National Reading Panel (NRP) - About the NRP - October 19, 1998 Panel Meeting

The National Reading Panel subgroup chairs met in Washington, DC on Monday, October 19 at the Wyndham Bristol Hotel.

The meeting was started by Linnea Ehri at 8:35 a.m.

Panelists attending were Donald Langenberg, Ehri, Michael Kamil, Cora Marrett, S.J. Samuels, and Timothy Shanahan.

Dr. Ehri was first to present to the subgroup chairs. She offered a proposal that reflected her understanding of the consensus reached by the Panel to date. She noted that the subgroups have already been asked to identify a list of approaches used in teaching and the findings or claims used to support them.

The purpose of the subgroup meetings, as described by Ehri, was to review the current status of the research review methodology to which Panel members had agreed, identify which methodologies the Panel still need to reach agreement on, and share this list of approaches and questions with each of the subgroups. The goal is to seek concurrence of the full Panel membership in November.

Dr. Kamil, noting what he perceived as an absence of consensus, proposed some reorganization of the Panel’s work. He said that the Comprehension Subgroup had spent several days discussing his proposal, noting that Sally Shaywitz had joined the subgroup in its discussions.

Kamil said that one of the problems facing the Panel is that there are two types of subgroups – most with a very narrow focus and one with a broad focus (comprehension). The problem this structure presents is that it eliminates a whole series of issues in reading instruction because they don’t fit into one of the identified subgroups.

He said that given the time extension of the Panel’s work (until January 2000), the group now has an opportunity to ensure that the subgroups reflect all significant areas of reading instruction. It was noted that the original subgroups were selected based on the National Research Council report, and that those selections were not uniformly agreed to.

He proposed restructuring the committees into three broad areas – decoding, comprehension and teachers. Decoding would be comprised of the Alphabetics and Fluency Subgroups. Comprehension would remain the same. The Teachers Subgroup would examine issues related to teachers, materials and techniques—and would include the issues under consideration by the existing Technology, Professional Development, and Second Language subgroups.

During a discussion of the two proposals, attendees talked about the ultimate target audiences for the Panel’s findings. These audiences include policy makers at federal, state, and local levels; those who develop textbooks and instructional materials; institutions of higher learning; and the media. While Panel members recognized the dangers of overpromising or trying to accomplish too much in one report, they did express understanding of the broad audiences awaiting their findings.

Members also discussed how much more can be studied now that the time frame for the Panel had been extended by 14 months. It was agreed that some of the subgroups – specifically Alphabetics and Fluency – have made significant progress to date.

Dr. Langenberg suggested that the Panel needs to think of its task as providing a map on the learning of reading. Certain areas in which the research is weak would still be noted in the report, but their "terrain" could not be identified.

Dr. Duane Alexander, director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), joined the meeting at the end of this discussion.

The meeting recessed from 10:05 a.m. to 10:22 a.m.

Following the recess, Dr. Langenberg offered a summary of the morning’s work to Dr. Alexander for his input (which follows).

The subgroup chairs all agreed that subgroup results already in hand constitute an essential and substantial foundation for an expanded effort. While the idea of renaming and regrouping the subgroups was discussed, it seemed that most subgroup chairs preferred to continue moving ahead in the identified areas. If one or more subgroups essentially complete their work on their original topics, their members might be reassigned to other subgroups to address original topics.

The Panel should begin to expand the number of topics it will address. Each of the existing subgroups should develop a list of candidate topics. The list should not be an all-inclusive menu, but should include perhaps a half dozen to a dozen topics that the members of each subgroup believe are among the most important to address. Then the full Panel will merge and prioritize the lists, using a single priority criterion—relevance to instruction.

Some of the candidate topics for the priority list may not have a corresponding research literature of sufficient magnitude or quality to permit reaching reportable conclusions. But such topics should not be omitted from the priority list. The absence of an adequate relevant research base then becomes a useful and important observation to include in the Panel’s final report.

Once the Panel has agreed on a topic priority list, it can then determine whether there needs to be any further restructuring of the subgroups, either immediately or after the existing subgroups have completed their present agendas.

Alexander said he was encouraged and impressed by what the Panel has accomplished so far. He said the methodology developed for the literature analysis is a major contribution to the field. He also commended the Panel for its chosen emphasis on relevance to instruction.

He said the Panel charge could be broken down into three different levels:

Alexander discussed a number of financial resource questions that had been raised by the Panel. He said that NICHD would continue to offer Panel members the necessary resources to use research assistants.

He said that while the Panel could use outside consultants or experts to come in and look at its work and ensure that all pertinent angles were addressed, the work produced by the Panel had to be the Panel’s work. He recommended that assistance continue to be provided through the research assistant structure.

Alexander said he would have to look into the question of augmenting salary for the Panel during the extension period – particularly the summer months.

He said there was no problem with publishing technical reports on the Panel’s work, but said those reports should not come out until after the Panel has finished its work.