-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  The Reading First Program's Grant Application Process

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

## 

## FINAL INSPECTION REPORT

![](media/image1.wmf){width="2.5in" height="2.497916666666667in"}

**ED-OIG/I13-F0017**

**September 2006**

+-------------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
| Our mission is to       | ![](media/image      | U.S Department of   |
| promote the efficiency, | 2.png){width="0.8in" | Education           |
| effectiveness, and      | height="0.8in"}      |                     |
| integrity of the        |                      | Office of Inspector |
| Department\'s programs  |                      | General             |
| and operations.         |                      |                     |
|                         |                      | Washington, D.C.    |
+-------------------------+----------------------+---------------------+

Statements that managerial practices need improvements, as well as other
conclusions and recommendations in this report represent the opinions of
the Office of Inspector General. Determinations of corrective action to
be taken will be made by the appropriate Department of Education
officials.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552),
reports issued by the Office of Inspector General are available, if
requested, to members of the press and general public to the extent
information contained therein is not subject to exemptions in the Act.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1](#__RefHeading___Toc146612654)

[BACKGROUND 4](#__RefHeading___Toc146612655)

[INSPECTION RESULTS 6](#__RefHeading___Toc146612656)

[FINDING 1A -- The Department Did Not Select the Expert Review Panel in
Compliance With the Requirements of NCLB
6](#__RefHeading___Toc146612657)

[FINDING 1B -- While Not Required to Screen for Conflicts of Interest,
the Screening Process the Department Created Was Not Effective
7](#__RefHeading___Toc146612658)

[FINDING 2A -- The Department Did Not Follow Its Own Guidance For the
Peer Review Process 8](#__RefHeading___Toc146612659)

[FINDING 2B -- The Department Awarded Grants to States Without
Documentation That the Subpanels Approved All Criteria
11](#__RefHeading___Toc146612660)

[FINDING 3 -- The Department Included Requirements in the Criteria Used
by the Expert Review Panels That Were Not Specifically Addressed in NCLB
12](#__RefHeading___Toc146612661)

[FINDING 4 -- In Implementing the Reading First Program, Department
Officials Obscured the Statutory Requirements of the ESEA; Acted in
Contravention of the GAO *Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government*; and Took Actions That Call Into Question Whether They
Violated the Prohibitions Included in the DEOA
13](#__RefHeading___Toc146612662)

[RECOMMENDATIONS 27](#__RefHeading___Toc146612663)

[DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 28](#__RefHeading___Toc146612664)

[OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 33](#__RefHeading___Toc146612665)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc146612654 .anchor}EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objectives of our inspection were to:

1.  Determine if the Department of Education (Department, ED, or USDE)
    selected the expert review panel in accordance with the No Child
    Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Section 1203(c) and if the
    Department adequately screened the panel members for possible
    conflict of interest issues;

2.  Determine if the expert review panel adequately documented its
    reasons for stating that an application was unready for funding; and

3.  Determine if the expert review panel reviewed the applications in
    accordance with established criteria and applied the criteria
    consistently.

The selection of the expert review panel was not in compliance with the
law because the Department failed to ensure that each State application
was reviewed by a properly constituted panel.

Although not required, the Department developed a process to screen
expert review panelists for conflicts of interest; however, the
Department's process was not effective. We identified six panelists
whose resumes revealed significant professional connections to a
teaching methodology that requires the use of a specific reading
program. The Department did not identify any of these connections in its
conflict of interest screening process; therefore, it would not have
been in a position to deal with the potential conflict raised by these
connections should a State have included this program in its
application.

The expert review panel adequately documented its reasons for stating
that an application was unready for funding; however, the Department
substituted a Department-created report for the panel's comments. As a
result, the Department did not follow its own guidance for the peer
review process. Therefore, States did not have the benefit of the expert
review panel's comments and were not always able to quickly or
effectively address problems in their applications. Additionally, we
found that five of the State applications we reviewed were funded
without documentation that they met all of the criteria for approval.
The Department has not provided any documentation that would indicate
the subpanels approved the final applications for these States.

The expert review panel appears to have reviewed the applications in
accordance with criteria developed by the Department and applied the
criteria consistently; however, the criteria developed by the Department
included language that was not based on the statutory language. As a
result, State applications were forced to meet standards that were not
required by the statute.

In the course of answering our three objectives, we found that
Department officials obscured the statutory requirements of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by
NCLB; acted in contravention of the Government Accountability Office's
(GAO) *Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government*; and
took actions that call into question whether they violated the
prohibitions included in the Department of Education Organization Act
(DEOA). The DEOA at §3403(b) prohibits Department officials from
exercising any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum or
program of instruction of any educational institution, school, or school
system.

Specifically, we found that the Department:

-   Developed an application package that obscured the requirements of
    the statute;

-   Took action with respect to the expert review panel process that was
    contrary to the balanced panel composition envisioned by Congress;

-   Intervened to release an assessment review document without the
    permission of the entity that contracted for its development;

-   Intervened to influence a State's selection of reading programs; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Intervened to influence reading programs being used by local
    educational agencies (LEAs) after the application process was
    completed.

These actions demonstrate that the program officials failed to maintain
a control environment that exemplifies management integrity and
accountability.

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary
and Secondary Education (OESE):

1)  Develop internal management policies and procedures for OESE program
    offices that address when legal advice will be solicited from the
    Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and how discussions between OGC
    and the program staff will be resolved to ensure that programs are
    managed in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

2)  In consultation with OGC, evaluate OESE's processes for assessing
    potential conflict of interest questions, when a panel review
    process is used, and make those improvements necessary to strengthen
    the processes.

3)  Review all Reading First applications to determine whether all
    criteria for funding have been met.

4)  Review the management and staff structure of the Reading First
    program office and make changes, as appropriate, to ensure that the
    program is managed and implemented consistent with the statutory
    requirements of NCLB.

5)  Request that OGC develop guidance for OESE on the prohibitions
    imposed by §3403(b) of the Department of Education Organization Act.

6)  When similar new initiatives are approved by Congress, rely upon an
    internal advisory committee, which includes representatives from
    other OESE programs, OGC, and the Department's Risk Management Team,
    to provide feedback on program implementation issues and ensure
    coordination in the delivery of similar or complimentary Department
    programs.

7)  Rely upon the internal advisory committee to:

    a.  Determine whether the implementation of Reading First harmed the
        Federal interest and what course of action is required to
        resolve any issues identified; and

    b.  Ensure that future programs, including other programs for which
        the Department is considering using Reading First as a model,
        have internal controls in place to prevent similar problems from
        occurring.

8)  Convene a discussion with a broad range of state and local education
    representatives to discuss issues with Reading First as part of the
    reauthorization process.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc146612655 .anchor}BACKGROUND

The ESEA, as amended by NCLB on January 8, 2002, established the Reading
First program. The purpose of NCLB is to "close the achievement gap with
accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left
behind."

Title 1, Part B, Section 1201 of the ESEA provides five purposes for the
Reading First program:

1)  To provide assistance to State educational agencies (SEAs) and LEAs
    in establishing reading programs for students in kindergarten
    through grade 3 that are based on scientifically based reading
    research (SBRR), to ensure that every student can read at grade
    level or above not later than the end of grade 3.

2)  To provide assistance to SEAs and LEAs in preparing teachers,
    including special education teachers, through professional
    development and other support, so the teachers can identify specific
    reading barriers facing their students and so the teachers have the
    tools to effectively help their students learn to read.

3)  To provide assistance to SEAs and LEAs in selecting or administering
    screening, diagnostic, and classroom-based instructional reading
    assessments.

4)  To provide assistance to SEAs and LEAs in selecting or developing
    effective instructional materials (including classroom-based
    materials to assist teachers in implementing the essential
    components of reading instruction), programs, learning systems, and
    strategies to implement methods that have been proven to prevent or
    remediate reading failure within a State.

5)  To strengthen coordination among schools, early literacy programs,
    and family literacy programs to improve reading achievement for all
    children.

Title 1, Part B, Section 1208(6) of the ESEA defines SBRR as research
that:

(A) applies rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain
    valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading
    instruction, and reading difficulties; and

(B) includes research that ---

> \(i\) employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation
> or experiment;
>
> \(ii\) involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the
> stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;
>
> \(iii\) relies on measurements or observational methods that provide
> valid data across evaluators and observers and across multiple
> measurements and observations; and
>
> \(iv\) has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a
> panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective,
> and scientific review.

The ESEA does not advocate any particular reading program, assessment,
or other product. In fact, Section 9527(b) of the ESEA prohibits the
Department from endorsing, approving, or sanctioning any curriculum.

Title 1, Part B, Section 1002(b)(1) of the ESEA authorized an
appropriation for Reading First of \$900,000,000 for fiscal year 2002
and "sums as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal
years." The appropriations for fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006
were \$993,500,000, \$1,023,923,000, \$1,041,600,000, and
\$1,029,234,000, respectively.

Reading First funds are allotted to SEAs by formula according to the
proportion of children aged 5 to 17 who reside within the State and are
from families with incomes below the poverty line. SEAs submit
applications to the Department to receive Reading First funding. SEA
applications are reviewed by an expert review panel and are required to
meet all statutory requirements before being awarded funds.

The Department's Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
administers the Reading First program. Two Department officials, the
Reading First Director and an Education Program Specialist (the Reading
First Director's assistant), were responsible for administering the
Reading First application process and, through the date of this report,
continued to administer all facets of the Reading First program.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc146612656 .anchor}INSPECTION RESULTS

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc146612657 .anchor}FINDING 1A -- The Department Did
Not Select the Expert Review Panel in Compliance With the Requirements
of NCLB

Our objective was to determine if the Department selected the expert
review panel in accordance with Title 1, Part B, Section 1203(c) of the
ESEA, which specifically describes the panel selection process. Section
1203(c)(2)(A) states that the Secretary, in consultation with the
National Institute for Literacy (NIFL), shall convene a panel to
evaluate applications and that, at a minimum, the panel shall include:
three individuals selected by the Secretary, three individuals selected
by NIFL, three individuals selected by the National Research Council of
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and three individuals selected
by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).
We have determined that each of the four organizations nominated at
least three individuals to serve on the expert review panel; however,
the Department failed to ensure that each State application was reviewed
by a properly constituted panel.

Section 1203(c)(2)(C) requires a panel to recommend grant applications
to the Secretary for funding or for disapproval. After selecting the
panelists, the Department created subpanels made up of five panelists
each to review the State applications and recommend either approval or
disapproval to the Secretary. None of the subpanels possessed adequate
representation from each of the organizations identified under Section
1203(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

The Department created a total of 16 subpanels to review the State
applications. A majority of the panelists were nominated by the
Department for 15 of the 16 subpanels; and 7 of the 16 subpanels
consisted entirely of Department-selected panelists. None of the
subpanels included a representative from each of the nominating
organizations and there is no indication that the subpanels ever met as
one large panel to review the State applications and/or recommend
approval or disapproval to the Secretary.

Prior to forming these subpanels, a Department official expressed
concern that the use of subpanels would not be in compliance with the
law. As a result, OGC and high-level Department officials, including the
Assistant Secretary for OESE at the time,[^1] approved a plan for the
Department to create a 12-member "Advisory and Oversight Panel" that
would consist of three individuals selected by the Department, three
individuals selected by NIFL, three individuals selected by NAS, and
three individuals selected by NICHD, as required by the Act. The
Advisory and Oversight Panel's duties would include examining the
progress of the subpanels, reviewing the recommendations of the
subpanels, and making the final funding recommendation to the Secretary,
thus ensuring a common, high level of quality and consistency across the
subpanels. Although the Assistant Secretary for OESE and OGC officials
agreed upon this approach, the Advisory and Oversight Panel was never
created. To date, no one in the Department has offered an explanation of
why this was not done.

Section 1203(c)(1) states: "The Secretary shall approve an application
of a State educational agency under this section only if such
application meets the requirements of this section." Because the
Department did not meet the requirements at Section 1203(c)(2)(A), it
raises the question of whether any of the applications were approved in
compliance with the law.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc146612658 .anchor}FINDING 1B -- While Not Required
to Screen for Conflicts of Interest, the Screening Process the
Department Created Was Not Effective

Our objective was to determine if the Department adequately screened the
panel members for possible conflict of interest issues. NCLB does not
require panel members to be screened for conflict of interest. However,
the Department decided to screen potential panelists for conflicts of
interest and developed and implemented a process to do so. That process
was not effective.

To assist with developing the screening process, an OGC ethics attorney
provided sample conflict of interest questions to the Reading First
Director's assistant. These questions were based on questions used to
screen for conflicts in the "Agreement for Grant Application Reviewers
Who Receive Compensation" used for discretionary grants.

The Reading First office incorporated most of these sample questions
into the conflict of interest form it provided to potential Reading
First panelists. This form asked each individual to provide his or her
personal information, dates of availability, and answers to six
questions. Five of the six questions focused on conflicts related to
States' applications and/or States' Reading First programs. The other
question focused on conflicts related to the potential panelists'
financial interest in commercial products.

The Department's conflict of interest form did not incorporate one of
the sample questions provided by an OGC ethics attorney. This question
was: "Are you aware of any other circumstances that might cause someone
to question your impartiality in serving as a reviewer for this
competition?"

An OGC ethics attorney informed us that the screening process was
designed to exclude individuals who had financial connections to
products or programs or who had the appearance of a conflict of
interest. This attorney also informed us that OGC's review of potential
conflicts was informal and that OGC's role was to provide guidance
rather than decisions. We did determine that when potential panelists
identified specific connections to programs, assessments, or textbooks
on the conflict of interest form, the OGC ethics attorney provided
appropriate guidance, and the Department took appropriate action.

The potential panelists also provided the Department with resumes. The
Department did not review the resumes as part of the conflict of
interest screening process. We reviewed the resumes of 25 of the
approved panelists and identified six panelists whose resumes revealed
significant professional connections to a teaching methodology that
requires the use of a specific reading program. The Department did not
identify any of these connections in its conflict of interest screening
process; therefore, it would not have been in a position to deal with
the potential conflict raised by these professional connections should a
State have included this program in its application.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc146612659 .anchor}FINDING 2A -- The Department Did
Not Follow Its Own Guidance For the Peer Review Process

Our objective was to determine if the expert review panel adequately
documented its reasons for stating that an application was unready for
funding. Section 1203(c) of the ESEA, under the heading "Peer Review,"
states that the panel will recommend grant applications to the Secretary
for funding or disapproval. The Department created the *Reviewer
Guidance for the Reading First Program* (Reviewer Guidance), which
describes the process by which panelists will review applications and
provide their comments. The Reviewer Guidance, which the Department
provided to panelists, states that it is the reviewer's responsibility
to provide a rating for each review criterion and constructive strength
and weakness comments on the Technical Review Form. The guidance states
that the panel chair will complete an additional summary sheet, called
the Panel Chair Summary, which will reflect a consensus rating and
supporting comments for each criterion. The guidance also states that
the Panel Chair Summary will provide an overall consensus recommendation
for approval or disapproval of the application.

The *Guidance for the Reading First Program* (Reading First Guidance),
provided to States in April 2002, states that the expert review panel
will "recommend clarifications or changes deemed necessary to improve
the likelihood of the plan's success." The Reading First Guidance also
states that SEAs "will have an opportunity to address the issues and
concerns raised by the expert panel reviewers."

The panelists adequately documented their reasons for stating that an
application was unready for funding. The panelists recorded their
individual comments on the Technical Review Forms, and then met to
discuss these comments. The panel chair then entered a consensus rating
on a Panel Chair Summary, which was submitted to the Department's
Reading First office. The Panel Chair Summary appeared to contain
constructive comments to support the panel's ratings.

While the Panel Chair Summaries appeared to provide constructive
comments, the impact of the expert review panelists' comments on State
revisions is uncertain because of actions taken by the Department's
Reading First office. After the panel chair submitted the Panel Chair
Summaries to the Reading First office, the Reading First Director and
his assistant created what they called an "Expert Review Team Report."
This report was provided to the States. No other documents reflecting
the expert review panel's comments were provided to the States. The
Department did not explain this practice in the Reviewer Guidance or in
the Reading First Guidance.

We have not found any documentation that the Department informed
panelists that the Reading First Director and his assistant would write
the report sent to SEAs. In fact, in e-mails to panelists the Reading
First Director wrote that panelists "should look very closely at the
exact panel comments made on the panel chair summary form as these
comments drove the SEA's resubmission." Likewise, we have not found any
documentation that the Department informed States that they would
receive a Department-written report rather than the expert review
panel's direct comments.

The Reviewer Guidance states: "the conference call between the panelists
and the SEA that will take place after the review of the SEA's
application has been established so that the State may receive direct
feedback from the expert review panel." In actuality, only the Reading
First Director and his assistant conducted these calls. By conducting
these conferences and writing the document that was sent to the SEA, the
Reading First Director and his assistant cut off any direct contact
between States and the expert review panelists and effectively
controlled the feedback States received on their applications.

Prior to the first round of conference calls with States, the Reading
First Director e-mailed the then Assistant Secretary for OESE[^2]
seeking guidance on the inclusion of panel chairs on the conference
calls. The Reading First Director stated that "it's generally been
mentioned to the States that they would hear directly from the Panel"
but that the Department would "lose a bit of control" and the Panel
Chair might say things that would "\*complicate\* matter \[sic\]" if
included on the conference calls. In an earlier e-mail to the Assistant
Secretary for OESE, the Reading First Director stated that "in remarks
to groups...or face-to-face meetings about what the Review Panel
will/won't accept the opportunities for BOLDNESS and, perhaps,
extralegal requirements are many." \[Emphasis in original.\] We have not
found any documentation that the Department informed panel chairs that
they would not participate in the conference calls as outlined in the
Reviewer Guidance. The Reading First Director's assistant stated that
the expert review panelists were not included in the conference calls
because it was too difficult to schedule.

According to the Reading First Director, he and his assistant created
the Expert Review Team Reports to give States a distilled, organized
version of the panel's comments that would show them which areas they
needed to address. However, we found the Department's Expert Review Team
Reports were not always accurate representations of the expert review
panelists' comments. The Reading First Director and his assistant
changed panelists' comments, left off others, and added comments of
their own. In a number of cases, the Department generalized or omitted
specific questions or suggestions. In other situations the Department's
Expert Review Team Report exaggerated or misstated the panelists'
concerns.

The following are specific examples of these practices from the twelve
State application files that we reviewed.

***Nevada***

Nevada submitted its application five times prior to receiving approval.
The Panel Chair Summary for Nevada's first submission suggested that the
State access *A* *Consumer's Guide to Evaluating a Core Reading Program*
(Consumer's Guide), a guide for evaluating programs authored by Edward
J. Kame'enui and Deborah C. Simmons of the University of Oregon. The
Panel Chair Summary for Nevada's third submission suggested that the
State seek technical assistance on instructional assessments. The Panel
Chair Summary for Nevada's fourth submission referred the State to the
website at the University of Oregon, which contains a review of
assessments. The Department's Expert Review Team Report corresponding to
each submission omitted these comments.

The author of Nevada's Reading First application, Joan Taylor, informed
us that the Department's Expert Review Team Report was not specific
about what the State needed to fix. She stated that the Reading First
Director and his assistant worked with her through a series of
conference calls to "try and figure out" what the subpanel wanted.
Taylor informed us that she finally asked if there was anything more in
writing and was told by the Reading First Director and his assistant
that there was nothing. Taylor stated that she felt like she had to
guess at what the subpanel wanted and when she did not know what else to
do she asked for technical assistance. Taylor informed us that the
Reading First Director and his assistant suggested that she look at the
Oregon website during a phone conference. Taylor stated that she went to
the Oregon website and found the Consumer's Guide.

Taylor was not aware that the document she was discussing with the
Reading First Director and his assistant was in fact a
Department-written summary of the subpanel's comments and told us that
she would have wanted to see the actual subpanel comments. We provided
her with two of the Panel Chair Summaries and asked her to compare them
to the corresponding Department's Expert Review Team Reports. Taylor
stated that the additional documents "would have been very helpful" and
"would have saved \[her\] lots of time" during the application process.

***New York***

New York submitted its application three times prior to receiving
funding. The Department's Expert Review Team Report for New York's first
submission did not include specific concerns that the subpanel had about
8 of the 25 criteria. It appears as though the State was not aware of
these concerns and did not address them in its resubmission because the
subpanel repeated some of these concerns during its second review. The
panel chair also stated in the Panel Chair Summary that the assessment,
the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT), would be inappropriate. The
Reading First Director and his assistant wrote in the Department's
Expert Review Team Report that only one of WRMT's subtests would be
appropriate.

***Georgia***

Georgia submitted its application three times prior to receiving
approval. The Department's Expert Review Team Report for Georgia's first
submission failed to adequately summarize the subpanel's comments about
instructional assessments and programs. The Department's Expert Review
Team Report included the comment that "the review team expressed great
concern that, according to the budget...purchasing materials for
classroom libraries is a higher priority than purchasing and
implementing core reading program materials." This comment was not in
the Panel Chair Summary. The Department's Expert Review Team Report for
the next submission omitted the subpanel's request for more information
on how the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Learning Skills (DIBELS)
assessment could be used for progress monitoring. Throughout the Georgia
application review process, the Department's Expert Review Team Report
used comments from individual panelists' Technical Review Forms that
were not mentioned in the Panel Chair Summary as representing the
consensus of the subpanel.

***Wisconsin***

Wisconsin submitted its application four times prior to receiving
approval. The Panel Chair Summaries for Wisconsin's submissions often
included comments that ran several pages for each criterion. One Panel
Chair Summary was 88 pages long while the Department's Expert Review
Team Report was only 4 pages and failed to capture most of what was
prepared by the panel chair. Further, the Department's Expert Review
Team Report often did not include any of the panel chair's specific
concerns and simply restated the application criteria requirements
instead.

***Virginia***

Virginia submitted its application three times prior to receiving
approval. The Department's Expert Review Team Report for Virginia's
second submission left out a comment from the Panel Chair Summary that
the Partnership for Achieving Successful Schools (PASS) model was
inadequately related to SBRR and simply stated that the corresponding
criteria did not meet standard. In the third Panel Chair Summary, the
rating for this criterion was again "does not meet standard" because
this issue had not been addressed. The panel chair wrote: "PASS model
requires justification...in its alignment \[with\] SBRR -- as we
requested last time." Virginia's final application includes an addendum
stating that PASS schools in Virginia receiving funds through Reading
First will be required to replace their existing programs with
comprehensive SBRR programs.

***North Dakota***

North Dakota submitted its application five times prior to receiving
approval. The Department's Expert Review Team Reports for North Dakota's
submissions contained generalized comments that did not relate to those
in the corresponding Panel Chair Summaries. The Department's Expert
Review Team Reports did not include many of the specific concerns
provided in the Panel Chair Summaries.

The Department, by substituting the expert review panel's comments with
a Department-created report, did not follow its own guidance for the
peer review process. States were not always able to quickly or
effectively address problems in their applications because they did not
have the benefit of the expert review panel's comments. This increased
the resources required by States to apply and by the federal government
to review the applications. As a result, not only was the application
review process not effectively and efficiently carried out but not all
recommendations for improvement were relayed to the States.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc146612660 .anchor}FINDING 2B -- The Department
Awarded Grants to States Without Documentation That the Subpanels
Approved All Criteria

Of the 12 Reading First grant application files that we reviewed, it
does not appear that the subpanels approved the final applications for
four States and one territory: Connecticut, Nevada, New York, Virginia,
and Puerto Rico. The Panel Chair Summaries for each final application
provided an overall rating of "Disapproval." The Department has not
provided any documentation indicating the subpanels approved the final
applications for these five applicants.

For example, the Panel Chair Summary for New York's final application
provided a rating of "Does Not Meet Standard" for three criteria. The
three criteria were Instructional Assessments, Coherence, and Process
for Awarding Subgrants. In the Instructional Assessments and Coherence
sections, the subpanel noted inconsistencies between the application
narrative and the subgrant request for proposal rubric. In the "Process
for Awarding Subgrants" section, the subpanel recommended that the New
York State Education Department (NYSED) either change the minimum
cut-off score from 75 to a minimum cut-off score of 80 or include a
sentence addressed to NYSED's expert reviewers and LEA applicants that
unless all of the bulleted points for each category were addressed, the
category could not be judged to have met standard. The Department has
not provided additional documentation to show that these issues were
resolved prior to the Reading First grant being awarded. In fact,
NYSED's application, posted as approved on its website, did not address
any of the recommendations made in the Panel Chair Summary.

##  {#section-1 .RptSubcaption}

As a result, some applicants were funded without documentation that they
met all of the criteria for approval raising a question of whether these
States should have been funded.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc146612661 .anchor}FINDING 3 -- The Department
Included Requirements in the Criteria Used by the Expert Review Panels
That Were Not Specifically Addressed in NCLB

[]{.mark}

Our objective was to determine if the expert review panel reviewed the
applications in accordance with established criteria and applied the
criteria consistently. The Department instructed the panelists to use
the *Reading First: Criteria for Review of State Applications* (Reading
First Criteria) when rating the 25 criteria in each State application.
Each criterion was broken up into requirements for a rating of
'Exemplary,' 'Meets Standard,' and 'Does Not Meet Standard.' The Reading
First Criteria states "the 'Meets Standard' column describes the
conditions that reviewers will expect all State applications to meet,"
while the "'Exemplary' column describes conditions that, when met in
addition to those listed under 'Meets Standard,' would be expected to
result in the highest quality Reading First programs."

Additionally, the Reviewer Guidance states: "The purpose of the review
criteria is to ensure that all applications meet the required standards.
Panelists are to use only these criteria in evaluating applications."
The Technical Review forms and Panel Chair Summary forms, which the
expert review panelists used when reviewing State applications, included
the same 'Meets Standard' conditions as the Reading First Criteria.

Based on our review of 12 State applications, it appears the expert
review panelists reviewed the applications in accordance with the
criteria provided to them and applied the criteria consistently. The
criteria, however, included conditions that were not specifically
required in the statute. For example, the 'Meets Standard' column of
criterion IV(A), Key Reading First Classroom Characteristics, required
State applications to meet three conditions that were not included in
the statute:

-   Condition 1b required, "Coherent instructional design that includes
    explicit instructional strategies, coordinated instructional
    sequences, ample practice opportunities, and aligned student
    materials\[.\]"

-   Condition 1d required, "Protected, dedicated block of time for
    reading instruction\[.\]"

-   Condition 1f required, "Small group instruction as appropriate to
    meet student needs, with placement and movement based on ongoing
    assessment\[.\]"

In a document titled, "Pre-reading notes for \[the Assistant Secretary
for OESE\]" (Pre-reading notes document), the Reading First Director
commented on a draft of the Reading First Criteria. The Reading First
Director wrote that the Key Reading First Classroom Characteristics
section of the Reading First Criteria was significant because "\[i\]t's
another example of our aggressive approach because, obviously, very
little of this section can be pegged to legislative language. It just
makes good sense, of course, to help the States see what we know/want RF
\[Reading First\] classrooms to look like. OGC may not like this entire
section, and I wanted to birddog it for you." He continued:

> We realize the Meets Standards column is much more fleshed-out than
> the Exemplary column....What we've done -- again, extra-legally,
> really -- is push all the characteristics that we originally had in
> Exemplary and moved them into Meets, because we want all of those (a,
> b, ...g) characteristics to define *ALL* RF classrooms, not just the
> star RF classrooms.

The 'Exemplary' column in the final Key Reading First Classroom
Characteristics section only includes one condition in addition to the
requirement that the section 'Meets Standard.' In an interview, the
Reading First Director acknowledged that the Department included
conditions in the 'Meets Standard' column of the Reading First Criteria
that were not in the law.

Because the Department included language in the 'Meets Standard' column
of its Reading First Criteria that was not based on the statute, State
applications were reviewed based upon standards that were not required
by the statute.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc146612662 .anchor}FINDING 4 -- In Implementing the
Reading First Program, Department Officials Obscured the Statutory
Requirements of the ESEA; Acted in Contravention of the GAO *Standards
for Internal Control in the Federal Government*; and Took Actions That
Call Into Question Whether They Violated the Prohibitions Included in
the DEOA

In the course of answering our objectives for the inspection, we found
that the Department, acting through the former Assistant Secretary for
OESE, the Reading First Director, and others:

-   Developed an application package that obscured the requirements of
    the statute;

-   Took action with respect to the expert review panel process that was
    contrary to the balanced panel composition envisioned by Congress;

-   Intervened to release an assessment review document without the
    permission of the entity that contracted for its development;

-   Intervened to influence a State's selection of reading programs; and

-   Intervened to influence reading programs being used by LEAs after
    the application process was completed.

These actions demonstrate that the program officials failed to maintain
a control environment that exemplifies management integrity and
accountability.

Congress was explicit about what it intended this program to achieve,
how it was to be implemented, and what was to be funded. Congress
provided specific legislative guidance on the application approval
process, the composition of peer review panels (Title 1, Part B, Section
1203), and the respective roles of the SEAs, LEAs, and the Department
(Title 1, Part B, Section 1202). Congress also spelled out an
information dissemination role for NIFL. Title 1, Part B, Section
1207(a)(1) directs NIFL to "disseminate information on scientifically
based reading research. . . ." As discussed below, program officials
tried to purposely obscure the content of the statute and otherwise took
actions that seemed to disregard Congress' direction and intent.

The *Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government* were
issued by GAO in 1999.[^3] In the standards, GAO defines internal
control as "\[a\]n integral component of an organization's management
that provides reasonable assurance that the following objectives are
being achieved: effectiveness and efficiency of operations, reliability
of financial reporting, and compliance with applicable laws and
regulations." As noted in the Foreword to the standards, appropriate
internal controls is a key factor in improving accountability. In the
standards, GAO states: "Management and employees should establish and
maintain an environment throughout the organization that sets a positive
and supportive attitude toward internal control and conscientious
management." The first element identified in the standards as affecting
the control environment is "the integrity and ethical values maintained
and demonstrated by management and staff."

Further, the Department issued an Administrative Communications System
(ACS) Directive entitled "Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
Management/Reporting on Internal Controls" in 2003. The provisions of
the directive apply to all of the Department's program and
administrative activities, and to all managers at all organizations
levels. The directive states that one of the objectives of internal
control is so that "Programs and operations are executed and resources
are used consistently with agency mission and in compliance with
applicable provisions of law, regulation, and government-wide policy
requirements." The directive also states that a major step in the
internal control process is establishing management controls, including
establishing and maintaining a control environment throughout the
organization that sets a positive and supportive attitude toward
internal control and conscientious management. A guiding factor of that
control environment is that "management provides leadership to ensure
integrity and ethical values are maintained and demonstrated by
management and staff." As discussed below, the actions of the program
officials demonstrated a lack of integrity and ethical values that
created a control environment that allowed non-compliance with laws and
regulations.

Finally, the DEOA, which established the Department in October 1979,
describes the Federal-State relationship in education as follows:

§3403(b) 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.

Section 9527 of the ESEA includes a specific prohibition on endorsement
of curriculum, which reinforces the language in §3403(b):
"Notwithstanding any other prohibition of Federal law, no funds provided
to the Department under this Act may be used by the Department to
endorse, approve, or sanction any curriculum..." As discussed below, the
Department Officials' actions raise questions about whether they
performed their duties to avoid these prohibitions.

## The Department Developed an Application Package That Obscured the Requirements of the Statute {#the-department-developed-an-application-package-that-obscured-the-requirements-of-the-statute .RptSubcaption}

In January 2002, the then Assistant Secretary for OESE[^4] worked
closely with the Reading First Director in developing the application
package to be provided to States. The package consisted of the
application, the Reading First Criteria, which outlined the requirements
each State application needed to meet to receive funding, and the
Reading First Guidance.

The Assistant Secretary for OESE planned for the Reading First Guidance
to include language that was not in the statute and exclude language
that was in the statute. After reviewing a revision to the Department's
draft of the Reading First Guidance, the Assistant Secretary for OESE
wrote to the Reading First Director, "under reading first plan. i'd like
not to say 'this must include early intervention and reading remediation
materials' which i think could be read as 'reading recovery' \[a reading
program\]. even if it says this in the law, i'd like it taken out." The
subject phrase appears in the law twice.[^5]

The Assistant Secretary for OESE later wrote, "i think we've lost our
voice in this guidance, and returned to a business as usual,
bureaucratic don't say what we really want kind of voice."

The Reading First Director noted that the Guidance was as bold as it
could be, given the law. He wrote:

> The guidance -- throughout -- was written in a way that ED people, and
> then I, thought was the strongest we were able to make it, \*given the
> law.\*...I do not want to seem insufficiently bold, but on many of the
> areas where you clearly want more boldness and different-ness, the
> summary of my on-going poll of ED insiders is "The law won't let you
> do that, no matter what \[the Assistant Secretary for OESE\]
> wants/says."

The Reading First Director also acknowledged that he expected State
officials to review the Guidance closely to see that it was in accord
with the statute. He added:

> \[I\]t has been suggested to me that the Guidance may be the most
> problematic place to put some of your suggestions for increased
> boldness. Why? Guidance is the official place where the State people
> with the closest readings of the law will go to see where ED has
> overstepped what the law lets them say. In remarks to groups...or
> face-to-face meetings about what the Review Panel will/won't accept
> the opportunities for BOLDNESS and, perhaps, extralegal requirements
> are many.

The approach outlined by the Reading First Director was eventually
reflected in the application package that was available to every State
on April 2, 2002. As discussed in Finding 3, the Department ultimately
included the "bold" language that distorted the requirements of the
statute in the Reading First Criteria.

In the Pre-reading notes document, the Reading First Director wrote:

> OGC could likely have concerns with the overall, near-unrelenting
> **aggressiveness** of this application...the law does not really
> require what **we** are quite literally requiring in our (aggressive)
> application. Such examples are manifold and OGC may catch some, many
> or all of them. We have not highlighted them to OGC, of course, and we
> don't know how many they'll focus on. On some issues, we may be able
> to dodge a little by moving some 'Meets Standards' points to the
> 'Exemplary,' but if we do that too much, the result is a less bold
> application and decreased chances of overall success. We'll need your
> muscle with OGC on these points across the board.

Ultimately, the Department determined that the Reading First Guidance
would be used as a means of appearing to comply with the requirements of
the statute. In the Pre-reading notes document, the Reading First
Director wrote:

> \[T\]here are things in the Guidance that are **not** in the
> application -- for strategic reasons -- because we did not want to
> remind all applicants of their existence so prominently...but we felt
> we had to compromise, i.e. put in the Guidance, in some places where
> the law makes certain things un-ignorable.

The Reading First Director illustrated this strategy by providing the
following examples in the Pre-reading notes document:

> Page 19, \[Section\] F-2, 2 b. \[of the Guidance\] "**Providing
> expanded opportunities** to students in kindergarten through grade 3
> who are served by eligible local educational agencies for receiving
> reading assistance from alternative providers."
>
> We make absolutely no mention on this opportunity in the application,
> because we don't like it and don't want to open the door to this, but
> it is in the law and needs to be addressed somewhere reasonably
> official -- like the Guidance -- as a "best" compromise. FYI.
>
> Also, Page 19, \[Section\] F-3 **Are there any required priorities for
> funds reserved for State use?** Yes. A State educational agency shall
> give priority to carrying out the activities described in Question F-2
> for schools that are among the schools served by eligible local
> educational agencies with the highest percentages..."
>
> Again, my belief is that this is a potential back door though \[sic\]
> which some money could flow in unwanted directions, and therefore this
> **required priorities for funds reserved for State use** element of
> the law is NOT NOT \[sic\] in the application, but we have to reflect
> that we know it exists *somewhere*, so that place is the Guidance.
> FYI.

In the final Reading First Guidance, Section F-2, 2b. remained unchanged
from the portion quoted above. In section F-3, the substantive content
from the portion quoted above remained unchanged.

## The Department Took Action With Respect to the Expert Review Panel Process That Was Contrary to the Balanced Panel Composition Envisioned by Congress {#the-department-took-action-with-respect-to-the-expert-review-panel-process-that-was-contrary-to-the-balanced-panel-composition-envisioned-by-congress .RptSubcaption}

Congress, through Title 1, Part B, Section 1203(c)(2)(A) of the ESEA,
envisioned an expert review panel with equal representation from the
Department, NIFL, NAS, and NICHD. As we reported in Finding 1A, the
Department nominated a majority of the individuals serving on the expert
review panel. Additionally, 15 of the 16 subpanels had a majority of
Department-nominated panelists and none had the balanced composition
envisioned by Congress.

The Reading First Director took direct action to ensure that a
particular approach to reading instruction was represented on the expert
review panel. Direct Instruction (DI) is a model for teaching that
requires the use of Reading Mastery, a program published by
SRA/McGraw-Hill, to teach reading. The Reading First Director formerly
served as the Executive Director of the Baltimore Curriculum Project,
which has implemented DI in Baltimore City schools since 1996.

The Reading First Director personally nominated three individuals who
had significant professional connections to DI to serve on the expert
review panel. The Reading First Director selected these three
individuals to serve on a total of seven of the 16 subpanels and one of
these individuals to serve as the panel chair on five subpanels. These
three individuals were collectively involved in reviewing a total of 23
States' applications.

A Baltimore City Public Schools official contacted a Department official
to express concern that two panelists were involved with or employed by
DI and questioned whether those two panelists indicated their
connections to DI on the conflict of interest form. In May 2002, the
Department official forwarded this information to the Reading First
Director who passed the concerns on to one of the panelists in question
as a "Confidential FYI." This panelist replied:

> I suspect that \[the Baltimore City Public Schools official's\]
> assumption is that USDE must be warned that there may be DI
> infiltrators and that somehow USDE knows how dangerous that can be.
> You may remember that \[the Baltimore City Public Schools official\]
> is a whole language (now called Balanced Literacy) proponent.

The subsequent e-mail response from the Reading First Director suggests
his intention to ensure a DI presence on the expert review panel: "Funny
that \[the Baltimore City Public Schools official\] calls \*me\* to
inform that there may be some pro-DI folks on \*my\* panel!!! Too rich!"
The panelist then asked, "Does he know who you are? Past and present?"
The Reading First Director replied, "That's the funniest part -- yes!
You know the line from Casablanca, 'I am SHOCKED that there is gambling
going on in this establishment!' Well, 'I am SHOCKED that there are
pro-DI people on this panel!'"

Shortly before this exchange, a Department employee reported to the
Reading First Director that the Department had received a question from
a member of the media about the panel composition. The response by the
Reading First Director suggests that he may indeed have intended to
"stack" the expert review panel. The employee stated: "The question
is...are we going to 'stack the panel' so programs like Reading Recovery
don't get a fair shake\[?\]" The Reading First Director responded,
"'Stack the panel?'...I have never \*heard\* of such a
thing....\<harumph, harumph\>\[.\]"

A few days before the Department publicly announced the panelists it had
chosen to serve, one of the Department-nominated panelists contacted the
Reading First Director and shared his strong bias against Reading
Recovery and his strategy for responding to any State that planned to
include Reading Recovery in its application. The Reading First Director
responded: "I really like the way you're viewing/approaching this, and
not just because it matches my own approach :-), I swear!" This
individual later served as the panel chair for the subpanel that
reviewed Wisconsin's State application and in response to the State's
plans to use Reading Recovery, he included an 11-page negative review of
Reading Recovery in his official comments on the application.

Around the same time, Reid Lyon, the former Chief of the Child
Development & Behavior Branch at the NICHD, advised the Reading First
Director, the Assistant Secretary for OESE, and the Senior Advisor to
the Secretary at the time that one of the panelists had been "actively
working to undermine the NRP \[National Reading Panel\] Report and the
RF initiatives." Lyon further stated, "Chances are that other reviewers
can trump any bias on her part." In a written response to all of the
people involved, the former Senior Advisor to the Secretary stated, "We
can't un-invite her. Just make sure she is on a panel with one of our
barracuda types."

The statute envisioned that the expert review panel would be balanced
with representatives from the Department and three other named
organizations. In fact, virtually all of the subpanels had a majority of
Department-nominated panelists. Against this backdrop, the actions of
the Director and the former Senior Advisor to the Secretary become
particularly problematic.

Additionally, the first element identified in GAO's *Standards for
Internal Control in the Federal Government* as affecting the control
environment is "the integrity and ethical values maintained and
demonstrated by management and staff." The apparent intent of the
Reading First Director to include and to give a significant role to
panelists who reflected his personal preference in reading programs; his
specific encouragement to a panelist who held views similar to his on
Reading Recovery; and the intention of the former Senior Advisor to the
Secretary to control another panelist raise significant questions about
the control environment in which the program was being managed.

## The Department Intervened to Release an Assessment Review Document Without the Permission of the Entity That Contracted for Its Development {#the-department-intervened-to-release-an-assessment-review-document-without-the-permission-of-the-entity-that-contracted-for-its-development .RptSubcaption}

Title 1, Part B, Section 1207(a)(1) of the ESEA directs NIFL to
"disseminate information on scientifically based reading research. . .
." NIFL contracted for the University of Oregon's Institute for the
Development of Educational Achievement (IDEA) to perform a review of
assessments. The Reading First Director inappropriately intervened to
release the report produced as a result of this review.

In January and February of 2002, the Department held "The Secretary's
Reading Leadership Academies" (SRLAs). *The Reading Leadership Academy
Guidebook* (the Guidebook) was published after the SRLAs and collected
"the essential materials offered to more than 600 state-level
administrators and policy makers at the academies."

The Guidebook included a PowerPoint presentation on "the dimensions of
assessment important to reading instruction" by a group referred to as
the "Reading First Academy Assessment Committee." This committee
consisted of eight members, led by Edward Kame'enui, the Director of
IDEA. In the presentation, this committee listed a sample of assessments
that it planned to review.

The committee's final report, "An Analysis of Reading Assessment
Instruments for K-3," does not mention any connection to the Department
or to NIFL. Additionally, the committee does not refer to itself as the
"Reading First Academy Assessment Committee," but rather only as the
"Assessment Committee."

The report includes an analysis of 29 assessments. Of these 29, the
Assessment Committee found 24 to have "'sufficient evidence' for use as
screening, diagnosis, progress monitoring, and/or outcome instruments to
assess one or more essential reading components at one or more grade
levels K-3." The Assessment Committee found the other five assessments
"not to have 'sufficient evidence'. . . ."

The report, which can be found on the IDEA website, states: "there are
literally hundreds of reading assessment instruments available in the
marketplace." The report states that the Assessment Committee, as a
starting point, used the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory's
(SEDL) "Reading Assessment Database for Grades K-2: Statewide
Assessments" to help select the assessments it would review. According
to the report, this database yielded 154 possible early reading
assessment tools. In addition, the Assessment Committee members
submitted 27 personal recommendations of reading assessment measures.

Of the 29 assessments the Assessment Committee selected to review, 11
were chosen solely from the SEDL database and the remaining 18 were on
the list of personal recommendations.

Of the 24 assessments the Assessment Committee found to have "sufficient
evidence," seven were directly tied to Assessment Committee members:

-   Five were developed or co-developed by Assessment Committee members;

-   One lists an Assessment Committee member as the individual who can
    provide technical information; and

-   One is the product of a company that is directed by an Assessment
    Committee member.

Although NIFL funded the Assessment Committee's review, the Director of
NIFL, Sandra Baxter, informed us that she decided not to issue the
Assessment Committee's final report. NIFL officials were concerned that
releasing the report might appear as though NIFL was endorsing specific
products. Baxter sought guidance on the endorsement issue from the
Department's OGC on whether NIFL should release the report. It is
unclear if this guidance was ever provided to NIFL.

When we notified Baxter and Lynn Reddy, the Deputy Director of NIFL,
that the report was released on the IDEA website, Baxter informed us
that she was surprised to learn this. Reddy expressed the view that the
Assessment Committee's report should not have been posted on the IDEA
website.

The Reading First Director was in frequent contact with Kame'enui and
Doug Carnine, a research associate at IDEA and professor at the
University of Oregon, concerning the release of the Assessment
Committee's report. In e-mail correspondence with Carnine in May 2002,
Kame'enui wrote, "If I am asked, who do I say initiated and funded this
effort?" Carnine responded, "Say you received funding from RMC \[RMC
Research Corporation, a Reading First contractor\]. If they ask who
funded RMC say the Dept of Ed. You should not need to answer such
questions in writing."

Carnine forwarded this string of e-mails to the Reading First Director
and wrote, "Should \[Kame'enui's\] report go to RMC? Should it be on the
web before being sent to you?" The Reading First Director responded, "As
I/we try to weigh all the elements and make the best decision, I'd like
to know whether the Assessment work is ready to go fully live...?"
Carnine responded, "They are ready to go live but I see now that \[the
Assistant Secretary for OESE\] wants to review." In a later e-mail,
Carnine asked, "Is \[the Assistant Secretary for OESE\] thinking of
killing \[the report\]?" The Reading First Director responded, "I don't
\*think\* so, and I am arguing strenuously against that. Very
strenuously."

The Reading First Director sent Kame'enui an e-mail requesting that he
send the Assessment Committee's report to the Assistant Secretary for
OESE "prior to the 'release' to the public." Kame'enui asked the Reading
First Director whether he should send a set of report materials for him
too. The Reading First Director responded, "Yes, please! Then I can
become a better-informed ambassador and advocate for the Assessment
Committee's work!"

While waiting for the approval to release the Assessment Committee
report, Kame'enui consulted with the Reading First Director over what to
tell publishers that asked about it. Kame'enui asked, "should I say the
report is completed but under review or do I simply say it is not ready
for public release?" The Reading First Director advised Kame'enui to "go
with...'not ready' for the reason that the 'under review' option could
lead to the non-trivial question, 'Under review by whom?' which then
gets into the next issue of, 'is this a NIFL doc, or an ED doc?'"

Kame'enui, in correspondence with the Assessment Committee members and
the Reading First Director shortly before the release of the report,
wrote: "\[T\]he report will be presented and represented publicly as an
independent report completed under the auspices of our institute, the
Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement (IDEA) in the
College of Education at the University of Oregon. It will not be
identified as a Reading First document." Kame'enui also made the
decision to present the report itself as a "singular effort" on his
part, rather than as the effort of the Assessment Committee. One reason
he provided was: "Because several of \[the Assessment Committee
members\] are authors or co-authors of the assessment instruments \[the
Assessment Committee\] reviewed, the perception of a conflict of
interest in shaping the final report was a concern."

In May 2002, the Reading First Director asked the Assistant Secretary
for OESE if he could give Kame'enui permission to put the report on the
IDEA website and stated, "\[NIFL\] will slow us down." The Assistant
Secretary for OESE informed the Reading First Director that Kame'enui
had not yet shared the report with NIFL.

A few days later, the Reading First Director asked the Assistant
Secretary for OESE if he had "permission to bug Sandra Baxter about
the...assessment work," writing that "\[s\]tates are desperate for that
critical work." In response, the Assistant Secretary for OESE informed
the Reading First Director that the report could be put on the IDEA
website and then the report would go on The Partnership for Reading[^6]
(Partnership) website after Baxter approved it.

Later that day, the Reading First Director wrote to Kame'enui:

> Please post your splendid work on your IDEA website, announce it in
> any way(s) you choose, and I will inform you when we can post it as
> well on the Partnership website, NIFL, maybe even ED's...I will worry
> about the Baxter/NIFL angle -- you are completely covered, \[The
> Assistant Secretary for OESE\] has approved this specific step. No
> worries on your end.

One day later, Baxter wrote in an e-mail to the Reading First Director:
"The copy of the final report just reached us today...I'll let you
know...what our timeline for releasing the results will be." A few days
later, Baxter wrote to the Reading First Director: "Clearly, \[the
Assessment Committee's final report\] is not in shape for publication as
submitted. I'll need at least a few days to read the entire report and
determine just how to streamline it into a document that is useful to
our intended audience." The Reading First Director forwarded this e-mail
to the Assistant Secretary for OESE, who responded, "at this rate, it
may never get up on the nifl website."

The Assessment Committee's final report never appeared on NIFL's or the
Partnership's website.

## The Department Intervened to Influence a State's Selection of Reading Programs {#the-department-intervened-to-influence-a-states-selection-of-reading-programs .RptSubcaption}

As noted above, the Department is prohibited from endorsing curriculum
and from mandating, directing or controlling a State's curriculum or
program of instruction.

In July 2003, the Reading First Director received information from the
Maryland State Department of Education's (MSDE) Director of Reading
First concerning a clarification to the State's plans for selecting a
list of core reading programs. The Reading First Director then forwarded
this information to Carnine and Jerry Silbert, a consultant to RMC, and
stated:

> This CONFIDENTIAL update comes after a direct call I made to MD
> \[Maryland\] after a tip/suggestion from \[Silbert\]. This
> "clarification" represents a marked shift from their earlier comments
> and, although not settled completely yet, bodes well for DI in
> Baltimore. Who knows \[Michael\] Coyne \[an Assistant Professor at the
> University of Connecticut\] well? We need to ENSURE that when MD
> \*does\* do its application of...Consumer Guide that Reading Mastery
> \[a DI reading program published by SRA/McGraw-Hill\] is NOT relegated
> to supplemental status, which would be HORRIBLE for so many...schools
> in Balt\[imore\].

On August 1, 2003, Carnine sent Kame'enui an e-mail and asked him to
forward it to Michael Coyne. In this e-mail, Carnine stated:

> Just mention that \[Baltimore\] has many schools using RM \[Reading
> Mastery\] as a core program with EXCELLENT results but that MSDE, for
> all the wrong reasons, left to its own devices could well shunt RM off
> to the side with the kiss-of-death as a "supplemental" or
> "intervention" program. And, once MSDE did something like that, it
> would be much harder to have them un-do it. . . .The way it's set up,
> if, while applying \[the Consumer's Guide\] tool, \[MSDE\] were to
> classify RM as a comprehensive program...MSDE couldn't un-do it.

After obtaining Coyne's e-mail address, Carnine stated to Coyne in an
e-mail, dated August 2, 2003:

> Please let me know if you have questions. Also feel free to ask \[the
> Reading First Director\] to confirm that RM can legitimately be
> treated as a core program...For more on DI results (as a core program)
> in MD you can contact Muriel Berkeley \[the President and CEO of the
> Baltimore Curriculum Project who also served as an expert review
> panelist\]. . . .

Carnine ensured that the Reading First Director and Berkeley were fully
informed of his actions by forwarding both of the August 2003 e-mails to
them.

In November 2003, MSDE issued the "Final Report of the Maryland
Committee for Selecting Core Reading Programs." The report stated that
all LEA representatives on the committee "were required to participate
in a full day of training by Dr. Michael Coyne on September 16, 2003."

The report then stated:

> Also during August \[2003\], Dr. Deborah C. Simmons \[the former
> Associate Director of IDEA at the University of Oregon\] and her
> associate, Dr. Michael Coyne, were in frequent communication with
> \[MSDE's\] Office of Reading First to plan how to use the *Consumer's
> Guide for Evaluating a Core Reading Program* (Simmons & Kame'enui,
> 2003) in order to achieve the goal of establishing a Fall 2003 list of
> Maryland Approved Core Reading Programs.
>
> Dr. Simmons advised that Maryland base the work of its statewide
> Committee on the *Oregon Reading First Center: Review of Comprehensive
> Programs* (Curriculum Review Panel, July 2003). Oregon's distinguished
> panel of reviewers...evaluated nine core reading programs. . . .
>
> ...From the list of nine programs reviewed by Oregon, MSDE, responding
> to the consultant guidance of Drs. Simmons and Coyne, selected the
> following seven core programs receiving the highest Oregon ratings for
> the Maryland Committee's work:

-   Houghton Mifflin, *The Nation's Choice 2003*

-   SRA, *Open Court 2002*

-   SRA/McGraw-Hill, *Reading Mastery Plus 2002*

-   Macmillan/McGraw-Hill, *Macmillan/McGraw-Hill Reading 2003*

-   Harcourt, *Trophies 2003*

-   Success for All Foundation, *Success for All*

-   Scott Foresman, *Scott Foresman Reading 2004*\[.\]

The report stated, "Maryland's approved application for funding under
Reading First specifies that every Reading First School, kindergarten
through third grade, must implement a core reading program from this
list that is based on scientifically based reading research (SBRR)."

As a result of the actions taken with regard to MSDE's process for
selecting core reading programs, the Reading First Director's initial
fear that Reading Mastery would be "relegated to supplemental status"
was not realized since MSDE, with the help of Simmons and Coyne,
selected Reading Mastery as one of its seven core reading programs. The
Reading First Director's actions raise a question as to whether he was
acting with the restraint envisioned by Congress in the endorsement of
curriculum prohibitions of the DEOA and the ESEA.

## The Department Intervened to Influence Reading Programs Being Used by LEAs After the Application Process Was Completed {#the-department-intervened-to-influence-reading-programs-being-used-by-leas-after-the-application-process-was-completed .RptSubcaption}

After certain States completed the application process and received
funding, the Reading First Director became aware that certain LEAs in
these States were using the Rigby Literacy (Rigby) and Wright Group
Literacy (Wright Group) programs. The Reading First Director worked
closely with a Department staff member, a former expert review panelist,
who undertook a review of both of these programs.

In e-mail correspondence with the staff member regarding the Wright
Group, the Reading First Director stated:

Beat the \[expletive deleted\] out of them in a way that will stand up
to any level of legal and \[whole language\] apologist scrutiny. Hit
them over and over with definitive evidence that they are not SBRR,
never have been and never will be. They are trying to crash our party
and we need to beat the \[expletive deleted\] out of them in front of
all the other would-be party crashers who are standing on the front lawn
waiting to see how we welcome these dirtbags.

The Reading First Director forwarded the above e-mail to Lyon and
stated:

> Confidential FYI. Pardon in-house language I use...with fellow team
> members and friends. Do you know---on the QT---if anyone has done any
> good review of the Wright Group stuff, to date? We have beaten Maine
> on Rigby and this is cut from the same cloth. We are proceeding, of
> course, but if you knew of a good piece of work dissecting The Wright
> Group's stuff, it could further strengthen our hand.

Lyon responded that he would obtain this information and added, "I like
your style." In response, the Reading First Director stated, "Additional
firepower...may help us make this a one-punch fight."

After reviewing the programs, the staff member provided the Reading
First Director with notes and talking points critiquing these programs.
The Reading First Director used this information to convince States
using Rigby and Wright Group to change programs. In an e-mail to Lyon,
the Reading First Director wrote, "I spoke to Fred Carrigg \[the former
New Jersey Director of Reading First\]...with a roomful of others on
their end and they are HALTING the funding of Rigby and, while we were
at it, Wright Group. They STOPPED the districts who wanted to use those
programs."

In a later e-mail to Lyon, the Reading First Director stated:

> As you may remember, RF got Maine to UNDO its already-made decision to
> have Rigby be one of their two approved core programs (Ha, ha -- Rigby
> as a CORE program? When pigs fly!) We also as you may recall, got NJ
> \[New Jersey\] to stop its districts from using Rigby (and the Wright
> Group, btw) and are doing the same in Mississippi. This is for your
> FYI, as I think this program-bashing is best done off or under the
> major radar screens.

In a formal letter to Carrigg, the Reading First Director did not
specifically name Rigby and Wright Group as not being aligned with SBRR.
The Reading First Director wrote, "It appeared that New Jersey had not
fulfilled its responsibility to ensure that all LEAs and schools
selected to participate in Reading First...would implement comprehensive
reading programs that are fully aligned with scientifically based
reading research." The Reading First Director informed us that he could
not definitively say why he did not formally state in the letter that
those specific programs were not in line with SBRR.

Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Kentucky also encountered
post-application problems concerning the implementation of their reading
programs. Massachusetts was approved in its Reading First application to
develop its own guide for LEAs to select reading programs. North Dakota
was approved in its Reading First application to develop a State list of
approved programs using the Consumer's Guide. Kentucky was approved in
its Reading First application to adopt the Massachusetts guide. LEAs in
all three of these States selected reading programs that were later
questioned by the Reading First Director or his assistant.

***Massachusetts***

In Massachusetts, the Reading First Director raised questions over the
SBRR qualifications of programs in four districts. The Coordinator of
the Massachusetts Reading First Program, Cheryl Liebling, who had worked
for RMC as a consultant during the application process, informed us that
the Reading First Director contacted her with concern over the programs
currently in use in these districts. This concern was raised even though
the State had approved the LEAs' choices for reading programs using the
expert review panel-approved criteria. The programs used by the four
districts were Wright Group, Rigby, Literacy Collaborative, and Harcourt
Collections. Liebling said that she contacted the districts and
suggested a change, telling the districts that the Reading First
Director had concerns about their programs. The district using Wright
Group elected not to change its program, even after Liebling's
recommendation. This district eventually had its funding taken away. The
three other districts agreed to change to other programs and all three
districts continue to be funded.

***North Dakota***

During North Dakota's first year of LEA grants, three schools used the
State list of approved programs to select Rigby as their reading
program. After the State approved their use of Rigby, the three schools
implemented the program. The North Dakota Reading First Assistant
Director, Gail Schauer, in an e-mail to the Reading First Director,
wrote, "\[The Reading First Director's assistant\] indicated that North
Dakota Reading First could not use the Rigby Literacy Program as a core
reading program. The Rigby Literacy Program, however, could be used as a
supplemental program." Schauer requested that the three schools "be
allowed to implement the Rigby Literacy Program in their Reading First
schools until their three-year subgrant period is completed...based on
the fact that the Rigby Literacy Program was an approved program at the
time they wrote their grant, received approval, and began the
implementation phase." Schauer contacted the Reading First Director's
assistant two months later to ask whether any decisions were made on the
schools' use of Rigby. The Reading First Director's assistant responded
that the Department was waiting for feedback on the State's monitoring
visit to make a final determination.

A month and a half later, Schauer contacted the Reading First Director's
assistant again asking for information on Rigby. The Reading First
Director's assistant replied that the Department did not have the full
findings from the monitoring report, but the preliminary report "found
that the core program used in the Fargo School District did not appear
to be systematic, explicit or sequential" and the report found
"instruction in classrooms to focus on strategies such as cueing
systems, which are not aligned with scientifically based reading
research." Schauer informed us that given a choice between receiving
Reading First funds or continuing their use of Rigby, the three schools
opted to stay with Rigby. All three lost their funding after the first
year of implementation.

***Kentucky***

The Reading First Director questioned the use of Reading Recovery and
Rigby in three Kentucky districts. The Reading First Director informed
us that he asked the State to provide more justification of both
programs' alignment with SBRR. State officials informed us that they
spoke with the Reading First Director in a conference call and informed
him that they believed Reading Recovery and Rigby were sufficiently
SBRR. State officials said that the Reading First Director told them he
had concerns about Reading Recovery and urged them not to use Reading
First funds on the program. The State officials said that they asked for
this request in writing, but the Reading First Director told them that
he would not do so and invited them to defend the two programs instead.
The State officials subsequently provided support for the programs in
writing, but they informed us that they did not receive a response from
the Department. A State official informed us that the districts in
question are still using Rigby and Reading Recovery. Despite the Reading
First Director's assertion that these programs were not SBRR, when the
State provided documentation to support the use of the programs, the
Department did not respond.

The actions taken by the Reading First Director again call into question
whether his intervention in these circumstances violated provisions of
the DEOA and NCLB that prohibit the Department from exercising control
over the curriculum or program of instruction of any school system.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc146612663 .anchor}RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for OESE

1)  Develop internal management policies and procedures for OESE program
    offices that address when legal advice will be solicited from OGC
    and how discussions between OGC and the program staff will be
    resolved to ensure that programs are managed in compliance with
    applicable laws and regulations.

2)  In consultation with OGC, evaluate OESE's processes for assessing
    potential conflict of interest questions, when a panel review
    process is used, and make those improvements necessary to strengthen
    the processes.

3)  Review all Reading First applications to determine whether all
    criteria for funding have been met.

4)  Review the management and staff structure of the Reading First
    program office and make changes, as appropriate, to ensure that the
    program is managed and implemented consistent with the statutory
    requirements of NCLB.

5)  Request that OGC develop guidance for OESE on the prohibitions
    imposed by §3403(b) of the Department of Education Organization Act.

6)  When similar new initiatives are approved by Congress, rely upon an
    internal advisory committee, which includes representatives from
    other OESE programs, OGC, and the Department's Risk Management Team,
    to provide feedback on program implementation issues and ensure
    coordination in the delivery of similar or complimentary Department
    programs.

7)  Rely upon the internal advisory committee to:

    a.  Determine whether the implementation of Reading First harmed the
        Federal interest and what course of action is required to
        resolve any issues identified; and

    b.  Ensure that future programs, including other programs for which
        the Department is considering using Reading First as a model,
        have internal controls in place to prevent similar problems from
        occurring.

8)  Convene a discussion with a broad range of state and local education
    representatives to discuss issues with Reading First as part of the
    reauthorization process.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc146612664 .anchor}DEPARTMENT COMMENTS

On August 29, 2006 we received a letter from the Secretary of Education
that stated the Department concurred with all of our recommendations and
that her letter would be followed by a more detailed response. On
September 19, 2006 we received a second letter from the Secretary that
reiterated the Department's concurrence with all the recommendations in
the draft and outlined a series of steps that the Secretary would take
in response to our report. The letter also stated that while the
Department found the draft recommendations and much of the discussion in
the report to be helpful, it did not agree with all of the key points
made in the draft findings. An attached letter from the Assistant
Secretary for OESE provided a detailed response to our draft. We have
summarized the Department's comments and provided our responses below.
All of the Department's response letters, in their entirety, are
attached.

**FINDING 1A -- The Department Did Not Select the Expert Review Panel in
Compliance With the Requirements of NCLB**

**Department Comments**

The Department agreed with our finding that it did not fully adhere to
the statutory requirement for establishing the expert review panel. The
Department acknowledged that it had considered and OGC had recommended
the establishment of a twelve-member "Advisory and Oversight Panel" made
up of individuals nominated by NAS, NICHD, and NIFL. The Department
stated that it is not aware of any information to show that not
establishing this panel resulted in any inappropriate effects or
disadvantage to any State, but stated that it will discuss this issue
with State representatives and review applications to determine if there
were any inappropriate effects.

**OIG Response**

No changes have been made to this finding. The Department acknowledged
that it did not establish an expert review panel in a manner that was
consistent with the statutory language.

**FINDING 1B -- While Not Required to Screen for Conflicts of Interest,
the Screening Process the Department Created Was Not Effective**

**Department Comments**

The Department stated that it had some concerns with this finding. The
Department stated that it was not required to screen for conflicts of
interest, but decided to take the extra step and establish a screening
process in cooperation with the Ethics Division of OGC. The Department
stated that the integrity of the panel process was important, and it
took appropriate action to ensure that no conflict occurred.

The Department stated that it reasonably adapted the competitive grant
conflict of interest procedures to the Reading First program. The
Department stated there was no available information to show that the
inclusion of six panelists who had connections to a teaching methodology
resulted in any problematic behavior or that any of these panelists
reviewed a state application that included such a program. The
Department stated that it used the standard of "avoiding financial
connections" to programs or products and that OIG suggests that the
appropriate standard should have been "significant professional
connections to a teaching methodology that requires the use of a
specific reading program," which it labeled as not easy to define and
implement.

The Department stated that the OIG finding suggests that the Department
could have been better off by just meeting the minimal requirement of
the law, which is that no conflict of interest screening process is
required, and none needed to be implemented.

**OIG Response**

No changes have been made to this finding.

As we stated in our report, the Department was not required to screen
for conflicts of interest. However, since it wisely chose to do so, we
evaluated the effectiveness of the process it selected. Our objective
was not to discourage the Department from taking such actions, but
rather to point out simple additional actions that might have improved
the process, such as including relevant questions regarding impartiality
and reviewing resumes.

The six panelists mentioned had significant professional connections to
Direct Instruction (DI), a model for teaching that requires the use of
the program Reading Mastery. At the time of the screening process, the
Department anticipated that States would include specific programs in
their applications. Based upon the screening process used, the
Department would not have known of the potential conflict posed by
having any of the six individuals review a State application that
included Direct Instruction.

**FINDING 2A -- The Department Replaced What the Law Intended to be a
Peer Review Process With its Own Process**

**Department Comments**

The Department stated that it did not replace the process required by
the statute, and that the statute does not establish the role of
reviewers' comments. The Department stated that although the program
office originally intended in its Reviewer Guidance to have reviewers
provide comments directly to the applicants, it found that this did not
always ensure that applicants knew what needed to be addressed.

The Department stated that its staff did a further review of the
summaries of the comments and overall, the staff found that the
summaries did not deviate significantly from the reviewers' comments.

The Department stated that it modified the process after it was
initiated without amending the original planning documents and that in
the future it will take steps to ensure that all plans for review of
applications are followed or amended when necessary.

**OIG Response**

We have modified the wording of the report to clarify what occurred. The
statute did not provide a process for expert review; however, the
Department issued guidance to establish the role of reviewers' comments.
The process actually undertaken by the Reading First program office,
however, differed from the process outlined in its guidance. There is no
evidence to show that the Reading First program office communicated
these changes to either reviewers or applicants. In addition, there is
no evidence that the Reading First program office ever sent the actual
Panel Chair Summaries to applicants. The report outlines those instances
where the Department-prepared summaries deviated significantly from the
reviewers' comments and were not always accurate representations of the
reviewers' comments.

**FINDING 2B -- The Department Awarded Grants to States Without
Documentation That the Subpanels Approved All Criteria**

**Department Comments**

The Department stated that the program statute did not require the panel
to approve final applications and that the panels were advisory, even
though the program office tried to follow the recommendations of the
panels. The Department also stated that in a number of cases a review of
a resubmitted application revealed minor remaining issues, and it was
not practical to always reconvene a subpanel.

**OIG Response**

No changes have been made to this finding.

We recognize that the panel served an advisory role in recommending the
approval of final applications. In the specific examples provided in our
report, the remaining issues were not minor.

**FINDING 3 -- The Department Included Requirements in the Criteria Used
by the Expert Review Panels That Were Not Specifically Addressed in
NCLB**

**Department Comments**

The Department commented that our report suggested the guidance issued
by the Department may not include review criteria not specifically
stated in the statute. The Department stated that the Reading First
Criteria sets forth guidance on what criteria the subpanels are likely
to use in reviewing State applications for Reading First grants. The
Department further stated that States were reminded that they must meet
all program requirements in order to receive funding and that this
document was merely guidance.

The Department stated that the "Meets Standard" column would describe
the conditions that reviewers will expect all State applications to
meet. The Department acknowledged that in a few instances, the
information in the "Meets Standard" column was not specifically
required; it merely provided information on a submission that would be
good practice and was helpful in ensuring good program management by the
State.

The Department also stated that it did not receive complaints from
States that the guidance was onerous.

**OIG Response**

No changes have been made to this finding.

We recognize the Department's interest in developing high-quality
programs; however, criteria not specifically stated in the statute
should not have been included in the "Meets Standard" column, but rather
in the "Exemplary" column, which was the place identified by the
Department to list additional criteria that it believed would help
encourage high-quality projects.

Despite the Department's assertion that the document was merely
guidance, the Reviewer Guidance states that panelists who reviewed the
applications were to use *only* the criteria provided in the guidance.

**FINDING 4 -- In Implementing the Reading First Program, Department
Officials Obscured the Statutory Requirements of the ESEA; Acted in
Contravention of the GAO *Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government*; and Took Actions That Call Into Question Whether They
Violated the Prohibitions Included in the DEOA**

**Department Comments**

The Department stated that this section of the report cites a number of
informal internal communications. In the introduction to its specific
comments, the Department expressed concern that it may be too easy (and
inaccurate in some instances) to read interpretations into, or draw
conclusions about, a person's professional intent or actions solely from
raw, unfiltered, informal snapshots of information.

The Department commented that while it is clearly the State's
responsibility to select and approve programs for use by participating
LEAs, the Department must ensure that only programs that meet statutory
requirements are implemented. The Department further stated that when it
becomes aware of programs that may not meet these provisions, it is
incumbent upon the Department to raise that issue and question that
action. The Department stated that it is not aware of information
showing inappropriate actions to require particular programs or
approaches.

**OIG Response**

No changes have been made to this finding.

The statements quoted in our report were not informal communications.
The Reading First Director's communications were written using a
Department e-mail account in his role as the Reading First Director. In
preparing its response, the Department reviewed all of the e-mail
communications quoted in this report. The Department's response does not
suggest any instances where quotations were used out of context or
inaccurately.

We agree that the Department must ensure that only programs that meet
statutory requirements are implemented. If the Department was aware of
programs that did not meet the statutory requirements, it should have
shared that information formally and transparently. In this instance,
that is not what occurred.

While the Department stated that it is not aware of information showing
inappropriate actions to require particular programs or approaches, the
actions reflected in this report raise serious concerns about the
conduct of Department officials with respect to the limitations imposed
by §3403(b) of the Department of Education Organization Act.

##### Other Department Comments

In the introduction to its specific comments, the Department fully
acknowledged its responsibility to implement programs with fairness and
integrity and to follow the law and its own guidance. We strongly
concur. When, as here, that does not occur, it can only serve to
undermine the public's confidence in the Department and its
implementation of major programs, such as Reading First. As the
Department notes, it is incumbent upon all Department employees "to take
painstaking care to maintain the public trust."

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc146612665 .anchor}OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
METHODOLOGY

The objectives of our inspection were to:

1.  Determine if the Department selected the expert review panel in
    accordance with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Section
    1203(c) and if the Department adequately screened the panel members
    for possible conflict of interest issues;

2.  Determine if the expert review panel adequately documented its
    reasons for stating that an application was unready for funding; and

3.  Determine if the expert review panel reviewed the applications in
    accordance with established criteria and applied the criteria
    consistently.

Through the course of our fieldwork, we identified a fourth item of
concern related to actions that were contrary to statutory requirements
of the ESEA, the GAO *Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government*, and the DEOA.

We began our fieldwork on September 28, 2005, and we conducted an exit
conference on July 18, 2006.

We interviewed Department staff in the Reading First program office and
in OGC. We reviewed Department guidance and other documentation. In
addition, we reviewed Department correspondence related to the Reading
First program.

We also reviewed the applications from the following 11 States and one
territory: Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Puerto Rico. We also reviewed the individual panelists' Technical Review
forms, the Panel Chair Summary forms, the Department's Expert Review
Team Reports, and the official grant file for each of the 12 applicants.

Our review focused on nine of the 25 criteria each application was
required to meet:

-   State Outline and Rationale for Using SBRR;

-   Instructional Assessments;

-   Instructional Strategies and Programs;

-   Instructional Materials;

-   Instructional Leadership;

-   District and School Based Professional Development;

-   Evaluation Strategies (Improving Reading Instruction);

-   State Professional Development Plan; and

-   Evaluation Strategies (State Reporting and Evaluation).

We interviewed officials from 10 of the States in our sample.

We also obtained documentation relating to the nomination of panelists.
We interviewed appropriate officials from NIFL, NICHD, and NAS about the
panel nominations. We also obtained completed conflict of interest
questionnaires and panelist resumes.

Our inspection was performed in accordance with the 2005 President's
Council on Integrity and Efficiency Quality Standards for Inspections
appropriate to the scope of the inspection described above.

![](media/image3.png){width="7.9527777777777775in"
height="10.338194444444444in"}

![](media/image4.png){width="8.29375in" height="10.781944444444445in"}

![](media/image5.png){width="8.29375in" height="10.781944444444445in"}

![](media/image6.png){width="8.29375in" height="10.781944444444445in"}

![](media/image7.png){width="8.097222222222221in"
height="10.140972222222222in"}

![](media/image8.png){width="8.088888888888889in"
height="10.140972222222222in"}

![](media/image9.png){width="8.043055555555556in"
height="10.210416666666667in"}

![](media/image10.png){width="8.043055555555556in"
height="10.210416666666667in"}

![](media/image11.png){width="8.043055555555556in"
height="10.210416666666667in"}

![](media/image12.png){width="8.043055555555556in"
height="10.210416666666667in"}

![](media/image13.png){width="8.034722222222221in"
height="10.210416666666667in"}

![](media/image14.png){width="8.043055555555556in"
height="10.210416666666667in"}

![](media/image15.png){width="8.043055555555556in"
height="10.210416666666667in"}

![](media/image16.png){width="8.043055555555556in"
height="10.210416666666667in"}

[^1]: This official left the Department in January of 2003 and for
    purposes of consistency and clarity will be referred to in this
    section simply as "the Assistant Secretary for OESE."

[^2]: This official left the Department in January of 2003 and for
    purposes of consistency and clarity will be referred to in this
    section simply as "the Assistant Secretary for OESE."

[^3]: The Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA)
    requires GAO to issue standards for internal control in government.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, Management
    Accountability and Control, revised June 21, 1995, provides the
    specific requirements for assessing and reporting on controls. OMB
    Circular A-123 was revised on December 21, 2004 and became effective
    beginning with fiscal year 2006.

[^4]: This official left the Department in January of 2003 and for
    purposes of consistency and clarity will be referred to in this
    section simply as "the Assistant Secretary for OESE."

[^5]: Section 1202(d)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the ESEA provides States with the
    option to use a percentage of grant funds to develop and implement a
    program of professional development for teachers that shall include
    "information on instructional materials, programs, strategies, and
    approaches based on scientifically based reading research,
    *including early intervention and reading remediation materials*,
    programs, and approaches. . . ." (Emphasis added.)

    Section 1203(b)(4)(B) of the ESEA states that State applications are
    required to include a description of how "the State educational
    agency will assist local educational agencies in identifying
    instructional materials, programs, strategies, and approaches, based
    on scientifically based reading research, *including early
    intervention and reading remediation materials*, programs, and
    approaches." (Emphasis added.)

[^6]: The Partnership for Reading is administered by NIFL and, according
    to its website, is "a collaborative effort by three federal
    agencies - the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL), the National
    Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), and the
    U.S. Department of Education - to bring the findings of
    evidence-based reading research to the educational community,
    families, and others with an interest in helping all people learn to
    read well."