By Karla O’Brien

In today’s educational landscape, terms like “OG trained,” “Science of Reading-aligned,” and “OG certified” are often used interchangeably, but they actually represent different levels of training, instructional depth, and teacher preparedness. For educators, parents, and administrators committed to effective literacy instruction, it’s important to understand what each term truly means, and why it matters.

Orton-Gillingham: A Proven, Structured Approach

Long before the Science of Reading gained widespread recognition, the Orton-Gillingham (OG) approach was already putting its core principles into practice. Developed by Dr. Samuel Orton and educator Anna Gillingham in the early 20th century, the Orton-Gillingham approach was the first structured literacy methodology rooted in scientific understanding of how the brain learns to read.

Dr. Sally Shaywitz, a renowned neuroscientist and leading authority on dyslexia, has long advocated for evidence-based reading instruction rooted in scientific research. In her book Overcoming Dyslexia, she emphasizes the urgency of implementing proven approaches, stating:

“There is an epidemic of reading failure that we have the scientific evidence to treat effectively and we are not acknowledging or implementing it.”

While she does not specifically reference certification in the Orton-Gillingham approach, her message is clear: effective intervention depends on well-trained educators who understand and can faithfully deliver structured literacy instruction. Certification in an OG approach ensures that educators are not just aware of best practices, they are equipped to implement them with the precision, pacing, and sensitivity required to truly support students with dyslexia.

OG Trained vs. OG Certified: What’s the Difference?

Many educators are introduced to OG principles through workshops, seminars, or short courses. This is often referred to as being “OG trained.” These experiences provide valuable knowledge about structured literacy concepts but can vary significantly in length and depth, from a single-day overview to several weeks or even months of instruction. Without standardized expectations, the term “OG trained” can mean many things.

OG certification, on the other hand, represents a rigorous and well-defined process. It typically involves:

• Comprehensive coursework in English language structure: phonology, orthography, morphology, syllable types, syllabication, and syntax.

• A 1:1 supervised practicum, where an experienced mentor observes, coaches, and provides feedback on live lessons.

• Performance-based assessments to verify an educator can deliver instruction with fidelity, diagnostic responsiveness, and appropriate pacing.

Why Certification Matters

The true difference lies in the teacher. A certified educator doesn’t just follow a script, they understand the why behind every instructional move. They can:

• Pace lessons responsively, knowing when to advance and when to slow down to secure mastery, which builds confidence and prevents frustration.

• Identify when a student’s struggle signals the need for immediate review or reteaching.

• Provide sensitive, effective error correction, replacing errors with accurate responses while maintaining a positive learning environment.

• Use data-driven review to ensure skills are retained and generalized.

Certified teachers know that how an error is corrected matters as much as correcting it. They use brief, clear, and consistent routines and strategies to replace incorrect responses with accurate ones, always reinforcing the skill without shaming the student. This preserves motivation and ensures each correction is an opportunity for success.

Why a Supervised Practicum Is Non-Negotiable

Gaining expertise in English language structure is essential,  but mastery requires practice with coaching. A 1:1 supervised practicum ensures educators can:

• Apply language knowledge in real time to diagnose patterns and choose the right next step.

• Deliver lessons with fidelity while adapting based on individual student responses.

• Correct errors precisely and compassionately to reinforce accurate pathways.

• Maintain effective pacing, moving quickly enough to keep momentum, slowly enough to secure mastery.

• Collect, interpret, and act on ongoing data to drive review and long-term retention.

This mentored, performance-based experience is what elevates an educator from “knows the principles” to can consistently produce results for students with dyslexia.

Making the Choice

If you’re an educator seeking to strengthen your impact or a parent looking for effective support for your child, understanding the difference between OG trained and OG certified is crucial. Programs and tools are only as effective as the people using them. While OG training introduces foundational principles, OG certification ensures the mastery and application of those principles through deep study, mentorship, and guided practice.

There are many excellent certification programs available, each with its own strengths. The most important step is selecting a program that aligns with your values, instructional goals, and the specific needs of your students.

The Slant System™ is one such option, grounded in research, aligned with the Science of Reading, and designed to equip educators with the knowledge and tools they need to transform literacy outcomes. It has undergone rigorous review and aligns with the Knowledge and Practice Standards set forth by the International Dyslexia Association (IDA), giving it a high level of credibility and assurance that it meets the needs of students with dyslexia and other reading challenges.

Ultimately, the goal is not just to expose students to reading strategies, but to ensure they become confident, skilled, and independent readers. And that begins with a teacher who is not just trained, but certified.

Learn about Slant System™ training and certification pathways here!

References

• Ehri, L. C. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 135-154). Blackwell.
• National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
• Shaywitz, S. E. (2020). Overcoming dyslexia: Second edition. Knopf.
• Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Lessons learned from research on interventions for students who have difficulty learning to read. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 355–382). Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.