From: aburke5054@aol.com
Reply-To: arn-l@interversity.org
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: Flagrant and Sustained Corruption of Reading First
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:40:48 -0500
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.