Did I say that free reading is better than instruction? I actually concluded that it was at least as good and often better than "regular" instruction, the instruction provided to comparison groups in the studies, which is generally instruction based on skill-building. Shanahan’s interpretation of my position can be interpreted as saying that I am opposed to all instruction, which is false.

Similarly, According to Shanahan (p. 246) I claim that "teachers prefer just having students read instead of teaching them ...". I did not say that. I said teachers prefer free reading to what usually goes on in language arts and reading classes, i.e. regular instruction.

Shanahan refers to the comparison groups in these studies as utilizing "some impoverished form of teaching, e.g. just assigning random worksheets" (p. 246). I think it is highly likely that skill-building was involved in the comparison groups, but there is no evidence that the worst of these classes were selected to serve as comparisons in these studies, as Shanahan suggests.

WHAT "NO DIFFERENCE" MEANS

Many studies comparing in-school reading to regular instruction show no difference in gains in reading comprehension between the two groups. For Shanahan, a finding of "no difference" between in-school free reading programs and comparison groups is "uninformative," because the failure to find a difference could be due to factors other than the efficacy of one of the treatments, e.g. poor application, not enough of a treatment, etc.. I agree that such factors can play a role, but such results are an invitation to closer analysis. What is interesting is that studies that do show a difference consistently show the same results. This is true in my analysis, in which I found negative results (in-school free reading worse) in only three comparisons out of 53, and in the National Reading Panel report, which found no negative studies.

I have concluded that long-term studies are more likely to show positive results, results in favor of in-school reading. Findings of "no difference" are more common in short-term studies. Thus, Shanahan may be correct in suggesting that not enough of a treatment is the problem: The "no difference" result in some studies appears to be due to not providing enough reading. The NRP did not consider any studies lasting longer than one academic year, nor did they consider the possibility that length of treatment may be a factor.

This generalization makes sense. Some in-school reading programs are very short, as short as two months or ten weeks. I have seen SSR programs and I now know what most teachers know: The first few weeks there is little reading going on – children haven’t found a good book yet.

Another reason, as mentioned earlier, is that subjects in some studies were already avid readers; in-school reading programs are, it is predicted, of greatest benefit to less mature readers, to provide reading exposure and to get them interested in reading.

2