When the marketing claims of dyslexia intervention programs are held against rigorous evidence standards, the picture is sobering. A new systematic review of 10 widely cited programs: 5–10% of children meet criteria for dyslexia. 15–20% have clinically significant reading difficulties. Globally: ~150–200 million children. This is a public health issue. The finding: ZERO of the 10 programs reviewed achieves "high certainty" of evidence under GRADE standards across foundational

A dyslexia program developed and validated in English, applied without adaptation to Finnish, Spanish, or Greek, will allocate instructional time sub-optimally. Here's why: In shallow (transparent) orthographies — Finnish, Italian, Spanish, Modern Greek — dyslexia presents primarily as a fluency deficit, with relatively preserved accuracy. In deep (opaque) orthographies — English is the canonical example — dyslexia presents as both an accuracy and a fluency deficit. The instr

Same program. One study: NULL effect on student reading. Another study: significant positive effects. What changed? Not the curriculum. The implementation. The EBLI (Evidence-Based Literacy Instruction) case is the clearest illustration of a pattern that runs through the entire dyslexia intervention literature: the what of a program matters less than the how of its delivery. Practitioner training intensity. Supervisory infrastructure. Dose. Learner-program match. Fidelity mon

After a systematic review of 10 of the most widely cited dyslexia intervention programs — applying PRISMA 2020 and GRADE standards — one finding demands the field's attention: Not a single program achieves "high certainty" of evidence across the full set of foundational reading outcomes. This is not a failure of Structured Literacy as a category. The science of reading is clear: explicit, systematic, cumulative, diagnostic, multisensory instruction works. It is a failure of p