Order Code RL33246
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Reading First: Implementation Issues
and Controversies
January 20, 2006
Gail McCallion
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Reading First: Implementation Issues
and Controversies
Summary
The Reading First program was authorized as part of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA).
Reading First was drafted with the intent of incorporating scientifically based reading
research (SBRR) on what works in teaching reading to improve and expand K-3
reading programs to address concerns about student reading achievement and to
reach children at younger ages.
The Reading First program has required significant startup time on the part of
states. Because the program is complex and many of its requirements are new, it has
taken time for states and local educational agencies (LEAs) to put together the
necessary staff, curriculum, assessment, and evaluation components for the program.
By the end of October 2003, all states and the District of Columbia had received their
FY2002 and FY2003 Reading First awards. Puerto Rico’s situation is unique
because it did not spend the first Reading First funds it received (for FY2003), and
it declined funds for FY2004 because of disagreements with the U.S. Department of
Education (ED) over instruction and methods to be employed.
The Reading First program has been the subject of ongoing controversy. Some
of the criticisms of the program have centered on the perceived
“overprescriptiveness” of the program as it has been administered, perceptions of
insufficient transparency regarding ED’s requirements of states, and allegations of
conflicts of interest between consultants to the program and commercial reading and
assessment companies. Three groups representing different reading programs have
filed separate complaints with the ED’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), asking
that the program be investigated. The OIG is currently conducting an investigation
of the Reading First program; OIG will reportedly be examining the state application
process and the role of consultants and technical advisors to the program. On
September 23, 2005, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions submitted a request to the Government Accountability Office to conduct an
investigation of questions related to the implementation of the Reading First
program.
Controversies have also arisen regarding the application of the SBRR
requirements in the NCLBA to the Reading First program. The issues that have
arisen regarding implementation of SBRR reflect the current state of SBRR and the
difficulties of applying existing research to concrete educational interventions. Some
observers have noted that there are many areas of education research with few if any
studies based on randomized control trials, viewed by many as the “gold standard”
of scientifically based research. Although there is also more user-friendly guidance
available, there is very little to date that reflects evaluations of concrete educational
interventions and meets the criteria of SBRR. Some critics of ED’s implementation
of Reading First have also argued that ED has unduly “narrowed” the definition of
SBRR, causing states to be unnecessarily limited in their choices of reading
programs, assessments and professional development packages. This report will be
updated periodically.
Contents
Implementation Status
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Implementation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Scientifically Based Research and Reading First . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Scientifically Based Research Requirements
in the No Child Left Behind Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
SBRR Implementation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Application of Scientifically Based Reading Research
to the Reading First Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Limitations of Existing Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Identifying Relevant Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Reading First: Implementation Issues
and Controversies
The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) authorized three new reading programs:
Reading First, Early Reading First, and Improving Literacy Through School
Libraries. The NCLBA also reauthorized the William F. Goodling Even Start Family
Literacy Programs. This report focuses on the Reading First program.
Reading First was drafted with the intent of incorporating scientifically based
research on what works in teaching reading to improve and expand K-3 reading
programs to address concerns about student reading achievement and to reach
children at younger ages.
The Reading First program includes both formula grants (states are allocated
funds in proportion to the estimated number of children, aged 5 to 17, who reside
within the state from families with incomes below the poverty line) and targeted
assistance grants to states.1 For the first two years of the program, 100% of funds,
after national reservations, was allocated to states as formula grants. States then
competitively award grants to eligible local educational agencies (LEAs). LEAs that
receive Reading First grants shall use those funds for the following purposes:
1.
Selecting and administering screening, diagnostic, and classroom-
based instructional reading assessments.
2.
Selecting and implementing a learning system or program of reading
instruction based on scientifically based reading research that
includes the essential components of reading instruction.
3.
Procuring and implementing classroom instructional materials based
on scientifically based reading research.
4.
Providing professional development for teachers of grades K-3, and
special education teachers of grades K-12.
5.
Collecting and summarizing data to document the effectiveness of
these programs; and accelerating improvement of reading instruction
by identifying successful schools.
6.
Reporting student progress by detailed demographic characteristics.
7.
Promoting reading and library programs that provide access to
stimulating reading material.
1 The NCLBA specifies that beginning with FY2004, 10% of funds in excess of the FY2003
appropriation or $90 million, whichever is less, be reserved for targeted assistance state
grants. Targeted assistance grants are intended to reward schools that are achieving the
goals of increasing the percentage of 3rd graders who are proficient readers and improving
the reading skills of 1st and 2nd graders.
CRS-2
LEAs may use Reading First funds for the Prime Time Family Reading Time
program;2 for training parents and other volunteers as reading tutors; and for assisting
parents to encourage and provide support for their child’s reading development.3
Implementation Status
The Reading First program has required significant start up time on the part of
states. Because the program is complex and many of its requirements are new, it has
taken time for states and LEAs to put together the necessary staff, curriculum,
assessment, and evaluation components for the program. By the end of October
2003, all states and the District of Columbia had received their FY2002 and FY2003
Reading First awards. The Virgin Islands received its first Reading First funds in
September of 2004. Reading First state grants are awarded for a six-year period,
pending a satisfactory midterm review. According to the U.S. Department of
Education ( ED), only two states were able to distribute Reading First money to
LEAs for the 2002-03 school year. Twenty-seven states conducted their first
distribution of Reading First funds to LEAs for the 2003-04 school year, and for the
2004-05 school year, 24 additional states awarded their first Reading First grants to
LEAs.4 The Virgin Islands awarded its first grants for the 2005-06 school year.
Puerto Rico’s situation is unique because it did not spend the first Reading First
funds it received (for FY2003), and it declined funds for FY2004 because of
disagreements with ED over instruction and methods to be employed. Puerto Rico
is, however, apparently planning to reapply for FY2005 funding — it has until
September of 2006 to do so.5
The NCLBA specifies that a midterm peer review of states’ performance in the
Reading First program be conducted after the completion of the program’s third grant
period (which would mean a review would have occurred in the fall of 2005).
Because of the time involved in initial implementation of the program, ED is making
some adjustments to the timeline. Since many states have insufficient data at this
point for a useful review, ED will be conducting midterm reviews on a rolling basis.
This would allow all states to have participated in three grant cycles, as envisioned
by the statute, before they undergo a mid-term peer review. Similarly, the awarding
of the first targeted assistance grants was delayed so that there will be more states
meeting the requirement of having one year of baseline data and two years of follow
up data showing improvement. States that wished to be considered for one of the
first round of targeted assistance grants were required to have submitted an
2 The Prime Time Family Reading Time program is a 6-8 week program of storytelling and
discussion held at public libraries based on award winning children’s books.
3 CRS Report RL31241, Reading First and Early Reading First: Background and Funding,
by Gail McCallion.
4 Based on April 15, 2005 and October 10, 2005 conversations with Sandi Jacobs, a senior
education program specialist with ED.
5 Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, “Puerto Rico Still Has No Reading First Funds,” Education
Week, November 30, 2005.
CRS-3
application by July 30, 2005. The first Reading First targeted assistance award (of
approximately $3 million) was awarded to Massachusetts in September of 2005.6
The Reading First program will be required to meet relatively extensive
standards. In addition to mid-term reviews of states’ performance, districts are
required to track the progress of individual students, and states are required to submit
annual evaluations to ED with data on overall school, district and state progress. ED
has also contracted to have several evaluations of Reading First conducted. These
evaluations include an impact study of Reading First’s effect on student achievement.
It is anticipated that the first report from this study, which is being conducted by Abt
Associates and MDRC, will be available in 2006. In addition, ED has contracted
with Abt Associates for an implementation study of Reading First which will be
based on a nationally representative sample of schools participating in Reading First.
Preliminary data from the implementation study will be available in the spring of
2006. ED is also conducting a descriptive study of the relationship between a
school’s receipt of Reading First funds and its rate of learning disabilities. The
interim report is due out in the summer of 2006. Finally, ED contracted with RMC
Research Corporation to sample grades K-3 in 20 states to see how well reading
standards are aligned with the five essential components of reading delineated in
Reading First. RMC issued its report in December of 2005.
Implementation Issues
Although evaluation data on the Reading First program will not be available
until late 2006, anecdotal information from states indicates that they believe the
Reading First program has led to positive changes in areas such as research-based
professional development and availability of instructional resources and support
services.7
A June 2005 report issued by The Center on Education Policy (CEP) provided
data on the status of Reading First’s implementation. The CEP report is based on
state and district surveys and case studies conducted for its 2005 study on the No
Child Left Behind Act, an overview of all state Reading First applications, an in
depth review of 15 randomly selected state applications, and a review of revisions to
state applications based on 10 representative states.
CEP’s state surveys indicate that 40 out of the 49 states responding perceive ED
as strictly or very strictly enforcing the Reading First program. Interestingly, only the
adequate yearly progress requirements in the NCLBA were reported by more states
as being strictly or very strictly enforced by ED:
6 The Massachusetts award was the only targeted assistance award for FY2005. The state
annual performance report also served as an application for the targeted assistance grants,
but the July deadline required states to push out their annual report on an expedited schedule
(the annual report was not due until November 30, 2005).
7 Some states report having difficulty finding enough qualified staff for the program.
Manzo, Kathleen Kennedy, “States Report Reading First Yielding Gains,” Education Week,
June 8, 2005.
CRS-4
This means that more states viewed Reading First as more strictly enforced than
the NCLB requirements for public school choice, supplemental tutoring services,
or highly qualified teachers.8
The CEP study also examined ED’s administration of the state application
process for Reading First grants. Many states were required to revise their initial
application for Reading First grants one or more times before ultimately having their
application accepted. The CEP found that “states are remarkably consistent in their
selection of specific instruments for assessing students’ reading progress.” It noted
that in their final applications almost all states used the Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) for their required assessments, and A Consumer’s
Guide to Evaluating a Core Reading Program Grades K-3: A Critical Elements
Analysis (Consumer’s Guide) to evaluate and choose a reading curriculum.9 CEP
analysis of a sample of original and final applications from 10 states found that some
modified their original applications to adopt these specific instruments:
In each case, 4 of the 10 states added DIBELS and the Consumer’s Guide to their
applications after initial review, and none dropped either item. In all, 9 of 10
states are using DIBELS and 8 of 10 are using the Consumer Guide.10
Additionally, the CEP study found that state recommendations of specific
reading programs appear to have influenced districts’ choice of reading programs.
The survey of districts receiving Reading First funds found that half changed the
reading programs used by the district to qualify for a grant from their state. And
finally, the CEP study raised concerns about the apparent lack of emphasis on
coordinating Reading First with other federal reading programs, particularly with
Title I, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
The Reading First program has been the subject of ongoing controversy about
how it is being administered. Some of the criticisms of the program have centered
on the perceived “overprescriptiveness” of the program as it has been administered,
perceptions of insufficient transparency regarding ED’s requirements of states, and
allegations of conflicts of interest between consultants to the program and
commercial reading and assessment companies:11
No one doubts that the standard for approving funds was strict. But was it strict
for the right reasons, and in the right way? A two-month investigation by the
Monitor suggests the answer is, ‘Not always.’ Based on interviews with more
than 70 educators and researchers involved with the program, and an analysis of
hundreds of pages of state and federal documents, the investigation raises
questions about whether the department adequately policed the program for
8 Scott, Caitlin and Tom Fagan, Ensuring Academic Rigor or Inducing Rigor Mortis? Issues
to Watch in Reading First, Center on Education Policy, June 2005.
9 Both publications were produced by researchers at the University of Oregon.
10 Scott, Caitlin and Tom Fagan, Ensuring Academic Rigor or Inducing Rigor Mortis?
Issues to Watch in Reading First, Center on Education Policy, June 2005.
11 Andrew Brownstein and Travis Hicks, “Reading First Under Fire,” Title I Monitor,
Education Research Funding Council, Thompson Publishing Group. September 2005.
CRS-5
potential conflicts of interest and enacted reading policy with sufficient
transparency.12
Scientifically Based Research and Reading First
There has been considerable debate in the field of education research on the
value of different research methodologies, and on what types of research should
receive priority for federal dollars. Many researchers argue that the type of research
that is appropriate varies with the question that is being asked.13 However, many
have also argued that scientifically-based research (SBR), and randomized controlled
trials (RCTs) in particular, are the “gold standard” in research. RCT research
protocol requires random assignment — with participants assigned randomly to
either an experimental group that receives the treatment under investigation, or a
control group that does not.14 RCTs are viewed by many as the most credible way
to verify a cause-effect relationship, when the RCT study employs a well designed
and implemented methodology with a large sample size. Nevertheless, RCT studies
do not necessarily provide a one-size-fits all solution to all educational research
needs. A CRS report analyzing RCTs included a summary of some of the potential
limitations of putting too much emphasis on RCTs:
...RCTs are occasionally seen as impractical, unethical, requiring too much time,
or being too costly compared to other designs that also seek to assess whether a
program causes favorable outcomes. Finally, there is wide consensus that RCTs
are particularly well suited for answering certain types of questions, but not
others, compared to other evaluation research designs. For example, RCTs
typically do not assess how and why impacts occur, how a program might be
modified to improve program results, or a program’s cost-effectiveness. RCTs
also typically do not provide a full picture of whether unintended consequences
may have resulted from a program or indicate whether a study is using valid
measures or concepts for judging a program’s success. Many of these kinds of
questions have been considered to be more appropriately addressed with
observational or qualitative designs.15
12 Andrew Brownstein and Travis Hicks, “Reading First Under Fire,” Title I Monitor,
Education Research Funding Council, Thompson Publishing Group. September 2005, p. 4.
13 “The scientific enterprise depends on a healthy community of researchers and is guided
by a set of fundamental principles. These principles are not a set of rigid standards for
conducting and evaluating individual studies, but rather are a set of norms enforced by the
community of researchers that shape scientific understanding.” Richard Shavelson and Lisa
Towne, Eds., Scientific Research in Education, National Research Council, National
Academy Press, 2002.
14 Forthcoming CRS Report, Congress and Program Evaluation: An Overview of
Randomized Control Trials, by Clinton Brass.
15 Forthcoming CRS Report, Congress and Program Evaluation: An Overview of
Randomized Control Trials, by Clinton Brass.
CRS-6
Scientifically Based Research Requirements
in the No Child Left Behind Act
The NCLBA has endorsed the use of SBR in funded activities, including over
100 references to the use of SBR in choosing instructional and assessment programs
as well as for professional training programs, and other NCLBA funded activities.
The emphasis is on experimental research, particularly RCTs.16
Programs in the NCLBA affected by the requirement that funded educational
interventions be based on SBR include Title I, Part A, grants for the education of the
disadvantaged, Reading First, Early Reading First, Even Start, Literacy Through
School Libraries, Comprehensive School Reform, Improving Teacher Quality State
Grants, Mathematics and Science Partnerships, English Language Acquisition State
Grants, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities. This discussion focuses
on the application of SBR to the Reading First program.
The NCLBA language authorizing Reading First makes clear that the intent of
the program is to require recipients of Reading First funds to implement programs
which are based on scientifically based reading research (SBRR). The definition of
SBRR in the NCLBA, is as follows:
The term “scientifically based reading research” means research that —
(A) applies rigorous, systematic and objective procedures to obtain valid
knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and reading
difficulties; and (B) includes research that (I) employs systematic, empirical
methods that draw on observation or experiment; (ii) involves rigorous data
analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general
conclusions drawn; (iii) relies on measurements or observational methods that
provide valid data across evaluators and observers and across multiple
measurements and observations; and (iv) has been accepted by a peer-reviewed
journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably
rigorous, objective, and scientific review.17
ED’s application of SBRR to the Reading First program draws extensively on
the work conducted by the National Reading Panel (NRP). In 2000, the NRP issued
a report titled: Teaching Children to Read. The NRP was convened by the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in consultation with ED
in response to a congressional charge to review the literature on reading and use it to
assess the effectiveness of different techniques for teaching reading, and whether
these techniques were ready to be applied to classroom settings. Based on the NRP’s
16 Some authors argue that in the context of encouraging basic educational research, SBR
must be interpreted more broadly, in contrast to the more prescriptive definition of SBR
contained in the NCLBA, “narrowly conceived for service providers trying to justify their
use of federal dollars.” Margaret Eisenhart and Lisa Towne, Contestation and Change in
National Policy on “Scientifically Based” Education Research, Educational Researcher, vol.
32, Oct. 2003.
17 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Section 1208.
CRS-7
research, the NCLBA incorporated 5 essential components of reading as
requirements for reading instruction funded under the Reading First program. These
essential components are defined in the NCLBA as:
...explicit and systematic instruction in — (A) phonemic awareness;
(B) phonics; (C) vocabulary development; (D) reading fluency, including oral
reading skills; and (E) reading comprehension strategies.18
SBRR Implementation Issues
Application of Scientifically Based Reading Research to the
Reading First Program. This section summarizes major implementation issues
that have arisen regarding the application of SBRR to the Reading First program.
Issues discussed here include ED’s implementation of SBRR requirements, and the
implications of the current state of SBRR for states and LEAs trying to navigate and
apply existing research and resources to their educational programs as well as
maintain local autonomy in choosing curricula.
Implementing SBRR. Some criticisms have been raised regarding ED’s
application of SBRR to the Reading First Program. For example, Robert Slavin, of
the Success for All Program, has argued that the NCLBA’s requirement that
interventions be based on SBR does not differentiate between programs that have
themselves been rigorously evaluated and those programs that have not been
rigorously evaluated for efficacy, but can cite SBR that supports their interventions.
The Success for All Foundation argues in a letter to the Office of the Inspector
General of the U.S. Dept. of Education (OIG), that ED has inappropriately narrowed
the definition of scientifically based research in its implementation of the Reading
First program:
In essence, through the implementation of Reading First, the U.S.
Department of Education has narrowed the definition of SBRR to the
five “essential components” of reading as identified by the National
Reading Panel. Research on program efficacy has been ignored.
Because Reading First was so closely managed by the U.S.
Department of Education, and because it contains such a strong focus
on the use of scientifically based research, it is paving the way for
how states, districts and schools are coming to understand the
meaning of SBR, and how they will apply it to other Federal
programs.19
As a consequence of the alleged “narrowing” of the definition of SBRR, states
have been unnecessarily limited in their choices of reading programs, assessments
and professional development packages, according to critics of ED’s implementation
of Reading First.
18 P.L. 107-110, Section 1207. [20 U.S.C. 6367]. CRS Report RL32145, Early Intervention
in Reading: An Overview of Research and Policy Issues, by Gail McCallion.
19 Robert Slavin, Letter to U.S. Department of Education, The Success for All Foundation,
May 27, 2005.
CRS-8
Limitations of Existing Research. Some of the controversies that have
surrounded implementation of SBRR in the Reading First program reflect the current
state of SBRR and the difficulties of applying existing research to concrete
educational interventions. Some observers have noted that there are many areas of
education research with few if any RCT studies to draw upon. Robert Boruch, who
served on the National Research Council that produced the book: Scientific Inquiry
in Education, stated in an interview with Education Week that “One cannot just
demand controlled experiments... That’s akin to asking people to levitate.”20
Some have argued that navigating the existing array of resources is difficult for
states and LEAs because much of the research is academic. In addition, although
there is more user-friendly material available than ever before, evaluations of the
application of SBRR to concrete educational interventions is still very limited, and
there is no single federal website or resource that currently catalogs and evaluates all
the available user-friendly resources. The following discussion summarizes some of
the resources that are currently available.
Identifying Relevant Resources. There are a variety of federally funded
offices and resources that provide information, and/or technical assistance offering
guidance on SBR to states and LEAs. There are also guides intended to provide user-
friendly information on SBR, that states and LEAs can access through ED websites
and publications. Online resources include a NCLBA website with information on
SBR and related resources, a searchable ERIC database on education research, and
access to educational statistics and National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) data on ED’s National Center for Educational Statistics website.21 The
Institute of Education Sciences (IES) has made publications and other resources
available on SBR. In December of 2003 IES published a report titled: “Identifying
and Implementing Educational Practices Supported by Rigorous Evidence: A User
Friendly Guide.”
In addition, ED has awarded twenty five-year grants to new comprehensive
centers to provide advice to states and LEAs on meeting the requirements of the
NCLBA. There are also ten regional centers with functions defined in the Education
Sciences Reform Act of 2002.22 One of these centers, the Mid-continent Research
Center for Education and Learning, in conjunction with the Education Commission
on the States (ECS), published a February 2004 publication titled: A Policymaker’s
Primer on Education Research: How to Understand, Evaluate and Use it. ECS has
also published user-friendly guides on teacher issues and maintains a 50 state
database on teacher preparation, recruitment, and retention. Another of the regional
centers funded by ED, the North Central Regional Education Laboratory, published
20 Lynn Olson, “Law Mandates Scientific Based for Research,” Education Week, January
30, 2002.
21 [http://www.ed.gov/nclb], [http://www.ed.gov/about/pubs/intro/pubdb.html],
[http://www.nces.ed.gov].
22 The mission of the regional centers includes serving regional needs, disseminating SBR,
providing professional training and technical assistance, and responding to the needs of
stakeholders to ensure the academic success of all students. Responding to Regional Needs
and National Priorities, Regional Educational Laboratories, 2004 Annual Report.
CRS-9
a report in its Spring 2003 edition of Learning Point titled: A Call for Evidence:
Responding to the New Emphasis on Scientifically Based Research.
These resources are however, not all centralized in one location, and relatively
few provide analysis of specific educational instruction or assessment packages that
might meet the SBR requirements of the NCLBA. It can be difficult for states and
LEAs to sift through the volume of information that is available and find what they
need to chose effective curriculum and assessment programs. Ellen Lagemann was
interviewed by Education Week on the topic of SBR while working for the Spencer
Foundation. She stated:
We have tended to think that if you do research and get results, that will be
useful to practitioners. There’s an intermediary step. You have to take the
results of research and build it into toys, tools, tests, and texts. You have to build
it into things that practitioners can use. They can’t use the conclusions of a
study.23
ED’s IES created a What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) to address this need for
clear user-friendly information on SBR including evaluations of specific educational
interventions.24 The WWC has developed a list of research priorities and will be
providing a topic report with reviews of educational interventions that have SBR to
back up their efficacy claims. WWC also maintains a database with names of
evaluators of educational interventions who can be contacted. To date, however, the
WWC has completed only one topic report — on curriculum based interventions for
increasing K-12 math achievement. ED has indicated that topic reports on
interventions for beginning reading and on comprehensive school-wide character
education interventions will be released shortly. In addition, several other topics are
scheduled for WWC’s review and ED has indicated they are scheduled to be released
in 2006. As these reports become available, it is hoped that they will provide
concrete assistance to practitioners by including evaluations of specific educational
interventions that meet the WWC standard of evidence.
Resources on SBRR specifically targeted to the Reading First program have also
been provided by ED. These include information and links to additional resources
provided in the Reading First and NCLBA websites.25 ED sponsored Reading First
Leadership Academies to assist states with understanding and applying for Reading
First grants, and it has issued nonregulatory guidance on Reading First.26 In addition,
23 Ms. Lagemann is a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Lynn Olson,
“Law Mandates Scientific Based for Research,” Education Week, January 30, 2002.
24 [http://www.w-w-c.org/].
25 [http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index.html], [http://www.ed.gov/nclb].
26 ED does not endorse any particular program and has stated in print that there is no
approved list of reading programs. However, the Reading Recovery Council, among others,
cites the naming of particular programs as acceptable in RF Leadership Academies as an
indication of ED’s preference for particular programs. Investigation of Reading First
Implementation Requested, Reading Recovery Council of North America, August 23, 2005.
(continued...)
CRS-10
ED established a National Center for Reading First Technical Assistance to provide
training to states and districts to assist with Reading First. It includes three regional
centers operated by Florida State University, the University of Texas at Austin, and
the University of Oregon. The RMC Research Corporation has a contract with ED
to coordinate the work of these centers. According to ED in its March 1, 2004 issue
of the Achiever:
Administrators and teachers will receive training in scientifically based reading
research and instruction; assistance in reviewing reading programs and
assessments; critiques of Reading First sub-grant applications and methods of
scoring them; and training in using assessment data to improve student reading
performance....Technical assistance will be provided through a range of learning
opportunities, including national and regional conferences, institutes and
seminars; training and professional development; on-site, telephone and e-mail
consultations; and links to national reading experts.
The National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) is charged with the mission of
disseminating information on SBRR as it relates to children, youth, and adults. NIFL
is also to disseminate information on specific reading programs supported by SBR
and information on effective classroom reading programs that have been
implemented by states and LEAs. NIFL publications are available for downloading
on their website.27
Local Control. Perhaps in part because of the difficulties in finding specific
information on SBRR based educational interventions that meet the requirements of
the NCLBA, many states have chosen to rely upon a limited number of instructional,
assessment and professional training programs. This has raised concerns by some
about what they call the “overprescriptiveness” of ED’s application of SBRR to
Reading First and the potential infringement on states’ and LEAs’ ability to choose
curricula. Some argue that this “overprescriptiveness” is not consistent with section
9527 of the No Child Left Behind Act. This section states:
(a) GENERAL PROHIBITION — Nothing in this Act shall be construed
to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate,
direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s curriculum,
program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or mandate
a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not
paid for under this Act.
(b) PROHIBITION ON ENDORSEMENT OF CURRICULUM. —
Notwithstanding any other prohibition of Federal law, no funds provided
to the Department under this Act may be used by the Department to
endorse, approve, or sanction any curriculum designed to be used in an
elementary school or secondary school.28
26 (...continued)
27 [http://www.nifl.org].
28 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Section 9527.
CRS-11
The CEP study discussed earlier in this report did find that states were
“remarkably consistent” in their choice of programs. For example, the CEP study
found that many states were required to revise their initial application for Reading
First before it was accepted. CEP found that in their final accepted applications,
almost all states used DIBELS for their required assessments and the Consumer’s
Guide to evaluate and choose a reading curriculum. Additionally, the CEP study
found that state recommendations of specific reading programs appear to have
influenced districts’ choice of reading programs. The survey of districts receiving
Reading First funds found that half changed the reading programs used by the district
to qualify for a grant from their state.
Three groups representing different reading programs have filed separate
complaints with the ED’s OIG, asking that the program be investigated. The OIG is
currently conducting an investigation of the Reading First program. The OIG will
reportedly be examining the state application process and the role of consultants and
technical advisors to the program. The investigation is expected to take
approximately one year.29 The three groups that have filed complaints are: Dr.
Cupp’s Readers and Journal Writers, Success For All, and the Reading Recovery
Council of North America. On September 23, 2005, the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions submitted a letter to the Government
Accountability Office requesting an investigation of questions related to the
implementation of the Reading First program.
A summary of the complaints included in The Reading Recovery Council’s
letter to the OIG illustrates some of the major areas of concern:
The council charges that the Department has undermined state and local control,
attempted to exclude one-to-one instruction, selectively applied scientifically
based research criteria, and spread doubt and misinformation about Reading
Recovery’s eligibility for funding.30
Advocates of Reading First have countered that the program needs to be
prescriptive in order to produce significant results. They argue that the success of
Reading First will be in large part attributable to its strict requirement that programs
implemented with Reading First funds be supported by scientifically based research:
Advocates have long argued that ‘entitlement’ programs like title I
failed to improve reading scores because of a lack of quality control
on how the money was spent.31
29 Andrew Brownstein and Travis Hicks, “Reading First Under Fire,” Title I Monitor,
Education Research Funding Council, Thompson Publishing Group, September 2005.
30 Investigation of Reading First Implementation Requested, Reading Recovery Council of
North America, August 23, 2005.
31 Andrew Brownstein and Travis Hicks, “Reading First Under Fire,” Title I Monitor,
Education Research Funding Council, Thompson Publishing Group, September 2005, p.4