Is O-G a "scientifically validated method"?

Dad,

Some OG based programs get better results than others. I’ll just relate an example. A neurologist in Houston a few years ago went to court to get an OG program in the Houston schools because he had a dyslexic son. They implemented Alphabetic Phonics. To make a long story short, the gains in the LD population only gained about 4 percentile points, still far below a minimally acceptable reading level. So I am going to say that just putting in an OG program may not be the answer in all cases.

I think the programs that have been influenced by Lindamood-Bell (and they all have some OG influence), such as Phono-Graphix (PG) and ABeCeDarian (ABCD), are more efficient in teaching the alphabetic code and getting the kids on into fluency work. I prefer ABCD due to the fact that it has more fluency work built in than does PG. www.abcdrp.com

Janis

Janis,
How far in fluency does ABCD go? At what level does it reach?

Dad,
There’s quite a lot of research indicating OG programs are most effective. You can do a google search and find more information. The International Dyselxia Association was even founded in memory of Samuel Orton.

I’m not sure why more schools don’t use OG programs. One thing I’ve observed locally is a reluctance to acknowledge “dyslexia” (they won’t use that lable) and they often minimize levels of reading disability (assuming a lot of kids will “catch up”). I also think many schools have a tendency to stick with a certain line of textbooks. My guess is the choice has a lot to do with cost.

For most teachers who have been through standard-issue teacher education, Structured, systematic reading programs are revulsively structured and systematic.
Most O-G programs were also originally designed for a therapeutic (close to 1:1 and, say, 50 minutes to a few hours each day) setting; the translation to school systems can strangle out the benefits. Lots of the research that shows the really good progress is in therapeutic settings.

Any time you force a method on people, you’re setting up for failure unless you’ve got leadership charismatic enough to keep people from feeling forced to do somthing that flies in the face of the philosophy they’ve been taught. I’m not sure what it would take to shift the tide, though perhaps some colleges incorporating a more structured philosophy and having success would drive market forces in that direction. Trouble is, schools aren’t exactly too subject to market pressures, even with NCLB and charter schools and vouchers.

Dad, I think the general consensus is yes. But I like what others had to say about “therapeutic setting”, “one to one”, etc. I think you take OG and put it in a classroom setting of six to even 11-15 and what happens is you lose the homogenous grouping. Once you lose that, you become less and less effective. I teach h.s. reading foundations (aka OG). We have tried to make the groups “low”, “medium” and “high”, but I have what are most certainly retarded kids (lower than 70 IQ- perhaps 50 or so??)* in my group. No research has shown OG to be effective with low IQ students. Reading found. is an elective, so the kids can take it or not and it is used as “dumping ground” for kids they want to “mainstream”, imo.(though it is hardly a “mainstream” class). I also have second language and perhaps bright severe dyslexics in one group.
What I’m saying is that the homogenousness of the group is already pretty questionable. I already have one group in a lesson higher than the others and this is the first day!!

* I realize that an IQ may not always be a correct assessment of a person’s ability, but after 10 years in school or so and the kid has already had sequential, structured phonics and made no progress, maybe they should be doing something else, like employment skills.

—des
—des

Yes