Orton-Gillingham is an instructional approach: the original structured, multisensory method for teaching reading, developed for students with dyslexia. Structured literacy is the broader, modern term for teaching aligned with the science of reading. Orton-Gillingham is one form of structured literacy, not a separate or competing thing.
A distinction that causes real confusion
Teachers and leaders often hear "Orton-Gillingham" and "structured literacy" used as if they were competing products, or as if one had replaced the other. Neither is true, and the confusion has a cost, because it is easy to overpay for a brand name or dismiss a strong program because it does not carry one. One term is the historical approach that pioneered explicit, structured reading instruction; the other is the umbrella the field now uses for that whole family of approaches. The distinction matters most at the moment you are choosing training, when the words on a course catalog do not tell you what is actually inside.
What Orton-Gillingham is
Orton-Gillingham, often shortened to OG, is an instructional approach developed in the 1930s from the work of neuropsychiatrist Samuel Orton and educator Anna Gillingham, originally to help students with dyslexia. Its hallmarks are instruction that is explicit, systematic and cumulative, individualized to the learner, and multisensory, engaging sight, sound, and movement together, for instance by having a child say a sound while writing the letter. For decades it was the main structured alternative to whole-word and, later, whole-language teaching, and much of what the field now recommends traces back to it.
What structured literacy is
Structured literacy is a much newer term, introduced by the International Dyslexia Association in 2016 to name the entire category of approaches that teach reading in line with the research: explicitly, systematically, and cumulatively, across the elements of language from phonology through syntax and semantics. It was coined precisely because the field needed one clear term for the approach the science supports, instead of a scatter of brand names and method labels that left educators comparing apples to trademarks.
How they relate
The cleanest way to hold it: Orton-Gillingham is the ancestor, structured literacy is the family. OG was the original structured, multisensory approach, and it shaped much of what we now call structured literacy. Structured literacy is the broader term that OG-based programs sit inside, alongside other structured literacy approaches that share the same explicit, systematic, cumulative, language-based principles. Asking whether to use "Orton-Gillingham or structured literacy" is a little like asking whether to drive "a sedan or a car." One is an instance of the other.
| Orton-Gillingham | Structured literacy | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A specific instructional approach | The umbrella term for the whole category |
| Origin | 1930s, from work with students with dyslexia | Coined by the International Dyslexia Association in 2016 |
| Multisensory | A defining feature | Common but not required by the definition |
| Typical use | Often one-to-one or small-group intervention | Whole-class core instruction and intervention |
| Relationship | One form of structured literacy | Includes Orton-Gillingham and similar approaches |
One research note worth knowing, because it shapes what to prioritize: the explicit and systematic core of these approaches is strongly supported by evidence. The specifically multisensory element of OG, the movement and touch, has a thinner and more mixed research base than the explicit, systematic instruction it is delivered through. That is, the strongest evidence supports the explicit, systematic nature of instruction. Research on adding multisensory techniques is smaller and more mixed, which is why today's definition of structured literacy emphasizes explicit language instruction rather than requiring any one instructional technique.
"An approach, not a curriculum," and why that matters for training
Here is the practical heart of it. Orton-Gillingham is not trademarked, and there is no single official OG program or one governing body that certifies OG training. So "Orton-Gillingham training" and "OG certification" can refer to an enormous range of offerings, from rigorous, standards-aligned programs to brief, shallow ones, all using the same respected name. The label alone tells you very little about quality, which is exactly the trap for a school with a budget to spend.
So when you evaluate OG or structured literacy training, look past the name to the substance. Does it align with the International Dyslexia Association's Knowledge and Practice Standards? Does it build real understanding of how reading works, not just a set of procedures to follow? Does it include supervised practice, not only lectures? Is the certification recognized by a credible body, such as the Center for Effective Reading Instruction, rather than self-conferred? Those questions matter far more than whether the course carries the OG name, and they are the same questions worth asking of any structured literacy training you are considering.
Frequently asked questions
Is Orton-Gillingham the same as structured literacy?
Not exactly. Orton-Gillingham is a specific instructional approach, and structured literacy is the broader term for the whole category of approaches aligned with the science of reading. Orton-Gillingham is one form of structured literacy, not a separate or competing method.
Is Orton-Gillingham a curriculum?
No. It is an instructional approach, a set of principles for teaching reading, not a single published program. Many programs describe themselves as Orton-Gillingham-based, but there is no one official OG curriculum, and the name is not trademarked.
Is there one official Orton-Gillingham certification?
No. Because the term is not trademarked and no single body governs it, "OG certification" varies widely in rigor. Look for training aligned with the IDA Knowledge and Practice Standards and certification recognized by a credible organization such as the Center for Effective Reading Instruction.
Is Orton-Gillingham evidence-based?
Its explicit, systematic core is well supported by reading research. The specifically multisensory element has a thinner and more mixed evidence base. In practice, the structured, explicit instruction carries most of the benefit, which is why the broader structured literacy framing has become standard.
Do teachers need Orton-Gillingham training specifically?
Not by that name. What teachers need is strong training in structured literacy, whether or not it is labeled Orton-Gillingham. Judge training by its alignment with the Knowledge and Practice Standards and the depth of its content and practice, not by the brand name it carries. The goal is not to become "OG trained" as an end in itself. The goal is to understand the structure of written language well enough to make sound instructional decisions for the students in front of you.
Keep reading
- What is structured literacy?
- Dyslexia intervention in K–3: what every classroom teacher needs to know
- How IDA accreditation defines quality in literacy teacher training
- What is the science of reading? A guide for school leaders
- Structured literacy training for teachers and schools
The history of Orton-Gillingham and the 2016 introduction of "structured literacy" by the International Dyslexia Association reflect the association's published accounts. The relative evidence for explicit, systematic instruction versus specifically multisensory techniques reflects the consensus of reading research.
