Is Orton-Gillingham Evidence-Based?
Here’s the short answer: Yes. The Orton-Gillingham approach is not only evidence-based—it’s one of the most research-supported methods we have for teaching struggling readers.
But I don’t want you to take my word for it. I want you to understand why it works, what the science says, and how to make sure the program you’re using actually follows the real principles behind Orton-Gillingham.
Because here’s the truth: not all “OG-inspired” programs are created equal.
What Does ‘Evidence-Based’ Really Mean in Reading Instruction?
“Evidence-based” isn’t a buzzword—it’s a requirement.
According to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), an evidence-based program must show strong research-based outcomes, ideally through peer-reviewed studies or consistent, replicable results.
This isn’t just academic. It’s about accountability. Schools, tutors, and curriculum developers are being asked: can you prove your approach works?
When we say our Orton-Gillingham curriculum is evidence-based, we’re not just following a trend. We’re building on a legacy of structured literacy that’s backed by decades of science.
Who Were Orton and Gillingham—And What Problem Were They Solving?
In the 1920s, Dr. Samuel Orton, a neuropsychiatrist, studied children who were otherwise bright but couldn’t read. He discovered that many of these children had a language processing issue we now call dyslexia.
Enter Anna Gillingham—a gifted educator and psychologist. Together, they developed a multisensory, explicit, and structured approach to help these students read.
What they created became the foundation for what we now call the Orton-Gillingham method: a systematic, research-based way to teach phonics and language skills by engaging all parts of the brain.
What Makes Orton-Gillingham Evidence-Based? Let’s Look at the Research
The Orton-Gillingham approach aligns perfectly with the Science of Reading—a massive body of interdisciplinary research that tells us how the brain learns to read.
Here’s how OG stacks up:
-
Explicit Instruction: Research shows that struggling readers benefit most from direct teaching of phonemic awareness, decoding, and spelling.
-
Multisensory Engagement: Studies show that students retain more when learning engages visual, auditory, and kinesthetic pathways simultaneously.
-
Cumulative and Systematic: OG lessons build logically—reviewing and reinforcing as they go. This repetition is proven to support mastery.
-
Diagnostic and Prescriptive: OG is responsive. Teachers adjust pacing and content based on student progress—one of the hallmarks of effective instruction.
The Teach Me to Read Workbook we’ve created is built entirely on these principles. It’s not OG-lite. It’s the real deal—adapted for parents, teachers, and interventionists alike.
But Where’s the Proof? What Studies Support Orton-Gillingham?
You may be wondering: has OG itself been studied in controlled environments?
Yes—but here’s the catch: OG is a teaching approach, not a packaged curriculum, which makes it trickier to study than boxed programs.
That said, multiple studies—including longitudinal research and reviews summarized by the International Dyslexia Association—demonstrate significant gains in decoding, fluency, and reading comprehension when students are taught using OG principles.
A 2023 Reading League Journal review found that OG-aligned instruction, when implemented with fidelity, led to measurable growth in struggling readers across grade levels.
Is there room for more research? Always. But the convergence of evidence is strong—and it matches what I’ve seen in classrooms year after year.
What About Critics Who Say OG Isn’t “Modern” Enough?
Here’s what I tell people: if you’re chasing novelty, you’ll miss what works.
Some educators say OG is too old-fashioned, or too focused on phonics. But the latest neuroscience and Science of Reading research say otherwise.
If anything, the world is catching up to what Orton and Gillingham figured out a hundred years ago.
And let’s be clear: OG isn’t stuck in the past. It’s flexible. It evolves. Our complete decodable curriculum is built with modern learners in mind—digital PDFs, engaging stories, scaffolded lessons, and culturally responsive content. It’s OG for today’s classrooms.
Why Orton-Gillingham Works for All Students—Not Just Those With Dyslexia
This is a common misconception. OG was originally developed for students with dyslexia, yes. But its structure benefits every learner.
When you:
-
Teach sounds explicitly
-
Practice decoding regularly
-
Build from simple to complex
-
Provide multisensory reinforcement
You’re creating a pathway to reading fluency that works for everyone.
Struggling readers need it. New readers thrive on it. Advanced readers benefit from it.
This is why we’ve seen so many general education teachers—and not just special education teachers—turn to OG as their go-to reading solution.
What to Look For in a True OG Program
Not everything labeled “OG” stays true to the method. So here’s what to look for:
-
Explicit phonics scope and sequence
-
Built-in phonemic awareness
-
Cumulative review and spiraling
-
Multisensory techniques (tracing, tapping, saying aloud)
-
Scaffolded reading with decodable texts
-
Opportunities to connect reading, spelling, and writing
Our curriculum was designed to do all of this—whether you’re a teacher, tutor, or parent. And we made it easy to use. You don’t need formal OG certification to get started.
But you do need structure. And science. And support.
We’ve got you.
Is Orton-Gillingham Evidence-Based? The Bottom Line
Yes. OG is evidence-based. It’s grounded in decades of research. It aligns with the Science of Reading. And it works—especially when implemented with care, consistency, and intention.
The question isn’t if OG is effective.
The real question is: are we ready to give every child the kind of instruction that’s proven to work?
If your answer is yes, then let’s get to work.