The Success for All Foundation has asked the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Education to investigate the $1 billion-a-year federal 69传媒 First program for alleged mismanagement and seeming preferential treatment of a handful of consultants and products.
鈥淲e believe that the federal government enabled a small group of individuals to direct significant federal resources to a small group of companies, thus both restricting our ability to trade and subverting the explicit intent and language of the 69传媒 First statute,鈥� the complaint submitted May 27 by Success for All founder Robert E. Slavin says.
While Mr. Slavin calls the 69传媒 First legislation 鈥渟ound鈥� and 鈥渨ell intentioned,鈥� he contends in the complaint that 鈥渢he program itself has been badly mismanaged, and as a result, many fewer children are likely to experience reading success.鈥�
Success for All, developed in 1987, is aimed at preventing and remedying reading problems in the early grades through a schoolwide improvement approach. It is used in 1,100 schools in 46 states.
Research-Based
The nonprofit program has perhaps the most extensive research base of any reading program, with more than 50 experimental-control studies. Last month, a federal study found it to be effective in raising reading achievement. (鈥淟ong-Awaited Study Shows 鈥楽uccess for All鈥� Gains,鈥� May 11, 2005.)
Despite such scientific evidence鈥攚hich is a core tenet of the 69传媒 First legislation鈥擲uccess for All, based at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, has struggled to maintain its hold in schools that applied for federal reading grants under the 3-year-old initiative. While 200 schools signed on in 2001鈥攖he year before the first distribution of 69传媒 First money鈥攁nd the foundation added staff members to support those schools, participation has slipped by several hundred schools over the last couple of years. Only five 69传媒 First schools are new to the Success for All program.
Mr. Slavin said that school officials around the country have told him they felt pressure from state officials and federal reviewers to drop Success for All in order to qualify for 69传媒 First funds, even though the legislation does not require or prohibit any specific texts. The foundation has had to lay off some 300 staff members since 69传媒 First took effect.
The complaint to the inspector general charges that the 69传媒 First program, which is planning to distribute $6 billion over six years, has promoted a narrow definition of 鈥渟cientifically based research,鈥� encourages the use of basal textbooks by big publishers, requires an unscientific and untested instructional model, and relies on the work of consultants with ties to the commercial products that are being used by participating schools and districts.
鈥淲e really believe in what we are doing, and we believe in the power of research to really produce change in reading instruction,鈥� Mr. Slavin said in an interview here last week. 鈥淸69传媒 First] is disassembling, tearing down, not only our program but that concept.鈥�
Susan Aspey, a spokeswoman for the Education Department, would not comment on the complaint.
Criticism Widespread
The International 69传媒 Association, based in Newark-Del., and the Washington-based Association of American Publishers have received numerous complaints similar to those outlined in the one submitted to the inspector general.
In 2002, for example, the AAP complained to federal education officials of a widespread perception that states selecting certain reading programs would be more likely to win the grants. Then-Secretary of Education Rod Paige issued a statement saying no approved list of programs or products existed. But the complaints from publishers and educators have continued.
鈥淭he way the implementation proceeded, it was, in fact, a boon for publishers, and a select group of publishers, it seems,鈥� said IRA President Richard A. Allington. He has been critical of what he sees as conflicts of interest in the use of advisers in the 69传媒 First program who also earn royalties on the reading texts, assessments, and consulting work that participating schools have used. (鈥淪elect Group Ushers In 69传媒 Policy,鈥� Sept. 8, 2004.)
Other experts agree that the federal government seems to favor a small group of scholars. But it is unclear if those experts have been singled out by federal officials or if they鈥檝e simply 鈥済otten their way through persistence,鈥� G. Michael Pressley, a professor of education at Michigan State University and a former editor of the Journal of Educational Psychology, wrote last week in an e-mail to Education Week.
Those experts generally 鈥渄id their job well and fairly鈥� in working with states and schools in 69传媒 First and recused themselves from conversations about the products they had a hand in devising, he added. Some individuals, however, 鈥渄id lobby hard for particular products, including ones that they had some connection to,鈥� Mr. Pressley maintained.
