This article describes how despite the fact that a number of reading programs have satisfied the requirement under the federal reading law for embodying a strong research base, there appeared a limited outside evidence that any of them has produced a conclusive and consistent effect on overall reading achievement. The publishers of each of the top-selling reading programs have made convincing cases for their effectiveness to support their claims. However, despite impressive documentation, it appeared that none of the top commercial series--including Open Court, Houghton Mifflin Reading, Harcourt, Scott Foresman Reading, and Macmillan/McGraw-Hill of New York City, all of which have been accepted for use under the stringent federal Reading First rules--have met what is called the gold standard for research. They did not have randomized studies pitting their products against other methods or materials; the studies they have commissioned have not been published in scholarly journals; and the companies have not documented improvements in student achievement across the range of schools and students.