Talk:National Reading Panel

Untitled

AS I understand it, the "Reading First" iniative has been called into question as a politically-motivated attempt to reward certian companies who were loyal to Bush supporters. The NRP seems to have been, in some small part, a tool for that process, although not all members of the panel agreed on their final report, Yatwin especially.

Of course, the National Reading Panel Report was carried out under President Bill Clinton. Interesting, that Clinton was trying to provide a tool for Bush supporters (interesting conspiracy). Only one member did not agree to the report, and her story has changed repeatedly over the years as to why that is; transcripts of the National Reading Panel meetings show how surprised the other 13 panelists were. Yatvin (not Yatwin) was the only one who failed to provide findings to the report (primarily because the research failed to support her beliefs and she was unwilling to back down on those beliefs).

Categories

This article does not belong in the master category Category:Education and its addition back has been reverted. Also categories that do not exist should never be used therefore Category:Learning disability has has also been deleted. In reply to the following edit summary:

August 2, 2007 Rosmoran (Talk | contribs) (1,811 bytes) (Added Education category back -- the NRP is not an educational institution, but a committee formed by Congress to study a problem)

there is a separate category for educational instututions. This has been added to the broader category Category:Educational organizations. The last time I looked, a committee is an organization. If someone can find a better Education sub category that this article fits in then feel free to use it. But it does NOT belong in the master category. Dbiel ^(Talk) 16:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC

I don't consider a temporary committee established by Congress to look at a specific problem an educational organization.

I understand your point about the information hierarchy -- you're right. This topic is too specific to appear in the master category.

How about placing this article under the category "Reading"? The hierarchy would then be Education > Education by subject > Reading> National Reading Panel.

I thought that Learning disability already existed as a category. I'll add it.

Best,

Rosmoran 17:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked up how to add a category, and according to Wikipedia:Categorization, adding the category to the bottom of an article automatically creates the category:

Creating a category is as simple as adding a link to a category that doesn't yet exist. For instance, to create the "fluffy creatures" category, you would edit an article and enter "Category:Fluffy creatures" the same way as adding it to any other category. The Category:Fluffy creatures will automatically be created when the edit is saved.

This is one of those cases where what it says is not what reality is. You will notice that the category is still a red link (ie does not exist) Clicking on the red link will open up the usual edit window and adding the category you want to that new category will automaticly create the sub-category entry. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, I'm adding the category back to the NRP article and will follow up and place it in the appropriate Education subcategorie(s).

Best,

Rosmoran 17:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yatvin edits

It appears that Dr. Yatvin has edited the page to correct information she considered incorrect. That's fine to extent she has published this elsewhere, and most of her edits remain the same. The only thing that has changed substantially is the claim that Dr. Yatvin did not have the time and energy to examine the topics for which she received approval because she was too busy as a school administrator. This claim has not been written elsewhere as a reason she did not do this, and so it is not appropriate to add here. The style was also not encyclopedic. But, generally, the changes are appropriate. Whomever made the edits, though, might wish to be careful about calling the prior language "defamatory." It does not seem to me that the prior version defamed anyone, although it clearly needed some clarification.

Kearnsdm (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

tech

Why single out technology? That seems like undue weight. Strangesad (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Reading Panel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705194256/http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/findings.cfm to http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/findings.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)