AEP Online
Featured Columns
Blaschke on Fed. Funding
A+ Advice for Parents
    Archives
Archives
    Education 
    Legislation
    Technology
    Market Trends
    Misc. Topics
About

Blaschke on Federal Funding

GAO Investigation's Impact on Reading First and Other Ed Initiatives

High ranking Senate Republicans and Democrats have instructed the Government Accountability Office to investigate the implementation of the Reading First program regarding numerous concerns, "including concerns regarding guidance from U.S. Department of Education on the approach to teach reading used by states, districts, and individual schools under the program."  The letter to GAO signed by Senator Michael Enzi (Chairman) and Senator Ted Kennedy (Ranking Member) of the Senate HELP Committee, stated:

In examining the implementation of Reading First program, we would like GAO to address the following questions:

• What requirements related to curriculum and scientifically-based research does the U.S. Department of Education require from states and other grantees as a condition for receiving Reading First grants?

• What guidance, particularly related to curriculum and technical assistance, does the U.S. Department of Education provide to states and other grantees to help them develop successful grant proposals for implementing Reading First programs?

• How does the U.S. Department of Education select and oversee consultants and contractors that provide technical assistance and other services to Reading First grantees?

The investigation directive stems from allegations of conflicts of interest, favoritism, and the use of an "unofficial list" of approved materials, primarily basal text programs, required for use in Reading First.  These have also resulted in complaints, filed with the USED Office of Inspector General, by the Success for All Foundation, Reading Recovery, and another publisher; the bipartisan senatorial group evidently felt the need to have an independent group such as GAO conduct a more thorough investigation.  The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its August 2005 accompanying Committee Report, provided clear guidance to USED to correct some of the bases for the allegations, including instructing Reading First Technical Assistance Centers to:

• consider scientific evidence of other types of effectiveness in rating programs for use under Reading First (in its October 2005 "Summary of Evidence: Mismanagement of Reading First," The Success for All Foundation alleged that the three Reading First centers currently only assess whether the five essential elements exist in a program while not taking into account scientific evidence of effectiveness);

• expand the list of allowable programs giving preference to schools that select programs with strong scientific evidence of effectiveness; and

• allow comprehensive reading programs that have scientific evidence of effectiveness to be implemented in full as they had been researched without modification to conform to other models of instruction (the Success for All Foundation provided evidence that state Reading First directors were instructed by USED to not approve Success for All unless it was modified to conform to the "three tier model" developed by the Texas Reading First Technical Assistance Center).

The request to GAO and the language in the Senate Appropriations Committee report is supported by the Summary of Evidence report recently compiled by the Success for All Foundation.  Some of its allegations include,

• "In practice, the U.S. Department of Education and its contractors administering Reading First have not only ignored programs with strong evidence of effectiveness, they have actively worked to exclude the few reading programs that do have strong evidence."

• "Reading First is now specifying specific instructional practices to be used at the classroom level.  In the jargon of Reading First, this is called a 'three tier model.'  The Department of Education is promoting this model nationwide, strongly suggesting that schools receiving Reading First funding must implement it, even though nothing in the authorizing legislation said anything about it."

• "The story of the mismanagement of Reading First is one of extraordinary disregard for commonsense ethical standards regarding conflicts of interest.  Reading First contractors are authors of major basal series that have benefited enormously from Reading First funding." 

In response to formal complaints, the flurry of recent coverage in the media, and the anticipated GAO investigation, Secretary Spellings in a recent letter to Senator Richard Lugar -- who has criticized USED for mismanagement of the Reading First program -- stated that two policy guidance letters had been sent:  (a) one, dated October 11 by Christopher Doherty, Director of Reading First, to Reading First State Directors, stated, "The Department has not developed or endorsed any list of instructional programs as appropriate for use nor has the Department indicated the preference for certain kinds of instructional programs, such as basal textbook based programs.  Consistent with our unequivocal message from the earliest days of this program, I will remind you that the critical issue is that any and all reading programs and instructional materials used in your Reading First program must be based upon scientifically-based reading research and must meet the criteria for selection in each state’s approved plan," and (b) another letter from Doherty, dated October 11 to Dr. Everett Barnes, Principal Investigator for the National Center for Reading First Technical Assistance (under which the three regional Reading First technical centers operate), reiterated the above points and added the following, "In providing this assistance, it is essential that the National Center avoid all conflicts of interest among employees, subcontractors, and consultants who may have connections to particular instructional programs or materials used under Reading First.  Individuals associated with the National Center or the three regional centers must recuse themselves from participating in technical assistance activities that appear to benefit commercial entities with whom they are personally connected." 

One possible repercussion could be to limit use of the three Regional Reading First Centers (e.g., University of Oregon, University of Texas, Florida State University) to providing technical assistance to state directors of special education to assist in the implementation of the yet-to-be finalized "interim" policy for the development of modified instruments aligned with grade level content under the so called "two percent cap" for determining AYP for academically disabled students (e.g., gap students).  Previous statements by Deputy Secretary Ray Simon indicated these three centers, which have received several million dollars in additional USED funding, would take a lead role in helping states select and/or develop assessment instruments and possibly interventions.  During the first meeting involving state special education directors in Washington, D.C. in August which addressed early intervening services and modified assessments, the "three-tier model" developed by the University of Texas, as noted above, was demonstrated as a model approach.

Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Dave Gladney at 856-241-7772 or dgladney@AEPweb.org.

© 2008 The Association of Educational Publishers
510 Heron Drive, Suite 201 • Logan Township, NJ 08085 • P:856-241-7772 • F:856-241-0709 • Email: mail@AEPweb.org
 
Satellite Offices:
Two Bala Plaza, Suite 300 • Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
C/O Knowledge Alliance • 815 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 220 • Washington, DC 20006