Since 2010, I have repeatedly found myself suspended or blocked from posting in online dyslexia support groups. The pattern is familiar: I share evidence‑based comments, avoid personal attacks, and even refrain from linking to my blog — yet administrators still restrict my ability to contribute. Why?
Scroll down and you will find the actual discussions in this group before I was blocked.
The reasons are not hard to see:
Admin control: Group moderators wield broad authority. When a comment challenges their preferred narrative, even politely, they may silence it to avoid debate.
Commercial interests: Many groups are tied to programs, certifications, or services. Questioning the value of certificates or peer review threatens those interests.
Tone perception: Analytical, direct comments can be misread as confrontational, even when they are respectful.
Pattern of dissent: Consistently challenging mainstream narratives — phonics, Orton‑Gillingham, certification — makes admins wary of “disruption.”
The Certification Question
A recent post in a parent dyslexia group asked: What dyslexia certification has any scientific proof that it leads to better outcomes than instruction by non‑certified teachers or tutors? (See full highlighted post below)
My response was simple: there is no peer‑reviewed evidence showing that certification in Program X or Y produces better outcomes for dyslexic children than instruction from a non‑certified but competent teacher. If certification were decisive, functional illiteracy rates would have dropped decades ago. They haven’t.
But the deeper issue is that peer review itself is not automatically the gold standard. In the dyslexia field, peer review often functions as a closed circle — professors reviewing each other’s work, reinforcing the same narratives, and filtering out dissenting voices. That’s why we see endless “science of reading” papers, yet outcomes for children remain unchanged.
What Actually Works
The real test is not the certificate or the journal stamp, but whether the methods help children read. From direct experience, breakthroughs come from removing confusion:
Correct sounds of letters
Letters representing more than one sound
Mastery of Dolch words through rote memorization
These simple practices consistently work, yet they rarely appear in peer‑reviewed journals because they don’t fit prevailing theories or commercial interests. Certificates risk being receipts for purchases, and peer review risks being controlled approval. The real “science” is in the outcomes we see in children, not in the paperwork.
Why Voices Are Silenced
When I share these points, I am often suspended. Not because I bash anyone, but because I refuse to echo the dominant narrative. In groups where “every child is different” is repeated endlessly, or where Orton‑Gillingham is called the “gold standard” despite weak evidence, dissenting voices are unwelcome.
Parents of dyslexic kids who join these groups are deprived of the different perspective they are searching for. Instead of open dialogue, they encounter gatekeeping.
The silencing of dissent in dyslexia groups is not about civility. It is about control. Certificates, peer review, and “gold standards” are defended fiercely, even when outcomes for children remain stagnant.
The real measure of science is whether children learn to read. Until we focus on that, suspensions and silencing will continue — but so will my writing.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” — Upton Synclair
And so, parents seeking clarity are too often denied the perspective that could make all the difference for their children.
Here is a post in a group I just joined. I thought it best to do a post before I am blocked as I have been from numerous such groups since 2010.
Here is the post I read this morning, 17 August 2026.
Parent Dyslexia Support Group
Sure enough I was blocked within hours. Fortunately, I copied the following before being blocked.
VioletPanda1066 (This is a nickname and could be by anyone)
What Dyslexia certification has ANY scientific proof that it leads to better outcomes for Dyslexia remediation than services that are not delivered by certified teachers/therapists or tutors?
I am constantly being sold Dyslexia services with the promise of “I’m certified in program or method or philosophy XX” and then told all that this nice, passionate, and commonly well-intended person has studied, how much they practiced and what they think they have learned and what they believe are success stories in dyslexia remediation - but again, no scientific proof exists.
What I’m never given is any scientific proof, ie independently peer reviewed studies, showing that certification in program / method / philosophy XX yields better outcomes for dyslexics than certification in program Y or better outcomes than those with NO certification in a program or method or philosophy OR better outcomes than an instructor who independently customizes a dyslexia program with a bit of this and a bit of that for my child.
If there is no scientific proof that a certified provider yields better outcomes than anyone else, then are certificates truly no more than a receipt for a purchase and another way for companies to make money off of selling Dyslexia certificates?
Please cite actual peer-reviewed research studies - - this group is full of an endless stream of personal opinions. Those opinions are not scientific and thus are not a “Science of Reading” approach or contribution.
Here is my comment:
You’re right to question the value of certificates. There is no peer‑reviewed evidence showing that certification in Program X or Y produces better outcomes for dyslexic children than instruction from a non‑certified but competent teacher. If certification were decisive, we would have seen functional illiteracy rates drop over the decades. They haven’t.
But let’s also be honest: peer review itself is not automatically the gold standard when the gatekeepers are invested in protecting their own theories and commercial programs. In the dyslexia field, peer review often functions as a closed circle — professors reviewing each other’s work, reinforcing the same narratives, and filtering out dissenting voices. That’s why we see endless “science of reading” papers, yet the outcomes for children remain unchanged.
The real test is not the certificate or the journal stamp, but whether the methods actually help children read. From direct experience, the breakthroughs come from removing confusion:
Teaching the correct sounds of letters.
Making clear that letters often represent more than one sound.
Ensuring mastery of high‑frequency words (Dolch words) through rote memorization.
These simple, evidence‑based practices consistently work, yet they rarely appear in peer‑reviewed journals because they don’t fit prevailing theories or commercial interests. Certificates risk being receipts for purchases, and peer review risks being controlled approval. The real “science” is in the outcomes we see in children, not in the paperwork.
Please allow me to copy paste your post onto my blog.
(Note: I am careful not to include any links though many others did).
Below are comments that I did not comment on but what I would like to have said is highlighted below:
Lisa Skisland
Again, references and reviews are much more important, in my opinion, than certifications. Give me a person who has three phone numbers of kids who had similar challenges and some Google reviews over certifications and degrees any day. You can have certifications galore and still not be good at what you do. A free week or so to see if it’s a good fit is another way to see if they are good for your particular child.
My comment would have been:
I have a certificate for teaching dyslexics obtained in 2005, which I have not advertised as it is not worth the paper it is written on.
I also have numerous testimonials from parents I have helped which you may find at: https://luqmantestimonial.blogspot.com/.
Kiki Monique Nowers
Lisa Skisland this just isn't true and is exactly the problem the OP is talking about. Everyone is an evangelist for the program they are certified in and/or 'saved' their child. The problem is that neither knows if there could have been something much more effective. OG is a case in point, it's the gold standard for many Americans but the evidence for it is poor by comparison to systematic synthetic phonics.
My comment would have been:
‘OG is the Gold Standard?’ Says who? Google search ‘criticisms on Orton Gillingham.’
Regarding Orton-Gillingham approaches used with students with dyslexia, the International Literacy Association wrote, “As yet, there is no certifiably best method for teaching children who experience reading difficulty.”
I have repeatedly said that not teaching kids the correct sounds of the letters is the cause of many intelligent kids, who are predisposed to shutting down, disengaging from learning to decode and blending letters.
Continue reading at https://www.dyslexiafriend.com/2024/10/disinformation-circulated-by-dyslexia.html#more.
Cathy Hasprunar
There is a lack of research done which is why few studies exist. Peer reviewed studies are costly, and education doesn’t have the money that pharmaceutical companies have to do the research. Furthermore, I would be skeptical of any research that exists that is funded by the actual company promoting the product.
My comment would have been:
Please read my post at https://www.dyslexiafriend.com/2017/09/speaking-out.html#more
Yes, people are throwing anything and everything they can at ‘Researched’. Anything that has not been ‘Researched’ is unacceptable.
Shutting down fair comments, not responding to fair comments and disconnecting members from one’s connection is not acceptable to me.
I have mentioned time and again that a majority of so called ‘dyslexic’ kids are just kids who have shut-down or disengaged from learning to read and I have indisputable proof of this.
Timothy Shanahan saying that there is no research reports to support what I say is not going to stop me from writing what I have discovered.
UnderstandingPenguin3736
NOW! Neurodevelopment of words. Has done decades of control studies, peer reviewed and clinically reviewed. You can watch Tim Conway (the developers) Ted talk. We’ve had great success.
Lion Luqman Michel (I commented as follows):
Interesting that you mention Tim Conway. I had a LinkedIn discussion with him in 2017. When he could not answer my questions, he blocked me and deleted our conversation. Here is a quote by Tim Conway that I copied before he deleted our conversation: "Don’t the children you serve deserve the best science can offer them rather than what you think might be happening? One hallmark of science is that what you think you “know” is commonly inaccurate when it is actually tested by the empirical, scientific method."
My comment would have included my blog post on Tim Conway in 2017 at:
https://www.dyslexiafriend.com/2017/10/discourse-with-tim-conway-phd.html
Anonymous participant 144
There is no magic solution.
EVERY child is different and reacts differently to any given intervention.
EVERY tutor/teacher is also different. Some far better than others.
Lion Luqman Michel
Anonymous participant 144 Something I read in many places on social media. 'Every child is different and reacts differently'.
My comment would also have included: How is it that anonymous comments are allowed?
Melinda Karshner
The scientific research shows promise for programs like OG but there is no study that indicates any one program or approach is a sure fire magic bullet “cure”.
No comments:
Post a Comment