How can the OG Approach help practitioners determine the relevance of reading research for improving instruction? For the most part, the interface between reading research and the OG Approach is clear. In some cases, the clinical knowledge from the OG Approach leads the research. Major research findings like the phonological core deficit (Fletcher, Lyon, & Fuchs, 2018; Kilpatrick, 2015) come as little surprise to OG practitioners who recall many students over the years who, when asked to repeat the sound of short e, actually produced the sound of short i. Similarly, the importance of transcription processes to written expression (Berninger, 2015; Graham, 2019) does not surprise the OG practitioner who regularly encounters older students whose paragraph writing is completely stymied by slow and inaccurate letter formation. Conversely, well-established research has improved OG instruction. For example, OG Practitioners who include phonemic awareness activities readily see its effect on improving decoding. All these are examples of convergence between clinically-based OG knowledge and the knowledge gained from reading research. In cases of convergence, each knowledge source has the potential to enrich and complement the other. For example, research conducted in controlled settings with matched groups helps test and refine core theories about reading processes whereas clinically-based OG knowledge focuses on the effective educational treatment of children who struggle with reading and spelling. Given that both the reading research and the OG Approach are data-driven, it is not too surprising that well-established research findings typically fit with OG principles and practices. 

Whereas OG places great importance upon reading research, it does not necessarily accept the veracity of every published study or the applicability of the findings to specific learners with dyslexia. This may bring to mind a common OG adage: “it depends.” A question arises about how the OG Practitioner should weigh findings of individual research studies which do not seem consistent with the OG Approach or may not fit with the observed responses of one’s student. In these cases, it is here suggested that OG Practitioners follow a primacy principlewhen interpreting the research. The primacy principle states that when all is said and done, practitioners appropriately trained and experienced, e.g., the equivalent of Certified or beyond as set by the Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators (AOGPE-OGA, 2021) are the arbiters of the relevance and usefulness of new research findings for improving instruction for dyslexic learners. The primacy principle resides within Ring B and rests on the OG knowledge possessed by OG Practitioners individually and prescribed by the AOGPE. The OG Approach serves as a lens through which to assess the usefulness of a particular research finding for improving the instruction of a specific student. The O-G Approach, by tradition and in practice, gives most serious consideration to what reading research has to say that is relevant to OG practice, but the primacy principle demands that such an assessment must ring true to the OG Approach. 

What is the justification for a primacy principle? The OG Approach is the expert body of knowledge about how to teach children with dyslexia to read. First, it is the oldest, most influential and pervasive of all dyslexia interventions. The endurance of the Approach provides testament to its success in teaching dyslexic children to read when other interventions fall short. Second, the OG Approach rests on clinical experience gained by teaching and observing thousands of children with dyslexia. OG practitioners engage in an intensive training model that is unparalleled in the field of reading education both in terms of depth of detail and hours of supervised practicum. They develop a knowledge-base that is predicated on decades of clinical observation gained from teaching children with dyslexia. As a result, appropriately trained and experienced practitioners internalize the OG Approach and become experts in teaching those who have dyslexia. OG Practitioners can rely on their knowledge of the Approach to evaluate the relevance of the research evidence for improving instruction. The third justification for a primacy principle derives from the timeline along which OG practice knowledge developed and reading research knowledge developed. The central components of the OG Approach were established well before these components were validated by reading research. When it comes to understanding dyslexic readers, the OG Approach simply has been in the game longer than reading research. The foundational roots of the Orton-Gillingham Approach were being laid in the 1920s. The scientific study of reading, on the other hand, was only gaining its legs in the 1970s. Thus, the clinical knowledge that forms the OG Approach has a fifty-year lead on the science of reading. At its outset, Orton-Gillingham recognized essential teaching principles that the reading research validated only decades later. For example, Ring et al. (2017) note that OG uniquely emphasized direct, explicit, structured, and sequential instruction from its earliest days. Wiley and Rapp (2021) just reported that for typical learners, handwriting leads to better letter recognition than typing or visual presentation only. OG Practitioners have found this to be true for readers with dyslexia since the 1920’s. Of course, there are converse examples of research findings that have advanced the effectiveness of the OG approach such as the research in phonemic awareness. The present day OG Approach also is strengthened by the existence of the Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators (Orton-Gillingham Academy). O-G is the only intervention for those with dyslexia with such an independent, professionals setting rigorous standards and judging competency (AOGPE-OGA, 2021). The Approach is unique in its ability to support effective instruction for a wide range of students, guide the use of materials that were not intrinsic to the original approach, and adopt new instructional goals indicated by accumulating research. 

That the advanced practitioner may venture outside of the Orton-Gillingham Approach is best understood by stressing it is an Approach, not a technique, program, method, or system. As such it has a breadth, a depth, and flexibility that permits the use of augmenting practices from the outside. 

When encountering new research conducted with struggling readers, OG practitioners should read carefully to determine if there was a significant effect and then assess whether the findings are consistent with the knowledge in the Orton-Gillingham Approach. If a significant effect is reported but the practitioner does not deem the research finding to be basically consistent with the OG Approach (e.g., sustained silent reading for children who have decoding problems), then the OG Practitioner need not attend to it. If the finding is basically consistent with the OG Approach (e.g., phonemic awareness), then the OG Practitioner may test its power to improve learning in the context of reading lessons with appropriate students. Through this observation process, the OG Practitioner develops clinical knowledge of whether a new, research-based concept can improve learning for dyslexic students. Over time, the practitioner begins to understand which students are most likely to be helped by the new research finding.