By Louise Spear-Sperling

I would like to make three relatively brief points about Gerald Coles’s reply to my review of his book Misreading Reading. First, Coles complains that I have not accurately represented the purposes of his book. That his book was intended to be a critique of NICHD research and its use in shaping reading policy was quite clear to me, and also should be clear to readers of my review. However, this is not the sole purpose of the book, as is evident from its back cover, which claims that Misreading Reading is "an opportunity to enact early reading policy and legislation based on ‘good science.’" It is therefore bewildering that Coles says almost nothing about what constitutes "good science," and even less about precisely what educators should do to meet the needs of children who have reading problems, in either his book or his reply to my review.

Nevertheless, as I suggested in my review, an examination of how political influences shape reading instruction is a worthy topic for a book. A constructive, impartial, thoughtful critique of research in reading, and its possible misapplication in education and educational policy, could make a genuine contribution to the field. I wish Coles had written such a critique.

Second, Coles is correct that I omitted many details from my review. These details include his apparent change of heart regarding phonics instruction, as well as his mention of the Wagner, Torgesen, and Rashotte (1994) study on p. 49. (The latter comes up in Misreading Reading only as a brief quotation, used once again in a misleading manner---its findings are not "discussed" in any meaningful sense by Coles.) I also omitted other details not mentioned in Coles’s reply, such as Barbara Foorman’s convincing rebuttal of his analysis of her and her colleagues’ study, which interested readers may find at . My reason for omitting these details was straightforward; I had already written a very lengthy review, and I didn’t want to end up with a review that was longer than Misreading Reading.

Finally, as to the issue of misrepresenting research findings, I would merely urge interested readers not to rely on Coles’s interpretations of various studies---or my interpretations, for that matter. Rather, readers should look for themselves at a wide range of the primary studies cited in the Coles book and in my review. Those who do so will not find it difficult to decide who is representing research findings accurately.