A former state education official who helped design Georgia鈥檚 reading initiative nearly a decade ago has filed more than a dozen complaints against the Georgia education department for actions that she claims effectively blocked schools applying for federal 69传媒 First money from using the textbooks she now publishes.
Cindy Cupp, the state鈥檚 curriculum and reading director from 1997 to 1999, submitted the complaints to the state inspector general in March.
鈥淚n my opinion, the Georgia 69传媒 First grant gave the right of selecting reading programs to the local schools and teachers as long as certain steps were followed,鈥� Ms. Cupp, who publishes Dr. Cupp鈥檚 Readers, a K-1 series for teaching early-reading skills, said in an e-mail to Education Week.
鈥淚 believe that the national evaluators hired by the Georgia Department of Education to score the grants used their personal bias in the scoring,鈥� Ms. Cupp charged. 鈥淚t appears that this caused some schools to remove reading programs they had selected and replace them with others that were favored by the national evaluators.鈥�
Since the federal 69传媒 First program was unveiled in 2002, concerns have arisen nationwide that the program appears to favor some commercial reading programs over others. (鈥淪elect Group Ushers In 69传媒 Policy,鈥� Sept. 8, 2004.)
鈥楢n Overstep鈥�
In the Georgia case, the grant reviewers鈥� notes, included in state documents and correspondence Ms. Cupp obtained through the state鈥檚 open-records statute, question the quality of the program she publishes. The reviewers, however, were not supposed to evaluate the programs themselves, and at least one admitted to Ms. Cupp鈥檚 lawyer that she never saw the product.
Ms. Cupp also contends that the state overstepped its authority in directing some publishers to have their products reviewed by experts at one of the 69传媒 First technical-assistance centers before schools could use them. Ms. Cupp argues that the state鈥檚 69传媒 First plan requires school districts to evaluate the materials themselves, using a selected scoring guide.
Several of the complaints have been forwarded to the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 inspector general.
Elaine Quesinberry, a spokeswoman for the federal Education Department, said in an e-mail last week that she could not comment on an ongoing case.
Georgia officials said that the extra restrictions were a mistake, and that they were simply trying to help districts with the onerous task of choosing high-quality instructional materials.
鈥淚n our zeal to help these [schools evaluate programs], we required them鈥� to get the materials evaluated externally, said Judson Turner, the department鈥檚 lead lawyer. 鈥淚t was an overstep.鈥� Mr. Turner, however, said there is no evidence that 69传媒 First applicants were prevented from selecting Dr. Cupp鈥檚 Readers for use in their classrooms.
At least one district鈥擝utts County鈥攈as since received the state鈥檚 permission to use Ms. Cupp鈥檚 texts. The district had ditched earlier plans to use them in a 69传媒 First school after its application was rejected twice. Once the Dr. Cupp鈥檚 series was removed from the school鈥檚 proposed materials list, the application was approved.
An Informal List?
In response to complaints in 2002 that the 69传媒 First program seemed to favor some commercial products, then-U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige issued a statement that the grants did not require the use of any specific materials. Still, some states became more prescriptive in their requirements after their applications to the federal program were sent back for revision several times. (鈥�69传媒 Programs Bear Similarities Across the States,鈥� Feb. 4, 2004.)
The perception of such an informal 鈥渓ist鈥� has persisted. The school division of the Association of American Publishers, based in Washington, has sent a number of letters over the past three years to federal and state education officials and the University of Oregon in Portland complaining that grantees were being misinformed or restricted in the selection of instructional materials. The university houses one of the 69传媒 First technical-assistance centers.
鈥淎 lot of people out there are under the impression that if there were not an officially approved list, there鈥檚 at least a list that, if selected, your chances of getting a program approved are much higher than if they selected another product,鈥� said the division鈥檚 executive director, Stephen D. Driesler.
The federal law requires that schools receiving some of the $1 billion 69传媒 First money use materials that have scientific evidence of their effectiveness. Most states require grant recipients to use the 鈥淐onsumers Guide to Evaluating a Core 69传媒 Program,鈥� a checklist written by University of Oregon researchers, to determine if materials meet the federal standard.
Reviews Suspended
Researchers with the 69传媒 First technical-assistance centers at the University of Oregon and Florida State University have also been conducting evaluations of instructional materials. But those reviews have drawn complaints, Mr. Driesler said, which he outlined in a letter to the University of Oregon in March.
鈥淓valuators of unknown credentials used a rating system for which no descriptors have been made available, and in some cases, used criteria for which no research substantiation can be found,鈥� the letter says. 鈥淚n addition, there is some appearance of conflict of interest, as the most highly rated program on the list was authored at the University of Oregon by researchers now associated with the federal technical-assistance center.鈥�
The university has not responded to the letter, according to Mr. Driesler. University officials did not return phone or e-mail messages from Education Week last week. The Oregon 69传媒 First center has suspended its reviews of instructional materials, citing a lack of resources.
