Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has agreed to testify before the House education committee about charges of mismanagement and conflict of interest in the 69传媒 First program, in a follow-up to a contentious April 20 hearing featuring several former and current federal officials and consultants.
The hearing scheduled for May 10 will focus on the Department of Education鈥檚 oversight of the $1 billion-a-year initiative to improve reading achievement in disadvantaged schools, and the steps being taken to prevent conflicts of interest in 69传媒 First and other federal programs, according to a letter to Ms. Spellings from Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif. She will also be asked questions about the department鈥檚 management of federal student-loan programs, the letter said.
After the first hearing, in which Rep. Miller and other House Democrats pressed former 69传媒 First Director Christopher J. Doherty on problems with the implementation of the program, some observers wondered why the secretary and other senior department officials hadn鈥檛 also been called to testify. (鈥淗ouse Panel Grills Witnesses on 69传媒 First,鈥� April 25, 2007.)
鈥淪ome of the key players who have some questions to answer weren鈥檛 there,鈥� said Michael J. Petrilli, a former Education Department official who has suggested that Ms. Spellings 鈥渕icromanaged鈥� the rollout of 69传媒 First while serving as a top aide at the White House during President Bush鈥檚 first term. Mr. Petrilli, now a vice president for the Washington-based Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, said the committee鈥檚 grilling of Mr. Doherty was inappropriate, given that he was carrying out the program according to the wishes of the Bush administration.
Justice Dept. Scrutiny
The Education Department鈥檚 inspector general has referred some of the information gathered in a lengthy audit of the program to federal law-enforcement officials for further review. Inspector General John P. Higgins Jr. told the committee, in response to a question on whether he had recommended any criminal review, that he had made 鈥渞eferrals to the Department of Justice.鈥�
Three former and current University of Oregon researchers who served as advisers to the 69传媒 First program reported at a House hearing that they received significant profits from materials they developed that are now widely used in schools receiving the federal grant funding.
ROLAND H. GOOD III
鈥� Developer, Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, or DIBELS
鈥� University of Oregon professor
鈥� Member of the advisory panel that evaluated assessments for use in 69传媒 First schools
鈥� DIBELS has yielded more than $1 million in profits for his company, of which he has a 50 percent share
EDWARD J. KAME鈥橢NUI
鈥� Former director, Western Regional 69传媒 First Technical Assistance Center
鈥� Member of the assessment panel that reviewed tests for use in 69传媒 First schools
鈥� Now commissioner of the National Center for Special Education Research at the U.S. Department of Education
鈥� Co-author of Early 69传媒 Intervention, a supplemental textbook used in some 69传媒 First schools, which has earned him some $150,000 annually over the past several years
DEBORAH C. SIMMONS
鈥� Adviser to the Education Department on 69传媒 First
鈥� Member of the assessment panel that reviewed tests for use in participating schools
鈥� Texas A&M University professor
鈥� Co-author of Early 69传媒 Intervention, which has earned her some $150,000 annually over the past several years
SOURCE: Education Week
He declined to elaborate to reporters at the end of last month鈥檚 hearing, but Mr. Doherty told reporters that the Justice Department had interviewed him last fall but has not followed up since.
The hearing, which ran more than four hours, mostly repeated allegations highlighted in a series of inspector general鈥檚 reports beginning last fall. They concluded that Mr. Doherty and other federal officials and consultants appeared to have favored the use of some commercial texts and assessments over others for 69传媒 First and may have overstepped their authority in directing states in curriculum choices for participating schools. (鈥淪cathing Report Casts Cloud Over 鈥�69传媒 First鈥�,鈥� Oct. 4, 2006.)
Some new information about the financial ties between the program鈥檚 core advisers and several commercial products also emerged during the hearing.
Edward J. Kame鈥檈nui, who is on leave from the University of Oregon while he directs the Education Department鈥檚 National Center for Special Education Research, reported that he has earned about $150,000 in annual royalties from an early-reading-intervention program. Deborah C. Simmons, a co-author on that text, reported similar earnings.
Roland H. Good III, who developed the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, reported that he has earned more than $500,000 from sales of the assessment, which is used in a majority of 69传媒 First schools. A panel the three experts served on gave DIBELS a positive review, but Mr. Good said he and his University of Oregon colleagues did not participate in the evaluation.
Mr. Good noted that DIBELS is available free to schools on the Internet. But under questioning from committee members, he acknowledged that many schools purchase neatly packaged versions of the test or spend money on hand-held computers with DIBELS software, all of which add profits to his testing company.
Following the Law
A leading critic of the department鈥檚 handling of 69传媒 First charged that Mr. Good鈥檚 attempts to discount his earnings made from DIBELS were disingenuous.
鈥淗e outlined 12 different ways that he wasn鈥檛 making money off DIBELS, until the committee asked the question just the right way, and we find out that in fact it鈥檚 making a lot of money,鈥� said Robert E. Slavin, a co-founder of the Baltimore-based Success for All Foundation, whose complaints helped launch the probe.
Mr. Doherty, who said he had not profited personally from 69传媒 First, maintained under intense questioning that he and his colleagues followed the law in directing states to choose only those programs and tests that he and grant reviewers had judged would meet the program鈥檚 strict requirements for being research-based.
鈥淲e really implemented the program the way it was intended,鈥� Mr. Doherty said in an interview after the hearing. 鈥淭his hearing was very unrepresentative of the very successful 69传媒 First program.鈥�
