[Senate Hearing 106-897]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-897
REPORT OF THE NATIONAL READING PANEL
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
APRIL 13, 2000--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-481 cc WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JON KYL, Arizona
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi TOM HARKIN, Iowa
SLADE GORTON, Washington ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho HARRY REID, Nevada
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
TED STEVENS, Alaska PATTY MURRAY, Washington
JON KYL, Arizona DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(Ex officio)
Professional Staff
Bettilou Taylor
Mary Dietrich
Jim Sourwine
Ellen Murray (Minority)
Administrative Support
Kevin Johnson
Carole Geagley (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening statement of Senator Thad Cochran........................ 1
Statement of Duane Alexander, M.D., Director, National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of
Health, Department of Health and Human Services................ 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Statement of Dr. C. Kent McGuire, Assistant Secretary, Office of
Educational Research and Development, Department of Education.. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Statement of Dr. Donald N. Langenberg, chairman, National Reading
Panel.......................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 17
REPORT OF THE NATIONAL READING PANEL
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran presiding.
Present: Senator Cochran.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. This subcommittee will please come to
order.
I want to welcome everyone here this morning to this
hearing of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education. This subcommittee is chaired by
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. He has authorized this
hearing to be conducted this morning to receive the report of
the National Reading Panel.
The Panel was created after legislation was introduced in
1997 by me, entitled ``The Successful Reading Research and
Instruction Act.'' After the legislation was introduced, our
Appropriations subcommittee included language in its report for
the fiscal year 1998 funding bill, calling on the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the
Department of Education to form a panel to evaluate research on
teaching of reading to children, identify proven methodologies,
and suggest ways for dissemination of this information to
teachers, parents, universities, and others.
It was clear to me that we did not really have a clear
idea, or understand how children should be taught to read.
Statistics showed us that 40 to 60 percent of elementary
students were not reading proficiently, but there was no
strategy or plan in place to help deal with that problem.
We learned that the Health Research Extension Act of 1985
had mandated research on why children have difficulties
learning to read. The National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development had conducted this research. And in 1997,
they had come up with answers.
Congress had not asked for the results, and the information
was literally hidden away in the academic and research world.
As a matter of fact, at a hearing reviewing the budget request
for the Department of Education that year, I asked the
Secretary of Education if he had heard about the research or if
his Department had anyone looking at this research that had
been done by one of the national institutes of health. And he
said he had not, but he would have somebody look into it.
That sort of gave us the story on whether or not research
that had been done, that was maybe the best that had ever been
done, was not being analyzed, and there was no plan to use the
research to translate it into new methods of teaching or
diagnostic procedures for identifying problems of reading among
young children.
Today, more people know that reading research does exist,
but very few have been able to decipher what it means, and to
translate it into meaningful practice.
What most parents simply want to know is: How will my child
learn to read? How can my child be taught to read better? Until
now, the response has been vague, and the so-called expert or
research-based methods were in conflict. So, there is a great
deal of confusion among parents, teachers, and school
administrators, educators at all levels about improving reading
skills of children.
Meanwhile, we have spent nearly $100 million on programs,
which one researcher described as ``at best, it should not
hurt.'' Well, it is my hope that the report of this panel which
we are receiving today will give us guidance in making informed
decisions on reading issues.
I commend the efforts of the National Reading Panel, and I
hope educators will implement the recommendations and use the
new teaching methods and programs outlined in the report.
There is also included in this report, I notice, suggestion
for additional research. And if that comes as a shock after you
find out that 100,000 research studies have already been done,
you wonder, ``My goodness. We are going to research this
problem to death, or until we are all dead.'' But I think they
make some very interesting points.
While there has been a lot of research, many studies and
reports made--and they have analyzed most of them--there is
still more that we should learn and can learn. And that is part
of this Panel's report as well.
For inclusion into the official record of the hearing, we
will place copies of the introductory remarks with the text of
the original bill from the Congressional Record, the partial
transcripts of discussions in the hearings of this subcommittee
on the subject, and a copy of the appropriations report
language which authorized the Panel's creation.
[The information follows:]
Excerpt From the Congressional Record, June 19, 1997
SENATE
* * * * * * *
By Mr. COCHRAN:
S. 939. A bill to establish a National Panel on Early Reading
Research and Effective Reading Instruction; to the Committee on Labor
and Human Resources.
the successful reading research and instruction act
Mr. Cochran. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Successful
Reading Research and Instruction Act. It establishes a panel that will
include parents, scientists, and educators to conduct a study of the
research relevant to reading development and advise the Congress of its
recommendations for disseminating its findings and instruction
suggestions to those who would like to have them.
Reading is the skill students must master to meet life challenges
in a confident and successful manner. For a child, breaking the code of
written language not only opens academic opportunities; it is a
cornerstone to building high self esteem. Both reading and self esteem
affect the knowledge and experiences that form a child's character and
future.
Teaching children to read is the highest priority in education
today. Many teachers and parents I've talked with are frustrated and
confused about what method of reading instruction is best. Every
American should be concerned that 40 to 60 percent of elementary school
children are not reading proficiently. Even more disturbing is research
that shows fewer than one child in eight who is failing to read by the
end of first grade ever catches up to grade level.
Success in reading is essential if one is to progress socially and
economically. In fact, most of the federally funded literacy programs
are targeted to helping adults learn to read because the education
system failed them, and more than likely, failed them at an early age.
This indicates that we need to start solving the problem of poor
readers at the beginning, instead of working backward. It seems to me
that the first step to finding a solution is to seriously analyze
sound, rigorous research on the subject.
Mr. President, at a hearing on April 16, of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, I brought to the attention of the Secretary of Education,
Richard Riley, research by the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development mandated by the Health Research Extension Act of
1985, and asked that he use such research in the development of
federally supported reading programs. This research is ongoing, in a
collaborative network with multidisciplinary research programs to study
genetics, brain pathology, developmental process and phonetic
acquisition. NICHD has spent over $100 million over the past 15 years,
and has studied approximately ten thousand children.
On June 11 of this year, when officials from the National
Institutes of Health came before the same appropriations subcommittee,
I asked Dr. Duane Alexander, the Director of NICHD, about this study.
Dr. Alexander's testimony about the research confirmed what I suspect
most teachers already know--at least 20 percent of children have
difficulty learning to read. But the research also suggests that 90 to
95 percent of these can be brought up to average reading level.
As a result of this research, techniques for early identification
of those with reading problems and intervention strategies are now
known. But administrators, teachers, tutors and parents are not aware
of the key principles of effective reading instruction. The NICHD
findings underscore the need to do a better job of teacher training, as
researchers found fewer than 10 percent of teachers actually know how
to teach reading children who don't learn reading automatically.
I am surprised that the Department of Education hasn't looked to
this study and found a way to effectively get the information to
teachers, schools, parents, and most importantly, teacher colleges.
What scientists have learned from their studies of reading hasn't
been passed on to the teachers who are teaching, so parents are telling
us their kids aren't reading. It is time we put all this experience
together; come up with suggestions for dealing with the problems and,
if schools, teachers, parents or higher education institutions want the
information, let's make it available.
This is a proposal to develop answers that are based on scientific,
model based research. I think it can be a helpful beginning for
successful reading instruction.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Dr. Duane Alexander's
testimony and a copy of my bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 939
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Successful Reading Research and
Instruction Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) At least 20 percent, and in some States 50 to 60
percent, of children in elementary school cannot read at basic
levels. The children cannot read fluently and do not understand
what they read.
(2) Research suggests that the majority of the children, at
least 90 to 95 percent, can be brought up to average reading
skills if--
(A) children at risk for reading failure are
identified during the kindergarten and first grade
years; and
(B) early intervention programs that combine
instruction in phonological awareness, phonics, and
reading comprehension are provided by well-trained
teachers.
(3) If the early intervention programs described in
paragraph (2)(B) are delayed until the children reach 9 years
of age (the time that most children are identified),
approximately 75 percent of the children will continue to have
reading difficulties through high school.
(4) While older children and adults can be taught to read,
the time and expense of doing so is enormous.
(b) Purpose.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to conduct an assessment of research and knowledge
relevant to early reading development, and instruction in early
reading, to determine the readiness of the research and
knowledge for application in the Nation's classrooms;
(2) if appropriate, to develop a national strategy for the
rapid dissemination of the research and knowledge to teachers
and schools throughout the United States as a means of
facilitating effective early reading instruction; and
(3) to develop a plan for additional research regarding
early reading development, and instruction in early reading, if
the additional research is warranted.
SEC. 3. NATIONAL PANEL.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Education, or the Secretary's
designee, and the Director of the National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development, or the Director's designee, jointly shall--
(1) establish a National Panel on Early Reading Research
and Effective Reading Instruction;
(2) establish the membership of the panel in accordance
with subsection (b);
(3) select a chairperson of the panel;
(4) provide the staff and support necessary for the panel
to carry out the panel's duties; and
(5) prepare and submit to Congress a report regarding the
findings and recommendations of the panel.
(b) Membership.--The panel shall be composed of 15 individuals, who
are not officers or employees of the Federal Government. The panel
shall include leading scientists in reading research, representatives
of colleges of education, reading teachers, educational administrators,
and parents.
(c) Duties.--The panel shall--
(1) conduct a thorough study of the research and knowledge
relevant to early reading development, and instruction in early
reading, including research described in section 9 of the
Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (42 U.S.C. 281 note);
(2) determine which research findings and what knowledge
are available for application in the Nation's classrooms; and
(3) determine how to disseminate the research findings and
knowledge to the Nation's schools and classrooms.
(d) Termination.--The panel shall terminate 9 months after the date
of enactment of this Act.
Testimony Dr. Duane Alexander
Thank you Senator Cochran: I think that it is important to point
out that our intensive research efforts in reading development and
disorders is motivated to a great extent by our seeing difficulties
learning to read as not only an educational problem, but also a major
public health issue. Simply put, if a youngster does not learn to read,
he or she will simply not likely to make it in life. Our longitudinal
studies that study children from age five through their high school
years have shown us how tender these kids are with respect to their own
response to reading failure. By the end of the first grade, we begin to
notice substantial decreases in the children's self-esteem, self-
concept, and motivation to learn to read if they have not been able to
master reading skills and keep up with their age-mates. As we follow
them through elementary and middle school these problems compound, and
in many cases very bright youngsters are deprived of the wonders of
literature, history, science, and mathematics because they can not read
the grade-level textbooks. By high school, these children's potential
for entering college has decreased to almost nil, with few choices
available to them with respect to occupational and vocational
opportunities.
In studying approximately 10 thousand children over the past 15
years, we have learned the following:
(1) At least 20 percent, and in some states 50 to 60 percent, of
children in the elementary grades can not read at basic levels. They
can not read fluently and they do not understand what they read.
(2) However, the majority of these children--at least 90 to 95
percent--can be brought up to average reading skills IF:
(A) children at-risk for reading failure are identified during the
kindergarten and first grade years and,
(B) early intervention programs that combine instruction in
phonological awareness, phonics, and reading comprehension are provided
by well trained teachers. If we delay intervention until nine-years-of-
age (the time that most children are currently identified),
approximately 75 percent of the children will continue to have reading
difficulties through high school. While older children and adults CAN
be taught to read, the time and expense of doing so is enormous.
(3) We have learned that phonological awareness--the understanding
that words are made up of sound segments called phonemes--plans a
casual role in reading acquisition, and that it is a good predictor
because it is a foundational ability underlying basic reading skills.
(4) We have learned how to measure phonological skills as early as
the beginning of kindergarten with tasks that take only 15 minutes to
administer--and over the past decade we have refined these tasks so
that we can predict with 92 percent accuracy who will have difficulties
learning to read.
(5) The average cost of assessing each child during kindergarten or
first grade with the predictive measures is between $15 to $20
depending upon the skill level of the person conducting the assessment.
This includes the costs of the assessment materials. If applied on a
larger scale, these costs may be further decreased.
(6) We have learned that just as many girls as boys have
difficulties learning to read. The conventional wisdom has been that
many more boys than girls have such difficulties.
Now females should have equal access to screening and intervention
programs.
(7) We have begun to understand how genetics are involved in
learning to read, and this knowledge may ultimately contribute to our
prevention efforts through assessment of family reading histories.
(8) We are entering very exciting frontiers in understanding how
early brain development can provide us a window on how reading
develops. Likewise, we are conducting studies to help us understand how
specific teaching methods change reading behavior and how the brain
changes as reading develops.
(9) Very importantly, we continue to find that teaching approaches
that specifically target the development of a combination of
phonological skills, phonics skills, and reading comprehension skills
in an integrated format are the most effective ways to improve reading
abilities.
At the present time, we have held several meetings with officials
from the USDOE and have discussed how these findings can be used across
the two agencies. As an example of this collaboration, NICHD and USDOE
have been developing a preliminary plan to determine which scientific
findings are ready for immediate application in the classroom and how
to best disseminate that information to the Nation's schools and
teachers.
* * * * * * *
______
Excerpts From the Fiscal Year 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, Senate Report
105-58
* * * * * * *
Reading development and disability.--The Committee is impressed
with the important accomplishments reported from the NICHD research
program on reading development and disability, and is eager to have
this information brought to the attention of educators, policy makers,
and parents. The Committee recommends that the NICHD work with the
Department of Education to convene a national panel to assess the
current status of research-based knowledge, including the effectiveness
of various approaches to teaching children to read.
The Committee commends the Institute for its outreach and public
education efforts which have had a significant impact on the health and
well-being of our nation's children. The Committee encourages the NICHD
to expand this effort to include the Institute's research on reading
development and disability, and to use the expertise of writers,
teachers, producers, artists, and academics to bring this information
directly to children through the media.
* * * * * * *
______
Excerpts From the April 16, 1997 Hearing, Subcommitee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations
* * * * * * *
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, the administration's proposal that every child in
America should be able to read well and independently by the end of
third grade is laudable. We recognize the necessity of basic reading
skills in order to meet life challenges in a more confident and
successful manner.
I am disturbed by the data that suggest at least 40 percent of our
children are not reading as well as they should by the end of third
grade. Additionally, research studies show that fewer than one child in
eight who is failing to read by the end of first grade ever catches up
to grade level.
In 1985, responding to parents, teachers and other child advocates,
the Health Research Extension Act (Public Law 99-158) was passed by
Congress and signed into law by the President. As a result of the act,
the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
initiated a collaborative research network with multidisciplinary
research programs to study genetics, brain pathology, developmental
process and phonetic acquisition. NICHD has spent over $100 million to
follow about 2,500 young children in rigorous scientific research to
understanding not only the causes but the consequences of reading
problems and related cognitive difficulties.
The results are in. The bitter debate over ``whole language
approach'' vs. ``phonetic drill approach'' need not continue.
NICHD's results conclude that both literature and phonics practice
are necessary for impaired and unimpaired children alike. Techniques
for early identification of problem readers and intervention strategies
are now known as a result of this research, but many administrators,
teachers, tutors, and parents are not aware of the key principles of
effective reading instruction.
The NICHD findings underscore the need to do a better job of
teacher training. Researchers found that fewer than 10 percent of
teachers actually know how to teach reading to children who don't learn
reading automatically.
I hope the administration will include in its reading initiative
the NICHD research findings and help ensure they are used in federally
supported education programs.
* * * * * * *
AMERICA READS CHALLENGE AND NICHD RESEARCH RESULTS
Senator Cochran. Well, we will review them very carefully.
In connection with the administration's reading initiative, I hope
that you will look at the results of research that was done by the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. This was done
after a bill was passed in 1985 called the Health Research Extension
Act. It resulted in collaborative research to study genetics, brain
pathology, developmental processes, and other matters to try to learn
more about how young children learn to read and why some of them do
not, why some do it better than others; $100 million has been spent on
that research and 2,500 young children were studied in a way that no
other research has undertaken to do.
But anyway, the point is: techniques for early identification of
problem readers and intervention strategies are now known as a result
of this research, but many administrators--I would say very few--or
teachers or parents or tutors know about these results or are aware of
what the key principles are that were developed so that effective
reading instruction can occur.
I hope that any effort to push the reading initiative, again a
subject which is very important--I hope the administration will include
the research findings by the NICHD in any federally supported
instruction programs that you support.
Secretary Riley. Well, thank you, Senator, and that is a solid
suggestion. Carol Rasco, I am told, has met with the researchers, and
she is very much involved in that. She is heading up the America Reads
Challenge, and she is very much into that and I will be myself. That is
a grand suggestion.
* * * * * * *
______
Excerpts From the June 11, 1997 Hearing, Subcommitee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations
* * * * * * *
READING DEVELOPMENT AND DISORDERS
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your recognition of me
again.
When we had our hearing with Secretary Riley, Secretary of
Education, I asked a question about a study that had been done under
the provisions of the Health Research Extension Act at the National
Institute for Child Health and Human Development into research
affecting the capacity of children to learn--particularly to learn to
read--and how this affected our efforts to provide education and
resources for those who may be difficult to teach or have learning
disorders of some kind or another. And it was fascinating to me that we
have spent over $100 million on this research now, and nobody at the
Department of Education had bothered to read the findings or to find
out what had been learned as a result of this important research that
we had funded and had been undertaken.
So I had asked Dr. Duane Alexander to give us a report so we could
put it in the record at this hearing. And I just want to point out that
he has prepared a written response to my inquiry, which I ask that we
put in the record.
[The information follows:]
Reading Development and Disorders
I think that it is important to point out that our intensive
research efforts in reading development and disorders is motivated to a
great extent by our seeing difficulties learning to read as not only an
educational problem, but also a major public health issue. Simply put,
if a youngster does not learn to read, he or she simply is not likely
to make it in life. Our longitudinal studies that look at children from
age five though their high school years have shown us how tender these
kids are with respect to their own response to reading failure. By the
end of the first grade, we begin to notice substantial decreases in the
children's self-esteem, self-concept, and motivation to learn to read
if they have not been able to master reading skills and keep up with
their age-mates. As we follow them through elementary and middle school
these problems compound, and in many cases very bright youngsters are
deprived of the wonders of literature, history, science, and
mathematics because they can not read the grade-level textbooks. By
high school, these children's potential for entering college has
decreased to almost nil, with few choices available to them with
respect to occupational and vocational opportunities.
In studying approximately 10 thousand children over the past 15
years, we have learned the following:
At least 20 percent, and in some states 50 to 60 percent, of
children in the elementary grades can not read at basic levels. They
can not read fluently and they do not understand what they read.
However, the majority of these children--at least 90 to 95
percent--can be brought up to average reading skills if:
--(A) children at-risk for reading failure are identified during the
kindergarten and first grade years and,
--(B) early intervention programs that combine instruction in
phonological awareness, phonics, and reading comprehension are
provided by well trained teachers. If we delay intervention
until nine-years-of-age (the time that most children are
currently identified), approximately 75 percent of the children
will continue to have reading difficulties through high school.
While older children and adults CAN be taught to read, the time
and expense of doing so is enormous.
We have learned that phonological awareness--the understanding that
words are made up of sound segments called phonemes--plays a causal
role in reading acquisition, and that it is a good predictor because it
is a foundational ability underlying basic reading skills.
We have learned how to measure phonological skills as early as the
beginning of kindergarten with tasks that take only 15 minutes to
administer--and over the past decade we have refined these tasks so
that we can predict with 92 percent accuracy who will have difficulties
learning to read.
The average cost of assessing each child during kindergarten or
first grade with the predictive measures is between $15 to $20
depending upon the skill level of the person conducting the assessment.
This includes the costs of the assessment materials. If applied on a
larger scale, these costs may be further decreased.
We have learned that just as many girls as boys have difficulties
learning to read. The conventional wisdom has been that many more boys
than girls have such difficulties. Now females should have equal access
to screening and intervention programs.
We have begun to understand how genetics are involved in learning
to read, and this knowledge may ultimately contribute to our prevention
efforts through assessment of family reading histories.
We are entering very exciting frontiers in understanding how early
brain development can provide us a window on how reading develops.
Likewise, we are conducting studies to help us understand how specific
teaching methods change reading behavior and how the brain changes as
reading develops.
Very importantly, we continue to find that teaching approaches that
specifically target the development of a combination of phonological
skills, phonics skills, and reading comprehension skills in an
integrated format are the most effective ways to improve reading
abilities.
At the present time, we have held several meetings with officials
from the USDOE and have discussed how these findings can be used across
the two agencies. As an example of this collaboration, NICHD and USDOE
have been developing a preliminary plan to determine which scientific
findings are ready for immediate application in the classroom and how
to best disseminate that information to the Nation's schools and
teachers.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. DUANE ALEXANDER
Senator Cochran. And I would like to ask him to make whatever
comments that he thinks would be appropriate at this point in
connection with that research and the need for continued funding for
this kind of inquiry--whether there is a payoff here in terms of
improved health and quality of life of our younger generation.
Doctor.
Dr. Alexander. Senator Cochran, I appreciate your interest in this
topic. You are quite correct, over the past roughly 15 years, the
Institute has invested, at the request of the Congress, approximately
$100 million, studying over 10,000 children in a longitudinal way for
their reading ability and disability.
What we have learned about this problem that affects not just
education, but also the public health and welfare because of the impact
on the children and on their ability to learn to read, as evidenced by
longer-term problems and limitation of educational opportunity,
lifetime skills and increased behavioral and delinquency problems, is
that approximately 20 percent of children in the elementary schools
overall, are basically not able to read. And in some areas this ranges
even higher--50 percent or more. We have done studies that look at this
population, in terms of our ability to identify them and intervene.
What we have found is that we are able to identify, by a screening
technique in kindergarten age group, this approximately 20 to 25
percent of children who are at high risk for a learning disability,
particularly for learning to read. And if we are able to identify them
at this age and intervene with a program that is based on phonologic
awareness, teaching phonics, and understanding of written text by
trained teachers, we are able to achieve normal reading levels in about
90 to 95 percent of these children. This makes an enormous difference
in their capabilities, both academically and socially as well.
This screening test is available now. We are able to administer it
at a cost of $15 to $20 per child, select out the population at highest
risk, focus our intervention on them, and produce pretty impressive
results.
What we are trying to do now is demonstrate this on a larger scale
in educational systems, and demonstrate whether, in fact, we can apply
it in a broader way and show that it will be effective in a classroom
setting.
We have been in communication with our colleagues in the Department
of Education about the implications of these findings, for training of
teachers and teachers in education colleges, as well as the actual
application in the classroom of these findings.
grant awards to all states
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Dr. Alexander. And let me
commend you for the excellent report and the fine work that is being
done in this research.
* * * * * * *
STATEMENT OF DUANE ALEXANDER, M.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Senator Cochran. The witnesses who are here to testify
today are joined by the members of the National Reading Panel.
And we appreciate very much your hard work, and your
attendance, and your effort to make the trip to Washington
today.
Let us turn now to our panel of witnesses. I will introduce
them. Dr. Duane Alexander, who is Director of the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Dr. Kent
McGuire, Assistant Secretary of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement; and, Dr. Donald N.
Langenberg, who is chairman of the National Reading Panel, and
chancellor of the University System of Maryland.
We have received copies of your statements which we will
put in the record, and make a part of the transcript in their
entirety. And we encourage you to proceed to summarize and make
any additional comments that you think may be appropriate. We
then have an opportunity, after we have heard from each of you,
to have questions on the subject.
Dr. Alexander, you may proceed.
Dr. Alexander. Senator Cochran, I would like to begin by
thanking you for your longstanding interest in this topic, and
for your action in convening this hearing today as the forum
for presentation to the Congress of the final report of the
National Reading Panel.
As you said, in November of 1997, this committee asked me
as Director of the NICHD, to consult with the Secretary of
Education and appoint a panel that would critically review the
scientific literature reporting the results of research on how
children learn to read and the effectiveness of different
approaches to teaching reading.
The Panel was then to report to the Congress its findings
and its judgment as to what was so clearly effective from
existing research evidence that it was ready for implementation
in the classroom, and what still needed further research.
To fulfill this directive, the staff of the NICHD and the
Department of Education conducted a national solicitation for
nominees to the National Reading Panel. We eliminated from
consideration those persons who had taken strong stands
supporting or opposing any particular approaches to teaching
reading, and anyone with financial interest in commercial
reading instructional materials.
From those persons remaining, as you directed, we selected
14 individuals, 13 of whom are here before you today; mothers
and fathers, themselves. They also represent scientists engaged
in reading research, psychologists, education administrators, a
pediatrician, a teacher, a principal, and a parent of a child
who had difficulty learning to read.
To chair the Panel, I appointed Dr. Donald Langenberg, a
physicist by training, with no vested interest in reading
instruction approaches other than in his role as Chancellor of
the University System of Maryland, which is involved in
preparation of teachers to be effective in teaching reading. He
skillfully led this Panel and will be presenting its report.
The Panel first met in April of 1998. At that time, I
charged the Panel to examine critically the research literature
with respect to the basic processes by which children learn to
read, and the instructional approaches used in the United
States to teach children to learn to read, and to answer the
following questions: What assessments have been made of the
effectiveness of these instructional methodologies in actual
use in helping children develop critical reading skills, and
what conclusions can be drawn from these assessments regarding
their effectiveness and their readiness for implementation in
the classroom? How are teachers trained to teach children to
read, and what do studies show about the effectiveness of this
training? How can conclusions of the Panel be disseminated most
effectively? And, what additional research gaps remain that
need to be addressed?
The Panel members took their charge very seriously and went
about their work conscientiously and with a high degree of
professionalism. They broke new ground in their field in
developing the methodology for critical review and analysis of
the research literature, and provided valuable service to the
nation in preparing their report.
I would like to thank the Panel members for their many
hours of hard work in gathering and evaluating data and writing
this report, and to thank also the graduate students, many of
whom are here today, who worked with them on this project.
I would also like to thank the staff of the Panel,
particularly Dr. Bill Dommel, the Executive Director, who is
not able to be here today, for the strong support they provided
the Panel.
The presentation today of the report of the Panel to you
and to your House counterparts, as well as to Secretary of
Education Richard Riley and Secretary of Health and Human
Services Donna Shalala, fulfills most, but not all, of our
charge.
You also asked us to plan to disseminate the report
broadly. We plan not only to disseminate it, but to work
vigorously for its implementation. Panel members have agreed to
continue their work to assist with this effort, so some of that
activity will continue as well.
Mr. Chairman, I consider this report to be one of the most
significant and important things I have been asked to do in my
14 years as Director of the NICHD. The significance of these
findings for the well-being of our children and their mothers,
their fathers, and their teachers, and the implications for the
future literacy of this nation, and for the economic prosperity
and global competitiveness of our people is enormous.
Thank you for your wisdom and foresight in asking that this
work be done, and for your confidence in assigning
responsibility for carrying it out to the National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Dr. Alexander.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Duane Alexander
Mr. Chairman, I am Duane Alexander, Director of the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development at the National
Institutes of Health. Thank you for convening this hearing as the forum
for presentation to the Congress of the final report of the National
Reading Panel.
In November of 1997 this committee, as part of its report on
appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for the Department of Health and
Human Services, asked me, as Director of the National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), to consult with the
Secretary of Education and appoint a panel that would review the
scientific literature reporting the results of research on how children
learn to read and the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching
reading. The Panel was to report to Congress its findings and its
judgment as to what was so clearly effective from existing research
evidence that it was ready for implementation in the classroom, and
what still needed further research.
To fulfill this directive, staff of the NICHD and the Department of
Education conducted a national solicitation for nominees for this
National Reading Panel. From over 300 persons suggested, we eliminated
from consideration those who had taken strong stands supporting or
opposing any particular approaches to teaching reading, and anyone with
financial interest in commercial reading instructional materials. From
those persons remaining, as you directed, we selected 14 individuals,
13 of whom are here before you today. They represent scientists engaged
in reading research, psychologists, education administrators, a
pediatrician, a teacher, a principal, and a parent of a child who had
experienced difficulty learning to read. To chair the panel, I
appointed Dr. Donald Langenberg, a physicist by training, with no
vested interest in reading instruction approaches other than in his
role as Chancellor of the University System of Maryland, which is
involved in preparation of teachers to be effective in teaching
reading. He skillfully led the Panel and will be presenting its report.
The Panel first met in April 1998. At that time I charged the Panel
with answering the following questions:
1. What is known about the basic process by which children learn to
read?
2. What are the most common instructional approaches in use in the
United States to teach children to learn to read? What are the
scientific underpinnings for each of these methodologic approaches, and
what assessments have been done to validate their underlying scientific
rationale? What conclusions about the scientific basis for these
approaches does the Panel draw from these assessments?
3. What assessments have been made of the effectiveness of each of
these methodologies in actual use in helping children develop critical
reading skills, and what conclusions does the Panel draw from these
assessments?
4. Based on answers to the preceding questions, what does the Panel
conclude about the readiness for implementation in the classroom of
these research results?
5. How are teachers trained to teach children to read, and what do
studies show about the effectiveness of this training? How can this
knowledge be applied to improve this training?
6. What practical findings from the Panel can be used immediately
by parents, teachers, and other educational audiences to help children
learn how to read, and how can conclusions of the Panel be disseminated
most effectively?
7. What important gaps remain in our knowledge of how children
learn to read, the effectiveness of different instructional methods for
teaching reading, and improving the preparation of teachers in reading
instruction that could be addressed by additional research?
The Panel members took this charge seriously and went about their
work conscientiously and with a high degree of professionalism. They
broke new ground in their field in developing the methodology for
critical review and analysis of research literature, and provided
valuable service to the nation in preparing their report. I would like
to thank the Panel members for their many hours of hard work in
gathering and evaluating data and writing this report, and to thank
also the graduate students, many of whom are here today, who worked
with them on this project. I would also like to thank the staff of the
Panel, particularly Dr. Bill Dommel, the Executive Director, who is not
able to be here today, for the strong support they provided for the
Panel.
The presentation today of the report of the Panel to you and to
your House counterparts, as well as to Secretary of Education Richard
Riley and Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala,
fulfills most, but not all, of our charge. You also asked us to plan to
disseminate this report broadly. We plan not only to disseminate it but
to work vigorously for its implementation. Panel members have agreed to
assist with this effort, so some of their work will continue as well.
Mr. Chairman, I consider this report to be one of the most
significant and important things I have been asked to do in my 14 years
as Director of the NICHD. The significance of these findings for the
well-being of our children and their families and teachers, and the
implications for the future literacy of this nation and for the
economic prosperity and global competitiveness of our people is
enormous. Thank you for your wisdom and foresight in asking that this
work be done, and for your confidence in assigning responsibility for
carrying it out to the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development.
Senator Cochran. Dr. McGuire.
STATEMENT OF DR. C. KENT MC GUIRE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Dr. McGuire. Mr. Chairman, thanks for the invitation to be
here today.
I want to join Dr. Alexander in introducing the Panel and
its report to you. I really want to commend Duane for his
leadership on this Panel effort. It was a long and not so
simple effort, I know.
The Secretary and I see this report as really very
important. Reading, as you know, is a central priority for the
Department of Education. We look forward to using this report
in many ways. I would rather not get in the way of the Chair of
the Panel, and think it is best that he get on to speaking
about its work and its findings.
Thank you very much.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Dr. McGuire, for being here and
for helping.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Hon. C. Kent McGuire
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be
here today, along with Dr. Duane Alexander, the Director of the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), to
introduce to you the members of the National Reading Panel. This panel
was established by NICHD, in consultation with the Department of
Education, in response to a request of the Appropriations Committees
that accompanied our fiscal year 1998 appropriation. You asked that a
panel be convened to assess what we know from research about how to
teach children to read. You also wanted to know what is ready for
application in the classroom, how that might be disseminated to
facilitate effective reading instruction, and what additional research
might be needed.
Although I was not in the Department at the time the panel was
established, I know that Department officials collaborated with NICHD
in identifying individuals to serve on the panel. Department
representatives participated in the initial convening of the panel, and
staff attended many of the public meetings. Once established, the panel
operated quite independently, with support provided by NICHD.
Members of the panel will share with you today the highlights of
their findings. I want to join with Dr. Alexander in commending them
for their work. I also want to thank Duane for his leadership. During
my tenure as Assistant Secretary, I have been particularly concerned
with how to compile and share the knowledge gained through research so
that it is used to improve education. This report compiles the
knowledge; we must now communicate it to the many audiences who should
use it.
I believe this is an important report. It contains a great deal of
significant, useful information. We know many things about how children
learn to read and about some of the instructional strategies that help
to foster certain early reading skills. This information is being used,
but can be used much more widely, in appropriate ways, to improve early
reading instruction for many children. Just as importantly, however,
the report reveals that there are very critical gaps in our knowledge
about teaching youngsters to read. If we are to help all children
become skilled readers, we must expand what we know. We must see that
the additional, well-designed research that is so clearly needed is
supported.
In this regard, the report is extremely timely for us in the Office
of Educational Research and Improvement, and we are delighted to have
it. Several months ago, we initiated a major planning effort to help us
outline strategic, 10-year plans for research on improving reading and
mathematics education and student learning in these two core areas.
This report of the National Reading Panel, together with other reports
such as ``Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children,'' will
serve as a foundation for our planning effort in reading. The
Department's Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
will also be using the report to aid in its planning for additional
research, because the report contains specific recommendations on
issues related to students with disabilities that require further
investigation and study.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to continuing to work with NICHD on
the dissemination of this report and on planning additional research so
that we can learn even more about how to improve the reading
achievement of our Nation's young people. In addition, we will continue
to work together in a variety of other research endeavors, including
our recent initiative on English language learning.
Further, I intend to engage my colleagues in the Department of
Education in efforts to follow up on this report. There are many ways
that the Department can encourage both policymakers and educators to
use the information in the report to promote and to provide better
instruction in reading. We intend to pursue them.
Senator Cochran. Dr. Langenberg, Chairman of the Panel,
welcome.
STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD N. LANGENBERG, CHAIRMAN,
NATIONAL READING PANEL
Dr. Langenberg. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
I want to join my colleagues here in thanking all of those
who have worked so hard to make this report possible today.
But, particularly, I want to thank Dr. Alexander and his staff,
and NICHD, who were so supportive, and who in many ways helped
keep us on track through a long, long journey.
It has been a real privilege for me to have served as
chairman of this Panel over the last couple of years. I am just
delighted that all but one of the members of the Panel are able
to be with us today, along with many of the students that
helped them do their work. You have my written testimony, and I
would like to summarize just a few highlights as I see them.
The Panel has worked tirelessly since April of 1998, a
little longer than you had originally contemplated. And that
was necessitated, I have to tell you, by the magnitude of the
task that you set before us. As Dr. Alexander pointed out, the
Panel is composed of people from a very wide variety of
academic disciplines, and occupations in education.
He pointed out that it included parents. I would have to
say it includes also at least one grandparent, and you can
probably guess which of us are grandparents and which are
parents.
I want to hasten to say in the interest of truth in
advertising, that unlike most of the members of this Panel, I
am not an expert in the teaching and learning of reading. As
Dr. Alexander said, I am a physicist by training and by
practice, and currently I am chancellor and chief executive
officer of the University System of Maryland.
But I think all of us on the Panel shared one common goal,
and I think we share it with you, Mr. Chairman, and that is the
goal of improving the teaching and learning of reading all
across our country.
Just to remind us all of what you charged us to do: You
asked us, one, to assess the status of research-based
knowledge, including the effectiveness of various approaches to
teaching children to read. You asked us to report an indication
of the readiness for application in the classroom of the
results of this research. Is it well enough established to use
in the classroom?
You asked us to report, if appropriate, a strategy for
disseminating this information to facilitate reading
instruction in the schools. And that really needs to be the
object here, not simply understanding how to learn and teach
reading better, but how to get it into operation in the
classroom so that our kids perform better.
And finally, you recommend that if we found it warranted, a
plan for additional research regarding early reading
development and instruction. And I think it will surprise
nobody that we have suggested some additional research that
needs to be done.
The task that you set before us is enormous for many
reasons, but part of it is the fact that the reading literature
is very large. It appears to include, just on educational
research on reading, well over 100,000 studies, at least since
1966, probably 15,000 or more published before then.
I wish I could tell you that the Panel had read every
single one of those studies and analyzed them, but obviously
that was impossible. So choices had to be made by the Panel in
how to proceed. And I would assert that it is in the wisdom of
those choices that the success of this Panel's work lies.
The first thing the Panel did was to identify a set of
topics of central importance in teaching children to read. Just
about the time we started our work, the National Research
Council published a report called ``Preventing Reading
Difficulties in Young Children.'' And that report was very
helpful in helping judge what topics were the most important
for our Panel to address.
We began with the major topics developed or indicated in
that report, but then we supplemented the selection with
information we received at regional hearings that we held in
five cities around the nation. I think altogether we probably
heard from several hundred people, teachers, parents, school
administrators, and others, about what our fellow citizens
really believe is important about the teaching and learning of
reading.
The topics that the Panel finally settled on included
alphabetics, and this includes phonemic awareness and phonics
instruction; fluency; and comprehension, which includes
vocabulary instruction as well as the comprehension of text.
We looked at teacher education and reading instruction. And
finally, we took a look at computer or information technology
and what that might portend for reading instruction.
I think the most important thing the Panel did was what it
did next, and that was to develop a set of rigorous
methodological standards to help them screen the research
literature relevant to each topic. Those standards are
essentially those normally used in medical and behavioral
research to assess the efficacy of medications, medical
procedures, or behavioral interventions.
You will find the findings of each of the Panel's subgroups
presented in detail in their reports, and they are bound into
that rather thick document that you have. And they are all
summarized in what we call the Report of the National Reading
Panel. That is this fairly thin document that looks like this.
Let me just touch on four of the highlights that are among
those that attracted my attention.
First, the Panel found that, in fact, certain instructional
methods are better than others, and that many of the more
effective methods really are ready for application in the
classroom. For example, there was overwhelming evidence that
systematic phonics instruction enhances children's success in
learning to read, and that such instruction is significantly
more effective than instruction that teaches little or no
phonics.
Second, the evidence clearly shows that it is wise to start
early. Literacy instruction can and should be provided to all
children beginning at least in kindergarten. To become good
readers, children must develop phonemic awareness, phonic
skills, the ability to read words in text in an accurate and
fluent manner, and the ability to apply comprehension
strategies consciously and deliberately as they read.
Children at risk for reading failure, particularly, require
direct and systematic instruction in these skills. And that
instruction should be provided just as early as possible, and
it ought to be integrated with the entire kindergarten
experience in order to optimize the students' social, emotional
development as well as educational development.
Third, we believe that research in this critical subject
must stand up to critical scientific scrutiny. No physician
would normally subject a patient to a treatment or a drug whose
efficacy had not been proven in rigorous scientific testing,
and we should expect no less of a teacher subjecting a student
to the curricular content or a teaching methodology. Without
the proven, the necessary knowledge base, we can expect our
schools to continue to be besieged by fads and nostrums.
And finally, and most important, teachers. Teachers are
key. Teachers must know how children learn to read. They need
to know why some children have more difficulty in learning to
read, and they need to know how to identify and to implement
effective instructional approaches which may differ for
different children. They need to learn to judge the quality of
the research literature and use it to develop curricula and
teaching methods based on the most scientifically rigorous
studies.
And to help them perform their critical role, teachers
should be provided extensive pre-service and in-service
training in a variety of instruction techniques. And here I
must tell you that increasingly my colleagues in higher
education are beginning to feel the importance and the burden
of that responsibility.
About the need for more research, this report is certainly
valuable for identifying what is reliably known about early
reading development and instruction, but I think it is equally
valuable for identifying what we do not know and thus for what
we need to discover through future research. As an example,
everybody knows that information technology today is
transforming education of all kinds and levels.
If we have a machine at hand that can recognize speech and
convert it to text, and vice versa, or analyze and critique
grammar, punctuation, syntax, or interact directly with
students in other ways, it is plausible to imagine it might be
a useful tool in the teaching and learning of reading.
Quite understandably given the newness of the technology,
there is very little solid research that tests that hypothesis.
There ought to be much more. This is a virgin and little
explored field.
Much of the vast reading literature consists of
qualitative, descriptive, and correlational studies. These do
have value. They help us to understand the general nature of a
problem, and they help us to form scientifically testable
hypotheses about learning mechanisms and pedagogical
techniques.
But correlation is not causation. We cannot separate truth
from conjecture, or distinguish what really works from what
might work without scientifically rigorous, experimental, or
quasi-experimental research of the kind on which this Panel
focused its work.
Let me conclude with just a couple of personal
observations. I learned an enormous amount from my fellow Panel
members in the course of our work. It is my greatest reward for
my work on this Panel. I love to learn, and I have to tell you
that my perspective on this subject has changed dramatically.
There is a recent report entitled ``Teaching Reading Is
Rocket Science.'' I am here to tell you that is a gross
understatement. As an experimental physicist, I spent much of
my own career doing things much akin to rocket science, and I
believe strongly that the teaching and learning of reading is a
whole lot more complex and difficult than rocket science.
Our fundamental understanding of the human brain and the
mind it encompasses is quite rudimentary and so is our
understanding of how to translate what we do into effective
teaching and learning, but I am optimistic about the future.
In my own field of physics, I am reminded of the long slow
development of our understanding of the quantum nature of the
universe in the early 20th Century, led by people like
Einstein, Schrodinger, Bore, Heisenberg, and others. It took a
century, but by the end of the 20th Century, application of
that understanding had led directly to the information
technology revolution that is now explosively transforming
everything about our lives.
And I hope, and I expect, that the 21st century, I hope the
early 21st century, will bring us some comparable understanding
of our own minds and how best to develop them.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues, in essence,
asked our Panel to help save the nation from illiteracy. That
was a pretty tall order, but I am proud of this Panel's
response to that daunting charge. They did not come up with any
simple silver bullet, for the simple reason that no such simple
silver bullet exists. But they did create, I think, a landmark
contribution to our knowledge about teaching children to read.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn to a
brief segment from a video that I think might be helpful in
understanding the Panel's findings.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to your easy
questions. If you ask difficult questions, if you do not mind,
I would like to turn to my fellow Panel members.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Dr. Langenberg, for
your excellent report, and your interesting presentation to our
subcommittee.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald N. Langenberg
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am
Don Langenberg. I have been privileged to serve as Chairman of the
National Reading Panel established by the Congress. I am joined today
by many of the members of the Panel and by some members of the Panel
staff. These expert and accomplished individuals have worked tirelessly
since April 1998 to respond to your charge to the Panel. They come from
a wide variety of academic disciplines and occupations in education.
The Panel was composed of parents and grandparents, teachers,
professors of education and psychology, school and university
administrators, a pediatrician, and a school principal. I myself am a
professor of physics and the Chancellor of the thirteen-institution
University System of Maryland. We all share a common dedication to the
improvement of the teaching and learning of reading all across our
nation.
WHAT YOU ASKED THE PANEL TO DO
You asked the Panel to:
--Assess the status of research-based knowledge, including the
effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children to
read.
--Report an indication of the readiness for application in the
classroom of the results of this research.
--Report, if appropriate, a strategy for rapidly disseminating this
information to facilitate effective reading instruction in
schools.
--Recommend, if found warranted, a plan for additional research
regarding early reading development and instruction.
The task you set for the Panel is a monumental task! The research
literature on reading includes over 100,000 studies published since
1966, and an additional 15,000 or so published before that. I wish I
could tell you that the Panel members have read and analyzed every
single one of those studies, but I can't, because they couldn't
possibly have done so. Choices had to be made about what the Panel did,
and how it did it. It is in the wisdom of those choices that the
success of the Panel's work lies. Let me now describe them to you.
WHAT THE PANEL DID
The Panel began by identifying a set of topics that are of central
importance in teaching children to read. It was aided in this selection
by a report of the National Research Council, ``Preventing Reading
Difficulties in Young Children,'' published at about the time the Panel
began its work. It refined its selection using information from
regional public hearings held by the Panel in five major cities across
the country.
The final topics the Panel studied intensively were:
--Alphabetics, including phonemic awareness instruction and phonics
instruction.
--Fluency
--Comprehension, including vocabulary instruction, text comprehension
instruction, and teacher preparation and comprehension
strategies instruction.
--Teacher education and reading instruction.
--Computer technology and reading instruction.
Then, in what may be the Panel's most important action, it
developed and adopted a set of rigorous methodological standards. These
standards are essentially the standards normally used in medical and
behavioral research to assess the efficacy of behavioral interventions,
medications or medical procedures. They guided the Panel's screening of
the research literature relevant to each topic. This process identified
a set of experimental or quasi-experimental research studies that were
then subjected to detailed analysis by subgroups of the Panel members.
I also want to point out that the Panel carried out its deliberations
and discussions in public to ensure that all citizens could observe the
proceedings and provide input to the Panel at each of their meetings.
WHAT THE PANEL FOUND
The findings of the Panel's subgroups are presented in detail in
their reports and are summarized in the ``Report of the National
Reading Panel.'' Let me touch on just a few highlights.
The Panel found that certain instructional methods are better than
others, and that many of the more effective methods are ready for
implementation in the classroom. To become good readers, children must
develop phonemic awareness, phonics skills, the ability to read words
in text in an accurate and fluent manner, and the ability to apply
comprehension strategies consciously and deliberately as they read.
Phonemic awareness is knowledge that spoken words are made up of
tiny segments of sound, referred to as phonemes. For example, the words
``go'' and ``she'' each consists of two phonemes. Phonemic awareness is
often confused with phonics, which refers to the process of linking
these sounds to the symbols that stand for them, the letters of the
alphabet. Phonemic awareness is critically important in learning how to
read because children cannot pronounce unfamiliar words if they do not
know the sounds that link to the letters on the page. In fact, the
Panel found that many difficulties learning to read were caused by
inadequate awareness and that systematic and explicit instruction in
phonemic awareness directly caused improvements in children's reading
and spelling skills. The evidence for these casual claims is so clear
cut that the Panel concluded that systematic and explicit instruction
in phonemic awareness should be an important component of classroom
reading instruction for children in preschool and beyond who have not
been taught phoneme concepts or who have difficulties understanding
that the words in oral language are composed of smaller speech sounds--
sounds that will be linked to the letters of the alphabet. Importantly,
the Panel found that even preschool children responded well to
instruction in phonemic awareness when the instruction was presented in
an age-appropriate and entertaining manner.
The Panel also concluded that the research literature provides
solid evidence that phonics instruction produces significant benefits
for children from kindergarten through 6th grade and for children
having difficulty learning to read. The greatest improvements were seen
from systematic phonics instruction. This type of phonics instruction
consists of teaching a planned sequence of phonics elements, rather
than highlighting elements as they happen to appear in a text. Here
again, the evidence was so strong that the Panel concluded that
systematic phonics instruction is appropriate for routine classroom
instruction. The Panel noted that, because children vary in reading
ability and vary in the skills they bring to the classroom, no single
approach to teaching phonics could be used in all cases. For this
reason, it is important to train teachers in the different kinds of
approaches to teaching phonics and in how to tailor these approaches to
particular groups of students.
Children at risk of reading failure especially require direct and
systematic instruction in these skills, and that instruction should be
provided as early as possible. Children in kindergarten and in the
first grade respond well to instruction in phonemic awareness and
phonics, provided the instruction is delivered in a vibrant,
imaginative, and entertaining fashion. Children who experience early
difficulty in reading respond well to phonics instruction through the
late elementary school years.
The Panel also concluded that guided oral reading has been clearly
documented by research to be important for developing reading fluency--
the ability to read with efficiency and ease. In guided oral reading,
students read out loud, to a parent, teacher or other student, who
corrects their mistakes and provides them with other feedback.
Specifically, guided oral reading helped students across a wide range
of grade levels to learn to recognize new words, helped them to read
accurately and easily, and helped them to comprehend what they read.
By contrast, the Panel was unable to determine from the research
whether reading silently to oneself helped to improve reading fluency.
Although it makes sense that silent reading would lead to improvements
in fluency, and the Panel members did not discourage the practice,
sufficient research to conclusively prove this assumption has not been
conducted. Literally hundreds of studies have shown that the best
readers read silently to themselves more frequently than do poor
readers. However, these studies cannot distinguish whether independent
silent reading improves reading skills or that good readers simply
prefer to read silently to themselves more than do poor readers. The
Panel concluded that if silent reading is used in the classroom as a
method intended to develop reading skills and fluency, it should be
combined with other types of reading instruction, such as guided oral
reading. The Panel also recommends that substantial additional research
be conducted on the effectiveness of silent independent reading and
other instructional procedures to enhance fluency and the ability to
read with proper expression.
To determine how children best learn to comprehend what they read,
the Panel reviewed studies of three areas regarded as essential to
developing reading comprehension: vocabulary development, text
comprehension instruction, and teacher preparation and comprehension
strategies instruction.
Although the best method or combination of methods for teaching
vocabulary has not yet been identified, the Panel review uncovered
several important implications for teaching reading. First, vocabulary
should be taught both directly--apart from a larger narrative or text--
and indirectly--as words are encountered in a larger text. Repetition
and multiple exposure to vocabulary words will also assist vocabulary
development, as will the use of computer technology. The Panel
emphasized that instructors should not rely on single methods for
teaching vocabulary, but on a combination of methods.
Likewise, the Panel also found that reading comprehension of text
is best facilitated by teaching students a variety of techniques and
systematic strategies to assist in recall of information, question
generation, and summarizing of information. The Panel also found that
teachers must be provided with appropriate and intensive training to
ensure that they know when and how to teach specific strategies.
With respect to the overall preparation of teachers, the Panel
noted that existing studies showed that training both new and
established teachers generally produced higher student achievement, but
the research in this area is woefully inadequate to draw clear
conclusions about what makes training most effective. More quality
research on teacher training is one of the major research needs
identified by the Panel.
Finally, the Panel examined the use of computer technology to teach
reading. The Panel noted that there are too few definitive studies to
draw firm conclusions, but that the available information suggests that
it is possible to use computer technology to improve reading
instruction. For example, the use of computers as word processors may
help students learn to read, as reading instruction is most effective
when combined with writing instruction.
Teachers are key! They must know how children learn to read, why
some children have difficulty learning to read, and how to identify and
implement instructional approaches of proven efficacy for different
children. They must know how to judge the quality of the reading
research literature and to use it to develop curricula and teaching
methods based on the soundest and most scientifically rigorous studies.
Literacy instruction can and should be provided to all children
beginning in kindergarten. In doing so, teachers must understand that
such instruction should be integrated with the entire kindergarten
experience in order to optimize their students' social and emotional
development.
GETTING THE WORD OUT
The Panel's staff has developed a comprehensive strategy to
disseminate its findings. The Panel's report and an accompanying
interpretive and illustrative video tape will be provided to every
member of Congress, to all governors and state departments of
education, to all libraries, to all of the nation's major education and
teacher organizations, and to the news media. Communication materials
summarizing the major elements of our report will be developed to suit
the specific needs of different audiences, including parents, teachers,
school administrators, and policy makers. A speakers' bureau is being
formed that will send teams--which may include Panel members--to
present the Panel's findings and determinations to states and to local
school districts. These teams will be prepared to provide teachers with
specific examples and activities to help them apply these findings and
determinations in their classrooms. A Reading Education Summit to
provide a national forum on the findings and determinations of the
Panel for leaders of colleges and universities that prepare future
teachers and enhance the skills of current teachers is also being
discussed.
FUTURE RESEARCH
The Report of the National Reading Panel is certainly valuable for
the information it contains about what is reliably known about early
reading development and instruction. The Report is also valuable for
what it says about what we do not know, and thus for what we need to
discover through future research. Let me mention just two examples
among many.
The reading research literature is huge. Much of it, however,
consists of qualitative, descriptive, and correlational studies. Such
studies do have value. They can help us to understand the general
nature of a problem and to form scientifically testable hypotheses
about learning mechanisms and pedagogical techniques. But correlation
is not causation! We cannot separate truth from conjecture, or
distinguish what really does work from what might work, without
scientifically rigorous experimental or quasi-experimental research of
the kind on which the Panel focussed its work. Too little such research
has been done, and we need more of it. No physician would normally
subject a patient to a treatment or a drug whose efficacy had not been
proven in rigorous scientific testing. We should expect no less of a
teacher subjecting a student to curricular content or a teaching
methodology. Until we develop the necessary knowledge base, we can
expect our schools to continue to be besieged by education fads and
nostrums.
Today, information technology is transforming education of all
kinds and at all levels. If we have a machine that can recognize speech
and convert it to text--and vice versa, or analyze and critique
grammar, punctuation, and syntax, or interact with students in other
ways, it is plausible to imagine that it might be a useful tool in the
teaching and learning of reading. Understandably, given the newness of
the technology, there is very little solid research that tests that
hypothesis. There ought to be more--much more--in this virgin and
little-explored field.
FINAL OBSERVATIONS
Let me conclude with a couple of personal observations.
I have learned a great deal from my fellow Panel members in the
course of our work. They have given me a new perspective on our
subject. There is a recent report entitled ``Teaching Reading Is Rocket
Science.'' I think that is a gross underestimate. I spent my career as
an experimental physicist doing things akin to rocket science. I now
believe that the teaching and learning of reading is much more complex
and difficult. Our fundamental understanding of the human brain and the
mind it embodies is quite rudimentary. So is our understanding of how
to translate what we do know into effective teaching and learning. But
I am optimistic about the future. I am reminded of the long, slow
development of our understanding of the quantum nature of the universe
in the early twentieth century, led by Einstein, Bohr, Schroedinger,
Heisenberg, and others. By the end of the twentieth century,
application of that understanding had led to the information technology
revolution that is now explosively transforming our world and our
lives. I hope and expect that the twenty-first century will bring us a
comparable understanding of our own minds and of how best to develop
them. Let us all do what we can to make that happen.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues, in essence, asked
our Panel to help save our nation from illiteracy. I am proud of the
way in which this Panel has responded to your daunting charge. This
diverse group of individuals, working together, developed a set of
scientific criteria and, for the first time, used them to assess the
quality and rigor of research on reading instruction. They identified
instructional approaches that are demonstrably effective in teaching
reading skills to a wide range of children. They did this in a public
forum in a politically charged environment. They did not come up with
any simple ``silver bullet''--because none exists. But they did create,
I believe, a landmark contribution to our knowledge about teaching
children to read.
Now, I would be pleased to respond to your questions--your easy
questions. I hope you will permit me to refer your hard questions to
the real experts of the Panel who are with me today.
Senator Cochran. Let me first turn to Dr. Alexander and ask
him a question about dissemination. How are you going to get
the information about effective ways to teach reading to
schools and teachers so that the information is actually used
in the classrooms?
Dr. Alexander. The dissemination effort actually begins
today, Senator Cochran. Each of your 534 colleagues will
receive a copy of the report of the Panel, with the full video
tape, in their offices today.
We are having a press conference later this morning where
we will interact with members of the media and present the
findings of the report for their assistance in disseminating
the report.
We also will continue to use our Panel members to present
the report at national conferences, meetings, and conventions.
And, in addition to a speakers bureau, we will organize
workshops and training programs at various places around the
country, at school boards, in-service programs for teachers,
teacher preparation at colleges, et cetera.
We will interact with the National Education Association,
the American Federation of Teachers, the PTAs, and other
organizations in making this information available and using
their skills and outlets as a way of disseminating the report,
along with many other organizations of similar nature.
The American Library Association is working with us. All
American libraries will receive copies of this report. They not
only will stock it, but will also be implementing its
recommendations in their interactions with pre-school children
in their reading programs and books that they read to kids in
their programs at the libraries.
Copies of the report will go to Governors, to State boards
of education, to all colleges of education. And we will also be
working with the Department of Education--we have a meeting
scheduled for next week--to talk about joint activities and
further dissemination and implementation of this report. We
intend to be very pro-active in getting this information out.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Dr. Langenberg, how did the Panel decide on the research
review methods that were used in doing its work?
Dr. Langenberg. Well, as I said, the methodology that the
Panel used to identify the studies they would examine most
carefully was essentially a methodology that was scientific,
experimental, or at least quasi-experimental, of the kind that
in medicine I would call a clinical field trial or a randomized
field test.
And then they went through the literature and identified
those papers that were in English, published in a peer reviewed
journal, and had relevance to the topic at hand. Then from that
set, they screened out those studies that, in fact, met the
firm methodological standards that they had developed and
thoroughly analyzed each one of those papers and its results,
coded the results, and used formal statistical procedures,
where possible, to analyze the results.
Senator Cochran. Do you think that the failure to use
qualitative or descriptive research and concentrating only on
quantitative things that could be measured on a scientific
basis is a deficiency or a shortcoming of this report? Would
there have been a more comprehensive analysis if it had gone
beyond assessing quantitative research?
Dr. Langenberg. Well, my own view is that there would have
been value in going beyond to that enormous part of the body of
research literature that is qualitative, but we had to draw the
line somewhere.
And the fact is that in our view, if you are looking for
the answer to the question, ``What do we know reliably actually
works?'', you have got to do that by following strict
scientific methodological rules.
There is an old poster that used to be on the walls at the
old National Bureau of Standards that used to say, and this is
one of my favorite sayings, ``If you cannot measure it, you
cannot make it because if you cannot measure it, you cannot
tell whether you have got it made.''
Senator Cochran. You observed that there was some of us who
obviously were older than others. One experience that we had
was getting to watch Dragnet on television a lot.
Dr. Langenberg. Yes, I remember that.
Senator Cochran. And Sergeant Friday would say, ``I just
want the facts, ma'am. Just the facts.'' And I suppose that is
another way of saying that this Panel wanted the facts, and
wanted facts that were supported by evidence.
Dr. Langenberg. That is right.
Senator Cochran. And that is what you did.
Dr. Langenberg. That is exactly right.
Senator Cochran. Were you able to compare the effectiveness
of studies that taught beginning reading skills using explicit
instructional approaches and whole language approaches?
Dr. Langenberg. That is a question that I would be more
comfortable turning to one of my Panel members, if I may.
Would any of you like to take a shot at it? Sally?
Senator Cochran. Why not come up and sit here? There is a
microphone there.
Dr. Langenberg. This is Dr. Sally Shaywitz. She is the
physician on the Panel, but also a very distinguished learning
and neuroscience researcher.
Dr. Shaywitz. Good morning. To address your question, one
of the really outstanding features of the process that the
Panel used to do its work was to develop a methodology, a
process by which individual studies were analyzed and coded so
that we could determine what specific procedures were used to
teach in a particular way.
So we were able to compare procedures that focused on
teaching in a systematic explicit manner. We could compare
approaches that used a more implicit or embedded phonics
approach. And we can compare procedures that were more
implicit, often referred to as whole language.
So using that very specific methodology, we were able to
make a very strong determination that methods that focused on
systematic explicit synthetic phonics and phonemic awareness,
produced the greatest effectiveness in teaching children to
read.
We were also able to determine, for example, that in
teaching fluency those methods that focused on having children
repeatedly read orally, and very importantly having the
explicit feedback of their teachers, were the most successful
in teaching fluency.
So I am happy to say we do have a very strong response and
a very positive response about what works in teaching children
to read.
Senator Cochran. Did teaching children about phonemic
awareness and phonics help them read better?
Dr. Shaywitz. Yes, it did. It helped their phonemic
awareness and their phonics, but most importantly, it helped
their reading. It also helped their spelling; it helped their
reading comprehension. So this was very important. And it
helped all types of children at different stages and in
different ages.
Senator Cochran. You had a lot of research to review. And
the reports of those findings, I know, are voluminous, and you
could not, as you say, read everything. What could you say
about the quality of the research that was reviewed?
Dr. Shaywitz. Well, if I may answer that: I think, in
general, it is very fair to say that we have a lot of work to
do to improve the quality of research in reading.
As in any scientific domain or discipline, the quality of
individual studies will vary, but in general and overall,
studies in education and, in particular, studies in reading,
have not had the kind of scientific rigor or the collection and
analysis of objective data, or a formal test of hypothesis that
we have in other types of research. And this type of research
has not been emphasized in either education or reading research
over the last several years.
But on a more positive note, as a result of this extensive
and comprehensive process, we now know what areas need more
work, where we need more research, and what types of research
are needed in these specific areas.
Senator Cochran. Do you think that you have been able to
identify criteria for reviewing existing qualitative research
so that you could make judgments about the quality of existing
qualitative research?
Dr. Shaywitz. That is a really important and critical
question, and the Panel actually has made a very strong
recommendation for future research evaluations, and that is we
need to be able to spend the time, and the resources necessary
to first, develop specific research criteria, to apply them in
a systematic manner, and in an open forum, just the same as has
been done now for quantitative research.
So once that is accomplished, fulfilling all of these
criteria, we would be in a better position to really understand
how to implement solid scientific research, and integrate all
types of research.
Senator Cochran. Has your Panel report taught us anything
about how to apply the findings of research to teacher
preparation and teaching of our children?
Dr. Shaywitz. Well, I think we have a great deal to learn
about how best to apply the solid research findings to
instructional practices, and really, we need to get up to a new
level in our understanding of instructional practices, and how
they can be implemented in the complex educational settings
that our classrooms represent.
And furthermore, I think what we have learned is that--what
is very critical is that the selection and application of
instructional practices must be preceded by actual evaluation
in a scientific and objective way of the assumptions that those
instructional practices are based on, as well as a formal
testing of the effectiveness of these particular instructional
practices for different children at different stages of
development.
And I think it is really important to note that the content
of the majority of reading materials that our teachers use to
inform their instructional practices, have not gone through a
formal test of the assumptions that these practices are based
on, nor have they gone through a formal test of whether they
are effective or not. So I think there is a lot of work that we
have to do.
Dr. Langenberg. If I could just add to that, Mr. Chairman:
Now on my role as a grandparent, we all have a feeling that
because we have been educated, we all know how education should
be done. And that is one of the most complicating factors in
trying to do what we are trying to do.
Our schools, as I suggested, are beset with all sorts of
fads, nostrums, advice, direction from all sorts of sectors.
And one of our most important tasks, I think, is somehow to get
imbedded in the culture of education, embedded in the training
of our teachers, the notion that what you want to focus on is
what has been proven to work. And we have to somehow establish
ways to support our teachers in doing that.
Senator Cochran. Do you have an additional comment to this?
Dr. Shaywitz. Yes, I do. I guess as the only pediatrician
or medical person here aside from Dr. Alexander, I just want to
say what a landmark event this is. You know, it used to be that
what we knew about reading was sort of in the background and we
would think that we know so much about medical disorders.
But I think that with this report, with this evidence-based
report, what we know about reading and how we can determine
what best works for reading, has come into the front. It makes
me aware that there are so many areas now in education where I
wish we could apply the same rigorous process and really have
an evidence-based set of body of evidence to determine what
works best.
So I think we all should be very proud and very much
looking forward to the implementation of this report. This is a
giant step forward, not only in education, but I think for any
condition that affects the health and well-being of our
children.
Senator Cochran. If there were two surprises that I found
in reading the executive summary, the smaller version, here it
was, first, the enormous amount of research and reporting and
conclusions that had already been reached by a lot of
researchers in various aspects of this subject; and secondly,
how much additional research this Panel recommends still needs
to be done.
I am almost stunned by the final words in one section, page
19, under the topic, ``Next Steps.'' I was reading that this
morning, and I had to read it twice because I am not sure I
understand the technical implications of the words that are
being used. I needed some vocabulary training before I read
this section of the report. And maybe the general audience out
there, if there is anybody who is a member of the general
public here today, will sympathize with my problem.
The first next step was this, ``Where possible, there
should be meta-analyses of existing experimental or quasi-
experimental research and topic areas not addressed by the
NRP.'' I do not know what a meta-analyses is, to start with. I
have to figure that out.
Then, ``Additional experimental research should be
conducted on questions unanswered by the Panel's analyses of
the topics it did cover.'' That is clear.
``There should be an exhaustive and objective analysis of
correlational, descriptive, and qualitative studies relevant to
reading development and reading instruction that is carried out
with methodological rigor following pre-established criteria.''
That is a little difficult for me to get wrapped around and
understand.
But I am just challenging the Panel also maybe to have a
simplified listing of next steps that even ordinary mortals can
understand.
I can understand the fourth one. ``Experimental research
should be initiated to test those hypotheses derived from
existing correlational, descriptive, and qualitative research
meeting high methodological standards.'' But I am afraid that
some of this may stun the ordinary person who may have to read
this.
If you are going to send it to Members of Congress, for
example, they might stumble over that and try to figure out
what they are supposed to do next. But I think what we are all
supposed to do next is help you advertise what you have found,
and what you recommend, because I agree with your conclusions
that this is an important area for additional research.
This is an important area where we can translate the things
you have learned into new instructional methods in the
classrooms of our country, and that we ought to start right
now. You have learned enough so that you can provide important,
helpful advice to educators around the country.
I am not one to say that Congress ought to write the
reading curriculum for all the schools, though. And you will
notice that in the legislation, and in the report, and in
comments that I have made today, it has been an urging that
educators take advantage of this information to translate that
into new methods in the classroom, to improve the teaching and
learning of reading in American schools.
Congress ought not to write a new law telling everybody how
to do it. We would probably mess it up so bad it would be a
disservice rather than an improvement to our educational system
in the country. So I have a bias there, you will have to
understand.
So I am not asking either in the additional follow-up work
that is going to be done that you tell Congress what it ought
to do, necessarily, but rather tell the educational community
how it can take the lead in providing better studies, better
teaching methods in the schools of the country.
Well, I did not come here to make a speech either, that is
for sure. I came to receive a report. Thank you all for your
very hard work and your very effective work in carrying out the
wishes of this subcommittee.
It did take a little longer than we thought. You will
notice by the original language, I think 9 months or something
was given. That showed you how little we knew about it, too,
and how much easier we thought it would be than it turned out
to be. You all have done a great job. I have taken up too much
time talking.
Dr. Langenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Cochran. Thank you all very much for being here,
that concludes our hearing. The subcommittee will stand in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m., Thursday, April 13, the hearing
was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
-