The Article
Professor Michael Pressley argues in this article that the National Reading Panel was too narrow in its presentation of scientifically valid reading instructional research. He presents a number of practices that enjoy scientific support but were ignored by the panel.

Discussion
Pressley points out that the National Reading Panel offered some strong conclusions based on the literature. Most visible was that phonemic awareness instruction is effective in promoting early reading, systematic phonics instruction improves reading and spelling, and guided oral reading and repeated reading of texts increase reading fluency during the elementary years. “In summary, the Panel found much support for skills-based instruction—instructional development of phonemic awareness, phonics competencies, knowledge of vocabulary, and comprehension strategies.” Although Pressley found the NRP findings credible, he argues that it was “unacceptably narrow in its consideration of reading instruction.” He then presents other findings that the NRP could have addressed. He highlights the fact that NRP could have said something about the impact of home experiences on literacy development, and cites studies that have shown that parents can be taught to interact with their children in ways that promote literacy achievement. He notes that the NRP was silent about greater community resources that can promote young children’s literacy, such as volunteers who tutor children in reading, and in doing so, improve early reading skills. Pressley also notes that nothing was mentioned about whole language, “the most persuasive approach to reading instruction in schools in the 1990s. He then cites research in which a whole language approach is appropriate and effective and instances where it is not. “In short, the Panel could have done a great deal of good for educators by attempting to separate out the instructional wheat for the instructional chaff in whole language, for there is both wheat and chaff in what is conventional instruction for many children in American classroom.” He concludes that because there’s more science that should be made available to educators than covered in the NRP, “there is a real need for another document summarizing as completely as possible what is scientifically defensible in beginning reading instruction.’

What It Means To You
What is the breadth of knowledge in your district about effective beginning reading instruction? Do they incorporate new scientific knowledge that is supported by research, or do they include a narrower base of scientific knowledge?

For More Information
Pressley, M. (2002). “Effective beginning reading instruction.” Journal of Literacy Research, 34(2), 165–188.