The two smallest classroom standard deviations were 1.0 and 4.9 for Implicit Code, as compared to 2.6 and 4.8 for Embedded Code, and 4.8 and 5.8 for Direct Code. We disagree with his emphasis on school means over classroom means. But given his desire to focus on school means, we note his failure to emphasize the differences in outcomes in the one school where both Direct Code and Implicit Code were used. Specifically, in that one school, the two Direct Code classrooms had a combined average of 100.4 in Grade 1, whereas the two Implicit Code classrooms had a combined average of 93.4. In Grade 2, the combined average for the two Implicit Code classrooms was 95.8 as compared to 93.3 for the two Direct Code classrooms.
Coles misrepresents the word reading differences as levels of attainment rather than rate.
This rate estimate has been miscontrued by Coles and by others. We have emphasized that one cannot interpret this measure in an absolute sense, but only as it relates to the experimental word list used in the study. It is, however, perfectly legitimate to compare this rate to the mean rates of growth observed in the other instructional groups. The results speak for themselves in showing that many children in the Implicit Code and Embedded Code groups do not change over the year. Coles misrepresents the pre-publication history of the 1998 JEP article.