DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 098 531 CS 001 453

AUTHOR Manzo, Anthony V., Ed.; Palmatier, Robert A., Ed.TITLE Doctoral Programs in Reading: Organization and

Faculty; Personnel, Facilities, and ServicesSupporting the Training of Reading Teachers in theUnited States; and Doctoral Faculties and Facilitiesin Reading.

PUB DATE Sep 74NOTE 52p.JOURNAL CIT Epistle; vi n2 Entire Issue Sep 1974

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.75 HC-$3.15 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS *Doctoral Programs; *Graduate Study; *Professional

Associations; Reading; *Reading Programs; ReadingResearch; *Teacher Educator Education; TeacherEducators

ABSTRACTThe "Epistle" is the publication forum of the

professors of reading teacher educators a special interest group ofthe International Reading Association. In this issue "DoctoralPrograms in Reading: Organization and Faculty," by Robert Palmatierand Anthony Manz°, reports on the results of a survey of a sample of17 programs graduating doctorates with majors in reading; "Personnel,Facilities, and services Supporting the Training of Reading Teachersin the United States," by Shirley Myers, A. Byron Callaway, andGeorge Mason, surveys graduate programs in reading--espec.ially theadministrative, personnel, facilities, and service variables of 151graduate departments offering degrees in reading; "Doctoral Facultiesand Facilities in Reading: A Comment," by Richard Allington, reviewsthe results of these two surveys as a source of status assessment forthe field of graduate training in reading. Regular features of thepublication include "Ezhange: Offers and Opportunities," "Movers: AChronical of Professional Relocations," "Editorial Comment," "TimeCapsule/News Notes," "New Members," and "About the Authors." (VR)

Vol. I. No. 2 September, 1974

EPISTLE

The Publication Forum ofProfessors of Reading Teacher Educators

A Special Interest Group of theInternational Reading Association

Contents

Doctoral Programs in Reading: Organization and Faculty 1-10Robert A Pahnatier and Anthony V. Manzo

Personnel, Facilities, and Services Supporting the Training _11-22of Reading Teachers in the United States

Shirley D. Myers, A. Byron Callaway, andGeorge E. Mason

Doctoral Faculties and Facilities in Reading: 23-28A Comment by Richard Allington

Regular Features

EXCHANGE: Offers and Opportunities 29-30

MOVERS: A Chronical of Professional Relocations 31-33

Editorial Comment 34

en Time Capsule/News Notes 35-37

New Members 38-43

About the Authors 45-46

Next Issue

OU S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHEDUCATION t WELFARENATIONAL. INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONTr4IS DOCUME NI H4S bEFN kFvk°

Ci) Otir.E0 EXCCILY REcf 4$4,A."TriE PERSON Ok(a.N.ZATIONOP,G,NA T I NC, i l POINTS OI V q. Of+ OPINIONSC'ATED CIO NO1 Ni S!.AF+1L uE PPESENT Off .C.AL NAIrONAI NISTOulE OtEDUCATION POS,T.ON Ok POt II Y

EPISTLEVOL 1, NO. 2

Coordinating EditorAnthony V. ManzoUniversity of Missouri Kansas City

Co-EditorRobert A. Palinr:erUniversity of Ge -,piaAthens, Georgia

Advisory EditorsLawrence CarrilloSan Francisco State UniversitySan Francisco, California

H. Alan RobinsonHofstra UniversityHempstead, New York

Editorial and Research AssistantsMarilyn EanetUniversity of Missouri Kansas City

Deanna MartinUniversity of Missouri Kansas City

Ann EtterUniversity of Georgia, Athens

Correspondence: EpistleAthony V. ManzoSchool of EducationUniversity of MissouriKansas CityKansas City, Missouri 64110

Professors of ReadingTeacher Educators

Additional copies of the Epistleare available to members for onedollar, two dollars for non-members.

Printer of the Epistle is theJohnson County Library8700 West 63rd StreetShawnee Mission, Kansas 66202

EPISTLE September, 1974Vol. 1, No. 2

Dear Colleagues:

Under this cover you will find that EPISTLE is aliveand . . . ! After long and hopefully excusable delay here is thesecond issue. Continuing in the role of information source ondoctoral programs, this issue deals with training programfacilities, personnel, and services.

The initial article by Palmatier and Manzo is the firstfruit of the survey suggested at the organization's initial meetingin Denver. Departmental organization, program characteristics,and faculty variables are reported for a sample of seventeenprograms graduating doctorates with majors in reading.

A second article by Myers, Callaway, and Masonsurveys the broader field of graduate programs in reading.Administrative, personnel, facilities, and service variables areincluded in this survey of 151 c-lduate departments offeringdegrees in reading.

Richard / kilington, now completing his first year as aprofessor in a graduate reading program, looks at the results as asource of status assessment for the field of graduate training inreading.

This issue of the Epistle finds the Triple T Fellowshiponly a year old but already existing under a new name. Theexecutive committee of the International Reading Associationrequested that our name be changed before recommendingapproval by the Board of Directors. Thus, as a result of this

request and through discussion at the second annual meeting inNew Orleans the concept of "Triple T" will continue under thetitle of Professors of Reading Teacher Educators. This name,while somewhat lacking in flair, does describe the population ofthe Special Interest Group: persons who train (or are qualifiedto do so) advanced degree candidates to teach courses in theteaching of reading to pre- or in-service teachers. As a result ofthis change, it is expected that the IRA Board will grantapproval of our request to be recognized as a Special InterestGroup at their November meeting.

At the New Orleans meeting the report of theExchange Committee resulted in an approved motion toestablish a clearing house for student and faculty exchanges atArizona State University. Full details and an application formare included in EXCHANGE: Offers and Opportunities, aregular feature being introduced in this issue.

Another new section to be found in this issue isMOVERS: A Chronical of Professional Relocations. This resultsfrom the memberships' indicated desire to know who hasmoved and who was hiring. The winter issue will begin a featurelisting job openings and position seekers.

The New Orleans meeting, in addition to committeereports, resulted in election of Warren Wheelock asSecretary/Treasurer and re-election of Bob Palmatier asChairman. Tony Manzo continues as Coordinating Editor of theEPISTLE.

An arbitrary editorial decision to conclude VolumeOne with the second issue makes this the final number inVolume One. Volume Two is planned to achieve the originalconcept of a quarterly with issues scheduled for October,January, April, and July. Future issues are planned to deal withdoctoral program requirements, doctoral student characteristics,

guidance of thesis preparation, future program development,and .t..gislation affecting training programs. Readers with anyinterest in these topics are urged to present manuscripts to theeditors. Our friends will appreciate your helping to relieve themof our requests for articles.

Cordially,

Robert A. PalmatierCo-editor

4-\

Anthony V. MartioCoordinating Editor

AVM/RAP:jb

Doctoral Programs in Reading: Organization and Faculty

by

Robert A. PalmatierUniversity of Georgia

Anthony V. ManzoUniversity of Missouri at Kansas City

The initial meeting of the International :reading Association'sSpecial Interest Group for professors involved in doctoralprograms in Reading resulted in a research charge. This report isthe first of four summaries of information collected in a surveyof selected doctoral programs.

Sample and Procedure

Institutions reporting to have graduated three or more doctoralstudents in the last year reported by Stanley Wanat inGRADUATE PROGRAMS IN READING were selected for thesurvey. The final period included in Wanat's report was the1971-72 academic year. The thirty-one institutions meeting theminimum criteria reported having graduated from three to 40doctoral candidates in 1971-72. Eighteen of the institutionsreceiving questionnaires returned the form. All but onereturning the questionnaire completed a majority of the items.

Institutions completing the questionnaire included 13 statesupported universities and four private institutions. Geographiclocations included representation of Northeast, Mid-Atlantic,Southeast, North-Central, Midwest, and Southwest regions. Aspromised, no identification of specific institutions will be made.

1

The sample. while small, does provide a fair representation ofthose institutions producing the majority of new doctorates inreading. It includes both long established leaders in the field andinstitutions with only recently developed major programs inreading. All schools reporting offer either Ph.D. Ed.D.degrees and 12 have both available.

Responses were tallied and items related to the areas of programorganization and faculty are reported in this article. Laterreports will deal with program requirements, studentcharacteristics and post-doctoral jobs, and evaluation andprogram goals.

Progra7.1 Organization and Characteristics

All 17 institutions responded to a question on administrativeaegis under which reading doctoral programs are offered. Sixoffer degrees through elementary education departments, fourclassify themselves as part of curriculum and instructiondivisions, five operate within educational psychology programs,three exist as separate departments or divisions, and threereport other organizational structures. The total of 21organizational connections reported is the result of threeinstitutions having joint association with two program areas.

Response to an item on length of time doctoral degrees with amajor concentration in reading have been offered was receivedfrom sixteen schools. Two programs reported offering degreesin reading less than five years, five schools indicated programsof six to ten year vintage, one institution fell in the ten tofifteen year category, and eight schools reported sixteen ormore years of offering degrees.

Specialization of degree programs in reading was stated in avariety of terms in response to an open ended question. Nine ofthe 15 schools responding to the question of specialization

2

indicated training of college professors as a priority. Eleveninstitutions indicated teacher training to be a major activity.Research was indicated as a program specialty by fiveinstitutions. Secondary reading emphasis was reported by threeprograms while college reading improvement was mentioned byonly one of the reporting institutuions. Clinical training waslisted by three institutions. English Education, Supervision ofReading Programs, and leadership training were also mentioned.

A forced-choice item obtained a picture of specific trainingareas represented as either courses and/or functions of trainingprograms. Table 1 displays die varying emphasis of fourteenprogram areas across the 17 reporting institutions. Inspection ofthe table reveals rather even emphasis of training aspects in theareas of adult education, correlation with other learningdisabilities, and junior college remedial reading. Strongestemphasis appears in the areas of elementary reading, primaryreading, professional internship experiences, remedial/clinicaloperation, and supervision. (See Table 1 page 4)

3

4.'F

able

l

Tra

inin

g A

reas

and

/or

Func

tions

of

Doc

tora

l Pro

gram

s in

Rea

ding

n tio

nIs

Are

as a

nd/o

r Fu

nctio

nsSt

rong

lyR

epre

sent

ed

Rep

rese

nts

But

Not

Stro

ngly

Not

Dis

tinct

lyR

epre

sent

ed

Adu

lt E

duca

tion

34

Col

lege

Rea

ding

Im

prov

emen

t9

4

Com

mun

ity S

ervi

ces

66

Cor

rela

tion

with

oth

er L

earn

ing

Dis

abili

ty A

reas

58

Ele

men

tary

Rea

ding

Ins

truc

tion

151

juni

or C

olle

ge R

emed

ial R

eadi

ng5

3

Prim

ary

Rea

ding

Ins

truc

tion

153

Prof

essi

onal

Int

erns

hip

Exp

erie

nces

151

Rem

edia

l/Clin

ical

Ope

ratio

n15

1

Res

earc

h an

d D

evel

opm

ent F

unct

ion

124

Res

earc

h R

epor

t Wri

ting

124

Seco

ndar

y C

onte

nt A

rea

Rea

ding

124

Seco

ndar

y Sc

hool

Rem

edia

l Rea

ding

88

Supe

rvis

ion

of R

eadi

ng P

rogr

ams

143

Faculty

The size of faculty devoted to doctoral programs in readingranged from zero to thirteen full time staff members with oneto five associated and part-time personnel. The 14 institutionsreporting indicate a total of 112 faculty members involved inreading programs. Men converted to full time equivalents,faculty size varies from two-and-one-half tothirteen-and-one-third with an average of six-and-two-tenthsmembers. Of the 105 faculty members for whom degrees werespecified, 68 held Ph.D.'s while 37 have Ed.D. degrees.

Age and sex of reading faculty were reported by thirteeninstitutions. Of the 116 faculty members for whom age rangeswere given 34 fall in the 25-35 range, 45 in the 3645 range, 29in the 46-55 range, six in the 56-66 range, and two over 66.Thus 58% of reading faculty members are forty-five or younger.Sex was reported on only 98 faculty members: 62 male and 36female. Five of the 15 institutions specifying sex of facultymembers reported more female than male personnel. Threeinstitutions reported male only departments while no femaleonly faculties were reported.

A forced-choice item regarding salary of reading staff ascompared with other school faculty members was completed by16 institutions. Three departments reported slightly lowersalaries, nine indicated comparable salaries, three claimedslightly higher pay, and one noted considerably higher salaries.

Another comparison of reading with other school facultymembers was reported in the area of publications. None of the17 institutions answering this item reported reading facultypublications to be less than that of other school facultymembers. Eight claimed the same level of publication, andanother six indicated a higher number of publications, whilethree reported a significantly greater number of publications for

5

reading faculty. When asked to indicate an average number ofbooks and articles published per faculty member per year, 14departments responded. Of these, one reported an average of12; one, an average of four; six, an average of three; and six, anaverage of twc publications. Other types of publications towhich reading faculty were reported to contribute includemodules, tapes, programs, evaluations, instructional materials,conference papers, reviews and newsletters.

Academic and experimental background of faculty membersprovided a varied picture. Table 2 reports data on years ofpre-college teaching for 177 reading faculty for whom thatexperience was reported, and college teaching experiences forthe 106 staff persons for whom those figures were reported.Pre-college teaching in excess of one year is reported for 99% ofreading faculty while 65% of staff members were credited withmore than five years of pre-college level teaching experience.Considerable experience in college teaching was also indicatedwith 60% having in excess of five years tenure as collegeprofessors.

Table 2

Years of Erni Teaching Experiences

Level 0-1

Years or---Experience

2-5 6-10 10+ Total

Pre-college 40 65 11 117College 8 35 34 29 106

6

The undergraduate training background of reading faculty isprimarily in the area of education. Of the 115 staff members forwhom this information was reported 75 majored in Education,18 in English, 8 in History, 10 in Psychology, 3 in Liberal Arts,and 1 in Mathematics. Graduate preparation in areas other thanreading was reported for 122 faculty members. Table 3 providesa break-down by areas. Inspection of the table indicates thatgraduate training of reading faculty is primarily in the areas ofElementary Education, Psychology, and English Language Arts.The amount of training in reading included in degree work inthese areas cannot be determined from the data available. Givenearlier figures on faculty variables, it would appear that all but10 reading faculty members hold degrees with a primaryemphasis in areas other than reading. An oversight in developingthe questionnaire resulted in not requesting the number offaculty members with degrees specifically in reading. Thus, thefigures for other areas may have been inflated by includingpersonnel with reading degrees in other areas.

Table 3

Areas of Faculty Graduate Training

Area.._ No. Area No,

8Administration 9,........

LinguisticsComputer Science 1 Psychology 23Counselin_ 2 Secondary EducationLurriculum 4 Special Education 2Elementary Education 36 Statistics, Research Design 9English Language Arts 14 Mathemetics 1

Sociology 8 Other 14

7

Faculty work orientation and population emphasis was alsoreported. Table displays figures for work orientation andTable 5 itemized primary and secondary emphasis pertaining topopulation levels. Work orientation of faculty was dominatedby graduate training, student service, research, and materialsdevelopment. Pre-service training and extension serviceappeared to be minor emphasis areas of reading faculty. Anassumption that most training in reading is done at the graduatelevel appears warranted from this data.

Table 4

Faculty Work Orientation-

Work Area No.,

Work Areaa

No.- .

Materials Development 32 Preservice Training 29Research 38 Graduate Training 76Student Service 45 Other 4Extension Service 20

A majority of reading faculty designated elementary children astheir primary population orientation. (See Table 5) Thesecondary level ran a distant second second with preschool,adult, college, and exceptional students receiving far smalleremphasis. The secondary work emphasis was fairly evenlydistributed across all levels for the 74 faculty membersreporting a second population area.

Table 5Primary and Secondary Population Emphasis of Faculty

Level Primary Emphasis Secondary Emphasis

Preschool

,-

23 8Elementary 77 18Secondary 33 14Adult 19 11College 26 13Exceptional Student 2 10

8

Summary

Based on the small but representative sample reporting, programorganization tended to be widely varied among institutions. Allbut three reading programs were reported to be under the wingof another department. Doctoral degrees with majorconcentration in reading had been offered by all but two of thereporting schools for more than five years. Programspecialization was primarily in the area of graduate educationand emphasized training for college professors, researchers, andpublic school specialists and supervisors. Elementary ReadingInstruction, Professional Internship, Remedial/ClinicalOperation, and Supervision were the most frequently reportedareas of strong representation in doctoral programs.

Faculty size ranged to thirteen full-time staff members with upto five associated and part-time personnel. An average full-timeequivalent of six-and-one-tenth faculty members was foundacross all reporting institutions. One institution claimed 13full-time staff members. Ph.D. holders outnumber Ed.D. holdersat nearly a 2:1 ratio. A generally youthful faculty is picturedwith over 68% being forty-five years of age or younger. Malesdominated reading faculties in overall number but femalesoutnumber males at five of the reporting institutions.

In salary levels and publication output reading faculty memberswere reported to be generally equal or superior to comparablefaculty in other departments. In addition to books and articles,reading faculty members contribute to a wide variety ofpublication formats.

Academic training at both the undergraduate and graduatelevels for reading professors is most likely to be in elementaryeducation. English and Psychology provide the next largestgroups of non-reading degree holders.

9

If work at pre-college levels increases qualification of readingprofessors, the fact that nearly all faculty members hadconsiderable teaching experience must be considered a plus.

Faculty work orientation in rank order was reported toemphasize graduate training, student service, research, andmaterials development. Nearly half of the faculty reportedprimary emphasis to elementary reading, with secondary, collegeand adult levels running a distant second.

Organization of reading departments cannot be easilygeneralized upon but faculty characteristics appear moreconsistent. The results of the above reported survey illustratestrongly qualified departments offering doctoral programs. Afew training areas receive great emphasis while a number ofothers receive only limited attention. Hopefully, knowing theareas of reported strengths and weaknesses will allow evaluationand redirection where needs appear.

10

Personnel, Facilities and ServicesSupporting the Training of Reading

Teachers in the United States

by

Shirley D. MyersA. Byron Callaway

George E. Mason

University of Georgia

In the United States there are a large number of institutionsoffering graduate programs for the training of reading teachers.From their own experience the authors knew that thepersonnel, facilities and services available for this training variedfrom one institution to another. Some information wasavailable from GRADUATE PROGRAMS AND FACULTY INREADING (Wanat, 1973), but only enough to provide aninterested reader with guesses about the facilities and supportfor the programs listed. Consequently, a survey was undertakenin an attempt to determine the 1,.t.ure of the institutions andthe departments by which the reading programs were offered.The survey also was an attempt to determine support for theprogram in terms of services performed, facilities available, andfaculty activities supported by the institution.

The survey instrument was a questionnaire devised by two ofthe authors and mailed to all colleges of 3,000 or moreenrollment, according to the WORLD ALMANAC.Questionnaires were also sent to institutions known to have aninstructional program in Readinil Education: even though the

11

institution had less than 3,000 students. A total of 300questionnaires were mailed and the response was just over fiftypercent.

While 151 forms were returned, some items or areas were leftblank and other completed in great detail; and since raw scoreswere sometimes more meaningful than percentages, both werereported to clarify the points investigated.

Size of the Institutions Surveyed

Responses came from a wide variety of institutions. Mostrespondent schools offered both undergraduate and graduateopportunities for their students. Some schools offeredspecialized services and some reported no courses to developreading skills. The table below indicates the size of the schoolssurveyed.

Table 1

Total Enrollments of Students

Number ofStudents

1

5,0005,001

10,00010,00115,000

15,00130,000

30,001plus

Percent , 19

.------.34 21 23 13

The range of enrollments indicated by 130 respondents wasfrom 94 to 33,000 students. The next two tables represent thegraduate and the undergraduate enrollment in the schoolssurveyed. The total response to these items was not as high asthe total enrollment of students.

Table 2Graduate Enrollments

Number of 1 1,001 2,001 3,001 4,001 5,001Students 1 000 2 000 3,000 4,000 5,000 lus

Percent 32 26 10 19 19 14

The range of enrollments reported by 112 respondents wasfrom 34 to 17,000 students.

12

Table 3

Undergraduate Enrollments

Number of 1 4,001 8,001 12,000Students 4,000 8,000 12,000 plus

Percent 21 45 25 10

The range of enrollments reported by 100 respondents wasfrom 60 to 23,000 students.

Departments and Staff

A variety of single divisions and multiple combinations whichoffered reading instruction were reported. In some instances,the same departments were not teaching both graduate andundergraduate courses. Some of the single departments andcombinations which were reported only once or twice were:Special Education and English; Special Education andElementary Education ; Special Education, ElementaryEducation and Guidance; Reading and Special Education,Elementary Education, Secondary Education, and EducationalPsychology; Reading and English; Communication Skills;Reading and Curriculum; Special Programs; Reading andElementary Education; Reading, Elementary and SecondaryEducation; and Guidance and Educational Psychology. Themost frequently reported department names are shown in Table4.

Table 4

Distribution of Names of Departments. Teaching Reading Courses in Percents

Reading ElementaryEducation

Elementary &Sec. Ed.

Curriculum&Instruction

TeachingUndergraduates

.20 32

,

29 19,

TeachingGraduates 29 25

.

22 24

13

Responses related to undergraduate and graduate instructionindicate that four types of departments are involved indeveloping reading courses. The Reading Department wasonly the third most frequently named department offeringreading courses. .

Because of the varying inclusiveness of the respondingdepartments, the number of professors reported ranged from 1to 200 with a mean of 18. Many of the teachers enumeratedwere probably not directly involved in the teaching of reading.The mean number of professors reported by ReadingDepartments was 6. The number of graduate assistants rangedfrom 0 to 39 with a mean of 7. About one-third of reportingschools had no graduate assistants to aid with instruction,clinical services, or research. The mean number of graduateassistants available to Reading Departments was 5.

The percents of respondents reporting faculties and graduateassistants in several numerical size categories are reported inTable 5.

Table 5

Percents Faculty and Graduate AssistantsNumerical e

Number 0 1-j0 11-20 al-39 Over 30

Faculty % 49 27 11 134

Assistants % 33 57 08 02

14

Degrees and Services

The masters degree was the offering most frequently reported.One-hundred and nine of 121 responding colleges reported thatthey offered it. Thirty-nine offered the doctorate whilefifty -two offered the Educational Specialist, C.A.S., orsixth-year degree. Sixteen reported offering a bachelors degreewith a speciality in reading and six reported that they offeredno degree specializing in reading. The majority of the 121reporting colleges offer more than one reading related degree,allowing students the opportunity to advance toward a higherdegree within the specialized area of reading. The raw numb,rsreporting each combination of degree programs is shown inTable 6.

15

Tab

le 6

Num

bers

of

Col

lege

s O

ffer

ing

Var

ious

Com

bina

tions

of

Deg

rees

with

Spe

cial

izat

ion

in R

eadi

ng

No

Deg

ree

Doc

tora

teM

aste

rsB

ache

lors

only

Mas

ters

only

Spec

ialis

tO

nly

Doc

tora

teM

aste

rs'.

peci

alis

t

Bac

helo

rsM

atte

isB

ache

lors

Mas

ters

Doc

tora

teSp

ecia

list

611

16

4024

246

4

Table 7 reports the number of colleges and universitiesoperating clinics, whether they charge for services, and whetheropportunities for observation are provided. While mostreporting clinics charged for diagnosis, the reverse was indicatedfor charges for teaching services. However, the numberresponding to the question about charges was not large enoughto give an adequate picture of those clinics reported, to saynothing of those not reported.

Table 7

Clinical and Teaching Services-..

Operates 1Clinic

Charges forDiagnosis

Provide forObservation

Charges forTeaching -

NumberResponding 61 20 32 12

Percentage"Yes" 67

,

771

81 35

The number diagnosed in the 61 clinics ran,cd from fifteen to250 pupils a year with a mean of 103. The range of pupilstaught yearly in the thirty-six responding clinics was from tento 559 with a mean of 109. Table 8 reportf the data.

Table 8Clients Diagnosed and Taught in Clinics

020

2140

4160

61§0

81100

101120..140

121 141160

161180

-181200

-,200

+DiagnosedYearly 4 2 7 4 4 2 3 6 1 1 1

TaughtYearly

..4 7 3 8 3 2 3 5 3

17

Research and Conference Support

In seeking to determine how well departments were supportingresearch for reading staff members, responses to several itemswere requested. The responses are reported in Table 9. Theoverall response to these items was high and fairly consistent innumbers responding. The results indicate that in the majority ofcases faculty members and staff carried their own expenses forresearching and reporting findings and used their own free timefor conducting their research. (See Table 9)

Table 10 indicates the support offered for attendingprofessional conferences. The numbers of responses is notconsistently high. The data indicates that about three-fourths ofthe responding colleges do provide some support to facultymembers for attending professional conferences. About fiftypercent of the colleges support attendance at more than oneconvention. State and national conventions appeared to receivethe most support from reporting colleges. It appears that thepresentation of a paper is not usually prerequisite to support forconference expenses, (See Table 10)

18

Tab

le 9

Sup

port

for

Res

earc

h

Spon

sors

Res

earc

hB

uys

Tes

tsPa

ysR

esea

rch

Pays

for

Scor

ing

Prov

ides

Com

pute

rPr

ovid

es f

orC

odin

gPr

ovid

esR

esea

rch

Ass

ista

nts

---,

Pays

for

Publ

ishi

ngA

rtic

les

Num

ber

Res

pond

ing

130

132

130

132

133

127

131

142

Per

cent

age

wire

s,'

4037

2531

3830

2111

Tab

le 1

0

Con

fere

nce

Exp

ense

s

Pays

Som

eE

xpen

ses

Pays

All

Exp

ense

s

Pays

for

Stat

eC

onve

ntio

n

Pays

whe

n a

Part

icip

ant

Onl

y

Pays

for

Nat

iona

lC

onve

ntio

n

Pays

for

Reg

iona

lC

onve

ntio

n

Pays

for

Mor

e th

anO

neC

onve

nt io

n

Num

ber

Res

pond

ing

Perc

enta

ge"Y

es"

136

79

95 18

93 71

65 46

95 76

84 68

126

44

Of 141 colleges responding, 41 percent indicated that they didsponsor a reading conference, while 59 percent did not. ReadingDepartments were not different from others in conferencesponsorship. Thirty-nine percent of the colleges which reportedhaving Reading Departments sponsored conferences. In collegeswhere read:ng courses were developed in departments notspecifically labeled Reading, forty-four percent sponsoredreading conferences.

Independent library support services within the teachingdepartments are indicated in Table Eleven. Numbers ofresponses to each item are high and fairly consistent. Theresponses indicated that the departmental library is considered avital part of reading instruction. Audiu-visual materials were theonly types of resources which were not almost universallyavailable.

The question of whether the central college libraries hadcollections supporting departmental libraries was not asked.

(See Table 11 p.21)

20

Tab

le 1

1

Lib

rary

Res

ourc

es

Aud

io-

Dep

artm

ent

Ref

eren

ceT

each

ing

Vis

ual

Tes

tL

ibra

ryH

eld

byM

ater

ials

Dem

onst

ratio

nsM

ater

ials

File

Ava

ilabl

eD

epar

tmen

tH

eld

Hel

dH

eld

Ava

ilabl

e

Num

ber

Res

pond

ing

144

139

142

138

138

132

Perc

enta

ge"Y

es"

9494

9493

7788

...--

-4,-

----

----

-.

Of 138 responses to the question of whether secretarial serviceswere provided, only 77 percent indicated that services wereavailable.

Suminary

The results of the survey reveal that college departments thattrain reading specialists are not particularly well supportedfinancially. While most of the programs for training readingteachers have departmental library services available, not all doand nearly one-fourth lack secretarial services. About a third(probably the same as those without secretarial help) have noteaching or research assistants while others have sufficientnumbers of assistants to create a mean of seven. One hundrednine reported offering the masters degree in reading or themasters degree with a specialization in reading, yet only fortyreported that they operated a clinic and not all of theseprovided clinical observation facilities. The majority couldprovide no help to faculty in conducting or reporting research.While most could support some attendance at conventions ofprofessional associations, most did not support all conventionexpense. It is therefore clear that the state of the profession oftraining reading teachers appears to need better financing.

It is true that the survey was not completed and returned bymany organizations and also that the returned survey formswere not completely filled out by many respondents. However,it appears likely that the schools and departments which wereless well supported are the majority of those who did iwtrespond. Therefore, the conclusions appear valid.

22

Doctoral Faculties and Facilities in Reading: A Comment

Richard Allington

State University of New York at Albany

After reviewing the two previous survey summaries manyreaders may rejoice at the advantages offered by their presentposition, others may develop inferiority complexes, but manywill, presumably react as this reader did; while the situationoften seems dreary there are a multitude of other in the sameboat. A small comfort!

Given the limitations of any survey instrument, the previoussummaries offer a wealth of information about the status ofdoctoral faculties programs. Unfortunately, descriptiveinformation is not necessarily valuable in and of itself. Like theinformation gained from a diagnostic workup, survey data mustbe examined in light of possible recommendations towardimprovement of the status quo.

To begin, one might question why only a little more than 50%of the institutions solicited responded. Then too, one could andshould question the generalizability of the results. However,authors of both summaries accept the results as valid and forthe remainder of the following discussion the same assumptionwill be adhered to, even though caution need be observed.

Program Organization

There seems to be no common organizational structure forreading faculties. Both summaries point to a variety oforganizations with a separate Reading Department or Divisic. n

23

being the exception rather than the rule. There are, of course,arguments both for and against separated and integrated facultyorganizational structures. One might consider the problem of areading faculty integrated within a larger more general structuresuch as an Elementary Education department. Does thisstructure limit course offerings? Or can one offer adult orsecondary reading courses through an Elementary Educationdepartment? Are there restrictions in this type of organizationalstructure that lead to program bias? Are reading facultygeneralists? Is equitable support available for reading facultyand programs buried in myriad?

On the other hand, it might be argued that a separate anddistinct unit of faculty under the label 'Reading Department'encourages a relatively narrow view of education. However,such an organizational pattern does allow faculty increaseddecision making autonomy and increased control over the pursestrings. (even though the purse may contain limited resources).While the survey data are descriptive, they are not evaluative andas such it perhaps raise more queries than it answers. The data,unfortunately, do not allow one to recommend any particularpattern of organization.

Program Emphasis

The indicated overemphasis on elementary school reading isprobably a function of the law of supply and demand. Withmost states requiring a minimum of one course in reading forprospective elementary teachers, it seems logical for readingfaculty involved in training college teachers to focus on the areain which a majority of the employment opportunities exist.However, the data while indicating lesser emphasis in the areasof adult reading, secondary reading, and correlated learningdisabilities, do not present a clear picture of the efforts in thesefields. While receiving a secondary emphasis generally, theseareas need to receive primary emphasis in certain graduate

24

programs. The point is that the data do not clearly indicatewhether these areas are the strengths of certain institutions andthus receive primary emphasis in a limited number ofprograms,or whether they receive primary emphasis from individualfaculty members at institutions where they simultaneouslyreceive minimal institutional emphasis. While many institutionsoffer a single course in each of these areas, it seems desirable forcertain institutions to concentrate their research and trainingemphasis in adult reading, secondary reading, or correlatedlearning disabilities. While not recommending the developmentof programs of limited scope, the data do seem to indicate thatfew institutions have the faculty resources available to supportstrong programs in even half of the 14 areas reported in Table 1of the Palmatier and Manzo survey. Thus it seems moreappropo that the majority of doctoral programs select a fewareas for concentration of efforts in the development ofeffective training programs in these less popular, but stillimportant areas. No program should try to be everything toeveryone.

College Teaching and Teacher Training

A majority of the respondents in the Palmatier and Manzosummary identified training of college teachers and teachertraining as priority tasks or specialties. However, pre-serviceteacher training and extension service received a contradiction.If reading faculty is not deeply involved in the development andrefinement of pre-service training programs, how then do theytrain college teachers? Training for college teaching has longbeen a neglected aspect of most doctoral programs. Teachingassistants often receive experience but seldom training orevaluation other than at a most cursory level. Do the dataprovided support this tradition? Little else can be assumed fromthe data.

The low priority of extension service would seem to be anotherarea of concern for graduate faculties in reading. Is the "Ivory

25

tower" the norm within most institutions responding? While asurprisingly high percentage of faculty had 2+ years experiencein lower level education, is 3 years of elementary schoolteaching ten years past still a valid criterion? Do facultymembers truly have a grasp of the functions and problems ofteaching in this decade? if they have not used a method ormaterial, can they honestly expect to train teachers in itsimplementation? The survey data seem to point to a distinctneed for graduate faculty to be involved in the real world ofclassrooms. But given the other data, who will provide thesupport necessary in terms of released time? Or is expectingteacher trainers to be able to operate in a public schoolclassroom asking too much?

Faculty and Facilities

The piece of data that seems most interesting under facultyqualifications and training in the Palmatier and Manzo report isthat 105 of 112 faculty members, for whom the data wereprovided, held a doctorate. The Meyer, Callaway, and Masonreport does not provide this information for their sample, butthe above ratio may be a bit high even when considering onlyfaculty involved in doctoral programs and considerably abovereality for graduate programs at the Master's and Specialistlevel.

While the surveys provide insights into quantity, little can begleaned in terms of the quality of the faculties from theinformation provided. Neither sheer number of faculty, nornumbers of earned doctorates are accurate gauges of quality.

Only 61 of 151 institutions returning the Myers, Callaway,Mason survey responded to the question on operation of clinics.Approximately 40 of these institutions indicated a clinic wasavailable for teacher training. This leads one to conclude thatfrom 25% to 66% of the surveyed institutions have a clinic

26

operating. Hopefully, the percentage is higher for institutionsoffering graduate degrees, even though a clinic which providesopportunities for practice, observation, and evaluation would bea desirable component for all programs, includingundergraduate. One should seriously question the quality ofteacher training programs without clinical experience.

Of further interest would be information on funding of clinicaloperations and the dollar value of clinical services rendered tothe respective communities. Also, of interest would beinformation on teaching loads, especially in clinic andpracticum courses.

Reading faculty generally have resource materials available, butthe extent of these are in question. Should we believe that mostfaculties have adequate monies to supply resources centers andprofessional libraries? Or are these resource rooms stockedthrough the good will of many commercial publishing firmswho graciously supply sample materials?

As before, the survey data may raise more issues than itresolves. Clinical, teaching, and library for resource) serviceswould each seem necessary for effective teacher training.Resources vary considerably but improvement in each areawould seem to be a logical requirement in strengthening anyteacher training program.

Research and Conference Support

Monetary support for the research and conference areas ofprofessional growth seems limited. While the data again variesconsiderably there are strong indications that much of theresearch efforts faculties expend seem to, in the old expression,be taken from one's own hide. Travel to professionalconferences is provided minimal support, generally less than fullcompensation for more than one excursion per year. Given

27

these pieces of information one might infer that support ofdoctoral students involved in similar undertakings is nigh ontonon-existent.

When one stops to consider the sheer number of validprofessional conferences available and number of researchquestions unanswered, we again find areas in which considerableimprovement, in terms of monetary support, could be made.

Summary

Interested readers will probably draw their own comparisonsand conclusions. However, each of you might examine the dataand analyze the program in which you may be involved. Woulda reorganization facilitate your training efforts? Not a simplechange of name or the creation of a new course or experience,but rather a thorough examination of the program as nowconstituted. Is the current program developing graduates fortoday's and tomorrow's worlds? Does it provide faculty withnecessary opportunities and experiences for professionalgrowth? The status quo is not necessarily bad, but generally itcan be improved. The survey results seem to indicate a need forredirection of efforts in some cases and redoubling of efforts inothers.

28

EXCHANGE: Offers and Opportunities

Need a change for a semester or quarter? Have a doctoralstudent who desires a work experience not available in yourprogram? Curious about how your doctoral students comparewith those from other universities? Or maybe you would like atrial period in a different climate area. Any of these desires aresufficient reason for contacting PRTE's ExchangeClearinghouse.

In this issue of EPISTLE we are pleased to introduce theconcept of a clearinghouse for faculty and graduate studentexchanges. The clearinghouse will function as a collector anddisseminator of information concerning persons who wish toexchange positions with their peers. In each future issueinformation about individuals wishing to make temporaryexchanges will be published. Contacts between those interestedin exchanges will then be up to the individuals involved. Neitherthe EPISTLE, PRTE, nor the Clearinghouse at Arizona Statecan be responsible for making final agreements between partieswishing to undertake an exchange. We can tell you where theballparks are but must leave arranging and playing the game upto you.

If you are interested in an er:hange contact:

Dr. Ernest DishnerReading CenterArizona State UniversityTempe, Arizona 85281

A form for putting your name into the Clearinghouse pool isprinted here for your convenience. Others are available from Dr.Dishner. When your form is received you will be sent anup-to-date listing of other "exchangers ". Your information will,if you desire, also be printed in the next issue of the EPISTLE.

29

STUDENT AND FACULTY EXCHANGE FORM

Profsason of Reading Teacher EducatortInternatforuti Reeding Association

NAME:Last First Middie

POSITION:Title institution

SPECIALIZATION: -.

OFFICE HOME

ADDRESS:

PHONE:

EDUCATIONINSTITUTION DEGREE DATE

PRIOR WORK:

TITLE LOCATION DATES

TYPE OF POSITION YOU WISH DUTIES REQUIRED OF YOURREPLACEMENT

EXCHANGE:

WHEN:Year Quarter of Semester Exchsnos Dosired

OTHER COMMENTS:

SIGNATURE: DATE:

30

MOVERS: A Chronicle of Professional Relocations

Trying to keep up with faculty moves is often a problem.MOVERS will endeavor to keep you posted as to placement ofnew graduates and relocation of veterans. Send names and newprofessional locations to be published to Bob Palmatier, 309Aderhold Building, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia30601.

NEW GRADS

...from University of Maryland

Jane Matanzo, Assistant ProfessorHood College, Frederick, Maryland

Ann Neal, Assistant ProfessorFederal City College, Washington, D.C.

Portia Shields, Assistant ProfessorHoward University, Washington, D.C.

. . .from Florida State University

David Alexander, Assistant ProfessorMassachusetts State College, Worchester, Massachusetts

Patricino Gamelo, Statc Departmentof Education, Manilla, Phillipines

Elizabeth Martin, Assistant ProfessorMemphis State University, Memphis, Tennessee

Barbara Palmer, Assistant ProfessorUniversity of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut

31

Carole Stice, Assistant ProfessorTennessee State University, Nashville, Tennessee

. . .from University of Georgia

Ola M. Brown, Assistant ProfessorValdosta State College, Valdosta, Georgia

Patricia Brown, Assistant ProfessorOhio University, Athens, Ohio

Louis Call, Assistant ProfessorRussell Sage College, Troy New York

Linda Mixon Clary, Assistant ProfessorAugusta College, Augusta, Georgia

Nancy Porcher, Assistant ProfessorArmstrong State College, Savannah, Georgia

Larry J. Salmon, Assistant ProfessorMadison College, Harrisonburg, Virginia

Susan J. Smith, Assistant ProfessorNicholls State University, Thibodaus, Louisiana

Rob Tierney, Assistant ProfessorUniversity of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona

. . . from Arizona State University, Tempe

John Colligan, Assistant ProfessorMadison College, Harrisonburg

Lance Gentile, Associate ProfessorPan American University, Edinburg, Texas

32

Brenda Beal, Assistant ProfessorUniversity of California at Humboldt, Humboldt, California

. . . from Syracuse University

Doris Halliwell, Assistant ProfessorNew Rochelle College, New Rochelle, New York

Linda Lamme, Assistant ProfessorUniversity of Florida, Gainseville, Florida

Jack Bunch, Assistant ProfessorSlippery Rock Teacher's College, Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania

Anita Corey, Assistant ProfessorMadison College, Harrisonburg, Virginia

Jon Shapiro, Assistant ProfessorState University of New York at Fredonia, Fredonia, New York

Robert Lemons, Assistant ProfessorTuskegee Institute, Tuskegee, Alabama

. . . from State University of New York at Albany

Jerry Niles, Assistant ProfessorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburg, Virginia

Etta Miller, Assistant ProfessorTexas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas

Joseph Fusaro, Assistant ProfessorUniversity of Scranton, Scranton, Pennsylvania

. . . from the University of Missouri Kansas CityVictor Culver, Assistant ProfessorUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesville, Virginia

33

Editorial Comment

Time and events march on. Reading jobs are still unfilled whilethe teacher surplus grows. State Legislators are overnightexpanding school and college reading programs. Vocationalschools and junior colleges continue to build expandedcompensatory reading units. The points of emphasis may bechanging but reading grads still enter an active and largely sellercontrolled job market.

Doctoral level jobs are still available too. In MOVERS note thatpartial listings from six institutions show the placement of 28new grads. The record in our informal tally goes to MadisonCollege for adding three of those listed to their staff.

Right To Read continues to age of chronic underfunding. Tellyour congressmen to attend to the reading bills now that theyare out of the Watergate swamp. To learn more about futureRight To Read milestones look to your state department as thatis where increasing amounts of federal dollar investments areheaded. Also brace yourself for a new wave of funded volunteertutor programs. . ."tutoring academies" in Right to Read jargon.

Innovation in the training of reading teachers continues. Themodule craze of recent years has come of age in themodularized textbook. Field-based instruction is the new fad inquest of the ultimate in competency based training. Weunderstand a growing demand now exists for authors offield-based texts. Seems neigh onto impossible to separatereading from books. . .even textbooks.

Summer a time of respite for weary educators? Not from whatwe hear from instructors of graduate reading courses. Recordnumbers of teachers are coming back to find out how to copewith reading problems, especially secondary teachers. Howabout a winter vacation this year?

RAP

34

For the Time Capsule . . . (September, 1974)

The resignation of Richard M. Nixon under threat ofimpeachment transpired too quickly once started. Seeing it livemade it seem inconsequential and old before the eveningedition, yet we sense a peculiar emotional lag. This may explainman's fascination with history. Events which took place duringa coffee break can be digested for years afterwards.

The answer to the 'will he resign?' question has dutifully raisedits own new query: Can a square peg fit in an oval hole?President Gerald Ford tt.iok office to the sound of damnablefaint praise. His brother gulped(!) and said, "Jerry is stable andconscious; and, he was a hellava football player, Ivo."Nonetheless, we must admit that we like him. The President isdefinitely frank, apparently courageous and, we smpect,brighter than anyone is currently giving him credit for: Rockyin the bank, amnesty one way or another; pardon beforeindictment. . .although the latter is threatening to turn FordianFrankness into Fjordian Frankness.

The Media. Or down the Down Staircase. The fall T.V. season isa welcome break from (Repeat). Almost no one denies the roleof T.V. in their lives anymore. We are already looking forwardto the mid-year entries which promise the ultimate audiencegrabber: a female detective of mixed black and Greek descent,who is obese, lame and dyslexic. But these are not her situationhandicaps, it's her name Christie Kodjak Cannonside. Shewears a gamey raincoat, lives in a trailer, and is obsessed withafternoon reruns of the Beverly Hillbillies. Do you suppose T.V.guides will ever have shows marked (Replication)? There is talkof a Brand (as in cereal) new concept in game shows,"Cretin-Give-Away"; no questions, no converration, just a maleBobbie doll with 10 extra teeth who tries to give away moneywithout personal injury to himself to odd objects jumping

35

with pre-adolescent delight. Media trends of another kind arealso crystallizing. There is a surge in the popularity of "Pop"and speciality magazines. PSYCHOLOGY TODAY and NI.TIMES must be called successes in the first category, anaWOMEN'S SPORTS and several food magazines in the second.Anticipate mags for unemployed soothsayers and professors ofreading teacher educators. In books, Fiction is "caught up on atin roof" (if you know that joke) it has been about 18months since a pure fiction book has been the best seller.Jimmy Breslin may soon correct that. But even WORLDWITHOUT END, AN1...N seems more like the "New Journalism"than fiction . . . or is the "new Journalism" merely fiction(?).

For those who care, changes in football rules seem to haveneutralized the defense, energized the offense, and re-institutedthe Bomb. At least during pre-season.

Contrarywise, the loom of doom and the speed of change whichhave kept us alternately in anxiety and shock since 1960 seemsto be abating: Vietbomb is (temporarily?) defused; thecounter-culturists have passed mental age 16; we are gettingused to having our electronic living room guest embarrass uswith talk of feminine deodorant problems and the irregularityof old age; we are coming to accept inflation as a luxuryproblem and part of daily life; no one can say that integration isreally working, but no one can say that it isn't; ana the SS MPHspeed limit stands as a ubiquitous sign (73% of the populacesupport it) covering the American landscape with our wish tojust incubate.

Another kind of incubation is bringing relief after a long periodof consumer dismay. There are young, BRIGHT, articulate,people showing up in the darnest places: as automechanics,plumbers, gardners, and such. The reasons for their appearancesmay be a mixed blessing, but half a blessing to counter with amixed metaphor is sweeter than none.

36

Do you remember when dieffenbachia, coleus and begoniaswere the property of spinster-school teachers? Why I've got awax begonia that I wouldn't trade for an economy car.

AVM

News Notes:

We have articles coming up by Emmett Betts, Helen Robinson,Thomas Estes, Edward Smith, H. Alan Robinson, RobertChristina, and jaap Tuinman.

The National Reading Conference is meeting is Kansas City,Missouri on December 2-4. We have it on the best authoritythat this will be a sensational conference. Kansas City is nowranked among the top speciality restaurant towns in USA.Senator Thomas Eagleton will be a guest speaker. Edward Fry(Ringer's University) is chief conference chairman.

Hal Herber and Joan Nelson are now Drs. Harold and JoanHerber. Our warmest congratulations.

Late News Note:

Title VII the National Reading Improvement Programpromises to put $30,000,000 into the improvement of readinginstruction in 1974-75 like NOW! Priority 2 is to provideassistance in "development and enhancement of necessary skillsof instructional staff . . ." We thank Dr. Sterl Art ley for thisreminder. Senator Eagleton will be discussing this act at NRC.

37

NEW MEMBERS

Dr. Richard AllingtonState University of New York at Albany1400 Washington AvenueAlbany, Nzw York 12222

Dr. Mark Mils136D Barton HallUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis, Minnesota 55455

Dr. Allen BergerDepartment of Elementary EducationThe University of AlbertaEdmonton, Alberta, CanadaT6G 2G5

Dr. Mary M. BrittainUniversity of Madison Wisconsin6217 Pidemont RoadMadison, Wisconsin 53711

Dr. N. Dale BryantColumbia University1230 Amsterdam Apt. gl 1New York, New York 10027

Dr. Richard W. BurnettUniversity of Missouri St. Louis8001 Natural Bridge RoadSt. Louis, Missouri 63121

Dr. Jeanne ChallSchool of EducationHarvard UniversityCambridge, Massachusetts

38

Dr. Edna P. De HavenDepartment of Curriculum and InstructionUniversity of OregonH-55 35th Avenue W.Eugene, Oregon 97405

Dr. Elias H. WiebePacific College1717 South ChestnutFresno, California 93702

Dr. Joan T. FeeleyPaterson College300 Pompton RoadWayne, New Jersey 07470

Dr. James T. FlemingState University of New Yorkat Albany

1400 Washington AvenueAlbany, New York 12222

Dr. J. Eugene FletcherEastern Washington Colley:Cheney, Washington 99004

Dr. Flora C. FowerEast Tennessee St. UniversityETSU CampusJohnson City, Tennessee

Dr. Mary E. HarshbargerTC 309Bali State UniversityMuncie, Indiana 47305

39

Dr. Peter Hasselriis215 Education BuildingUniversity of Missouri ColumbiaColumbia, Missouri 65201

Dr. Margaret Keyser HillSouthern Illinois UniversityWham Bldg. Room 226Carbondale, Illinois 62901

Dr. Daniel R. HittlemanDepartment of EducationQueens College of the City

University of New YorkFlushing, New York 11367

Dr. Robert A. KaiserMemphis State University6490 Sulgrave DriveMemphis, Tennessee 38138

Dr. James E. KerberOhio State University201 Arps HallColumbus, Ohio 43210

Dr. Karl Koenke305 Education BuildingUniversity of Illinois UrbanaUrbana, Illinois 61801

Dr. Janet B. KuenneNew York UniversitySchool of EducationDepartment of Educational Psychology933 Shimkin HallNew York, New York 10003

40

Dr. Robert E. LeibertUniversity of Missouri Kansas CityDivision of Reading EducationSchool of Education, UMKCKansas City, Missouri 64110

Dr. George MasonReading DepartmentCollege of EducationUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia 30602

Dr. Nancy J. NicholsBacon Hall 321 FState University College at

Buffalo1300 Elmwood AvenueBuffalo, New York 14222

Dr. William OehlkersRhode Island College600 Mt. PleasantProvidence, Rhode Island 02908

Dr. Wallace RamseyUniversity of Missouri St. Louis14 MeadowbrookBallwin, Missouri 63011

Dr. Mary Luke Reiland (Sister)LoyelaMarymount University7101 West 80th StreetLos Angeles, California 90045

41

Dr. H. Alan RobinsonSchool of EducationHofstra UniversityHempstead, Long Island, New York

Dr. Robert R. SchmatzUniveristy of WisconsinStevens Point457 COPSStevens Point, Wisconsin 54418

Dr. Hazel Simpson309 Aderhold BuildingUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia 30602

Dr. Phyllis W. SmithClarion State CollegeClarion, Pennsylvania 16412

Dr. Zelda SmithN. Kentucky State CollegeHighland Heights, Kentucky 41076

Dr. Jo M. StanchfieldOccidental College1600 Campus RoadLos Angeles, California 90041

Dr. John M. TaylorEast Tennessee State UniversityBox 2446, E.T.S.U.Johnson City, Tennessee 37601

42

Dr. Taylor E. TurnerMarshall UniversityHuntington, West Virginia 25701

Dr. Edna WarnckeTeachers College 316Ball State UniversityMuncie, Indiana 47306

Dr. David C. WatermanIndiana State University322 Stalker HallTerre Haute, Indiana 47809

Dr. Agnes A. MammyUniversity of Cincinnati274 Senator Place, No9Cincinnati, Ohio 45220

431/1

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Robert A. Palmatier (Ph.D., Syracuse University, 1968) is anassociate professor of Reading Education at the University ofGeorgia. In addition to serving as chairman of PRTE, Dr.Palmatier is President of the Northeast Georgia Council of theIRA. At the University he specializes in secondary reading,directs a Right To Read Community Based Project, and advisesdoctoral candidates.

Anthony V. Manzo (Ph.D., Syracuse University, 1969) served asthe first secretary/treasurer of PRTE and continues asCoordinating Editor of EPISTLE. As an associate professor atthe University of Missouri at Kansas City, Dr. Manzo directs thecollege reading program, teaches graduate courses, and advisesdoctoral candidates. He has been active in a variety of adultand secondary school education projects.

Shirley D. Myers (Ed.D., University of Georgia, 1967) as anassistant professor at the University of Georgia serves as thereading department's representative to the Atlanta Area TeacherEducation Service. Thus, Dr. Myers spends the majority of hertime teaching field based courses and graduate in-service classes.

A. Byron Callaway (Ed.D., University of Missouri, 1951) isProfessor of Reading Education and Director of the ReadingClinic at the University of Georgia. Dr. Callaway advises severaldoctoral candidates each year in addition to his reading clinicand teaching responsibilities.

George E. Mason (Ph.D., Syracuse University, 1963) is Professorof Reading Education and Head of the Reading Department atthe University of Georgia. In addition to administrative andteaching duties, Dr. Mason advises doctoral candidates,specializes in beginning reading, and writes high interest lowreadability books (Allyn and Bacon).

45

Richard Allington (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1973)teaches graduate reading courses, including a clinical practicumin diagnosis and remediation, as an Assistant Professor at theState University of New York at Albany. Dr. Allington is a pastwinner of an IRA Distinguished Dissertation award. He iscurrently co-authoring a book on secondary reading.

46