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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Antonaccio v. Bd. of Educ. of Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 281 F. Supp. 2d 710 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
Banks v. Danbury Bd. of Educ., 238 F. Supp. 2d 428 (D. Conn. 2003).
5.
Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J.L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J.F., Prasse, D., et al. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
6.
Bd. of Educ. of Downers Grove Grade Sch. Dist. No. 58 v. Steven L., 23 IDELR 39 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
7.
Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
8.
Bd. of Educ. of the New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist., 26 IDELR 1321 (N.Y. SEA 1997).
9.
Bd. of Educ. of Oak Park & River Forest High Sch. Dist. No. 200 v. Kelly E., 21 F. Supp. 2d 861 (N.D. Ill. 1998), vacated on other grounds, 207 F.3d 931 (7th Cir. 2000).
10.
Bd. of Educ. of Portage Pub. Sch., 25 IDELR 372 (Mich. SEA 1996).
11.
Bd. of Educ. of Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 39 IDELR ¶ 148 (N.Y. SEA 2003).
12.
Bd. of Educ. of Taconic Hills Cent. Sch. Dist., 32 IDELR ¶ 195 (N.Y. SEA 2000).
13.
Bd. of Educ. of Victor Cent. Sch. Dist., 27 IDELR 1159 (N.Y. SEA 1998).
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.
Bright Solutions for Dyslexia. (1998). Sharing the latest research results with those who need to know. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from http://www.dys-add.com/teach.html
19.
Campbell v. Bd. of Educ. of Centerline Sch. Dist., 38 IDELR ¶ 154 (6th Cir. 2003).
20.
Casey K. v. St. Anne Cmty. High Sch. Dist. No. 302, 46 IDELR ¶ 102 (C.D. Ill. 2006).
21.
Choutka, C.M., Doloughty, P.T., & Zirkel, P.A. (2004). The “discrete trials” of applied behavior analysis for children with autism: Outcome-related factors in the case law . The Journal of Special Education, 38, 95—103.
22.
Christopher O., In re, EHLR 505:150 (Mass. SEA 1983).
23.
Clark, D.B., & Uhry, J.K. (1995). Dyslexia: Theory & practice of remedial instruction (2nd ed.). Baltimore: York Press.
24.
Cronkite v. State of California, 25 IDELR 947 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
25.
Daniel G. v. Delaware Valley Sch. Dist., 813 A.2d 36 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002).
26.
Davidson v. Gibson County Special Sch. Dist., 37 IDELR ¶ 279 (W.D. Tenn. 2002).
27.
Deal v. Hamilton County Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2004).
28.
Dempsey, I., & Foreman, P. (2001). A review of the education approaches for individuals with autism. International Journal of DisabilityDevelopment and Education, 48(1), 103—116.
29.
Doe v. Bd. of Educ. of Tullahoma City Sch., 9 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 1993).
30.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1975).
Etscheidt, S. (2003). An analysis of legal hearings and cases related to individualized education programs for children with autism. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,28(2), 51—69.
34.
Evans v. Bd. of Educ. of Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 24 IDELR 338 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
35.
Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993).
Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B.W. (1960). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling and penmanship (7th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
Horowitz, S.H. (2005). Early reading instruction: So what exactly am I supposed to do? Retrieved Sept. 8, 2005, from http://www.ncld.org/newsltr/0405newsltr/0405research.cfm
51.
IDEA Proposed Regulations, 70 Fed. Reg.35,782 et seq. (June 12, 2005).
52.
IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.1 et seq. (2006).
53.
IDEA Regulations Commentary, 64 Fed. Reg.12,537 et seq. (Mar. 12, 1999).
54.
IDEA Regulations Commentary, 71 Fed. Reg.46,540 et seq. (Aug. 14, 2006).
55.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2006)
56.
Institute for Multi-Sensory Education. (2000 ). Orton-Gillingham: Methodology. Retrieved September 8, 2005, from http://www.orton-gillingham.com/orton-gillingham2.asp
57.
Kildonan School. (n.d.). The Kildonan School: Amenia, New York. Retrieved January 18, 2006, from http://www.kildonan.org/home/index.asp
Miller v.Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Sch., 46 IDELR ¶ 162 (D.N.M. 2006).
67.
Moats, L.C., & Farrell, M.L. (1999). Multisensory instruction. In J. R. Birsh (Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic literacy skills (pp. 1—17). Baltimore: Brookes.
68.
Montgomery County Pub. Sch., 24 IDELR 975 (Md. SEA 1996).
69.
Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist., In re, EHLR 502:144 (Cal. SEA 1980).
70.
Moubry v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 696, 9 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (D. Minn. 1998) (Moubry II).
71.
Moubry v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 696, 33 IDELR ¶ 92 (D. Minn. 2000) (Moubry III).
72.
Ms. M v. Portland Sch. Comm., 39 IDELR ¶ 33 (D. Me. 2003), further proceedings on other grounds, 360 F.3d 267 (1st Cir. 2004).
73.
Nelson, C., & Huefner, D.S. (2003). Young children with autism: Judicial responses to the Lovaas and discrete trial training debates. Journal of Early Intervention, 26, 1—19.
74.
New York Dep't. of Educ., 46 IDELR ¶ 58 (N.Y. SEA 2006).
75.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. ( 2006).
76.
N. Thurston Sch. Dist., 105 LRP 43624 (Wash. SEA 2005).
77.
Oak View Union Sch. Dist., 24 IDELR 183 (Cal. SEA 1995).
78.
Pascoe v. Washington Cent. Sch. Dist., 29 IDELR 31 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
Reading and Language Arts Centers. (2004). Phonics First™ Orton-Gillingham training. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from http://www.rlac.com/training/nclb.php
82.
Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E., 172 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 1999).
83.
Ritchey, K.D., & Goeke, J.L. (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-based reading instruction: A review of literature. The Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 171—183.
84.
Robert B. v. W. Chester Area Sch. Dist., 44 IDELR ¶ 123 (E.D. Pa. 2005).
Rogers, S.J. (1998). Empirically supported comprehensive treatments for young children with autism. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27(2), 168—179.
88.
Sanders, M. (2001). Understanding dyslexia and the reading process: A guide for educators and parents. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
89.
Santa Barbara High Sch. Dist., 26 IDELR 473 (Cal. SEA 1997).
90.
Schlude v. Ne Cent. Sch. Dist., 892 F. Supp. 560 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller, K.K.S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Reading Disabilities,34, 33—58.
99.
Town of Burlington v. Dept. of Educ. of Massachusetts, EHLR 552:408 (D. Mass. 1980), rev'd in part on other grounds, 736 F.2d (1st Cir. 1984), aff'd, 471 U.S. 359 (1985).
Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 24 IDELR 189 (Cal. SEA 1995).
102.
Wall v. Mattituck-Cutchogue Sch. Dist., 945 F. Supp. 114 (E.D.N.Y. 1996).
103.
Walpole Pub. Sch., 16 EHLR 701 (Mass. SEA 1990).
104.
Waltham Pub. Sch., 23 IDELR 168 (Mass. SEA 1995).
105.
Watson v. Kingston City Sch. Dist., 325 F. Supp. 2d 141 (N.D.N.Y. 2004), aff'd, 142 Fed. Appx. 9 (2d Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.1040 (2006).
106.
William S. v. Chelmsford Pub. Sch., EHLR 502:335 (Mass. SEA 1981).
107.
Yell, M.L., Katsiyannis, A., Drasgow, E., & Herbst, M. (2003). Developing legally correct and educationally appropriate programs for students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,18, 182—191.
108.
Zirkel, P. (2006). The legal meaning of specific learning disability for special education eligibility. Alexandria, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
109.
Zirkel, P., & D'Angelo, A. (2002). Special education case law: An empirical trend analysis. West's Education Law Reporter, 101, 731—753.
110.
Zucker, S. (2004, March). Scientifically based research: NCLB and assessment. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
