A response to recent reanalyses of the National Reading Panel report: Effects of systematic phonics instruction are practically significant

Karla K. Stuebing, Amy E. Barth, Paul T. Cirino, David J. Francis, Jack M. Fletcher2008Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 123–134

We checked this card's citation and the finding we state against the source's own page or record in October 2026.

What it found

Re-analyzing the National Reading Panel's phonics studies with the coding its critics used, the authors found small to moderate effects favoring systematic phonics, consistent with the panel. The largest effects came when phonics sat inside more comprehensive, more intensive reading instruction, and effects of that size can matter for many struggling readers.

What kind of study it is

Design: Meta-analysis
Weight: A synthesis: it pools or weighs many studies, so it carries the most weight on the evidence meter.
Who: School-age children (K–12)
Limits: Part of a published exchange: the critics replied (Camilli, Kim and Vargas, 2008) and the disagreement about the size of the effect, and what it should be compared with, continues.

Read it

doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.123 · ERIC record EJ787148

We link to the source and summarize it in our own words. We don't host or copy papers.

Cited in the Library

Cite this study

Stuebing, K. K., Barth, A. E., Cirino, P. T., Francis, D. J., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). A response to recent reanalyses of the National Reading Panel report: Effects of systematic phonics instruction are practically significant. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.123

Checked against the source in October 2026. All studies · How we rate the evidence · Something wrong? Tell us.