The perceived promotion of specific reading programs and assessment tools by those who attended conferences designed to help states “gear up” for the implementation of Reading First were among problems in its administration cited in a report by the U.S. Department of Education’s auditing arm.
Other findings in the Inspector General’s latest audit of Reading First dealt with issues of bias in the awarding of technical assistance contracts. The audit also suggested that during the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Congress and the Department of Education “should clarify whether reading programs need to have scientific evidence of effectiveness in order to be eligible for funding under Reading First.”
Reading First is the initiative authorized by NCLB to improve the quality of reading instruction in kindergarten through third grade. Through Reading First, schools that serve low-income, low-performing students can apply for funding for professional development for their instructional staff. Since its authorization under NCLB, however, Reading First has been at the center of controversy over its requirement to use only reading programs and assessments founded on scientifically based research as defined by the Act and interpreted by the Department of Education. Another major point of contention revolved around how the program was implemented by the Department.
Beginning in the fall of 2005, a series of reports by the Inspector General’s Office of the Department of Education looked at Reading First. The fourth report, issued in February 2007, found that in their sponsorship of three major conferences called “Reading Leadership Academies” (RLAs) the Department of Education and the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL), according to the audit, did not comply with Department regulations and NCLB curriculum provisions.
Held in January and February 2002 in Washington, DC, the RLAs featured presentations on effective reading instruction, the selection of reading programs, accountability and assessment in reading, and professional development for reading teachers and others. Department officials and researchers also made presentations and led discussions on teaching reading based on scientific research. Only programs based on scientifically based reading research (SBRR) are eligible for funding through Reading First.
The Department of Education did not have the funding to hold the conferences so it asked for financial assistance from the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL). NIFL is an interagency group comprising representatives of the secretaries of education, labor, and health and human services departments. NIFL worked with contractor RMC Research Corporation, the Department of Education, and other individuals to arrange the RLAs.
According to the audit, the RLAs included sessions called “Theory to Practice: A Panel of Practitioners.” The panels featured presenters who discussed how particular “scientifically based reading programs” had been successful in improving reading scores of their kindergarten through third-grade students. Handbooks were distributed that included copies of the day’s presentations. Evaluation forms also were handed out so participants could critique the sessions.
Within the evaluation comments and later on, complaints were made that the Department of Education appeared to endorse specific reading programs, materials, tests, and instructional models to be used by Reading First sites. NCLB prohibits the Department from using NCLB program funds to endorse materials.
This audit report by the Inspector General found that the RLAs did focus on a select number of reading programs, and that the handbooks distributed during the sessions appeared to promote a specific literacy skills assessment.
During the first RLA, several presenters discussed the Direct Instruction and Open Court reading programs. Afterward, some attendees commented that they felt the RLA “was biased toward Direct Instruction and Open Court,” according to the Inspector General’s report. Despite assertions by Department of Education officials at succeeding RLAs that the intention was not to “plug” certain programs, some of the same panel members returned for the second and third RLAs. Some of the luncheon speakers at the RLAs explicitly discussed Direct Instruction, according to the report.
Attendees were outspoken in their comments on the evaluation forms included in the report. Said one: “Panel was a sales job for Direct Instruction and Open Court.” Another said: “I felt like it was simply a push for a national curriculum. I think I’ll go buy shares in Open Court!”
The Inspector General’s report chided the Department of Education because it “had control of the agenda and presenters for the RLAs and should have ensured that nothing in the RLAs could be viewed as endorsements or approval of any particular program.” Because of this perception that the programs discussed were approved by the Department of Education, the Reading First Office felt “compelled” to put a notice on its website in April 2002, clarifying that the Department did not have an approved list of reading programs.
The Department of Education, however, only agreed in part with these findings. It acknowledged it should have done more to disavow any endorsement of particular programs, but argued that many participants at the RLAs wanted to know what programs the speakers were discussing and whether they were successful. The Department also said it couldn’t possibly provide information on all programs, so it was “reasonable” to narrow the focus to specific programs as long as steps were taken to clarify that they were not recommended.
The Inspector General’s report also was critical of the apparent promotion of the literacy skills assessment known as DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills).
At each RLA, participants received a handbook with a 29-page article featuring DIBELS. In an RLA Guidebook published in September 2002, the presentations and resources that formed the basis of the RLAs were collected. Though numerous assessments were listed in the handbook and guidebook, only DIBELS was featured in both publications.
Because the RLA Guidebook was provided after the RLAs were held—and, while states were preparing their Reading First applications—many states apparently were under the impression that DIBELS was the preferred assessment. According to the report, 43 states said they intended to use DIBELS as one of their assessment test instruments.
The Department of Education had no comment on and raised no objections to the DIBELS findings in the report.
The third finding in the Inspector General’s report revolved around individuals who provided technical assistance or were consultants. The National Center for Reading First Technical Assistance contract (NCRFTA) was authorized under NCLB to provide comprehensive technical assistance to states over five years for about US$6.9 million. RMC Research Corporation was the only firm that bid on the contract, and it was awarded to RMC in September 2003. The contract’s purpose was to establish three regional centers in the western, central, and eastern regions of the United States to provide technical assistance in those geographic areas.
When it submitted its proposal for the NCRFTA contract, RMC included the names and resumes of key personnel, including regional directors. The Department of Education also requested a list of all reading-related contracts held by the staff of each regional center. Several instances of potential conflict of interest existed of which the Department was aware, but “the Department did not follow up on these issues,” the report stated. The Inspector General concluded that the Department of Education did not “adequately vet proposed technical assistance providers’ resumes,” nor did it consider whether proposed contractors for technical assistance or other consultants had ties with reading program publishers and/or reading programs.
The Department agreed procedures should be in place “to assess issues of bias and lack of objectivity on the part of potential technical assistance providers.” But it added that just because someone may have expertise in a particular program that should not preclude him or her from providing technical assistance in any capacity.
In the “Other Matters” section, the audit cited the five essential components of reading (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, fluency, and comprehension) as identified by the law governing Reading First programs. The audit states that current thinking is not to stop with these components when assessing a reading program, but to go to the next level and “tighten up the criteria under which programs are eligible for funding.”
At the time of Reading First’s implementation, a limited number of programs existed that had been rigorously tested. With the passage of time, educational publishers have produced more programs and should have tested them in light of SBRR standards, the report said. The audit concluded by stating that with the upcoming reauthorization of NCLB, Congress ought to have a better sense of what it means to say a program or test is based on SBRR—and “whether this definition is consistent with program effectiveness. ” Legislators then would be in a better position to craft a bill that is “more responsive to the needs of children by ensuring that quality programs are funded with Reading First funds.”
For the full text of the report, visit www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/a03g0006.doc.
New report faults management of Reading First program. (April 2007). Reading Today, 24(5), 1.
Journals
Reading Today