In August 2021, I presented an outreach webinar for the Georgia IDA on the importance of comprehensive language and literacy testing when addressing reading-based disabilities. I reviewed current controversies surrounding the dyslexia diagnosis and explained how language deficits contribute directly to reading and writing difficulties. The main focus, however, was on examining the strengths and limitations of widely promoted reading programs, such as Orton-Gillingham, Wilson, Lindamood Bell, and the Barton Program, particularly when they are used in isolation. I concluded by outlining how proper assessment should guide the development of targeted treatment goals.
Since the webinar is no longer available online, I’ve written this blog post to recap the key points. You can also download the slides at the bottom of the post.
Dyslexia remains one of the most commonly used and misunderstood labels in education today. Parents are often told their child needs a “reading program,” with popular names like Orton-Gillingham, Wilson, Lindamood Bell, Barton, or Fundations thrown into the mix. But what if I told you that no program, no matter how well-packaged, can replace a comprehensive understanding of the child’s underlying language profile?
This post breaks down why relying solely on a program is not enough, what the research actually shows, and where we need to be far more precise when supporting struggling readers.
Dyslexia Is First and Foremost a Language Disorder
The International Dyslexia Association defines dyslexia as a neurobiological learning disability primarily rooted in deficits in the phonological component of language. In other words, it’s not about vision problems or “seeing letters backwards”, it’s about language.
Decades of research confirm that children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) or other oral language weaknesses are at much higher risk of developing dyslexia. Yet, oral language deficits are often hidden. A child might appear articulate but struggle with subtleties: odd word choices, trouble summarizing, difficulty with abstract concepts, or errors that reveal gaps in syntax and semantics. These deficits directly affect their reading, spelling, and writing.
The Dyslexia Controversy: More Confusion Than Clarity
Here’s the problem: dyslexia has been defined differently across studies and clinical practice. Some evaluators lean on phonemic awareness, others on rapid naming or IQ-discrepancy formulas, while some rely on vague observations. The result? Inconsistent diagnoses, questionable use of tests, and an artificial split between “dyslexic” and “poor reader” that isn’t supported by brain imaging or strong science.
The label by itself tells us very little. It does not explain what specific deficits a child has, and therefore, it does not automatically guide intervention.
Programs Are Not a Cure-All
When a child struggles with reading, too often the immediate response is: “Get them into a program.” This feels concrete and reassuring—but it skips a crucial step. If we don’t know what deficits are driving the difficulty, how do we know the program addresses them?
Let’s look at the evidence:
- Orton-Gillingham (OG): Despite being widely promoted as the “gold standard,” systematic reviews and meta-analyses have found the research base for OG weak and inconclusive. The largest effects are inconsistent and often limited to word-level skills like decoding nonwords, while no significant impact has been shown for vocabulary or comprehension.
- Wilson Reading System®: Found to have potentially positive effects for phonics, but no discernible benefits for fluency or comprehension.
- Fundations®: No high-quality studies meet What Works Clearinghouse standards. Effectiveness remains unproven.
- Lindamood-Bell LiPS®: Mixed findings. One large RCT found negative effects on word accuracy compared to basal reading instruction, while another found positive effects for comprehension.
- Barton Reading & Spelling System®: No studies to date meet evidence standards.
The takeaway? Programs may offer structure, but without targeted assessment, they risk being mismatched to the child’s needs.
What Really Predicts Reading Success
Research highlights several key skills beyond phonics that directly predict reading success:
- Orthographic mapping: The process of bonding sound, spelling, and meaning in memory (Ehri, 2014).
- Morphological awareness: Understanding prefixes, suffixes, and root words—crucial for comprehension in upper grades.
- Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN): A strong, universal predictor of reading fluency across languages.
- Vocabulary depth and semantics: Children read words better when they know their meanings.
If assessment skips these areas, we risk overlooking the very skills that could make the difference.
Why Assessments Matter More Than Labels
Educational assessments too often rely on psychometrically weak tools, single-word vocabulary measures, or outdated discrepancy models. Worse, results may be misinterpreted, leading to vague or irrelevant goals like “follow multi-step directions” instead of addressing real deficits in narrative comprehension or syntax.
True evidence-based practice requires targeted, language-rich assessments that examine phonology, semantics, syntax, morphology, discourse, and pragmatics alongside reading and writing. Without this, intervention is guesswork.
It’s Not the Program—It’s the Specialist
At the end of the day, progress doesn’t come from a brand name. It comes from skilled professionals who know how to:
- Identify the specific language and literacy deficits through careful testing.
- Select goals that directly address those deficits.
- Pull tools, strategies, and tasks from multiple sources—not just one program.
- Continuously adjust based on student response.
The truth is simple: a program doesn’t create improvement. Knowledgeable, evidence-based intervention does.
Final Thoughts
Dyslexia remains a controversial and overgeneralized label. What we do know is that it is a language-based disorder, and supporting students requires a deep dive into their individual language profiles. Before recommending any program, we need to ask: Have we identified the root causes? Have we measured the right skills? Are we tailoring goals to this child rather than following a script?
If the answer is no, then we’re not doing enough.
Download the Presentation Here: A Reading Program is NOT Enough: A Deep Dive into the Dyslexia Diagnosis