Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
I am Dr. Reid Lyon, Chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch of the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at the National Institutes of
Health (NIH). I am honored to appear before you today on a matter of critical educational
and public health importance, namely the ability to learn to read and succeed academically
in todays schools and society. While Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act addresses instruction in both reading and mathematics, today I will focus
primarily on what we have learned about reading development, reading difficulties, and
reading instruction. My emphasis on reading is predicated on the substantial knowledge and
experience that NICHD and others we andothers have obtained about the critical need for
the best scientific research to inform our attempts to develop optimal literacy skills in
our children.
Whats the Problem?
Our NICHD reading research programs, which, to date, have studied over 34,000 children
and adults, as well as the results of other reading research supported by the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) of the Department of Education and the
National Science Foundation (NSF), have taught us that learning to read is a formidable
challenge for approximately 60% of our nations children. For at least 20% to 30% of
these children, reading is one of the most difficult tasks that they will have to master
throughout their educational careers. This is indeed unfortunate. Why? Because learning to
read serves as the major avenue to learning about our and others cultures,
societies, and history, not to mention language arts, science, mathematics, and the other
content subjects that must be mastered in school.
When children do not learn to read, their general knowledge,their spelling and writing
abilities, their mathematics skills, andtheir oral language abilities suffer in kind.
Within this context, reading skills serve as THE major foundational academic
ability for all school-based learning. Without the ability to read, the opportunities for
academic and occupational success are limited indeed. Moreover, because of its importance,
difficulty in learning to read crushes the excitement and love for learningthat with which
most children enter school.with It is embarrassing and frequently devastating to read
poorly in front of peers and to demonstrate this weakness on a daily basis. It is clear
from our NICHD-supported longitudinal studies that follow children from kindergarten into
young adulthood that youngsters who read with difficulty are significantly and rapidly
affected by such failure. By the end of the first grade we begin to noticesubstantial
decreases in self-esteem, self-concept, and the motivation to learn to read. As we follow
the children through elementary and middle school grades, these problems compound, and, in
many cases, our children are unable to learn about the wonders of literature, science,
mathematics, and social studies because they cannot read grade-level textbooks. By high
school, these potential of these studentspotential for entering college has decreased to
almost nilsubstantially, with increasingly fewer occupational and vocational opportunities
available to them. These students tell us that they hate to read because it is such hard
work and they feel stupid. As one adolescent in one of our longitudinal studies remarked
recently, "I would rather have a root canal than read." In short, if we do not
teach our children to read, they simply cannot take part in our countrys democratic
process; their gifts typically go unnoticed; and they are literally disenfranchised from
contributing their fullest to their lives and to society. In short, tThe psychological,
social, and economic consequences of reading failure are legion, and it is for this reason
that the NICHD considers reading failure to reflect not only a critical educational issue,
but a significant public health problem as well.
The Importance of Research-Based Instructional Approaches to Title I Programs
The Children - There is no doubt that childrenwho are most at risk for reading
failure are those who enter school with limited exposure to oral language and literacy
interactions from birthkindergarten . These children often haveand who have little prior
understanding of concepts related to phonemic sensitivity, letter knowledge, print
awareness, the purposes for reading, and general verbal concepts, including vocabulary.
Children raised in poverty, youngsters with limited proficiency in the English language,
children with speech, language, and hearing impairments, and children whose parents have
limited reading skills or practices are clearly predisposed to reading failure. In short,
there is an epidemic of reading difficulties among economically and socially disadvantaged
children in the United States
. It is typically these children who are eligible for and
receive instructional assistance from programs made possible through Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Despite the existence of educational programs
supported through Title I funding, the proliferation of reading failure among
disadvantaged children continues, in the main, unabated. Why does this unfortunate trend
continue, particularly when many reading programs used with children eligible for Title I
services are described as employing "research-based" instructional approaches?
More specifically, given that the term "research-based" implies that the reading
programs or approaches have been objectively evaluated to determine for which children the
programs are most appropriate, why do so many disadvantaged children continue to founder
in reading? One major reason is that the term "research-based" currently means
many things to many people, with significant variations in the scientific quality of the
research described by the use of the term. For example, some instructional reading
programs touted as "research-based" may be based upon mediocre and substantially
flawed scientific studies, while other instructional programs are based on studies that
meet rigorous scientific criteria for research quality. The problem is that many in the
field of education do not recognizeknow the difference. To date, aand adherence to
scientific quality and criteria has not been a strong guiding force in selecting and
implementing instructional reading programs and approaches for children eligible for Title
I services.
What Does "Research-Based" Mean? What Should It Mean?
One example of an appropriate use of the term "research-based" can be derived
from several common-sense questions a parent may ask when attempting to determine if a
particular instructional reading approach or program in use in a classroom is appropriate
for his or her child. One general question might be, "has this approach or program
been used successfully before with children who are similar to mine in language
development, reading development, and socioeconomic status, and in classrooms and with
teachers that are similar to my childs?" Likewise, "who are the children
who did not benefit from the approach or program, and why did they not respond
favorably?" A second question might be, "what are the measures of
"success?" Did reading achievement scores improve? Were there improvements in
motivation and self-concept? What about teacher enthusiasm?" A third question might
be, "do the measures or observations of these different aspects of
"success" produce reliable or consistent findings across observers and
settings?" A fourth question might be "how many times has this approach or
program been evaluated or studied and similar results obtained?" An additional
question might be "were the research studies, upon which the instructional approach
or program is based, published in a respectable peer-reviewed scientific journal?"
In short, commCommon-sense questions like these reflect the scientific essence of the
term "research-based." Specifically, th research-basede means the instructional
approach or program ihas been developed on the basis of peer-reviewed research that has
been conducted with well-defined samples of children similar to those for whom the program
will be implemented (representativeness); the data obtained are consistent across measures
and observers (reliability); and, the research has been replicated with independent
samples (replicability). In order for a consumer to determine whether the research basis
for an instructional approach or program is representative, reliable, and replicable, the
published research study(ies) must describe in sufficient detail the characteristics of
the children under study, the characteristics and training of the teachers, the classroom
settings, the teacher-student interactions, the specific components of the instructional
program, and the research design to permit further independent replication and appropriate
implementation of the approach or program.
Too often, discussions among researchers about the term "research-based" tend
to pit those who conduct quantitative research with those who employ qualitative methods
in attempting to understand the effects of instructional programs. This type of
polarization, similar to debates about "whole-language versus phonics"
approaches to reading instruction, is clearly not productive and confuses parents,
teachers, and other consumers about the appropriate use of research in guiding
instructional practices. Ultimately, high quality scientific research on instructional
reading (and math) programs must combine research strategies that are experimentally
responsible, test specific well defined ideas, yield data that are reliable, and are
described sufficiently to permit replication, with research methods that provide a
qualitative, albeit reliable view of the complexity and the process involved in imparting
reading concepts to children of varying abilities in classroom settings. The question is NOT
whether quantitative, hypothesis-driven research methods are more powerful than
descriptive methodologies embodied in ethnographic studies, case histories, or classroom
observation studies. The question which must guide us in establishing a genuine research
basis for instruction with children eligible for Title I services is WHICH COMBINATIONS
OF RESEARCH METHODS AND APPROACHES ARE MOST APPROPRIATE FOR WHICH SPECIFIC RESEARCH
QUESTIONS. Likewise, questions about instructional decisions that reflect an either-or
phonics/whole language program choice must be replaced by questions that embrace the
complexity of reading instruction. As I have testified earlier before this Committee, this
question should be, FOR WHICH CHILDREN, ARE WHICH READING INSTRUCTIONAL
APPROACHES/METHODS MOST BENEFICIAL AT WHICH STAGES OF READING DEVELOPMENT IN WHICH
CLASSROOM SETTINGS.
Status of Scientifically Derived Research Knowledge Relevant to Reading Development,
Reading Difficulties, and Reading Instruction
Reading Development - Our NICHD-supported reading research program consisting of 42
sites in North America, Europe and Asia, as well as research studies from other programs
supported by OERI and the NSF, continue to obtain data that converge on the following
findings. Good readers have an early introduction to the importance and meaning of the
written word. Early in their school careers theyof alphabetic languages (e.g., English)
are phonemically aware, understand that the alphabet represents the sounds of speech, and
can apply this knowledge accuratelyand fluently to the development and use of phonics
skills when reading new and less familiar words. They subsequently become increasingly
fluent and can automatically recognize printed words. Given the ability to rapidly and
automatically decode and recognize words, good readers bring strong vocabularies and good
syntactic and grammatical skills to the reading comprehension process, and actively relate
what is being read to their own background knowledge via a variety of strategies.
It is also clear from the ourNICHD, OERI. And NSFs research that learning to read
is a relatively lengthy process that begins very early in development and clearly before
children enter formal schooling. Children who receive stimulating literacy experiences
from birth onward appear to have an edge when it comes to vocabulary development, an
understanding of the goals of reading, and an awareness of print and literacy concepts.
Children who are read to frequently at very young ages become exposed in interesting and
exciting ways to the sounds of our language, to the concept of rhyming and alliteration,
and to other word and language play that serves to provide the foundation for the
development of phoneme awareness. As children are exposed to literacy activities at young
ages, they begin to recognize and discriminate letters. Without a doubt, children who have
learned to recognize and print most letters as preschoolers will have less to learn upon
school entry. The learning of letter names is also important because the names of many
letters contain the sounds they most often represent, thus orienting youngsters early to
the alphabetic principle--a principle that explains how sounds of speech become associated
with the letters of the alphabet. Ultimately, childrens ability to understand what
they are reading is inextricably linked to their background knowledge. Very young children
who are provided opportunities to learn, think, and talk about new areas of knowledge will
gain much from the reading process. With understanding comes the clear desire to read more
and to read frequently, ensuring that reading practice takes place. Unfortunately, few
children who are eligible for Title I services come to school and to the reading task with
these advantages.
Reading difficulties - NICHD-supported research conducted over the past 35 years
has been able to identify and replicate findings which point to a number of factors that
can hinder reading development among children irrespective of their socioeconomic level
and ethnicity. These factors include deficits in phoneme awareness and the development of
the alphabetic principle, deficits in acquiring reading comprehension strategies and
applying them to the reading of text, the development and maintenance of motivation to
learn to read, and the inadequate preparation of teachers.
DEFICITS IN PHONEME AWARENESS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ALPHABETIC PRINCIPLE - In
essence, children who have difficulties learning to read can be readily observed. The
signs of such difficulty are a labored approach to decoding or "sounding"
unknown or unfamiliar words and repeated misidentification of known words. Reading is
hesitant and characterized by frequent starts and stops and multiple mispronunciations. If
asked about the meaning of what has been read, the child frequently has little to say. Not
because he or she is not smart enough; in fact, many youngsters who have difficulty
learning to read are bright and motivated to learn to read, at least initially. Their poor
comprehension occurs because they take far too long to read the words, leaving little
energy for remembering and understanding what they have read. Unfortunately, there is no
way to bypass this decoding and word recognition stage of reading. Adeficiency in these
skills cannot be appreciably offset by using Using context to figure out the pronunciation
of unknown words cannot appreciably offset a deficiency in these skills. In essence, while
one learns to read for the fundamental purpose of deriving meaning from print, the key to
comprehension starts with the immediate and accurate reading of words. In fact,
difficulties in decoding and word recognition are at the core of most reading
difficulties, and this is definitely the case for most children served in Title I
programs. To be sure, there are some children who can read words accurately and quickly
yet do have difficulties comprehending, but they constitute a small portion of those with
reading problems.
If the ability to gain meaning from print is dependent upon fast, accurate, and
automatic decoding and word recognition, what factors hinder the acquisition of these
basic reading skills? As mentioned above, young children who have a limited exposure to
both oral language and print before they enter school are at-risk for reading failure.
However, many children with robust oral language experience, average to above intelligence
and frequent interactions with books since infancy may also show surprising difficulties
learning to read. Why?
In contrast to good readers who understand that segmented units of speech can be linked
to letters and letter patterns, poor readers have substantial difficulty in developing
this "alphabetic principle." The culprit appears to be a deficit in phoneme
awareness--the understanding that words are made up of sound segments called phonemes.
Difficulties in developing phoneme awareness can have genetic and neurobiological origins
or can be attributable to a lack of exposure to language patterns and usage during the
preschool years. The end result is the same, however. Children who lack phoneme awareness
have difficulties linking speech sounds to letters, leading to limitations in the
development of decoding and word recognition skills, resulting in extremely slow reading.
As mentioned, this inaccurate and labored access to print renders comprehension very
difficult. The NICHD has supported several studies of children specifically enrolled in
Title I reading programs. These studies have found that for those children who are
deficient in phonological awareness skills, their improvement in reading is linked
directly to instructional methods that include explicit teaching of these skills as part
of a comprehensive reading program.
DEFICITS IN ACQUIRING READING COMPREHENSION STRATEGIES - Some children encounter
obstacles in learning to read because they do not derive meaning from the material that
they read. In the higher grades, higher order comprehension skills become paramount for
learning. Reading comprehension places significant demands on language comprehension and
general verbal abilities. Constraints in these areas will typically limit comprehension.
In a more specific vein, deficits in reading comprehension are related to: (1) slow and
inaccurate decoding and word recognition (as previously discussed); (2) inadequate
understanding of the words used in the text; (3) inadequate background knowledge about the
domains represented in the text: (4) a lack of familiarity with the semantic and syntactic
structures that can help to predict the relationships between words; (5) a lack of
knowledge about different writing conventions that are used to achieve different purposes
via text (humor, explanation, dialogue, etc.); (6) insufficient verbal reasoning ability
which enables the reader to "read between the lines," and (7) the inability to
remember verbal information.
If children are not provided early and consistent experiences that are explicitly
designed to foster decoding and word recognition skills, vocabulary development,
background knowledge, the ability to detect and comprehend relationships among verbal
concepts, and the ability to actively employ strategies to ensure understanding and
retention of material, reading failure will occur. This is the case even if children have
well developed word recognition abilitiesare. Unfortunately, our current understanding of
how to develop many of these critical language and reasoning capabilities related to
reading comprehension is not as well developed as the information related to phoneme
awareness, phonics, and reading fluency. We have not yet obtained clear answers with
respect to why some children have a difficult time learning vocabulary and how to improve
vocabulary skills. Our knowledge about the causes and consequences of deficits in
syntactical development is sparse. A good deal of excellent research has been conducted on
the application of reading comprehension strategies, but our knowledge of how to help
children use these strategies in an independent manner and across contexts is just
emerging.
THE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF MOTIVATION TO LEARN TO READ
A major factor that limits the amount of improvement that a child may make in reading
is related to the motivation to continue the learning process. Very little is known with
respect to the exact timing and course of motivational problems in the learning to read
process, but it is clear that difficulties learning to read are very demoralizing to
children. In the primary grades, reading activities constitute the major portion of
academic activities undertaken in classrooms, and children who struggle with reading are
quickly noticed by peers and teachers. Although most children enter formal schooling with
positive attitudes and expectations for success, those who encounter difficulties learning
to read frequently attempt to avoid engaging in reading behavior as early as the middle of
the first grade year. It is known that successful reading development is predicated on
practice with reading, and obviously the less a child practices, the less developed the
various reading skills will become. To counter these highly predictable declines in the
motivation to learn to read, prevention and early intervention programs are critical.
INADEQUATE PREPARATION OF TEACHERS - As evidence mounts that reading difficulties
originate in large part from difficulties in developing phoneme awareness, phonics,
reading fluency, and reading comprehension strategies, the need for informed instruction
for the millions of children with insufficient reading skills is an increasingly urgent
problem. Unfortunately, several recent studies and surveys of teacher knowledge about
reading development and difficulties indicate that many teachers are underprepared to
teach reading. Most teachers receive insufficient little formalinstruction in reading
development and disorders during undergraduate, or even graduate, studies, with the
average teacher completing only one to two reading courses. Surveys of teachers taking
these courses indicate consistently that they have not observed professors demonstrate
instructional reading methods with children, that course work is frequently superficial
and unrelated to teaching practice, and that the supervision of student teaching and
practicum experiences is fragmentary and inconsistent. At present, motivated teachers are
often left on their own to obtain specific skills in teaching phonemic awareness, phonics,
reading fluency, and comprehension by seeking out workshops or specialized instructional
manuals. This point is repeated consistently by district superintendents and reading
specialists at the local level.
Clearly teachers who instruct youngsters with reading difficulties must be well versed
in understanding the conditions that must be present for children to develop robust
reading skills, and must be thoroughly trained to assess and identify problem readers at
early ages. Unfortunately, many teachers and Administrators have been caught between
conflicting schools of thought about how to teach reading and how to help students who are
not progressing easily. In reading education, teachers are frequently presented with a
"oneone size fits all" philosophy that emphasizes either a "whole
language" or "phonics" orientation to instruction. No doubt, this parochial
type of preparation places many children at continued risk for reading failure since it is
well established that no reading program should be without all the major components of
reading instruction (phoneme awareness, phonics, fluency, reading comprehension, and
substantial opportunities to read and write). The critical question that our teachers must
learn to ask is which children need what, how should it be taught, for how long, and in
what type of setting. The issue is not phonics or whole language, but how components of
reading instruction are integrated into a comprehensive approach that varies with the
individual child. For example, a child who enters school with strong word recognition
skills will not require extensive instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics. This
child should have the opportunity to engage in wide reading and writing activities to
foster fluency and comprehension. Conversely, a child unable to recognize words accurately
will require explicit and systematic instruction in phoneme awareness and word recognition
in addition to opportunities to read and write. Importantly, the program must be
comprehensive enough to be responsive to children with different literacy needs, thus
allowing the teacher the opportunity to respond with a different instructional emphasis on
specific reading skills.
It is hard to find disagreement in the educational community that the direction and
fabric of teacher education programs in language arts and readingmust change is in need of
change.. However, bringing about such change will be difficult. In addition, if teacher
preparation in the area of language and reading is expected to become more thoughtful and
systematic, change in how teaching competencies and certification requirements are
developed and implemented is a must. Currently, in many states, the certification offices
within state departments of education do not maintain formal and collaborative
relationships with academic departments within colleges of education. Thus, the
requirements that a student may be expected to satisfy for a college degree may bear
little relationship to the requirements for a teaching certificate. More alarming is the
fact that both university and typical state department of education requirements for the
teaching of reading may not reflect, in any way, the type and depth of knowledge that
teachers must have to ensure literacy for all. The current attempts by a growing number of
states to either create or upgrade standards for teacher and instructional accountability
are a very positive step in the right direction.
Reading instruction - Currently, NICHD-supported early reading instruction/early
intervention studies are being conducted at 11 sites in North America. These studies
involve the participation of 7,669 children and 1,012 teachers in 985 classrooms at 266
schools. These studies are typically longitudinal in nature and are designed to assess and
intervene with those children identified in kindergarten and first grade to be at-risk for
reading failure. NICHD-supported studies over the past 35 years have enabled us to develop
reliable and valid early identification and assessment methods for this purpose.
As you know Mr. Chairman, several of these studies involve the participation of
children attending urban schools and who are eligible for Title I funding. In the main,
the children come from economically disadvantaged homes, participate in the Federal lunch
program, and score in the bottom quartile (below the 25th percentile) in
emergent and early reading skills. As mentioned, these youngsters who are at risk for
reading failure are identified in kindergarten and first grade, receive reading
instruction through one of several reading approaches and programs, and are studied for a
five year period to address the question: FOR WHICH CHILDREN ARE WHICH INSTRUCTIONAL
READING APPROACHES/PROGRAMS MOST BENEFICIAL AT WHICH STAGES OF READING DEVELOPMENT AND IN
WHICH CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENTS.
Two such studies of early reading intervention with disadvantaged children that are of
particular relevance to this hearing on Title I are currently being conducted in Houston,
Texas, and locally in Washington, D.C. The Houston study is now in its sixth year while
the D.C. study is entering its third year. Currently, there are a total of 1,553 grade 1
and grade 2 children participating in the two sites. In the D.C. Early Interventions
Project, 12 schools are participating, with nine schools serving as experimental sites and
three schools serving as controlcomparison sites. Within these schools, children from 80
kindergarten, first and second grade classes are participating in the project.
Approximately 98% of the youngsters are African American with an equal number of boys and
girls. All schools involved in these studies are Title I eligible, with over 75% of the
enrolled students eligible for the Federal lunch program. These longitudinal studies are
designed to identify the specific instructional components within different reading
programs that are most beneficial to at-risk children at specific stages of reading
development. In line with our research findings that converge on the necessity of
developing phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension skills to
become a skilled reader, these studies seek to understand how best to teach these skills.
For example, a critical question being addressed is the extent to which instruction in
these skills needs to be highly systematic and explicit through decontextualized
letter-sound correspondence rules with textual reading practice in controlled vocabulary
material or whether the instruction is more beneficial if presented implicitly through
incidental learning gained by feedback on reading authentic literature. These are relative
instructional emphases occurring in the context of a comprehensive approach to reading
instruction.
The design and conduct of these studies in classroom settings in public schools is a
complex enterprise requiring substantial teacher training, monitoring of the instructional
protocols to ensure that the interventions are being carried out correctly, and extensive
data collection and analysis. Data describing the effects of different reading
intervention components and programs on the reading development of Title I children in
Houston were published in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal in 1998 and I request that
this article on the study be made part of the hearing record along with my testimony. A
preliminary analysis of the Stanford 9 test results for each participating school has now
been completed for the D.C. study and has been presented to the NICHD for review and to
staff of this Committee. The trends in the preliminary D.C. data converge strongly with
the published data obtained at the Houston site. Specially, the research indicates that
early instructional intervention makes a difference for the development and outcomes of
reading skills in kindergarten, first, and second grade Title I children at-risk for
reading failure. However, the results also show that not all instructional approaches have
the same impact. Specifically, children who received direct and systematic instruction in
phoneme awareness, the alphabetic principle and phonics, within the context of a
comprehensive reading program, improved in their word-reading skills at a significantly
faster rate than children instructed viaimplicit less systematic and explicit approaches
to teaching the alphabetic principle. As with any intervention study, these investigations
are designed to follow the children over time to determine if the gains achieved
persistlast, and contribute to the development of sustained reading fluency and
comprehension.
It should be pointed out that these studies are part of a long-term research investment
made by the NICHD to first study the reading process in normal skilled readersreading
process, identify critical elements necessary for efficient reading, identify the
developmental course of those elements or components, develop reliable and valid
measurement methods and instruments to map development over time and to predict future
reading behavior, apply these predictive instruments to identify children at risk for
reading failure, and determine which instructional approaches are most effective with
at-risk children at different stages in their development of reading skills. To be
maximally informative, this type of research program must utilize multidisciplinary
talents, must study reading development and response to instruction over time in a
longitudinal manner, and adhere tothe highest standards of scientific quality. Given that
this is the case, we can now move to the second and third questions that the Committee
asked me to address in my testimony.
What is the Value of Focusing Title I Services and Interventions During the Elementary
School Grades?
NICHD-supported longitudinal studies that have been ongoing since 1983 clearly indicate
that children who are at risk for reading failure must receive early, intensive, and
systematic reading instruction prior to the third grade if long term success is to be
expected. At least 75% of children who do not receive such instruction continue to have
significant difficulties learning to read into their early adult years. Our
NICHD-supported studies underway in Florida indicate that older elementary and
middle-grade children can improve their reading skills to a significant extent, but the
degree of instructional intensity and duration is massively greater than that required
during kindergarten, and first and second grades. As noted in the above, it is not only
the timing of the instructional intervention that is critical, but the nature of the
instructional components and how they are taught as well. Specifically, early intervention
that includesthe systematic and direct explicit instructionof in phoneme awareness,
phonics skills, and reading comprehension strategies within a literature-rich context
appears to be critical to fluent word and text reading and comprehension.
Are There Any Recommendations That Can Be Derived From the NICHD Reading Research
Program That the Committee Might Consider as it Prepares to Authorize Title I?
We feel, as do many others, that an important use of research evidence is to inform
educators, parents, scientists, and policy makers so that the decisions that they make
will ultimately lead to improvements in student achievement. Making research evidence
relevant to policy and practice requires accountability for student learning,
accountability for quality teaching, local capacity for research-based decision making,
and a continually growing knowledge base that is accessible, trustworthy, and practical.
Without accountability for student learning and teacher quality, there is typically only
superficial interest in using scientific research to guide instruction. Moreover, once
motivated through accountability, teachers, parents, schools, and States must have access
to research evidence and be able to implement it appropriately.
For the field of education to be a profession in the fullest sense of the term, it must
develop and embrace a trustworthy, reliable base of knowledge from which States, schools
and individual teachers can draw specific information when making instructional decisions.
Other professions have well-established procedures for evaluating research on various
approaches and for agreeing how these findings will be used to help guide professional
practice. The recently published report from the National Research Council on
"Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children" is a first step in this
direction. Through the leadership of the U.S. Congress, the National Reading Panel was
recently established and is now in the process of identifying scientific standards that
can be applied to educational research and instructional programs, approaches and methods
to determine the scientific quality of these products. But we must ensure that we develop
vehicles to make solid trustworthy scientific research information available to teachers
in an accessible and practical manner. Specifically, all consumers of research information
need to know and trust information that identifies which instructional approaches and
programs work and for whom. This information must also be provided to policymakers and the
public to engender respect and trust in the educational enterprise. Here What are some
suggested specific steps to accomplish these goals:
- We must raise the quality and rigor of all education-related research. It will be
important to ensure that all Federally-supported research adhere to high standards of
research quality and we must encourage privately funded research initiatives to embrace
these standards as well. The Federal support for the Interagency Educational Research
Initiative (IERI) is a significant step in this direction. The IERI is a collaborative
initiative among the NSF, the OERI, and the NICHD to stimulate and support
multidisciplinary research on issues relevant to the instructional process. Likewise, the
Reading Excellence Act legislated by Congress represents a major step forward in
specifying the types and quality of educational research that need to be in place in order
to make research-based decisions when selecting reading approaches and programs.
- We need to increase the scale of rigorous educational research. As mentioned earlier,
the NSF, OERI, and NICHD Interagency Educational Research Initiative collaboration is
designed to stimulate, develop, and manage large-scale research on the core topics of
reading, mathematics, science, and technology. These collaborations are critically
important in the development of consistent quality research standards across Federal
agencies and the constituencies that they represent.
- We must continually synthesize research of high quality that is relevant to
instructional practices with children at risk-for academic failure. The key to developing
a solid research base that will ultimately inform practice is to demonstrate how research
findings converge on a particular instructional practice or principle. The tendency in
education to shift capriciously from one instructional "magic bullet" to another
is clearly influenced by the fields inability to develop sustained, serious research
efforts capable of establishing convergence and ensuring replication of findings. The
National Reading Panel, which is a collaborative effort by NICHD and the Department of
Education, is a critical step in this process of establishing clear quality standards for
research and evaluating existing studies with respect to these criteria. I would like to
offer the recent preliminary report of the National Reading Panel for inclusion in the
hearing record.
- We need to develop a targeted realistic research agenda that is solidly based on the
synthesis of the research mentioned above. We must clearly understand what we know, what
we do not know, and develop comprehensive and continually refined research initiatives
designed to close these gaps.
- We must strive to improve the quality of consumer information. This might entail a
process whereby all Federal agencies adhere to a set of quality research standards for
information and materials that are disseminated. Consumers must know and understand the
strengths and weaknesses of a given instructional approach, method, or material and must
clearly understand the limitations of the research that supports a particular educational
product.
- We must continue to increase the demand for research-based effective practices and to
instill a stronger demand for these practices in all Federal program funding. The funds
currently available through the Reading Excellence Act point in the direction of
research-based practice more clearly than any Federal legislation to date. This is clearly
a critical and important step to ensuring that educational practices are based upon
well-defined research foundations.
- We must continue to strive to improve the quality and relevance of training teachers at
the preservice and inservice levels. No matter how powerful our research findings might
ultimately be, the impact of those research investments will be minimal if researchers,
professors, teachers, and policy makers do not speak the same language about what
constitutes trustworthy quality research and how that information can be implemented in
the complex world of classrooms. It is critically important that professional development
activities and programs align specifically with ongoing major efforts to employ
scientifically research-based practices to enhance student achievement. Our
NICHD-supported early intervention studies have taught us that very few practicing
teachers are aware of research-based best instructional practices. As such, we must
consider developing comprehensive school-based training programs that are coherent, easily
accessible, and meaningful to teachers.
It is important to re-emphasize the need to develop systematic and sustained research
efforts to better understand how reliable, valid, and trustworthy research findings can be
most optimally translated to practice in classroom settings. While teacher preparation
represents a major area of concern in this regard, even the most highly trained teachers
will have difficulty implementing solid research findings if they are poorly presented and
explained, impractical, or put in place without helping teachers understand and apply the
most effective implementation strategies.
I am pleased to note that the Administrations Education Excellence for All
Children Act proposes changes in Title I that reflect areas I have identified as being
important. These would build on the recommendations of the National Research
Councils reading report by: (1) encouraging school districts to use diagnostic
assessments in the first grade to ensure early identification and intervention for
students with reading difficulties; and (2) promoting the use of research-based approaches
throughout Title I and the entire Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The
Administrations proposal would also strengthen teacher quality by: (1) requiring all
newly hired Title I teachers to be certified in the area they teach; (2) raising the
minimum educational requirements for paraprofessionals working with students in
classrooms; and (3) proposing a ten percent set aside for professional development. I
would note also that while the principles of scientifically-based research may not neatly
apply to all disciplines quite as well as reading, we should press, nonetheless, for a
solid research base in other areas, including such fields as math, science, and the use of
technology in the classroom.
If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, Id like to inform the Committee about a
joint effort between NICHD and OERI to develop a research program that is designed to
stimulate systematic, programmatic multidisciplinary research to increase our
understanding of the specific cognitive, sociocultural, and instructional factors, and the
complex interactions among these factors, that promote or impede the acquisition of
English reading and writing abilities for children whose first language is Spanish. Given
that children with limited proficiency in the English language are significantly at risk
for reading failure, high quality research initiatives must be developed in this area.
Just last week our two agencies issued a joint Request For Applications for research
proposals in this area, and between us have committed nine million dollars annually for
the next five years to fund this important research.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to testify
this afternoon. The questions you have posed are of extreme importance and I hope that the
information I have presented will be of assistance to you in the decisions you must
ultimately make regarding this important Federal program. I will be pleased to respond to
any questions you may have.