Introduction:
Some Comments of a Report by C. Torgerson, G. Brooks, and J. Hall titled  A Systematic Review of the Research Literature on the Use of Phonics in the Teaching of Reading and Spelling.
Diane McGuinness
Recently, basic-skills website featured a summary of a review of the reading research by Torgerson et al (Research Report no. 711). The 85 page document is linked to this summary. It is, in effect, purported to be a reworking of the National Reading Panel s report in the US (2000), or more accurately, the reading committee chair s report of the same data (Ehri et al, 2001).
This report was commissioned by the DfES and funded by them. The committee, headed by Professor Greg Brooks, was  supported and advised  at  each stage of the review with helpful comments and suggestions.  This is a dense document, with numerous tables and appendices, arcane discussions of statistical minutiae and issues regarding experimental design, etc., all to the end (it appears) of drawing a vague set of conclusions which lead the reader to believe that synthetic phonics programmes have not been proven to be effective beyond other methods by any margin sufficient to be trustworthy.
The reality is, that every statement under the heading  key findings  is incorrect or seriously compromised by the true facts.
Conclusion:
Later, they state that the studies screened into their database are either those which compare systematic phonics versus unsystematic/or no phonics, or synthetic phonics compared with analytic phonics. The only study reported that fits the latter category is the study by Johnston and Watson.
In conclusion, this paper shares the same major flaws as the NRP and a lot more besides. Mixing remedial and classroom programmes is invalid on a number of grounds. The reduced data set, which tossed out a number of very good studies indeed (i.e. Stuart s dockland study using Jolly Phonics is but one) is scarcely an improvement on the NRP report, or on its thoroughness and detail, which allows others to use the data more effectively.
When the data are assessed appropriately, the reading programmes that best fit the prototype, that fall most clearly within the ideal of the synthetic phonics programme that focus exclusively at the level of the phoneme and no other, larger units, is highly successful for beginning readers. The evidence is clear, robust, and comprehensive enough for this fact to be recognized.
The next stage of research needs to be focused on fine-tuning these outstanding programmes. We certainly do not need more mock research papers designed to prove their ineffectiveness.