Reading First
States Report Improvements in Reading Instruction, but Additional Procedures Would Clarify Education's Role in Ensuring Proper Implementation by States Gao ID: GAO-07-161 February 28, 2007The Reading First program was designed to help students in kindergarten through third grade develop stronger reading skills. This report examines the implementation of the Reading First program, including (1) changes that have occurred to reading instruction; (2) criteria states have used to award sub-grants to districts, and the difficulties, if any, states faced during implementation; and (3) the guidance, assistance, and oversight the Department of Education (Education) provides states. GAO's study is designed to complement several studies by Education's Inspector General (IG) in order to provide a national perspective on some of the specific issues being studied by the IG. For this report, GAO administered a Web-based survey to 50 states and the District of Columbia, and conducted site visits and interviews with federal, state, and local education officials and providers of reading programs and assessments.
States reported that there have been a number of changes to, as well as improvements in, reading instruction since the implementation of Reading First. These included an increased emphasis on the five key components of reading (awareness of individual sounds, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, and reading comprehension), assessments, and professional development with more classroom time being devoted to reading activities. However, according to publishers we interviewed, there have been limited changes to instructional material. Similarly, states report that few changes occurred with regard to their approved reading lists. States awarded Reading First sub-grants using a variety of different eligibility and award criteria, and some states reported difficulties with implementing key aspects of the program. After applying federal and state eligibility and award criteria, Education reported that over 3,400 districts were eligible to apply for sub-grants in the states' first school year of funding. Of these districts, nearly 2,100 applied for and nearly 1,200 districts received Reading First funding. Education officials made a variety of resources available to states during the application and implementation processes, and states were generally satisfied with the guidance and assistance they received. However, Education developed no written policies and procedures to guide Education officials and contractors in their interactions with state officials and guard against officials mandating or directing states' decisions about reading programs or assessments, which is prohibited by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) and other laws. Based on survey results, some state officials reported receiving suggestions from Education officials or contractors to adopt or eliminate certain reading programs or assessments. Similarly, the IG reported in September 2006 that the Department intervened to influence a state's and several school districts' selection of reading programs. In addition, while Education officials laid out an ambitious plan for annual monitoring of every state's implementation, they did not develop written procedures guiding monitoring visits and, as a result, states did not always understand monitoring procedures, timelines, and expectations for taking corrective actions.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-161, Reading First: States Report Improvements in Reading Instruction, but Additional Procedures Would Clarify Education's Role in Ensuring Proper Implementation by States
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-161
entitled 'Reading First: States Report Improvements in Reading
Instruction but Additional Procedures Would Clarify Education's Role in
Ensuring Proper Implementation by States' which was released on March
23, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
GAO:
February 2007:
Reading First:
States Report Improvements in Reading Instruction, but Additional
Procedures Would Clarify Education's Role in Ensuring Proper
Implementation by States:
GAO-07-161:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-161, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Reading First program was designed to help students in kindergarten
through third grade develop stronger reading skills. This report
examines the implementation of the Reading First program, including (1)
changes that have occurred to reading instruction; (2) criteria states
have used to award sub-grants to districts, and the difficulties, if
any, states faced during implementation; and (3) the guidance,
assistance, and oversight the Department of Education (Education)
provides states. GAO‘s study is designed to complement several studies
by Education‘s Inspector General (IG) in order to provide a national
perspective on some of the specific issues being studied by the IG. For
this report, GAO administered a Web-based survey to 50 states and the
District of Columbia, and conducted site visits and interviews with
federal, state, and local education officials and providers of reading
programs and assessments.
What GAO Found:
States reported that there have been a number of changes to, as well as
improvements in, reading instruction since the implementation of
Reading First. These included an increased emphasis on the five key
components of reading (awareness of individual sounds, phonics,
vocabulary development, reading fluency, and reading comprehension),
assessments, and professional development with more classroom time
being devoted to reading activities. However, according to publishers
we interviewed, there have been limited changes to instructional
material. Similarly, states report that few changes occurred with
regard to their approved reading lists.
States awarded Reading First sub-grants using a variety of different
eligibility and award criteria, and some states reported difficulties
with implementing key aspects of the program. After applying federal
and state eligibility and award criteria, Education reported that over
3,400 districts were eligible to apply for sub-grants in the states‘
first school year of funding. Of these districts, nearly 2,100 applied
for and nearly 1,200 districts received Reading First funding. (See
figure for percentages.)
Education officials made a variety of resources available to states
during the application and implementation processes, and states were
generally satisfied with the guidance and assistance they received.
However, Education developed no written policies and procedures to
guide Education officials and contractors in their interactions with
state officials and guard against officials mandating or directing
states‘ decisions about reading programs or assessments, which is
prohibited by NCLBA and other laws. Based on survey results, some state
officials reported receiving suggestions from Education officials or
contractors to adopt or eliminate certain reading programs or
assessments. Similarly, the IG reported in September 2006 that the
Department intervened to influence a state‘s and several school
districts‘ selection of reading programs. In addition, while Education
officials laid out an ambitious plan for annual monitoring of every
state‘s implementation, they did not develop written procedures guiding
monitoring visits and, as a result, states did not always understand
monitoring procedures, timelines, and expectations for taking
corrective actions.
Figure: Percentages of Eligible, Applicant and Awarded Districts
Nationwide During States' First School Year of Funding:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis based on U.S. Department of Education data.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that Education establish control procedures to guide
departmental officials and contractors in their interactions with
states, districts, and schools to ensure compliance with statutory
provisions. GAO also recommends that Education establish and
disseminate clear procedures governing its monitoring process.
Education, in its response to a draft of this report, agreed with GAO‘s
recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-161].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby at (202)
512-8403 or ashbyc@gao.gov.
[End of figure]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
States Reported Changes as Well as Improvements in Reading Instruction
Since the Inception of Reading First:
States Awarded Reading First Sub-Grants to School Districts Using a
Variety of Different Criteria, and Some States Reported Difficulties
with Implementation:
Education Provided a Wide Range of Guidance, Assistance, and Oversight,
Generally Satisfying State Officials, but Education Lacked Controls to
Guard against Mandating or Endorsing Curricula and Did Not Provide
Written Monitoring Procedures:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Descriptions of Assessment Types:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Reading Program Publishers Most Frequently Represented on
States' Approved Lists:
Table 2: Approaches States Used to Develop Their Approved Lists:
Table 3: Guidance and Assistance Provided to States during Application
and Implementation Processes:
Table 4: States' Reported Sources of Guidance for Key Reading First
Implementation Components:
Figures:
Figure 1: The Process for Awarding State Sub-grants to School
Districts:
Figure 2: Improvements in Professional Development for Reading First
Teachers:
Figure 3: All School Districts Nationwide That Were Eligible for, That
Applied for, and Were Awarded Reading First Sub-grants in the First
School Year of Funding:
Figure 4: States Level of Ease or Difficulty Implementing Key Reading
First Program Aspects:
Figure 5: Issues Education Raised About States' Reading First
Applications:
Figure 6: Geographic Regions for Reading First Regional Technical
Assistance Centers:
Figure 7: States' Assessment of Whether Written Guidance Provided
Information Needed to Adequately Address Application Components:
Abbreviations:
AIR: American Institutes for Research:
CRRFTAC: Central Regional Reading First Technical Assistance Center:
DEOA: Department of Education Organizing Act:
DIBELS: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills:
Education: Department of Education:
ERRFTAC: Eastern Regional Reading First Technical Assistance Center:
IG: Inspector General:
Interim Report: Education's Reading First Implementation:
Evaluation: Interim Report:
K-3rd: kindergarten through third grade:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act:
NIFL: National Institute for Literacy:
RMC: RMC Research Corporation:
SEA: state education agency:
SBRR: scientifically-based reading research:
TAC: Technical Assistance Center:
WRRFTAC: Western Regional Reading First Technical Assistance Center:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 28, 2007:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy:
Chairman:
The Honorable Michael B. Enzi:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable George Miller:
Chairman:
Committee on Education and Labor:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jeff Bingaman:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar:
United States Senate:
The Reading First program, signed into law in 2002 as part of the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), was designed based on reading research
to help children in kindergarten through third grade develop stronger
reading skills. Since 2002, Congress has appropriated about $1 billion
a year for Reading First, more than for any other federal reading
program, to fund 6-year grants to states. States, in turn, have awarded
sub-grants to school districts to establish reading programs. These sub-
grants are targeted to districts and schools with the highest
percentage or numbers of students in kindergarten through third (K-3rd)
grade reading below grade level and to districts and schools with large
numbers of low-income students. However, in awarding sub-grants, states
do have some discretion to establish priorities, such as giving
priority to districts that demonstrated leadership and commitment to
improving reading.
The Reading First program places a number of requirements on state and
local grant recipients to ensure they adopt reading programs and
methods that are effective, while, at the same time, NCLBA provisions
restrict the ability of Department of Education (Education) officials
to mandate or direct state and local decisions on reading curriculum.
In particular, Reading First requires states and participating school
districts to adopt scientifically-based reading programs containing key
instructional components identified in the law. In some instances,
state officials have required prospective Reading First districts to
choose their reading program from a state-approved list. In contrast,
other states have opted to vest district applicants with responsibility
for researching and selecting the reading programs to be used in their
Reading First schools. States and participating school districts are
also required to provide professional development in reading that is
based on scientific research and to track students' progress in reading
using valid and reliable assessments. However, NCLBA and various other
statutory provisions place limits on what Education officials can
require states, districts, and schools to do. For example, under NCLBA,
Education officials are not authorized to mandate, direct, or control
state, school district or school curriculum or program of
instruction.[Footnote 1] In other words, these provisions are intended
to preserve state and local control over key aspects of the public
school system.
During the implementation of the Reading First program some concerns
were raised by publishers of reading programs to Congress and others
about Education's interactions with state and local grantees regarding
reading programs and assessments. Specifically, several groups
representing reading programs filed complaints with Education's
Inspector General alleging that Education officials, contractors, and
consultants pressured state and local applicants to choose specific
reading programs and assessments--actions that are expressly prohibited
by NCLBA.
In response to these allegations, Education's Inspector General (IG)
undertook several separate investigations and audits of various aspects
of the program's administration. For the first of these reports, issued
in September 2006, the IG reviewed various aspects of the application
process for awarding Reading First grants to states, including the
selection and composition of the expert panel that reviewed state
applications, application review and feedback procedures, and
interactions between Education and state-level officials.[Footnote 2]
During its review, the IG, among other things, interviewed federal and
selected state officials and reviewed departmental guidance, internal e-
mail correspondence, and state applications from 11 states and 1
territory. Among its findings, the IG reported that the Department
intervened to influence a state's and several school districts'
selection of reading programs, actions that call into question whether
program officials violated statutory prohibitions against directing or
controlling state and local curricular decisions.[Footnote 3] The IG
made a number of related recommendations, including that the Department
should (1) develop internal management policies and procedures to
ensure that programs are managed in compliance with applicable laws and
regulations, (2) review the management and staff structure of the
Reading First program office, and (3) develop guidance for program
officials on statutory prohibitions on intervening in state and local
curricular decisions. The Secretary of Education concurred with all of
the report's recommendations. In their written comments to the IG
report, Education officials detailed numerous action steps they planned
to undertake in response to the report's findings and recommendations,
including the appointment of new internal leadership for the Reading
First program,[Footnote 4] the development of annual training on
internal controls, and the drafting of a memorandum for all program
managers regarding the importance of impartial job performance.
GAO's study is designed to complement the IG's work by providing a
national perspective on some of the specific issues being studied by
the IG, as well as providing some information on how the program has
been implemented at the state level, primarily. To obtain a better
understanding of how the Reading First program is being implemented at
the state level and to determine how Education conducts its
interactions with states and the kind of guidance and oversight it
provides, GAO agreed to answer the following questions:
1. What changes have occurred to reading instruction since the
inception of Reading First?
2. What criteria have states used to award Reading First sub-grants to
districts, and what, if any, difficulty did states face in implementing
the program?
3. What guidance, assistance, and oversight did Education provide
states related to the Reading First program?
To answer these questions, we collected information about the Reading
First program from a variety of sources. We conducted a Web- based
survey of the Reading First Directors in all 50 states and the District
of Columbia, and 100 percent responded. We also obtained and analyzed
data from the Department of Education for each state on Reading First
districts' eligibility, applications, and awards for states' first
school year of funding. To assess the reliability of this data, we
talked to agency officials about data quality control procedures and
reviewed relevant documentation. We also conducted semi- structured
follow-up interviews with Reading First Directors in 12 states and
conducted site visits to 4 of the 12 states. During the site visits, we
met with state and district officials, as well as school officials,
including teachers, principals, and Reading First coaches. We selected
these 12 states to represent diversity in terms of geographic
distribution, grant size, poverty rates, and student reading
achievement, as well as the presence or absence of a statewide list of
approved reading programs. In our selection of the 12 states, we also
took into consideration whether or not state officials reported that
they had received guidance from Education officials advocating for or
against particular reading programs or assessments. For both the survey
and follow-up interviews, we agreed to protect the respondents'
confidentiality to encourage candid responses: therefore; we will not
identify states by name in this report. We also interviewed
administrators from each of the three regional Reading First Technical
Assistance Centers (TAC), officials from RMC Research--which provided
technical assistance to states during the application process and
oversaw the TACs, and the American Institutes for Research (AIR)--the
contractor responsible for conducting monitoring visits in each state.
In addition, we interviewed several publishers and other providers of
reading curricula and assessments, as well as Reading First officials
and attorneys at Education. We also reviewed state grant files,
monitoring reports, and related correspondence for the 12 states where
we conducted follow-up interviews, as well as legislation and guidance
related to Reading First. We also interviewed Education officials about
the implementation of the Reading First program. Finally, we reviewed
Education's study "Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Interim
Report" to identify information collected at the district and school
level that related to the findings from our state survey and also the
two relevant reports that had been issued by Education's Inspector
General at the time our audit work was completed.
See appendix I for additional information on the survey, as well as our
other data collection methods. We conducted our work from December 2005
through January 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Since the inception of Reading First, states reported changes as well
as improvements in reading instruction due to increased emphasis on
reading instruction, assessments, and professional development, despite
limited changes to instructional material. In our survey, 69 percent of
all states reported great or very great improvement in reading
instruction. One specific area in which states reported an improvement
is the degree to which classroom instruction explicitly incorporates
the key instructional components of the program. In addition, state and
local officials we interviewed reported that the use of assessments
changed after Reading First, especially in the way that teachers use
data from these assessments to better inform reading instruction. All
states reported improvement in professional development with more than
80 percent of states reporting that professional development for
reading teachers improved greatly or very greatly. Further, over 75
percent of states reported great or very great increases in the
frequency of and resources devoted to teacher professional development.
At the same time, the publishers we interviewed reported making few
significant changes to instructional materials as a result of Reading
First. While three of the four major publishers reported that they had
not made significant changes, some of these publishers stated that they
had made minor changes to their reading materials to highlight the key
instructional components of Reading First.
States awarded Reading First sub-grants to districts using a variety of
different eligibility and award criteria, and some states reported
difficulties with implementing key aspects of the program. States
varied in how they defined and established eligibility and award
criteria as permitted under Reading First. After applying eligibility
criteria, Education reported that over 3,400 school districts--or about
20 percent of all districts nationwide--were eligible to apply for
Reading First sub-grants in the states' first school year of funding.
After applying award criteria to the nearly 2,100 eligible districts
that applied, Education reported that nearly 1,200 school districts--or
about 34 percent of all eligible districts and nearly 7 percent of all
districts nationwide--received Reading First funds. With respect to
implementation difficulties, 22 states reported that it was difficult
or very difficult to help districts with reading scores that had not
improved sufficiently. Furthermore, 17 states reported that it was
either difficult or very difficult to assess how districts applied
scientifically-based reading research in choosing their reading
program.
Education officials made a variety of resources available to states
during the application and implementation process, including written
guidance and criteria, workshops, conferences, dedicated contractors
and regional technical assistance centers, as well as written feedback
from both the application review panel and annual monitoring visits.
States were generally satisfied with the various forms of Reading First
guidance and assistance they received, but Education failed to
establish controls to guard against mandating or directing curricula
and clear monitoring procedures. For example, state officials were
generally positive in characterizing the assistance they received from
Education officials and contractors, with officials from 48 states
reporting in our survey that Education staff were helpful or very
helpful in addressing states' implementation-related questions and
officials from 41 states reporting the same for the TACs. However,
Education developed no written or other formal guidance outlining
policies and procedures to guide the behavior of Education officials or
contractors in providing Reading First guidance and assistance to
states. Responses from several state officials suggest that Education
officials may have violated the statutory prohibition against mandating
or directing local curricular decisions by effectively endorsing or
directing the selection of particular Reading First programs. According
to responses to our survey, Reading First officials or contractors made
specific recommendations about reading programs and assessments to
officials in several states. Specifically, officials from 10 states
reported receiving suggestions that they eliminate specific programs or
assessments, and officials from 4 states reported receiving suggestions
to adopt specific programs or assessments. Five states also reported
receiving recommendations from Reading First officials to change some
of their proposed professional development providers. In addition,
while Education officials laid out an ambitious plan for annually
monitoring every state's implementation, Education did not develop
transparent procedures to guide its monitoring visits and, as a result,
states did not always understand monitoring procedures, timelines, and
expectations. For example, officials from one state said they were
unaware of Education's expectation that states respond to monitoring
findings, and officials from another state told us that Education
officials never responded to the justification they submitted in
response to specific monitoring findings.
We are making two recommendations to Education. First, in addition to
addressing the IG's recommendations to develop internal (1) policies
and procedures to guide program managers on when to solicit advice from
General Counsel and (2) guidance on the prohibitions imposed by section
103(b) of the Department of Education Organizing Act (DEOA), we
recommend that Education also establish control procedures to guide
departmental officials and contractors in their interactions with
states, districts, and schools. We also recommend that Education
develop and distribute guidelines regarding its monitoring procedures
so that states and districts are aware of their roles,
responsibilities, and timelines. In its comments on a draft of this
report, Education agreed with our recommendations and indicated that it
will take actions to address them.
Background:
Reading First, which was enacted as part of NCLBA, aims to assist
states and local school districts in establishing reading programs for
students in kindergarten through third grade by providing funding
through 6-year formula grants. The goal of the program is to ensure
that every student can read at grade level or above by the end of third
grade. To that end, Reading First provides funds and technical
assistance to states and school districts to implement programs
supported by scientifically-based reading research (SBRR), increase
teacher professional development based on this research, and select and
administer reading assessments to screen, diagnose, and monitor the
progress of all students. NCLBA defines SBRR as research that (1) uses
systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment;
(2) involves rigorous data analyses that test stated hypotheses and
justify general conclusions; (3) relies on measurements or
observational methods that are valid; and (4) has been accepted by a
peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts.
Further, NCLBA requires states to adopt reading programs that contain
the five essential components of reading--(1) phonemic awareness; (2)
phonics; (3) vocabulary development; (4) reading fluency, including
oral reading skills; and (5) reading comprehension strategies.[Footnote
5]
While Education has responsibility for overseeing the Reading First
program and states' implementation and compliance with statutory and
program requirements, NCLBA places restrictions on what Education
officials can require states to do. Specifically, Education is not
authorized to mandate, direct, control, or endorse any curriculum
designed to be used in elementary or secondary schools.[Footnote 6]
Further, when Education was formed in 1979, Congress was concerned
about protecting state and local responsibility for education and,
therefore, placed limits in Education's authorizing statute on the
ability of Education officials to exercise any direction, supervision,
or control over the curriculum or program of instruction, the selection
of textbooks or personnel, of any school or school system.[Footnote 7]
Every state could apply for Reading First funds, and states were
required to submit a state plan for approval that demonstrates how they
will ensure that statutory requirements will be met by districts.
Education, working in consultation with the National Institute for
Literacy (NIFL), as required in NCLBA, established an expert review
panel composed of a variety of reading experts to evaluate state plans
and recommend which plans should be approved. In these plans, states
were required to describe how they would assist districts in selecting
reading curricula supported by SBRR, valid and reliable[Footnote 8]
reading assessments, and professional development programs for K-3RD
grade teachers based on SBRR. The law does not call for Education to
approve or disapprove particular reading programs or curricula
identified in state plans. When appropriate, the peer review panel was
to also recommend clarifications or identify changes it deemed
necessary to improve the likelihood of a state plan's success. NCLBA
requires that Education approve each state's application only if it
meets the requirements set forth in the law.
Reading First allows states to reserve up to 20 percent of their funds
for professional development; technical assistance; and planning,
administrative, and reporting activities.[Footnote 9] For example,
states can use their funds to develop and implement a professional
development program to prepare K-3rd teachers in all essential
components of reading instruction. One model for supporting teachers'
reading instruction involves hiring a Reading Coach who works with
teachers to implement reading activities aligned with SBRR. Almost all
states require Reading First schools to have a Reading Coach tasked
with supporting teachers and principals with instruction, administering
assessments, and interpreting assessment data.
States that receive Reading First grants are required to conduct a
competitive sub-grant process for eligible school districts and must
distribute at least 80 percent of the federal Reading First grants they
receive to districts. NCLBA and Education guidance provides states with
flexibility to set eligibility criteria for school districts so that
eligible districts are among those in the state that have the highest
number or percentage of K-3RD grade students reading below grade level
and (1) have jurisdiction over an empowerment zone or enterprise
community,[Footnote 10] (2) have a significant number or percentage of
schools identified as in need of improvement,[Footnote 11] or (3) are
among the districts in the state that have the highest number or
percentages of children counted as poor and school-aged for the
purposes of Title I.[Footnote 12] NCLBA establishes priorities that
states must consider when awarding a Reading First sub-grant, while
also allowing states to establish other priority areas. For instance,
NCLBA requires that the state sub-grant process give priority to
districts with at least 15 percent of students or 6,500 children from
families with incomes below the poverty line, but states also have some
flexibility to establish additional priorities, such as a demonstrated
commitment to improving reading achievement. The sub-grant process
along with the criteria at each stage is summarized in figure 1.
Figure 1: The Process for Awarding State Sub-grants to School
Districts:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis based on U.S. Department of Education guidance.
[End of figure]
Districts are required to use their sub-grant funds to carry out
certain activities identified in NCLBA. For example, districts must use
these funds to select and implement reading programs based on SBRR that
include the essential components of reading instruction, to select and
implement diagnostic reading assessment tools, and to provide
professional development opportunities for teachers. Additionally,
districts are permitted to use Reading First funds in support of other
activities, such as training parents and tutors in the essential
components of reading instruction.
States are required to report to Education annually on the
implementation of Reading First, including their progress in reducing
the number of students who are reading below grade level. Additionally,
states are required to submit a mid-point progress report to Education
at the end of the third year of the grant period. These mid-point
progress reports are subject to review by the same expert peer review
panel that evaluated state applications. If Education determines, after
submission and panel review of a state's mid-point progress report and
on the basis of ongoing Education monitoring, that a state is not
making significant progress, Education has the discretion to withhold
further Reading First grant payments from that state. While these state
reports to Education are intended to provide information on the
effectiveness of Reading First, Education is also required to contract
with an independent organization outside Education for a rigorous and
scientifically-valid, 5-year, national evaluation of the program, with
a final report scheduled to be issued in 2007.
The Reading First program has relied on several key contractors to
perform a number of program functions. For example, Education officials
hired RMC Research Corporation, a company that provides research,
evaluation, and related services to educational and human services
clients, to provide technical assistance to states and districts that
have received Reading First funding. According to Education officials,
RMC contractors were tasked initially with providing specific,
individualized guidance on the application process to state officials
who requested it. RMC later became the national coordinator for the
contract overseeing the National Center for Reading First Technical
Assistance and its three regional subsidiaries: the Eastern Regional
Reading First Technical Assistance Center (ERRFTAC) in Tallahassee,
Florida; the Central Regional Reading First Technical Assistance Center
(CRRFTAC) in Austin, Texas; and the Western Regional Reading First
Technical Assistance Center (WRRFTAC) in Eugene, Oregon. In this role,
RMC staff provides support to the TACs and their employees, as well as
weekly coordination among the TACs, and regular training seminars.
Operated out of universities recognized by Education officials for
their expertise in SBRR and related areas, the centers began operations
in 2003 and are responsible for providing an array of technical
assistance activities to states, including national and regional
conferences, training and professional development, products and
materials, and liaisons to national reading experts. Education
officials also contracted with Learning Point Associates to provide
technical assistance to states as they launched their sub-grant
competitions.
Once Reading First sub-grants had been awarded to local districts,
Education contracted with the American Institutes for Research (AIR), a
behavioral and social science research organization, to conduct annual
monitoring visits to each state. These visits incorporate sessions with
state officials, as well as visits to a few districts in each state and
are designed to assess states' and districts' compliance with their
approved plans. After each monitoring visit, AIR representatives submit
a report, including any findings of non-compliance, to Reading First
officials. Reading First officials are to forward these reports to the
cognizant state officials.
States Reported Changes as Well as Improvements in Reading Instruction
Since the Inception of Reading First:
States reported that there have been a number of changes and
improvements[Footnote 13] in reading instruction since the
implementation of Reading First. There has been an increased emphasis
on the five key components of reading,[Footnote 14] assessments, and
professional development with more classroom time being devoted to
reading activities. However, according to publishers we interviewed,
there have been limited changes to instructional material. Similarly,
many states that approved reading programs for districts to choose from
report few changes to their lists of approved programs.
States Reported That Reading Instruction Changed or Improved Following
the Implementation of Changes under Reading First:
In responding to our survey, 69 percent of all states reported great or
very great improvement in reading instruction since inception of
Reading First. One area in which states[Footnote 15] reported a change
that may have contributed to improvement of reading was the degree to
which classroom instruction explicitly incorporated the five key
components. In our survey, at least 39 states reported that Reading
First schools had incorporated each of the five required components of
reading into curriculum to a great or very great degree as a result of
Reading First. State and local officials we talked to during some of
our site visits reinforced this opinion and in particular noted that
Reading First teachers had awareness of and were more focused on the
five components. In addition, the increased time devoted to reading
activities under Reading First may have contributed to improvement.
Several district officials we met with told us they were including a
protected, uninterrupted block of time for reading instruction of 90
minutes or more per day--which the department's Guidance for the
Reading First Program lists as a key element of an effective reading
program. Education's Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Interim
Report (The Interim Report)[Footnote 16] also found that Reading First
teachers reported allocating over 90 minutes per day, on average, for a
designated reading block.
States officials reported improvement in reading instruction resulting
from the use of assessments.[Footnote 17] In responding to our survey,
one state official said, "One of the strengths of the Reading First
program has been its strong adherence to SBRR and to the use of valid
and reliable assessments in guiding instruction and program
evaluation." A number of state and local officials we interviewed
reported that the use of assessments changed after Reading First,
especially in the way that teachers use data from these assessments to
better inform reading instruction. Specifically, district officials we
talked to during our site visits reported that teachers review
students' assessment results to determine the areas in which they need
more targeted instruction. One official also reported that assessment
data can sometimes be used to identify successful teachers from whom
other teachers can learn teaching techniques, with one official
asserting that "Reading First has and is making a great impact on
teachers' instructional practices, techniques, and strategies." Also,
according to Education's Interim Report, researchers estimated that 83
percent of Reading First teachers cited assessment results essential to
organizing instructional groups, 85 percent cited the results essential
to determining progress on skills, and 75 percent cited the results
essential to identifying students who need reading intervention.
According to our survey, most states also reported that the assessments
they used differed greatly or very greatly from the ones they used
prior to Reading First. States reported a wide variety of reading
assessments on their state-approved lists, with over 40 different
assessments listed. By far, the most frequently approved assessment was
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), approved by
45 states. Also, a few states reported to us that they were moving
toward a more uniform systematic assessment system for the first time,
whereas previously each school could choose which assessment it would
use. Some state and district officials told us that having a more
uniform and systematic assessment was beneficial, because, for
instance, it allowed the officials to track and compare reading scores
more easily.
Professional development is another area in which state officials noted
improvement. All states reported improvement in professional
development as a result of Reading First, with at least 41 states
reporting that professional development for reading teachers improved
greatly or very greatly in each of five key instructional areas.
Further, a considerable majority of states reported great or very great
increases in the frequency of professional development and the
resources devoted to it, 45 and 39, respectively. One state reported,
"The provision of funding to be used to support statewide professional
development efforts for K-3 reading has been an important aspect of the
program." The Interim Report on the Reading First program highlights
that a vast majority of Reading First teachers had received training on
the five key components of reading. In our site-visits, district
officials confirmed that, for the most part, teachers in their Reading
First classrooms had received training. However, in responding to our
survey, 19 states did report some challenges in training of 100 percent
of Reading First teachers, with teacher turnover cited by 12 states as
the reason some Reading First teachers might not have taken any type of
Reading First training. Figure 2 summarizes reported improvements in
professional development for teachers.
Figure 2: Improvements in Professional Development for Reading First
Teachers:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Professional development was provided by a variety of federal, state,
and private sources. Staff from the TACs and officials from at least
one state reported providing professional development to districts
customized to the individual district's needs and perceived future
needs. Education's Interim Report on Reading First implementation noted
that state Reading First coordinators in 33 states reported that state
staff chose and organized all statewide professional development
efforts and played a key role in selecting professional development
topics for districts and schools. In addition, publishers we spoke with
told us they often provide training to acclimate teachers to their
products. Certain publishers of major commercial reading programs and
assessments told us that since the implementation of Reading First,
districts demand much more training. Specifically, according to some of
the publishers and TAC staff we spoke with, districts have been
interested in more in-depth workshops on particular topics such as
teaching techniques and using and interpreting assessments.
Finally, another aspect of professional development pertinent to
Reading First is the presence of a Reading Coach. State and district
officials reported that Reading Coaches receive training that better
enables them to assist schools. Education's Interim Report found that
each Reading Coach worked with an average of 1.2 schools and with 21
teachers to help implement activities aligned with SBRR.
Publishers Reported Making Few Changes to Reading Programs, and States
Reported Adopting a Variety of Approaches to Select Reading Programs:
Three of the four major publishers of reading programs we spoke with
reported that they had not made significant changes to the content of
their reading programs as a result of Reading First. Two publishers
stated that they made minor changes to their reading materials to make
more explicit how the content of the existing programs align with the
five components emphasized in Reading First. Two of them reported that
they made changes to their programs based on the National Reading
Panel's findings, which was prior to the enactment of Reading First.
For example, representatives of one company stated that they launched a
new reading program based on the findings of the National Reading Panel
that takes into account the requirements of Reading First. Despite
limited changes to the actual instructional material, all the
publishers noted a greater emphasis on assessing the efficacy of their
reading programs as a result of Reading First. In an effort to measure
the effectiveness of their programs, the publishers reported devoting
more effort to research and to evaluate how effective their reading
programs were at raising reading assessment scores.
States followed two main approaches in selecting reading programs for
districts --22 identified a state-approved list of programs for
districts to select, while the other 29 did not have a state-approved
list, thereby requiring districts in those states to self-select
reading programs and determine, with some state oversight and subject
to state approval, whether they satisfy the requirements of SBRR. Of
the 22 states with approved lists, reading program publishers most
frequently represented on the lists were Houghton Mifflin, McGraw-Hill,
and Harcourt (see table 1). At the school level, Education found in its
Interim Report that these three reading program publishers were also
the most frequently used, estimating that between 11 and 23 percent of
schools used programs from one of them.
Table 1: Reading Program Publishers Most Frequently Represented on
States' Approved Lists:
Publisher name: Houghton Mifflin[A];
Number of states: 21.
Publisher name: McGraw-Hill-Education[B];
Number of states: 21.
Publisher name: Harcourt[C];
Number of states: 19.
Publisher name: Pearson[D];
Number of states: 15.
Publisher name: Success for All Foundation "Success for All";
Number of states: 11.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] Because some states listed publisher (parent company) names instead
of reading program names, our analysis will only reflect overall totals
based on publisher names. "The Nation's Choice," a program published by
Houghton Mifflin, would be included in this category.
[B] McGraw-Hill Education includes SRA-"Open Court," SRA-"Reading
Mastery," and "MacMillan McGraw-Hill Reading."
[C] Harcourt, Inc. publishing includes "Trophies."
[D] Pearson Scott Foresman includes "Scott Foresman Reading," "Longman
ESL," and "Scott Foresman Reading Street."
[End of table]
Additionally, of the 22 states that identified a list of approved core
reading programs[Footnote 18] for Reading First, 8 already had a list
of approved core reading programs for adoption by all schools in their
state prior to Reading First. Only two of these states reported
removing reading programs--a total of six--from their lists because
they did not meet Reading First requirements. According to Education's
Interim Report, an estimated 39 percent of Reading First schools
reported adopting a new core reading program at the beginning of the
2004-2005 school year in which they received their Reading First grant,
in contrast with an estimated 16 percent of non-Reading First Title I
schools.
States used a variety of sources to help them identify and select
reading programs that met Reading First's criteria. For example, 15 of
the 22 states with state-approved lists reported using the Consumer's
Guide to Evaluating A Core Reading Program Grades K-3: A Critical
Elements Analysis to make this decision.[Footnote 19] Other frequently
used resources include criteria in the state's application for Reading
First, information obtained at Reading First Leadership
Academies[Footnote 20] provided by Education, and other states'
approved lists. Based on responses to our survey, the table below
summarizes approaches states used to develop their approved lists (see
table 2).
Table 2: Approaches States Used to Develop Their Approved Lists:
Approaches: Conducted review of reading programs using A Consumer's
Guide to Evaluating a Core Reading Program (Kame'enui & Simmons);
Number of states: 15.
Approaches: Conducted review of reading programs using criteria
outlined in your state's Reading First application;
Number of states: 12.
Approaches: Based on information obtained during Reading First
Leadership Academies;
Number of states: 8.
Approaches: Adopted reading programs from another state's approved
list(s);
Number of states: 7.
Approaches: Used existing textbook adoption list;
Number of states: 6.
Approaches: Requested a Reading First Technical Assistance Center
review of reading programs;
Number of states: 3.
Approaches: Based on recommendation from U.S. Department of Education
officials;
Number of states: 2.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Based on our survey results, 25 of the 29 states reporting that they
did not have a list of approved core reading programs said they
provided guidance for districts and schools to identify core reading
programs. Fifteen of these states reported directing districts and
schools to conduct a review of reading programs using A Consumer's
Guide to Evaluating a Core Reading Program. Other states reported
providing a variety of guidance to districts to help them select
reading programs supported by SBRR, including referring them to the
approved lists of other states and reviews conducted by academic
experts.
States Awarded Reading First Sub-Grants to School Districts Using a
Variety of Different Criteria, and Some States Reported Difficulties
with Implementation:
States varied in how they exercised their flexibility to set additional
eligibility and award criteria as allowed by the Reading First program,
and some states reported difficulty with implementing key aspects of
the Reading First program while other states did not. In the areas in
which they were given flexibility, states used a variety of criteria
for determining eligibility and in awarding sub-grants to eligible
districts, such as awarding grants to districts that had previously
received federal reading dollars. Education reported that over 3,400
school districts were eligible to apply for Reading First sub-grants in
the states' first school year of funding.[Footnote 21],[Footnote 22] Of
these districts, nearly 2,100 applied for and nearly 1,200 received
Reading First sub-grants in the states' first school year of funding.
In addition, 22 states reported that it was difficult or very difficult
to help districts with reading scores that had not improved
sufficiently. On the other hand, 28 states reported that it was easy or
very easy to determine whether districts' applications met criteria for
awarding sub-grants.
States Varied in How they Exercised Their Flexibility to Set Additional
School District Sub-grant Eligibility and Award Criteria:
States varied in how they exercised their flexibility to set school
district eligibility criteria for sub-grants. The Reading First program
provides states with some flexibility to define eligibility criteria
within the statutory guidelines. For instance, while Reading First
requires that states target districts with students in kindergarten
through third grade reading below grade level, states have flexibility
to set eligibility criteria based on the percentage and/or number of
these students within districts. While 34 states reported electing to
base eligibility on a percentage of schools with students reading below
grade level, 18 states reported electing to base eligibility on a
number of students reading below grade level.[Footnote 23] After
applying eligibility criteria, Education reported that states
determined that over 3,400 school districts were eligible to apply for
Reading First sub-grants for states' first school year of funding, or
about 20 percent of all school districts nationwide. However, the
percentage of eligible districts varied greatly across the states,
ranging from about 3 to 93 percent.
Of those districts eligible to apply, 62 percent, or nearly 2,100
districts, did so, as summarized in figure 3 below. States reported a
variety of reasons why eligible school districts did not apply such as
the prescriptive nature of the program, differences in educational
philosophy, and inadequate resources for the application process. For
example, officials from a few states reported that some districts did
not have the capacity to write the grant application. An official from
one state reported that some districts did not have the time and the
staff to complete the sub-grant process. Furthermore, an official from
another state reported that the application process was too lengthy and
time-consuming to complete.
Nineteen states reported in our survey that they exercised flexibility
in establishing priorities when awarding Reading First sub-grants.
States set a variety of additional priorities for awarding grants to
school districts. For instance, six states reported that they gave
priority to districts that already had other grants, such as Early
Reading First grants,[Footnote 24] or indicated that they could somehow
use their Reading First funds in combination with other resources to
maximize the number of students reading at grade level. In contrast,
two states gave priority to districts that had not received other grant
funding. In addition, two states gave priority to districts based on
the population of Native Americans or students with limited English
proficiency. After applying selection criteria, states awarded Reading
First sub-grants to about 34 percent or nearly 1,200 school districts
for states' first school year of funding. This represented about 56
percent of the 2,100 eligible districts that applied and nearly 7
percent of all school districts nationwide for states' first school
year of funding (see fig. 3).
Figure 3: All School Districts Nationwide That Were Eligible for, That
Applied for, and Were Awarded Reading First Sub-grants in the First
School Year of Funding:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis based on U.S. Department of Education data.
[End of figure]
Some States Reported Difficulty Implementing Key Aspects of the
Program:
Some states reported difficulty in implementing key aspects of the
Reading First program. Twenty-two states reported that it was either
difficult or very difficult to help districts with reading scores that
had not improved sufficiently.[Footnote 25] Officials from one state
said that this was difficult because it requires close examination of
students reading deficiencies and the commitment of school leadership.
Officials from another state reported some difficulty in improving
selected reading skills of students with limited English proficiency,
which are concentrated in pockets around the state. Seventeen states
reported that it was either difficult or very difficult to assess how
districts applied SBRR in choosing their reading program. Finally,
seven states reported difficulty implementing four or more of six key
program aspects listed in our survey and shown in figure 4. Officials
from one of these states told us that the difficulty with
implementation was due to the newness of the program for which
everything had to be developed from scratch.
On the other hand, states reported ease implementing other key aspects.
In particular, 28 states reported that it was easy or very easy to
determine whether districts' applications met criteria for awarding sub-
grants. For example, states are required to determine whether districts
will adhere to the key components of the program, such as developing a
professional development program or using reading assessments to gauge
performance. Several states we interviewed suggested that it was easy
to make this determination because some of the Reading First
requirements were already in place in their states before Reading First
was implemented. For example, some state officials we interviewed
mentioned using reading assessments prior to Reading First. In
addition, officials in one state told us that they already had a
professional development program in place to train teachers on the
state's reading program. Twenty-four states reported that it was easy
or very easy to identify reading programs based on SBRR.
Figure 4: States Level of Ease or Difficulty Implementing Key Reading
First Program Aspects:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Education Provided a Wide Range of Guidance, Assistance, and Oversight,
Generally Satisfying State Officials, but Education Lacked Controls to
Guard against Mandating or Endorsing Curricula and Did Not Provide
Written Monitoring Procedures:
Education officials provided states a wide variety of guidance,
assistance, and oversight, but Education lacked written procedures to
guide its interactions with the states and provided limited information
on its monitoring procedures. Education's guidance and assistance
included written guidance, preparatory workshops, feedback during the
application process, and feedback from monitoring visits. Additionally,
guidance and assistance were provided by Education's contractors,
including the regional technical assistance centers. For the most part,
state officials characterized the guidance and assistance they received
from Education officials and contractors, especially the regional
technical assistance centers, as being helpful or very helpful, and
many also reported relying on the expertise of Reading First officials
in other states. However, Education lacked controls to ensure that its
officials did not endorse or otherwise mandate or direct states to
adopt particular reading curricula. For example, according to state
officials, Education officials and contractors made suggestions to some
states to adopt or eliminate certain reading programs, assessments, or
professional development providers. In addition, some state officials
reported a lack of clarity about key aspects of the annual monitoring
process, including time frames and expectations of states in responding
to monitoring findings.
Education Provided a Wide Range of Guidance and Assistance:
Education provided a variety of written and informal guidance and
assistance to states to help them prepare their applications. For
example, three months after the enactment of NCLBA in January 2002,
Education issued two key pieces of written guidance to states
pertaining to the Reading First program and grant application process:
the Guidance for the Reading First Program and Criteria for Review of
State Applications. Education officials also sponsored three Reading
Leadership Academies in the early part of 2002. The Academies were
forums for state education officials to obtain information and build
their capacity to implement key aspects of the Reading First program,
including professional development and the application of SBRR.
Education contracted with RMC Research Corporation to provide technical
assistance to states related to the grant application process. States
reported seeking guidance from RMC on various aspects of the Reading
First application, in particular the use of instructional assessments
(17 states) and instructional strategies and programs (14 states).
Throughout the application process, both Education and RMC officials
were available to address states' questions. In particular, Education
officials provided feedback to states on the results of expert review
panel evaluations of their applications. Consequently, a large number
of states reported that Education required them to address issues in
their applications, most commonly related to the use of instructional
assessments (33 states) and instructional strategies and programs (25
states). See figure 5 for issues raised about state applications. Forty-
eight states reported that they needed to modify their application at
least once, and 27 reported modifying them three or more times.
Figure : Issues Education Raised About States' Reading First
Applications:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Once grants were awarded, Education continued to provide assistance and
contracted with RMC Research to oversee three regional TACs to help
states implement Reading First. RMC established three TACs affiliated
with state university centers in Florida, Texas, and Oregon, which RMC
and TAC officials told us were selected based on their expertise in one
or more areas central to the success of the Reading First program, such
as professional development or reading assessment. Each technical
assistance center was responsible for providing comprehensive support
to each of the states in its geographic region (see fig. 6). States
reported that they looked to these centers for guidance on a variety of
issues, especially creating professional development criteria, using
reading assessments, and helping districts with reading scores that had
not improved sufficiently. According to TAC staff, some of the most
common requests they receive pertain to the use and interpretation of
assessment data and use of Reading Coaches. TAC staff also told us that
they catalog recurring issues or problems.
Figure 6: Geographic Regions for Reading First Regional Technical
Assistance Centers:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Department of Education.
[End of figure]
In addition, according to one RMC official and some state officials,
the TACs provided support to states during implementation to help them
supplement their capacity and expertise in evaluating whether or not
reading programs proposed by districts were based on SBRR. For
instance, staff from the TAC in Florida explained that some states in
their region had asked for assistance in evaluating reading programs
that had been in use prior to Reading First to gauge their compliance
with the requirements of Reading First. Staff from the TAC emphasized
that in reviewing these reading programs, they used the criteria in
each state's approved state plan as the criteria for determining
compliance with Reading First requirements. Officials in one state
explained that while the staff at their state educational agency (SEA)
possessed the knowledge necessary to conduct reviews of reading
programs, scarce state staff resources would have made it difficult to
conclude the reviews in the short time frame available. Though
Education officials were aware of and initially condoned the TAC review
process, Education officials advised all TACs to discontinue reviews of
programs--to avoid the appearance of impropriety--after allegations
were raised about Reading First officials expressing preference for
specific reading programs. (Table 3 provides a summary of the types of
guidance and assistance provided by Education and its contractors.)
Table 3: Guidance and Assistance Provided to States during Application
and Implementation Processes:
Source: Final Guidance for the Reading First Program and Criteria for
Review of State Applications;
Type: Written guidance;
Purpose: Interpreting the provisions of NCLBA authorizing the Reading
First program and providing guidance on the criteria review panel
members would be using in evaluating states' applications;
Time frame: Application process.
Source: Reading Leadership Academies;
Type: Workshops;
Purpose: Helping states master key features of the Reading First
program, in particular the application of SBRR in classroom and
professional development activities;
Time frame: Application process.
Source: RMC Research technical assistance providers;
Type: Technical assistance;
Purpose: Providing technical assistance to states including training in
SBRR;
Time frame: Application process.
Source: Regional Reading First Technical Assistance Centers;
Type: Technical assistance;
Purpose: Providing guidance to states about conducting their district
sub-grant competitions, delivering training, assistance, and related
materials in response to requests from state- level Reading First
officials, and training including annual workshops for states;
Time frame: Implementation process.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
During the application and implementation phases of the Reading First
program, many states came to rely on other unofficial sources of
guidance, including other states' Reading First officials, in addition
to the written guidance provided by Education. For example, as noted
earlier, among the 22 states that had an approved list of reading
programs for Reading First districts, 15 reported using A Consumer's
Guide to Evaluating a Core Reading Program to assist them in reviewing
potential reading programs. In addition, officials from 21 states
reported that other states' Reading First Coordinators provided great
or very great help during the Reading First state grant application
process. Further, a number of state officials reported using the
information from other states' websites, such as approved reading
programs, to help inform their own decisions pertaining to the
selection of reading programs. One state official explained, "With our
limited infrastructure and dollars, we were never able to muster the
resources needed to run an in-house programs review," and further that,
"It worked well for us to use the programs and materials review results
from larger states that ran rigorous review processes." Another state
official reported that the state did not feel equipped to apply the
principles of SBRR in evaluating reading programs and responded by
comparing one state's review and subsequent list of reading programs to
those of a few other states to make judgments about allowable programs.
States Were Generally Satisfied with the Guidance and Assistance
Available to Them:
Most states reported making use of and being satisfied with the primary
sources of guidance available to them over the course of the Reading
First application and implementation processes. For example, 46 states
reported making use of the two key pieces of Education's written
guidance in preparing their Reading First applications. A majority of
states also reported that these pieces of guidance provided them with
the information needed to adequately address each of the key
application components. For example, over 40 states reported that the
guidance related to the definition of sub-grant eligibility and
selection criteria for awarding sub-grants helped them adequately
address these areas in their application. However, officials in eight
states reported that the guidance on the use of instructional
assessments did not provide them with the information needed to
adequately address this area. (See fig. 7.)
Figure 7: States' Assessment of Whether Written Guidance Provided
Information Needed to Adequately Address Application Components:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Overall, most state officials were also satisfied with the level of
assistance they received from Education staff and their contractors in
addressing issues related to the Reading First application and
implementation processes. For example, state officials in 39 states
reported that Education staff were of great or very great help during
the application or implementation process. Additionally, officials from
48 states reported that Education officials were helpful or very
helpful in addressing states' implementation-related questions, which
frequently dealt with using reading assessments and helping districts
with reading scores that had not improved sufficiently. A number of
state officials reported to us that they appreciated the guidance and
attention they received from Reading First officials at Education. For
example, one state Reading First Coordinator reported, "the U.S.
Department of Education personnel have been wonderful through the
process of implementing Reading First. I can't say enough about how
accessible and supportive their assistance has been." Another state
official remarked that the state's efforts to make reading improvements
"would have been impossible without their [Education officials and
contractors] guidance and support." Even officials from one state who
had a disagreement with Education over its suggestion to eliminate a
certain reading program characterized most of the guidance they
received from Reading First officials as "excellent." However, one
state official reported feeling that the technical assistance workshops
have served as conduits for Education officials to send messages about
the specific reading programs and assessments they prefer. Another
state official reported that, "core programs and significant progress
have not been defined" and that "SBRR programs are not clearly
designated."
According to responses obtained to our survey, the three TACs also
provided a resource for states seeking advice on issues pertaining to
the implementation of their Reading First programs. Specifically, 41
states cited the Centers as helpful or very helpful in addressing
states' inquiries related to the implementation of Reading First. In
addition, on a variety of key implementation components, more state
officials reported seeking information from their regional TACs than
they did from Education officials (see table 4).
Table 4: States' Reported Sources of Guidance for Key Reading First
Implementation Components:
Implementation component: Creating professional development criteria;
Number of states seeking guidance or assistance from Education and the
TACs: Education: 6;
Number of states seeking guidance or assistance from Education and the
TACs: TACs: 41.
Implementation component: Identifying reading programs based on SBRR;
Number of states seeking guidance or assistance from Education and the
TACs: Education: 9;
Number of states seeking guidance or assistance from Education and the
TACs: TACs: 24.
Implementation component: Assessing how districts applied principles of
SBRR;
Number of states seeking guidance or assistance from Education and the
TACs: Education: 10;
Number of states seeking guidance or assistance from Education and the
TACs: TACs: 29.
Implementation component: Using reading assessments;
Number of states seeking guidance or assistance from Education and the
TACs: Education: 20;
Number of states seeking guidance or assistance from Education and the
TACs: TACs: 40.
Implementation component: Helping districts with reading scores that
have not improved sufficiently;
Number of states seeking guidance or assistance from Education and the
TACs: Education: 12;
Number of states seeking guidance or assistance from Education and the
TACs: TACs: 36.
Implementation component: Other implementation issues related to
approving district applications;
Number of states seeking guidance or assistance from Education and the
TACs: Education: 18;
Number of states seeking guidance or assistance from Education and the
TACs: TACs: 20.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Education Lacked Written Procedures to Guide Its Interactions with
States:
We found that Education developed no written guidance, policies, or
procedures to direct or train Education officials or contractors
regarding their interactions with the states. Federal agencies are
required under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of
1982[Footnote 26] to establish and maintain internal controls to
provide a reasonable assurance that agencies achieve objectives of
effective and efficient operations, reliable financial reporting, and
compliance with applicable laws and regulations.[Footnote 27] When
executed effectively, internal controls work to ensure compliance with
applicable laws and regulations by putting in place an effective set of
policies, procedures, and related training. We found that Education had
not developed written guidance or training to guide managers on how to
implement and comply with statutory provisions prohibiting Education
officials from directing or endorsing state and local curricular
decisions. Department officials told us that it was their practice that
program managers should consult the Office of General Counsel if they
had questions regarding interactions with grantees. Reading First
officials told us that it was their approach to approve each state's
method and rationale for reviewing or selecting reading programs as
outlined in each state's plan and that state compliance with program
requirements, including adherence to the principles of SBRR, would then
be assessed using the provisions of these plans as the criteria.
Similarly, officials from Education's contractors responsible for
conducting monitoring visits told us that they were instructed by
Education to use state plans as the criteria for gauging states'
compliance with Reading First reading program requirements, but that
they were provided no formal written guidance or training. A senior
Education attorney who is currently working with Reading First program
officials told us that he was not aware that they had used this
approach and that he felt that the statutory requirements should also
play an important role in the monitoring process. Following the
publication of the IG's report in September, Education's Office of
General Counsel has provided training to senior management on internal
control requirements and has begun working with the Reading First
office to develop procedures to guide the department's activities.
Despite the statutory prohibition against mandating or endorsing
curricula and the department's stated approach to rely on state plans,
and the processes articulated in them, to assess compliance, states
reported to us several instances in which Reading First officials or
contractors appeared to intervene to influence their selection of
reading programs and assessments. For example, officials from four
states reported receiving suggestions from Education or its contractors
to adopt specific reading programs or assessments. Specifically, two
states reported that it was suggested that they adopt a particular
reading assessment. Similarly, Education's first IG report also
documented one instance in which Reading First officials at Education
worked in concert with state consultants to ensure that a particular
reading program was included on that state's list of approved reading
programs.[Footnote 28]
In addition, states reported that Education officials or contractors
suggested that they eliminate specific reading programs or assessments
related to Reading First. Specifically, according to our survey
results, officials from 10 states reported receiving suggestions that
they eliminate specific programs or assessments. In some cases, the
same program was cited by officials from more than one state. In one
instance, state officials reported that Education officials alerted
them that expert reviewers objected to a reading program that was under
consideration but not named explicitly in the state's application. An
official from a different state reported receiving suggestions from
Education officials to eliminate a certain reading program, adding that
Education's justification was that it was not aligned with SBRR. In
another instance, state officials pointed out that they had adopted a
program that was approved by other states, according to the procedures
in their approved state plan, but were told by Education officials that
it should be removed from their list and that Education would
subsequently take a similar course of action with regard to those other
states as well. Also, Education officials did not always rely on the
criteria found in state plans as the basis for assessing compliance. We
found, for example, one summary letter of findings from a monitoring
report in which Education officials wrote that "Two of the monitored
districts were implementing reading programs that did not appear to be
aligned with scientifically based reading research." Officials we spoke
to in that state told us that they did not feel that they had been
assessed on the basis of the procedures outlined in the state's plan,
but rather that the reading program itself was being called into
question. The IG also found that Reading First officials communicated
to several states against the use of certain reading programs or
assessments, including Rigby and Reading Recovery.
Officials from a few states also reported being contacted by Education
regarding district Reading First applications or reading programs. For
example, officials from four states reported being contacted by an
Education official about a district application under consideration and
one of those states also reported being approached by staff from one of
the regional technical assistance centers or another contractor for the
same reason. Officials from each of these states indicated that the
reason they were contacted stemmed from the reading programs being used
by the districts in question. In a few cases, state officials reported
being contacted by Education officials regarding the state's acceptance
of a reading program or assessment that was not in compliance with
Reading First. In one instance, state officials reported that Education
contacted them outside of the normal monitoring process after they had
obtained information from a national Reading First database maintained
by a non-profit research organization that districts in the state were
using a specific reading program.
Five states also reported receiving recommendations from Reading First
officials or contractors to change some of the professional development
providers proposed in their original grant applications. When asked
about the specific providers identified for elimination, three of the
states indicated that the providers identified for elimination were in-
state experts. In one case, a state was told that the review panel
cited a lack of detail about the qualifications of the state's proposed
professional development consultants.
We also found that while Education officials laid out an ambitious plan
to annually monitor every state, they failed to develop written
procedures guiding its monitoring visits. For example, Education did
not establish timelines for submitting final reports to states
following monitoring visits, specifically how and when state officials
were expected to follow up with Education officials regarding findings
from the monitoring visits. As a result, states did not always
understand monitoring response procedures, timelines, and expectations.
While we found that most state officials we spoke with understood that
they were to be monitored with the use of their state plans as the
criteria, they did not always understand what was required of them when
responding to monitoring findings. For example, one state official
reported being unaware that the state was supposed to respond to
Education officials about findings from its monitoring report. An
official from another state maintained that he/she was unclear about
the process the state was to follow to respond to findings, and that no
timeline for responding was provided to him/her. Furthermore, one state
reported that findings were not delivered in a timely manner, and
another state reported that Education did not address the state's
responses to the monitoring findings. Key aspects of an effective
monitoring program include communicating to individuals responsible for
the function any deficiencies found during the monitoring.
Conclusions:
The Reading First program, according to state coordinators, has brought
about changes and improvements to the way teachers, administrators, and
other education professionals approach reading instruction for children
in at-risk, low-performing schools during the critical years between
kindergarten and third grade. To assist states in implementing this
large, new federal reading initiative, Education has provided a wide
range of guidance, assistance, and oversight, that, for the most part,
states have found helpful. However, Education failed to develop
comprehensive written guidance and procedures to ensure that its
interactions with states complied with statutory provisions.
Specifically, Education lacked an adequate set of controls to ensure
that Reading First's requirements were followed, while at the same time
ensuring that it did not intervene into state and local curricular
decisions. We concur with the Education IG's recommendations that the
Department develop a set of internal procedures to ensure that federal
statutes and regulations are followed and we feel it is important for
the Secretary to follow up on these recommendations to ensure that they
are properly implemented. Additionally, we feel it is important for the
department to have clear procedures in place to guide departmental
officials in their dealings with state and local officials. While
Education's stated approach was to rely on state plans as its criteria
for enforcing Reading First's requirements, states reported several
instances in which it appears that Education officials did attempt to
direct or endorse state and local curricular decisions. Such actions
would prevent states from exercising their full authority under the law
and would violate current statutory restrictions. Balancing Reading
First's requirements and the limits placed on the department requires
Education to have clear, explicit, and well-documented procedures to
guide its interactions with the states. Failure to do so places the
department at risk of violating the law and leaves it vulnerable to
allegations of favoritism.
Additionally, while Education's annual monitoring effort for Reading
First is ambitious, it did not provide clear guidelines and procedures
to states. As a result, states were not always aware of their roles and
responsibilities in responding to findings of non-compliance, and
Education was not always consistent in its procedures to follow up with
states to resolve findings and let states know if they had taken proper
actions. Key aspects of an effective monitoring program include
transparency and consistency. Letting all states know in a timely
manner whether or not their plans to address deficiencies are adequate
is important to ensure that findings are dealt with in an appropriate,
timely and clear manner.
Recommendations:
In addition to addressing the IG's recommendations to develop internal
(1) policies and procedures to guide program managers on when to
solicit advice from General Counsel and (2) guidance on the
prohibitions imposed by section 103(b) of the DEOA, we recommend that,
in order to ensure that the department complies with statutory
prohibitions against directing, mandating, or endorsing state and local
curricular decisions, the Secretary of Education also establish control
procedures to guide departmental officials and contractors in their
interactions with states, districts, and schools.
In addition, to help the department conduct effective monitoring of the
Reading First program, we recommend that the Secretary of Education
establish and disseminate clear procedures governing the Reading First
monitoring process. In particular, Education should delineate states'
rights and responsibilities and establish timelines and procedures for
addressing findings.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education and
received written comments from the agency. In its comments, included as
appendix III of this report, Education agreed with our recommendations
and indicated that it will take actions to address them.
Specifically, Education said it will provide written guidance to all
departmental staff to remind them of the importance of impartiality in
carrying out their duties and not construing program statutes to
authorize the department to mandate, direct, or control curriculum and
instruction, except to the extent authorized by law. On February 7,
2007, the Secretary of Education issued a memorandum to senior officers
reminding them that it is important to maintain objectivity, fairness,
and professionalism when carrying out their duties. The Secretary's
memorandum also emphasizes the importance of adhering to the statutory
prohibitions against mandating, directing, and controlling curriculum
and instruction, and strongly encourages managers to consult with
Education's Office of General Counsel early on to identify and resolve
potential legal issues. Also, according to Education's written comments
on our draft report and the Secretary's February 7, 2007, memorandum to
senior officers, annual training will be required on internal controls
and this training will address statutory prohibitions against
mandating, directing or controlling local curriculum and instruction
decisions.
Regarding its monitoring process for Reading First, in its comments,
Education said that it will develop and disseminate guidelines to
states outlining the goals and purposes of its monitoring efforts,
revise the monitoring protocols, and develop timelines and procedures
on states' rights and responsibilities for addressing monitoring
findings. Education also included in its response a summary of its
actions and planned actions to address recommendations from the
department's Office of Inspector General's recent report on the
implementation of the Reading First program.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Education,
and other interested parties. Copies will also be made available upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any
questions about the report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who
made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objective was to answer the following questions: (1) What changes
have occurred to reading instruction since the inception of Reading
First? (2) What criteria have states used to award Reading First sub-
grants to districts, and what, if any, difficulty did states face in
implementing the program? (3) What guidance, assistance, and oversight
did Education provide states related to the Reading First program? To
answer these questions, we collected both qualitative and quantitative
information about the Reading First program from a variety of sources.
We conducted a Web-based survey of the Reading First Directors in all
50 states and the District of Columbia. We also obtained and analyzed
data from the Department of Education for each state on Reading First
districts' eligibility, applications and awards for states' first
school year of funding. The first school year of funding varied across
states. Twenty-five states received their first year of funding in the
2002-2003 school year. Twenty-five states received their first year of
funding in the 2003-2004 school year. To assess the reliability of this
data, we talked to agency officials about data quality control
procedures and reviewed relevant documentation. We excluded two states
because of reporting inconsistencies, but determined that the data for
the other states were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this
report. We also conducted semi-structured follow-up interviews with
Reading First Directors in 12 states, mostly over the telephone. We
conducted site visits to 4 of the 12 states. During the site visits, we
met with state officials, local program administrators, and state-level
technical assistance providers, as well as school officials from
individual schools, including teachers, principals, and Reading First
coaches. In identifying local sub-grant recipients to meet with in each
state, we sought to incorporate the perspectives of urban, rural, and
suburban school districts. We selected the 12 states to have diversity
in a variety of factors, including geographic distribution, grant size,
poverty rate, percentage of students reading at or below grade level,
urban and rural distinctions, the presence of a statewide list of
approved reading programs, and whether states had reported that they
received guidance from Education officials advocating for or against
particular reading programs or assessments. For both the survey and
follow-up interviews, to encourage candid responses, we promised to
provide confidentiality. As a result, state survey responses will be
provided primarily in summary form or credited to unnamed states, and
the states selected for follow-up interviews will not be specifically
identified. Furthermore, in order to adequately protect state
identities, we are unable to provide the names of particular reading
programs or assessments Education officials or contractors suggested a
state use or not use. We did not attempt to verify allegations made by
state or local officials in their survey responses or during interviews
or otherwise make any factual findings about Education's conduct.
We also visited or talked with administrators from each of the three
regional Reading First Technical Assistance Centers, located in
Florida, Texas and Oregon, as well as RMC Research, the federal
contractor tasked with administering the contract with the technical
assistance centers. We also interviewed several publishers and other
providers of reading curricula and assessments, to obtain their views
about changes Reading First has prompted in states, districts, and
schools. We chose these providers to reflect the perspectives of large,
commercial reading textbook programs that are widely represented
nationwide on states' lists of approved programs, as well as some other
selected providers of reading curricula, including some that have filed
complaints related to Reading First. We also interviewed Education
officials about the implementation of the Reading First program.
To obtain a better understanding of state program structure, as well as
the nature of interactions between Education officials and state
grantees, we reviewed state grant files, monitoring reports, and
related correspondence for the 12 states where we conducted follow-up
interviews. In addition, we reviewed NCLBA language authorizing Reading
First, as well as statements of work articulating the responsibilities
of the regional technical assistance centers and the contractor tasked
with providing assistance to states in conducting local sub-grant
competitions. We conducted our work from December 2005 through January
2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Survey of States:
To better understand state implementation of the Reading First program,
we designed and administered a Web-based survey of the Reading First
Directors in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey was
conducted between June and July 2006 with 100 percent of state Reading
First Directors responding. The survey included questions about
curriculum; professional development; and state Reading First grant
eligibility, application, award, and implementation processes. The
survey contained both closed-and open-ended questions. For the open-
ended questions, we used content analysis to classify and code the
responses from the states such as the publishers on states' approved
lists. We had two people independently code the material, then
reconciled any differences in coding. Because this was not a sample
survey, there are no sampling errors. However, the practical
difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce nonsampling errors,
such as variations in how respondents interpret questions and their
willingness to offer accurate responses. We took steps to minimize
nonsampling errors, including pre-testing draft instruments and using a
Web-based administration system. Specifically, during survey
development, we pre-tested draft instruments with one expert reviewer
and Reading First Directors in four states during April and May 2006.
In the pre-tests, we were generally interested in the clarity of the
questions and the flow and layout of the survey. For example, we wanted
to ensure definitions used in the survey were clear and known to the
respondents, categories provided in closed-ended questions were
complete and exclusive, and the ordering of survey sections and the
questions within each section was appropriate. On the basis of the pre-
tests, the Web instrument underwent some slight revisions. A second
step we took to minimize nonsampling errors was using a Web-based
survey. By allowing respondents to enter their responses directly into
an electronic instrument, this method automatically created a record
for each respondent in a data file and eliminated the need for and the
errors (and costs) associated with a manual data entry process. To
further minimize errors, programs used to analyze the survey data were
independently verified to ensure the accuracy of this work.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Descriptions of Assessment Types:
Reading First Assessment Requirements and Descriptions:
* Reading programs under Reading First must include rigorous
assessments with proven validity and reliability;
* Assessments must measure progress in the five essential components of
reading instruction and identify students who may be at risk for
reading failure or who are already experiencing reading difficulty;
* Reading programs under Reading First must include screening
assessments, diagnostic assessments, and classroom-based instructional
assessments of progress.
Assessment type: Screening;
Description: Reading programs under Reading First must include rigorous
assessments with proven validity and reliability.: Description:
Determine which children are at risk for reading difficulty and need
additional support.
Assessment type: Diagnostic;
Description: Reading programs under Reading First must include rigorous
assessments with proven validity and reliability.: Description: Provide
more in-depth information on students' skills and instructional needs;
forms the basis of intervention strategies.
Assessment type: Classroom- based instructional assessments of
progress;
Description: Reading programs under Reading First must include rigorous
assessments with proven validity and reliability.: Description:
Determine whether students are making progress and/or need more support
to achieve grade-level reading outcomes.
Source: GAO analysis based on Education guidance.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education:
United States Department Of Education:
The Deputy Secretary:
January 30, 2007:
Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Ashby:
I am writing in response to your request for comments on the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report (GAO-07-161), dated February
2007, and entitled "Reading First: States Report Improvements in
Reading Instruction, but Additional Procedures Would Clarify
Education's Role in Ensuring Proper Implementation by States." I
appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft report and provide
further information on our activities to ensure that every student can
read at grade level or above by the end of grade 3.
Your report acknowledges the changes to and improvements in reading
instruction that States indicated are occurring as a result of Reading
First's support for scientifically based reading instruction,
assessments, and professional development. According to the
Department's Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Interim Report, a
large percentage of Reading First teachers report using assessment
results for a variety of purposes: to determine progress on skills (85
percent), to organize instructional groups (83 percent), and to
identify students who need reading intervention services (75 percent).
The report indicates that all 50 States and the District of Columbia
were surveyed and that 69 percent of these jurisdictions reported great
or very great improvement in reading instruction since the inception of
Reading First. One of the key factors behind this reported improvement
is the incorporation of the five integral components of reading -
phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency,
and reading comprehension - into the curriculum. Furthermore, a number
of State and local officials indicated that the uses of assessments
changed after Reading First began, especially in the way that teachers
use data from assessments to inform reading instruction. In addition,
all of the States reported improvements in professional development,
with more than 80 percent reporting that professional development for
reading teachers improved greatly or very greatly.
Your report also demonstrates that States were satisfied with the forms
of guidance and technical assistance they received during the
application and implementation process for the Reading First program.
In addition, nearly every State reported that the Departmental staff
and technical assistance centers were helpful or very helpful in
addressing the States' implementation issues.
As your report notes, the Department's Office of Inspector General
(OIG) found, in a recent Inspection Report, that there were some
serious problems in the Department's initial implementation of the
Reading First statute. Although the Department did not agree with all
of the OIG's findings, the Department has acted quickly to implement
the specific recommendations in the OIG report. Enclosed with this
letter is a chart that details the actions that the Department has
taken in response to the Inspection Report.
Your draft report contains two specific recommendations that complement
the recommendations in the OIG's Inspection Report. The GAO
recommendations, and our responses, are as follows:
GAO Recommendation 1. In addition to addressing the IG's
recommendations to develop internal (1) policies and procedures to
guide program managers on when to solicit advice from General Counsel
and (2) guidance on prohibitions imposed by section 3403(b) of the
DEOA, we recommend that, in order to ensure that the department
complies with statutory prohibitions against directing, mandating or
endorsing state and local curricular decisions, the Secretary of
Education also establish control procedures to guide departmental
officials and contractors in their interactions with states, districts,
and schools.
Department's Response. The Department agrees with this recommendation.
We will provide written guidance in the near future to all Departmental
staff reminding them of the importance of impartiality in the
performance of their duties and of not construing program statutes to
authorize the Department to mandate, direct, or control curriculum and
instruction, except to the extent authorized by law. Integrity,
objectivity, and professionalism are critical to ensuring effective
program operations and maintaining the public's confidence in our
operation of the Department's programs.
We will also require all Department staff to have annual training on
the standards for internal controls, similar to existing annual
training requirements for ethics and for computer security, so that our
systems, processes, and behaviors provide strengthened assurance of
professional responsibility and full compliance with laws and
regulations, as well as effective and efficient operations. The
training will address provisions relating to curriculum and
instruction, and will incorporate the following general standards for
internal controls, each of which applies to the programmatic,
compliance, and financial aspects of the Department's operations -:
* Establishing and maintaining a "control environment" that sets a
positive and supportive attitude toward internal control and
conscientious management;
* Using risk assessment from both external and internal sources;
* Employing proper control activities to help ensure that management
directives are implemented;
* Providing information and fostering communication that is relevant,
reliable, and timely; and:
* Employing effective monitoring techniques at all levels to assess the
quality of performance over time.
GAO Recommendation 2. In addition, to help the department conduct
effective monitoring of the Reading First program, we recommend that
the Secretary of Education establish and disseminate clear procedures
governing the Reading First monitoring process. In particular,
Education should delineate states' rights and responsibilities and
establish timelines and procedures for addressing findings.
Department's Response. The Department agrees with this recommendation.
We have initiated discussions of monitoring issues at a recent meeting
with State Reading First Directors and staff from American Institutes
for Research (AIR), the contractor that conducts monitoring of Reading
First for the Department. The Department will be developing and
disseminating guidelines on the goals and purposes of State and
district monitoring, revising the monitoring protocols, and developing
timelines and procedures on States' rights and responsibilities for
addressing monitoring findings. We will better coordinate our
activities with States so that their responsibilities to monitor local
Reading First implementation are reinforced by Departmental monitoring.
A second meeting to implement these actions in coordination with
States, AIR, and the Reading First technical assistance contractor is
planned for early May 2007.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments and to describe
our actions and plans. Please let me know if you need additional
information regarding the implementation or administration of the
Reading First program.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Raymond Simon:
Enclosure:
Status Report On Actions Taken To Respond To OIG Inspection Report On
Reading First's Grant Application Process:
February 7, 2007:
[See PDF for slides from Department of Education]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Cornelia M. Ashby (202) 512-7215 ashbyc@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
Bryon Gordon, Assistant Director, and Tiffany Boiman, Analyst-in-
Charge, managed this engagement and made significant contributions to
all aspects of this report. Sonya Phillips, Sheranda Campbell, Janice
Ceperich, and Andrew Huddleston also made significant contributions.
Jean McSween provided methodological expertise and assistance. Sheila
McCoy and Richard Burkard delivered legal counsel and analysis.
Susannah Compton, Charlie Willson, and Scott Heacock assisted with
message and report development.
FOOTNOTES
[1] 20 U.S.C. § 7907.
[2] U.S. Department of Education Inspector General, The Reading First
Program's Grant Application Process: Final Inspection Report
(Washington D.C.: September 2006).
[3] Section 103(b) of the Department of Education Organizing Act (DEOA)
states that "No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or
by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize
the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction,
supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction,
administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school or
school system—.over the selection or content of—textbooks, or other
instructional materials by any educational institution or school
system, except to the extent authorized by law." 20 U.S.C. § 3403(b).
[4] The Reading First Program Director resigned following publication
of the Final Inspection Report.
[5] These components were identified as integral parts of effective
reading programs by the National Reading Panel, or NRP. Phonemic
awareness refers to the ability to hear, identify, and manipulate the
individual sounds--phonemes--in spoken words. Phonics refers to the
relationship between the letters of written language and the sounds of
spoken words. Vocabulary development refers to the development of
stored information about the meanings and pronunciations of words
necessary for communication. Reading fluency refers to the ability to
read text accurately and quickly. It provides a bridge between word
recognition and comprehension. Reading comprehension refers to the
understanding, remembering, and communicating with others about what
has been read.
[6] 20 U.S.C. § 7907.
[7] 20 U.S.C. § 3403.
[8] Data collected must be valid and reliable to be considered
accurate. Valid refers to the degree that it actually measures what it
claims to measure. Reliable refers to the degree to which it
consistently measures what it claims to measure.
[9] From this 20 percent, states may spend up to 65 percent on
professional development, up to 25 percent for technical assistance for
districts and schools, and up to 10 percent for planning,
administration, and reporting activities.
[10] Empowerment zones and enterprise zones are defined in 26 U.S.C. §
1392. Both are local areas of high poverty that meet certain
eligibility requirements to receive specified forms of aid or
regulatory flexibility.
[11] Under NCLBA, each state creates its own content standards,
academic achievement tests, and proficiency levels. States are required
to test all children for reading and mathematics achievement annually
in grades 3-8 to determine whether schools are making adequate yearly
progress (AYP). Districts must identify as a school in need of
improvement any school that has not made AYP for 2 consecutive years.
[12] Title I of Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended and
reauthorized by NCLBA, authorizes federal funds to help elementary and
secondary schools establish and maintain programs that will improve the
educational opportunities of economically disadvantaged children. Title
I is the largest federal program supporting education in kindergarten
through 12th grade.
[13] Education has contracted with an independent research firm to
conduct a 5-year, quantitative evaluation of the Reading First program,
evaluating the effect of Reading First activities on improving reading
instruction. In addition, in their annual reports and mid-point
evaluations, states must include their progress in reducing the number
of students in grades K-3 reading below grade level.
[14] The five key components of reading include (1) phonemic awareness;
(2) phonics; (3) vocabulary development; (4) reading fluency, including
oral reading skills; and (5) reading comprehension strategies.
[15] For the purposes of this report, the term "states" also includes
the District of Columbia.
[16] Education's "Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Interim
Report."
[17] The types of assessments are screening, diagnostic, and progress
monitoring. See appendix II for more complete descriptions of each.
[18] The Consumer's Guide to Evaluating A Core Reading Program Grades K-
3: A Critical Elements Analysis, or Consumer's Guide, describes the
core reading program concept in the following way: "A core reading
program is the primary instructional tool that teachers use to teach
children to learn to read and ensure they reach reading levels that
meet or exceed grade-level standards. The core program. . . should
serve as the primary reading program for the school and the expectation
is that all teachers within and between the primary grades will use the
core reading program as the base of reading instruction. Such programs
may or may not be commercial reading series."
[19] Deborah C. Simmons and Edward Kame'enui. A Consumer's Guide to
Evaluating A Core Reading Program Grades K-3: A Critical Elements
Analysis (University of Oregon: March 2003). Hyperlink,
http://reading.uoregon.edu/curricula/con_guide.php
[20] Education officials sponsored three Reading Leadership Academies
in the early part of 2002. The Academies were forums for state
education officials to obtain information and build their capacity to
implement key aspects of the Reading First program, including reliance
on SBRR and professional development.
[21] The first school year of funding varied across states. Twenty-five
states received their first year of funding in the 2002-2003 school
year. Twenty-five states received their first year of funding in the
2003-2004 school year.
[22] Two states were excluded from our analysis because of data
inconsistencies. See appendix I for additional information about
methodology.
[23] The total number of states does not add to 51 because 1 state
reported that its district eligibility included both a percentage
figure as well as the number of schools.
[24] The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 added two new reading
programs to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Reading First
and Early Reading First. Early Reading First provides support to local
efforts to enhance the early language, literacy, and pre-reading
development of preschool-age children, particularly those from low-
income families, through strategies and professional development that
are based on scientifically based reading research.
[25] States develop their own performance thresholds for districts to
meet and develop policies for how to handle those districts with
results that are below these thresholds. When monitoring participating
districts, states must determine whether funding should continue or
whether districts should be dropped from the program. Sixteen states
reported dropping at least one district that was initially awarded a
sub-grant. There were a variety of reasons that a state dropped a
district, including districts not showing progress, non-compliance with
state requirements, or a shift in reading philosophy.
[26] 31 U.S.C. § 3512 (c) and (d).
[27] For more information, see GAO's Standards for Internal Control in
the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November
1999), P.L. 97-255 and 31 USC 1105, 1113, and 3512.
[28] Department of Education, Office of the Inspector General, The
Reading First Program's Grant Application Process: Final Inspection
Report (Washington, D.C.: September 2006).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
