Based on an unpublished chart by Elaine Garan, author of Resisting Reading
Mandates. Used by permission. The proportions of subgroups in these graphs
do not necessarily correlate with the proportions in any particular state
or local group.
-----Groups of gifted students were not compared in the NRP analysis.
2. ESL (ELL) GROUPS
-----ELL (ESL) groups were not compared: The panel also did not
address issues relevant to second language learning (Summary
booklet, p. 3).
3. NORMALLY DEVELOPING READERS IN GRADES 2-6, AS WELL AS KINDERGARTEN
-----78% of the comparisons for the grade 2-6 group involved either low-achieving
or disabled readers (Report of the Subgroups, p. 2-152). There
were insufficient data [only eight studies] to draw any conclusions about
the effects of phonics instruction with normally developing readers above
first grade (Report of the Subgroups, p. 2-108).
-- ---Six of the seven comparisons for kindergarten were based on at
risk children; obviously there were insufficient data for comparisons
on normally progressing kindergarteners as well as for students in grades
2-6 (Subgroups, Appendix E, pp. 2-151 and 2-152).
4. LOW-ACHIEVING READERS IN GRADES 2, 3, 4, 5, 6:
-----No conclusions can be drawn from low-achieving readers
in grades 2-6, because there were too few studies (only eight) to insure
reliability (e.g. p. 2-152; see also pp. 2-108 and 2-109).
-----Among the poorer readers, only the subgroup considered disabled
showed better resultsfor systematic phonics than for other kinds of phonics
instruction or for NO phonics.
Disabled readers were defined as students of average intelligence
or above who were reading below average (not reading at least at
grade level, a misleading term for the statistical mean).
Low-achieving readers were defined as those of lower than
average intelligence who were reading below average (below grade