Gauging The Impact of The Reading First Scandal: Tim Shanahan

Tim Shanahan, who designed and implemented the Chicago Reading Intiative, is currently director the literacy center at UIC and is a former member of the National Reading Panel whose report was used in large part as the framework for Reading First, writes in to describe some of the implications and effects of the Reading First scandal (see "Federal Reading Program FUBAR?").

Click below to read some highlights, and his full statement.

Some of the highlights of what Shanahan says include the reality that RF provides $1 billion a year that would otherwise probably not be available through Title I or other sources:  "Chicago Public Schools have been able to draw tens of millions of dollars to support local reading efforts." 

He also points out the significance of the creation of the RF program:  "It is the first major effort by the federal government to try to improve the quality of reading instruction in particular ways, rather than just funding local efforts to do that."

According to Shanahan, the effects of the scandal are hard to determine:  "It is possible that Congress will ignore the positive effects some Reading First programs have had so far and will choose not to reauthorize this portion of NCLB...It could also mean that the Reading First programs in Illinois would be allowed to adjust their current efforts if these were the result of the federal finagling."

He also points out that the scandal could undermine the fragile truce that has marked recent years when it comes to reading strategies:  "The Reading First scandal could energize those who have argued against this law, plunging schools back into the so-called “Reading Wars,” the endless debates over how best to teach reading."

The full Shanahan post:

"On September 22, the U.S. Department of Education issued a report revealing corruption in its administration of Reading First, a part of the No Child Left Behind law (NCLB). This report detailed results of an investigation carried out by the department’s own Inspector General and provides specific and damning evidence of mismanagement and misuse of educational funding.

"Reading First is important because it provides approximately $1 billion per year to U.S. schools for reading improvement in schools that lag behind. Chicago Public Schools have been able to draw tens of millions of dollars to support local reading efforts. It is the first major effort by the federal government to try to improve the quality of reading instruction in particular ways, rather than just funding local efforts to do that.

"Schools that accepted these funds were required to purchase commercial programs designed in accord with research findings, to provide professional development to teachers, to monitor children’s learning, and to offer specific help to those who lagged behind. The Inspector General’s report details how some private companies and consultants were advantaged by government officials who stacked expert panels and pushed the purchase of certain materials. U.S. law prohibits the Department of Education from taking such actions.

"The corruption detailed in the report is substantial and some groups such as the International Reading Association have called on the Attorney General to issue indictments. Chris Doherty, the director of Reading First, has resigned, and Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has indicated that steps will be taken to bring the program into legal compliance.

"However, the wake of this scandal is likely to have some widespread effects. It is possible that Congress will ignore the positive effects some Reading First programs have had so far and will choose not to reauthorize this portion of NCLB. This would mean that there would be less federal funding available to help Chicago and other districts to improve reading scores.

"It could also mean that the Reading First programs in Illinois would be allowed to adjust their current efforts if these were the result of the federal finagling. For instance, Illinois was required to adopt DIBELS as the measure used to monitor learning, and the state or local districts might be able to replace this with something more to their liking. The Reading First scandal could energize those who have argued against this law, plunging schools back into the so-called “Reading Wars,” the endless debates over how best to teach reading."

Comments

Shanahan is worried about schools being plunged back into the "reading wars." But the Reading First scandal shows that the war is long over. To the victor go the spoils.

[George Schmidt]

Is DIBELS in Chicago funded by Reading First money?

[Timothy Shanahan]

George--

Reading First money only goes to particular schools in Chicago. The money does in part pay for the DIBELS work in grades K-3 at those schools (but it does not pay for such testing at other grade levels or in non-Reading First schools). The money is also used for professional development, the purchase of instructional materials in reading, and to provide remedial help to kids who are struggling.

tim

[Andrew Martinek]

The problem here isn't reading strategies or misappropriations by bureaucrats, it is a fundamental flaw in centralizing and politicizing education at a national level. Although I am a National Board certified teacher and do believe in a such a set of broad professional standards, people in Washington, D.C., particularly those working for the government, should not be telling me or anyone else how or what to teach in the local community. We know our communities and how to serve them best. Public education was intendend to be a focal point of the local community with a curriculum designed to meet the needs of the community. It should be a forum where community leaders could take democratic action to prepare the next generation of community leaders. Magnet Schools, Charter Schools, NCLB, Federally Mandated Exams, State Goals, and citywide curriculum maps all fly in the face of traditional American values with regard to public education.

[Rhonda Stone]

Tim - What if the Conflict of Interest didn't begin with Reading First? What if it began with mid-1990s research and the ultimate structure of the National Research Council (1997-1998) and the rubber-stamp structure of the National Reading Panel (1999-2000)? Are you aware that S. Shaywitz's early/mid-1990s research related to the existence of a so-called "visual word form area of the brain" was elegantly challenged in recent years by neuroimaging research indicating that no such thing exists? The current focus on phonics is built on Dr. Shaywitz's flawed research (see Neuroimaging, "The Myth of the Visual Word Form Area".) For those unaware, Dr. Shaywitz is closely tied to G. Reid Lyon. Dr. Shaywitz was the only person to serve on both the NRC and NRP, and, in that capacity, promoted, reviewed, and validated her own research while serving on both committees. We're talking about children's lives here ... it's time to fix the Conflict of Interest that began at least a dozen years ago with the stacking of federally-funded research.