As dyslexia specialists, The Upstream Team align with the International Dyslexia Association (IDA, 2025) and the Delphi consensus on dyslexia, which define dyslexia in relation to difficulties with word reading, spelling, and underlying speech-sound and language processing (International Dyslexia Association, 2025; Snowling et al., 2020).
 

Dyslexic Thinking 

The Delphi consensus is clear that while individuals with dyslexia may develop compensatory skills, there is little evidence to support the idea that dyslexia confers advantages in areas such as creativity or visual–spatial processing (Snowling et al., 2020, Statement 21).

With respect to 'gifts of dyslexia' or 'dyslexic thinking' we recognise that children who struggle with literacy may develop resilience and problem-solving strategies in response to difficulty. However, these are adaptations, not defining features of dyslexia. While some individuals with dyslexia are described as creative or entrepreneurial, many individuals with these characteristics are not dyslexic, and many individuals with dyslexia do not display these traits. In some cases, co-occurring conditions such as ADHD may more readily explain differences in creativity, problem solving or thinking styles.
 

Dyslexia is not linked to intelligence. Children with dyslexia may be highly intelligent, average, or below average in cognitive ability. Associating dyslexia with particular strengths or talents risks misrepresenting the nature of the difficulty and may distract from the need for effective early support.

We therefore do not support the narrative that reframes dyslexia as a form of “dyslexic thinking” or a collection of associated strengths. While this perspective is promoted by organisations such as Made By Dyslexia, it does not align with the current evidence base. Presenting dyslexia primarily as a different way of thinking, or as linked to strengths such as creativity or lateral thinking, risks moving attention away from the underlying difficulties that require early identification and support.

This matters in practice. When dyslexia is framed in this way, it can obscure early indicators of risk and delay appropriate support, increasing the likelihood that children will experience avoidable difficulties with reading and spelling, contributing to the dyslexia paradox. It may also shift focus away from the central role of phoneme–grapheme mapping and word-level processing.
 

Dyslexia or ineffective instruction?

We also note that both the IDA and Delphi consensus emphasise response to intervention as a key indicator of the persistence and severity of dyslexic difficulties. The 2025 definition reflects this understanding by continuing to specify that the individual’s word-reading and/or spelling difficulties persist even with effective instruction that is effective for the individual’s peers.  

This raises an important question: what constitutes effective intervention? If 1 in 5 children are unable to pass a basic check of around 95 grapheme–phoneme correspondences after two years of daily synthetic phonics instruction, then for those children, that approach has not prevented reading and spelling difficulties or facilitated self-teaching so that they can navigate the full code of over 300 correspondences. It is therefore not a logical solution to offer more of the same as an intervention.

We seek to examine and challenge current assumptions about intervention, particularly where existing approaches do not sufficiently support children in developing accurate and flexible word mapping. Phonics Reform England (PRE) Advisors will support schools to more effectively support Word Mapping Intervention (WMI).
 

Coloured Overlays

We also recognise that visual stress is a separate condition from dyslexia, although it may co-occur and exacerbate reading difficulties (Snowling et al., 2020, Statement 13). Visual stress is a condition in which the visual system appears to be hypersensitive to high contrast regular patterns, including lines of black text against a white background. Visual stress is a separate condition to dyslexia but it can make it difficult to process text and hence may exacerbate reading difficulties. It should not be conflated with dyslexia or used to explain underlying word-level difficulties, and we do not use coloured paper or overlays.

We remain open to revising our position in light of new, robust evidence. However, based on the current evidence base, we align with the Delphi consensus and IDA definition in focusing on early identification, speech-sound processing, and effective support for phoneme–grapheme mapping.

Our priority is to ensure that every child has the opportunity to become a fluent reader and confident speller through teaching that is responsive, inclusive, and grounded in what we know about how children learn. This rests on independent bidirectional word mapping, without which the path to orthographic mapping, fluency, and comprehension is blocked.
 

References (APA 7)

International Dyslexia Association. (2025). Definition of dyslexia. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org

Snowling, M. J., Hulme, C., et al. (2020). A Delphi study on the definition and classification of dyslexia. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.