Chairman George Miller of the House of Representatives HELP Committee has promised that three F’s will guide changes in the reauthorization of NCLB, the 2001 revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act including Reading First. The three F’s are fair, flexible, and finance.

Within the past two years the Inspector General of the Department of Education has issued a series of alarming reports on conflicts of interest and violations of the NCLB law that occurred during the implementation of Reading First by Department of Education staff and its consultants and contractors. In a subsequent Committee hearing several of these contractors and consultants admitted to making huge personal profits from requiring the use of tests and texts that they themselves had authored or otherwise profited from.

The perpetrators justified these conflicts of interest by citing the requirement in the Reading First law that state proposals must use materials and tests representing “Scientifically Based Reading Research.” A small group of consultants and contractors, mostly affiliated with the University of Oregon, was given the power to decide which tests and programs were and were not acceptable under SBRR. They concluded that only tests and materials that they themselves had produced met that criterion. Even if that were true their actions would have still been illegal since another provision of the law expressly prohibits the DOE from using NCLB to impose methods and curriculum on the states. And of course they should have reclused themselves from decisions from which they personally profited.

But their claim to a scientific base for their materials is not valid. In fact it is as if the astrologers had been put in charge of the space program. None of the specific programs anointed by the DOE as SBRR has any scientific research on its effectiveness. DIBELS, a test funded by the US government and now sold for profit .has been rejected by a wide range of psychometrists and test makers. The Inspector General’s reports cite this test specifically as one forced on states. An official of the Kentucky Department of Education testified at the committee hearing that their state proposal was turned down several times until they agreed to include DIBELS. Ironically, results on DIBELS are being used by Sec. Spellings to claim successes for Reading First which are spurious. Instructional materials published by Sopris West which were approved as scientific are not just poorly written: they are inane, racist, and sexist. Two programs pushed by the DOE staff and consultants are published by McGraw-Hill which includes several of the consultants and contractors as authors on the programs. A recommended program published by Scott, Foresman was developed by DOE consultants and contractors and SF used these same people to gain acceptance for the program in several states. All this is in the files of the House Committee.

Secretary Spellings has herself justified the strong arm approaches used by her staff on state negotiators by claiming that Reading First has been a success. Yet the National Assessment of Educational Progress data shows that bilingual fourth grade reading scores have been flat since a down and up ripple in the two years before NCLB took effect.

1999: 174
2000: 167
2001: 183
2002: 186
2003: 187

Since its inception Reading First has been used as a device for controlling reading curriculum and limiting use of materials not developed by those given the power to interpret the law. And it has had a devastating impact on teacher morale, forcing effective teachers who could not accept its narrow control out of the classroom in droves. This is not a simple “reading wars, phonics vs whole language” issue. Everyone from publishers of other phonics programs ( who filed the original complaints with the OIG) to traditional basal publishers, so-called balanced programs, and whole language programs have been excluded. In some cases DOE staff threatened specific school districts with loss of funds if they used Reading Recovery or Rigby, programs they had blacklisted. That’s not fair. Reading Recovery, a holistic remediation program, is actually the only program that has been certified by a government agency as having research support for its effectiveness.

To date no action by the DOE or Secretary Spellings has done anything to correct this narrow, unfair and inflexible application of the law.

To achieve fairness and flexibility the law must be rewritten to make it impossible for any narrow group to impose their own biases on states and LEAs. There must be a level playing field for all publishers and programs. The blacklists that were created by the DOE and its contractors on programs, tests and people must be abolished. Much more progress would be made from encouraging a wide range of approaches and then requiring them to provide unbiased research evidence that they are successful. In several cases contracts were given to groups to monitor their own programs under Secretary Spellings.( As documented in the OIG reports)

Specifically the following revisions need to be made in the Reading First law:

  • It should be stated up front that the law is not intended to impose tests, methods or materials on any states or LEAs. The phrase SBRR should be eliminated from the bill as having no common accepted meaning in the field of reading. While schools may be held responsible for achieving success in reading, the law should be interpreted flexibly to allow them to choose their own methods and materials. Specific definitions of reading, reading research, and reading instruction should be taken out of the law since they are scientific matters which are not susceptible to legal definition.
  • School districts should not be required to contract with outside agencies for tutoring services which often employ unqualified staff. Teacher education programs should be supported to produce the needed number of qualified teachers for all classrooms including those in rural and inner city areas traditionally unserved..
  • For Reading First to be fair and flexible the DOE should be required to renegotiate all state contracts under Reading First which were illegally negotiated. And the procedure for reviewing new proposals should be fair and flexible. A much broader range of experts in the field of reading should be involved in the review process. Conflict of interest policies should be much more fully spelled out. And there should be prosecution of those who made illegal profits from past enforcement.
  • The House Appropriations Committee has recommended that funds for Reading First should be dramatically reduced until there is evidence that the law has become fair and flexible. That’s essential to the law regaining the respect it has lost among the public and the educational community. Only when the law is made fair and flexible should it be fully funded.

Reading First can make an important difference in raising the literacy levels of those less well served by their schools.. But that requires positive, fair and flexible support of teachers and schools. The narrow punitive approach of the current law can only compound and obscure the real issues.

One anonymous teacher who is quoted in my book, claims that her district is not using DIBELS because administrators and teachers want to use it or because it gives helpful information, because it doesn’t, she claims. “We’re using it because Reading First requires it,” she says. “Some schools are posting fluency scores of children … and then the students have race cars, in the form of bulletin boards, where they are trying to race to the speed goal. On the phoneme segmentation part, some kindergarten classrooms have been known to drill and practice the segmentation while kids are in line waiting for the restroom.”

DIBELS is not just an early literacy test. Teachers are required to group learners and build instruction around the scores. They’re evaluated on the DIBELS scores their pupils achieve. Publishers are tailoring programs to DIBELS. And academic and life decisions for children, starting in kindergarten, are being made according to DIBELS scores.

I believe this period in American education will be characterized as the pedagogy of the absurd. Roland Good, a DIBELS developer, told the U.S. House of Representatives’ Education Committee during a hearing last April that three million children are tested with DIBELS at least three times a year from kindergarten through third grade. New Mexico provides every teacher with a DIBELS Palm Pilot so the pupils’ scores can be sent directly to Oregon for processing.

Kentucky’s associate education commissioner testified at the hearing that the state’s Reading First proposal was rejected repeatedly until they agreed to use DIBELS. The DOE inspector general cited conflicts of interest by Good and his Oregon colleagues in promoting DIBELS.

Another teacher, quoted in my book, claims that while the DIBELS test is used throughout the school year, any child who receives the label “Needs Extensive Intervention” as a result of the first testing must be monitored with a “fluency passage” every other week.

No test of any kind for any purpose has ever had this kind of status. In my book, I analyzed each of the subtests in depth. Here are my conclusions:

•   DIBELS reduces reading to a few components that can be tested in one minute. Tests of naming letters or sounding out nonsense syllables are not tests of reading. Only the misnamed Reading Fluency test involves reading a meaningful text, and that is scored by the number of words read correctly in one minute.

•   DIBELS does not test what it says it tests. Each test reduces what it claims to test to an aspect tested in one minute.

•   What DIBELS does, it does poorly, even viewed from its own criteria. Items are poorly constructed and inaccuracies are common.

•   DIBELS cannot be scored consistently. The tester must time responses (three seconds on a stopwatch), mark a score sheet, and listen to the student, whose dialect may be different from the tester, all at the same time.

•   DIBELS does not test the reading quality. No test evaluates what the reader comprehends. Even the “retelling fluency test” is scored by counting the words used in a retelling.

•   The focus on improving performance on DIBELS is likely to contribute little or nothing to reading development and could actually interfere. It just has children do everything fast.

•   DIBELS misrepresents pupil abilities. Children who already comprehend print are undervalued, and those who race through each test with no comprehension are overrated.

•   DIBELS demeans teachers. It must be used invariantly. It leaves no place for teacher judgment or experience.

•   DIBELS is a set of silly little tests. It is so bad in so many ways that it could not pass review for adoption in any state or district without political coercion. Little can be learned about something as complicated as reading development in one-minute tests.

Pedagogy of the Absurd
I believe this period in American education will be characterized as the pedagogy of the absurd. Nothing better illustrates this than DIBELS. It never gets close to measuring what reading is really about-making sense of print. It is absurd that self-serving bureaucrats in Washington have forced it on millions of children. It is absurd that scores on these silly little tests are used to judge schools, teachers and children. It is absurd that use of DIBELS can label a child a failure the first week of kindergarten. And it is a tragedy that life decisions are being made for 5- and 6-year-olds on the basis of such absurd criteria.

The inspector General of the US Department of Education has documented flagrant conflicts of interest and illegal impositions of curriculum in negotiating the NCLB state contracts. Here are my views on what is needed to even partially undo the damage done.

Contracts and Sub-contracts with those guilty of conflicts of interest.

It’s not enough for Secretary Spellings to promise to not do it again

All contracts with faculty, employees and entities at the University of Oregon should be reviewed and cancelled if they involved conflicts of interest. Any products of those contracts should be withdrawn and recalled.

Contracts for Assistance Centers should be reviewed and cancelled if they involve conflicts of interest and all products of those conflicts should be withdrawn and recalled. All state and LEA contracts issued under advisement of those with conflicts of interest should also be cancelled and renegotiated.

State contracts in which implementers with conflicts of interest exerted undue influence or acted coercively should be cancelled and renegotiated. That essentially means all state contracts.

Indictments and repayments

The Justice department should be requested to investigate causes for indictments and recovery of illegally gained profits resulting from conflicts of interest by individuals and publishers. The following companies should be investigated: McGraw Hill, Pearson (Scott Foresman), Houghton Mifflin, Voyager, and Sopris West. Specific attention should be paid to DIBELS, a focus of several issues raised in the Office of Inspector General reports.

Disqualification

Persons and companies found guilty of conflicts of interest and illegal acts in implementing Reading First should be disqualified from further participation in any NCLB funding initiatives

Resignation

Margaret Spellings and any of her staff involved in illegal imposition of curriculum as prohibited in NCLB should be asked to resign. Actual crimes may have been committed under NCLB.

Redundancy has something to be said for it. In language, redundancy is one thing that makes human communication possible.

But when the exact same phrase is used redundantly in the 670 pages of the NCLB law (strictly speaking the 2002 NCLB revision of the ESEA law) it would seem that there must be a compelling reason for such redundancy. The phrase “scientifically based research” occurs 120 times in the law. Most often it has an additional word and becomes: “scientifically based reading research” which in the enforcement of Reading First, the billion dollar year reading portion of NCLB becomes simply SBRR. 

But why was the phrase inserted redundantly at every point in NCLB where any determination was specified of what and who would be authorized under the law.. On the face, the phrase itself seems redundant. Isn’t research by definition scientific? Ah, but that’s the point!  The term “scientifically based reading research” implies that some reading research must be unscientific.

Sandy Kress who came with Bush from Texas is the one who made sure the redundant use of this phrase occurred as the law was written.  If there was a common agreement in the field of reading instruction on how to differentiate scientific from unscientific research- if there was at least a consensus among researchers-  then surely using the phrase once would have been enough.

The answer is that the phrase “Scientifically Based Reading Research” was put into NCLB over and over as a code phrase for a particular view of reading instruction advocated by a small group centered at the University of Oregon around  Distarr, a forty year old behavioral synthetic phonics reading program originally authored by Sigfried Engelmann. Under its current publisher McGraw Hill it became Direct Instruction Reading.  Douglas Carnine, a U of Oregon professor and Direct Instruction author, coined the phrase, Scientifically Based Reading Research,  first in the so-called “reading wars.”

Carnine now finds himself a trusted education adviser to the Bush administration. Before that, he advised California and Texas, under then-Gov. George W. Bush, on the restructuring of their state reading programs — both of which served as models for Reading First.

At Oregon, he directed the National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators (NCITE). His goal was not only to create a more welcome climate for reading science in academe, but to win the hearts and minds of publishers — in other words, to create a market for scientifically-based reading research. (Andrew Brownstein and Travis Hicks. 2005)

Carnine argued that theirs was the scientific alternative to whole language in the reading wars. By using this phrase redundantly throughout the text of the law it signaled precisely whose view of reading instruction the law was designed to mandate for every decision to be made in implementing Reading First.

And those put in charge by the Bush administration understood that the redundancy in the law gave them the green light to have it their way. He who hath the power to differentiate scientifically based reading research from unscientifically  based reading research is justified in deciding which text programs, which tests, which experts, which teacher education programs, which grant recipients, which publishers, which support servers are acceptable under Reading First and which are not. 

The reason for all this redundancy became apparent in the April 2007 hearings conducted by Rep. George Miller’s House Education committee. Those accused by the Inspector General of the Department of Education of flagrant conflicts of interest defended themselves by saying they were following the law’s mandate for SBRR in all their decisions. And in their view they were because they knew the intent of the law. (Brownstien and Hicks 2005) report:

“Our field is a lot like medicine and pharmaceuticals,” said Louisa Moats, the director of literacy professional development for Sopris West of Longmont, Colo. and the author of Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS), a widely-used program in Reading First schools. “There is a close relationship — sometimes too close — between the people who do research and the people who bring products to the market.”

But Moats said that while there needs to be “checks and balances,” it would be wrong to discourage researchers from developing products.

“What if these people weren’t doing anything commercial, then where would we be?” she asked. “We would be right back where we were 10 years ago, when all this good research was going on and no one ever used it.”

They were given the power to enforce the law by the Bush administration through Secretary of Education Rod Paige, Margaret Spellings ( his white house controller and then successor), and Reid Lyon (Bush’s reading Guru). They were centered in special education at the University of Oregon. Oregon faculty involved include Douglas Carnine, Edward Kame’enui, Deborah Simmons, Roland Good and others . Sharon Vaughn in Texas, and Joseph TorgesEn in Florida, and Louisa Moats of Sopris West are also part of the group who profited from the shared power over what is and what isn’t scientific. Sopris West publishes the commercial version of DIBELS. Randy Best, a Texas entrepreneur, parlayed Voyager, using several of the above as authors, into a program he sold last year for almost $400 million dollars.  This group understood how the SBRR phrase is to be interpreted. It’s the view exemplified in Direct Instruction and Voyager. They had the power over Reading First and they needed no one outside their group to make  the decisions involved in implementing Reading First. This was their party and nobody else including other phonics advocates was invited.

The OIG’s first report comments on an internet message from the Reading First director…

They are trying to crash our party and we need to beat the [expletive deleted] out  of them in front of all the other would-be party crashers who are standing on the  front lawn waiting to see how we welcome these dirtbags. 

The Reading First Director forwarded the above e-mail to Lyon and stated: 

Confidential FYI.  Pardon in-house language I use…with fellow team members  and friends.  Do you know—on the QT—if anyone has done any good review of  the Wright Group stuff, to date?  We have beaten Maine on Rigby and this is cut  from the same cloth.  We are proceeding, of course, but if you knew of a good  piece of work dissecting The Wright Group’s stuff, it could further strengthen our  hand.

Lyon responded that he would obtain this information and added, “I like your style.”  In  response, the Reading First Director stated, “Additional firepower…may help us make this a  one-punch fight.” (OIG 2006)

Ironically the OIG investigations were begun after complaints from excluded phonics advocates.

No procedures were set up in implementing Reading First to require publishers of reading programs and tests to offer research proof that their offerings were in fact proved effective through scientifically based research. The power group saw no conflicts of interest in pushing their own programs and tests since theirs were the only ones worthy of being considered as conforming to SBRR. And they were the only ones with the expertise necessary to determine SBRR. And it is true that others might not be relied on to make the decisions since their view of what is scientific has little support among reading educators and researchers.

There is however another provision of the NCLB law which only occurs once. It was inserted at the insistence of members of Congress concerned that the law not be used to usurp authority over  education from the states. It prohibits: “any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system..” Nothing could be clearer than that about the intention of Congress. The act creating the Department of Education several years ago has a similar prohibition for the same reason.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration gave one man, Chris Daugherty, sole DOE authority for implementation of the billion dollar a year Reading First program with a single assistant.  That assured that their intentions in interpreting the law would be followed. He was well chosen. His prior job was running a Direct Instruction program in the Baltimore school system. His wife is an employee of Direct Instruction. Through him most of the work of Reading First was outsourced. Emails reviewed by the OIG showed that he regularly consulted the others in the power group to decide what did and didn’t conform to SBRR. He ignored the explicit instructions in the law in organizing the review process for state proposals under Reading First. Members of the power group were placed on review panels to assure that their view would dominate. Together they bullied state after state to assure conformity to their view of SBRR. Their emails make clear that this was deliberate and they believed that what they did was approved by the Bush administration. 

Sandy Kress who wrote the SBRR phrase into the law, became a paid consultant after he left the government,  he was the broker between publishers who wanted their materials approved and the DOE according to Title 1 Monitor (2005)

During these early days of the program, various department personnel met with representatives of the major publishing companies — and some of the smaller ones — to urge them to beef up their programs and to reflect a greater emphasis on SBRR. It was a clear echo of Carnine’s earlier work with NCITE. By all accounts, the meetings were informal and well-received.

One of those meetings was a lunch in Washington involving the department and representatives of Scott Foresman of Livonia, Mich., publishers of a major basal textbook. Accompanying Scott Foresman officials was Sandy Kress, a close presidential adviser and one of the architects of No Child Left Behind, who had become a lobbyist for Pearson, Inc., Scott Foresman’s parent company. The meeting was unremarkable save for the appearance of two faces then-relatively unknown in the nation’s capital: Ed Kame’enui and Deborah Simmons, professors and longtime colleagues of Carnine at the University of Oregon. Along with Sharon Vaughn, a reading researcher at the University of Texas, the pair had just signed with Scott Foresman to produce a new basal, scheduled for release in 2007. ( Brownstein and Hicks, 2005)

Kame’enui and Simmons testified at the Congressional hearing that each had received $150,000 a year from Scott, Foresman for their work on the program. 

The OIG found, in its review of Reading First, that states were misled as to the requirements of the law and coerced into including approved programs such as Direct Instruction and tests such as DIBELS during the process of reviewing state proposals. Daugherty and his consultants assumed that they had a free hand in interpreting the law.

A contract went to Kame’enui and his colleagues at Oregon through a grant to the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL)  to review materials in terms of SBRR. They produced a list of favored programs and tests prominently featuring DIBELS produced with federal funding at the University of Oregon. It’s principal author is Roland Good. Though NIFL never gave approval to release the report under this contract, it was posted on the Oregon web site with Daugherty’s assent and frequently referred to in reviewing state proposals. 

The DOE contracted for a series of Reading Leadership Academies and required recipients of Reading First grants to attend. The OIG reported:

With regard to the RLAs, (Reading Leadership Academies)  we concluded that the Department did not have controls in place to ensure compliance with the Department of Education Organization Act (DEOA) and NCLB Act curriculum provisions.  Specifically, we found that: 1) the “Theory to Practice” sessions at the RLAs focused on a select number of reading programs; and 2) the RLA Handbook and Guidebook appeared to promote the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Assessment Test. (OIG 2007)

A contract went to RMC Research Corporation’s (RMC) to setup technical assistance centers to insure that states followed the law as their contracts indicated. Contracts for the technical assistance centers went to Kame’enui in Oregon, Vaughn in Texas and Torgeson in Florida with no consideration for conflicts of interest. The OIG in their investigation concluded:

With regard to RMC Research Corporation’s (RMC) technical proposal for the NCRFTA contract, we concluded that the Department did not adequately assess issues of bias and lack of objectivity when approving individuals to be technical assistance providers before and after the NCRFTA contract was awarded. (OIG2007)

The Department of Education has claimed that Reading First is successful and that it is due to the pedagogy it has imposed on the schools. There is considerable dispute from a wide range of reading authorities about these claims.  The results reported by the DOE rely to a considerable extent on DIBELS which tests for speed and accuracy on such things as nonsense word identification but not for the quality of reading comprehension. (http://dibels.uoregon.edu/) One factor that contributed to the conflicts of interest is that the view of reading instruction it imposed has little support among teachers and reading educators. 

But two things are clear about the implementation of Reading First regardless of the issue of the quality of the programs and tests it imposed:

  1. The prohibition in the law against the DOE interfering in curriculum was flagrantly and deliberately violated.
  2. The conflicts of interest of those involved in implementing Reading First resulted in huge personal gain for them and their publishers which they continue to receive.

What needs to be done. 

Secretary Spellings and her assistants have admitted that mistakes were made in the early days of Reading First implementation. But those “mistakes” are still yielding handsome profits to those who made them, not only in terms of royalties but in terms of on-going contracts they were illegally awarded.  Not only do those guilty of criminal acts need to be punished, but the results of their illegal acts need to be reversed. For example, contracts for the assistance centers need to be cancelled and the recipients required to refund the money illegally awarded to them. State contracts need to be renegotiated or they are likely to involve the DOE in endless law suits contesting their legality.

The guilt clearly goes beyond the one government employee forced to resign. Sec. Spellings should be asked to resign and the role she and her predecessor played in violation of the law needs to be investigated.

It is not sufficient to establish more stringent rules for the implementation of the Reading First law. to avoid the possibility of the same kind of illegal activity in the future. The law itself needs to be rewritten to remove every instance of the use of the phrase Scientifically Based Reading Research. Congress should make clear that it did not intend to impose a single one-size-fits all mandate or endorse a small number of commercial materials. 

The intentions of Reading First to improve the literacy of America’s young people are laudable. And federal support can make a major difference. But the law needs to be refocused as a positive, not punitive, collaboration between local, state, and federal authorities. And there needs to be a much wider involvement of professionals at all levels in planning and implementing the objectives of increased literacy.

References

  • Andrew Brownstein and Travis Hicks, Thompson Title 1 Monitor , August 2005            
  • Roland Good, Official DIBELS website  http://dibels.uoregon.edu/ 
  • U.S Department of Education.   Office of Inspector General.  The Reading First Program’s Grant Application Process  Final Inspection Report  ED-OIG/I13-F0017.  September 2006  Washington, D.C. 
  • U.S Department of Education Office of Inspector General. The Department’s Administration of Selected Aspects of the Reading First Program Final Audit Reported- OIG/A03G0006. February 2007.  Philadelphia, PA.

Recently my local newspaper reported the shocking fact that in a Tucson middle school, labeled as failing, half the students were “reading below grade level.” That would also mean that half are reading above grade level, a fact the article did not report.

“Grade level” is the term assigned to the score on a norm referenced test that the average pupil achieves. The test is “normed” by administering it to a sample of children in the range of grades it is intended to test. Grade level for each grade is the mean score of all pupils in that grade who took the test. By design, half the children will be above that mean and half will be below. Garrison Keillor has made the joke for years that in his mythical Lake Woebegone “all the children are above average”.

It’s bad enough that news reporters don’t understand the term “grade level.” But in the past few days two of our nation’s highest educational officials publicly misused the term “grade level.”

In a letter to the Denver Post, US Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings said the following:

“Unrealistic.” “Not achievable.” These were words once used to label the academic prospects of disadvantaged and minority children. Now, according to a recent survey conducted by Sen. Ken Salazar, they’re being used to describe the goals of the No Child Left Behind act.

It’s time to bust this myth. No Child Left Behind calls on students to read and do math at grade level or better by 2014. It holds schools accountable for steady progress each year until they do. As a mom, I don’t think that’s too much to ask. I believe most parents, whose views were severely under represented in the survey, would agree. They want their children to be taught to grade level now.

And her Deputy Secretary of Education Raymond Simon made a similar misuse of “grade level” in an interview with the Washington Post.

Simon said in an interview that students learning English must be tested on grade-level material to determine whether they are making progress. He asked Virginia state Superintendent Billy K. Cannaday Jr. to ensure that local school districts comply.

“No Child Left Behind says all children will be able to read and do math at grade level,” Simon said. “The whole point of No Child Left Behind is to find out what they know and don’t know and target resources. . . . We want the law to be followed.”

NCLB requires states to use criterion referenced tests. Such a test is supposed to be based on what those tested should know or be able to do in the area tested. Arbitrary scores are given labels by those constructing the test to what they guess would be what those at different levels would achieve.

In the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) they used the terms Basic, Proficient and Outstanding. They set the scores so that they could differentiate those who were simply adequate (basic) from those who were much more accomplished (proficient) and those few who truly excelled.(Outstanding) Both the terms and the scores are arbitrary.

The framers of the NCLB law picked up the term “proficient” and said that kids, schools and schools districts would be judged by the percent of those reaching the proficient score. By 2014 all students of all kinds in all schools must be “proficient” or the schools are failing.

Spellings says “ No Child Left Behind calls on students to read and do math at grade level or better by 2014. It holds schools accountable for steady progress each year until they do. “ Either she is showing basic ignorance of what she is talking about or she is deliberately intending to confuse the issue. If the law required grade level achievement for all students that would certainly be “not achievable” since it would require them to all be above average- a logical impossibility. But what the law really requires is that they must all achieve a score arbitrarily assigned to those who are far better than just adequate. That is certainly both unrealistic and not achievable. And many states have projected that by holding to that requirement virtually all their schools would be failing by 2014.

Simon adds to the confusion by saying the law requires “that students learning English must be tested on grade-level material.” This implies that the same “material” is appropriate for all students in a given grade regardless how well they control English or any other trait on which they vary. He is interpreting NCLB to mean that English language learners must be tested in English to show they “will be able to read and do math at grade level.” Again the law requires them to be “proficient” and says nothing about “grade level”. Ironically a student could be truly proficient in a home language and still be failing according to Simon’s interpretation of NCLB.

I’m inclined to believe that our government officials are not ignorant so I must conclude that they are deliberately misusing the term grade level to confuse the public.

In spite of the scandal in the administration of Reading First uncovered in the Inspector General’s report and in spite of the alarming number of schools throughout the country being falsely labeled as failing schools, NCLB was not a major issue in the mid-term elections.

Now, however, we have an opportunity to begin a nation-wide campaign to make the public and our elected officials aware of the deeper scandals involved in NCLB and particularly Reading First. We have an opportunity to build awareness of the need for drastic change in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to eliminate the punitive test driven changes of the NCLB law. ESEA needs to be returned to its original intention of supporting public education and making sure that it serves all American young people equally and fairly.

2007 is a key year. The first seven year cycle of NCLB ends and the law must be renewed by Congress for the following seven years. If NCLB continues as the law is currently written, by 2014 virtually every public school in the country will be labeled failing. That’s because the required AYP becomes increasingly unattainable. As currently written and enforced there are over 200 ways for a school or school district to fail.

Educators at all levels must take personal and collective actions to inform newly elected and reelected members of Congress of the need to save public education from NCLB.

District Administrators should invite newly elected and reelected Senators and Representatives to meet with them and to visit their schools so they can see first hand the damage being done by NCLB in its current punitive form. They should also invite the print and electronic media to these events.

We need to show them some of the things that NCLB has done to the students and teachers in their district and state.

Among the things they need to see:

  • Experienced and highly qualified teachers forced out of the schools or required to send letters to parents informing them that their children are not being taught by qualified teachers because of the way NCLB defines qualification.
  • Absurd reading tests and text programs teachers are forced to use against their professional judgement that are imposing a one size fits all approach on all pupils and hurting many of them.
  • High levels of anxiety among pupils, particularly the younger ones, from stress caused by high stakes timed tests. Parents should be invited to share their children’s reactions to the pressures NCLB is putting on them.
  • Low teacher morale which is driving many of the most dedicated teachers to leave teaching or take early retirement. Teachers should be invited to share their concerns for how NCLB constrains and limits their ability to serve their pupils as professionals.
  • English learners and handicapped children forced to meet the same AYP criteria and take the same tests as all other children. If one group fails or 95% a group is not tested the whole school is labeled as failing.
  • Limitations by NCLB on providing remedial help to students who need it within the district’s own resources while being forced to use Reading First money to contract with for profit companies who use unqualified and inexperienced staff.
  • The impact of the NCLB policy requiring the district to transfer pupils from “ failing” schools resulting in overcrowding on some schools and heavy unfunded costs to the district. Parents should be asked why they have been reluctant to ask for their children to be transferred to schools outside their neighborhood.

We need to show our elected law makers that far from eliminating the gap between the middle-class and the disadvantaged pupils in our schools, NCLB is disproportionately hurting the disadvantaged pupils. They are defeated by unachievable goals and driven out of high schools when they reach the legal leaving age.

We need to show our elected law makers the costs to our schools not only in the inadequate funding of NCLB mandates but in impoverishing the curriculum and focusing our classrooms away from the pursuit of knowledge and toward a narrow focus on improving test scores.

This is the year we can save our schools and public education from the disaster that is NCLB.

Two scandals involving our government and the young people of this country broke in the last few weeks. One involved the internet antics of an important Republican Congressman with current and former Congressional pages. His indiscretions shocked the nation, have brought suspicion on the House Republican hierarchy who appear to have covered up for him, and may well effect the mid-year elections. The second scandal involved millions of children in schools throughout the country. Yet, after a few newspaper reports and an occasional mild editorial, there have been no noticeable repercussions

I’m talking about the amazing report of the US Department of Education Office of Inspector General involving the Reading First portion of the No Child Left Behind. The OIG found that the DOE personnel:

  1. deliberately obscured the requirements of NCLB
  2. imposed conditions on the states which are not in the act, 
  3. were totally indifferent to blatant conflicts of interest of persons appointed to panels reviewing state proposals, 
  4. ignored the law in illegally constituting review panels
  5. and interfered in the selection of curricula, texts and tests by states and school districts illegally, according the provisions of NCLB itself and the Department of Education Authorizing Act (1979).

That sounds a lot more damaging to a lot more kids than what the reprehensible representative did. When George Miller, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Work Force expressed his outrage and called for immediate hearings in the House, the Republican leadership said no. 

NCLB, including Reading First, is a major program of the Bush administration which had bipartisan support not only from Miller but from Senator Kennedy as well. School administrators know that Reading First has been a disaster for schools in every part of every state.

State and local schools administrators have been caught in the middle between the bureaucrats in the DOE and parents, students and teachers, forced to enforce absurd programs like Direct Instruction Reading and DIBELS and to defend them as “scientifically based”. Now the ugly truth is revealed: those who authored and profited from these programs were illegally employed to review state proposals and insist on including these absurdities as a condition of approving them.

Chris Doherty, the Reading First Director is the chosen fall-guy. It’s already been announced he is leaving DOE . His only original qualification for the job is that he directed an unssuccessful Direct Instruction program in Baltimore. His assistant Sandi Jacobs has ben transferred to another job. The OIG report contains emails between Doherty and Ed Kame’enui (mentioned as having conflicts of interest}, and others boasting about how they were pushing some programs on states while harpooning others. While not as salacious as Foley’s emails they are much clearly illegal. Doherty even boasts he forced school districts in a number of states to drop blacklisted programs after their state proposals had already been approved.. Rigby and Reading Recovery are mentioned by name in the emails.

The OIG report has asked for the review of all state Reading First contracts with DOE. There is little doubt that there is a basis in what has already been revealed to declare them all illegal according to the NCLB law itself and the law establishing the DOE.

So why isn’t this scandal causing the repercussions that the Foley missteps have caused? Why did TV news virtually ignore it? With NCLB up for renewal for another 7 year sequence in the next Congress, why isn’t this becoming a major issue in the mid-term elections?

Maybe it’s because some very powerful interests have put a lid on it. Maybe the Reading First scandal has the potential for being a lot more embarrassing for some very important people than Foley’s Follies.

The following opinion column from the October issue of District Administration Magazine caused the owner (and Editor-in-Chief) of the magazine to publish an apology in the very next issue. The mea culpa was published before any reader or advertiser complained. None did. This column never appeared on the magazine’s web site, so it is published here.

In August 2004, District Administration Magazine published my critique of Senator John Kerry’s education plan. It may be read here.

In other words, the following fact-checked article was deemed unfair when an article critical of the political opponent two months earlier was fair game.

I remain incredibly proud of this article because it was timely, witty and predicted the ultimate disaster caused by the policies I criticized.

Gary Stager on Direct Instruction
Perhaps it’s time to end political social promotion
From the October 2004 issue of District Administration Magazine

Michael Moore got it wrong.

In his film, Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore shows President Bush in a Florida classroom on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. The film’s narration said that while America was being attacked, the president read the book, My Pet Goat, to a room full of young children. This is factually inaccurate in three important ways.

  1. The story is actually titled, The Pet Goat.
  2. It is not a book, but an exercise in a heavily scripted basal.
  3. The president did not read the story to the children.

Any perceptive educator watching this would quickly realize what was going on. The president was not in that Bush Reading on 9/11classroom to demonstrate his love of reading. Being read to is a powerful literacy experience. Having a wonderful story read to you by the president of the United States could create a memory to last a lifetime.

Unlike his wife, mother and Oval Office predecessors, this president had a more important agenda than demonstrating affection for children or for reading. The trip was part of a calculated campaign to sell No Child Left Behind. In what Michael Moore rightly observed as a photo opportunity, young children were used as props to advance the administration’s radical attack on public education.

The Pet Goat is an exercise from a literary classic called, Reading Mastery 2, by the father of Direct Instruction, Siegfried (Zig) Engelmann. In the 1960s, Engelmann invented a controversial pedagogical approach that reduces knowledge to bite-]sized chunks presented in a prescribed sequence enforced by a scripted lesson the teacher is to recite to a classroom of pupils chanting predetermined responses. Every single word the teacher is to utter, including permissible and prohibited words of encouragement, are provided. There is no room for individuality. The Direct Instruction Web site states, “The popular valuing of teacher creativity and autonomy as high priorities must give way to a willingness to follow certain carefully prescribed instructional practices.”

Engelmann told The New Yorker in its July 26, 2004 issue, “We don’t give a damn what the teacher thinks, what the teacher feels. On the teachers’ own time they can hate it. We don’t care, as long as they do it. Traditionalists die over this, but in terms of data we whump the daylights out of them.” It is easy to see how a man of such sensitive temperament could author more than 1,000 literary masterpieces such as The Pet Goat.

While I am sure the Florida school visited is a fine one and the classroom teacher loves children, educational excellence was not being celebrated. This was a party on behalf of Direct Instruction. While Moore made a documentary [some suggest artful propaganda] about the Iraq war, he could have made a movie about the United States government’s ideological attack on the public schools.

The War on Public Education
Engelmann’s publisher is a textbook giant with ties to the Bush family dating back to the 1930s. Company namesakes served on George W. Bush’s transition team and the board of his mother’s literacy foundation. The publishers have received honors from two Bush administrations and they in turn have bestowed awards on Secretary Rod Paige, who then keynoted their business conference. The same company’s former executive vice president is the new U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. Direct instruction has become synonymous with the “scientifically based methods” required by No Child Left Behind.

The War on Public Education has ratcheted up parental fear with cleverly designed rhetoric of failing schools, data desegregation, underperforming students, unqualified teachers and clever slogans like, “no excuses.” If you turn public schools, even the best ones, into single-]minded test-]prep factories where teachers drone on from scripted lessons then more people will want that magical voucher. Repeatedly demonize teachers arid the public will lose confidence regardless of their personal experiences with their local school.

So, how are you doing? Is your job now more about compliance than kids? Are sound educational experiences being sacrificed for test­ preparation? Has fear replaced joy in your classrooms? President Reagan might suggest we ask ourselves, “Is your school better off than it was four years ago?”

I’m writing this column because I’m embarrassed. Joe Hanson

Two recent issues of District Administration have carried columns by Gary Stager that have attacked aspects of the educational proposals/decisions of both presidential candidates.

As editor-in-chief, I feel that I erred in permitting publication of these two articles in the months before the presidential elections. The article in our August issue (Gary Stager on Kerry’s Education Plan) makes an argument against merit pay for teachers. That’s certainly a valid matter for discussion on our editorial pages. What does not belong are Stager’s comments such as, “… the Kerry proposal could suggest either a generous desire to increase teacher pay or a cynical scheme to pander to the electorate.” In another paragraph he paraphrases Seymour Sarason, “… members of both parties seem to increase in ignorance proportionate to their proximity to schooling decisions. After all, U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy co-sponsored No Child Left Behind.

In our October issue (Gary Stager on Direct Instruction), Stager condemns a reading program called Reading Mastery and its inventor, Sigfried Engleman. The article contains some strong arguments against the “controversial pedagogical approach” (although it fails to discuss it’s effectiveness or lack thereof.)

Unfortunately, Stager devotes most of his column to attacking President Bush: Unlike his wife, mother and Oval Office predecessors, this president had a more important agenda than demonstrating affection for children or for reading. The trip was part of a calculated campaign to sell No Child Left Behind. In what Michael Moore rightly observed as a photo opportunity, young children were used as props to advance the administration’s radical attack on public education. He goes on, Engelmann’s publisher is a textbook giant with ties to the Bush family dating back to the 1930s. … The publishers have received honors from two Bush administrations and they in turn have bestowed awards on Secretary Rod Paige. The same company’s former executive vice president is the new U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, and continues with phrases such as The War on Public Education, single-minded test-prep factories and magical voucher.

When Stager asks, “Has fear replaced joy in your classrooms? President Reagan might suggest we ask ourselves, “Is your school better off than it was four years ago?,” he crosses the line between clever compendium and outright bias.

Stager writes a regular opinion column in District Administration. His opinions are his own. As long as he’s writing about educational matters, I’m delighted to keep running his arguments but we will make every effort to avoid running material from him, or anyone else, questioning the motives of elected officials or candidates.

I take full responsibility for running these two columns. Stager has been a valuable contributor to DA for about five years. I took my eye off the ball.

As always, we at District Administration value the open exchange of ideas about improving public education. I invite you to share your thoughts with me.

Editor-in-Chief
jhanson@promediagrp.com

Originally published in the Novembe 2004 issue of District Administration Magazine.

Originally published on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 in The Pulse: Education’s Place for Debate

Aside from reducing teachers to script-reading robots and reading to an onerous task, the Federal government’s controversial $4.8 billion Reading First program has been accused of numerous improprieties by the Inspector General of the Department of Education. The scathing report, The Reading First Program’s Grant Application Process – Final Inspection Report, was released on Friday (June 22), employing a common tactic used in the hopes that bad news will escape the public’s attention over the weekend. This is a news story that should not be ignored.

Back in October 2004 I wrote that there was something fishy about McGraw-Hill’s Direct Instruction/Reading Mastery program and the administration’s fondness for it. The Director General’s report details how the Department of Education and Reading First administrators used their influence to benefit the commercial product, Direct Instruction. According to the New York Times, one of the whistle blowers leading to this investigation was Robert Slavin, the creator and director of Success for All, a product many educators find quite similar to Direct Instruction. Slavin told the New York Times, “The department has said at least 10,000 times that they had no favored reading programs, and this report provides clear evidence that they were very aggressively pressing districts to use certain programs and not use others.”

The Inspector General’s report illuminates the corruption involved in the Federal Government’s attempts to micro-manage reading instruction. This should justify caution and vigilance as the President appoints a National Mathematics Advisory Panel that promises to do for mathematics what was done to reading. The report suggests a cozy relationship between the Department of Education and “expert review panels.”

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings is spinning the report as ancient history predating her tenure in the position although she was an architect of No Child Left Behind. Reading First was a cornerstone of NCLB.

The report found that the Department of Education

  • Developed an application package that obscured the requirements of the statute;

  • Took action with respect to the expert review panel process that was contrary to the balanced panel composition envisioned by Congress;

  • Intervened to release an assessment review document without the permission of the entity that contracted for its development;

  • Intervened to influence a State’s selection of reading programs;

  • Intervened to influence reading programs being used by local educational agencies (LEAs) after the application process was completed.

The report states, “These actions demonstrate that the program officials failed to maintain a control environment that exemplifies management integrity and accountability.”

My summary of this complex report is already too long, but there are countless reasons for concern. You can read the full report of the Inspector General (http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/aireports/i13f0017.pdf)

I would like to call attention to four major issues that should alarm educators and taxpayers alike.

Issue 1) Reading First Favored One Curriculum Product Over All Others

Numerous states had their applications for millions of dollars worth of Reading First grants rejected because they did not plan to use the funds for Direct Instruction. The report also says that states received little if any guidance on why their proposals were rejected. This caused state officials to waste time and resources chasing funding based on elusive criteria

Issue 2) Conflicts of Interest

The No Child Left Behind legislation mandated that a National Expert Review Panel be appointed to review scientifically-based reading materials eligible for Reading First funding. The Inspector General’s Report found that makeup of the panels was inconsistent with the goals of the law authorizing the panels.

The Department Took Action With Respect to the Expert Review Panel Process That Was Contrary to the Balanced Panel Composition Envisioned by Congress

Section 1203(c)(2)(A) states that the Secretary, in consultation with the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL), shall convene a panel to evaluate applications and that, at a minimum, the panel shall include: three individuals selected by the Secretary, three individuals selected by NIFL, three individuals selected by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and three individuals selected by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). We have determined that each of the four organizations nominated at least three individuals to serve on the expert review panel; however, the Department failed to ensure that each State application was reviewed by a properly constituted panel.

Section 1203(c)(2)(C) requires a panel to recommend grant applications to the Secretary for funding or for disapproval. After selecting the panelists, the Department created subpanels made up of five panelists each to review the State applications and recommend either approval or disapproval to the Secretary. None of the subpanels possessed adequate representation from each of the organizations identified under Section 1203(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

The Department created a total of 16 subpanels to review the State applications. A majority of the panelists were nominated by the Department for 15 of the 16 subpanels; and 7 of the 16 subpanels consisted entirely of Department-selected panelists. None of the subpanels included a representative from each of the nominating organizations and there is no indication that the subpanels ever met as one large panel to review the State applications and/or recommend approval or disapproval to the Secretary.

If your eyes glazed over by the official mumbo jumbo above, check out this statement from the Inspector General’s report.

…15 of the 16 subpanels had a majority of Department-nominated panelists and none had the balanced composition envisioned by Congress.

Members of the National Expert Review Panels and Reading First staffers had commercial or academic ties to Direct Instruction. These conflicts rose all the way up the Department of Education to then Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, who won an award from McGraw-Hill for his role in the now largely discredited “Houston Miracle” – the basis for No Child Left Behind.

The Reading First Director took direct action to ensure that a particular approach to reading instruction was represented on the expert review panel. Direct Instruction (DI) is a model for teaching that requires the use of Reading Mastery, a program published by SRA/McGraw-Hill, to teach reading. The Reading First Director formerly served as the Executive Director of the Baltimore Curriculum Project, which has implemented DI in Baltimore City schools since 1996. The Reading First Director personally nominated three individuals who had significant professional connections to DI to serve on the expert review panel.

When asked about potential conflicts of interest and ideological blindness, Reading First officials reacted sarcastically with contempt for Congress and the public.

A Department employee reported to the Reading First Director that the Department had received a question from a member of the media about the panel composition. The response by the Reading First Director suggests that he may indeed have intended to “stack” the expert review panel. The employee stated: “The question is…are we going to ‘stack the panel’ so programs like Reading Recovery don’t get a fair shake[?]” The Reading First Director responded, “‘Stack the panel?’…I have never *heard* of such a thing….<harumph, harumph>[.]”

Doherty responded wrote in a 2002 email. “You know the line from Casablanca, ‘I am SHOCKED that there is gambling going on in this establishment!’ Well, ‘I am SHOCKED that there are pro-DI people on this panel!'”

Issue 3) Ideology Trumps Science and Good Public Policy

The Inspector General’s report documents how the Department of Education and the review panels manipulated the law to support Direct Instruction at the expense of competing programs. Reading Recovery, an remedial intervention strategy employed by schools across the globe, was a particular target of Reading First.

The Assistant Secretary for OESE planned for the Reading First Guidance to include language that was not in the statute and exclude language that was in the statute. After reviewing a revision to the Department’s draft of the Reading First Guidance, the Assistant Secretary for OESE wrote to the Reading First Director, “under reading first plan. i’d like not to say ‘this must include early intervention and reading remediation materials’ which i think could be read as ‘reading recovery’ [a reading program]. even if it says this in the law, i’d like it taken out.”

A few days before the Department publicly announced the panelists it had chosen to serve, one of the Department-nominated panelists contacted the Reading First Director and shared his strong bias against Reading Recovery and his strategy for responding to any State that planned to include Reading Recovery in its application. The Reading First Director responded: “I really like the way you’re viewing/approaching this, and not just because it matches my own approach :-), I swear!” This individual later served as the panel chair for the subpanel that reviewed Wisconsin’s State application and in response to the State’s plans to use Reading Recovery, he included an 11-page negative review of Reading Recovery in his official comments on the application.

The Inspector General’s report includes an email from Reading First Director, Chris Doherty in which he makes his motives and temperament perfectly clear.

“They are trying to crash our party and we need to beat the [expletive deleted] out of them in front of all the other would-be party crashers who are standing on the front lawn waiting to see how we welcome these dirtbags.”

Reading Recovery was not the only approach or curricular product to endure the wrath of Reading First officials. Reading First attacked any curriculum product or pedagogical approach determined to have a whiff of “whole language”.

The Department Intervened to Influence Reading Programs Being Used by LEAs After the Application Process Was Completed

After certain States completed the application process and received funding, the Reading First Director became aware that certain LEAs in these States were using the Rigby Literacy (Rigby) and Wright Group Literacy (Wright Group) programs. The Reading First Director worked closely with a Department staff member, a former expert review panelist, who undertook a review of both of these programs.

In e-mail correspondence with the staff member regarding the Wright Group, the Reading First Director stated:

Beat the [expletive deleted] out of them in a way that will stand up to any level of legal and [whole language] apologist scrutiny. Hit them over and over with definitive evidence that they are not SBRR, never have been and never will be. They are trying to crash our party and we need to beat the [expletive deleted] out of them in front of all the other would-be party crashers who are standing on the front lawn waiting to see how we welcome these dirtbags.

The Reading First Director forwarded the above e-mail to Lyon and stated:

Confidential FYI. Pardon in-house language I use…with fellow team members and friends. Do you know—on the QT—if anyone has done any good review of the Wright Group stuff, to date? We have beaten Maine on Rigby and this is cut from the same cloth. We are proceeding, of course, but if you knew of a good piece of work dissecting The Wright Group’s stuff, it could further strengthen our hand.

Lyon responded that he would obtain this information and added, “I like your style.” In response, the Reading First Director stated, “Additional firepower…may help us make this a one-punch fight.”

After reviewing the programs, the staff member provided the Reading First Director with notes and talking points critiquing these programs. The Reading First Director used this information to convince States using Rigby and Wright Group to change programs. In an e-mail to Lyon, the Reading First Director wrote, “I spoke to Fred Carrigg [the former New Jersey Director of Reading First]…with a roomful of others on their end and they are HALTING the funding of Rigby and, while we were at it, Wright Group. They STOPPED the districts who wanted to use those programs.”

In a later e-mail to Lyon, the Reading First Director stated:

As you may remember, RF got Maine to UNDO its already-made decision to have Rigby be one of their two approved core programs (Ha, ha – Rigby as a CORE program? When pigs fly!) We also as you may recall, got NJ [New Jersey] to stop its districts from using Rigby (and the Wright Group, btw) and are doing the same in Mississippi. This is for your FYI, as I think this program-bashing is best done off or under the major radar screens.

In a formal letter to Carrigg, the Reading First Director did not specifically name Rigby and Wright Group as not being aligned with SBRR (scientifically-based reading research). The Reading First Director wrote, “It appeared that New Jersey had not fulfilled its responsibility to ensure that all LEAs and schools selected to participate in Reading First…would implement comprehensive reading programs that are fully aligned with scientifically based reading research.” The Reading First Director informed us that he could not definitively say why he did not formally state in the letter that those specific programs were not in line with SBRR.

Issue 4) Bias equals dissent?

The Inspector General’s reports how Reid Lyon, one of the architects of No Child Left Behind and Reading First, viewed dissent. People who disagreed with his agenda were accused of bias, ridiculed and intimidated.

Around the same time, Reid Lyon, the former Chief of the Child Development & Behavior Branch at the NICHD, advised the Reading First Director, the Assistant Secretary for OESE, and the Senior Advisor to the Secretary at the time that one of the panelists had been “actively working to undermine the NRP [National Reading Panel] Report and the RF initiatives.” Lyon further stated, “Chances are that other reviewers can trump any bias on her part.” In a written response to all of the people involved, the former Senior Advisor to the Secretary stated, “We can’t un-invite her. Just make sure she is on a panel with one of our barracuda types.”

The apparent intent of the Reading First Director to include and to give a significant role to panelists who reflected his personal preference in reading programs; his specific encouragement to a panelist who held views similar to his on Reading Recovery; and the intention of the former Senior Advisor to the Secretary to control another panelist raise significant questions about the control environment in which the program was being managed.

How is ignoring competing views part of the “scientific method” Lyon and his colleagues require as the basis for all educational practice?

The Executive Summary of the Inspector General’s report describes the following findings about Reading First.

FINDING 1A – The Department Did Not Select the Expert Review Panel in Compliance With the Requirements of NCLB

FINDING 1B – While Not Required to Screen for Conflicts of Interest, the Screening Process the Department Created Was Not Effective

FINDING 2A – The Department Replaced What the Law Intended to be a Peer Review Process With its Own Process

FINDING 2B – The Department Awarded Grants to States Without Documentation That the Subpanels Approved All Criteria

FINDING 3 – The Department Included Requirements in the Criteria Used by the Expert Review Panels That Were Not Specifically Addressed in NCLB

FINDING 4 – In Implementing the Reading First Program, Department Officials Obscured the Statutory Requirements of the ESEA; Acted in Contravention of the GAO Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government; and Took Actions That Call Into Question Whether They Violated the Prohibitions Included in the DEOA

The Pulse will continue to follow this important story. We will report on what happens to Reading First money already in the pipeline and if government officials are held accountable for their actions. Our teachers, students and taxpayers deserve no less.


For further study:

The Schools Matter blog, while representing a particular point-of-view, offers extensive coverage and analysis of the Reading First scandal.

Susan Ohanian reported (in 2005) on the original concerns that led to the Inspector General’s investigation. Read Special Report: Reading First Under Fire: IG Targets Conflicts of Interest, Limits on Local Control.

Look for news stories involving:

  • Reid Lyon, former Chief, Child Development and Behavior Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, who infamously proclaimed, “If there was any piece of legislation that I could pass it would be to blow up colleges of education.”

  • Chris Doherty, former Director of Reading First, who recently resigned

  • Douglas Carnine, one of the major proponents of DIBELs and a person involved in assisting Reid Lyon in assembling the Reading First panels discussed in the Director General’s report. Two of his colleagues from the University of Oregon were on the review panel. Carnine consults with the Department of Education and Congress on a remarkable range of topics and with great frequency.

  • Rod Paige, former Secretary of Education



Gary Stager, currently teaching, consulting and speaking in Australia, is Editor of The Pulse and Editor-At-Large for District Administration Magazine. His personal web site is www.stager.org

The views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and not the views of The Pulse, District Administration Magazine or Professional Media Group.