Based on an unpublished chart by Elaine Garan, author of Resisting Reading Mandates.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.

1.GIFTED STUDENTS
-----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 level”).