Re: Fw: Flagrant and Sustained Corruption of Reading First

[aburke5054@aol.com]

  The last paragraph claims that misconduct by government is a victory for public education. That's a novel interpretation, to say the least. 
 
 Art 
 -----Original Message-----
 From: gbracey1@verizon.net
 To: arn-l@interversity.org
 Sent: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:39 PM
 Subject: [arn-l] Fw: Flagrant and Sustained Corruption of Reading First
 
  FYI 
 
 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay Spuck" <jspuck@hotmail.com> 
 To: <gbracey1@verizon.net> 
 Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 9:27 AM 
 Subject: Flagrant and Sustained Corruption of Reading First 
 
 > BeyondChron: San Francisco's Online Alternative Daily 
 > 
 > School Beat: the Scandals of NCLB 
 > by Lisa Schiff, 2007-03-01 
 > 
 > Other than its very existence, one of the biggest scandals regarding No > Child Left Behind (NCLB), our federal education legislation, has been the > Reading First program. Reading First is another one of NCLB's typically > myopic efforts to improve educational outcomes. In this instance, the > approach has been to promote mechanical solutions to the development of > literacy skills for K through 3rd graders through programs based on > "evidence-based research" and "scientific data." 
 > 
 > Having a sound basis for using a certain method makes sense, but the > absolute reliance on the ability to describe outcomes quantitatively is > suspect, since meaningful assessments of literacy skills require more than > that. As with some other programs NCLB has introduced, such as > supplementary tutoring, a primary purpose of the Reading First component > seems to have been to create a fast-track to funnel state dollars used to > purchase literacy education materials into the coffers of just a few > producers of those same materials. Language such as "scientific" and > "evidenced-based" simply served to provide the authoritative cover under > which to hide this intention. 
 > 
 > Many might argue that since NCLB is sufficiently scandalous in the way it > reduces education to standardized curricula and tests, narrows the > subjects taught and the pedagogical methods employed that there is no need > to look further. While there is a certain truth to this, the flagrant and > sustained corruption that occurred with Reading First is particularly > important to expose. The impropriety not only clearly breached ethical > norms, it serves as a clear example of the privatization goals of NCLB and > of the underlying philosophy that profit making is of greater importance > than educating our society's kids. 
 > 
 > The Reading First debacle, though making few headlines outside of > education circles, has come to the fore again as the Department of > Education (DOE) has had its internal affairs exposed in two recent high > profile publications. The first was in the report by the Commission on > NCLB, which amid all the recommendations for even more standardized > testing and tracking of teachers gave a pro forma hand slapping to the DOE > and called for more measures to prevent internal bias from occurring in > the future (http://www.nclbcommission.org). 
 > 
 > The Office of the Inspector General, interestingly enough a unit within > the DOE itself, is the entity responsible for the second publication, > released just last week > (http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/a03g0006.pdf). This > report has received less attention than the Commission's report, perhaps > because of its more narrow focus on malfeasance as opposed to the more > "forward-looking" reauthorization. 
 > 
 > Despite the lack of notoriety and its in-house nature, this document is > surprisingly strong in formally identifying the problems with the Reading > First program and the dangerous terrain that NCLB has landed the education > community in with this push towards profit-oriented solutions to education > needs. While it does not question the underlying premises of the Reading > First approach, its attention to the inappropriate implementation of the > program is still important. 
 > 
 > The OIG report is the result of an audit the office conducted reviewing a > series of workshops for state implementers (called Reading Leadership > Academies or RLAs), handbooks provided at those workshops, participant > surveys, analysis of email messages regarding the organizing of the > workshops and similar programs, and the degree to which the DOE complied > with required efforts to reduce and eliminate potential bias by promoting > any given vendor of educational materials and services. The report > includes the findings, evidence in support of those findings, > recommendations, DOE responses to the findings and recommendations > (usually objecting to the findings), and OIG responses. 
 > 
 > Three major findings, accompanied by recommendations, came out of the > above analysis, most of which the DOE objected to, but to which the OIG > provided evidence-based (note the irony) rebuttals, often citing the text > of DOE originated email messages and evaluations from participants. 
 > 
 > First, the OIG found that the workshops intentionally or otherwise > promoted just a few specific programs (Direct Instruction and Open Court) > by including participants who exclusively used those programs on panels > throughout the series of RLAs despite feedback from participants that it > appeared as though a sales job was in progress. We know of course now that > that indeed was the case and that Direct Instruction and Open Court > programs have been widely adopted despite the fact that there are other > programs to choose from, not to mention the many concerns over their > respective approaches and quality. 
 > 
 > Second, the materials provided at the RLAs appeared to encourage the use > of one particular assessment tool, the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early > Literacy Skills Assessment (DIBELS) by profiling it in an extensive > article, contrary to the requirement that no particular materials should > be recommended. Finally, and not surprisingly, the OIG found that the DOE > insufficiently tried (if at all it seems), to prevent bias and conflicts > of interest in identifying experts to provide technical assistance at > events related to Reading First. 
 > 
 > Learning the details regarding how kids and the programs that serve them > have been manipulated once again is always discouraging. But in this case > we may have some cause for hope as the OIA findings and the impressive > evidence they were able to pull together in support of those findings may > mean that not everyone at the DOE is on the profit-making, NCLB bandwagon. 
 > 
 > Smoking guns are hard to come by these days, and the OIG has handed public > education supporters a few. This is more evidence that NCLB is not really > about prioritizing the education of our nation's children, evidence that > we can use in our efforts to transform or replace NCLB with national > education policy that actually has the welfare of children as its core > intent. After all, there is a greater purpose here than profits. 
 > 
 > Lisa Schiff is the parent of two children who attend McKinley Elementary > School in the San Francisco Unified School District and is a member of the > board of directors of Parents for Public Schools of San Francisco > (http://www.ppssf.org). 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 ----------------------------------------------- 
 Report list problems to listmom@interversity.net 
   
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.