National Reading Panel (NRP) - About the NRP - April 7, 1999 Panel Meeting

The National Reading Panel met in Washington, DC on Wednesday, April 7, 1999 in the Ballroom at the Westin Fairfax Hotel.

The meeting was called to order at 9:15 a.m. by George Gaines, Legislative Liaison for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).

Panel members in attendance included Dr. Donald Langenberg (chair of the Panel), Dr. Gloria Correro, Dr. Linnea Ehri, Ms. Gwenette Ferguson, Ms. Norma Garza, Dr. Michael Kamil, Dr. Timothy Shanahan, Dr. Thomas Trabasso, Dr. Joanna Williams, Dr. Dale Willows, and Dr. Joanne Yatvin. Also in attendance were Mr. F. William Dommel, Jr., executive director of the National Reading Panel and Panel consultants Dr. David Francis and Dr. Harris Cooper.

Dr. Langenberg spoke about the upcoming focus groups, which are designed to elicit information from members of the following groups: teachers, parents, administrators, business leaders, teacher educators, and elected officials. He also spoke about the communications to be made between the National Reading Panel and education interest groups.

The Panel then heard from Dr. Joseph Conaty, director of Reading Excellence Program. Dr. Conaty reviewed the purposes of the Reading Excellence Act, including providing children with the readiness skills and support they need in early childhood to learn to read once they enter school; teaching every child to read by the end of the third grade; improving the reading skills of students and the instructional practices of teachers; and expanding the number of family literacy programs. Dr. Conaty listed the activities the Act supports, which include professional development; extended learning such as tutoring and after-school programs; family literacy; and transition programs for kindergarten students.

Conaty then reviewed the details of the competitive process and how the states can apply for grants under the Reading Excellence Act program. Schools will be chosen based on those that are not fully successful in teaching their students to read because the school lacks the resources needed. Those schools chosen are likely to be those with the largest numbers of students living in poverty. Applications are due from the states by May 7.

Dr. Ehri provided a report from the Alphabetics/Decoding Subgroup. The Subgroup plans to conduct two reviews of literature used in phonemic awareness. Ehri lead a discussion of the recent article from Reading Research Quarterly, titled "Phonological Awareness Intervention Research: A Critical Review of the Experimental Methodology."

Dr. Willows continued the report from the Alphabetics/Decoding Subgroup by giving a phonemic awareness research update. Willows reported that 80 articles have been coded and that each article takes up to five hours to code. Willows also said that the Subgroup is learning how to set up the spreadsheet to analyze the data collected. The Subgroup hopes to tailor the spreadsheets by July. Willows said that gradate students, who have been working on the project since last July, have not yet been paid for their work.

Dr. Shanahan provided a report from the Fluency Subgroup. Shanahan reported that computer searches retrieved 300 article listings, for potential research use. All but six of those articles have been found in libraries local to Subgroup members or in the Library of Congress. There are 120 articles currently in the pool and there will be approximately 80 articles to be used after the final screening and coding is done.

Dr. Kamil raised the issue that some journals contain incorrect information. Dr. Yatvin agreed with Kamil and said that peer reviewed journals have their flaws but that if the journals get too rigid about what is accepted, then innovative ideas will never be heard.

The Panel recessed from 10:15 a.m. to 10:32 a.m.

Dr. Correro gave the report for the Teacher Education and Professional Development Subgroup. She reported that the Subgroup has gathered 350 articles, 100 of which pass through the methodology criteria established by the Panel, and noted that she would also search for information on research currently being done that has not yet been reported.

Dr. Ehri commented that not limiting article searches to the key word "reading" and expanding the searches to include key words such as "math" and "teaching" would increase the chances of finding useful information in the area of teacher education and professional development.

Dr. Kamil said that there is evidence that teachers who do attend colleges of education teach better and their students perform better than those teachers who have not had that sort of education. He concluded that colleges of education are doing something right. Dr. Francis stated that there is no evidence that proves that any particular school of education can increase a teacher’s ability to teach.

Dr. Langenberg spoke about Congress’s plans of holding teacher educators responsible for not training their teachers properly. He asked if there was a way to tie teachers and their education with how well each teacher’s students perform. Several Panel members suggested that the exploration of such a relationship may move beyond what the Panel was tasked to address.

Dr. Correro said that accredited schools are producing good teachers and unaccredited schools are the problem. She added that in Texas, local education organizations hold the school district accountable if students are not performing well. The school district is not taking into account that colleges of education are failing to train the teachers properly.

Dr. Yatvin commented that all students do not start school looking the same and therefore, they will not finish school looking the same. However, many school districts expect the students to be the same when they graduate.

It was suggested that the Panel should research and possibly work with the Association of College and Teacher Education, teacher unions, and the National Board for Teaching Standards because these organizations have been working on similar issues for years.

Dr. Kamil gave the report for the Comprehension and Vocabulary Subgroup, noting that the Subgroup is categorizing its data through the coding sheets and has coded 43 studies to date. The Subgroup is planning to develop additional category codes to allow for the evaluation of additional studies.

Dr. Trabasso said that the Subgroup will focus on basic concepts such as "what is comprehension" and analyze procedures of what has been done on comprehension studies.

The presentation for the American Educational Research Association conference in Montreal was discussed, as well as general strategies and formats for other upcoming conferences.

The Panel recessed from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.

Following the lunch recess, Panel Member Dr. Sally Shaywitz joined the meeting. Also joining the session was Dr. Duane Alexander, Director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Dr. Kamil gave the report from the Technology Subgroup, noting that the Subgroup has compiled and analyzed all studies of reading and writing. He said another task is to spend a lot of time discussing what the Panel members already know. Dr. Kamil also suggested spending time organizing topics to be researched further. Dr. Langenberg agreed with Dr. Kamil and said that a list of under-researched topics, such as teacher education, should be constructed.

Dr. Kamil added that more important than putting computers and technology into the classroom is to teach students and teachers how to use the technology.

Dr. Alexander commented that it would be useful for the Panel’s final report to mention the research that has been done on using computers to teach students to read. Dr. Ehri said that the Alphabetics/Decoding Subgroup has found information in its research on the use of computers.

Dr. Langenberg led the discussion on the next steps in the ongoing analytic work of the Subgroups. He said that the Subgroups should have their work and research done by September. Dr. Willows said that this is not possible because all of the coding will not have been completed by then.

Dr. Yatvin said that the Panel members also need to be sure to come up with information on how the Panel’s research can be used in the classroom and to teach the students.

Dr. Langenberg suggested having two meetings – a longer one in October or November and one in January – instead of having three additional meetings.

Dr. Kamil suggested that there is no need to discuss all of the collected data because the Panel needs to trust the Panel members who have collected the data. The Panel as a whole cannot judge the research done by the experts within each Subgroup. He also noted that it would be better to have shorter meetings because it will be more difficult for the Panel members to get away from their jobs for longer periods of time in the fall.

Dr. Yatvin reminded the Panel that the Charge asks them to answer the questions of "Are the data ready for the classroom?" And "are the classrooms ready for the data?"

Dr. Trabasso suggested that a final report by each Subgroup in writing be turned in and discussed at the next meeting. Dr. Langenberg suggested that the reports be finished by October 1 to be distributed to Panel members only – not released officially at that time –and then discussed at a meeting in mid-October.

Drs. Shanahan and Willows asked for the use of the consultants as needed. Dr. Alexander agreed to allow the Panel members to use the consultants on an as needed basis. Panel members were asked to forward the names of any consultants whose assistance may sought as part of a technical review process to Mr. Dommel as soon as possible for review.

The Panel also discussed and agreed to the steps needed to complete the Panel’s work by the end of January 2000. These steps included:

Dr. Williams suggested that after Dr. Alexander has had the opportunity to publish the report, Panel members should have the opportunity to publish their work and research in other publications and journals. Alexander agreed.