Speech-Language Pathologists and the National Reading Panel Report: The Top Three Things You Should Know

Evidence-based practice (EBP) involves the combination of theory and data collection to determine clinical efficacy (Justice & Fey, 2004). EBP provides accountability for speech-language pathologists' clinical practice. It is driven by measurable, data based outcome information. EBP enables the speech-language pathologist (SLP) to compare the relative efficiency and accuracy of clinical results to the mode of therapeutic intervention and documented expected outcome data for that particular clinical approach (Justice & Fey, 2004). The popularity and utility of EBP has helped to push literacy to the forefront of professional interest as a result of the No Child Left Behind Act and the report of the National Reading Panel (NRP).

In this article, we will explore three key issues of awareness for SLPs in relation to the NRP. These three issues include: the history of the NRP, the NRP and controversy, and finally how SLPs can work more effectively in the area of literacy instruction.

Historical Perspective of the NRP

An understanding of the historical perspective leading to the formation of the NRP is needed to better understand the NRP report. Snow, Burns and Griffin(1998) were the editors of the report from the National Reading Council entitled " Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children". This report analyzed the state of early reading education at that time. The purpose was to examine classroom practices and to come to some common ground for reading instruction. The editors stated that their focus was on the prevention of reading difficulties, and not on "fixing" reading instruction and its outcomes.

Many people were dismayed at the state of reading education as reported in the National Reading Council's report, which was obtained by political and educational leaders prior to the 1998 printing release. Congressional leaders and educators were asking: "How do we 'fix' the problem?" and "What is the most effective reading instruction program?" Thus, prior to the publication of Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (1998), in 1997, Congress directed the Secretary of Education and the director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) to convene a national panel of experts and consumers to find a solution to improving the state of reading instruction. The purpose of this panel was to assess the research in the area of effective practices in teaching children to read (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). In addition, the panel was charged to present the findings and to assess if the research could be implemented into school classrooms. The chairman of the Panel was a physicist and chancellor of the University of Maryland. Eight panel members were professors in the area of reading via education or psychology. The remaining five panel members were a neuroscientist, a Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Provost of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, a CPA, a classroom teacher, and a school principal. No SLPs were panel members.

Congress requested the NRP report by November 1998. The panel compiled over 100,000 reading research studies to analyze requiring the panel to need additional time to complete their report. Congress allowed an extension to February 1999.

The NRP disseminated their findings in two written forms. The actual report is entitled, National Reading Panel Report of the Subgroups (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). This report is over 450 pages; whereas, the Summary of the Report of the Subgroups is 33 pages (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). The NRP generated the Summary report as a succinct resource for the larger volume of the Report of the Subgroups (National Reading Panel, 2001). One important fact about these two documents is they were written by different panel members (see Garan, 2003).