Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Orton-Gillingham and the IDEA: analysis of the frequency and outcomes of case law

  • Published:
Annals of Dyslexia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act grants dissatisfied parents of students with disabilities the right to pursue legal remedies. In 2007, Rose and Zirkel found that parents of students with reading disabilities seeking Orton-Gillingham (OG) instruction under the IDEA’s central obligation for a free appropriate public education (FAPE) were largely unsuccessful in their complaints. Since that review, various factors had the potential to influence the frequency and outcomes of OG-related case law—namely, the peer-reviewed research requirement of the IDEA and growing awareness of the need for specialized reading instruction. Our updated analysis of OG-related case law revealed an increase in the number of cases but similar district-favored outcomes identified by Rose and Zirkel. In particular, the relaxed substantive FAPE standard and deference to local and state authorities diminished the likelihood of parents prevailing in their requests. Implications for parents, school district personnel, special education professionals, and education researchers are presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although the vast majority of cases reflect parents seeking an OG-related methodology as a part of the case, in one case, William V. v. Copperas Cove Independent School District (2020), the district was providing Wilson Reading, which the parents contested did not meet the PRR standard. See the “Discussion” section.

References

  • A.W. v. Board of Education of Wallkill Central School District, 68 IDELR ¶ 164 (N.D.N.Y. 2016).

  • Avaras v. Clarkstown Central School District, 70 IDELR ¶ 129 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).

  • B.L. v. New Britain Board of Education, 394 F. Supp. 2d 522 (D. Conn. 2005).

  • Bhat, P., Rapport, M. J. K., & Griffin, C. C. (2000). A legal perspective on the use of specific reading methods for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blachman, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., Francis, D. J., Clonan, S. M., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders and a 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 444–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

  • Bristol Warren Regional School Committee v. DaSilva, 2007 WL 951570 (D.R.I. Mar. 27, 2007).

  • C.M. v. Department of Education, Hawaii, 476 F. App’x 674 (9th Cir. 2012).

  • Carnwath v. Grasmick, 115 F. Supp. 2d 577 (D. Md. 2000).

  • Cavanagh v. Grasmick, 75 F. Supp. 2d 446 (D. Md. 1999).

  • Deheane, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The science and evolution of a cultural invention. Viking.

  • Ehri, L., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S., & Willows, D. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Education Research, 71(3), 393–447. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).

  • Fletcher, J., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L., & Barnes, M. (2018). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. The Guilford Press.

  • Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc_foundationalreading_070516.pdf.

  • Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2017). Critique of the national evaluation of response to intervention: A case for simpler frameworks. Exceptional Children, 83(3), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917693580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia v. Board of Education of Albuquerque Public Schools, 436 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D.N.M. 2006).

  • Gearin, B., Petscher, Y., Stanley, C., Nelson, N. J., & Fien, H. (2021). Document analysis of state dyslexia legislation suggests likely heterogeneous effects on student and school outcomes. Learning Disability Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948721991549.

  • Gearin, B., Turtura, J., Kame’enui, E. J., Nelson, N. J., & Fien, H. (2018). A multiple streams analysis of recent changes to state-level dyslexia education law. Educational Policy, 34(7), 1036–1068. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818807328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. W. (1936). Remedial work for reading, spelling and penmanship. Sackett & Wilhelms Lithographing & Printing Corporation.

  • Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanford, E. (2017). Hard to read: How American schools fail kids with dyslexia. American Public Media Reports https://www.apmreports.org/story/2017/09/11/hardto-read.

  • Holben, D. M., & Zirkel, P. A. (2016). School bullying: Frequency and outcomes for school level, protected status, and bullying actions. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 18(2), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1891/1559-4343.18.2.111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IDEA regulations, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.1–300.646 (2019).

  • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401–1419 (2018).

  • Karanxha, Z., & Zirkel, P. A. (2014). Trends in special education case law: Frequency and outcomes of published court decisions 1998–2012. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 27(2), 55–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. Wiley.

  • Lee, J., & Reeves, T. (2012). Revisiting the impact of NCLB high-stakes school accountability, capacity, and resources: State NAEP 1990–2009 reading and math achievement gaps and trends. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 34(2), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711431604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessard v. Wilton-Lyndeborough Cooperative School District, 518 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2008).

  • Lichtenstein, R. (2019). Parent advocates champion evidence-based practice under the banner of dyslexia—Part 3. Communiqué, 47(5), 16–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • M.C. v. Norwalk Board of Education, 77 IDELR ¶ 10 (D. Conn. 2020).

  • M.M. v. Lafayette School District, 68 IDELR ¶ 72 (N.D. Cal. 2016).

  • Moats, L. C. (2020). Teaching reading is rocket science, 2020: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. American Federation of Teachers. https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/moats.pdf.

  • Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-003-0003-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment of Educational Progress (2020). NAEP report card: Reading (National achievement-level results). https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=4

  • National Center on Improving Literacy (2020). State of dyslexia. https://improvingliteracy.org/state-of-dyslexia.

  • National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • Nelson, J. M., & Machek, G. R. (2007). A survey of training, practice, and competence in reading assessment and intervention. School Psychology Review, 36(2), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O.R. v. Clark County School District, 72 IDELR ¶ 4 (D. Nev. 2018).

  • Odegard, T. N., Farris, E. A., Middleton, A. E., Oslund, E., & Rimrodt-Frierson, S. (2020). Characteristics of students identified with dyslexia within the context of state legislation. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Advance online publication, 53, 366–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420914551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odegard, T. N., Hutchings, T., Farris, E. A., & Oslund, E. L. (in press). External evaluations for dyslexia: Do the data support parent concerns? Annals of Dyslexia.

  • Orton, S. (1937). Reading, writing, and speech problems in children. Norton.

  • P.P. v. Northwest Independent School District, 839 F. App’x 848 (5th Cir. 2020).

  • Paige, M., & Zirkel, P. A. (2014). Teacher termination based on performance evaluations: Age and disability discrimination? West’s Education Law Reporter, 300, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petscher, Y., Cabell, S. Q., Catts, H. W., Compton, D. L., Foorman, B. R., Hart, S. A., Lonigan, C. J., Phillips, B. M., Schatschneider, C., Steacy, L. M., Terry, N. P., & Wagner, R. K. (2021). How the science of reading informs 21st-century education. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S267–S282. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.352.

  • Porter, S. B., Odegard, T. N., McMahan, M., & Farris, E. A. (in press). Characterizing the knowledge of educators across the tiers of instructional support. Annals of Dyslexia.

  • Preciado v. Board of Education of Clovis Municipal Schools, 443 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (D.N.M. 2020).

  • R.B. v. Downingtown Area School District, 78 IDELR ¶ 9 (E.D. Pa. 2020).

  • R.N. ex rel. A.N. v. Board of Education of Iroquois Central School District, 2016 WL 116-7329 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2016), adopted, 74 IDELR ¶ 163 (W.D.N.Y. 2019), aff’d, 801 F. App’x 35 (2d Cir. 2020).

  • Ridley Sch. Dist. v. M.R., 680 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2012).

  • Ring, J. J., Avrit, K., & Black, J. L. (2017). Take Flight: The evolution of an Orton Gillingham-based curriculum. Annals of Dyslexia, 67(3), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-017-0151-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringwood Board of Education v. K.H.J., 258 F. App’x 399 (3d Cir. 2007).

  • Ritchey, K. D., & Goeke, J. L. (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-based reading instruction: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669060400030501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rome, P. D., & Osman, J. S. (n.d.). Language tool kit. Educators Publishing Service, Inc.

  • Rose, T. E., & Zirkel, P. (2007). Orton-Gillingham methodology for students with reading disabilities: 30 years of case law. Journal of Special Education, 41(3), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669070410030301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S.D. v. Portland Public Schools, 64 IDELR ¶ 74 (D. Me. 2014).

  • Sayeski, K. L., Earle, G., Davis, R. L., & Calamari, J. (2019). Orton Gillingham: Who, what, and how. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 51(3), 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059918816996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlude v. Northeast Central School District, 892 F. Supp. 560 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).

  • Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many can’t, and what can be done about it. Basic Books.

  • Sheffield, B. B. (1991). The structured flexibility of Orton-Gillingham. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02648077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spalding, R. B. (1962). The writing road to reading: A modern method of phonics for teaching children to read. Whiteside and Morrow.

  • Steacy, L. M., Kearns, D. M., Gilbert, J. K., Compton, D. L., Cho, E., Lindstrom, E. R., & Collins, A. A. (2017). Exploring individual differences in irregular word recognition among children with early-emerging and late-emerging word reading difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, E. A., Austin, C., Moore, C., Scammacca, N., Boucher, A. N., & Vaughn, S. (2021). Current state of the evidence: Examining the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities. Exceptional Children. Advance online publication., 001440292199340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402921993406.

  • Torgesen, J., Myers, D., Schirm, A., Stuart, E., Vartivarian, S., … Mansfield, W. (2006). National assessment of Title I interim report—Volume II: Closing the reading gap: First year findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers. http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/title1interimreport/index.html.

  • Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 552 IDELR 408 (D. Mass. 1980), vacated, 655 F.2d 428 (1st Cir. 1981).

  • Wanzek, J., & Roberts, G. (2012). Reading interventions with varying instructional emphases for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(2), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711434047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R., & Binks-Cantrell, E. S. (2011). Teacher knowledge of basic language concepts and dyslexia. Dyslexia, 17(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • What Works Clearninghouse, U.S. Department of Eudcation, Institute of Education Sciences. (2007, July). Wilson Reading System. Retrieved from: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Intervention/738.

  • What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Edcuation (2010, July). Orton-Gillingham-based strategies (unbranded). Retrieved from: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/EvidenceSnapshot/528.

  • What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (2013, July). Beginning reading Intervention report: Reading Recovery. Retrieved from http://whatworks.ed.gov.

  • What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (2017, September). Beginning reading intervention report: Leveled Literacy Intervention. Retrieved from https://whatworks.ed.gov

  • William V. v. Copperas Cove Independent School District, 826 F. App’x 374 (5th Cir. 2020).

  • Yell, M. L., & Rozalski, M. (2013). The peer-reviewed requirement of the IDEA: An examination of law and policy. In B. G. Cook, M. Tankersley, & T. J. Landrum (Eds.), Evidence-Based Practices: Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities (vol. 26; 149-172). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0735-004X(2013)0000026009.

  • Youman, M., & Mather, N. (2018). Dyslexia laws in the USA: A 2018 update. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 44(2), 37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zirkel, P. A. (2015). Special education law: Illustrative basics and nuances of key IDEA components. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38(4), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406415575377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zirkel, P. A. (2019). A comparison of the IDEA’s dispute resolution processes—complaint procedures and impartial hearings: An Update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 369, 550–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zirkel, P. A. (2020a). Legal developments for students with dyslexia. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(3), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720931538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zirkel, P. A. (2020b). The Orton-Gillingham approach for students with disabilities: Case law update under the IDEA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 377, 472–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zirkel, P. A. (2020d). The use of time-out and seclusion for students with disabilities: The latest case law update. Communiqué, 48(7), 22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zirkel, P. A. (in press). Tuition reimbursement under the IDEA: A systematic synopsis. Journal of Special Education Leadership.

  • Zirkel, P. A., & Fossey, R. (2018). Liability for student suicide: An update of the case law. West’s Education Law Reporter, 354, 628–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zirkel, P. A., & Hetrick, A. (2016). Which procedural parts of the IEP process are most judicially vulnerable? Exceptional Children, 83(2), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916651849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zirkel, P. A., & Machin, A. (2012). The special education case law “iceberg”: An initial exploration of the underside. Journal of Law & Education, 41(2), 483–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916651849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristin L. Sayeski.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sayeski, K.L., Zirkel, P.A. Orton-Gillingham and the IDEA: analysis of the frequency and outcomes of case law. Ann. of Dyslexia 71, 483–500 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-021-00230-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-021-00230-4

Keywords

Navigation