Orton Gillingham vs The Science of Reading
If you’ve been diving into reading instruction lately—whether as a teacher, homeschool parent, or interventionist—you’ve probably come across two big names: Orton-Gillingham and the Science of Reading.
And maybe you’ve asked yourself:
What’s the difference? Aren’t they the same thing? Do I have to choose one over the other?
I’ve had those same questions. And after over a decade of teaching kids to read—including students with dyslexia, learning gaps, and reading anxiety—I can tell you this:
👉 Orton-Gillingham and the Science of Reading are not in conflict.
👉 In fact, when combined, they are the most powerful approach to literacy instruction we have.
In this post, I’m breaking down what each term actually means, how they compare, and why the best reading instruction doesn’t pick a side—it bridges both. I’ll also show you how we’ve built our own Orton-Gillingham-based curriculum around the latest reading science to get real results.
What Is the Science of Reading?
The Science of Reading isn’t a program. It’s not a curriculum. It’s not a brand.
It’s a massive body of interdisciplinary research—covering psychology, cognitive science, linguistics, and education—that explains how the brain learns to read. This isn’t a new trend; it’s based on decades of peer-reviewed studies and brain imaging.
The Science of Reading tells us that reading is not a natural process. Children don’t learn to read by being surrounded by books or memorizing words. Instead, they must be taught explicitly how to connect phonemes (sounds) with graphemes (letters), blend them together, and gradually build automaticity.
According to this research, effective reading instruction must include:
-
Phonemic awareness
-
Systematic phonics
-
Decoding and encoding practice
-
Fluency development
-
Vocabulary building
-
Comprehension strategies
If those six pillars aren’t present in your reading program, it’s not aligned with the science.
What Is the Orton-Gillingham Approach?
Now let’s talk about Orton-Gillingham. Unlike the Science of Reading (which is a research field), Orton-Gillingham is a method of instruction.
Originally developed in the 1930s by Dr. Samuel Orton and educator Anna Gillingham, this approach was created specifically to teach students with dyslexia how to read and write. But over time, educators have discovered that the same structured methods benefit all students—not just those with learning differences.
Orton-Gillingham instruction is:
-
Explicit – skills are taught clearly and directly
-
Systematic – lessons follow a logical sequence, from simple to complex
-
Multisensory – students see it, hear it, say it, and write it
-
Cumulative – every new skill builds on previously mastered ones
-
Diagnostic and responsive – instruction adapts based on student performance
It’s this structure and repetition—along with the multisensory component—that makes Orton-Gillingham so effective, especially for struggling readers.
How Are Orton-Gillingham and the Science of Reading Similar?
This is where the confusion often comes in.
Both Orton-Gillingham and the Science of Reading emphasize phonics, decoding, and explicit instruction. They both reject outdated methods like three-cueing, guessing from pictures, or relying on leveled readers that don’t match a child’s phonics knowledge.
Here’s the truth:
Orton-Gillingham is a method that aligns beautifully with the Science of Reading.
They’re not opposites. They’re allies.
If you're using Orton-Gillingham, you’re already implementing much of what the Science of Reading recommends—structured literacy, sound-symbol mapping, and cumulative review.
The Science of Reading gives us the why. Orton-Gillingham gives us the how.
Where They Might Seem Different (But Aren’t)
One key difference is in origin. The Science of Reading is a modern scientific consensus. Orton-Gillingham is nearly a century old, created by practitioners.
Sometimes, educators assume Orton-Gillingham is outdated or only for dyslexia. That’s not the case.
Modern Orton-Gillingham-based programs have evolved significantly, incorporating current findings, adjusting scope and sequence, and integrating early intervention principles that benefit all learners.
And if you're using a program that claims to be Orton-Gillingham but doesn’t include phonemic awareness, decodable readers, and a cumulative, multisensory scope—you’re probably not using it to its full potential.
That’s why I designed our Teach Me to Read with Orton-Gillingham Workbook to align with both Orton-Gillingham and the Science of Reading—so you don’t have to choose.
When to Use Orton-Gillingham—and Who It's For
Orton-Gillingham works incredibly well for:
-
Children with dyslexia or diagnosed reading disabilities
-
Late readers who need to relearn foundational skills
-
Early readers who benefit from structured, bite-sized instruction
-
ESL/ELL students who need support with decoding English
-
Any student who hasn’t learned to read through traditional approaches
Because it’s diagnostic, you can go back and reteach gaps, then move forward once mastery is achieved. That’s especially important if your student has bounced between programs or hasn’t responded to whole-language instruction.
And because it’s multisensory, it keeps engagement high—through writing, movement, games, and activities that support both phonics and fluency.
That’s why our Complete Decodable Curriculum includes phonics readers, spelling, comprehension, and reading fluency practice—sequenced for real progress.
Why You Don’t Have to Choose Between Orton-Gillingham and the Science of Reading
Here’s the good news: you don’t need to choose one over the other.
In fact, if you want reading instruction that works especially for students who have struggled—you need both.
The Science of Reading gives us the framework: what to teach, in what order, and why. Orton-Gillingham gives us the toolkit: how to teach it, how to make it stick, and how to reach kids who learn differently.
When combined, you get instruction that is research-informed, classroom-tested, and adaptable to individual needs. And that’s exactly what we’ve built in our Decodable Coloring Book Series—a resource that teaches decoding, fluency, and comprehension all through playful, phonics-aligned reading practice.
Final Thoughts: Why the Orton-Gillingham Approach Is Still the Gold Standard—When You Follow the Science
If you’re wondering whether you should choose the Science of Reading or Orton-Gillingham, let me save you the headache.
Choose both.
Use the Science of Reading as your compass—and Orton-Gillingham as your map. Together, they create the kind of reading instruction that isn’t just effective, but transformational.
For the child who feels defeated by reading…
For the teacher who’s tired of programs that promise results but don’t deliver…
For the parent who’s ready to ditch the guessing games…
This approach works. I’ve seen it. And now you can use it too.
👉 Explore our Teach Me to Read with Orton-Gillingham Workbook
👉 Discover our Complete Decodable Curriculum
👉 Check out our Coloring Book Decodable Stories
Because when you combine structure with science, every child has a shot at becoming a confident, capable reader.