Audit of Reading First initiative finds violations of conflict of interest rules

An audit by the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Office of Inspector General (IG) of the No Child Left Behind Act’s (NCLB) Reading First initiative has concluded that federal officials violated conflict of interest rules when awarding grants to states under the reading program and steered contracts to favored textbook publishers. The IG’s report found that the program is awash with conflicts of interest and willful mismanagement. It also suggests that ED violated the law by attempting to dictate which curriculum schools must use. The report states program review panels were stacked with people who shared the Reading First director's views and that only favored publishers of reading curricula could obtain program funding. An e-mail from Reading First director Chris Doherty details instructions to a staff member to come down hard on a publishing company he did not support: "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." ED spokeswoman Katherine McLane says Mr. Doherty is resigning, but she declines to confirm that he is doing so in response to the audit. ED Secretary Margaret Spellings has pledged to adopt the audit’s recommendations quickly. She also promises that the Reading First grants approved by ED will be reviewed. Approximately 1,500 school districts have received $4.8 billion in Reading First grants. The goal of the program is help young students learn to read with scientifically proven programs. ED considers the program to be a shining star of NCLB. An independent report from the Center on Education Policy (CEP) finds that many state officials consider the initiative to be highly effective in raising reading achievement.

The IG audit found ED: (1) botched the way it picked a panel to review grant applications, raising questions about whether grants were approved as the law requires; (2) screened grant reviewers for conflicts of interest but then failed to identify six who had a clear conflict based on their industry connections; (3) did not allow states to see the comments of experts who reviewed their applications; and (4) required states to meet conditions that were not part of the law. The report details how Mr. Doherty used his position to steer funding to states using the Direct Instruction (DI) method of reading he favors. When informed that a review panel was stacked with members favoring the DI method, Mr. Doherty responded by e-mail saying, "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!" While Secretary Spelling has objected to the use of the e-mails in the report, the IG insists that the e-mails were in Mr. Doherty’s capacity as director and that there is no evidence they are inaccurate or taken out of context.

New York Times
By Sam Dillon
[Link to full story]