by Michael F. Shaughnessy
Senior Columnist
Education News.org
Eastern New Mexico University

Part One of Three

The Fordham Foundation has recently released a report written by Sol Stern entitled: "Too Good to Last: The True Story of Reading First." In this on going series of interviews, Reid Lyon responds to questions about Reading First and what transpired regarding this program. Since some of his responses are quite lengthy, this interview will be on going in nature over the next few days.

1) Recently, the Fordham Foundation has raised some concerns about what the heck has happened to the Reading First Program. What has been your initial reaction?

1. Both Sol Stern's report and the stance of the Fordham Foundation reflect a good deal of courage and common sense in unpacking the political issues surrounding the Reading First program. For the first time, someone began to examine the motives and behavior of vendors, legislators, and agencies that seem bent on killing a program that helps kids learn to read.I am now in the midst of writing a book on the role of science in guiding educational practices and policies and Reading First is used as one example of how that process can work.Within this context, I am reviewing the complaints and allegations lodged against the Reading First staff tasked with implementing the program.I am also reviewing all the OIG reports and congressional testimonies and remarks made by congressional members. Frankly I am surprised that no one to date has done a systematic analysis of all the complaints and allegations and the specific evidence of wrongdoing that substantiates the allegations.To be sure, the OIG report addressing the role of the Department and the Reading First office in administering the program alleges a number of errors of commission and omission on the part of the staff but the veracity of the evidence seems weak – at least to me.Indeed, when you examine the complaints and the OIG reports you find that many of the allegations are based on misinformed opinions of why the Reading First program was developed, what its specific goals were, and how the legislation guided the efforts of the Reading First staff at the Department of Education in implementing the program.

My review thus far shows that there were instances where the implementation of the program suffered from a lack of resources and support for the Reading First office and the lack of specific guidelines developed for contractors as well as those developed by contractors.But these are neither ethical nor legal issues, and the claims made by some that the Reading First Program had a particular fondness for some programs over others or that there were actual conflicts of interest simply are not supported.The fact that two reading programs with actual evidence of effectiveness lost market share indicates just how careful the feds were to avoid going beyond what the law authorized and impinging on states' authority to make their own decisions. At the same time, a significant weakness in the Reading First law was the lack of explicit procedural and ethics guidelines vis-à-vis the functions of the contractors. I am not sure where the heck the Department's lawyers were during the implementation planning and procedural phases, but apparently minimal guidance was provided by that very important office. I think that there were errors of omission in not ensuring that everyone on the implementation side understood conflict of interest issues – particularly perception of conflict issues. However, I do not believe there were errors of commission where particular individuals manipulated the system to gain financially.

The Stern Report and the Fordham call for accountability will likely shed light on the political attacks on Reading First by congressional members as well as understanding the motives of those whose programs were not adopted by districts and schools and who then blamed the Reading First office and Chris Doherty.When you review the complaints of someone who had been thought of as a responsible scholar—Bob Slavin—you find the complaints characterized by a lack of appreciation for evidence, a surprising use of innuendo and gossip to smear people in a way that resembles a National Inquirer story, and simple untruths.The Stern Report and the Fordham Foundation correctly pointed out that many of these untruths led to the slashing of the budget for a program that was doing very good things for the poor kids around the country while at the same time increasing funding for the Title I program – A program that has never undergone serious evaluation of effectiveness and was and is simply an entitlement program that has squandered billions of tax payer dollars over the years.

2) Is Reading First an Effective Program?

When Reading First became law in 2002, its goal was to improve reading achievement for all students -- but particularly and especially for those youngsters whose futures have typically been limited because poor kids in low performing schools are harder to teach and not expected to excel. Reading First levels the playing field. While it still has work to do, recent reports from both the OMB and the GAO appear to indicate that the program is well on its way to achieving this goal.

There are several fundamental issues relevant to the "effectiveness" question.When Bob Sweet did the heavy lifting on drafting the congressional language for Reading First and I provided the scientific input, we both knew effectiveness would be tied to several factors.We knew that the power of Reading First in improving reading abilities among youngsters typically disenfranchised from effective education would require the integration of at least three essential ingredients.First, no matter how good programs, materials, and/or instructional strategies are, they must be provided to students by a well prepared teacher under conditions that ensure implementation fidelity.Limited gains will be observed and sustained if programs are not accompanied by these conditions.For this reason, substantial funds were available through the Reading First legislation to provide systematic professional development in SBRR and its implementation.Likewise substantial funds were available for assessments and instructional materials based on SBRR.Note that the funds for professional development were available to all eligible schools in a district – not just those identified as Reading First schools.

Second, we knew that the ability of individual districts and schools to monitor implementation fidelity and to rapidly strengthen implementation when indicated was enormously critical – I can't emphasize how important implementation fidelity is to program success and the ability to scale up programs like Reading First.

Third, we knew we would have to build in a very robust independent program evaluation to determine for which kids Reading First programs were having a positive effect.This third ingredient – the independent evaluation – was so critical that Bob Sweet ensured that $25 million dollars PER YEAR were provided so that the resources and talent would be available to carry out a high quality evaluation EVERY year.But, for reasons still not understood – at least by me – the Department of Education did not move forward rapidly to identify the independent evaluator or set in motion the infrastructure to carry out this essential part of the law.

Indeed, the delay was so substantial that Bob Sweet, then a senior congressional staff member with the House Committee on Education and the Work Force, wrote letters of concern to the Secretary of Education and the Director of IES to determine why the delay was occurring.To us the delay was irresponsible and unconscionable.Bob had worked extremely hard to ensure that enough money was available to do a world class evaluation on a yearly basis and the delays ensured that whatever was finally planned would most likely be rushed and insufficient.And I believe that the evaluation that is now underway will not do the comprehensive job we had anticipated.For example, if I am correct, the current evaluation will only examine student performance for the first year of Reading First implementation.If Reading First is similar to other complex funding programs, it takes at least a year or more for implementation to solidify and become consistent.Second, the data sources and types of data available for the evaluation vary by state thus limiting the conclusions that can be drawn. Third, to my knowledge, there was not time to ensure that robust measures of implementation fidelity were developed, standardized, and applied to all districts incorporating Reading First programs into their instructional day.Fourth, it is probable that comparisons will be made to non-Reading First schools who were also receiving Reading First support for professional development – without appropriate controls, these types of confounds will pollute the data.It is the case that hindsight is a luxury but if I had the opportunity to do things differently, I would have argued strongly that the technical assistance mechanisms and the evaluation design had to be developed and in place before funds were distributed to states.In many cases, Reading First funds were distributed to states that did not have a plan for professional development and systematic implementation.To be honest, Texas was one of those states.

Bottom line; I believe that the Department squandered the opportunity to conduct a rigorous evaluation that would have provided specific guidance with respect to improving the program. A program as complex as Reading First has to have an impeccably designed and comprehensive evaluation that can address the complexity of the program and its implementation as it seeks to determine effectiveness.I do not believe the current evaluation will accomplish that. This is unfortunate particularly since, for the first time in my experience, enough money was available to carry out such an evaluation.I am not sure how much the current evaluation costs but I doubt it is worth $25 million.Where did all that money go? Federal bureaucracy can screw anything up and frequently does. This is one sad example.

Given this, you have to turn to individual states to learn what they are finding vis-à-vis improvements in reading among those youngsters eligible for Reading First programs.Shep Barbash has done the most comprehensive and detailed examination of these data and summarized them elsewhere. His review points to significant gains in reading abilities among children in many Reading First schools across the country.However, as I mentioned, different states use different measurements so it is impossible to examine trends across states and determine the conditions under which Reading First is having an effect.I would predict that any states that are showing gains have provided robust professional development and ensured that continuous assessment of student progress is provided systematically and continuously.I would also predict that implementation fidelity is present.The GAO and OMB reports provided a glimpse of how states and districts are viewing the value of the program and their results were very positive.

I believe Reading First has had a significant impact in addition to that observed in individual schools and classrooms. In my visits to almost every state since Reading First came into law, it is clear that the language of reading instruction has changed.It is hard to go into a school these days or to a state department of education and not hear educators discussing research-based reading instructional approaches, progress monitoring, systematic professional development, and implementation issues.There is an astounding common knowledge among teachers and educational leaders about the results of the National Reading Panel and what constitutes SBRR.In essence, the profession is now developing a systematic common professional language that is being used among teachers, educational leaders, and policy makers in addressing the needs of children who are struggling with reading.Since language has been frequently reported to drive thought, I see this as a major step forward.For the first time, there is actually systematic movement in the publishing sector to develop products based on the results of converging scientific evidence and states review these products for alignment with SBRR.The science of reading has come a very long way since the early 1990's and that is reflected in current policies and practices.

Published April 2, 2008

This is the second installment of an on going series with Reid Lyon about a series of issues relative to the recent Fordham report.

1) Let's name names today.- What did Christopher Doherty have to do with the Reading First situation and why was he " summarily dismissed" ( at least in your opinion) ?`

I have the highest respect for Chris Doherty as an individual and as an administrator of an extraordinarily complex educational program that required a number of new criteria to be met in order for States and districts to receive funds.I believe he has been beaten up, humiliated, and dishonored through false allegations, ignorance, cowardice, and political malpractice (which is probably an oxymoron)To my knowledge, he responded to all of the OIG's questions about his role in the management of Reading First and, along with details provided by Sandi Jacobs, refuted the allegations made by both individuals outside the government with their own agendas and the OIG.As others have made mention, the language Chris used in his emails served to titillate the press and made it difficult for him to set the record straight.Given that I have a tendency to not be particularly politically correct, I certainly have no room to criticize Chris on his choice of language.That said, if I had used the same language, I would have made a mistake.

During the years I worked with Chris on Reading First, his dedication to the program and to the children it served was always paramount in his mind and in his efforts.It was rare that I saw Chris working less than 15 to 18 hours per day.He was given an impossible task – can you imagine managing a 6 billion dollar program with 3 or 4 people?But that is all he was given, and it amazes me that he and Sandi Jacobs were able to respond to the needs of states and districts implementing Reading First in the very competent way that they did. The two of them were greatly admired and respected by the state Reading First directors in the field.

I think that there are several factors that led to Chris's dismissal.To be sure, the political fallout from the OIG report, as inaccurate as it was, may at the time have seemed too overwhelming for the Department to handle.Reading First was a program that was developed and implemented under the Bush administration, and there has been no shortage of citizens and politicos who literally hate the man and anything he has done.

The charges of corruption in Reading First played well with those who wanted to soil his legacy and dismantle any program – no matter how beneficial it was for kids and teachers.In fact, my friends on congressional staffs on both sides of the aisle tell me that the frenzy to drive a stake into the Reading First program reached a fever pitch precisely because it was a popular and beneficial program.

All this said, I am guessing that the Department felt that Chris was an expendable liability given that he would continue to be a target of the press and the conspiracy theorists.In a way it reminded me of the words of the young officer following the battle of Xuan Loc in South Vietnam:"We had to destroy the town so we could save it".

Chris was the town. He and Sandi personified Reading First. It is very disappointing that he was not supported and exonerated by the Department.In the end, I firmly believe his good name will be cleared and the Stern Report and the efforts that the Fordham Foundation is making are helping to initiate that process.

A second factor was widespread confusion about the purpose and goals of Reading First.Recall that for longer than one would care to remember, over 50 percent of under privileged kept failing in school and dropping out in large part because they did not learn to read.

And the majority of these kids did not have learning disabilities including dyslexia.They were the victims of instructional practices forged out of superstition, untested assumptions, and the weirdest ideas about how reading develops.Until the mid 1990's, the majority of reading instructional practices resembled the practice of medicine a century back:virtually any treatment that could be thought up was tried without regard for the patient.

Reading First was designed to embody the massive amount of converging evidence that had accrued over the past 30 years and that had been reviewed by both the National Research Council and the National Reading Panel.

On the basis of the data summarized in these reports, Bob Sweet and I recommended that federal funding be contingent on program-specific evidence of effectiveness derived from studies employing appropriate research designs and methods.This criterion of demonstrated program-specific effectiveness was revised through congressional member and staff review and the negotiation process, resulting in less-specific language in the current law – to wit, that funding was contingent on states and districts showing that the programs, strategies, and methods they wanted funded through Reading First had to be based on SBRR.

The intent of the law, however, remained the same.Federal funds could not be provided if states and local districts did not ensure that the programs they bought using Federal dollars covered all the reading elements established by the National Reading Panel and that the instruction delivered was systematic, direct, and explicit.

Now here is what Chris was faced with.The law was clear in requiring that the Reading First program be monitored to insure fidelity to these (and other specific) criteria.Chris was assigned the responsibility to ensure that federal funds were provided for ONLY THOSE programs meeting these criteria.

Let me be more specific using this scenario which actually occurred several times.A state application was approved on the basis of its alignment with Reading First criteria that were established in the law.The state did not have to provide a list of programs to be funded – in fact the majority did not provide such lists.

What they did have to do was clearly articulate how their program selection process aligned with Reading First criteria, and how the state would review applications from local districts to ensure LEAs met the criteria.

In some cases, Chris had to inform state and local officials that funding would be withdrawn if non-SBRR programs were implemented.That was his job as defined in the law.At no time did he ever tell states or local districts that they had to use a particular program.

And whether we like it or not, it was the case that some states and local districts indicated that they would adhere to the criteria, but then selected and, in some cases, implemented programs that did not meet the criteria.In essence, they were breaking the law.Chris then had the responsibility to work with the states and districts to correct the error.

Let me give you an analogy.Suppose a state or local district promised that it would implement effective instruction based on the best science to date, but actually implemented balance beams, leeches, or apricot pits to improve reading.The decision to do this was wrong, it did not adhere to the requirements of the law, and it placed students at risk for educational malpractice and continued failure.

Again, Chris's job was to take corrective action and inform the state that it was out of compliance, as the Reading First legislation required him to do.In fact, we should be outraged if he did not carry out these responsibilities.

Chris was accused by vendors, the OIG, and Congressional members of pushing particular reading programs.One Congressional member cited an allegation in the OIG that states funding under the Reading First program was contingent on their using a reading curriculum developed by McGraw-Hill or one from a short list of commercial programs.

You might be as alarmed as I am about this allegation when you look at the actual evidence that is on record.First of all, only 15 states initially had lists of approved programs.The majority of states had applications approved without citing any list of programs.The states that decided to use lists were told clearly that they could select programs NOT ON THEIR LIST , if the programs were based on SBRR.

Remember, the law required that programs be based on SBRR.The law prohibits the use of RF funds to purchase programs not based on SBRR.For a program to be based on SBRR it had to be comprehensive in coverage of reading elements established by the National Reading Panel and the instruction delivered had to be systematic, direct, and explicit.These criteria are very straight forward.Remember also that states decided on whatever list they used – the Reading First office had little to do with that decision.

A great deal was made of the allegation that Chris "pushed" the Reading Mastery program published by McGraw Hill.The conspiracy advocates claim that this program was favored because the CEO of McGraw Hill was a close friend of the President's.

Well, if this program was pushed, it certainly did no good despite the fact that it has substantial demonstrated evidence of effectiveness.

Here are the facts.Reading Mastery was on 10 states' lists out of the initial 15 states that submitted lists. Success for All was on the lists created by 9 states. Following approval, some states that did not have lists in their initial application opted to create lists to guide their LEAs in ensuring that the SBRR criteria were met.In all, 22 states created lists either before or after approval with 8 states having lists BEFORE READING FIRST was enacted.29 states did not have an approved list.It is important to note that in many states and LEAs, individuals making Reading First decisions were not familiar with SBRR, and had virtually no experience in selecting and implementing programs that met ANY criteria.

If someone had talked to those in states making a decision to use a list or not use a list, they would have learned that the lack of understanding of SBRR was a main reason given for using a list.I still have not learned of any state that was pressured to use a particular list.

Here is the kicker. Reading Mastery was adopted as a core program in very few states.

In Oregon, where the program was developed, out of 50 Reading First schools, only 4 used Reading Mastery as a core program and 3 of these schools were using Reading Mastery prior to Reading First.It is the case that Reading Mastery is published by McGraw Hill but so was the Wright program which did not meet SBRR criteria.Why did Chris make the decision to not provide funding for the Wright program if he was beholden to McGraw Hill?

He had to make that decision because the Wright program, at that time, was not comprehensive nor did it impart instruction in a direct, systematic, and explicit manner.To Wright's credit, they responded to the reviews of their program and made substantial revisions to meet SBRR criteria.Indeed, the Wright program has now received very high marks in terms of its content and instructional delivery characteristics.This is an example of one of the goals of the law – to improve existing programs.illHill

What I found very surprising in my discussions with the OIG and congressional staff was their confusion about the intent of the Reading First legislation.For instance, in my face to face meeting with OIG staff they indicated that the entire time that they had been working on the Reading First issue – over 2 years - they still did not have a complete understanding of what the program was supposed to do.In fact, they were hopeful that I could shed light on the issue of intent.

What was equally strange is that the OIG did not interview Bob Sweet or me until the end of their investigation – we may have been the last ones to be interviewed or close to it.It would seem that the two people who worked hard on developing Reading First and who could have articulated the intent of Reading First very clearly would have been among the first to be interviewed.

The intent of the legislation is a very critical element in understanding how the OIG arrived at its conclusions.It is my strong belief that the OIG erroneously concluded that Chris and the Reading First office were implementing Reading First in such a way as to violate the restriction on federal control of school curriculum at the local level.But there was no conflict at all.

Schools were, and are, free to choose any reading program as long as it is grounded in SBRR.As I mentioned earlier – but I want to emphasize again – Chris never mandated, controlled, or directed a choice of a particular program.His job was to ensure fidelity to the law, which required that funding was provided only for those programs that provided systematic and explicit instruction in the five essential components of scientifically based reading instruction.

Within this context, Chris had the clear responsibility to let states and districts know when their programs were not in compliance with these criteria.And this lack of alignment was discussed with several states when they were either considering implementing a non-SBRR program, or had already implemented a non-SBRR program.

I could go on for days about the tremendous job Chris Doherty did in ensuring that the most novel and complex education funding program was implemented in a manner congruent with the criteria stated clearly in the law.He was tarred and feathered by vendors who, in my opinion, were motivated by greed and a sense of entitlement.

Bob Slavin expected to reap substantial market share because his program had clearly been found to be effective. In the best of all worlds his and other programs' high evidentiary quality should have enabled them to acquire that market share.But recall, program specific evidence of effectiveness as a requirement was overturned by Congress, thus allowing funds to be provided for programs BASED on SBRR.

Chris did not impede states from using the demonstrated evidence-based programs.They were not purchased at expected levels because many states and local districts felt they did not meet their specific needs.I suspect they thought the programs were too prescriptive and would be unpopular, and that this would put them in the same sort of hot water that Chris and Sandi were putting themselves in every day, by keeping their own standards high. Given that Chris is a strong proponent of using only proven programs, I would guess that he would have great confidence in programs like Success for All or Reading Mastery.But it was a state and local decision to select the programs, contingent on their meeting SBRR criteria.

In doing research for my book I have talked to a substantial number of state and local decision makers who were involved in the program selection process for their Reading First initiatives.

One question I asked all of them was whether they were ever pressured, directly or implicitly, to not purchase Success For All.Slavin alleged in his complaint that such pressure was exerted in several instances but did not identify individuals who said they were so pressured.

Likewise I was told by several reporters that they had tried to track down individuals who stated that they were pressured to not adopt Success For All and they also came up empty.It would seem that the appropriate thing to do would be to have those who were supposedly pressured identify themselves and state and corroborate the facts.

If they were actually pressured, then I would agree that a wrong had been committed.But, at this point in time I cannot find anyone who supports Slavin's allegation, which, remember, was what set in motion the entire misguided, uncomprehending investigation. In a discussion with Chris following his ordeals he said that there were times he felt like the character in the Hitchcock movie, The Wrong Man. I can see why!

Published April 3, 2008

Part Three of Three

This is the third part of a series of discussions about Reading First and Reid Lyon's responses to some questions about what transpired.

1) And now Robert Slavin- Given that the complaint he filed with the OIG resulted in the eviscerationof the Reading First program as well as several individuals reputations, what can you say about the veracity of his claims.Also, what does his Success for All program and his other work have to do with Reading First?

It would take me a month to answer this question in full.In researching my book on science and education policy, I have examined his allegations and documents that he and the Success for All Foundation have distributed.At the outset I was disappointed by how someone who had a reputation for scientific accuracy could get so many facts wrong.In essence, Slavin and the Foundation slandered a number of people, and made allegations about the Reading First program that are not supported by the facts.

To this date, I have seen nothing in the OIG reports, the press, or in any other document that provides actual evidence that individuals or companies profited from Reading First illegally or unethically.To be clear, Slavin has the right to articulate his concerns.But for the life of me, I can't get my hands around why someone who is an accomplished scientist would ignore facts and then engage in a National Enquirer type witch hunt.

Let me give you some examples, starting with the aspersions he cast my way, given that I am most familiar with my role in Reading First.

In a document published by the Success For All Foundation titled "the Mismanagement of Reading First: Summary of Evidence," Slavin made a number of allegations about my relationships with policy makers and other reading scientists, and about my Reading First duties that, in traditional tabloid fashion, were designed to portray me as part of a web of corruption in the Reading First program.I made an initial decision not to respond to this for a couple of reasons.

First, the claims were baseless and silly.

Second, and related to the first, I thought Slavin had some hack put the nonsense together to get the attention of an audience he wanted to reach.

But I came to learn over time that Slavin's insinuations were actually being treated as fact, where allegations that he and the SFA Foundation made were repeated almost verbatim in the press and elsewhere. Slavin's allegations against me and my role in Reading First were blatantly false.

Some examples:

Slavin alleges that I forced New York City to adopt the Voyager Reading Program or risk losing its Reading First funding.I think Slavin probably plagiarized this nonsense from some equally false gossip printed elsewhere. What are the facts? I never mentioned the Voyager Reading program to anyone in New York or any other state.I did not know the specifics about the Voyager Reading Program nor have I EVER ENDORSED IT IN ANY CONTEXT.

I had met Randy Best only in passing at one education conference prior to Reading First.Indeed, I never endorsed any reading program.Slavin suggests that I pushed Voyager because I later took a position with another company founded by Randy Best – the CEO of Voyager.The facts are that I accepted a position with Higher Ed Holdings (HEH) to develop a college of education – an interest I have had for years, given the need to prepare teachers in more systematic and evidence-based ways.HEH had nothing to do with Voyager.It did not develop or distribute any reading programs.In fact, the two graduate programs whose assessment and accountability systems I helped design at HEH were on Educational Leadership and Curriculum and Instruction, respectively – not reading.Not to mention the fact that Randy Best had not even conceived of an initiative to develop a college of education when Reading First began nor during the first several years of its existence.

Slavin was not alone in perpetuating this lie.Most education reporters, including Schemo from the New York Times, Kathleen Kennedy Manzo from Education Week and Grunwald from the Washington Post linked me to Voyager and its use in New York City.If you examine their stories, it looks like they just copied Slavin and one another without providing any evidence for the accusation other than hearsay. I have continually asked the reporters and education officials in New York City to provide evidence that I ever endorsed Voyager (or any other program).No one has ever done so, nor come forward to take responsibility for the allegation.Slavin never called me for any confirmation or clarification, even though his claim damaged my reputation.

**** In the third interview addressing the questions concerning Robert Slavin I made a mistake in a portion of my answer. I erroneously indicated that Diana Jean Schemo of the N.Y. Times and Kathleen Kennedy Manzo of Ed Week followed Slavin’s assertion linking me to the Voyager Reading program and its use in New York City. This is incorrect. Neither reporter repeated this allegation in any of their stories addressing Reading First.

Another example: Slavin claims that I have a close personal relationship with President Bush, and that I thus had "an enormous informal influence on Reading First." Slavin alleges that this influence allowed me to help plan the National Reading First meetings, consult with states on Reading First activities, and make speeches across the country on the program.The gist of this nonsense is that I was supposedly able to influence instructional program selection which is simply not true.First of all, I provided the President and his staff with data and advice on reading development, reading difficulties, and reading instruction. This was done in the appropriate Federal offices – not over dinner somewhere.I tried to base my advice on the best converging scientific evidence, believing, as Daniel Moynihan once said, that "we are entitled to our own opinion, but we are not entitled to our own facts."

I will say that the President's evident desire to ensure that Federal funds were provided to only that "which worked" was rare among the politicians I'd worked with. (The only other elected official I'd known who cared about crafting policy based on research in a serious way prior to the development of the Reading Excellence Act, NCLB and Reading First was Bill Goodling, the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, who retired in 2001).

That said, I have always been nonpartisan. Before Bush, I worked with Congress and the Clinton administration in helping to develop the research foundation for the Reading Excellence Act, the first piece of education legislation that used the term "Scientifically Based reading Instruction."My experience in working on the Reading Excellence Act was known by Bush education staff, and they felt it could be useful in developing Reading First. I had also been asked by then Governor Bush and his staff to advise him on reading research as early as 1996.He was far ahead of his time in trying to ensure that kids were provided instruction that worked.Even as a registered democrat in Maryland, I was extremely impressed with his focus on doing the right things for the students in Texas.If I had any real influence with the Reading First program is was from my work with Bob Sweet in developing the scientific basis for the legislation and in providing the Reading First office with summaries of research on programs to ensure they met all Reading First Criteria.That role never involved endorsing or recommending any program.

Second, I never had any role in planning annual Reading First meetings. When I was asked to speak at one of these meetings, it was for the purpose of explaining SBRR and its role in the assessment and resolution of reading difficulties. I was happy to do this, and when my schedule permitted I did so.I was never asked to discuss the implementation of the program nor any educational programs that may or may not meet Reading First scientific criteria.

Third, I never consulted with any states on their Reading First programs, and any speeches I made in different states and districts were about SBRR – not the development of Reading First applications or the implementation of Reading First programs.No states or groups asked me to review or comment on their Reading First programs.I was asked on numerous occasions and in different venues to review the most current research on reading and I am hopeful that information helped individuals gain a clearer understanding of what constitutes SBRR, whether or not the school district, state, or group had any relationship to a Reading First program.

I had no role in developing plans, reviewing, or recommending individuals to participate in technical assistance functions or activities.It is the case that I worked hard to provide this administration, previous administrations, and the Congress, past and present, with the most accurate information about the current research that could inform policy and practice in the area of reading, early childhood, and special education.I did this through yearly Congressional testimony before numerous committees and individual meetings with policy makers and government officials.This is all a matter of public record.

Again, I have to say I am simply amazed that someone who has been taken seriously as a scientist would fail to check the factual basis for allegations that could damage someone's reputation.Again, Slavin never called me to discuss his allegations.

Fourth, I certainly was not considered a supporter of any commercial reading program. Indeed, several in the publishing/vendor community told me that they did not appreciate me at all.I believe they felt that by not endorsing their program, I was not supporting them.

But it was clear to me that the major publishing companies never had robust plans or internal research programs to obtain their own and/or independent program specific evidence.This simply was not in their business models and while many gave lip service to research, it was frequently rhetoric and hype.When publishers would visit NICHD to show me their programs in the hope that I would possible endorse their wares, they left my office disappointed.Keep in mind that any individual or representative from a publishing company had the right to come to discuss their programs and plans with federal officials.In fact, I was delighted to be able to discuss with them a number of NIH funding mechanisms that could be used to conduct research on the effectiveness of their program.

But, more often than not none had actual evidence of effectiveness obtained through rigorous studies designed to test for effectiveness nor did many appear inclined to carry out such studies in the future.In fact, Bob Sweet and I were hopeful that the Reading First law would stimulate publishers and vendors to take seriously the need to carry out well designed effectiveness studies.And, as Reading First progressed, a number of large publishers began to play ball on the effectiveness field.Many came to meetings at the Department of Education to discuss how they could best design studies to determine effectiveness.As we speak, at least one of the major publishers has spent millions in carrying out well designed and independent effectiveness research as have several companies that produce supplemental materials.

While Slavin's gossip-mongering about me was inaccurate and malicious, his attacks on Louisa Moats went beyond the pale.For example, his Success for All Foundation intimated that because Moats and I were "…close personal friends… as well as co-authors on published papers, her LETRS professional development program was provided an advantage in state adoptions.Nonsense.

Moats and I had not worked together for 8 years prior to Reading First and our last published paper was in 1997.Not to mention the fact that she is exceptionally competent and clearly does not need any help from me to do superb work.

If LETRS was selected it was because it met Reading First criteria for professional development programs.A review of the facts shows that most states approved a wide range of professional development options for teachers in the schools, including workshops and courses developed within each state.

Slavin and the Success for All Foundation also disparaged Moats' expertise and credentials in reading and her experience in working with urban schools. This can only be described as very dumb.

Here are the facts:Moat's doctoral training at Harvard was in Reading, under Jeanne Chall, Carol Chomsky, and Catherine Snow. It would be hard to find better mentors in this field than those.

Before Reading First, she had been teaching teachers for more than 20 years in a number of state education initiatives and in several graduate programs. She was asked by the California State Department of Education to develop academies for the California Reading Initiative in 1996-97, under a state grant given to the Sacramento County Office of Education.

Moats' publications are not only numerous but influential in the development of reading practices and policies.She had written four books and a number of refereed papers, invited papers, and book chapters, prior to Reading First.

Slavin and the Foundation also reported that she had never visited an urban school outside of a small study in Washington DC is ludicrous.A quick call to the Sacramento County Office would have let Slavin know how many very diverse districts and schools Moats was involved with.And that "small study" that Moats led in DC was actually a $10 million dollar NICHD/NIH study titled the NICHD Early Interventions Research Project which generated several very influential scientific publications by Barbara Foorman, and others including Moats. Moats was on the ground in Washington, DC from 1992 until 1996 working with teachers and children from the most impoverished schools in the district.This was her full time job – working with teachers in the schools every day.The schools she worked with were unique and challenging and required significant help at every level.

How could Slavin get this so wrong, particularly when it impugned a very good person's hard won reputation?By the way, Slavin and the Foundation distributed this nonsense to major media outlets, the OIG, and to a host of other parties through email and his Foundation's website.There are many more errors that Slavin made in smearing Moats, but the inaccuracies noted here are an example of what can be found in all the other allegations he made against her.Why would he disseminate these blatant falsehoods?You tell me.

Slavin also charged that the three technical assistance centers promoted the use of a "three-tier model" of instruction.I was not familiar with the content of his specific allegations in this area until I discussed his complaints with individuals familiar with the Reading First implementation.I was then directed to the concerns he raised including the following:

"The three-tier model is a reading instruction plan promoted by the three technical assistance centers funded by the U.S. Department of Education. Although it lacks any evidence of effectiveness and was mentioned in only three states proposals, it has been aggressively promoted among Reading First schools nationally, pushing out alternative models with far better evidence of effectiveness…"

In trying to understand whether this allegation had merit I talked at length with scientists who have and are developing three tier frameworks, as well as individuals familiar with the work of the Technical Assistance Centers and state Reading First directors.

Again, it seems the facts are at odds with the allegations.First, Slavin may have been confused by the term "model" as used in the phrase, three-tier model.I am not sure this was the case because I can't get in his head, but many are confused about this issue.According to those who were researching and developing three tier models, it was never developed to be a model as in a "school reform model".Rather it is a framework within which any program – including Success for All – can be implemented.It simply provides an organizational scaffold for providing supplemental and intervention instruction. It also was developed with prevention as a focus and to ensure that regular education take responsibility for children struggling to learn to read prior to the typical over referral to special education.

Moreover, I have been told repeatedly by those responsible for the TACs that the "model" was not aggressively promoted by the Reading First office or the Technical Assistance Centers. Officials from the TACs would try to provide help if a state or district has decided to employ a three-tier framework, but I cannot find any corroboration from any State or District Reading First director that they were pressured by the TAC providers to use a three tier model. Again, it was the states that appreciated its value through their own experiences and research and then requested information from the TA centers.

The state Reading First directors were clearly aware that the framework did not require any particular basals or programs and it was not a nefarious tool to drive schools toward particular commercial basal series or any other specific programs or approaches.The OIG audit examined this particular allegation with null findings.Again, if there is evidence to the contrary, I would welcome being enlightened as we certainly did not envision any "model", or program for that matter, to be advocated for by any Reading First staff - including contractors – when the law was written.

With respect to your other questions, Slavin had nothing to do with the development of the Reading First legislation, or its predecessor, the Reading Excellence Act.That said, I have always been impressed by the care and the attention to data Slavin brought to the development of SFA.I had used SFA as an example of one program with proven instructional effectiveness in reading.I provided testimony to Congress on the role of research in education and identified SFA as an example of an evidence-based reading program when asked for an example of one. I also indicated to the OIG during my interview that both SFA and Reading Mastery were two programs that could have met the program specific effectiveness criterion that was initially drafted in the law.Both programs had several years of data carried out by independent researchers and published in respected scientific journals. This was not an endorsement – just a simple statement of the facts.Because of this, I was very surprised at the sloppy evidence gathering Slavin undertook in his attacks on people and the Reading First program.

As we discussed in an earlier question, given that the rigorous effectiveness criterion was not in the final draft, many programs would claim to meet the "based on" criterion.Thus SFA was among many that a state and/or district could consider for adoption.As hard as I have tried, I have not ever been able to find anyone who says they were pressured by the Department to not use SFA or, if they were using it, to discontinue the program.Given the seriousness of Slavin's allegations, this information must be obtained under oath. For whatever reason districts and schools were not enamored with SFA, the market made its choices – not the Department of Education.

These are just a few examples of what I consider to be false statements of fact by Slavin and the SFA Foundation.There are many more that are equally untrue.The blatant disregard for evidence to support these and other allegations have led me to conclude his accusations were baseless and born out of a failure to check facts. I was surprised during the congressional committee hearings on Reading First that no witnesses were called that would testify under oath that they were pressured to not use SFA given that this allegation was at the genesis of attacks on the Reading First program.I will certainly revise the conclusions I have drawn about the distance between Slavin's allegations and the facts that have been presented to me if valid evidence to support the accusations is presented.I would welcome the opportunity.

To repeat myself, I have been disappointed that no respected education researcher, policy researcher, or Department of Education entity has fully dissected Slavin's allegations, identified all the evidence he used to support each allegation, and then examined the strength of that evidence in supporting the accusations.No doubt, this is tedious work but it must be done and preferably by a number of independent individuals and entities. As I am carrying out my own research on the veracity of the "evidence" I have been surprised at the amount of scandal mongering based, as best as I can identify, on back-fence gossip, and hearsay.I am hopeful that those who have generated the accusations against individuals and the Reading First program will step forward and provide objective evidence that the allegations are valid.I cannot find any evidence of illegal or unethical behavior in the massive amount of emails between the Reading First office and state and district Reading First officials.Nor can I find any evidence of this in the emails I am reviewing between the TACs and publishers/vendors, and Reading First state and district officials. To me, identifying the actual evidence of any wrongdoing is essential if we are going to improve a program beyond putting in place safeguards against the perception of conflicts of interest – don't get me wrong - these safeguards are critical.Evidence needs to be provided that identifies the instances when illegalities were actually committed.And when this evidence is presented, it needs to be reported under oath.In short, the record must be set straight.

Published April 4, 2008

Dr. G. Reid Lyon, an internationally recognized authority in educational issues announced the development of SYNERGISTIC EDUCATIONSOLUTIONS (SES) a consulting company to advise in the implementation of evidence-based assessment and instruction practices, professional development programs, development of education policy at local and state levels, and the development of assessment and evaluation programs for colleges and departments of education preparing for regulatory and accreditation activities. Prior to his most recent position as Executive Vice President for Research and Evaluation at Higher Ed Holdings, Dr. Lyon was the Chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch within National Institute of Child Health and Human development (NICHD) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from 1992 until 2005. In 2006 Dr. Lyon was named one of the ten most influential people in American education during the last decade by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center (Education Week) for his work in ensuring that scientific research occupies a central role in educational practices and policy.    He also currently serves as a distinguished research scholar in the school for Behavioral and Brain Sciences and the Center for Brain Health at the University of Texas-Dallas.  The website address for SES is www.reidlyon.com

Home | About Us | About Phonics | Resources
Research | Topics | Reading Reform | Links | Search