Orton-Gillingham methodology for students with reading disabilities: 30 years of case law.(Report)

Although numerous studies have investigated autism methodology case law, few studies have investigated case law regarding reading methodology, particularly the Orton-Gillingham approach, for students with reading disabilities. We provide the results of a systematic case analysis of all published Orton-Gillingham decisions from the original passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) through 2005. Results indicate that in the past 30 years, hearing/review officers and courts reviewed 64 Orton-Gillingham cases, with 77% occurring within the last 10 years. Unlike autism methodology cases, districts have won an overwhelming majority (75%). Although inconclusive, the addition of the terms "peer-reviewed research" and "scientifically based research" in the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA may benefit parents in Orton-Gillingham methodology disputes, thus leading to increased litigation. This article concludes with recommendations for reversing the upward trend in the number of Orton-Gillingham reading methodology disputes.

**********

As the number of special education cases continues to rise (Zirkel & D'Angelo, 2002), so does the need to investigate the causes and nature of such increases. Litigation can be extremely costly and can create undue stress for students, districts, and parents. For example, in several reading methodology cases (e.g., Bd. of Educ. of the New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist., 1997; Sch. Admin. Dist. #22, 2006), the courts ordered the school district to provide private school placement or tuition reimbursement. Tuition costs can be as high as $38,000 to $48,000 per year for many preferred private schools (Petersons.com, n.d.). Many of these specialized private school programs--Gow School, Landmark School, and Kildonan--use Orton-Gillingham approaches to mediate student reading difficulties.

Orton-Gillingham (O-G) methodology uses a systematic, multisensory approach to teach students basic reading, spelling, and writing. Advocacy groups and parents of children with reading disabilities often highly recommend O-G instruction. Public general education and special education programs, however, do not always share in such enthusiasm, and many have not adopted O-G as a primary reading methodology. One reason may be that many O-G programs require intensive oneto-one instruction, sometimes several hours a day, which may not be feasible systemwide due to budgetary and personnel restraints (Torgesen et al., 2001). The discrepancy between parents' methodology preferences and the districts' program offerings has led to increasing litigation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

While case analysis literature in other areas of special education methodology is growing (e.g., autism; Choutka, Doloughty, & Zirkel, 2004; Nelson & Huefner, 2003), only one review of reading methodology case law has been published. In a limited review, Bhat, Rapport, and Griffin (2000) examined the case law published between 1989 and 1998 and found 27 reading methodology decisions. Of those identified, the majority of cases involved the O-G method as the preferred methodology, followed by Lindamood-Bell. Bhat et al. found that the majority of reading methodology decisions involved secondary students, which highlights parents' frustration with their children's lack of progress. In addition, they found that remedies requested by parents fell into three general categories: (a) reimbursement of private school tuition or program reimbursement expenses, (b) prospective private school or program placement, and (c) prospective provision of requested methodology. Bhat et al. recommended that districts focus not only on early intervention efforts, but also in preparing highly qualified special education teachers through ongoing professional development. While the study provides information about the impact of reading methodology case law on school districts and parents, it omits cases prior to 1989 and, more importantly, cases since the passage of IDEA 1997. Thus, its usefulness for districts and parents is limited.

The purpose of this article is to synthesize comprehensively yet compactly the case law concerning O-G methodology. Our focus on O-G stems from its popularity among advocates, prevalence in the case law, and connection to costly private schools requested by parents of children with reading disabilities. The result will fill the gap in the professional literature between systematic syntheses of the case law specific to eligibility as a student with a specific learning disability (SLD; Zirkel, 2006) and methodology for children with autism (Choutka et al., 2004; Nelson & Huefner, 2003). This article consists of four parts: (a) an overview of the IDEA framework for the methodology case law, (b) a discussion of O-G methods and the status of research support, (c) a systematic case analysis of the published hearing/review officer and court decisions concerning O-G, and (d) a discussion of practical implications and recommendations.

Legal Framework