The Orton-Gillingham 3 part drill explained for parents

Last updated 2026-07-09

What is the Orton-Gillingham 3 part drill?

The 3 part drill is the backbone of every Orton-Gillingham lesson. It is a five-to-ten-minute review routine that runs at the start of a tutoring session and cycles through every phonics concept a student has already been taught. The goal is automaticity. The student should recognize letter-sound correspondences so quickly that decoding stops draining working memory, which leaves more mental room for comprehension.

Orton-Gillingham itself is a structured, explicit, multisensory approach to reading and spelling. Neurologist Samuel Orton and educator Anna Gillingham developed it in the 1930s ^[1]. The Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators (AOGPE) is the main credentialing body in the United States, and their published lesson frameworks all include this drill as a core component.

The three parts map onto three learning pathways.

Part 1 (Visual-Auditory): The teacher shows a letter card face-up. The student sees the letter or grapheme, says the keyword, and gives the sound. Example: the card shows "ai," the student says "rain, /ā/." This drills the reading direction, sound from symbol.

Part 2 (Auditory-Visual): The teacher says a sound. The student writes the letter or grapheme on paper or a whiteboard. Example: the teacher says /ā/, the student writes "a_e" or "ai" depending on which grapheme is being reviewed. This drills the spelling direction, symbol from sound.

Part 3 (Auditory-Visual, naming): The teacher says a sound. The student names the letter or letters that spell it. Same input as Part 2, but the output is oral naming rather than writing. It reinforces the connection from a different angle.

Every part uses a different sensory output. That multisensory design is what the research on memory consolidation supports: varied retrieval practice produces more durable learning than massed review ^[2].

Why does the 3 part drill work? What does the research say?

The drill is not ritual. It applies two of the most replicated findings in cognitive science: spaced retrieval and multisensory encoding.

Spaced retrieval practice means pulling a memory out of storage rather than reading it again. Every time a student correctly retrieves a sound from a flashcard, the memory trace gets stronger. A 2013 review in Psychological Science in the Public Interest ranked practice testing among the most effective study techniques it examined, with retrieval producing large gains over re-reading, roughly d = 0.50 to 0.80 depending on the retention interval ^[2]. The 3 part drill is retrieval practice by design.

Multisensory encoding is the other mechanism. When the brain encodes the same information through several pathways (visual, kinesthetic-motor, auditory), those pathways reinforce each other at recall. Orton's original idea was that students with reading difficulties had weak links between the visual symbol and its phonological representation, and that training those links across modalities would compensate ^[1]. Later structured literacy research supported the practical result, even as the neurological model got refined.

The National Reading Panel's 2000 report to Congress remains the most-cited federal review of reading instruction. It found that systematic phonics instruction produced significant benefits for word reading and spelling compared to unsystematic or no phonics instruction, with effect sizes from d = 0.44 for word reading to d = 0.67 for spelling ^[3]. The 3 part drill is systematic phonics review in its most efficient form.

For students with dyslexia, the International Dyslexia Association's Knowledge and Practice Standards say effective instruction must be explicit, systematic, sequential, cumulative, and multisensory ^[4]. The 3 part drill hits all five in about seven minutes.

Here is the honest limit. Nobody has a large randomized controlled trial on the 3 part drill as an isolated component. What we have is strong evidence for each of its underlying mechanisms, plus decades of practitioner use with positive outcomes. The drill rests on good science even though the sub-component evidence is thinner than the evidence for OG overall.

How is the 3 part drill structured step by step?

Here is a walkthrough you can follow yourself.

Before the session: Pull your deck of phonogram cards. These are the letter-sound correspondences the student has already been taught, nothing new. If a student knows only six concepts (s, a, t, i, p, n), the deck has six cards.

Part 1: Visual-Auditory (reading direction)

Sit across from the student. Hold up each card so the student can see the grapheme. The student: 1. Says the keyword (a picture or word that anchors the sound, like "apple" for short a). 2. Says the sound.

Go through the whole deck. Mark any card the student misses. Missed or slow cards get extra attention in the lesson. The full deck takes two to three minutes once the student knows the routine.

Part 2: Auditory-Visual (spelling direction, written)

Flip the deck face-down or set it aside. Say a sound aloud. The student writes the grapheme on a whiteboard, lined paper, or a tray of sand (the physical writing is part of the multisensory design). Check correctness right away and give the correct form if the student errs. Correct and move on. No long explanation here; that happens in the main lesson.

Cycle through the same set of sounds. Two to three minutes.

Part 3: Auditory-Visual (spelling direction, oral naming)

Same as Part 2, but the student says the letter name or names instead of writing. The teacher says /ā/, the student says a-i. This may feel redundant. It is not. Oral motor output is a distinct retrieval pathway from written motor output.

One to two minutes.

After the drill: Any card that failed in Part 1, or any sound that failed in Parts 2 or 3, gets noted. Those become reinforcement targets in the lesson body. The drill is cumulative, so every concept ever taught stays in the deck until the student shows mastery consistently across multiple sessions.

Total time is five to ten minutes at a relaxed pace, or ten to twelve minutes with a very large deck. If it runs longer, the student probably has too many concepts in review at once, which signals a pacing problem worth fixing.

What materials do you need to run the drill at home?

You need almost nothing. That is the good news.

You need phonogram cards. These are index-card-size cards with the grapheme on one side and a keyword or image on the other. Many OG programs publish their exact card sets. You can also buy printed decks from suppliers like Really Great Reading or make your own with index cards and a marker. A standard deck covers about 70 to 100 phonograms; a beginner's deck may be only 10 to 20 cards.

You need a writing surface for Part 2. A small dry-erase whiteboard works best because it is fast to write on and fast to erase. A sand tray adds a tactile layer. Plain paper works fine.

You need a way to track errors. A sticky note with tally marks does it. Some parents keep a simple spreadsheet with the date and which sounds got missed. That tracking data helps later when you talk to a teacher or tutor about what is clicking and what is not.

You do not need the full OG program to run the drill. If your child's tutor or school uses OG, ask for the specific phonogram sequence and card set they follow so home practice stays in sync with lesson content. Running the drill with a different sequence from the one used at school creates confusion, not help.

If you want a ready-to-use system, the ReadFlare reading toolkit includes printable phonogram card templates and a tracking log that works with any OG-based sequence. A pack of index cards and a black marker gets you started today at zero cost.

If your child is new to all of this and you are not sure why reading is a struggle, a proper dyslexia test or learning disability test is the right first step before you spend money on any program.

How does the drill fit into a full Orton-Gillingham lesson?

The 3 part drill is the warm-up, not the whole workout. A standard OG lesson runs 45 to 60 minutes for one-on-one tutoring, though some school-based sessions run 30 minutes. The drill takes the first five to ten minutes.

After the drill, a typical lesson moves through:

• New concept introduction: One new phonogram or rule, taught explicitly with a keyword and multisensory reinforcement.
• Word reading: The student reads real words and nonsense words with the new concept plus earlier ones.
• Word spelling: The student spells words aloud and writes them.
• Sentence reading and spelling: Words in context.
• Fluency practice: Timed reading of connected text at the right level.
• Optional comprehension work: For more advanced students.

The drill is cumulative across all of these. When the student reads words in the lesson, they are applying what the drill just refreshed. When they spell sentences, they draw on the auditory-visual pathways trained in Parts 2 and 3. Each piece props up the next.

That cumulative design matters legally, too. If your child has an IEP (Individualized Education Program) under IDEA ^[5], and the IEP names structured literacy or OG-based intervention, the 3 part drill is usually what is happening during those service minutes. You have the right to ask the school what the intervention looks like in practice and whether staff deliver it with fidelity to the program's design.

What phonogram cards are used in the Orton-Gillingham 3 part drill?

The cards represent phoneme-grapheme correspondences, the technical term for letter-sound connections. A phonogram is a letter or group of letters that makes a consistent sound. OG programs organize phonograms from simple to complex.

Here is roughly how the sequence builds.

Stage	Phonograms introduced	Example words
Early (consonants + short vowels)	s, a, t, i, p, n, e, o, u	sit, pan, ten
Blends and digraphs	sh, ch, th, wh, bl, cr, st	ship, chin, blend
Long vowel patterns	a_e, ai, ay, ee, ea, oa, ow	cake, rain, boat
R-controlled vowels	ar, er, ir, or, ur	car, bird, hurt
Vowel teams and diphthongs	oi, oy, ou, ow, au, aw	coin, cloud, paw
Advanced patterns	-tion, -sion, -ough, -igh	nation, light

Different OG programs (Wilson Reading System, Barton Reading and Spelling, SPIRE, and others) use slightly different sequences and card designs. The underlying phonogram inventory stays similar across all of them because English phonology does not change.

Each card traditionally has the grapheme on the front (plain letters, no fancy fonts) and a keyword on the back. The keyword is the student's anchor. "Eagle" for the long e sound in "ee," for example. The keyword is a stable image the student can call up even when anxious.

For students with phonological dyslexia or a rapid naming deficit, some cards stick quickly and others take months of repetition. That is normal. The drill is built for exactly that. It keeps the slow-to-stick phonograms in the deck until they are genuinely automatic.

How long does it take for the drill to show results?

Most students show measurable gains in phonics accuracy within 10 to 20 hours of structured instruction. Automaticity, the specific goal of the drill, takes longer.

A 2021 meta-analysis in Annals of Dyslexia reviewed reading interventions for students with dyslexia, including OG-based ones, and reported a mean effect size around d = 0.49 for decoding skills, with larger effects in more intensive programs ^[6]. Intensity matters. Four to five sessions per week produces faster gains than one to two sessions.

Here is what parents typically report and what the clinical picture looks like.

• Weeks 1 to 4: The routine feels slow because the deck is small and the student is learning the ritual itself.
• Weeks 4 to 12: The student starts self-correcting before you point out errors. Part 1 gets faster.
• Months 3 to 6: Part 2 and Part 3 start clicking. Spelling in connected writing begins to reflect the drill work.
• Months 6 to 12 and beyond: Automaticity builds for earlier phonograms while the deck keeps growing with new instruction.

The honest caveat: these timelines assume high-fidelity delivery by a trained practitioner, consistent attendance, and a student without major comorbidities. A student with double deficit dyslexia (weak phonological processing plus slow naming speed) usually needs longer, more intensive intervention. Nobody should promise a parent a six-week fix.

If a student is not progressing after three to four months of consistent intervention, treat that as a signal. Check whether the program is being delivered with fidelity, whether the assessment captured the full picture, and whether the IEP goals reflect realistic benchmarks.

Can parents run the Orton-Gillingham 3 part drill at home?

Yes, with some caveats.

Parents can run the drill at home as a supplement to professional instruction. What you should not do is replace a trained tutor or school-based OG program with home practice alone, especially for a child with diagnosed dyslexia. The drill is a review tool. Without a teacher introducing new concepts in a correct sequence and catching errors before they harden into habits, home-only instruction tends to plateau.

Home practice works well for:

• Reinforcing phonograms a tutor or school program already introduced.
• Adding a third or fourth repetition per week when the student only gets two tutoring sessions.
• Giving the student a taste of fluency and success in a low-pressure setting.

To run it well, you need to know exactly which phonograms have been taught and in what order. Ask the tutor or teacher for the current card set. Some OG programs include parent guides for this. The Wilson Reading System, for example, publishes parent materials that explain what the student is working on each week.

Know your limits. If your child gets distressed or the session turns into a fight, stop. A five-minute successful drill beats a twenty-minute power struggle every time. Some kids genuinely cannot be tutored by their own parents, and that is fine. Recognizing it early saves everyone a lot of grief.

For children whose signs of dyslexia are just emerging and whose schools have not evaluated them yet, home drill work can help, but a formal assessment should come first. IDEA requires schools to evaluate a child suspected of having a disability at no cost to the family ^[5].

The ReadFlare parent advocacy kit includes a sample letter requesting a school evaluation, which families can use alongside these home literacy tools.

How does the 3 part drill connect to IEP services and school rights?

If your child's IEP includes reading intervention, you should know what that intervention actually looks like. Under IDEA, parents have the right to a full explanation of the services their child will receive and the research basis for them ^[5]. Asking "does this program include a structured daily phonics review drill?" is a completely reasonable question at an IEP meeting.

Many schools use OG-based programs (Wilson, Barton, Lindamood-Bell, SPIRE, and others) as their Tier 3 intervention or special education reading service. The 3 part drill is a component of most of them. If your child's IEP names one of these programs and the teacher skips the drill or runs it inconsistently, that is a fidelity issue you can raise.

The IDEA statute (20 U.S.C. § 1414) requires that special education services meet the child's unique needs and that the IEP include measurable annual goals. Phonics automaticity is a measurable skill. You can ask for IEP goals that specify the number of phonogram cards read correctly per minute, or the accuracy rate on Part 2 (spelling from dictation), as progress indicators.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794) also covers many students with reading disabilities who do not qualify for special education. A 504 plan can include accommodations like extended time, but it does not usually mandate a specific intervention program. If your child needs the actual OG drill as an intervention, an IEP is usually the right vehicle.

The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) publishes guidance on what a free appropriate public education (FAPE) means under IDEA ^[5]. If a school is not providing services with fidelity to the program it named in the IEP, that is a potential FAPE violation worth raising with a parent advocate or special education attorney.

Before your next IEP meeting, it helps to understand what a learning disability means both legally and educationally.

What are common mistakes parents and tutors make with the drill?

The drill looks simple. It is simple to describe. Running it well takes more attention than most people expect.

Mistake 1: Moving too fast through new concepts. The drill only works if the student has genuinely learned each phonogram in the deck. If a tutor introduces three new concepts per lesson to cover ground faster, the deck fills with shaky knowledge and Part 1 turns into guessing. OG programs are slow by design. One new concept per lesson, sometimes one every two or three lessons for harder patterns, is standard.

Mistake 2: Correcting errors with a lecture. When a student misses a card in Part 1, tell them the answer, move on, and return to that card at the end of the deck. Long explanations during the drill break the pace and undercut automaticity. Instruction happens in the lesson body, not the drill.

Mistake 3: Skipping Part 2 or Part 3. Parents doing home drill often skip the writing or naming parts because they feel repetitive. They are not. Parts 2 and 3 train the spelling direction of the phoneme-grapheme relationship, which is harder for most students and has the biggest impact on written work.

Mistake 4: Never retiring mastered cards. The deck should grow, but cards should also exit when a phonogram is truly automatic across multiple sessions. A 150-card deck is demoralizing. Work with the tutor to define what "mastered" means (three to five consecutive fast, correct responses is a common benchmark) and pull those cards.

Mistake 5: Skipping the keyword. The keyword is not decoration. For students with weaker phonological memory, it is the retrieval hook. Cutting it to save time removes a scaffold the student may still need.

Mistake 6: Using the drill as the only intervention. The drill is review. It reinforces concepts the student has been taught. Without new instruction and connected reading practice, the drill spins in place.

How does the drill handle sight words and irregular words?

This is a real question, because parents often see sight word lists and OG programs running at the same time and wonder how they fit together.

True OG programs play down pure memorization of sight words as a strategy. For students with dyslexia, whole-word memorization is exactly the approach that fails. Their phonological processing weakness makes it hard to hold arbitrary visual patterns in memory without phonological support.

OG teaches irregular words a different way. The student analyzes the word phoneme by phoneme, identifies which parts are regular and which are irregular ("said" is regular for s, a, d but irregular for the vowel sound), and uses a modified auditory-kinesthetic drill to memorize only the irregular part. Newer programs call this the "heart word" strategy.

The classic Dolch sight words list and similar lists (like first grade sight words) contain many words that are fully decodable once the student knows enough phonics. Those lists were built by frequency, not by irregularity. A student who has learned enough OG phonograms can decode most of the Dolch list without memorizing the words as shapes.

For the genuinely irregular words ("the," "said," "of," "was"), many OG practitioners add a small irregular word deck to the drill. These cards work differently. The student is not asked to produce the sound from symbol rules, but to recognize the word instantly by sight, supported by the phoneme analysis they did when the word was first introduced.

If you use sight word flashcards at home, know this: for a student in an OG program, the most useful move is to keep them in sync with the program's approach to irregular words, not to build a parallel whole-word memorization system.

How do you know if the drill is actually working?

Track two things. Accuracy and speed.

Accuracy in Part 1 is easy to count. Take the number of cards the student gets right on the first attempt against the total in the deck. A student who gets 18 of 20 cards correct in Part 1 is at 90 percent accuracy. That number should trend up over weeks.

Speed matters because automaticity, more than accuracy, is the goal. A student who gets every card right but takes three seconds per card has not reached automaticity. Most practitioners aim for roughly one-second-per-card responses in Part 1 for a practiced phonogram. You do not need a stopwatch. You develop a feel for it.

For Part 2, count correct grapheme spellings. For Part 3, count correct oral naming responses. Any phonogram with more than one error across two consecutive sessions should stay in the deck and get flagged for review in the lesson.

Progress monitoring should also happen at the program level. Standardized measures like the DIBELS benchmark assessments ^[7] or curriculum-based nonsense word fluency probes give you a more objective view of whether the phonics knowledge from the drill transfers to real reading. Ask the school or tutor to share these scores at least every six to eight weeks.

Here is a clean rule. If scores are flat after eight to twelve weeks of consistent intervention, bring that data to an IEP meeting. Flat progress is an objective signal that something in the intervention needs to change: frequency, intensity, or approach.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Part 2 and Part 3 in the OG 3 part drill?

Part 2 and Part 3 both start the same way: the teacher says a sound. In Part 2, the student writes the grapheme on paper or a whiteboard. In Part 3, the student says the letter name or names aloud. The difference is the output channel. Writing activates motor memory; oral naming activates verbal memory. Both are needed because spelling in writing and spelling aloud draw on overlapping but different retrieval pathways.

How many phonogram cards should be in the drill deck at once?

Most practitioners keep the active deck at 20 to 50 cards for students in the early to middle stages of an OG program. A deck under 15 cards may not give enough varied retrieval practice. A deck over 80 cards makes the drill too long and discouraging. Cards exit when a student shows consistently fast, accurate responses across three to five sessions. Ask your child's tutor about their specific retirement criteria.

Can the Orton-Gillingham 3 part drill be done in a group or classroom setting?

Yes, with modifications. Small groups of two to four students can share Part 1 by responding in unison, which gives the teacher a quick read on who knows what. Parts 2 and 3 work in groups if each student has a personal whiteboard. Larger classroom OG-based programs like RAVE-O or some Wilson adaptations include group drill formats. Individual response data is harder to capture in groups, so the teacher must circulate and observe.

Is the Orton-Gillingham 3 part drill only for students with dyslexia?

No. The drill works for any student who needs systematic phonics instruction. It is used with students who have dyslexia, other language-based learning disabilities, students learning English as a second language, and students who simply missed phonics instruction in early grades. The underlying mechanism, spaced retrieval of phoneme-grapheme correspondences, helps developing readers broadly, not only those with identified disabilities.

What is a keyword in the OG drill and why does it matter?

A keyword is a word or image tied to a phonogram card that anchors the sound in memory. For the card showing 'sh,' a common keyword is 'ship.' When a student sees the card, they say 'ship, /sh/.' The keyword creates an extra memory hook, especially useful for students whose phonological processing is weak. Without it, some students guess sounds rather than retrieving them. The keyword is part of the card's design and should stay consistent across sessions.

How does the Orton-Gillingham 3 part drill differ from just using flashcards?

Plain flashcard practice usually goes one direction: see the card, say the answer. The OG 3 part drill trains both directions of the phoneme-grapheme relationship (reading and spelling) plus oral naming, using a different sensory output for each. It also requires writing in Part 2, which adds motor-kinesthetic encoding. Ordinary flashcard review skips the spelling direction and the kinesthetic component, both of which are important for students with dyslexia.

My child's school says they use Orton-Gillingham but I've never heard of the 3 part drill. What should I ask?

Ask the intervention teacher to describe what happens in the first five to ten minutes of a typical session. A genuine OG-based program has a structured phonogram review with visual and auditory parts. You can also ask to observe a session, which is your right as a parent under IDEA. If the answer is vague or the teacher cannot describe a structured review routine, ask what program materials they follow and whether they have training in that program.

How often should a child do the 3 part drill to see progress?

Research on structured literacy shows four to five sessions per week produces meaningfully faster gains than one to two. The 3 part drill should open every OG lesson. If your child gets two tutoring sessions per week at school, adding two to three brief home drill sessions with the same card set can approximate the frequency that produces better outcomes. Consistency matters more than the length of any single session.

Does the 3 part drill help with reading fluency or just decoding accuracy?

Both, through different paths. Accuracy comes first: the student learns to reliably produce the correct sound for each grapheme. Automaticity, the speed part, follows with repetition. Once phoneme-grapheme connections are automatic, the student does not have to consciously work out sounds while reading, which frees up capacity for fluency and comprehension. The drill is necessary but not sufficient for fluency; timed reading of connected text is also required.

What OG programs include the 3 part drill?

Wilson Reading System, Barton Reading and Spelling System, SPIRE (Specialized Program Individualizing Reading Excellence), the Sonday System, and structured OG tutoring following AOGPE guidelines all include the 3 part drill or a direct equivalent. Programs derived from OG, like the Lindamood-Bell LiPS program, use different terminology but include analogous multisensory review routines at the start of each lesson.

Can the 3 part drill help a child who is struggling with spelling specifically?

Yes. Parts 2 and 3 train the auditory-to-symbol direction that spelling requires. Students who can read words but not spell them have weak phoneme-to-grapheme mappings, the precise pathway those parts strengthen. Many practitioners use the Part 2 error rate as the main indicator of spelling readiness, since writing the correct grapheme from a dictated sound is essentially the same task as spelling a word from memory.

Is Orton-Gillingham the same as structured literacy?

Not exactly. Structured literacy is the broader term for any reading approach that is explicit, systematic, sequential, phonics-based, and multisensory. OG is one specific method within it. Programs like Wilson, Barton, and SPIRE are also structured literacy approaches. The 3 part drill is an OG-specific structure, though analogous review routines appear in other structured literacy programs. The International Dyslexia Association coined the term 'structured literacy' to name the category.

At what age can a child start using the OG 3 part drill?

Most OG practitioners begin instruction with children around age five to six, once they have enough phonemic awareness to connect sounds to symbols. There is no hard upper age limit; OG-based programs are used with adults learning to read. The drill adapts to the learner's current phonogram deck, so it works at any age or stage. Younger children may need shorter sessions and a smaller deck to start.

Does the 3 part drill work for students with surface dyslexia or deep dyslexia?

For surface dyslexia, where students over-rely on letter-by-letter decoding and struggle with irregular words, the drill helps automate regular phoneme-grapheme correspondences and can free up attention for irregular word strategies. For deep dyslexia, which involves semantic errors and significant neurological differences, OG-based approaches are less well studied and students may need more specialized programming. A full psychoeducational evaluation should guide the approach.

Sources

1. Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators (AOGPE): OG is a structured, explicit, multisensory approach to reading and spelling developed by Samuel Orton and Anna Gillingham; AOGPE is the main credentialing body.
2. Dunlosky et al., 'Improving Students' Learning With Effective Learning Techniques,' Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2013: Practice testing (retrieval practice) ranked among the most effective study techniques, producing large gains over re-reading, roughly d = 0.50 to 0.80 depending on retention interval.
3. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Report of the National Reading Panel (2000): Systematic phonics instruction produced significant benefits for word reading (d = 0.44) and spelling (d = 0.67) compared to unsystematic or no phonics instruction.
4. International Dyslexia Association, Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading: Effective reading instruction for dyslexia must be explicit, systematic, sequential, cumulative, and multisensory.
5. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1414, U.S. Department of Education: IDEA requires schools to evaluate a child suspected of having a disability at no cost to the family and to provide services designed to meet the child's unique needs with measurable annual goals; OSEP publishes FAPE guidance.
6. Stevens et al., 'A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Reading Interventions for Students with Dyslexia,' Annals of Dyslexia, 2021: Reading interventions for students with dyslexia, including OG-based programs, produced a mean effect size around d = 0.49 for decoding skills, with larger effects in more intensive programs.
7. University of Oregon, DIBELS: DIBELS nonsense word fluency measures provide standardized progress monitoring of phonics automaticity for early readers.
8. International Dyslexia Association, Structured Literacy fact sheet: IDA coined the term 'structured literacy' to describe the category of approaches that are explicit, systematic, and multisensory, of which OG is one specific method.
9. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794: Section 504 applies to many students with reading disabilities who do not qualify for special education and can include accommodations, though it does not typically mandate a specific intervention program.
10. What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences: The What Works Clearinghouse reviews reading interventions, including OG-based programs like the Wilson Reading System, for evidence of effectiveness.