The inspector general of the U.S. Department of Education has referred some of the information gathered in a lengthy audit of the Reading First program to federal law-enforcement officials for further investigation, he said during a lengthy and contentious hearing today before the House Education and Labor Committee.
Inspector General John P. Higgins Jr. told the committee, in response to a question on whether he had recommended any criminal review, that he has made 鈥渞eferrals to the Department of Justice.鈥� He declined to elaborate to reporters at the end of the hearing.
The former director of the Reading First program denied in the April 20 congressional hearing that there were conflicts of interest in the implementation of the $1 billion-a-year federal initiative. He also denied that he and other officials and consultants had overstepped their authority in directing states and school districts on the curriculum materials and assessments that would meet the strict requirements of the grants awarded under the program.
鈥淎 distorted story has been written over the past few months based on the worst possible interpretation of events that occurred during the early days of the Reading First program,鈥� Christopher J. Doherty, who oversaw the program from 2002 until last fall, told the education committee during the hearing.
Mr. Doherty disputed suggestions by Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the committee鈥檚 chairman, that he and other federal officials had drafted the Reading First guidelines to institute 鈥渆xtralegal requirements鈥濃�攁s Mr. Doherty had once put it in an e-mail鈥攖hat were not specified in the No Child Left Behind Act to essentially compel states to adopt certain commercial reading programs and assessments over others.
鈥淲e thought and think those [additional] components [written into the program鈥檚 guidelines but not outlined in the law] emanated from the guiding research,鈥� Mr. Doherty said. 鈥淚n no way was [the guidance] designed to lock in鈥� one particular program, he added.
Read the related story,
Rep. Miller scolded Mr. Doherty at one point.
鈥淲as your mantra, 鈥楳istakes were made鈥�?鈥� Rep. Miller said. 鈥淵ou don鈥檛 get to override the law because you鈥檙e turning the law into a program.鈥�
Mr. Doherty responded: 鈥淲e thought then, and we think now, we did abide by the law.鈥�
Rep. Miller referred to a report by the Department of Education鈥檚 inspector general last September that concluded Mr. Doherty may have stacked expert panels assigned to review state Reading First grants with colleagues who advocated direct instruction, a scripted and highly structured approach to teaching reading. Some panelists, and consultants assigned to help states revise their grant proposals, had professional ties to commercial reading programs and assessments as well, the report stated.
The hearing was the first of two that are expected in Congress in the wake of reports by the Education Department inspector general and the Government Accountability Office that found federal officials had mismanaged the program.
鈥淲e found that the department obscured the requirements of the statute by inappropriately including or excluding standards in the application criteria,鈥� Mr. Higgins told the committee.
Advisory Panel鈥檚 Role
Starr Lewis, an associate state education commissioner in Kentucky, told the committee that state officials felt pressured by Mr. Doherty to change their choice of assessments for participating schools, and later refused to follow his request to prohibit schools from using two commercial reading programs that were approved for use in those schools.
Ms. Lewis noted that one of the consultants providing assistance during the grant-review process had financial ties to the assessment, the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, or DIBELS. Kentucky was asked to revise its Reading First grant proposal three times.
鈥淲e were repeatedly advised to replace our current assessment tool with DIBELS,鈥� Ms. Lewis said.
Three members of a federal advisory committee also testified about their role in reviewing reading assessments that would meet the program鈥檚 requirements. 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, said that the assessment committee provided states with a resource to help state officials choose research-based materials and tests for participating schools.
The advisory committee, which included current and former Oregon researchers Roland H. Good III and Deborah K. Simmons, who also testified at the House hearing, was criticized in the inspector general鈥檚 report for having real or potential conflicts of interest. The advisory committee reviewed more than two dozen assessments, some of which the panel鈥檚 members had helped develop. DIBELS, the most widely used test in Reading First, was designed by Mr. Good.
鈥淎t the outset we took steps to avoid any conflicts of interest,鈥� said Mr. Kame鈥檈nui, who also served as the director of one of three regional technical-assistance centers for the Reading First program. He added that, in hindsight, stricter controls against real or perceived conflicts of interest should have been instituted.
Rep. Howard P. 鈥淏uck鈥� McKeon, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the education committee, has introduced legislation that would require the Education Department and its contractors to screen Reading First peer reviewers for potential conflicts of interest, among other provisions.
Rep. McKeon was much less hostile to the witnesses connected to the Reading First program than Mr. Miller and some of the other committee Democrats.
鈥淚 want to thank you for your service,鈥� he said. 鈥淚鈥檝e been here almost 15 years, and I鈥檝e seen a lot of people get crucified, and I鈥檓 really getting sick of it.鈥�
But after hearing some four hours of testimony about alleged missteps and wrongdoing in the implementation of the federal program, Rep. Miller said he would consider making his own request for a criminal investigation.
鈥淚 think this process was cooked from the very beginning,鈥� he said.
In an interview after the hearing, Mr. Miller said: 鈥淭his hearing made it pretty clear that there was a very incestuous relationship among a small group of people in the Education Department and among contractors. They were very clearly using this program 鈥� for profit.鈥�
