Reading First program expected to die out of classrooms
by Pat Kossan - Jul. 13, 2008
The Arizona Republic
The Bush administration's $6 billion Reading First program is expected to die out of American classrooms, including those in Arizona, by the end of the decade.
The generous program was born in 2002 and provided $130 million to 136 schools in Arizona's neediest communities. The money helped each school buy a uniform reading program, a reading coach, extensive teacher training and tools for teachers. Those tools allowed teachers to measure a student's reading progress weekly or monthly, but always in time to catch those students who were falling behind.
Many state education leaders, including those in Arizona, said Reading First refocused their scattered reading programs and helped their state's poorest kids learn to read more quickly. Detractors called the program too prescribed, with an emphasis on teaching students to decode words at the expense of comprehending sentences.
Curriculum director Barbara Wright of the Casa Grande Elementary District is among the mourners. "How sad," she said of Reading First's demise. Wright was a Reading First fan and implemented the program at every school in the district.
"This was good, solid, research-based information, and we implemented it in all our schools at the time, even though only two schools were funded," she said.
Eventually, seven of the district's nine schools were given Reading First grants. The district's third-grade AIMS reading scores have climbed every year since.
Wright said its mandates will continue to guide the district's reading program, even though the massive federal grant program has taken a beating it is not expected to survive.
The blows included reports of mismanagement at the highest levels and a pending Department of Justice investigation. That led an angry Congress to cut its funding by 60 percent. In May, a U.S. Department of Education study concluded Reading First - its own program - had little positive impact on reading skills. Arizona schools were not included in the study. In June, the U.S. Senate and House appropriations committees stripped Reading First of its remaining money, which is expected to lead to its death in 2010.
Although Reading First is fading, its legacy will live on. Arizona lawmakers were so enamored with the program they created a state law requiring all schools to create reading programs that mimic it. The state law did not provide extra money to implement the reading programs, so its impact is uncertain.
"The essence of Reading First is the method of teaching that is independent of appropriation of funds," said Tom Horne, Arizona's superintendent of public instruction. Horne said Reading First combines the best of all reading methods tried before it, emphasizing phonics, as well as comprehension, fluency and vocabulary. "Schools will continue to use it because it has proven itself," he said.
COMMENTS on website as of 4:00 pm CDT 7/14:
rlyon
Jul-13 @ 8:40 AM
Children are, and will be hurt in the political theater surrounding Reading First. Some facts: First, The Office of the Inspector General found no actual conflicts of interest in the management of Reading First (see OIG Reports) Second, Sen. Ted Kennedy had concerns that directors of Reading First technical assistance centers were receiving royalties from publishers while working for the program. But in most cases, these royalties were for books published before they worked for Reading First, or for books not connected to Reading First. In any case, Reading First technical assistance centers did not recommend specific textbooks or reading materials. Third, a Department of Education study recently published and showing that Reading First funding did not result in significant gains in achievement when compared to schools that did not receive the funding has been widely criticized for not paying attention to a well known fact – Both Reading First and non-Reading First schools within the same district were typically using the same reading programs. Non-Reading First schools did not want their kids to fail so they adopted Reading First programs and paid for them with state or district funds. For example, The Reading First evaluator for Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Washington and Wyoming reported gains in all five states in the percent of students meeting third grade benchmarks. She also reported that 65 percent to 95 percent of non-Reading First schools in districts receiving Reading First funds used the same assessments, purchased the same reading materials, provided similar assistance to struggling students and hired similar reading coaches. Alabama was found by independent evaluations to increase kindergarten reading development such that a remarkable 89 percent of students met literacy benchmarks at the end of kindergarten, with almost no racial gap. State wide evaluations of Reading First programs in California, Ohio, Idaho and many others demonstrated significant improvement in reading capabilities on state reading tests. If Reading First is on the chopping block it is not because it lacks effectiveness and is helping millions of struggling readers. It is because of political malpractice.
Reid Lyon
Dallas, Texas
SKrashen
Jul-14 @ 12:47 AM
In response to Reid Lyon: In the Dept of Education study, Reading First children were getting more of the elements of reading that the National Reading Panel considered to be crucial. Thus, as Tim Shanahan pointed out, it was really a comparison of more Reading First versus less. And it wasn't just a little more, it amounted to an extra six weeks per year.
Concerning the state data: Alabama looks good in kindergarten but the percent reaches proficiency drops as the children move up the grades. Ohio also drops. Idaho is one of the few that doesn't.
See earlier posts on Bush Administration malfeasance with Reading First funds. Particularly the role of Reid Lyons.
Showing posts with label Reading First. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reading First. Show all posts
Monday, July 14, 2008
Thursday, May 01, 2008
When Bush politicians decide- corruption
Katrina all over again.
EDUCATION & LABOR COMMITTEE
Congressman George Miller, Chairman
________________________________
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Press Office, 202-226-0853
Chairman Miller: Report Shows We Must Re-Evaluate Effectiveness of Reading First Program
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, issued the following statement on a new report on the federal Reading First program released today by the Institute for Education Services. The report found that the program has not made a significant difference in the reading comprehension levels of participating students. “From day one of the creation of the Reading First program, it has been corrupted by the Bush administration – plagued by severe mismanagement, poor implementation, and gross conflicts of interest. Despite these serious issues, I had nevertheless hoped that the program would produce better results than these. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent administering this program over the years. This report makes it shamefully clear that the only individuals benefiting from this significant investment were the President’s cronies – not the schoolchildren this program was intended to serve. Because of the corruption in the Reading First program, districts and schools were steered towards certain reading programs and products that may not have provided the most effective instruction for students. That may explain why we are seeing these results today.
“We all share the goal of helping all children learn to read. But this report, coupled with the scandals revealed last year, shows that we need to seriously re-examine this program and figure out how to make it work better for students. Our nation’s schoolchildren and taxpayers deserve a program that is both properly managed and successful in boosting the reading skills of students.”
The Reading First program was first created under the No Child Left Behind Act to help all children read at grade level by the end of third grade. An investigation conducted last year by the House Education and Labor Committee uncovered significant conflicts of interest among Department of Education officials and contractors involved with running the program. For more information on the results of that investigation, click here
When politicians decide on reading programs
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-05-01-reading-first_N.htm
Study: Bush's Reading First program ineffective
By Greg Toppo
USA TODAY
A $1 billion-a-year reading program that has been a pillar of the Bush administration's education plan doesn't have much impact on the reading skills of the young students it's supposed to help, a long-awaited federal study shows.
The results, issued Thursday, could serve as a knockout punch for the 6-year-old Reading First program — Congress has already slashed funding 60%. Reading First last year was the subject of a congressional investigation into whether top advisers improperly benefited from contracts for textbooks and testing materials they designed, and whether the advisers kept some textbook publishers from qualifying for funding.
Advocates of Reading First, an integral part of the 2002 No Child Left Behind law, have long maintained that its emphasis on phonics, scripted instruction by teachers and regular, detailed analyses of children's skills, would raise reading achievement, especially among the low-income kids it targets. But the new study by the U.S. Education Department's Institute of Education Sciences (IES) shows that children in schools receiving Reading First funding had virtually no better reading skills than those in schools that didn't get the funding.
The large-scale study looked at students in first through third grade from 2004 through 2006. For each of three samples, researchers studied 30,000 to 40,000 students, says IES Director Russ Whitehurst. "This is a big study."
On the plus side, researchers found that Reading First teachers spent more time emphasizing phonics and other aspects of what many experts consider solid instruction — about 10 minutes more a day, or nearly an hour more a week. "Teachers' behavior was changed," Whitehurst says.
But for all their effort, the study shows, their students' reading scores on standardized tests were nearly indistinguishable from those of students in other schools; in many cases, they may have been using the same materials, but their teachers may not have received the same training.
"For all intents and purposes, the kids read at the same level in each grade," Whitehurst says.
Congressional Democrats were quick to point out the program's ties to President Bush. In a statement, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said the Bush administration "has put cronyism first and the reading skills of our children last and this report shows the disturbing consequences. Instead of awarding scarce education dollars to reading programs that make a difference for our children, the administration chose to reward its friends instead."
Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., who presided over the April 2007 hearings, said the report, "coupled with the scandals revealed last year, shows that we need to seriously re-examine this program and figure out how to make it work better for students."
While critics will likely say the data portray Reading First as an expensive failure, Whitehurst speculates that the study may simply suggest that schools need to spend even more time on phonics and the like.
But he also notes that states that got Reading First money earlier in the program's history actually got worse results than those that more recently got their federal funding. The difference may be unrelated to years spent in the program, Whitehurst says, as schools in more recently funded states tend to spend more per student to implement the program.
He also says school districts may have spread their cash thin — they can use up to 20% of their Reading First funding outside of Reading First schools to improve reading skills districtwide. Eligible schools have high numbers of students from low-income families.
Education analyst Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington think tank that supports Reading First, says the study was poorly designed and "certainly not the last word on Reading First's effectiveness."
For one thing, he says, researchers looked at "lackluster" Reading First schools that just barely qualified for grants, comparing them to schools that just barely missed getting grants.
Whitehurst stands by the research, saying researchers vetted the schools in advance. "It's not a valid criticism."
U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings had no immediate comment, but in a statement, Amanda Farris, the deputy assistant secretary who oversees Reading First, said Spellings consistently hears from educators and administrators "about the effectiveness of the Reading First program in their schools and their disappointment with Congress for slashing Reading First funds."
"We know — and this IES study further proves — that Reading First funding has an impact on teaching practices," she said.
Thursday's results are part of an interim study; a more complete analysis that followed students through the 2006-2007 school year could show more promising results when it's released in November.
------
as in California where political control has forced a similar reading program on English Language Learners- with no positive results.
Study: Bush's Reading First program ineffective
By Greg Toppo
USA TODAY
A $1 billion-a-year reading program that has been a pillar of the Bush administration's education plan doesn't have much impact on the reading skills of the young students it's supposed to help, a long-awaited federal study shows.
The results, issued Thursday, could serve as a knockout punch for the 6-year-old Reading First program — Congress has already slashed funding 60%. Reading First last year was the subject of a congressional investigation into whether top advisers improperly benefited from contracts for textbooks and testing materials they designed, and whether the advisers kept some textbook publishers from qualifying for funding.
Advocates of Reading First, an integral part of the 2002 No Child Left Behind law, have long maintained that its emphasis on phonics, scripted instruction by teachers and regular, detailed analyses of children's skills, would raise reading achievement, especially among the low-income kids it targets. But the new study by the U.S. Education Department's Institute of Education Sciences (IES) shows that children in schools receiving Reading First funding had virtually no better reading skills than those in schools that didn't get the funding.
The large-scale study looked at students in first through third grade from 2004 through 2006. For each of three samples, researchers studied 30,000 to 40,000 students, says IES Director Russ Whitehurst. "This is a big study."
On the plus side, researchers found that Reading First teachers spent more time emphasizing phonics and other aspects of what many experts consider solid instruction — about 10 minutes more a day, or nearly an hour more a week. "Teachers' behavior was changed," Whitehurst says.
But for all their effort, the study shows, their students' reading scores on standardized tests were nearly indistinguishable from those of students in other schools; in many cases, they may have been using the same materials, but their teachers may not have received the same training.
"For all intents and purposes, the kids read at the same level in each grade," Whitehurst says.
Congressional Democrats were quick to point out the program's ties to President Bush. In a statement, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said the Bush administration "has put cronyism first and the reading skills of our children last and this report shows the disturbing consequences. Instead of awarding scarce education dollars to reading programs that make a difference for our children, the administration chose to reward its friends instead."
Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., who presided over the April 2007 hearings, said the report, "coupled with the scandals revealed last year, shows that we need to seriously re-examine this program and figure out how to make it work better for students."
While critics will likely say the data portray Reading First as an expensive failure, Whitehurst speculates that the study may simply suggest that schools need to spend even more time on phonics and the like.
But he also notes that states that got Reading First money earlier in the program's history actually got worse results than those that more recently got their federal funding. The difference may be unrelated to years spent in the program, Whitehurst says, as schools in more recently funded states tend to spend more per student to implement the program.
He also says school districts may have spread their cash thin — they can use up to 20% of their Reading First funding outside of Reading First schools to improve reading skills districtwide. Eligible schools have high numbers of students from low-income families.
Education analyst Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington think tank that supports Reading First, says the study was poorly designed and "certainly not the last word on Reading First's effectiveness."
For one thing, he says, researchers looked at "lackluster" Reading First schools that just barely qualified for grants, comparing them to schools that just barely missed getting grants.
Whitehurst stands by the research, saying researchers vetted the schools in advance. "It's not a valid criticism."
U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings had no immediate comment, but in a statement, Amanda Farris, the deputy assistant secretary who oversees Reading First, said Spellings consistently hears from educators and administrators "about the effectiveness of the Reading First program in their schools and their disappointment with Congress for slashing Reading First funds."
"We know — and this IES study further proves — that Reading First funding has an impact on teaching practices," she said.
Thursday's results are part of an interim study; a more complete analysis that followed students through the 2006-2007 school year could show more promising results when it's released in November.
------
as in California where political control has forced a similar reading program on English Language Learners- with no positive results.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Reading First: FEW Gains
The Bush Regime and many educational pundits, including Peter Schrag of the Sacramento Bee regularly claim that reading scores have improved in the last few years as a result of the demands of NCLB and accountability.
Here is a letter with evidence to the contrary;
Some Useful Data from NCLB Testing
Sent to Rethinking Schools, June 23, 2007
In his insightful paper “Exit Strategy,” (Summer,
2007), Stan Karp argues that that tests mandated by
NCLB have not provided useful data that will result in
better instruction. Actually, they have: They have
shown that NCLB and Reading First have not resulted in
improved reading.
Reading First provides an extra 100 minutes a week of
instruction, approximately an extra semester every two
years. If Reading First is at all effective, the
impact should obvious. It isn’t.
On the basis of data released in April, The Department
of Education claimed that between 2004 and 2006, the
percentage of third graders in Reading First meeting
or exceeding the proficient level increased 12% on
tests of reading comprehension and 15% on tests of
fluency. Re-analysis revealed, however, that the gain
in reading comprehension was only 6% and in fluency it
was 9%. Also, these gains mask the fact that some
states did poorly: Pennsylvania declined 10% in
reading comprehension.
It also needs to be pointed out that the test used in
most states to measure fluency, Dibels, has serious
problems and is also easily available on the internet,
which means any teacher or parent can drill their
children on the actual test items.
In addition, the Department of Education violated a
fundamental scientific principle: There was no
comparison group. Any increases could have been due to
factors other than Reading First.
The most recent report, from the Center on Education
Policy, was also interpreted by the administration as
showing that NCLB-related programs have been a
success. Again, no comparison group was included, but
the Center’s report included data on elementary school
gains for the two years before and two years after
NCLB was implemented in 12 states. Before NCLB, the
yearly rate of improvement in these states was 1.93
percent, that is, 1.93 percent more students were
classified as proficient. After NCLB, it was 2.25
percent, a difference of less than one-third of one
percent.
In other words, reading scores were going up before
NCLB and NCLB did little or nothing to improve the
rate of improvement.
Before these two reports, the Department of Education
had claimed that NCLB had improved fourth grade NAEP
reading scores. Several analyses showed, however,
that the gains came before NAEP was implemented.
There is, so far, no evidence that this expensive and
time-consuming experiment has improved the reading
ability of American children.
Stephen Krashen
For those interested in the details:
Re-analysis:
“Reading First: ‘Impressive’ Gains?” by Stephen
Krashen (see also posted comments)
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=18974
Problems with Dibels:
“A critical review of Dibels.” by Kenneth Goodman. In
K.Goodman (Ed.) The Truth about Dibels. Portsmouth:
Heinemann.
Gains on national tests?
1. “The 16th Bracey Report on the Condition of Public
Education,” by Gerald W. Bracey, published in the
October 2006 Phi Delta Kappan.
2. “Selling NCLB: Would You Buy a Used Law From This
Woman?,” by James Crawford, available at
www.elladvocates.org/nclb/spellings2.html.
3. “Is the No Child Left Behind Act Working? The
Reliability of How States Track Achievement,” by Bruce
Fuller, Kathryn Gesicki, Erin Kang, and Joseph Wright,
published in 2006 by Policy Analysis for California
Education, at the University of California, Berkeley.
4. “Did Reading First Work?,” by Stephen Krashen,
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=17349
5. “Tracking Achievement Gaps and Assessing the Impact
of NCLB on the Gaps: An In-Depth Look Into National
and State Reading and Math Outcome Trends,” by
Jaekyung Lee, published in 2006 by the Civil Rights
Project at Harvard University.
Also see: Collateral Damage: How High Stakes Testing Corrupts America's Schools. (2007)
by Nichols and Berliner
Here is a letter with evidence to the contrary;
Some Useful Data from NCLB Testing
Sent to Rethinking Schools, June 23, 2007
In his insightful paper “Exit Strategy,” (Summer,
2007), Stan Karp argues that that tests mandated by
NCLB have not provided useful data that will result in
better instruction. Actually, they have: They have
shown that NCLB and Reading First have not resulted in
improved reading.
Reading First provides an extra 100 minutes a week of
instruction, approximately an extra semester every two
years. If Reading First is at all effective, the
impact should obvious. It isn’t.
On the basis of data released in April, The Department
of Education claimed that between 2004 and 2006, the
percentage of third graders in Reading First meeting
or exceeding the proficient level increased 12% on
tests of reading comprehension and 15% on tests of
fluency. Re-analysis revealed, however, that the gain
in reading comprehension was only 6% and in fluency it
was 9%. Also, these gains mask the fact that some
states did poorly: Pennsylvania declined 10% in
reading comprehension.
It also needs to be pointed out that the test used in
most states to measure fluency, Dibels, has serious
problems and is also easily available on the internet,
which means any teacher or parent can drill their
children on the actual test items.
In addition, the Department of Education violated a
fundamental scientific principle: There was no
comparison group. Any increases could have been due to
factors other than Reading First.
The most recent report, from the Center on Education
Policy, was also interpreted by the administration as
showing that NCLB-related programs have been a
success. Again, no comparison group was included, but
the Center’s report included data on elementary school
gains for the two years before and two years after
NCLB was implemented in 12 states. Before NCLB, the
yearly rate of improvement in these states was 1.93
percent, that is, 1.93 percent more students were
classified as proficient. After NCLB, it was 2.25
percent, a difference of less than one-third of one
percent.
In other words, reading scores were going up before
NCLB and NCLB did little or nothing to improve the
rate of improvement.
Before these two reports, the Department of Education
had claimed that NCLB had improved fourth grade NAEP
reading scores. Several analyses showed, however,
that the gains came before NAEP was implemented.
There is, so far, no evidence that this expensive and
time-consuming experiment has improved the reading
ability of American children.
Stephen Krashen
For those interested in the details:
Re-analysis:
“Reading First: ‘Impressive’ Gains?” by Stephen
Krashen (see also posted comments)
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=18974
Problems with Dibels:
“A critical review of Dibels.” by Kenneth Goodman. In
K.Goodman (Ed.) The Truth about Dibels. Portsmouth:
Heinemann.
Gains on national tests?
1. “The 16th Bracey Report on the Condition of Public
Education,” by Gerald W. Bracey, published in the
October 2006 Phi Delta Kappan.
2. “Selling NCLB: Would You Buy a Used Law From This
Woman?,” by James Crawford, available at
www.elladvocates.org/nclb/spellings2.html.
3. “Is the No Child Left Behind Act Working? The
Reliability of How States Track Achievement,” by Bruce
Fuller, Kathryn Gesicki, Erin Kang, and Joseph Wright,
published in 2006 by Policy Analysis for California
Education, at the University of California, Berkeley.
4. “Did Reading First Work?,” by Stephen Krashen,
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=17349
5. “Tracking Achievement Gaps and Assessing the Impact
of NCLB on the Gaps: An In-Depth Look Into National
and State Reading and Math Outcome Trends,” by
Jaekyung Lee, published in 2006 by the Civil Rights
Project at Harvard University.
Also see: Collateral Damage: How High Stakes Testing Corrupts America's Schools. (2007)
by Nichols and Berliner
Monday, May 07, 2007
Readng First data : not impressive
Reading First gains unimpressive
Sent to the Seattle Times, May 7, 2007
The Times (“Spellings’ errors,” May 7) notes that
Congress is carefully examining procedures at the US
Dept of Education relating to possible “mismanagement
and cronyism” related to Reading First. They might
also want to take a closer look at the test scores.
Last month, the department announced a gain of 12%
over two years in the percentage of third grade
children reading at the “proficient” level under
Reading First. I examined this data and found that the
actual gain was only 6%. And I also found that some
states did poorly: Most notably, Pennsylvania’s
children declined nearly 10% between 2004 and 2006.
This is not impressive, especially when we consider
the fact that Reading First provides an extra 100
minutes a week of reading instruction, which could
total an extra semester over a two year period.
Also, the Department of Education insists on the use
of strict scientific methodology when evaluating the
impact of a program, but ignored a fundamental
scientific principle in reported the reading data:
There was no comparison group: Even the 6% increase
could have been due to factors other than the use of
Reading First.
Stephen Krashen
My analysis:
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse (April 24,
2007)
Sent to the Seattle Times, May 7, 2007
The Times (“Spellings’ errors,” May 7) notes that
Congress is carefully examining procedures at the US
Dept of Education relating to possible “mismanagement
and cronyism” related to Reading First. They might
also want to take a closer look at the test scores.
Last month, the department announced a gain of 12%
over two years in the percentage of third grade
children reading at the “proficient” level under
Reading First. I examined this data and found that the
actual gain was only 6%. And I also found that some
states did poorly: Most notably, Pennsylvania’s
children declined nearly 10% between 2004 and 2006.
This is not impressive, especially when we consider
the fact that Reading First provides an extra 100
minutes a week of reading instruction, which could
total an extra semester over a two year period.
Also, the Department of Education insists on the use
of strict scientific methodology when evaluating the
impact of a program, but ignored a fundamental
scientific principle in reported the reading data:
There was no comparison group: Even the 6% increase
could have been due to factors other than the use of
Reading First.
Stephen Krashen
My analysis:
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse (April 24,
2007)
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Reading First: How the Bush Admin. operates
Key Initiative Of 'No Child' Under Federal Investigation
Officials Profited From Reading First Program
By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 21, 2007; A01
The Justice Department is conducting a probe of a $6 billion reading initiative at the center of President Bush's No Child Left Behind law, another blow to a program besieged by allegations of financial conflicts of interest and cronyism, people familiar with the matter said yesterday.
The disclosure came as a congressional hearing revealed how people implementing the $1 billion-a-year Reading First program made at least $1 million off textbooks and tests toward which the federal government steered states.
"That sounds like a criminal enterprise to me," said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House education committee, which held a five-hour investigative hearing. "You don't get to override the law," he angrily told a panel of Reading First officials. "But the fact of the matter is that you did."
The Education Department's inspector general, John P. Higgins Jr., said he has made several referrals to the Justice Department about the five-year-old program, which provides grants to improve reading for children in kindergarten through third grade.
Higgins declined to offer more specifics, but Christopher J. Doherty, former director of Reading First, said in an interview that he was questioned by Justice officials in November. The civil division of the U.S. attorney's office for the District, which can bring criminal charges, is reviewing the matter.
Doherty, one of the two Education Department employees who oversaw the initiative, acknowledged yesterday that his wife had worked for a decade as a paid consultant for a reading program, Direct Instruction, that investigators said he improperly tried to force schools to use. He repeatedly failed to disclose the conflict on financial disclosure forms.
"I'm very proud of this program and my role in this program," Doherty said in the interview. "I think it's been implemented in accordance with the law."
The management of Reading First has come under attacks from members of both parties. Federal investigators say program officials improperly forced states to use certain tests and textbooks created by those officials.
One official, Roland H. Good III, said his company made $1.3 million off a reading test, known as DIBELS, that was endorsed by a Reading First evaluation panel he sat on. Good, who owns half the company, Dynamic Measurement Group, told the committee that he donated royalties from the product to the University of Oregon, where he is an associate professor.
Two former University of Oregon researchers on the panel, Edward J. Kame'enui and Deborah C. Simmons, said they received about $150,000 in royalties last year for a program that is now packaged with DIBELS. They testified that they received smaller royalties in previous years for the program, Scott Foresman Early Reading Intervention, and did not know it was being sold with DIBELS.
Members of the panel said they recused themselves from voting on their own products but did assess their competitors. Of 24 tests approved by the committee, seven were tied to members of the panel.
"I regret the perception of conflicts of interest," said Kame'enui, former chairman of the committee, who now works at the department as commissioner of the National Center for Special Education Research. "But there was no real conflict of interest being engaged in."
The intricate financial connections between Reading First products and program officials extend beyond issues the committee explored yesterday.
Another researcher, Sharon Vaughn, worked with Kame'enui, Simmons and Good to design Voyager Universal Literacy, a program that Reading First officials urged states to use. Vaughn was director of a center at the University of Texas that was hired to provide states advice on selecting Reading First tests and books.
The publisher of that product, Voyager Expanded Learning, was founded and run by Randy Best, a major Bush campaign contributor, who sold the company in 2005 for more than $350 million. Now Best runs Higher Ed Holdings, a company that develops colleges of education, where former education secretary Roderick R. Paige is a senior adviser and G. Reid Lyon, Bush's former reading adviser, is an executive vice president.
"I'm very disappointed and saddened by the information that was provided at the hearing today," said Lyon, who had been a strong defender of Reading First, which he said had nothing to do with his new job. "The issues appear much more serious than I had been led to understand."
Despite the controversy surrounding Reading First's management, the percentage of students in the program who are proficient on fluency tests has risen about 15 percent, Education Department officials said. School districts across the country praise the program.
Members of both parties continue to support the goals of Reading First even as they attack its management. Miller and Senate education committee Chairman Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) joined Republicans yesterday in pledging to tighten restrictions on conflicts of interest in No Child Left Behind.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, who declined to comment yesterday, has said management problems with Reading First "reflect individual mistakes." But Doherty said nearly every aspect of the program was carefully monitored by the department and the White House, where Spelling was Bush's top education adviser.
"This program was always firmly under the watch and control of the highest levels of the government," Doherty said.
Staff writer Carol D. Leonnig contributed to this report.
Officials Profited From Reading First Program
By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 21, 2007; A01
The Justice Department is conducting a probe of a $6 billion reading initiative at the center of President Bush's No Child Left Behind law, another blow to a program besieged by allegations of financial conflicts of interest and cronyism, people familiar with the matter said yesterday.
The disclosure came as a congressional hearing revealed how people implementing the $1 billion-a-year Reading First program made at least $1 million off textbooks and tests toward which the federal government steered states.
"That sounds like a criminal enterprise to me," said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House education committee, which held a five-hour investigative hearing. "You don't get to override the law," he angrily told a panel of Reading First officials. "But the fact of the matter is that you did."
The Education Department's inspector general, John P. Higgins Jr., said he has made several referrals to the Justice Department about the five-year-old program, which provides grants to improve reading for children in kindergarten through third grade.
Higgins declined to offer more specifics, but Christopher J. Doherty, former director of Reading First, said in an interview that he was questioned by Justice officials in November. The civil division of the U.S. attorney's office for the District, which can bring criminal charges, is reviewing the matter.
Doherty, one of the two Education Department employees who oversaw the initiative, acknowledged yesterday that his wife had worked for a decade as a paid consultant for a reading program, Direct Instruction, that investigators said he improperly tried to force schools to use. He repeatedly failed to disclose the conflict on financial disclosure forms.
"I'm very proud of this program and my role in this program," Doherty said in the interview. "I think it's been implemented in accordance with the law."
The management of Reading First has come under attacks from members of both parties. Federal investigators say program officials improperly forced states to use certain tests and textbooks created by those officials.
One official, Roland H. Good III, said his company made $1.3 million off a reading test, known as DIBELS, that was endorsed by a Reading First evaluation panel he sat on. Good, who owns half the company, Dynamic Measurement Group, told the committee that he donated royalties from the product to the University of Oregon, where he is an associate professor.
Two former University of Oregon researchers on the panel, Edward J. Kame'enui and Deborah C. Simmons, said they received about $150,000 in royalties last year for a program that is now packaged with DIBELS. They testified that they received smaller royalties in previous years for the program, Scott Foresman Early Reading Intervention, and did not know it was being sold with DIBELS.
Members of the panel said they recused themselves from voting on their own products but did assess their competitors. Of 24 tests approved by the committee, seven were tied to members of the panel.
"I regret the perception of conflicts of interest," said Kame'enui, former chairman of the committee, who now works at the department as commissioner of the National Center for Special Education Research. "But there was no real conflict of interest being engaged in."
The intricate financial connections between Reading First products and program officials extend beyond issues the committee explored yesterday.
Another researcher, Sharon Vaughn, worked with Kame'enui, Simmons and Good to design Voyager Universal Literacy, a program that Reading First officials urged states to use. Vaughn was director of a center at the University of Texas that was hired to provide states advice on selecting Reading First tests and books.
The publisher of that product, Voyager Expanded Learning, was founded and run by Randy Best, a major Bush campaign contributor, who sold the company in 2005 for more than $350 million. Now Best runs Higher Ed Holdings, a company that develops colleges of education, where former education secretary Roderick R. Paige is a senior adviser and G. Reid Lyon, Bush's former reading adviser, is an executive vice president.
"I'm very disappointed and saddened by the information that was provided at the hearing today," said Lyon, who had been a strong defender of Reading First, which he said had nothing to do with his new job. "The issues appear much more serious than I had been led to understand."
Despite the controversy surrounding Reading First's management, the percentage of students in the program who are proficient on fluency tests has risen about 15 percent, Education Department officials said. School districts across the country praise the program.
Members of both parties continue to support the goals of Reading First even as they attack its management. Miller and Senate education committee Chairman Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) joined Republicans yesterday in pledging to tighten restrictions on conflicts of interest in No Child Left Behind.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, who declined to comment yesterday, has said management problems with Reading First "reflect individual mistakes." But Doherty said nearly every aspect of the program was carefully monitored by the department and the White House, where Spelling was Bush's top education adviser.
"This program was always firmly under the watch and control of the highest levels of the government," Doherty said.
Staff writer Carol D. Leonnig contributed to this report.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Reading first and honest use of data
At least we should be able to agree to look at data honestly. The President and his staff can not make this claim.
The President and Secretary of Education constantly
maintain that Reading First has had a positive effect
on national tests, because of an increase on NAEP
trend test scores for fourth grade reading between
1999 and 2004, from 212 to 219. (Margaret Spellings
said this at the NCLB summit in April, 2006, and it
was repeated a year later, in April, 2007 on the White
House website, with many repetitions over the last
year.)
Trend tests, considered appropriate for comparison,
were not given between 1999 and 2004. Gerald Bracey
(2006a) has pointed out that Reading First did not go
into effect until 2002-2003, so it is not clear that
Reading First deserves the credit for the increase
(according to the recent GAO report, 25 states were
funded in 2002-2003 and 25 more in 2003-2004). In
fact, several analyses show that reading scores have
not improved since Reading First went into effect.
(Fuller et. al., 2006; Lee, 2006).
Bracey (2006b) also doubted that many children in
districts that did Reading First took the NAEP in
2004. The test is given to nine year olds, and Reading
First is aimed at grades three and lower.
Data from the recent GAO report confirms Bracey’s
suspicion. The report tells us that 1,200 districts in
the US were awarded Reading First grants. That’s only
seven percent of all districts in the US.
Let us give Reading First the benefit of the doubt and
ignore all the counterarguments presented above. Let
us give Reading First even more benefit of the doubt
and assume that even though only seven percent of
districts did Reading First, these districts were
gigantic, and that 21% of all children who took the
NAEP in 2004 had Reading First. If Reading First is
to take credit for the seven-point gain, those
children would have had to outscore their 1999
counterparts by a fantastic 33 points, a score that is
nearly exactly at the 75% percentile. If the Reading
First districts contributed only seven percent of
those who took the test, they would have had to score
312, outscoring their 1999 counterparts by 100 points
(The 90% percentile in 2005 was 263).
Again, several studies tell us that there was no gain
on national tests after Reading First went into
effect, and Bracey gives us reason to doubt that many
Reading First children were old enough to take the
test. But even ignoring these arguments, all estimates
of the number of children who took the test who were
in Reading First districts makes it highly unlikely
that Reading First deserves any credit for the
1999-2004 increase.
S. Krashen
Bracey, Gerald. 2006a. The 16th Bracey Report on the
Condition of Public Education. Phi Delta Kappan 18
(2): 151-166
Bracey, Gerald. 2006b. Letter to Congressperson George
Miller and Senator Edward Kennedy, September 25, 2006.
Fuller, Bruce, Gesicki, Kathryn, Kang, Erin, and
Wright, Joseph. 2006. Is the No Child Left Behind Act
Working? The Reliability of How States Track
Achievement. University of California, Berkeley:
Policy Analysis for California Education
GAO 2007. Reading First GAO 07-161 (States report
improvements in reading instruction, but additional
procedures would clarify Education’s role in ensuring
proper implementation by states.)
Lee, Jaekyung. 2006. Tracking achievement gaps and
assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth
look into national and state reading and math outcome
trends.
Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard
University.
The President and Secretary of Education constantly
maintain that Reading First has had a positive effect
on national tests, because of an increase on NAEP
trend test scores for fourth grade reading between
1999 and 2004, from 212 to 219. (Margaret Spellings
said this at the NCLB summit in April, 2006, and it
was repeated a year later, in April, 2007 on the White
House website, with many repetitions over the last
year.)
Trend tests, considered appropriate for comparison,
were not given between 1999 and 2004. Gerald Bracey
(2006a) has pointed out that Reading First did not go
into effect until 2002-2003, so it is not clear that
Reading First deserves the credit for the increase
(according to the recent GAO report, 25 states were
funded in 2002-2003 and 25 more in 2003-2004). In
fact, several analyses show that reading scores have
not improved since Reading First went into effect.
(Fuller et. al., 2006; Lee, 2006).
Bracey (2006b) also doubted that many children in
districts that did Reading First took the NAEP in
2004. The test is given to nine year olds, and Reading
First is aimed at grades three and lower.
Data from the recent GAO report confirms Bracey’s
suspicion. The report tells us that 1,200 districts in
the US were awarded Reading First grants. That’s only
seven percent of all districts in the US.
Let us give Reading First the benefit of the doubt and
ignore all the counterarguments presented above. Let
us give Reading First even more benefit of the doubt
and assume that even though only seven percent of
districts did Reading First, these districts were
gigantic, and that 21% of all children who took the
NAEP in 2004 had Reading First. If Reading First is
to take credit for the seven-point gain, those
children would have had to outscore their 1999
counterparts by a fantastic 33 points, a score that is
nearly exactly at the 75% percentile. If the Reading
First districts contributed only seven percent of
those who took the test, they would have had to score
312, outscoring their 1999 counterparts by 100 points
(The 90% percentile in 2005 was 263).
Again, several studies tell us that there was no gain
on national tests after Reading First went into
effect, and Bracey gives us reason to doubt that many
Reading First children were old enough to take the
test. But even ignoring these arguments, all estimates
of the number of children who took the test who were
in Reading First districts makes it highly unlikely
that Reading First deserves any credit for the
1999-2004 increase.
S. Krashen
Bracey, Gerald. 2006a. The 16th Bracey Report on the
Condition of Public Education. Phi Delta Kappan 18
(2): 151-166
Bracey, Gerald. 2006b. Letter to Congressperson George
Miller and Senator Edward Kennedy, September 25, 2006.
Fuller, Bruce, Gesicki, Kathryn, Kang, Erin, and
Wright, Joseph. 2006. Is the No Child Left Behind Act
Working? The Reliability of How States Track
Achievement. University of California, Berkeley:
Policy Analysis for California Education
GAO 2007. Reading First GAO 07-161 (States report
improvements in reading instruction, but additional
procedures would clarify Education’s role in ensuring
proper implementation by states.)
Lee, Jaekyung. 2006. Tracking achievement gaps and
assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth
look into national and state reading and math outcome
trends.
Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard
University.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Reading first: Another Bush failure
Has Reading First Helped?
USA Today (“Textbook scandal reaches Congress,” April
16 ) notes that a Center for Education Policy report
found that Reading First has helped schools. This
report only asked officials in states and districts
that improved in reading whether they thought Reading
First had helped. There was no discussion of cases in
which Reading First was used and there was no
improvement.
Reports from Harvard and Berkeley have found that
Reading First has not resulted in gains on national
tests. Also, the achievement gap between high- and
low-income students is the same as it was before
Reading First.
The President and the Secretary of Education continue
to insist that reading scores on national tests have
increased, but recent gains all occurred before
Reading First went into effect.
The Reading First hearings, in addition to
investigating potential conflicts of interests, should
also probe the unsupported claims that the program has
been a success.
Stephen Krashen
Analysis of Center for Education Report
Krashen, Stephen. 2006, Did reading first work?
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=17349
No improvement in national test scores:
1. Fuller, Bruce, Gesicki, Kathryn, Kang, Erin, and
Wright, Joseph. (2006). Is the No Child Left Behind
Act Working? The Reliability of How States Track
Achievement. University of California, Berkeley:
Policy Analysis for California Education
2. Lee, Jaekyung. 2006. Tracking achievement gaps and
assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth
look into national and state reading and math outcome
trends.
Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard
University.
Stephen Krashen
Textbook scandal reaches Congress
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
A slow-motion scandal surrounding a federal
multibillion-dollar reading program has its first
congressional hearing this week, but it remains to be
seen whether the scrutiny will shed any new light on a
complex, contradictory tale of textbooks, tests and
allegations of federal arm-twisting.
A key part of President Bush's efforts to remake
public education, Reading First was launched in 2002,
giving schools $1 billion a year to improve reading in
early elementary grades. Five years later, early
evidence suggests that it may be helping. But
investigators say a handful of advisers have
railroaded schools into buying textbooks and other
materials that they and associates developed.
The result: a conflict-of-interest case that took two
years to jell as investigators in the Education
Department connected the dots. To date, no criminal
charges have been filed, but Democrats, now in control
of Congress, promise to give the case a full airing.
"The purpose of Reading First is to help
schoolchildren learn to read, not feather the nests of
a select group of well-connected individuals and
organizations," says Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., who
chairs the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Miller and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., are
conducting probes. Kennedy plans hearings later this
spring.
Miller will preside at the first hearing Friday, which
brings together Chris Doherty, the program's former
director, and three top advisers.
Atop the witness list: John Higgins, the Education
Department's inspector general, who has issued six
reports detailing how Reading First leaders and
contractors looked the other way at possible conflicts
of interest among advisers and others — several of
whom authored textbooks. He also found that Doherty
and others strong-armed states and school districts
into choosing from a small selection of materials that
stress phonics.
In one e-mail Higgins cited, Doherty said of a
publisher whose books downplayed phonics, "They are
trying to crash our party, and we need to beat the
(expletive) 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."
Doherty quit in September after the report's release.
Higgins also found that a 2002 conference for
educators focused too exclusively on a few programs,
creating what investigators said was a perception that
there was an "approved list" of texts.
A related probe last month by the Government
Accountability Office found that officials from 10
states complained that the Education Department told
them to eliminate reading programs or tests that they
didn't endorse. Federal rules prohibit the department
from endorsing any curriculum.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, who until 2005
was a White House domestic policy adviser, says the
troubles occurred before her move to the Education
Department. But Mike Petrilli, a former associate
deputy secretary under Spellings' predecessor, Rod
Paige, says Spellings "micromanaged the implementation
of Reading First from her West Wing office." She
already has told lawmakers she is beefing up oversight
of the program.
But even a few critics cautiously concede that the
program has been a boon to schools. The Center on
Education Policy, a Washington think tank that has
criticized Bush's education programs, in September
said Reading First is having "a significant impact" in
schools.
A five-year, $30.5 million evaluation, begun in 2003,
should produce complete results next year.
Cindy Cupp, a Savannah, Ga., educator, was among the
first to complain in 2005, after Reading First schools
in Georgia passed over her homegrown phonics program.
Cupp compiled a huge dossier outlining the links
between publishers, federal advisers, universities and
the Bush administration. In findings issued last
January, Higgins largely upheld her complaint.
She says it's irrelevant whether Reading First works:
"To rationalize breaking the law by saying the program
has been effective is just that — a rationalization."
She also notes that part of the evaluation bid went to
RMC Research Corp., which Higgins cited for turning a
blind eye to conflicts of interest among three top
advisers it hired. All three are scheduled to testify
Friday.
USA Today (“Textbook scandal reaches Congress,” April
16 ) notes that a Center for Education Policy report
found that Reading First has helped schools. This
report only asked officials in states and districts
that improved in reading whether they thought Reading
First had helped. There was no discussion of cases in
which Reading First was used and there was no
improvement.
Reports from Harvard and Berkeley have found that
Reading First has not resulted in gains on national
tests. Also, the achievement gap between high- and
low-income students is the same as it was before
Reading First.
The President and the Secretary of Education continue
to insist that reading scores on national tests have
increased, but recent gains all occurred before
Reading First went into effect.
The Reading First hearings, in addition to
investigating potential conflicts of interests, should
also probe the unsupported claims that the program has
been a success.
Stephen Krashen
Analysis of Center for Education Report
Krashen, Stephen. 2006, Did reading first work?
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=17349
No improvement in national test scores:
1. Fuller, Bruce, Gesicki, Kathryn, Kang, Erin, and
Wright, Joseph. (2006). Is the No Child Left Behind
Act Working? The Reliability of How States Track
Achievement. University of California, Berkeley:
Policy Analysis for California Education
2. Lee, Jaekyung. 2006. Tracking achievement gaps and
assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth
look into national and state reading and math outcome
trends.
Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard
University.
Stephen Krashen
Textbook scandal reaches Congress
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
A slow-motion scandal surrounding a federal
multibillion-dollar reading program has its first
congressional hearing this week, but it remains to be
seen whether the scrutiny will shed any new light on a
complex, contradictory tale of textbooks, tests and
allegations of federal arm-twisting.
A key part of President Bush's efforts to remake
public education, Reading First was launched in 2002,
giving schools $1 billion a year to improve reading in
early elementary grades. Five years later, early
evidence suggests that it may be helping. But
investigators say a handful of advisers have
railroaded schools into buying textbooks and other
materials that they and associates developed.
The result: a conflict-of-interest case that took two
years to jell as investigators in the Education
Department connected the dots. To date, no criminal
charges have been filed, but Democrats, now in control
of Congress, promise to give the case a full airing.
"The purpose of Reading First is to help
schoolchildren learn to read, not feather the nests of
a select group of well-connected individuals and
organizations," says Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., who
chairs the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Miller and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., are
conducting probes. Kennedy plans hearings later this
spring.
Miller will preside at the first hearing Friday, which
brings together Chris Doherty, the program's former
director, and three top advisers.
Atop the witness list: John Higgins, the Education
Department's inspector general, who has issued six
reports detailing how Reading First leaders and
contractors looked the other way at possible conflicts
of interest among advisers and others — several of
whom authored textbooks. He also found that Doherty
and others strong-armed states and school districts
into choosing from a small selection of materials that
stress phonics.
In one e-mail Higgins cited, Doherty said of a
publisher whose books downplayed phonics, "They are
trying to crash our party, and we need to beat the
(expletive) 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."
Doherty quit in September after the report's release.
Higgins also found that a 2002 conference for
educators focused too exclusively on a few programs,
creating what investigators said was a perception that
there was an "approved list" of texts.
A related probe last month by the Government
Accountability Office found that officials from 10
states complained that the Education Department told
them to eliminate reading programs or tests that they
didn't endorse. Federal rules prohibit the department
from endorsing any curriculum.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, who until 2005
was a White House domestic policy adviser, says the
troubles occurred before her move to the Education
Department. But Mike Petrilli, a former associate
deputy secretary under Spellings' predecessor, Rod
Paige, says Spellings "micromanaged the implementation
of Reading First from her West Wing office." She
already has told lawmakers she is beefing up oversight
of the program.
But even a few critics cautiously concede that the
program has been a boon to schools. The Center on
Education Policy, a Washington think tank that has
criticized Bush's education programs, in September
said Reading First is having "a significant impact" in
schools.
A five-year, $30.5 million evaluation, begun in 2003,
should produce complete results next year.
Cindy Cupp, a Savannah, Ga., educator, was among the
first to complain in 2005, after Reading First schools
in Georgia passed over her homegrown phonics program.
Cupp compiled a huge dossier outlining the links
between publishers, federal advisers, universities and
the Bush administration. In findings issued last
January, Higgins largely upheld her complaint.
She says it's irrelevant whether Reading First works:
"To rationalize breaking the law by saying the program
has been effective is just that — a rationalization."
She also notes that part of the evaluation bid went to
RMC Research Corp., which Higgins cited for turning a
blind eye to conflicts of interest among three top
advisers it hired. All three are scheduled to testify
Friday.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Reading First: Bush Fraud
Published: March 21, 2007
LETTER
In Reading, a Scandal Without Consequences
To the Editor:
It seems that in Washington there are scandals, and
then there are scandals.
In February, The Washington Post ran a series of
articles on the neglect and mistreatment of wounded
soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan at Walter
Reed Army Medical Center. Generals have been fired and
heads have rolled. And that’s as it should be.
We’ve now had a series of reports from the U.S.
Department of Education’s inspector general on the
implementation of the multibillion-dollar Reading
First program, part of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Not one congressional hearing has yet been held.
Despite the recommendations of the inspector general’s
reports, only one scapegoat has been permitted to
resign. No investigations of violations of the law
have been initiated by the attorney general. No grand
juries have been convened. And the national press and
media have virtually ignored the whole scandal.
When Education Week went through the mountain of
e-mails released by the Education Department under the
Freedom of Information Act ("E-Mails Reveal Federal
Reach Over Reading?" Feb. 21, 2007), it found numerous
messages that seem to involve conspiracies by
Education Department and Nation Institute of Child
Health and Human Development functionaries and their
paid consultants to violate and misrepresent the law.
And yet those very violations were excused by ranking
authorities as being necessary to force teachers and
administrators to use reading programs and tests
labeled “scientific” by their own authors, with no
supporting evidence for the particular programs and
tests.
We need to insist that those responsible for
mistreating our returning servicemen and -women be
punished. And we must also insist that those abusing
the children of these returning servicepeople—and the
rest of the children in American schools—also be
punished.
We need to fully air the impact of Reading First, and
NCLB as a whole, before the No Child Left Behind Act
is reauthorized for another, even more disastrous five
years. Thanks to Education Week for its full reporting
of the Reading First scandals.
Kenneth S. Goodman
Professor Emeritus
Department of Language,
Reading, and Culture
College of Education
University of Arizona
Tucson, Ariz.
LETTER
In Reading, a Scandal Without Consequences
To the Editor:
It seems that in Washington there are scandals, and
then there are scandals.
In February, The Washington Post ran a series of
articles on the neglect and mistreatment of wounded
soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan at Walter
Reed Army Medical Center. Generals have been fired and
heads have rolled. And that’s as it should be.
We’ve now had a series of reports from the U.S.
Department of Education’s inspector general on the
implementation of the multibillion-dollar Reading
First program, part of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Not one congressional hearing has yet been held.
Despite the recommendations of the inspector general’s
reports, only one scapegoat has been permitted to
resign. No investigations of violations of the law
have been initiated by the attorney general. No grand
juries have been convened. And the national press and
media have virtually ignored the whole scandal.
When Education Week went through the mountain of
e-mails released by the Education Department under the
Freedom of Information Act ("E-Mails Reveal Federal
Reach Over Reading?" Feb. 21, 2007), it found numerous
messages that seem to involve conspiracies by
Education Department and Nation Institute of Child
Health and Human Development functionaries and their
paid consultants to violate and misrepresent the law.
And yet those very violations were excused by ranking
authorities as being necessary to force teachers and
administrators to use reading programs and tests
labeled “scientific” by their own authors, with no
supporting evidence for the particular programs and
tests.
We need to insist that those responsible for
mistreating our returning servicemen and -women be
punished. And we must also insist that those abusing
the children of these returning servicepeople—and the
rest of the children in American schools—also be
punished.
We need to fully air the impact of Reading First, and
NCLB as a whole, before the No Child Left Behind Act
is reauthorized for another, even more disastrous five
years. Thanks to Education Week for its full reporting
of the Reading First scandals.
Kenneth S. Goodman
Professor Emeritus
Department of Language,
Reading, and Culture
College of Education
University of Arizona
Tucson, Ariz.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
