaks for itself.” But in practice, truth rarely travels alone—it arrives wrapped in tone, timing, and context. And while tone should never be used as an excuse to dismiss truth, it often determines whether truth is heard or rejected.
1. Truth is Necessary, but Not Always Sufficient
Facts are the foundation of progress. Without truth, cooperation collapses.
Yet human beings are not purely rational. We filter truth through emotions, status, and identity. If the delivery feels like an attack, people may resist—even when the content is correct.
As a parent, teacher, or caregiver of a child with dyslexia, you might notice challenges in reading comprehension that seem daunting at first. But the good news is that these issues are often not inherent to dyslexia itself—instead, they're frequently tied to factors like fluency, vocabulary gaps, and a lack of interest or background knowledge.
A Learner's Frustration with Pronunciation and Tones
As someone who's spent years navigating the world of dyslexia and education—teaching kids labeled as dyslexic and authoring insights on why so many struggle with reading—I've come to appreciate how crucial clear, accurate instruction is in any language learning journey. In my recent blog post, "Unlocking the Potential of China's Dyslexic Students (Part 1)," I delved into the literacy challenges in Chinese schools, where a persistent 20-25% of students disengage due to confusion from flawed teaching methods. There, I highlighted how mixing Pinyin with Bopomofo initial sounds creates unnecessary hurdles: "Curious intelligent kids in China are confused when they cannot blend pinyin finals with bopomofo initials." This mirrors a broader issue I've encountered in my own pursuit of Mandarin fluency—frustrations with podcasts aimed at learners that butcher tones and pronunciation, undermining the language's inherent beauty and clarity.
My comments on a Substack Article by David Didau
Luqman Michel
Dec 16, 2025
Here are comments on Substack that I made on 16.12.2025 which has not received any response.
David Didau wrote: “We discount evidence that challenges us and overvalue evidence that confirms what we already think. The aim of research should not be to prove ourselves right but to find out where we are wrong.”
For years I've taught over 80 children labeled "dyslexic"—intelligent kids who couldn't read well despite average or above-average IQs. I've seen the same patterns: confusion from mixed phonics cues, shutdown from nonsense-word drills, and frustration from methods that don't align with how the brain actually learns to read. My approach is different, targeted, and fast: Give me a child with no vision or hearing issues who's behind grade level, and I'll get them reading proficiently in 4 months or less—with only 2 hours per week via Zoom.
The best part? It's completely free upfront. Parents pay nothing until they're satisfied their child is reading at (or above) grade level—and only if they choose to contribute afterward. No contracts, no pressure.
Around February 9, 2026, I came across a video by an English-speaking teacher based in Thailand. Her teaching style was engaging, so I subscribed to her channel to explore more content. However, I was disappointed to find a video on teaching Pinyin that promotes a non-standard approach.
In the video (available here: LINK), around the 4:10 mark, the teacher explains: "We use finals to make the letter clearer." She then demonstrates teaching Mandarin initials by pairing them with finals—similar to the traditional Bopomofo (Zhuyin) method—claiming that pronouncing the initials alone (as they might sound in English) is unclear, so they should always be taught with an added final for accuracy.
The "玻坡摸佛" (Bofomopo) Mnemonic and Its Impact on Early Reading
As someone who has closely observed and documented grade 1 Pinyin teaching in mainland China through numerous videos, I have identified a persistent issue: the widespread use of the rote mnemonic "玻坡摸佛" (bō pō mō fō, often shortened to "bofomopo") for the labial initials b p m f. While this chant is traditional and helps many children quickly memorize the four initials, it frequently creates fixed-vowel interference that hinders proper blending (拼读) and leads some kids—especially those with dyslexia-like sensitivities or phonological processing challenges—to shut down from reading Pinyin and, consequently, characters.
On October 25, 2025, China's Cyberspace Administration (CAC) rolled out a major regulatory change: online influencers and content creators must now hold verified professional credentials—university degrees, licenses, certifications, or official stamps—to discuss "sensitive" or "serious" topics like education, medicine, law, or finance. Platforms such as Douyin (TikTok's Chinese version), Bilibili, and Weibo are required to verify these qualifications, with penalties including fines up to 100,000 yuan (~$14,000 USD), content removal, account suspensions, or permanent bans for non-compliance.
