Excerpted from THE ASHA LEADER, April 15, 2008 , page 2, Readers Respond:

Connecting Speech and Literacy

In her letter ( March 4, 2008 ), Christine McGrath presented an excellent case for why SLPs should not be expected to provide literacy instruction. I suggest Orton-Gillingham (O-G) training should be part of every SLPs professional preparation and that the CCC requirements be revised to include evidence of O-G competency.

My first graduate school research paper in 1968 was on the relationship between articulation/language problems and later difficulties in learning to read. Perhaps my experiences with dyslexia intuitively put me on that path. In 1985 my edited book, Communication Skills and Classroom Success , was published as I continued to research oral/written language connections. Unfortunately, it was not until 1997 that I enrolled in O-G programs (Spalding and Wilson). These were breakthrough experiences; there is a natural connection between speech and reading. I was also reminded why I had flunked phonics in grade 1, learned to decode by grade 3 through a look-say approach, but never learned sound/symbol relationships or how to systematically decode long words until 1997.

SLPs can be critical partners in a school's use of the responsiveness to intervention (RTI) model. Here, children at risk for literacy problems are taught to break apart and manipulate the sounds in words and learn that sounds are represented by alphabet letters that can be blended to form words. Why can't we use O-G methods while teaching articulation and language skills? As Christine suggests, however, we need to show that our CCC stamp includes literacy credentials.

Charlann S. Simon
Tempe , Ariz.
communicog@msn.com

(Used by permission)