It’s not a new story –
Some of your readers aren’t making sufficient progress.
In fact, they’re grade levels behind.
And, what you’re doing or required to do is not proving effective – particularly for your struggling or dyslexic readers.
Sound about right?
Similarly, Melanie Burley, a parent grappling with her child's dyslexia, found herself confronting this very challenge.
Her journey, fueled by a need to break through the barriers of inflexible approaches, led her to critically analyze and explore alternatives to phonics methods like Orton-Gillingham.
This is her story.
Melanie Burley is a former chemical engineer and current auditor.
And interestingly,
She has the same training that the NTSB has and uses for airplane crash investigations.
And using that methodology, she performed root cause analyses for her company in the nuclear industry. Whew!
So – it's no wonder – her extensive background in problem-solving and data led her to be a fierce advocate for her daughter, who was found to be dyslexic early on and is now grown and successful.
Her family had the resources to make things happen for her daughter, but she knew other families needed access, too.
So Melanie dug deep into the world of reading and came out as a part-time, deliberate, and dedicated tutor.
Along the way, she used multiple resources and programs with an Orton-Gillingham base.
She even took an 80-hour course with a local fellow.
She was trained. She had knowledge. But she still felt… something was missing.
On her journey to fill the gap, she discovered Reading Simplified through comments on a popular researcher’s blog – and began a new investigation.
At that point, Melanie felt she had found exactly what was missing and began using the Reading Simplified system with her 10-year-old niece.
In this post, Melanie shares her insights about mainstream approaches to teaching reading and how Reading Simplified filled the gap when other programs fell short.
Struggling With the Orton-Gillingham Scope and Sequence
Melanie was already tutoring her 10-year-old niece but felt stuck within the framework of Orton-Gillingham-based methods she was heavily trained in.
According to Stevens et al. (2021), Orton-Gillingham is a direct, explicit, multisensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive approach to reading for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities (WLRD).
Reading Rockets and Understood.org share these Key Takeaways here:
- Orton-Gillingham is a well-regarded approach to teaching kids with reading issues.
- Orton-Gillingham uses a step-by-step approach based on how children learn language.
- Students must master one reading skill before moving on to the next.
Melanie knew she was going to need help moving her niece forward in her understanding of the code as she began to feel the limitations of her Orton-Gillingham training.
Melanie explains her perspective at the time as “kind of stuck with the progression of the scope and sequence” she was held to with Orton-Gillingham.
Exploring an Alternative Approach: Reading Simplified
As Melanie investigated Reading Simplified, she recognized some similar organization to a book she’d found success with in the past – Reading Reflex.
However, she immediately recognized that Reading Simplified was a bit more sophisticated and streamlined.
And now she felt like she had found something that might be even better.
Melanie Reveals 7 Key Insights
As Melanie shares her story,
She explains seven insights that made it clear that what she was doing with the Orton-Gillingham-based interventions – wasn’t going to accelerate her niece.
#1 Sometimes mastery prohibits acceleration
Melanie recites a mantra from Orton-Gillingham practitioner circles, “Go as fast as you can, but as slow as you must.”
It’s a phrase often attributed to Anna Gillingham.
But Melanie says that because of the mastery requirement communicated in many Orton-Gillingham trainings she’s participated in, she felt she had to stay on one skill for a really long time.
I often describe this as teachers and students getting stuck in “CVC land” when cumulative review and additional exposure to the code through activities like Sort It may be more efficient.
Melanie questions,
“…at the same time, this child is 10 years old. She needs to be working on multisyllable words, right?”
But the mastery requirement could hold this child back at a two-syllable word level: “…so when I saw Reading Simplified, I jumped right in and started it, and it wasn’t too much for her.”
And this is a pervasive problem in education beyond any one program – it’s sort of baked into the design of instruction, especially for marginalized students.
Zaretta Hammond explains this expertly here.
In the same article, Hammond describes the work of teachers:
“Having students carry more of the cognitive load and allowing the scaffolding to fall away over time is what stimulates brain growth, so that cognitively your brain says, Oh, I need to step up. I need to get stronger. I need to figure that out.”
She goes into more detail on the how and then states:
“Instead, we postpone more challenging, interesting work until we believe they have mastered the basics – which are often low level. All the emerging cognitive neuroscience tells us to do just the opposite: you have to water up instruction to get kids into the learning zone. Teachers must give students tasks during the day in which they have to stretch themselves, and it should feel a little cognitively confusing by design.”
In addition to the mastery requirement of Orton-Gillingham, Melanie saw the watered-down problem sprouting in another aspect of reading – choice over texts.
#2 Kids can handle challenging text
In Melanie’s experience, an Orton-Gillingham take on the social-emotional side of learning asks teachers to hold off on correcting mistakes and errors – because it may be disheartening to the student.
Sometimes, this would mean not giving a challenging book to a student – even when that’s the book they want to tackle!
Because of the choice of reading material that Reading Simplified allows within our 3 component lesson, the consideration of a developmental model of reading instruction, and the precise error correction procedures for any text, Melanie found that her niece could read a book much more challenging and closer to grade level.
“It’s slow, but she tries, she does! She wants to read that book. We alternate on and off…but the point is…[to me it] was that missing piece where it’s OK to read something that’s challenging and that’s above their level. It won’t hurt them.”
And this 10-year-old is delighted to have her aunt as her tutor and on fire to read texts of interest to her.
So why are students being restricted from reading beyond their “designated” level?
#3 Leveling is limiting students
Whether in libraries or classrooms, we need to stop telling children what they are allowed access to based on their level.
This issue is more of a remnant of balanced literacy.
Still, it creates issues around equity for many students.
Melanie recounts her niece's experience during library time,
“The teacher said, ‘Stay with your books over here,’ your section…your level…”
That clearly bothered Melanie, as she expressed,
“You should pick out any book you want from the library, whether you can read it or not!”
Reading Level Assessments Don’t Direct Instruction, and they don’t need to direct children’s choice of reading either.
#4 Another way to stall progression: expecting mastery of spelling and the code simultaneously
A significant difference between Reading Simplified and my exploration of Orton-Gillingham-based methods appears in the expectation for showcasing and applying the mastery Melanie mentioned in her initial insight, particularly in the context of spelling.
And we know that spelling takes longer than reading.
Melanie has been bothered by this for quite some time.
“If I’m waiting for her reading and spelling to align, it’s not gonna happen…I’ve always known that, and that is also what bothers me. It’s like I have to keep holding them back. It didn’t seem right. You know it didn’t seem right to hold them hostage to the reading because their spelling hadn’t caught up…”
She goes on to praise All About Reading, a program with an Orton-Gillingham base that encourages separate spelling and reading mastery timetables.
In Reading Simplified, we weave segmenting for spelling and blending for reading into every activity – from the beginning of instruction.
We start with students listening to sounds and representing those sounds with 1, 2, or 3-letter spellings before they can write, as they are learning to write, and once writing is firmly established.
However, we expect reading to take off before spelling and introduce students to more and more of the code.
That’s our first goal!
#5 As Science evolves, so should we
As an analyst, Melanie doesn’t hold too tightly to any one approach.
She looks at data and research from multiple fields – and that is essentially the definition of the Science of Reading:
“The science of reading is a vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing. This research has been conducted over the last five decades across the world, and it is derived from thousands of studies conducted in multiple languages.”
And, if some scientific findings and discoveries contradict her practice…
She strategically decides if they will benefit her students,
“I could pick out how I want to use it. But in certain communities, they are diehard. This is the way you have to do it. For me, it’s more tools, and if it’s not working, I may put that aside.”
For a long time, there weren’t a lot of well-known alternatives in the marketplace to support early readers, striving readers or students with dyslexia.
It was either Orton-Gillingham or balanced literacy.
And between the two – Orton-Gillingham was by far the better alternative.
It’s rigorous training, and the depth of knowledge about our language structure is certainly valuable.
But science marches on.
While some training and approaches based on Orton-Gillingham have evolved to align with recent research, others require further adaptation.
Some practitioners may be spending too much time relying on and utilizing components of an approach like the multisensory aspects and teaching syllable division, even though supporting evidence is limited, Stevens et al., (2021).
This leads to questions about efficiency…and ultimately – the approach's effectiveness.
Melanie prioritizes gaining knowledge above all else and values the freedom to make decisions about the information she receives.
Recognizing that training, no matter how beneficial – is just a tool, she’s chosen not to pursue further advanced certifications.
…But there’s another reason, too.
#6 The limited accessibility of the Orton-Gillingham training is an unnecessary roadblock
Melanie felt so much frustration as she tried to gain access to more training.
“Orton-Gillingham is still exclusive…even to get certified is exclusive.”
After the initial certification, the next level with practicum offered would only cover things Melanie had already learned and practiced in other trainings –
– Which included dozens of hours of learning with an Orton-Gillingham fellow.
Below, you’ll see an example of the multiple tiers of training and fidelity requirements in one popular Orton-Gillinhgam-based teacher training program for schools.
When Melanie inquired about getting training for the morphology knowledge she craved – she found she'd have to get a completely different certification.
Then, when she looked into getting advanced training to support her work with her older students, she was told a master's degree is required…just to enroll.
Leaving Melanie with the question –
“The cost-benefit – Is it really worth it? And why does morphology have to be advanced? Why couldn't it have been included?”
As we scale up evidence-based instruction throughout the country, we cannot expect to put these requirements on reading teachers.
If we want students to experience success sooner,
Teacher training should focus on equipping teachers with the necessary tools and strategies for learning to be efficient and highly effective.
And we need to make this preparation – this training – easily accessible for teachers.
So, ensuring teachers are well-prepared for this crucial role was a significant driving force behind my development of Reading Simplified.
While Reading Simplified Academy’s primary focus is word recognition skills, training extends to anyone who wants to make a difference in a child’s life at an affordable price.
Membership to the Reading Simplified Academy includes our 8-10 hour Main Course and 40+ hours of advanced courses at one price.
And we are building more content all the time!
To enhance educators' knowledge, our advanced workshops currently convey insights into morphology and vocabulary derived from research conducted by other experts in the field.
Granting students access to the code sooner and using flexible multisyllabic word decoding approaches is an excellent launchpad for any evidence-based resource you choose for more advanced word study.
#7 Back where we started, scope and sequences
Melanie circles back to holding students “hostage” when there are expectations around mastery and fidelity of a scope and sequence.
She compares two students at a private school for children with dyslexia – her friend’s daughter and her own.
Although Melanie's daughter completed the entire sequence within a year, her friend's daughter (three years later) never did.
That child is now an eighth-grader struggling with reading.
And Melanie (who tutors this student in math) continues to support her in reading when it’s relevant to the content.
Melanie believes,
“She could've gotten farther if it wasn’t [for] the stops that they have. I guess, I just struggle with that because there’s so much more out there. Like the latest research I attended of yours, the presentation with Dr. Susan Brady. That was huge!”
So Where Does Reading Simplified Fit In?
Melanie has way more insight into what’s happening in the Orton-Gillingham space than I do.
I’ve never been trained in an Orton-Gillingham-based approach or program, but I’ve tried to learn a lot about it because it is so mainstream.
Here are the similarities I’ve found in approaches like reading Simplified and Orton-Gillingham:
- In a single lesson, you employ various skills such as reading, spelling, writing, and speaking words, often seamlessly integrated into a single routine.
- Orton-Gillinhgam materials may incorporate activities akin to Switch It.
- The objective of both approaches is to explicitly, systematically, cumulatively, and diagnostically teach the code.
With these similarities, I often wonder…why Orton-Gillingham and Reading Simplified have vastly different outcomes.
And indeed, I acknowledge the absence of direct studies comparing a program rooted in the teachings of McGuinness to one grounded in the methods of Orton and Gillingham.
Nevertheless, numerous practitioners influenced by McGuinness have effectively taught early reading and writing to a diverse range of learners, including those with severe dyslexia, without undergoing Orton-Gillingham training.
Personally, I have achieved positive outcomes for students without utilizing specific techniques often associated with the Science of Reading movement, such as 3-part drills, sound walls, heart words, or super-duper decodable texts.
To scale up evidence-based practice, it's important to look for efficiencies from different angles.
Maybe we can take a page from Melanie's book and try her analytical approach.
Let's maintain our curiosity, especially when identifying potential gaps in training and practice.
Finally, as I mentioned to Melanie, when investing time and resources in new training, it's essential to implement it with fidelity before critically evaluating its components.
Your Turn!
I want to hear from you! Have you identified any components in your training that seem to be missing or that need an update?
What inquiries have you undertaken to address the gaps? I'd love to see your comment below:
Thanks so much for this in depth overview. I love the fact that there are teachers actually preparing materials to try Reading Simplified at the end of watching a beginning introduction video given by Marnie! They can see how it works and they are excited to get started. And I love teaching new vocabulary in context. Marnie demonstrates “flesh” by pulling at her skin just under the elbow and squeezing and says, “This is my flesh”. No timer with ten minutes to teach vocabulary (chop, chop, chop) style, it is instead built right in.
Ann, I really appreciate your encouragement! Happy New Year.
I’ve been trained in Orton Gillingham and it is more systematic in its approach than Reading Simplified but I’ve actually combined the 2 and found great success. As a reading specialist I’ve found there is no one silver bullet approach that works for every student but combining the systems of Reading Simplified like sort it , switch it, build it and read it and write it with the systematic lessons required in other programs actually enhances students phonemic awareness and phonics and prepares them better to read, write and spell! I’m a firm believer in doing whatever it takes for each student and Reading Simplified strategies never disappoint. I use switch it and sort it with all of my students from kindergarten through third grade and it’s been a game changer for the past 5 years. It’s the only program I can’t live without! Seriously it’s that good!
I love to see that you’re obviously always learning Nicole! There are many ways in which we can help a child learn to read. And I’m glad you’re finding success with our handful of simple activities here at Reading Simplified! Happy New Year!
I am an OG trained volunteer with Children’s Dyslexia Centers. I have no prior teaching experience. I dove into RS when I was required to explore other programs as part of my OG training. I was interested enough to join the RS Academy to learn more. What I learned, and have verified with my own students, is there is no single solution. I create lesson plans that are unique to the needs of each of my students. I utilize my OG training as well as my RS Academy training. There are aspects of both programs that I like. There are also aspects in each of the programs that I do not like. As teachers, it is up to us to determine what works best for our students.
Thanks for sharing your experience Kathy. Creating lessons that are unique to each student, when possible, is an aim we share.
Help please. My eighth grade son with surface and phonological dyslexia attends a Hill program school that teaches the OG method for kids with dyslexia. I was just informed that because he hasn’t mastered their word attack list he won’t be able to move on to their high school program. Is it realistic to expect a child with severe dyslexia to master a word attack list? Should that even be a requirement? What do I do?
That is a challenging situation! It’s hard to comment on specifics, but if you have concerns about your child’s education, a dyslexia advocate in your area would be a good resource to go to for advice. Additionally, as a parent, I would want to ask the school what recommendations they make for my child’s future education if they do not recommend he go on to their high school. As far as pinpointing your son’s specific instructional needs, our blog post on Reading Assessments and How They Inform Instruction is a good starting place for identifying the reasons for a student’s struggle in learning to read. Some parents of struggling readers work with their own children or find a private specialist to work with their child to improve literacy outcomes.