**Testimony of John P. Higgins, Jr.**

**Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education**

**Before the**

**Committee on Education and Labor**

**U.S. House of Representatives**

**April 20, 2007**

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the work of my office.

Reading First is a \$1 billion per year program that was established to
provide kindergarten through third grade reading programs based on
scientifically based reading research. The goal of the program is to
ensure that every student can read at grade level or above by the end of
the third grade.

In May 2005, my office began receiving allegations about Reading First.
The allegations indicated that the Department was promoting and
excluding specific programs and assessments, as well as using
consultants with ties to these programs and assessments. As a result, we
decided to perform a series of six reviews. My comments today will focus
on the work we performed at the Department.

To put our work in context, it is important to understand that the
Department of Education's Organization Act prohibits Department
officials from exercising any control over the curriculum of a school.
In addition, the No Child Left Behind Act includes a similar
prohibition.

Through our work, we found that the Department:

1\) appeared to inappropriately influence the use of certain programs
and assessments;

2\) failed to comply with statutory requirements and its own guidance;

3\) obscured the requirements of the statute; and

4\) created an environment that allowed real and perceived conflicts of
interest.

First, with regard to inappropriate influence, we found that the
Department allowed certain activities that led, in part, to a perception
that there was an approved list of reading programs and assessments. Let
me highlight for you some of the activities that led to this perception:

-   The Department and the National Institute for Literacy sponsored
    three Reading Leadership Academies. These Academies were designed to
    assist the states in preparing Reading First applications. The
    Department exercised control over the content and presenters for the
    Academies. Of 10 "Theory to Practice" presentations, 6 contained
    information on the Direct Instruction program. The luncheon speaker
    for two of the Academies also focused on Direct Instruction. Some
    Academy participants expressed concerns about the content of the
    sessions. One commenter indicated, "I felt like I was in a Direct
    Instruction sales pitch all day."

-   The Reading First statute requires the use of reading assessments.
    Each participant at the Reading Leadership Academies was provided
    with a Handbook that included an article featuring one reading
    assessment called DIBELS. Later, the Department published a
    Guidebook, which also contained the article featuring DIBELS. While
    other assessment instruments were listed in the Handbook and
    Guidebook, only DIBELS was featured in an article in both books. Not
    surprisingly, 43 states indicated that they would use DIBELS as one
    of their assessments.

-   In addition, we found that the Department inappropriately arranged
    to have a report on assessments publicized. The National Institute
    for Literacy contracted with the University of Oregon to perform a
    review of assessments. Out of the hundreds of assessments available
    for review, the University reviewed 29 and found 24 of them to be
    acceptable; 7 of the 24 were tied directly to people working on the
    review. The National Institute for Literacy decided not to issue the
    final report because it might appear as if it were endorsing
    specific products. However, the Department, without coordinating
    with the National Institute for Literacy, directed the author of the
    report, who worked at the University of Oregon, to post it on the
    University's website.

-   We also identified instances where Department officials intervened
    with regard to reading programs and assessments being selected by
    states. In some instances, Department officials and their
    representatives worked to influence states to select a specific
    program or assessment -- these instances of intervention concerned
    Direct Instruction and DIBELS. In other instances, Department
    officials worked to influence states to not select specific programs
    -- these instances of intervention included programs such as Rigby,
    Reading Recovery, and Wright Group. However, the Department never
    documented its assertions that these programs were not aligned with
    scientifically based reading research.

Second, we found that the Department did not comply with the Reading
First statute or its own guidance. Again, let me highlight for you the
information that led us to this conclusion:

-   The Reading First statute called for a balanced panel to review
    applications. The Department and three other organizations were to
    each select at least three experts for the panel. Senior Department
    officials decided to use sub-panels for the review process and to
    create an "Advisory and Oversight Panel" with three representatives
    from each of the organizations required by the statute. However, the
    Advisory and Oversight Panel concept was never implemented. As a
    result, the process used by the Department was not in accordance
    with the requirements of the statute, since none of the sub-panels
    created by the Department included representation from each of the
    required organizations.

-   We also identified evidence that the Reading First Director
    personally nominated 3 individuals for the sub-panels who had
    professional connections to Direct Instruction -- these 3
    individuals reviewed 23 state applications. In choosing individuals
    to serve on the sub-panels, the Reading First Director showed a
    strong bias for those he knew supported Direct Instruction and a
    strong bias against those who favored Reading Recovery.

-   We also found problems with how the Department communicated the
    panelists' comments. Although the panelists adequately documented
    their reasons for stating that an application was not ready for
    funding, this documentation was not provided to the states, as
    called for by the Department's guidance. Instead, the Department
    created a new document in which it changed panelists' comments, left
    off comments, and added comments of its own. This new document was
    the only document that was provided to the states.

Third, we found that the Department obscured the requirements of the
statute by inappropriately including and excluding standards in the
application criteria. Emails from the Reading First Director indicated
that this was done in order to help the states understand what he wanted
Reading First classrooms to look like.

Finally, the Department did not place an appropriate level of emphasis
on the issue of conflict of interest. This can be seen in two specific
areas:

-   First, the screening process the Department created for the
    sub-panels that reviewed applications was not effective. The
    Department did not ask panelists about their impartiality. In
    addition, the Department did not review the panelists' resumes for
    potential conflicts of interest.

-   Second, the Department's contractor, RMC Research Corporation, did
    not adequately address conflict of interest issues. The Department
    used RMC to provide technical assistance to states and to assist the
    states in preparing applications. However, RMC did not ensure that
    organizational conflict of interest clauses were included in its
    agreements with consultants. In addition, neither the Department nor
    RMC adequately vetted technical assistance consultants for potential
    bias. As a result, we noted connections between individuals and
    organizations that presented the appearance of bias and impaired
    objectivity.

In conclusion, our work showed that the Department did not comply with
the Reading First statute regarding the composition of the application
review panel and criteria for acceptable programs. Further, the
Department's actions created an appearance that it may have violated
statutory provisions that prohibit it from influencing the curriculum of
schools. However, because Department officials often justified their
bias against particular programs by saying the programs were not aligned
with scientifically based reading research, I cannot say with certainty
that these statutes were violated since we did not assess whether
particular programs were based on scientifically based reading research.

Based on our work, we made a number of recommendations to the
Department, which it accepted. We also suggest that Congress consider
clarifying whether reading programs need to have scientific evidence of
effectiveness in order to be eligible for funding under Reading First
and clarifying conflict of interest requirements in federally funded
programs.

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions.