Publisher Who Filed Initial Complaints Gets Some Satisfaction From I.G. Report E-Mail Exchanges
Ohanian Comment: Cindy Cupp deserves our appreciation for standing tall and pointing out what Reading First was up to and pursuing the matter relentlessly. It is shameful that no other publishers would speak out publicly. Clearly, despite their stated purpose of safeguarding "the professional and business interests of the country's leading print and digital supplemental publishers, the Association of Eduational Publishers (AEP), did not represent publishers well.
By Kathleen Kennedy Manzo
State officials, publishers, and educators began complaining to one another very early during the implementation of Reading First that the U.S. Department of Education appeared to be promoting particular reading programs, assessments, and consultants over others in their guidance to states.
Few, however, dared grumble in public for fear they would risk losing out on some of the $1 billion in annual funding for the high-profile reading program.
Now, though, Cindy Cupp is satisfied that, with the recent release of a critical report from the Education Department’s inspector general, her own very public complaints are no longer just the uncorroborated accounts of a long-disgruntled independent publisher.
“Finally, somebody [in authority] sat up and said this is really happening,” she said last week. Ms. Cupp’s initial anger and disbelief outweighed any reluctance she may have had to make her gripes with Reading First public in 2004. The publisher of an early-reading series that bears her name, she was once the curriculum and reading director for the Georgia education department.
She didn’t expect the federal program to be a boon for her Savannah-based company, but she never thought the Georgia schools that were already using her readers, or those that wanted to, would be pressured into abandoning the texts to obtain federal grants under Reading First.
“It wasn’t just unfair to my program,” Ms. Cupp said. “I felt that if you had to use select programs, schools needed to be told that upfront. The restrictions were under the table, and schools weren’t aware of it.” ("Ga. Officials Admit Mistakes on ‘Reading First’ Rules," May 11, 2005.)
Ms. Cupp tried to find other publishers to join her in asking state and federal education officials to explain or ease up on the restrictions on instructional materials for Reading First schools. But no one else, she said, wanted to jump into the fray.
The Association of American Publishers in 2002 sent a letter to then-Secretary of Education Rod Paige outlining concerns among its members that Reading First was unfairly favoring some commercial reading series over others.
But none of the individual companies the organization’s Washington-based school division represents was willing to express those complaints publicly. And the Association of Educational Publishers advised its members to brief state legislators quietly on the effect Reading First was having on their businesses.
“We took more of a grassroots strategy,” said Charlene F. Gaynor, the chief executive officer of the aep, a Philadelphia-area-based organization that represents some 400 publishers of supplemental materials. “But to publicly make a comment about what was going on people thought would somewhat jeopardize their relationships with school districts.”
The Council of State Governments conducted a survey of Reading First directors and compiled their observations on the program’s implementation. But many of the respondents asked that their views remain anonymous, and the Lexington, Ky.-based council did not release the survey results for fear there would be fallout for states that criticized the process.
Similarly, the Washington-based Center on Education Policy, a research and advocacy group that publishes an annual report card on the No Child Left Behind Act, which includes Reading First, could not release a complete report on the program early on because much of the information from state officials was off the record.
In April 2005, after gathering binders full of documents from Georgia’s open-records act, Ms. Cupp asked the state inspector general, and later his federal counterpart, to investigate what she saw as unfair practices.
“I was scared,” said Ms. Cupp. “But with me, [the complaints] were not coming from a publisher with 100 employees and a board of directors where the bottom line is how many dollars do you make.”
Several e-mail messages, exchanged early in the Reading First implementation, provide an inside look into how federal employees negotiated, in sometimes forceful and foul terms, their plan for ensuring the requirements were rigorous.
To: Susan B. Neuman, then the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education
From: Reading First Director Christopher J. Doherty
“In remarks to groups … or face-to-face meetings about what the Review Panel will/won’t accept the opportunities for BOLDNESS and, perhaps, extralegal requirements are many.”
In May 2002, a Baltimore public school official complained to the Education Department that some federal reviewers were advocates of the direct-instruction approach to teaching reading.
To: A reviewer, marked “Confidential FYI"
From: Mr. Doherty
“Funny that [the Baltimore city public schools official] calls *me* to inform that there may be some pro-DI folks on *my* panel!!! Too rich!”
The panelist:“Does he know who you are? Past and present?”
Mr. Doherty: “That’s the funniest part – yes! You know the line from Casablanca, ‘I am SHOCKED that there is gambling going on in this establishment!’ Well, ‘I am SHOCKED that there are pro-DI people on this panel!’”
A department employee reported to Mr. Doherty that the department had received a question from a member of the media about the review panel’s composition.
> From the employee: “The question is … are we going to ‘stack the panel’ so programs like Reading Recovery don’t get a fair shake[?]”
Mr. Doherty: “‘Stack the panel?’… I have never *heard* of such a thing …. [.]”
To: An Education Department staff member regarding the Wright Group, a publisher of reading texts
From: Mr. Doherty
“Beat the [expletive deleted] out of them in a way that will stand up to any level of legal and [whole language] apologist scrutiny. Hit them over and over with definitive evidence that they are not [scientifically based], never have been and never will be. They are trying to crash our party and we need to beat the [expletive deleted] 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.”
To: G. Reid Lyon, then chief of a branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and an adviser to the White House and Education Department on Reading First
From: Mr. Doherty
“As you may remember, RF got Maine to UNDO its already-made decision to have Rigby be one of their two approved core programs (Ha, ha – Rigby as a CORE program? When pigs fly!) We also as you may recall, got [New Jersey] to stop its districts from using Rigby (and the Wright Group, btw) and are doing the same in Mississippi. This is for your FYI, as I think this program-bashing is best done off or under the major radar screens.”
To: Education Department officials
From: Mr. Lyon
One of the panelists has been “actively working to undermine the [National Reading Panel] Report and the [Reading First] initiatives. … Chances are that other reviewers can trump any bias on her part.”
To: Mr. Lyon, Mr. Doherty, and Ms. Neuman
From: Beth Ann Bryan, the former senior adviser to the secretary of education
“We can’t just un-invite her. Just make sure she is on a panel with one of our barracuda types.”
Note: The inspector general’s office removed the expletives from the e-mails.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education Inspector General
Scathing Report Casts Cloud Over ‘Reading First’
Federal officials encouraged use of specific programs, inspector general finds.
By Kathleen Kennedy Manzo
The findings of a scathing report on the federal Reading First program continued to reverberate following its Sept. 22 release, fueling debates in Congress, on the Internet, and among professionals in the field about their gravity and potential impact.
Critics of the program’s implementation said the conclusions drawn in the report by the U.S. Department of Education’s inspector general validate complaints that federal officials may have steered the grant-application process to ensure that particular reading programs and instructional approaches were widely used by participating schools, and that others were essentially shut out.
Some supporters of the program characterized the findings as overblown and charged that they constituted a personal attack on department personnel, rather than a verdict on the $1 billion-a-year program itself, which was rolled out 4½ years ago as part of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Many educators and observers said the blistering review of the implementation and management of Reading First, though justified, could damage a program that is showing initial signs of effectiveness.
“There really needs to be a good, hard look at the program ... and a renewed focus on solid, research-based instruction,” said Alan J. Farstrup, the executive director of the International Reading Association, in Newark, Del. “Reading First can be a more solid program.”
The long-awaited evaluation, which includes excerpts from internal Education Department e-mail marked confidential and sometimes containing vulgar language, concludes that:
• Department officials may have intended to “stack” the panels of grant reviewers with those who favored a particular teaching methodology, and their method of screening the panelists for conflicts of interest was ineffective;
• Requirements for receiving grants under the program were expanded beyond what the law requires; and
• Federal education officials may also have overstepped provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act that prohibit them from influencing or dictating the curricula, assessments, or instructional approaches used by schools or districts.
Reading First, which has already handed out nearly $5 billion in grants to some 1,700 districts and 5,600 schools, is designed to improve reading instruction in the nation’s most disadvantaged schools through the use of research-based methods.
The inspector general’s findings correspond with charges leveled over the past several years by critics of the program, as well as by many reading experts and state officials.
Education Week has reported since 2002 many of the concerns among researchers and educators that the program favored only a handful of consultants and commercial products, and the potential financial conflicts between them. In an extensive analysis of documents and e-mail correspondence obtained through state and federal open-records requests, as well as interviews with state officials, the newspaper reported last fall a pattern of behavior that suggested federal employees and their representatives had directed or even pressured states to choose specific assessments, consultants, and certain kinds of texts as conditions for getting funding under Reading First. ("States Pressed to Refashion Reading First Grant Designs," Sept. 7, 2005.)
Cindy Cupp, a former state education official and the publisher of a little-known reading series, filed formal complaints in May 2005 with the Georgia and federal education departments. Shortly afterward, the Success for All Foundation in Baltimore and the Reading Recovery Foundation of North America, based in Columbus, Ohio, lodged similar complaints with the federal department’s inspector general.
Investigators for Inspector General John P. Higgins Jr. found that Reading First’s director, Christopher J. Doherty, nominated review panelists with professional connections to the Reading Mastery program associated with the Direct Instruction teaching method. Mr. Doherty had spent part of his career promoting the use of the program before joining the Education Department in 2001 under the Bush administration. Those panelists reviewed 23 Reading First state applications.
“The Reading First director took direct action to ensure that a particular approach to reading instruction was represented on the expert review panel,” the report says.
The inspector general also found potential conflicts of interest among members of an assessment committee that reviewed tests suitable for use of Reading First in schools. Committee members themselves had produced five of those assessments.
Although Direct Instruction and Success for All are backed by the most scientific evidence of any reading programs, neither method has gotten a boost under Reading First. Reading Recovery, an intensive one-on-one tutoring program for struggling readers, which has also presented evidence of its effectiveness, was named in several of Mr. Doherty’s e-mails in which he suggested that officials should try to discourage its use among grant recipients.
The controversy over Reading First started to unfold from the very outset of the program.
January 2002: The U.S. Department of Education conducts Reading Academies, workshops to provide guidance for state officials on applying $900 million in Reading First grants.
March 2002: The International Reading Association and the Association of American Publishers write to Education Secretary Rod Paige to request clarification on Reading First. The letters raise concerns that state education officials are getting the message that they can improve their chances of receiving their Reading First grants by ordering school districts to use specific products and materials.
June 2002: The first Reading First grants are awarded to Alabama, Colorado, and Florida. Most grant applications are sent back to the remaining states and jurisdictions for revisions.
January 2004: New York City school officials announce that schools seeking Reading First grants will be required to use specific commercial core and intervention programs for teaching reading, not the district’s curriculum in the subject. Several months earlier, the city had been advised by a federal official that its choice of reading text would not meet Reading First requirements for research-based programs.
April 2005: Cindy Cupp, a former state education official in Georgia and the publisher of a commercial reading program, files complaints with state investigators against the state’s implementation of Reading First. Ms. Cupp claims state officials misled districts over whether her textbook series was aligned with Reading First requirements. Two months later, the Baltimore-based Success for All Foundation requests a review by the federal Education Department’s inspector general.
June 2005: G. Reid Lyon, the nation’s "reading czar," steps down as chief of the child-development and -behavior branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to work for Best Associates, whose chairman, Randy Best, founded the Voyager Learning reading program. Mr. Lyon is assigned to help design a teacher education program that emphasizes research-based practice.
September 2005: An Education Week examination of documents and interviews with state officials finds evidence that federal employees and their representatives may have directed or pressured states to choose specific curricula, assessments, and consultants as conditions for receiving Reading First grants.
October 2005: A bipartisan group in Congress asks the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of Reading First.
July 2006: An interim report on Reading First, based on survey findings, is released suggesting that the program is having a positive effect on reading instruction in most states and districts financed under the program.
September 2006: The first of several reports on Reading First by the Education Department’s inspector general is released.
Also implicated in the report for their roles in setting requirements for the program were Susan B. Neuman, who served as the department’s assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education from March 2001 until January 2003 and G. Reid Lyon, who directed the branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development that supports reading research.
Ms. Neuman returned to her job as a reading researcher at the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor. Mr. Lyon now works for Best Associates in Dallas.
In an interview, Ms. Neuman said she was not included in what she described as closed-door discussions between Mr. Doherty, other staff members, and consultants as they drafted guidance for the program and advised state officials on their grant proposals.
Mr. Lyon said his role was simply to explain and clarify what the research says is effective in reading instruction.
It is Mr. Doherty’s role in directing the grant-application process that is outlined in detail in the report, including e-mail exchanges that express in sharp wording his disdain for what he viewed as insufficiently rigorous instructional materials. Just days before the report was released, Mr. Doherty announced that he would be leaving his position with the department Oct. 1 for work in the private sector. He could not be reached for comment.
The handful of remaining Reading First staff members have been reassigned within the Education Department, according to spokesman Chad Colby.
In past interviews with Education Week, Mr. Doherty has maintained that the department only pressed state and local officials to meet the law’s demand for research-based materials, assessments, and practices, and provided counsel on how they could do that.
“In fact, what we’ve said about Reading First is that there is no approved list of programs or assessment, truthfully,” Mr. Doherty said in an interview last year.
Beyond the Law?
Some education experts said the Education Department had no choice but to push hard for states to change their approach to reading instruction. Many states, they said, wanted to continue using failed approaches or programs with no evidence of effectiveness.
In spring 2002, an Education Week survey found that most state officials were generally satisfied with their existing reading initiatives and planned to use Reading First money to expand, enhance, or supplement them without making wholesale changes.
Federal officials, however, said that simply tweaking existing approaches would not satisfy the rigorous demands of the new program. ("Federal Program Will Test States' Reading Policies," June 19, 2002.)
“In my view, Reading First is starting to get results, not in spite of the aggressive approach of the department, but because of it,” said Michael J. Petrilli, a former official at the Education Department during the current administration. Mr. Petrilli, now the vice president for national programs and policy at the Washington-based Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, said the inspector general’s report does not point to any illegal activity but chronicles how department employees pressed to ensure the law’s intent was followed.
The inspector general, however, suggests that officials went beyond the law, which prohibits federal employees from influencing or directing states’ decisions on curricula, tests, or instructional methods.
Some observers agree.
“The issue is that here are these folks who saw an opportunity to really, fundamentally move the debate on reading instruction,” said Andrew J. Rotherham, a co-founder and the director of the Washington-based think tank Education Sector. “That doesn’t allow them to deviate from what the law allows.”
The inspector general’s office is conducting five other audits related to Reading First. The reports could be completed by the end of the year, according to Mary Mitchelson, who serves as counsel to the inspector general.
In a statement, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings said some of the actions described in the report “reflect individual mistakes” by federal employees. She added that she was “moving swiftly to enact all of the inspector general’s recommendations.”
The inspector general has recommended that the department review the structure and management of the Reading First office, establish guidelines to ensure staff members understand the prohibitions in the NCLB law, and set up greater oversight of programs as they are implemented.
Mr. Petrilli, Mr. Rotherham, and others question Ms. Spellings’ claims that the program was implemented without her input. Although she became education secretary in early 2005, after many of the practices outlined in the report occurred, she was closely involved in the establishment of the No Child Left Behind program overall, and Reading First, while she served at the White House as President Bush’s chief domestic-policy aide during his first term, Mr. Petrilli said.
“Margaret Spellings was involved in this from day one in her role as domestic-policy adviser, and that’s something she should have been proud of because it’s one of the most successful education programs in the history of the department,” he said.
“Instead of defending it and hailing its success, she’s hanging one of her most loyal lieutenants out to dry,” Mr. Petrilli said, referring to Mr. Doherty.
Ms. Spellings has not yet responded to those allegations.
State and local education officials have generally praised the program for focusing needed resources on professional development and materials in reading. And many are reporting that those efforts are having a positive bearing on student achievement. But those successes have not been linked to the curriculum and assessment decisions made by those states. It is also not known whether a greater choice of instructional program, combined with the additional resources for teacher professional development and support services provided to Reading First schools, would have had a similar outcome.
The program’s results do not appease some officials who say the process may have hindered their ability to serve more children.
“The process we had to go through was so excruciating,” said Lisa Y. Gross, a spokeswoman for the Kentucky education department. Kentucky had to revise its Reading First application at least three times, and officials said they gained approval only after buckling to Mr. Doherty’s demands to change the assessment portion of the plan. Despite the benefits of the program, Ms. Gross said, “still we believe if we had gotten our first proposal accepted, we could have provided many more services for students or at least gotten started a lot sooner.”
On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., urged Republican members of the House Education and the Workforce Committee to hold hearings on the inspector general’s findings.
“This was a concerted effort to corrupt the process on behalf of partisan supporters, and taxpayers and schoolchildren are the ones who got harmed by it,” Rep. Miller, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said in a statement. He was among a bipartisan group that initiated a separate investigation of the program by the Government Accountability Office. That report is due out in January
Sen. Richard G. Lugar, R-Ind., responded to the report in a letter to Ms. Spellings this month. The report “seemed to suggest that the department mismanagement was even worse than expected,” he wrote. But, the senator added, that her promise to implement the inspector general’s recommendations was “a good start.”
Kathleen Kennedy Manzo
INDEX OF NCLB OUTRAGES