orton-gill vs. lindamood?

I’m not an expert on Orton Gillingham by any means, but I understand the primary difference between the two is that LMB starts at the auditory level- hearing the sounds- and borrows from a speech and language perspective in using the way the mouth works in forming sounds as a guide to help those with weak auditory discrimination skills. I like to think of the beginning part of the LIPS program as being the underpinnings to Orton-Gillingham, LMB itself or any other program.

As far as the actual phonics part of the programs, they overlap in many areas; which one is better depends on the comfort level of both teacher and student.

I forgot to add that I was only thinking of the LIPS program which is what LMB uses for decoding. I didn’t compare their Seeing Stars, or Visualizing & Verbalizing.

I’m wondering if the comment made to you about memory was really meant to say that O-G doesn’t have a strong program for building memory skills as compared to LMB (Their V/V and Seeing Stars both work at improving memory).

Another question that comes to mind: looking at their websites the quick fix thing kind of scares me. In four weeks you can read 2 grade levels higher, etc. Are the public schools actually providing the same instruction yet not the the same intensity as these two programs? Or is it completely different?

Joan,

I am the one who commented in another thread that OG is very rules-based, and that a child who has memory issues may have difficulty remembering all the rules and exceptions of OG. That is precisely why I have chosen PG for my own child and for my students…it focuses on teaching the sounds and the symbols, period. I am taking the LB V/V training in June, too, by the way!

Janis

Lulu,

I really answered this question in my reply to you on another thread, but I’ll repeat here: most schools are NOT using these methods and probably could not provide the one-on-one intensive therapy anyway. The training is expensive and then a major reduction in caseloads would add up to BIG bucks. Money is the bottom line…as usual. Although, early, intensive remediation would cost our society MUCH less in the long run when you consider all the kids who will eventually drop out of school and go on welfare or end up in the prison system. But they rarely think that way, unfortunately.

Janis

It really is true that most students read 2 grade levels higher in 4 weeks. But they’re only talking about the students who attend their regional centers and do a concentrated period of time, usually around 4 hours a day, 5 days a week for anywhere from 4 - 6 weeks. I’ve seen the results of that program - the kids really do come back greatly improved. And the results are long-lasting.

But it takes big bucks. Some people pull their kids from their regular schools and send them only to LMB for those weeks while others wait till summer to send their child. Either way, it often entails moving temporarily into the city where the center is located. It’s a major commitment that costs plenty. It’s certainly worth it if you have the money.

I agree with Janis that it would certainly be wonderful if our school systems realized just how worthwhile it would be to do this for all kids who need it.

I think that, much as I love LMB’s programs, great improvements will be seen with any reputable program that’s applied with the same intensity. I happen to think LMB does it best.

Unfortunately most people can’t afford to send their kids to such centers and our public schools don’t offer any program of intensity for kids needing it. So we can’t possibly expect the same results. As far as what the public schools provide, it depends on the school’s resources. Judging from all the special ed teachers that are taking the LMB training, I think quite a lot of people now know this method. But they’re overloaded with students. As with any kind of instruction in any field - a good example is piano lessons - one-on-one is best but you can still learn in group lessons, just not as quickly.

Does this mean that students’ reading fluency, or whatever is measured improves up to their cognitive abilities, or up to their grade level or beyond everything? If a student who is now reading at grade level went through such a program(LMB), would they improve? Or is it effective for students who are quite delayed?

The program is intended (LiPS) for a child who is very delayed or not reading at all. It is not for a child who has good decoding skills but just needs work on fluency. Use Great Leaps or Read Naturally for that. Practicing reading is the thing that improves fluency. You could easily order Great Leaps and use it without training. I used it this spring very easily.

Janis

I know a school that is using LIPS, in a modified way, as their early elementary reading program. The belief is that it’s an integrated program that should help imporve any child’s weak areas. That program, combined with classroom literature circles and silent reading times, seems to be very comprehensive. It’ll be interesting to hear if they see improvement for their average readers.

Joan,

I realized after I wrote my last post that perhaps the child with good decoding but poor fluency might benefit from Seeing Stars.

I took my child to speech this morning and it appears that one of the SLP’s will take the LB training this summer so hopefully my daughter will have the LB programs next year at school! I realize how very fortunate we are…but it would have not happened had I not asked for it.

I want to take all the workshops so much! It’s just so expensive.

Janis

Joan,

I accidentally posted something to you attached to my post above yours.

I have another question, though. Do you think I could learn LiPS from the training videos or do you think the live workshop is necessary?

Also, does LiPS require the child to learn a lot of rules like Orton-Gillingham does?

See, I am thinking that PG will work for most of my kids. But the ones with severe to profound hearing loss may need LiPS…just a guess at this point. But I know rules will be too difficult for the kids I am thinking of.

I think I’ve asked this before…but would the V/V videos training be adequate?

Honestly, I’ve wavered back and forth on whether to go for training or save money and buy tapes (which could also be viewed by other teachers). What do you think?

Janis

Who are these very expensive LMB programs for? Their web site doesn’t really say; I wonder if any child spent 4 hrs. a day reading with someone if they wouldn’t improve. I have to force my son to go to tutoring once a week for 90 minutes, I could never make him do something in addition to homework, soccer, etc. for an hour or more a day. I spent a long time working with kids with MR, can this program be used for this group? Yes, I have used Great Leaps and it helped with fluency and it was quite inexpensive.

If you go to the page for each specific program on the LB site, it will give a profile of the child who needs that particular program and what the symptoms are.

It is MUCH less expensive if you can find a tutor (Like Joan) who has had the LB training and then you can make the schedule any way you want. The progress may be faster when the instruction is concentrated into an intensive few weeks, but many people choose to have two 1-hour sessions per week throughout the school year. Personally, I prefer tutotring during the summer because I think kids are tired after a long day at school. But if they are behind grade-level in reading, the sooner they can be remediated, the better.

I can’t answer your question about using LB with MR kids, but I do know that PG has been used with EMH kids with success, so I’d think LiPS would be helpful, too.

Janis

OG and LMB are close cousins in the language remediation realm; they both originate from the teachings of Dr. ORton, but tHe LMB has emphasis on speech-language issues such as feeling the sounds, etc.

A whole lot depends on the level of training of the tutor. Calling LMB a “quick fix” is like calling Boot Camp a quick fix… yes, it’s quick but it’s incredibly intensive (assuming it’s done right). It’s a total mental immersion.

LMB methods include using the Socratic method to help the student discover patterns and rules with the language. My training in O-G included this, as well. This makes all the difference for those kiddos with the memory issues, since you’re not memorizing rules. And it is precisely to deal with those memory issues that I have kids go over and recite those rules; if you dropped in on my lesson you might think it was rote memory but that’s not at all how we got there. (And it’s that kind of subtlety that makes it hard to condense and convey O-G thinking.) IF the kiddo can’t remember it, we don’t recite it a few more times, we go back over the reasoning behind that pattern.
SOcratic teaching isn’t easy though :) I had the “luxury” of an intensive (daily, 1 or 2 students, 50 minutes) setting, or I suspect I”d have quickly lapsed into verbal, rule-based lessons.

The “live and in person” training would really be preferred — but videos are the next best thing to being there.

I’ve asked myself the same question.

LMB and O-G programs really were specially designed for kids who process information differently from other kids - and who have genuine challenges, often severe, in processing and understanding language. They’re not regular reading programs but delivered more intensively. And while some folks sort of get wedded to one way of doing what they do, there’s another pretty big core group who are constantly revising, ehancing, and changing what they do to reflect research and experience with these folks. That’s what’s behind things like V/V — not being satisfied because some kids were still having problems.

I had to learn a very different way of thinking and teaching — which was fascinating and fun :)

I am signed up to go to V/V already. I just cannot spend the money to do LiPS and Seeing Stars now. I am trying to learn PG now. Once I use it for a year, I’ll have an idea if I need LiPS for my more severe kids. The LiPS tapes are only $239 vs. the class at $599, so I may have to do that one by video since my school system isn’t paying a penny of it.

Janis

Sue, I think that’s why I’ve embraced the LMB program. As a Montessorian, the Socratic way of working is the natural way. LMB dovetails nicely with the Montessorian curriculum. While I’m not O-G trained, I’ve used elements fromt their program and find the same to be true.

I agree wholeheartedly that the way to learning is not to memorize rote rules but to think and work through the reasoning behind them.

Janis, That’s great news about the SLP taking the training this summer. You’ve lobbied hard for that!

I think that the LIPS trademark is how they developed the auditory discrimination piece of their program. It’s constantly applied, even when they’re doing what would be more O-G type of work. I reinforce the sounds with my kids all the time: “How many sounds do you hear? What part of your mouth is working?” etc. I still do it with my kids who are past learning the sounds and are knee-deep into what I call the phonics part of the program. Even at that level, lots of the LIPS work is grounded in hearing and working the sounds. So it doesn’t rely on memorization as much at all but on feeling and seeing how your mouth is working.

I also automatically incorporate Seeing Stars into the LIPS program. I don’t treat them as two separate programs. When I took the training, we were strongly encouraged to do this. When I went back and took the advanced training session, the instructor urged this even more strongly. She really didn’t want us to think of them as two separate programs.

Regarding your question about the actual training vs. the training videos: If you have to be money conscious, then I think the training videos are fine, especially for someone like you who’s already in the field. A parent with no experience at all working with a child with language processing difficulties would probably do better taking the training.

The big difference between taking the “live” training vs. the videos is that at the actual training session, you’d get the chance to practice the work in front of the instructor. After each new section is introduced, the students practice it on each other. Some were bashful about it and didn’t do this much. They’d have been just as well served buying the video. Those of us who tried everything and made sure the instructor observed us got a lot more out of the “live” training.

But the training videos are set up exactly as the live classes so you’re only missing out on your own practicing in front of the instructor.