## About Brookes Publishing Co.

*The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research*  
Praise for About the Editors  
About the Book  
**The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research**

### Reading Instruction Today

#### Criticism of the National Reading Panel Report

Criticism 1: Some Important Reading Topics Have Been Neglected  
Criticism 2: The Panel Was Too Narrow in Its Research Paradigm  
Criticism 3: The Panel Should Not Have Opposed Encouraging  
Criticism 4: This Wasn’t a Very Good Panel, It Did the Wrong Stuff  
Criticism 5: The National Reading Panel Report is a Fool’s Errand

#### Responses to Criticisms of the NRP Report  
Findings and Responses to the NRP Report  
Further Parameters of Studies Analyzed  
**About the National Reading Panel (NRP)**

### Key Findings

- 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.

### NRP Report

In April 2000, the NRP released its scientific based research focusing on children’s reading development in the age/grade range from preschool to grade 12. The report noted:

- Experimental or quasi-experimental design with a control group.
- Used quantitative data as the sole means of the investigation.
- Studies were subjected to 3 criteria to determine their credibility and worthiness of inclusion in the NRP's report.

## Criticism and Response

### Criticism 1: Some Important Reading Topics Have Been Neglected  
Argument: Important areas related to comprehension, phonics, and fluency were excluded.

### Criticism 2: The Panel Was Too Narrow in Its Research Paradigm  
Argument: Many relevant qualitative studies were not included.

### Criticism 3: The Panel Should Not Have Opposed Qualitative Research  
Argument: There is an important role for qualitative data in educational research.

### Conclusion

The critiques highlight significant gaps and suggest a need for ongoing discussion about the standards and methods used in reading research.