This discussion is an important one – don’t get me wrong. But we need to put things in perspective. Just because you and I both wear size 8 C shoes doesn’t mean that the same style will be comfortable for both of us. It’s the same with learning. One size fits all just doesn’t work. The diehards who sing the praises of Orton-Gillingham don’t want to listen to the way in which other programs (Wilson’s, TouchPhonics, etc.) can make a difference. In order to see success with any child we need to address his unique needs (as per the definition of Special Education in IDEIA). That means finding the pieces of each program that work for that particular child and using those elements to develop a unique program.
The Cognitive areas that are developed through Arrowsmith will undoubtedly help a child move along in his learning. But that alone, especially when we are talking about several years, is not enough. Yes, it is true that some children who have gone through special education programs have not found high schools, but let’s ask ourselves a question. When did these students begin to receive the intense remediation found in a self-contained program? Did they start in first grade or in fifth? Was the program appropriate to begin with? Maybe the child isn’t functioning at a level that would allow him to master academic material. Why not look into vision therapy? It helps hundreds of children with severe learning issues. That is another alternative. I hate to say it, but First Timer isn’t giving us an objective look at this program. It behooves every parent to reading the information for himself and then look into the program – taking into consideration the expense and the time investment. And while the child is learning these skills – what is happening to academics? Don’t write off self-contained programs. They are not band-aids. Just make sure that the program has developed a unique plan for your child, and then make them stick to it.