The Thorn We Refuse to Pull

 

Why extraneous sounds shut down curious kids

If a runner is limping, the first thing I would do is check whether a thorn is stuck under his foot. Pulling out that thorn comes before looking for deeper medical explanations. In the same way, when children disengage from learning to read, the first step is to examine the most immediate source of confusion: the way consonant sounds are taught. Even Sue Lloyd, author of Jolly Phonics, agrees that “saying the sounds as purely as possible is important.” That acknowledgment matters, because teaching letters with extraneous sounds—“buh” for /b/, “duh” for /d/—is not a trivial detail. It is the thorn that causes many otherwise curious children to shut down. To dismiss this as a “narrow focus,” as Pamela Snow has suggested, is unacceptable. Until we remove that thorn, no amount of broader theorizing will help children walk, let alone run, toward literacy.

Silenced, Blocked, and Refusing to Think

 

For more than a decade I have argued that phonological awareness deficit (PAD) is not the cause of children failing to read in English. Since 2010 I have written to Chapman, Tunmer, Elliott, Shanahan, Pamela Snow and others, presenting evidence from my own teaching and observations. What did I receive? Silence, blocking, or polite dismissal.

 

James Chapman did not block me, but he refused to think—even when I presented new evidence. His 2010 email to me epitomizes the problem: researchers who cling to their published theories as if they were gospel, unwilling to revisit them even when reality contradicts their claims.

Asking the Questions Others Ignore

 

The Puzzle That Started It All

Every genuine breakthrough begins when someone dares to ask the questions others ignore.

 

When I began teaching my first student, I was struck by a puzzle: how could such an intelligent child fail to read in English after two full years of schooling? That simple question opened a path that has guided my work ever since.

Why Pure Theory Falls Short: A Practical Approach to High-Frequency Words, Phonics, and Dyslexia in English

 

For decades, the reading world has been locked in debate over high-frequency words (often called “sight words” or Dolch words). Should children rote-memorize them, or is memorization “nonsense” that must be avoided in favor of pure phonics and orthographic mapping?

As someone who has worked with over 80 children labeled “dyslexic,” I’ve seen what actually works. These kids struggled to read in English but had no trouble reading in Malay (a transparent orthography) or Pinyin. My method—systematic phonics combined with deliberate memorization of all Dolch high-frequency words—produced strong results. The children learned the words without difficulty, gained confidence quickly, and progressed in reading.

The Pendulum Swing in Reading Instruction

From Torgesen to Today: Refining the Model – The Small Core vs. the Preventable Flood

 

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.

Cross-Language Proof: When Teaching Is Clean, “Dyslexia” Vanishes – Lessons from Malay, Pinyin, and Beyond

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.

Consider evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

 

The image above and its message resonate deeply with me, especially in the field of reading instruction and dyslexia

"You must always be willing to truly consider evidence that contradicts

your beliefs, and admit the possibility that you may be wrong.

Intelligence isn't knowing everything, it's the ability to challenge

everything you know."

Gatekeeping and Dysteachia: Ethical Dilemmas in Literacy Instruction That Prevent Student Success

                                    

        Get a copy of 'Teach Your Child to Read' LINK

Today, 29 January 2026, I read a post on LinkedIn by Sheron “The Ethicist” Fraser-Burgess, MSc. It invited educators to share ethical dilemmas they’ve faced, anonymous or named, to shape monthly dialogues.

 

After more than 20 years tutoring children labeled “dyslexic,” I’ve reached a clear conclusion: most reading struggles are not incurable brain-based disorders. They are often dysteachia—preventable failure caused by confusing, mismatched, or dogmatic instruction, later mislabeled as dyslexia. Children shut down, disengage, and fall behind not because they cannot learn, but because the system blocks clear, evidence-based paths to success.

Challenging the Reading Wars

Visit my bookstore at:  https://payhip.com/LuqmanMichel                                                              

 

Why Experts Ignore Evidence on Phonics and Dyslexia

The ongoing "Reading Wars" – the fierce debate between advocates of systematic phonics instruction and proponents of balanced literacy or whole-language approaches – have persisted for decades, leaving many children struggling with reading and labeled as dyslexic. Over the years, I've documented interactions with prominent educators and researchers on my blog. These posts highlight a frustrating pattern: questions rooted in real-world teaching experience and student evidence are often met with evasion, silence, or outright dismissal. This blog post summarizes five key entries spanning from 2020 to 2025, revealing a core issue that could potentially resolve much of the controversy.

Part 4 of 4: Rethinking Dyslexia – Instructional Confusion in Disguise?

 

The dominant view, repeated endlessly in Western research, is that dyslexia is a neurobiological phonological processing deficit. But in 2010, I began questioning this after teaching children who struggled severely with English yet read fluently in transparent orthographies like Malay and Pinyin.

 

If a child truly has a phonological deficit, shouldn’t it impair reading in any alphabetic system? Yet these same children decoded Malay and Pinyin effortlessly.

Evening News Special: Exposing the Dyslexia Industry’s Silent Guardians Part 1

 

Julian Elliott’s Decade of Dodging the Truth

 

🎭 The Master of Evasion

In the lucrative world of dyslexia research, where labels fuel billion‑dollar programs and “special interventions,” one figure has perfected the art of sidestep: Professor Julian Elliott. For more than a decade, Elliott has danced around the real reasons children struggle to read — and the silence from his peers is just as telling.

 

He admits dyslexia is “a severe and persistent problem with reading.” Fair enough. But if that’s true, why ignore the simple fix that has transformed over 80 children under my guidance?

Evening News Jo-Anne Gross – The Blocker Who Sells Phonics Fixes While Silencing Alternatives

 

It’s been years since Jo-Anne Gross first hit the block button on me—LinkedIn, then Twitter (now X). At the time, it stung. But mostly, it felt like a badge of honour. Here was a self-proclaimed remediation expert, founder of Remediation Plus Systems, selling phonics-heavy interventions for dyslexic kids, suddenly deciding my free lessons and alternative views were too dangerous to engage with.

From Phonological Lock-In to Ethical Unlocking

 

A Tale of Two Posts and One Overdue Shift in Dyslexia Discourse

In the echo chamber of education LinkedIn—where platitudes like “building each other up” often drown out the gritty work of actual reform—I stumbled on a post that cut through the noise. Sheron Fraser-Burgess, PhD, an ethicist steering data/AI governance and FATE (Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, Ethics), dropped this gem:

Phonological awareness deficit (Re-visit)

 

Now, let us look at Timothy Shanahan's blog in 2015 – that is 5 years after my emails to all the experts who echoed what one guy told the world more than 35 years ago.

He said that phonological awareness deficit is the cause of dyslexia.

We had a procedure for sounding it out that would reach virtually 100 percent of the kids (Siegfried Engelmann)

                                                      

More than 20 years ago the researchers of the Children of the Code were aware that unvoiced sounds should be unvoiced.

The following is an extract from an interview of Siegfried Engelmann conducted by David Boulton.

Siegfried Engelmann:

The mistakes the kids made guided us to see that we had something missing. For instance, at first, we had them sound out words traditionally. We never permitted "ch-aa-tah” for chat. Unvoiced sounds were unvoiced -- "ch-a-t."

So now we had precise corrections related to what they had learned earlier. We had a procedure for sounding it out that would reach virtually 100 percent of the kids. So, we could teach even really low performers now to take the first step on the ladder. Then they can follow the entire sequence and they can learn at a rate far faster than would have been anticipated.

See what Dr. Richard Selznick and Dr. David Kilpatrick said on this matter. LINK

What is the percentage of neurodivergent - Dr. Martin Bloomfield (Part 3)

 

Dr. Richard Selznick in our email discussions in 2010 said:

“I agree with you that many of these kids are instructional casualties and if they had been taught differently, many would not have shut down.”

Please keep in mind that what I say and how I respond are based on my experiences and understanding of the research.  I am not a scientist or researcher, but I respond from my decades of clinical experience.

 

Brain Science and Reading

                                                            

Here are extracts from a blog post by Timothy Shanahan dated 13 January 2024 and my comments.

Timothy Shanahan:

It may be hard to believe given news media reports and the numerous books that now purport to translate neuroscience into pedagogy, but there are not any new and effective instructional methods, approaches, techniques, or materials that have been developed based on “brain science.”

Invest in something more certain to help your school – like buying lottery tickets.

So far, no instructional method has resulted from the study of the brain.

I advocate phonics because so many studies show that kids do better in learning to read when that is part of their instruction.

Behind & Beyond Sold a Story with Emily Hanford - Part 3

                                                                 

The following are questions I have for Emily Hanford and APM Reports.

Is there even one study that says that teaching letter sounds wrongly/ teaching consonants with extraneous sounds, is not the cause of kids shutting down/ disengaging from learning to read?

Is there any one study showing schools teach sounds represented by letters wrongly and that this is one of the causes of kids shutting down/ disengaging from learning to read?

Behind & Beyond Sold a Story with Emily Hanford - Part 2

                                                                    

The podcast host asked Emily:

Do you read criticisms and have a strategy for that?

Here is Emily’s response:

I don’t have a strategy to articulate. I have developed a thick skin over the years. I have never muted anyone or blocked anyone on Twitter. People can criticise you and you don’t have to respond.

I believe she has not muted anyone or blocked anyone as she has not blocked me despite many comments I have made about her. Neither have I blocked or muted anyone unlike many who have muted and blocked me.

Anna Stokke's podcast with Matthew Burns - Final Part

                                                     

Here is the fourth and final part of Anna Stokke's podcast with Matther Burns.

Anna Stokke:

About some of the education thought leaders, sometimes you could even call them education celebrities, I think. And we see this in both reading and math. Do you think maybe they get caught up in the positive attention that they're receiving and that this may be why they don't step back on the claims they've made, even when it comes to light that there are problems with some of the ideas they promote?

Matthew Burns:

And I think because of that, people telling you that your stuff is so great and people tell you what you say is true, that you sort of start to believe it.

And you get to the point where you can say, “Well, I think it's true. Therefore, it must be.” So I think we researchers need to be more self-critical and self-reflective. We need to recognize “What I'm thinking based on evidence, or is it something I think is true because I think it's true?” So I really challenge other researchers to engage in that level of self-reflection because you can get caught up in it really easily.

My comment:

Wow! Matthew has put it very well. Do read his excellent response above, again.