|
|
|
 |
|
|
AEP Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingNew Office of Inspector General Report Identifies New Areas of USED Mismanagement and Lack Of Controls Over the Reading First ProgramIn its February audit report of USED management of the Reading First program, the USED Office of Inspector General once again chided USED for favoring certain reading products and disregarding possible conflicts of interest on the part of contractors and consultants. Perhaps more importantly, the OIG calls for USED and Congress to clarify whether reading programs need to have "scientific evidence of effectiveness" in order to be eligible for funding under Reading First. Dr. Robert Slaven, founder of Success for All, in an official complaint filed with the OIG alleged that neither USED nor its Technical Assistance Contractor and consultants followed the "letter" of scientifically based reading research (SBRR), defined in the law, in recommending or approving instructional and assessment products for use in Reading First. Moreover, products such as Success for All, that have demonstrated effectiveness following SBRR, including a study conducted by USED's Institute of Education Sciences, were often precluded from being used by states and districts in their Reading First program. However, should Congress, in the NCLB reauthorization, decide to require strict adherence to the SBRR definition and criteria in the statute, it would be in conflict with likely new policies which are planned to be instituted by the What Works Clearinghouse which is increasingly recognizing and reporting on studies whose designs are less rigorous than "randomized trial experiments." The most recent OIG report found that USED used inadequate management controls that resulted in: * The inclusion of a select number of reading programs during three Reading Leadership Academies held for state Reading First directors in early 2002, which many attendees felt to be the "list of approved programs;" * A seal of approval upon at least one assessment instrument (DIBELS) that was included in a Guidebook; and * Use of contractors and consultants who possibly had conflicts of interest; several were authors or consultants to publishers of products which were widely purchased and used in Reading First. The OIG report glossed over one important item when it stated that USED generally "administered its Reading First website, and its Guidance for the Reading First Program, dated April 2002, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations." In the Reading First Conference Report, Congress stated its intent that tutoring and family literacy products and activities were to be allowed in the Reading First program; however, neither was mentioned as an allowable cost activity in the April 2002 Guidance, even though their Assistant Secretary, Susan Neuman, on many occasions during 2002-03, cited the effectiveness of volunteer and cross-age tutoring as a means to improve reading scores. The USED did not approve any states' Reading First grants that proposed to rely on tutoring and family literacy until September 2003. At least one firm that developed an extensive tutoring program for use in Reading First suffered significantly from USED's selective policy of not allowing Reading First funds to be used to purchase tutoring products. At the root of many problems and issues that arose during the early implementation of Reading First was the working definition of scientifically-based research as it applied to Reading First. Following recommendations of the National Reading Panel (NRP), USED and its contractors used a "Consumer's guide" to determine whether or not a reading program included "explicit and systematic instruction in the five essential components of reading," which the NRP argued were necessary if a program is to be effective. As noted in the OIG report, the National Reading Panel, in 2002, argued that only a limited number of reading programs had been rigorously tested and proven to be effective. However, as the OIG report states, "...since the initiation of the Reading First legislation, there seems to be some movement to place more emphasis on the scientific evidence of effectiveness of reading programs rather just the inclusion of the five essential components of reading." It cites a letter from Senator Richard Lugar to Secretary Spellings, dated September 8, 2005, which requested that USED direct its technical assistance centers and states to "fully consider the scientific evidence of effectiveness for programs, not just program components, in considering programs under use for Reading First." Indeed, the 2006 Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Bill urges USED to provide clear guidance to its technical assistance centers and states to "fully consider scientific evidence of effectiveness in rating programs for use under Reading First; contemplate an expanded list of allowable programs that include innovative programs with scientific evidence of effectiveness; when awarding new grants, consider giving preference to those schools that select programs with strong, scientific evidence of the effectiveness...and allow comprehensive reading programs that have scientific evidence of effectiveness to be implemented in full, as they have been researched." Referring to the former chief of Child Development and Behavior within NIH, Reid Lyon, the primary architect of Reading First, the report notes that the above point was consistent with a statement made by Dr. Lyon in August 2006 when he noted, "...there should be a larger group of programs that have been tested today than were available in 2002." And he felt there should be a "push towards the next level." In his statement, Lyon said, "Effectiveness should be established using the most rigorous experimental designs that provide the strongest evidence of causal validity with priority placed on randomized clinical trials (RCT) and regression discontinuity studies." What Dr. Lyon recommends about moving to the "next level" is not supported by the very limited number of rigorous studies using RCT designs since 2002 and the apparent policy shift that the What Works Clearinghouse is likely to be making in the immediate future. The Clearinghouse would develop "practice guides" for practitioners based upon the best available evidence, indicating the varying quality of that evidence. Moreover, it would be considering evidence that may come from correlation studies, case studies, "beat the odds" studies without matching and expert opinion supported by conceptual models without direct support evidence. Without question, the What Works Clearinghouse is under increased pressure to provide more useful information for district-level school officials in their selection and purchase of instructional products. By recommending that Congress clarify whether programs for Reading First must have scientific evidence of effectiveness, it also states, "Congress will also be able to determine what it means for a program to be 'based on scientific reading research' and whether this definition is consistent with program effectiveness." As far as the NCLB reauthorization is concerned, to our knowledge, no large national education group has called for any changes or even clarifications regarding SBRR. Many groups appear to be taking the position that SBRR is evolving in a sensible manner. Given the intensity of feelings among many publishers about Reading First, one might expect that if Congress does address the SBBR issue generally, and specifically with respect to Reading First, political battle lines will be drawn quickly.
Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Stacey Pusey at 302-295-8349. |
Click here for a copy of the OIG report. |
|
|
© 2011 The Association of Educational
Publishers |
|||
