Why I Switched from EBLI back to Orton-Gillingham for Dyslexia Tutoring

My Initial Experience with EBLI

Two years ago, I became certified in EBLI (Evidence Based Literacy Instruction), and at first, it seemed like a breakthrough. I moved all of my students to the EBLI reading program and saw initial successes — they could read passages fluently and seemed confident. I thought EBLI was the method that would help all learners thrive.

But over time, a pattern emerged. Many students finished EBLI tutoring still struggling to decode individual words, especially multisyllabic words. Even those who excelled often couldn’t read certain words correctly on their own. Their spelling didn’t improve, and they didn’t understand syllable division or why vowels were short or long. I did authentic lesson after authentic lesson with no measurable improvement.

Questioning Myself: Was It Me?

At first, I wondered if the problem was me. I submitted a video lesson to EBLI and received excellent feedback. I rewatched training videos and taught to fidelity. Yet, despite decades of teaching reading — since 1993 — I couldn’t achieve lasting results for my dyslexic students.

I’ve had dozens of students complete Orton-Gillingham and Wilson tutoring with amazing success. I've taught hundreds of first and second graders to read. If I can’t get EBLI to work with my dyslexic students, is it me, or the program?

A Personal Reflection: My Son and Phono-Graphix

This isn’t the first time I’ve struggled with this method. Back in the 1990s, I read Dianne McGuinness’ book Why Our Children Can't Read and What We Can Do About It. EBLI is based on Phono-Graphix, which comes from that book. I tried it with my own son, who has dyslexia. He was eight at the time.

I followed everything the book said — exactly as instructed — and saw no results. I eventually switched to Orton-Gillingham structured literacy instruction, and only then did he finally learn to read and spell. Maybe it’s just me. But the truth is, EBLI didn’t work for my dyslexic son 20 years ago, and it hasn’t worked for my dyslexic students now.

Looking at the Evidence

I’ve read many articles praising EBLI, though most come directly from the program itself. Then I found a research study by Brian Jacobs, “When Evidence Is Not Enough: Findings from a Randomized Evaluation of Evidence-Based Literacy Instruction (EBLI),” which concluded:

“This experimental evaluation finds that the Evidence-Based Literacy Instruction (EBLI) program had no significant impact on student reading performance.”

This made me pause — maybe my experience wasn’t unique. I have truly thought I must be crazy because everyone sings the praises of EBLI.

Why I Prefer Orton-Gillingham for Dyslexia

For me, lasting results in reading and spelling are what matter — not a quick fix. Orton-Gillingham and Wilson provide:

• Explicit phonics instruction

• Structured repetition

• Multisensory reading practice

• Instruction in syllable types, decoding, and spelling patterns

  
  

This is exactly what students with dyslexia need. While I still use EBLI strategies with neurotypical students, for dyslexia, structured literacy and explicit instruction are essential. I think the thing that makes the difference is that EBLI relies on statistical learning, but that doesn't work for people with dyslexia. This study from 2019 found that "Statistical learning (SL) difficulties have been suggested to contribute to the linguistic and non-linguistic problems observed in children with dyslexia".

Please don't think I'm bashing EBLI...I'm not! I love so much about it! It just doesn't work for my dyslexic students. I am grateful we live in a world where people can use the program that best suits their child. What a blessing to have so many avenues available to us!

Lessons Learned: Tailoring Instruction Matters

No single program works for every learner. Understanding your students’ needs and tailoring reading intervention accordingly is what truly builds lasting reading mastery. The key takeaway for me is that my job is to teach the child in front of me, using whatever tools and curriculum is available to me. The child is at the center of everything, not the name on the instruction manual.

For students with dyslexia, quick fixes rarely work. Programs like Wilson are Orton-Gillingham based, with explicit, systematic, multisensory instruction, provide the skills that last — decoding, spelling, and independent reading.

The most important lesson is this: the method is only as effective as the match between the instruction and the learner. Structured, explicit, and multisensory approaches remain the most reliable path for helping students with dyslexia develop strong, independent reading skills.