Phonics or Orton-Gillingham?

The fifty-year reading war over whether phonics or whole-word language should be taught as the foundation for literacy is over. Phonics, supported by science and common sense, has won. And now, under increasing bombardment by the science of reading coalition consisting of families, courts, reading researchers, teachers, state governments, and national legislators, remnants of the so-called “balanced literacy” and the  “See Jane run” whole language approaches are beating a ragged retreat into their citadels of subjectivity.

Yet with the tumultuous sounds barely subsiding, a new conflict is emerging. This time the roiling issue is not whether to teach phonics, but how to teach it. This internecine debate pits two camps against each other: the militant proponents of the Orton-Gillingham methodology versus the equally strident supporters of what can be called the Linguistic Phonics (Speech to Print or Spelling for Reading) methodology.

A recent article in Ed Weekly delineated the differences between these systems:

In the Orton-Gillingham method, “generally, children start letter by letter, learning the sounds that individual letters make and how different combinations of letters work together to make different sounds. From there, teachers systematically explain the different rules that govern word structures: such as digraphs or different syllable patterns like open, closed, or vowel-consonant-e.”

“Linguistic phonics works differently. Instead of starting with letters, teachers start with sounds, demonstrating the multiple ways each sound can be represented by letters on the page. And because of the focus on translating spoken sounds into spellings, such programs tightly integrate spelling and writing with reading. In practice, this might look like a kindergarten teacher showing students that the long “e” sound is often spelled one of four different ways: “ee,” “ea,” “e,” or “y.” They would teach students when they’re most likely to see these different spellings, using real words as examples.

Teachers don’t teach as many specific rules, like, “open syllables make long vowel sounds.” Instead, they focus on common patterns—when and where different spellings are most likely to occur.”

Which system is best? The data is inconclusive. While OG (Orton Gillingham) supporters claim longstanding evidence-based foundations, the linguistic approach also has strong scientific support: “Studies show that integrating practice with spelling and encoding—translating spoken sounds into written letters—improves reading and writing for students with disabilities. These activities are a core component of linguistic phonics.” Dr. Timothy Shanahan, one of the nation’s leading reading experts, echoes this sentiment: “I think there are real benefits to be derived from activities like invented spelling, spelling instruction, word construction from sounds, and so on—in any phonics program. Speech-to-print activities appear to increase learning,”

Who’s right? Perhaps science will settle the issue one day. But for now, the debate provides teachers with an opportunity to blend the best of both systems. Several years ago, I chose to create a unique brand of linguistic phonics or spelling for reading as the foundation for T.A.G. (The Academic Gym). Why? As a reading researcher and teacher, it made sense to teach reading through encoding (oral and written spelling) because reading emerged through encoding.

Historically, civilizations invented reading by encoding speech sounds as written symbols. Reading is simply the process of decoding encoded sounds, and so teaching kids to spell (or encode) symbols as sounds seemed the most natural way to teach the artificial invention called reading. Yet, I don’t enter the fractious debate over whether kids should learn letters or sounds first. Instead, T.A.G. teaches kids to see symbols when they hear sounds and to hear sounds when they see symbols.

But T.A.G. (The Academic Gym) also adds an innovative twist to the science of reading by blending movement with literacy. T.A.G. anchors literacy into the body and mind by teaching students how to say, sing, and spell syllabic and phonemic sounds as they move through sequences of rhythmic athletic exercises. Then our coaches ask them to spell those sounds and write the symbols down. This process of layering cognitive movement with spelling and writing facilitates orthographic mapping by creating rich mental lexicons of orthographic and phonological units. Students download these internalized sounds and spellings to decode and construct written text fluently and accurately.

T.A.G. helps schools implement this synergistic blend of spelling, movement, reading, and writing by transforming physed, special ed, and afterschool classes into exciting, effective spaces for cross-training the body and mind, leaving no child behind.

Learn more about our work with schools.

View our Linguistic Phonics or Spelling for Reading Curriculum.