The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research

Reading Instruction Today

Criticism 5: The National Reading Panel Report is a Fool’s Errand

—Dr. G. Reid Lyon

1. Criticism 1: Some Important Reading Topics Have Been Neglected
2. Criticism 2: The Panel Was Too Narrow in Its Research Paradigm
3. Criticism 3: The Panel Should Not Have Opposed Encouraging
4. Criticism 4: This Wasn’t a Very Good Panel, It Did the Wrong Stuff

Responses to Criticisms of the NRP Report

• Research could provide valuable direction toward improving childhood reading instruction.
• Schools should try to improve children's reading abilities and close the achievement gap between rich and poor, black and white, and other social, cultural, and economical distinctions.
• Research evidence had to be analyzed in a manner consistent with the highest standards for research synthesis to limit the influence of personal belief, self-interest, and other biasing factors.

About the National Reading Panel (NRP)

The panel was founded at the request of Congress, composed of a 14-member board including prominent scientists, university professors, educational administrators, reading teachers, and parents. The NRP's focus included:

• Phonemic awareness
• Phonics
• Oral reading fluency
• Vocabulary
• Comprehension

Methodological Overview

• Studies were subjected to three criteria to determine their credibility and worthiness of inclusion in the NRP Report.
• Characteristics of study participants included age, demographics, and other variables.
• Nature of the outcome measures and whether they were described fully was assessed.
• Study methods were examined for sufficient detail to allow judgments on replicability and outcomes.

Findings and Responses to the NRP Report

• The NRP emphasized the importance of effective phonics instruction for early reading skills.
• Qualitative research, while useful, was not the sole focus; quantitative data was used to measure effectiveness.

Criticism Overview

• Criticisms mainly focused on the perceived limitations of the NRP's research approach, specifically its narrow scope and exclusion of significant reading instruction topics.
• Critics argued that the panel's decisions were influenced by external biases and failed to address a broader range of educational issues.

About the Editors

• Peggy McCardle, Ph.D., M.P.H. - Research Scientist, NICHD.
• V. Chhabra, M.Ed. - Expert in reading disabilities and program coordination.

About the Book

This book provides educators with clear, detailed information on current legislation and research in reading instruction, aiding in better understanding and application of educational policies.

Endorsements

• It presents a comprehensive synthesis of information about scientifically valid educational practices, making it essential reading for all professionals involved in education.