Why would someone use phonics & O-G?

[mamamindy]

I am not wanting to hijack the thread where someone is trying to choose a phonics program, so here I am…  I have seen some suggest a phonics and an O-G program (Spalding in this case).  I am just wondering why someone would use both to teach reading?  I can see where if your child is already reading you might pick up O-G for spelling… But why use both at the same time?  Just wondering what I'm missing here….  I have decided to use O-G to teach DS to read, and I am going to do that in lieu of phonics.  I taught DDs to read via phonics, and have picked up O-G to help with their spelling.

[Crimson Wife]

O-G *IS* phonics, so I'm confused by your making a distinction between the two. Not all phonics programs are O-G, but all O-G programs are phonetic.

[a27mom]

O-G is phonics. I use an OG (Logic of English foundations) program mainly, but I do supplement with some worksheets from MCP and Evan Moor, which are short/long vowel style phonics program. This is because my daughter really likes worksheets, and her reading is slightly ahead of where we are in the O-G program, but she really needs to follow the program systematically for the phonemic awareness. I only use the worksheets because I happen to have them, found at a garage sale. She gets anxious when reading a book, but can read sentences from the worksheet without difficulty. She is slightly behind on reading due to a now resolved vision issue as well as the need for an OG style program so additional non-threatening reading exposure is helpful.

 

My younger daughter does the OG program only, and likely won't need any supplementing from other programs. But she actually reads with more fluency than her older sister and she is quite a bit ahead for her age.

[mamamindy]

I am sorry for my ignorance - I understand O-G to be a little different than a straight phonics primer.  I've used both at different times.  That is why I don't understand, in this instance where the poster is asking for reccs for a phonics program someone would suggest BOTH OPGTTR (or Phonics Pathways) AND Spalding.  Why would you need both?  I'm just curious.  Thank you for clarifying that O-G *is* phonics.  But they are different ways of teaching reading.  I guess someone would use both to teach reading just like some use a couple/few math resources...

[a27mom]

I am sorry for my ignorance - I understand O-G to be a little different than a straight phonics primer. I've used both at different times. That is why I don't understand, in this instance where the poster is asking for reccs for a phonics program someone would suggest BOTH OPGTTR (or Phonics Pathways) AND Spalding. Why would you need both? I'm just curious. Thank you for clarifying that O-G *is* phonics. But they are different ways of teaching reading. I guess someone would use both to teach reading just like some use a couple/few math resources...

I get what you mean here. :) I wouldn't recommend both.

 

But my child simply was not helped by the primer style programs, Maybe there are other kids who might struggle with OG, so doing both covers all the bases?

 

Also, some might say that primer type programs get a child reading more quickly (which was not true for my daughter, but is true for some kids). Once the child is reading, an OG program then becomes more of a spelling/advanced reading program.

[Hunter]

I tend to use How to Tutor before O-G. And I use a syllabary along side both, especially if I'm teaching cursive first. And I use an assorted motley collection of vintage primers for extra practice including McGuffey's.

 

O-G can be a lot of random things thrown at the student without a lot of context. Some students need to see patterns, not listen to explanations. Some students need a story. I like how HTT and Mcguffey's has the student writing complete sentences before they have learned all of the alphabet, never mind the number of phonograms that some O-G curricula require before learning a single word.

[Ellie]

I am sorry for my ignorance - I understand O-G to be a little different than a straight phonics primer.  I've used both at different times.  That is why I don't understand, in this instance where the poster is asking for reccs for a phonics program someone would suggest BOTH OPGTTR (or Phonics Pathways) AND Spalding.  Why would you need both?  I'm just curious.  Thank you for clarifying that O-G *is* phonics.  But they are different ways of teaching reading.  I guess someone would use both to teach reading just like some use a couple/few math resources...

 

Maybe the person who suggested that was thinking of OPGTTR or Phonics Pathways to teach a child to read, and Spalding to teach spelling and penmanship? o_0

 

Spalding (and its spin-offs) teach children to read by teaching them to spell, so it's *slightly* different from straight phonics. 

 

I'm not sure it's accurate to say that Spalding is "O-G based." Mrs.Spalding worked with Dr. Orton, a neurologist and brain specialist. Mrs. Spalding developed Dr. Orton's training "into a method for classroom teaching," with his encouragement. You can read about it in the fourth edition of the manual Writing Road to Reading, pp. 23 and 24. :-) I have to say that I have not researched "O-G" at all, being satisfied with the Spalding Method. :-) She never mentions anything about Gillingham while giving Dr. Orton a great deal of credit for his research and her own training

[tori729]

Since I think I'm the one op is talking about, what is O-G?? And what is the other type of teaching reading?

I have to say, I'm not impressed with whatever method they use at my son's school. It involves learning sight words and they send home readers but I'm not sure what exactly they do in the classroom. I just know my son has always been ahead of the game with his letter recognition and sounds and he's only reading at level (pre-readers). I really thought he'd be way better at reading by now and I'm a little disappointed so whatever he is doing now, I DON'T want to do!!

[mamamindy]

I tend to use How to Tutor before O-G. And I use a syllabary along side both, especially if I'm teaching cursive first. And I use an assorted motley collection of vintage primers for extra practice including McGuffey's.

 

O-G can be a lot of random things thrown at the student without a lot of context. Some students need to see patterns, not listen to explanations. Some students need a story. I like how HTT and Mcguffey's has the student writing complete sentences before they have learned all of the alphabet, never mind the number of phonograms that some O-G curricula require before learning a single word.

This makes sense.  Thanks for explaining! :)

[Guest]

I was one who used a Phonics program (Abeka/OPGTR) and an OG Spelling (Spell to Write and Read). I know that SWR is supposed to teach your kids to read through spelling, but we had a really hard time with that here. Now that I have taught both my kids to read and understand how to do that, I feel I could use the phonograms from SWR and teach them reading, but I didn't feel that the program led me to teaching the reading part. In our house, we had to establish reading before we started spelling. I could never figure out how to teach early reading and spelling simultaneously. I never could wrap my head around how they were supposed to spell words when they couldn't even read them. Maybe I just misunderstood what I was supposed to do, though.

[Walking-Iris]

You're talking about me by chance, as well? I posted in that thread and I use both OPGTR and WRTR.

 

I didn't start out that way however. I've only recently started to add Spalding, mainly for spelling, but also to help with reading. OPGTR is very well done, but it's visual and oral only. My 1st grader loves to write. He has very nice legible handwriting, and he is constantly writing, BUT he tends to shut down when asked to "just read". 

 

I still have him practice reading a lesson from OPGTR (it seriously takes less than 5 minutes of our time) but we also work on the writng involved in WRTR. He also has various phonics workbooks he does on his own time with my minimal assistance, because he loves to write out the answers.

 

Since I've amped up his *writing* and *spelling* work, I have noticed his *reading* improving. He is able to sit with me now and just read and doesn't seem to struggle as much since he has a familiarity with the words through his writing activities. 

 

I don't think I recommended using both at the same time in Tori's thread. I think I just listed the phonics programs that I like. I actually wouldn't recommend doing both at the same time since one (WRTR) has a bit of a learning curve.

 

I've started doing it this way because it helps my particular child. Learning to read has been a struggle and *now* with the writing/spelling being a priority, he is able to sit and *practice* reading with OPGTR or another book without the tears and shut down we had before.

 

I hope that makes sense, OP.

 

[Ellie]

I was one who used a Phonics program (Abeka/OPGTR) and an OG Spelling (Spell to Write and Read).

 

SWR is a Spalding spin-off. :-)

[blondchen]

 

Also, some might say that primer type programs get a child reading more quickly (which was not true for my daughter, but is true for some kids). Once the child is reading, an OG program then becomes more of a spelling/advanced reading program.

This is what we've done. I just wanted to get my kids reading, so we started OPGTR right after they each turned 4. Before we got to the end of OPGTR I started Logic of English Essentials with DD7, to use only for spelling. I wanted her to know all the phonograms and rules for spelling, and LOE has helped her higher level reading, but I would not have wanted to bog down the learning-to-read process early on with all of the explicit and detailed phonics instruction in the O-G programs. Some kids benefit from that, and some actually need that, but DD didn't need it, and I know it would have frustrated her. 

 

Anyway, you'll find a bunch of people on the forum who teach their kids to read first and then use only the spelling component of one of the comprehensive OG-based programs.

 

[mamamindy]

Maybe the person who suggested that was thinking of OPGTTR or Phonics Pathways to teach a child to read, and Spalding to teach spelling and penmanship? o_0

 

 

That's sort of what we're doing, so I can understand that.

 

And thank you for clarifying Spalding vs. "O-G".  I have always just heard of it being based on "O-G" research, but you are right, she doesn't mention Gillingham.

[mamamindy]

Very enlightening.  Thank you all for explaining to me.  I am in great need of some coffee this morning. :P

 

Yes, WalkingIris, I have noticed you say that you're using both.  Thanks for detailing how/why you do this.  That makes total sense to me.  For us, my girls just took off reading after OPGTTR, and I'm still not totally convinced DD1 needs anything else at all.  However, I've noticed a need for explicit spelling instruction for DD6.5, and she has somewhat plateaued in her reading…  We all just have different kids, so we're doing different things.  And I'm learning SO MUCH! :)

[mamamindy]

I was one who used a Phonics program (Abeka/OPGTR) and an OG Spelling (Spell to Write and Read). I know that SWR is supposed to teach your kids to read through spelling, but we had a really hard time with that here. Now that I have taught both my kids to read and understand how to do that, I feel I could use the phonograms from SWR and teach them reading, but I didn't feel that the program led me to teaching the reading part. In our house, we had to establish reading before we started spelling. I could never figure out how to teach early reading and spelling simultaneously. I never could wrap my head around how they were supposed to spell words when they couldn't even read them. Maybe I just misunderstood what I was supposed to do, though.

It hurts my brain to try and wrap it around in my head, too!  Sometimes I think it's just a "trust the method" sort of thing.  I guess if I were on the other end (having successfully used Spalding to teach to read from the very beginning) it would make more sense.

[lots of little ducklings]

I've started with 100EZ for both of my oldest dc, then moved on to Spalding after completing 100EZ. Two reasons for this, really:

 

1) my DS had terrible fine motor skills; writing would have been a nightmare for him at age 4, but at age 4, 100EZ (phonics, but not writing based) gently taught him basic reading skills (sounding out, tracking, blending, punctuation) including all single-letter phonograms plus several multi-letter phonograms. DD does not have the same issues, but we liked 100EZ so much that she is starting there as well.

 

2)100EZ recommends a "next step when you finish the book" that includes teaching additional multi-letter phonograms...this is where Spalding came in for us. So I don't really use Spalding primarily for spelling, but rather to extend and build on to my children's reading skills/fluency where 100EZ left off. (In fact, DS still hates writing so we've pursued other avenues for formal spelling with him).

 

Wouldn't work or be necessary for everyone, but these combos have helped us tremendously.

[Walking-Iris]

It hurts my brain to try and wrap it around in my head, too!  Sometimes I think it's just a "trust the method" sort of thing.  I guess if I were on the other end (having successfully used Spalding to teach to read from the very beginning) it would make more sense.

 

Well I don't think it's so difficult for a young child to spell/write a word at the *same* time he is learning to read it. Mainly because I don't feel those skills of handwriting/reading or phonemic awareness/spelling exist in a vacuum.

 

Let's take a simple CVC word as an example. HAT. Even if you have never sat down with a reading primer and taught them how to  read that word, if a child had learned the sounds for the letters (phonograms) AND they have had instruction in handwriting, they could  hear the three individual sounds in the word HAT and be able to write them, read what they have wrote, and recognize that word the next time they see it. And the other way 'round.

 

And even though I have drastically simplified the process of reading in that statement, that's basically how I go about it. I always teach handwriting along with the "sounds" first. Writing/spelling/reading happen at the same time. Think about an ETC workbook or Plaid Phonics, it's a similar idea. They are attempting to teach a child to read by having a child write as well.

 

The book Why Johnny Can't Read and What To Do About It, Writing Road to Reading, as well as Maria Montessori's ideas on learning to read all emphasize the handwriting/spelling approach to learning to read.

 

Spelling here doesn't mean a list of words to remember for a test.

 

Although I like OPGTR (more than I like the other primers 100EZ etc) the problem i have with them is that there's very little to no writing involved. They tend to isolate reading as a visual activity. And spelling then becomes something to learn *after* a child is reading. But if a child can spell hat, they can read hat, and if they can read hat, they can spell it.

 

I don't separate the two into distinct subjects. 

 

This is why I also love Sequential Spelling (another O-G based program). I started it when my oldest was young and  it was the main tool in his 1st grade year to continue his phonics instruction. He didn't have the same "shut down" issues my 6 year old had, he could read easily from a primer or any book. He progressed much more quickly than my current 1st grader.

 

My oldest also had OT for fine motor issues at that age, but I still followed a spell/write to read kind of pattern with him.

 

My 3 year old doesn't have the control for handwriting just yet, but she uses her Montessori moveable alphabet and HWOT wooden letters.

[lots of little ducklings]

I'm enjoying following this thread... I have a weird fascination with brain circuitry, and reading (or really, how-different-brains-acquire-reading-skills) is such a great window into that.

 

Walking-Iris, thanks for sharing about your son. I tutored a 5 year-old with a serious LD in reading, and interestingly, for him, encoding (writing) was the *only* path to gaining recall on phonograms. He could encode multi-syllable words successfully for months before he could even begin to decode (read) a single CVC word. So we just wrote and wrote and wrote... One zany story after another for months (zany because we could only use phonograms as I slowly introduced them.) But the encoding slowly built pathways in his brain that finally allowed *de*-coding to make sense, and he is now an excellent reader in middle school.

 

Meanwhile, my own DS (even at age 6, but certainly at 4) gained little from the traditional Spalding approach. Phonograms didn't stick through the standard WRTR method; reading didn't progress. Writing created a barrier, not a path. But after I decided something had to change, it took DS no time to learn the Spalding phonograms by reciting them as he jumped on the bed; we now use the Spalding rules and, with *me* writing on the chalkboard, we also use the Spalding marking system to tackle new words as he decodes them in his reading. His reading level has soared, as has his confidence. The writing will come, I'm sure, and I'd love to start a Spalding notebook with him in 3rd grade, but I can see why SWB likes to separate the two skills early on. Some DC (though certainly not all) really just benefit from that. For us, it doesn't mean we don't do any writing/handwriting, but for the time being those aren't integrated into his "reading" instruction.

 

BTW- I'm a huge Spalding fan-- I learned it in the school where I student-taught. Most children excelled with it; but a good number also needed remedial accommodations of one kind or another.

 

.

[nature girl]

This is all so fascinating to me. I'm still pretty early in the process, my DD is just a beginning reader, so I haven't worried about spelling at all. But I was planning on adding an O-G program in the next year or so, as her handwriting becomes more automatic and I begin to feel like she's ready for it. In the meantime, she's good at spelling things out phonetically BUT I was really surprised at how reading and writing the same words seem so disconnected for her. For example, she's been able to read the word "is" and "ball" for well over a year, but she still writes them as "iz" and "bol." Would O-G rules help that? Probably not...Will it just come with reading practice or will she eventually need specific spelling lists, even for words that simple? It seems crazy that there's such a disconnect, at least for her, between reading and writing.

[Walking-Iris]

This is all so fascinating to me. I'm still pretty early in the process, my DD is just a beginning reader, so I haven't worried about spelling at all. But I was planning on adding an O-G program in the next year or so, as her handwriting becomes more automatic and I begin to feel like she's ready for it. In the meantime, she's good at spelling things out phonetically BUT I was really surprised at how reading and writing the same words seem so disconnected for her. For example, she's been able to read the word "is" and "ball" for well over a year, but she still writes them as "iz" and "bol." Would O-G rules help that? Probably not...Will it just come with reading practice or will she eventually need specific spelling lists, even for words that simple? It seems crazy that there's such a disconnect, at least for her, between reading and writing.

 

That's pretty common with young children (she's 4 or maybe 5, correct?)

 

It actually shows that she *is* aware of the phonics. s does make a z sound, we do hear a short o sound in all. Over time, with continued practice reading and spelling, she'll get there. IMHO, spelling will always help with reading, writing will help with reading. Give her time though.

 

Ducklings---yes! I find how a child learns to read and write endlessly fascinating as well! 

 

Ellie is likely going to have a heart attack :) but I decided some time ago to ignore the WRTR markings.  (At least for now) For me they are just an extra, somewhat distracting, thing for a child to learn that doesn't seem to have any immediate practical use. At least I'm not seeing it. It's one of the only things that I don't like about WRTR. I'm not terribly interested in if my children can tell me which sound they are writing/reading by giving them arbitrary number listings. BUT I still feel we can get a lot out of the method without it.  

 

Basically I think there are these somewhat universal ways that children learn to read, with a whole lot of a child's individual needs thrown in. Sort of like a white cake with various different frosting and decorations. 

[Ellie]

T

Ellie is likely going to have a heart attack :) but I decided some time ago to ignore the WRTR markings.  (At least for now) For me they are just an extra, somewhat distracting, thing for a child to learn that doesn't seem to have any immediate practical use. At least I'm not seeing it. It's one of the only things that I don't like about WRTR. I'm not terribly interested in if my children can tell me which sound they are writing/reading by giving them arbitrary number listings. BUT I still feel we can get a lot out of the method without it.  

 

:huh:

 

You don't see how the markings are a visual aid to help children know which letters go together as one phonogram, or when a phonogram has a sound that is not common to it, and so how they might be pronounced or what rule might apply?

 

"Arbitrary number listings"? :huh: You mean the superscript numbers which indicate which pronunciation of a phonogram is being used?

 

Ok.

 

The important thing is for your children to learn to read and spell. How you get there isn't that important. :001_smile:

 

**psst** Spalding is the method; WRTR is the manual. :-)

[Guest]

SWR is a Spalding spin-off. :-)

 

I didn't realize she was asking about only Spalding. I thought it was a more general question. From my understanding, SWR is an OG based program, is it not?

 

 

 

And, IMO, asking a child to spell words like by, out, into, and you in the third week of spelling lists for Kindergarten (as suggested by SWR) - although phonetic - is a challenge to a 5 year old that would normally be reading CVC words for awhile before adding in more complex phonograms. I don't have my OPGTR anymore, but in Abeka, they were reading CVC words for a lot longer than that. For us, I liked the pace of introducing reading a little slower and building on each step slowly.

[ArizonaGirl]

I learned to read with the Spalding method in my elementary school.  My children did as well, until we moved to an area where it was not available to us.  Now we homeschool, and I have used TWRTR, as well as materials from Spalding Education, International.

 

Most of my children have excelled, but I had one son who just struggled.  Even in sixth grade, he couldn't get past a second grade spelling level, although he could read well.

 

Someone pointed me to a book:  Overcoming Dyslexia, by Sally Shaywitz  (spelling?).  I realized he had many of the symptoms.  (He has never been diagnosed with dyslexia).  Because of my frustration and the array of very different programs, all claiming to be Orton-Gillingham based, I decided to go to the source.  I took an Orton-Gillngham class from a Master teacher/ Fellows.  (or something like that).

 

I learned that Spalding is adapted for a classroom approach.  She condenses all the spelling rules to just 29 rules.  Most children thrive, but it moves too quickly for some kids.  Instead of introducing three sounds at a time for one phonogram, Orton-Gillingham introduces one sound.  Then the kids practice reading and spelling lots of words that use just that one sound of the phonogram.  Later, after mastery is achieved, additional sounds are introduced.  The rules are also clarified and practiced in much the same way.

 

There is a lot more to it than that, but what I learned was a huge advantage in helping my son.  I have used both Spalding and pure Orton-Gillingham since then, as my children need it.  I would strongly recommend learning about the different methods by taking a class if at all possible, especially if you have a child who struggles with one method or another.  Simply trying a different approach to the same methods makes a big difference.

[Ellie]

I didn't realize she was asking about only Spalding. I thought it was a more general question. From my understanding, SWR is an OG based program, is it not?

 

 

 

SWR is a Spalding spin-off. Wanda Sanseri was a Spalding teacher (I don't remember if she was certified or not), and first wrote a book that was supposed to be a "handbook" for using WRTR. She retitled that book and published it (Teaching Reading at Home), then wrote SWR.

 

Spalding is Spalding. Mrs. Spalding wrote her method with Dr. Orton's encouragement. She wrote about this in her book. She doesn't mention Gillingham at all. :-)

[Walking-Iris]

:huh:

 

You don't see how the markings are a visual aid to help children know which letters go together as one phonogram, or when a phonogram has a sound that is not common to it, and so how they might be pronounced or what rule might apply?

 

"Arbitrary number listings"? :huh: You mean the superscript numbers which indicate which pronunciation of a phonogram is being used?

 

Ok.

 

The important thing is for your children to learn to read and spell. How you get there isn't that important. :001_smile:

 

**psst** Spalding is the method; WRTR is the manual. :-)

 

Sorry. It's a rare thing for me to agree or like wholeheartedly every thing in any of the programs/books I use. But yeah...at this time, I'm just not liking the superscript numbers. It just feels (to me) like an extra thing a child would have to learn that doesn't have any relation to the actual act of reading/writing/spelling. I haven't really met an adult yet who stops to think "oh that's the second sound of such and such I need to use here" or anyone who writes little numbers above their syllables. So...they just seem extraneous to me. 

 

My oldest ds was able to learn which letters go together to make one sound (or phonogram) and learn what sound or spelling rule to apply in context, without also learning an extra step of numbering them in an unnatural way...so I'm not seeing them being a help to us at this time. Simplicity.

 

Certainly I'm sure that others use them and love them. 

[Ellie]

Sorry. It's a rare thing for me to agree or like wholeheartedly every thing in any of the programs/books I use. But yeah...at this time, I'm just not liking the superscript numbers. It just feels (to me) like an extra thing a child would have to learn that doesn't have any relation to the actual act of reading/writing/spelling. I haven't really met an adult yet who stops to think "oh that's the second sound of such and such I need to use here" or anyone who writes little numbers above their syllables. So...they just seem extraneous to me. 

 

My oldest ds was able to learn which letters go together to make one sound (or phonogram) and learn what sound or spelling rule to apply in context, without also learning an extra step of numbering them in an unnatural way...so I'm not seeing them being a help to us at this time. Simplicity.

 

Certainly I'm sure that others use them and love them. 

 

:huh:

 

Ok. Your school, your method. :-)