U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34–496 PDF 2007

MISMANAGEMENT AND CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST IN THE READING FIRST PROGRAM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 20, 2007

Serial No. 110–22

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

(

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Bob Inglis, South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Timothy Walberg, Michigan

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on April 20, 2007 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Members: 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Pennsylvania, prepared statement of .......................................................... 84

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ Senior Republican Member, Committee 

on Education and Labor ............................................................................... 3

Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor ......... 1

Letters to witnesses .................................................................................. 89

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby,’’ a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia, additional questions for the witnesses .......................... 86

Statement of Witnesses: 

Doherty, Christopher J., former program director for Reading First, U.S. 

Department of Education ............................................................................. 16

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17

Response to questions by Mr. Scott ......................................................... 87

Good, Roland, associate professor, University of Oregon .............................. 20

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21

Higgins, John P., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education .......... 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

Response to questions posed by Mr. Miller ............................................. 84

Internet addresses to various audit reports [Microsoft Word documents]: 

‘‘The Reading First Program’s Grant Application Process, Final 

Inspection Report’’ .......................................................................... 86

‘‘RMC Research Corporation’s Administration of the Reading 

First Program Contracts, Final Audit Report’’ ............................ 86

‘‘The Department’s Administration of Selected Aspects of the 

Reading First Program, Final Audit Report’’ ............................... 86

In the form of a letter, dated January 18, 2007, ‘‘Review of 

the Georgia Reading First Program—Final Audit Report’’ ......... 86

‘‘Audit of New York State Education Department’s Reading First 

Program, Final Audit Report’’ ....................................................... 86

In the form of a letter, dated October 20, 2006, ‘‘Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s Reading First Program—Final 

Audit Report’’ .................................................................................. 86

Kame’enui, Edward, Commissioner of the National Center for Special 

Education Research, U.S. Department of Education ................................. 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13

Response to questions by Mr. Scott ......................................................... 87

Transcript edits received from ................................................................. 92

Lewis, Starr, associate commissioner, Kentucky Department of Education .............................................................................................................. 27

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29

Additional written testimony of ............................................................... 31

Follow-up testimony of .............................................................................. 100

Simmons, Deborah C., professor of special education, Texas A&M University .................................................................................................................. 22

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24

Response to questions by Mr. Scott ......................................................... 88

Transcript edits received from ................................................................. 96

(1)

MISMANAGEMENT AND CONFLICTS OF 

INTEREST IN THE READING FIRST PROGRAM 

Friday, April 20, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 2175, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Miller, Kildee, Payne, Scott, Woolsey, 

Hinojosa, McCarthy, Tierney, Kucinich, Wu, Davis of California, 

Grijalva, Bishop of New York, Sarbanes, Sestak, Loebsack, Hirono, 

Altmire, Yarmuth, Hare, Clarke, Shea-Porter, McKeon, Castle, Wilson, Kuhl, and Heller. 

Staff present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease Alli, 

Hearing Clerk; Alice Cain, Senior Education Policy Advisor (K-12); 

Fran-Victoria Cox, Documents Clerk; Sarah Dyson, Administrative 

Assistant, Oversight; Amy Elverum, Legislative Fellow, Education; 

Michael Gaffin, Staff Assistant, Labor; Jeffrey Hancuff, Staff Assistant, Labor; Ryan Holden, Senior Investigator, Oversight; Lloyd 

Horwich, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secretary Education; Thomas Kiley, Communications 

Director; Ann-Frances Lambert, Administrative Assistant to Director of Education Policy; Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness; Stephanie Moore, General Counsel; Alex Nock, Deputy 

Staff Director; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; Rachel Racusen, Deputy 

Communications Director; Theda Zawaiza, Senior Disability Policy 

Advisor; Michael Zola, Chief Investigative Counsel, Oversight; 

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director; James Bergeron, Counselor to the 

Chairman; Robert Borden, General Counsel; Kathryn Bruns, Legislative Assistant; Steve Forde, Communications Director; Taylor 

Hansen, Legislative Assistant; Victor Klatt, Staff Director; Chad 

Miller, Professional Staff; Susan Ross, Director of Education and 

Human Resources Policy; Linda Stevens, Chief Clerk/Assistant to 

the General Counsel; Sally Stroup, Deputy Staff Director; and Brad 

Thomas, Professional Staff Member. 

Chairman MILLER [presiding]. The committee will come to order. 

Good morning to all the members and to the audience and to the 

witnesses. 

2

The purpose of the meeting this morning is to conduct a hearing 

on the mismanagement and conflicts of interest in the Reading 

First Program. 

I will begin with my opening statement. 

In 2002, as part of the No Child Left Behind Act, Congress established the Reading First Program to help young children become 

better readers. 

Under the Reading First program, the federal government provides grants to states to help them improve reading instruction. 

States may use this funding for a variety of purposes, including the 

purchase of: core reading curricula; programs to assess students’ 

progress toward reading proficiency; and the intervention programs 

to help students who are falling behind in reading. 

In September 2006, the Education Department’s inspector general issued the first six reports on the implementation of the Reading First Program. I am pleased that the inspector general is joining us today to discuss some of his findings. It is critically important that the committee has this opportunity to hear directly from 

the inspector general about them. 

The inspector general found a number of ways in which the Department of Education failed to act in the best interests of the taxpayers, the states, the schools and schoolchildren. The inspector 

general’s first report showed that, in a number of cases, the Education Department officials and contractors with deep financial and 

personal connections to specific reading products inappropriately 

promoted those products over others. 

Rather than provide an even playing field on which high-quality 

programs can compete based upon the just merits for business with 

the states, these officials and contractors created an uneven playing field that favored certain products. Indeed, we know of examples where states were essentially bullied to use those products in 

order to receive Reading First money. 

This uneven playing field was obviously unfair to the companies 

and the publishers that developed products that were out of favor 

with the Department of Education, but it was also unfair and costly to the states and school districts that were denied the opportunity to use their first-choice reading curricula and assessments. 

Today, we are going to hear from the former Reading First director Chris Doherty, who figured prominently in the inspector general’s first report. We are also going to hear from reading experts 

who served on the Assessments committee that was set up to offer 

advice about which reading assessments the states could use under 

the law. 

We are going to learn about those experts’ bias for specific reading assessment products and evaluate whether they were capable 

of being independent brokers in deciding which programs should 

receive funding under Reading First. 

The purpose of this hearing is not to evaluate the effectiveness 

or strengths or weaknesses of the Reading First Program. I support 

the Reading First Program, as do many of my colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle. As the committee works to reauthorize No Child 

Left Behind, we will evaluate the program to see what we can do 

to improve it. 

3

But there is no question that this mismanagement and these 

conflicts of interest undermined the program and the public’s confidence in it. In reauthorization, this committee will act on legislation to explicitly prohibit these kinds of conflicts. 

When states and school districts and schools are bullied into 

using reading programs and assessments that were not their first 

choice or had a proven track record, then it meant that the officials 

in Washington, D.C., were overriding the informed decisions of 

local educators about what is best for their own students. 

Too many times in the Bush administration, we have seen examples of officials abusing the public trust and misusing tax dollars, 

and we have seen way too many examples of cronyism and conflicts 

of interest that have undermined the government’s effectiveness. 

From the multibillion-dollar contracts at Halliburton in Iraq to 

the wasteful spending and gross mismanagement in the wake of 

Hurricane Katrina, this administration has simply failed to be accountable to taxpayers and the public. 

Now it appears that we can add Reading First—on which we have spent roughly $6 billion since 2002—to a long and growing 

list of instances where the administration is operating outside of 

the law, unaccountable to Congress and the American people. 

I do appreciate our witnesses who are here today and are prepared to discuss their roles in the implementation of Reading First. 

I want to assure them that the committee will give them each an 

opportunity to voice their perspective on this scandal. We consider 

their participation to be extremely informative and look forward to 

their testimony. 

With that, I would like to recognize the senior Republican of the 

committee, Mr. McKeon from California. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this 

hearing. 

As you know, we are in the midst of an extensive series of hearings on the No Child Left Behind Act, a series that began about 

a year ago when you and I announced our aggressive plan to lay 

the background for reauthorization. While today’s hearing may be 

structured differently than many of the NCLB hearings we have 

held during the past year, the subject at hand today is just as important to the law’s reauthorization as the subjects of any of the 

other hearings we have had during this series. 

Mr. Chairman, you and I and many other members of this committee embraced Reading First when we crafted NCLB in 2001 because we agreed it was time for our nation to commit to scientifically based reading instruction as part of our broader effort to provide a high-quality education to every single child. 

Six years later, the program appears to be on its way to achieving the results we had hoped for. Knowing this is welcome news, 

considering the fact that we spend a billion dollars a year on this 

program. Though the outcomes of Reading First have been strong, 

I had hoped that the Department of Education would have been 

more effective in managing and staffing this program. 

As all of us know, however, for a period of years, the management quality of this program did not rise to the high level of the 

results it has consistently produced for our nation’s students. The 

responsibility for these shortcomings lies squarely at the feet of the 

4

Department of Education, a responsibility the secretary accepted 

quickly and without hesitation. 

Now it is our responsibility to provide thorough and fair congressional oversight on this issue. My goal for this hearing—and any 

others that may follow—is very simple, and I hope my colleagues 

share it: to make the Reading First Program even better. 

Today, we will look more deeply into the management of this program, how it has been assessed and, most importantly, what we 

can do to ensure the Department of Education corrects problems 

identified by its inspector general and by this committee. 

Yesterday, in order to begin this process and ensure we remain 

focused on improving the Reading First Program, I introduced comprehensive legislation that takes key recommendations of the inspector general and makes them the law of the land. 

The Reading First Program is too important and too successful 

to allow it to fall prey to management questions. By codifying many 

of the inspector general’s recommendations, we will ensure these 

management issues are dealt with in the law itself so the program 

can continue to achieve positive results in practice. 

Among a host of other reforms, the Reading First Improvement 

Act will require the secretary of education to explicitly screen for 

conflicts of interest among Reading First peer reviewers; ensure 

that any Reading First contracts the Education Department enters 

into include provisions requiring contractors and subcontractors to 

screen for potential conflicts of interest; and reinforce the provisions found in NCLB and other federal laws that prohibit the Department of Education from dictating curriculum to local schools. 

Many of these reforms already have been embraced by the Department of Education, and I applaud that. However, it is our responsibility to ensure that they remain permanent, regardless of 

which administration is in office, and for that reason, it is best addressed legislatively as part of the NCLB’s reauthorization. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe these are common-sense steps we can 

get behind and build upon in a bipartisan way. I urge my colleagues to enjoy me in supporting the Reading First Improvement 

Act and setting these important reforms into motion. 

When the first inspector general report was released last fall, I 

committed to a thorough and fair oversight hearing of Reading 

First management, and now that the investigation is complete, I 

am pleased that we can begin that process. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing today. 

And thank you to each of our witnesses for joining us this morning. 

Chairman MILLER. I thank the gentleman. 

I want to say that pursuant to committee rule 12, any member 

may submit an opening statement in writing which will be made 

part of the permanent record, and without objection, all members 

will have 14 days to submit additional materials for the hearing 

record. 

I would just to comment on Mr. McKeon’s statement. I appreciate 

his recommendations and look forward to working with him on 

those. I think it shows that the inspector general’s report has already had an impact and has provided some guidance to us about 

what we can do to remedy the situation that is the subject of this 

5

hearing. I appreciate his contribution in that effort to start putting 

forth those reforms. 

Before proceeding to introducing our witnesses, let me lay out 

the process we will follow generally in investigative hearings and 

specifically in this hearing. 

An investigative hearing differs from a legislative or oversight 

hearing in that investigations may involve allegations of public officials acting in an official capacity or private citizens or any of these 

who have engaged in certain conduct that may suggest the need for 

legislative remedy. 

Because of the importance of getting complete, full and truthful 

testimony, witnesses in investigative hearings before the committees of Congress are sworn in. Our witnesses will be sworn in 

today. 

I understand that some witnesses, as is their right, are accompanied by counsel. While counsel are welcome to advise their clients, they may not coach them or answer questions on their behalf. 

House rule 11(2)(k)(4) authorizes the chairman of the committee 

to punish breaches or order, decorum or professional ethics on part 

of counsel by censure or exclusion from the hearings or the committee may cite offenders to the House for contempt. I will not tolerate tactics designed to disrupt the purposes of this hearing. 

To ensure that we have ample opportunity to flesh out all the 

relevant facts in the record, I am exercising my prerogative as 

chair pursuant to committee rule (2)(b) to extend the 5-minute rule 

for myself and Mr. McKeon. Following the witnesses’ testimony, we 

will each engage in two 15-minute rounds of questioning, after 

which members may participate in the 5-minute rule. 

I would like now to introduce our panel of witnesses. 

First is Mr. John P. Higgins. He is the inspector general of the 

U.S. Department of Education. Mr. Higgins has served in a number 

of senior management positions in the Department of Education 

and its predecessor, the Department of Health and Education and 

Welfare during more than 38 years of federal service. He became 

the deputy inspector general of the Department of Education in 

January 1996 and was nominated by President Bush on September 

18, 2002, to become inspector general. He will be accompanied by 

Mr. Rasa, also of the inspector general’s office. 

Mr. Edward Kame’enui—is it close?—currently serves as a commissioner for special education research at the Institute of Education Sciences at the Department of Education. Prior to joining 

IES, Dr. Kame’enui worked at the University of Oregon where he 

was a faculty member for 17 years. During his tenure with the 

University of Oregon, he directed and co directed numerous state 

research and training grants, including Oregon Reading First Center and the Western Regional Reading First Technical Assistance 

Center. He has served as a multitude of national committees, review panels and research boards in general and in special education, and has published extensively. Mr. Kame’enui holds a bachelor’s of arts at Pacific University and holds a master’s and Ph.D. 

in special education from the University of Oregon. 

Christopher Doherty worked for the U.S. Department of Education from 2004 to 2006 as a program director for Reading First. 

Prior to joining the department, Mr. Doherty served as executive 

6

director of the Baltimore Curriculum Project, a nonprofit organization that operates inner city public charter schools. 

Dr. Roland Good is currently an associate professor at the University of Oregon. His focus includes early literacy research, measurement statistics and research design. For the past 19 years, he 

has led a program of research and development culminating in the 

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, known as 

DIBELS for the purposes of this hearing, and the DIBELS data 

system. He is also the principal and co-founder of Dynamic Measurement Group, an educational company that, among other things, 

provides professional development on DIBELS. Mr. Good holds a 

doctorate from Pennsylvania State University. 

Dr. Deborah Simmons is a professor of special education at Texas 

A&M University. She was a speech pathologist and a special educator in the public schools for 10 years prior to earning her doctorate 

degree in special education and reading. She conducts research to 

prevent and intercept reading difficulties. Dr. Simmons has published extensively in her areas of expertise. 

Starr Lewis is the associate commissioner of the Office of Teaching and Learning in the Kentucky Department of Education. The 

Office of Teaching and Learning is responsible for curriculum areas 

for early childhood through high school. As associate commissioner, 

Ms. Lewis is responsible for leading the state’s efforts during the 

Reading First grant-writing phase and implementation. Ms. Lewis 

has received a BA from the University of Kentucky and her master’s in teaching from the University of Louisville. Before joining 

the Kentucky Department of Education, Ms. Lewis taught English 

and psychology for 17 years. 

For those of you who have not testified here before, let me explain the lighting system that will be on in front of you. When you 

begin your testimony, the light will be green, and when you see a 

yellow light, it means you have roughly 1 minute to wrap up your 

remarks in that remaining time. When the light turns red, your 

time has expired and you need to conclude your testimony. 

Please be certain, as you testify, to turn on and speak into the 

microphone in front of you. 

At this point, I would like each of you to stand and to raise your 

right hand for the purpose of being sworn before the committee. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. Higgins, we will now hear from you. Welcome to the committee, and thank you for your work. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN P. HIGGINS, INSPECTOR GENERAL,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Mr. HIGGINS. 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 of 2005, my office began receiving allegations about 

Reading First. The allegations indicated that the department was 

promoting and excluding specific programs and assessments, as 

7

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: one, appeared 

to have inappropriately influenced the use of certain programs and 

assessments; two, failed to comply with the statutory requirements 

and its own guidance; three, obscured the requirements of the statute; and four, created an environment that allowed real and perceived conflicts of interest. 

First, with regard to the 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 the 

presenters for the academies. 

Of 10 ‘‘Theory to Practice’’ presentations, six contained information on the Direct Instruction Program. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Higgins, if I might, if you could pull your 

microphone a little bit closer to you? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Okay. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Let’s see. Where was I? 

Of the 10 ‘‘Theory to Practice’’ presentations, six 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 participant indicated, ‘‘I felt like it was a Direct Instruction sales pitch.’’

The Reading First statute requires the use of reading assessments. Each participant at the Reading Leadership Academies was 

provided a handbook that included an article featuring one reading 

assessment called DIBELS. Later, the department published a 

guidebook, which also contains an article featuring DIBELS. 

While other assessment instruments were listed in the handbook 

and the guide, 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 the review, the University reviewed 29 and 

found 24 of them to be acceptable. Seven of the 24 were tied directly to people working on the review. 

8

The National Institute for Literacy decided not to issue their 

final report because it might appear as if they were endorsing 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 

Web site. 

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 specific programs or assessments. These instances of intervention concerned 

Direct Instruction and DIBELS. 

In other instances, the 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 subpanels 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 subpanels created by the department included representation 

from each of the required organizations. 

We also identified evidence that the Reading First director personally nominated three individuals for sub-panels who had professional connections to Direct Instruction. These three individuals reviewed 23 state applications. In choosing individuals to serve on 

the subpanels, 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 document in which it changed panelists’ comments, left 

off comments and added comments of its own. The 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. 

9

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

First, the screening process that the department created for the 

subpanels 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 conflicts of interest. The department 

used RMC to provide technical assistance to states and to assist 

the states in preparing applications. However, RMC did not ensure 

that the organizational conflict of interest clauses were included in 

the agreements of the consultants. 

In addition, neither the department nor RMC adequately vetted 

technical assistance consultants for potential biases. As a result, 

we noted connections between individuals and organizations that 

presented an appearance of 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 the 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 the particular programs were based on scientifically 

based research or not. 

Based on our work, we made a number of recommendations to 

the department, which it accepted. We also suggest that the department consider clarifying whether reading programs need to 

have scientific evidence of effectiveness in order to be eligible for 

funding under the Reading First Program and clarifying conflict of 

interest requirements in federally funded programs. 

That concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Higgins follows:]

Prepared Statement of John P. Higgins, Jr., Inspector General,

U.S. Department of Education 

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. 

10

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, 

11

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. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you very much for your statement. 

And, again, as I said earlier, thank you very much for all of your 

work and the work of your office and staff on the reports that you 

did on Reading First. 

Mr. Kame’enui, your statement? 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD KAME’ENUI, COMMISSIONER OF THE 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, distinguished members of the committee, I want to thank the committee for asking me to testify today to explain my involvement in 

the design and implementation of the Reading First Program. 

The Reading First legislation introduced a transforming requirement. Instead of allowing states to receive funds based solely on 

need, this law asked states to describe how they would use evidence or scientifically based reading research to mount a systematic and sustained effort to improve literacy in the nation’s most 

challenging schools. 

This immense effort required clear and unflinching leadership 

which it received because it asked states, districts and schools to 

take inventory of their current efforts in teaching beginning reading and, in doing so, either change or modify what they were doing. 

It meant that states and school districts competing for Reading 

12

First funds had to select and implement reading assessments and 

curricula based on scientific evidence. 

This transformation from entitlement to scientific accountability, 

akin to a Kuhnian paradigmatic shift, has been difficult for everyone—teachers, administrators, school board members and other 

stakeholders in states, districts and schools, including the U.S. Department of Education. 

After all, how were states to know what beginning reading assessments were valid, reliable and scientifically based? How were 

they to know which beginning reading programs were based on the 

best available science? Whose science and what evidentiary standards were education officials to use in carrying out these basic 

teaching and administrative tasks? 

To ensure the success of this initiative, it was imperative that 

answers to these questions be provided in a short and condensed 

period of time to comply with the timetable provided in the legislation. As such, it was necessary to rely on researchers from around 

the country who possessed the knowledge and expertise to do the 

work. 

With perfect hindsight and given the scope of the ongoing inquiries it is now clear that more should have been required by the U.S. 

Department of Education and others involved in the program, including me, to prevent the issues that have arisen. 

My involvement in the Reading First Program began in August 

2001. At that time, I was asked by the Department of Education 

through a colleague to put together a committee charged with the 

responsibility of developing both a process and a product that 

would provide assistance to state and local education agencies in 

selecting reading assessment measures. 

To respond to this request, I selected seven researchers to develop and apply a process, criteria, decision rules and procedures 

for identifying reading assessment instruments designed for screening, diagnosis, progress monitoring and outcome evaluation. In a 

period of 8 months, September 2001 to May 2002, my colleagues 

and I completed this unforgiving task. 

In doing so, the committee reviewed more than 100 assessment 

measures and selected 29 they judged to be the most frequently 

used instruments and readily available for review. In selecting 

some of the best experts in the country, it is not surprising that 

those experts would also be authors of popular and innovative assessment tools, which the committee as a whole selected to review. 

It is also important to note that it was our understanding at the 

time that more assessment measures would be reviewed and that 

technical assistance to support states in the continued review and 

selection of assessment tools would be ongoing. 

What lessons did we learn from this experience? 

On the technical side of this experience, we learned that if high 

and rigorous standards were maintained for judging trustworthiness, very few tests would meet those standards. Because so 

many tests failed to provide information about the required technical features, the committee adopted a set of minimum standards 

of trustworthiness with the goal of providing the field with the best 

of what was available at the time. 

13

On the non-technical side, I want to note that at the outset we 

took steps to avoid any conflict of interest, even though we received 

no guidance, explicit or implicit, from the contractor or the U.S. Department of Education in this regard. As researchers, we employed 

traditional academic standards in reviewing and adjudicating the 

research and technical evidence. 

The standards we used required each committee member to disclose his or her proprietary interest in assessment instruments and 

to not review those particular instruments. Moreover, committee 

members did not discuss as a group the ratings of any of the assessments. In addition, I would like to note that neither I, nor any 

member of the committee that I know of, violated the conflict of interest procedures that we had established. 

However, knowing now what various questions have been raised 

about the appearance of conflicts, it is apparent that we should 

have required a different set of standards than the traditional academic standards, such as formalized procedures for defining and 

identifying conflicts and even appearances of conflicts. 

In conclusion, it is my sincere hope that issues regarding conflicts of interest procedures that have arisen in the implementation 

of Reading First do not irreparably tarnish this important and unprecedented federal program. These issues should not diminish the 

supreme importance in continuing to use rigorous, scientifically 

based evidence in making educational decisions. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Kame’enui follows:]

Prepared Statement of Edward J. Kame’enui, Professor,

College of Education, University of Oregon 

I want to thank the Committee for asking me to testify today to explain my involvement in the ‘‘design and implementation of the Reading First Program.’’ I do 

so today with the genuine desire that my testimony will assist this Committee both 

in learning the true facts behind the development of some important aspects of this 

Program and in instituting any necessary changes to ensure the continued viability 

of this important and unprecedented federal program. 

The Reading First legislation introduced a transforming requirement, instead of 

allowing States to receive funds based solely on need, for the very first time this 

law asked States to describe how they would use evidence or ‘‘scientifically based 

reading research’’ to mount a systematic and sustained effort to improve literacy in 

the nation’s most challenging schools. This immense effort required States, districts 

and schools to take inventory of their current efforts in teaching beginning reading, 

and in doing so, either change or modify what they were doing. In some cases, this 

change occurred at an unprecedented scale that provoked a transformation in the 

professional and ideational culture of schools, districts and, in some cases, states. 

It meant that states and school districts competing for Reading First funds had to 

select and implement reading assessments and curricula based on scientific evidence. This transformation from entitlement to ‘‘scientific’’ accountability akin to a 

Kuhnian paradigmatic shift, has been difficult for everyone—teachers, administrators, school board members, and other stakeholders in States, districts, and schools, 

including the U.S. Department of Education. After all, how were States to know 

what beginning reading assessments were valid, reliable and scientifically based? 

How were they to know which beginning reading programs were based on the best 

available science? Whose science and what evidentiary standards of science were 

education officials to use in carrying out these basic teaching and administrative 

tasks? 

To ensure the success of this initiative, it was imperative that answers to these 

questions be provided in a short and condensed period of time to comply with the 

timetable provided in the legislation. As such, it was necessary to rely on researchers from around the country who possessed the knowledge and expertise to do the 

work. With perfect hindsight, and given the scope of the ongoing inquiries, it is now 

clear that more should have been required by the U. S. Department of Education 

14

1See No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6368 (2007). 

and others involved in the program, including me, to prevent the issues that have 

arisen. 

My involvement in the Reading First Program began in August 2001. At that 

time, I was asked by the Department of Education, initially through a colleague, to 

put together a committee charged with the responsibility of developing both a process and a product that would provide assistance to State and local educational agencies in selecting ‘‘screening, diagnosis, and classroom-based instructional reading assessments’’ called for by the Reading First legislation. To respond to this request, 

I selected seven researchers to develop and apply a process, criteria, decision rules 

and procedures for identifying reading assessment instruments designed for screening, diagnosis, progress monitoring, and outcome evaluation. The need for such a 

committee may strike those uninitiated to education as peculiar. After all, one could 

ask, wasn’t this information already established, available and used widely? The 

short answer is no. 

In a period of eight months (September, 2001 to May, 2002), my colleagues and 

I developed operational definitions of the five ‘‘essential components of reading instruction’’ as specified in the 2002 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation.1 These 

five essential components are phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency and 

reading comprehension. We also developed operational definitions of the four ways 

to evaluate how well children read, which include screening, diagnosis, progress 

monitoring, and outcome evaluation. The five essential components of reading instruction and the four purposes of assessment also had to be considered in the context of four grade levels—Kindergarten through Grade 3 (K-3). In addition, we developed a 34-page coding form that permitted independent reviewers to code the 

technical information found in the test manuals of the reading assessment measures. As an aside, the independent reviewers spent an average of 6-12 hours coding 

the technical information for each of these tests. Finally, using the coded information, six members of the committee were paired into three teams to judge the ‘‘trustworthiness’’ or sufficiency of the technical information for each of the assessment 

measures. To select the assessment measures, the Committee reviewed more than 

a 100 assessment measures and selected 29 they judged to be the most popular and 

frequently used instruments and readily available for review. In selecting some of 

the best assessment experts in the country, it is not surprising that those experts 

would also be authors of popular and innovative assessment tools, which the committee as a whole selected to review. It is also important to note that it was our 

understanding at the time that more assessment measures would be reviewed and 

that technical assistance to support states in the continued review and selection of 

assessment tools would be ongoing. 

What lessons did we learn from this experience? On the technical side of this experience, we learned that if high and rigorous standards were maintained for judging trustworthiness, very few tests would meet those standards. Because so many 

tests failed to provide information about the required technical features, the committee adopted a set of minimum standards of trustworthiness with the goal of providing the field with the best of what was available. Thus, measures were deemed 

to be trustworthy if they provided relevant data that met the minimal requirements. 

On the non-technical side, I want to note at the outset that we took steps to avoid 

any conflicts of interests, even though we received no guidance (explicit or implicit) 

from the contractor or the U.S. Department of Education in this regard. As researchers, we employed traditional academic standards in reviewing and adjudicating the research and technical evidence. The standards we used required each 

committee member to disclose his or her proprietary interest in assessment instruments, and to not review those particular instruments. Moreover, committee members did not discuss as a group the ratings of any of the assessment measures. In 

addition, I would like to note that neither I, nor any member of the committee that 

I know of, violated the conflicts of interests procedures that we had established. Instead, each Committee member recognized the importance of this work and went 

to extraordinary measures to ensure not only that the work was conducted and completed with integrity in a very short period of time, but that it was done without 

any conflicts of interests. However, knowing now the various questions that have 

been raised about the appearance of conflicts, it is apparent that we should have 

required a different set of standards than the traditional academic standards. There 

should have been more formalized procedures for defining and identifying conflicts 

and even appearances of conflicts. Moreover, we should have addressed those in as 

transparent a manner as possible to ensure the integrity of the process. 

In the future, to guard against the perception of conflicts of interests, I recommend that an independent entity, such as the National Research Council of the 

15

National Academy of Sciences, be charged with the oversight responsibility of this 

task. I further recommend that the Review Panel be comprised of researchers and 

technical experts who do not have any proprietary interests in any assessment tools, 

protocols, and websites or test publishing companies. In addition, I recommend that 

a clear and unambiguous set of guidelines with concrete examples be provided on 

what constitutes conflicts of interests. Such a process and guidance should ensure 

that real and perceived conflicts of interests are not an issue. 

In addition to my work on the Assessment Committee, I also served as the Director of the Oregon Reading First Center from September 1, 2002 to July 1, 2005, a 

period of 2 years and 10 months, and Director of the Western Regional Reading 

First Technical Assistance Center (WRRFTAC) from October 1, 2003 to July 1, 2005, 

a period of 1 year and 9 months. The Oregon Reading First Center was responsible 

for providing technical assistance to the State of Oregon’s Reading First grant program. In contrast, the Western Regional Reading First Technical Assistance Center 

was responsible for providing technical assistance to the western states including, 

as I recall, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota and American Samoa. 

As Director of these two technical assistance centers, I was responsible for ensuring 

that States received technical support that reflected the most current scientifically 

based reading research available. Again, even in the absence of any explicit or implicit guidance from the U.S. Department of Education or the contractors on what 

constituted a conflict, we took traditional academic steps to avoid any conflicts of 

interests in providing technical assistance to States. For example, as an author of 

a reading intervention program for Kindergarten children, I never promoted or provided technical assistance on that program. Moreover, neither I, nor any staff members that I know of, violated the conflicts of interests standards that were common 

to our professional practice. Instead, staff members took significant measures to ensure not only that the work was conducted with respect and integrity, but also that 

it was done without any conflicts of interests. 

Much of the work of these technical assistance centers involves translating research into practical and useable instructional practices that teachers and administrators can implement immediately, and at scale. There is no textbook or driver’s 

manual for doing this work, and doing it in a way that is accessible, sensible and 

engaging for teachers and administrators who face the realities everyday of teaching 

struggling readers to read. As such, my colleagues and I relied on our knowledge 

of the reading research and the collective experience we had gained from our previous work. Thus, for the record, I want to note the experience that I brought to 

my role as Director of these two technical assistance centers. For example, I was 

one of 17 members that served on the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on 

the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children, which produced the first 

‘‘consensus’’ report on reading problems in 1998, a report that pronounced, yet 

again, the importance of the teacher’s role in teaching children to read in an alphabetic writing system. In addition, my colleague, Deb Simmons, and I wrote the 

Reading/Language Arts Curriculum Framework K-12 for the State of California, 

which served as a major influence at the time on publishers and other state reading 

initiatives. I was also actively involved in the implementation of the predecessors 

of Reading First, the Comprehensive School Reform Act, and the Reading Excellence 

Act, which were hallmarks of the Clinton Administration. Finally, some of the materials we used in our Reading First work were developed as part of a 10-year technical assistance center that I co-directed with my colleague, Dr. Douglas W. 

Carnine, from 1991 to 2002. This center, called the National Center to Improve the 

Tools of Educators (NCITE), was funded by the Office of Special Education Programs and had as its primary mission working directly with publishers and developers of reading, language arts and mathematics curricula to ensure that the needs 

of students with disabilities and low performers were considered in the design and 

architecture of these materials. 

In conclusion, it is my sincere hope that issues regarding conflicts of interest procedures that have arisen in the implementation of Reading First do not irreparably 

tarnish this important and unprecedented federal program. Without doubt, these 

issues do not diminish the supreme importance in continuing to use rigorous, scientifically based evidence in making educational decisions so that education can 

give all children, particularly those who struggle with reading, a foundation in literacy to not just finish high school and perform at a proficiency level on the nation’s 

reading report card, but to flourish as imaginative and productive citizens. I speak 

for myself and I believe for my colleagues when I tell you that we had good intentions and worked very hard, and we even put in place our own standards for avoiding conflicts of interests. However, it is now clear that good intentions and hard 

work are not enough. To prevent issues like this from occurring in the future, rigVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:05 Oct 15, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-22\34496.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
16

orous evidence and stricter internal controls must guide these good intentions and 

hard work. 

The welfare of our children and our nation requires that we teach our children 

to read in an alphabetic writing system; it will not come naturally to them in the 

absence of good, scientifically based reading instruction. Likewise, the stewardship 

of the Reading First program must deliver on its promise to ensure that all children 

will become readers at the end of Grade 3. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER J. DOHERTY, FORMER PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR READING FIRST, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF EDUCATION 

Mr. DOHERTY. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon and 

members of the committee, than you for the opportunity to address 

you today about my role in the management and implementation 

of Reading First. 

I worked diligently for nearly 5 years to implement one of the 

largest educational initiatives ever undertaken by the federal government, and my sole motivation was to help the children of this 

country learn how to read. Reading First offers millions of our most 

disadvantaged children the benefit of effective early reading instruction. I took my responsibility toward these children seriously, 

and all my decisions were based on compliance with the law and 

maximizing Reading First’s impact on children learning how to 

read. 

That these efforts were successful is evidenced by the performance of Reading First schools and in states’ satisfaction with the 

implementation of the program, documented by multiple sources. 

Due to time constraints, I will not be able to discuss all of these 

sources here. However, I submitted a number of them with my 

written testimony. 

These facts notwithstanding, a distorted story has been written 

over the past few months based on the worst possible interpretation of events that occurred during the early days of Reading First. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to offer a different view 

of the program. 

The Reading First section of the No Child Left Behind law placed 

very clear requirements on the instructional materials that could 

be used. The statute details in numerous places that all instructional materials must be based on scientifically based reading research. This limitation was not added by the department; it is very 

prominent in the legislation crafted by this committee and authorized into law. 

The requirements of the law recognized that some instructional 

programs and materials are based on scientifically based reading 

research and some are not. The suggestion that has been put forth 

by some recently that it was inappropriate to question grantees 

about programs that did not appear to comply with the law is stunning. In fact, we were questioned by congressional committees in 

2003 and again in 2004 about what the department was doing to 

ensure that Reading First funding was not going to programs that 

were not aligned with the research. 

We never directed which particular scientifically based instructional materials states or districts must use. The point was to comply with the law and maximize Reading First’s impact on children 

learning to read. 

17

States did not have to identify programs in their applications. 

They had only to identify the criteria they would use to select programs. Clearly, states got this message. Only three state educational agencies specifically identified the core reading programs 

that their districts would use in their Reading First applications. 

I believe Reading First has worked well because we insisted on 

faithful implementation of the law. It is making a real difference 

for states, districts and schools and, most importantly, children 

throughout the country. Reading First is the only No Child Left Behind program to receive an effective rating from the Office of Management and Budget. Only 17 percent of federal programs reviewed 

across the government have received this highest rating. 

The data from Reading First schools, which have been painfully 

and surprisingly absent from this debate about the program’s administration, speak for themselves. Based on the data available 

when I left the department and corroborated by new data released 

by the department yesterday, Reading First schools, which are, by 

definition, the most disadvantaged and lowest-performing schools 

in their states and districts, have shown dramatic gains on reading 

outcome measures across all grades and across all disaggregated 

subgroups. 

To give just one example of increases in state-level data, Arizona 

announced that academic gains had ‘‘skyrocketed,’’ their word, in 

its Reading First schools, with students in all grades K-3 making 

dramatic gains that far outpaced comparison schools. Arizona has 

seen the achievement gap close, the entire purpose of this historic 

No Child Left Behind Act. Ninety-seven percent of white students, 

96 percent of Hispanic students and 95 percent of Native American 

students in its Reading First schools finished first grade at grade 

level. 

Reports from both the Government Accountability Office and the 

Center on Education Policy show the high level of satisfaction that 

states had with the department’s implementation of Reading First. 

States have not been silent in their criticism of many other components of No Child Left Behind. However, they credit Reading First 

with improvements in student achievement and have consistently 

spoken highly of the department’s management of Reading First. 

I am proud of what the program has achieved and of my role in 

its implementation. I respected the chain of command at the Department of Education, receiving directives which I never had reason to question and keeping superiors informed about this highprofile, billion-dollar-a-year program which was under scrutiny 

from its inception. 

Did I take my responsibility for rigorous implementation of Reading First seriously? I respectfully and proudly tell you that yes, I 

did, because I wanted to ensure compliance with this law and 

maximize Reading First’s impact on children learning how to read. 

I sincerely thank you for your attention. 

[The statement of Mr. Doherty follows:]

Prepared Statement of Christopher J. Doherty, Former Program Director 

for Reading First, U.S. Department of Education 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeown and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to address you today about my role in the management and implementation of the Reading First program. I worked tirelessly for 

18

nearly five years to implement one of the largest educational initiatives ever undertaken by the Federal government, and my sole motivation was to help the children 

of this country learn how to read. Too many of our nation’s children are denied the 

opportunity to achieve to their full potential because they do not become proficient 

readers. The Reading First program offers millions of our most disadvantaged children the benefit of effective early reading instruction, and the limitless possibilities 

that come with being a literate citizen. 

I took my responsibility toward these children seriously every day, and all decisions were based on compliance with the law and maximizing the program’s impact 

on children learning how to read. That these efforts were successful is evidenced by 

the performance of Reading First schools and in states’ satisfaction with the implementation of the program, documented by multiple sources. These facts notwithstanding, a distorted story has been written over the past few months based on the 

worst possible interpretation of events that occurred during the early days of the 

Reading First program. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to offer a different interpretation of those events, the one that I know to be true. 

The Reading First section of the No Child Left Behind law broke new ground for 

Federal education programs. This landmark legislation placed very clear requirements on the instructional materials that could be used in connection with the 

Reading First program. The statute details in numerous places that all instructional 

materials must be based on scientifically based reading research. This limitation 

was not added by the Department; it is very prominent in the legislation crafted 

by this Committee and authorized into law. 

Improving the quality of reading instruction in our nation’s most disadvantaged 

schools is what the law charged us to do. The requirements of the law recognized 

that some instructional programs and materials are based on scientifically based 

reading research and some are not. The suggestion that has been put forth by some 

recently that it was inappropriate to question grantees about programs that did not 

appear to be based on scientifically based reading research is stunning. In fact, we 

were questioned by Congressional committees in 2003 and again in 2004 about what 

the Department was doing to ensure that Reading First funding was not going to 

programs that were not aligned with the research. 

We did monitor implementation, and we did question the use of programs that 

did not appear to be based on scientifically based research. The point in doing this 

was never to direct which particular scientifically based instructional materials 

grantees or subgrantees must use—the point was to comply with the law and maximize the program’s impact on children learning to read. The law was clear that programs must align with the research, and the research is clear that programs that 

are most effective in teaching children, especially disadvantaged children, how to 

read feature explicit and systematic instruction in five areas of phonemic awareness; 

phonics; fluency; vocabulary and comprehension. The importance of explicit and systematic instruction must be underscored—many vendors claim their programs are 

aligned with the research because they include the instructional components I just 

named. But a program is not aligned with the scientific findings about how children 

learn how to read if it does not include explicit and systematic instruction. 

The Department worked hard to dispel the belief held by some that there was a 

‘secret’ approved list of programs. It is asserted in the Inspector General’s report 

that a practitioner panel during the Secretary’s Reading Leadership Academies—

one short session within a multi-day event—convinced states that they could only 

use the handful of programs identified during that panel. The Secretary’s Academies 

were held in the earliest days of the program and were an introduction to scientifically based reading instruction. Although no mention is made of this any of the Inspector General reports, the Academies were followed by Writer’s Workshops, attended by all the states, which were specifically about the Reading First application. 

The point was made repeatedly at the Writers’ Workshops that there was no approved list of programs, and that states did not have to identify programs in their 

applications—they had only to identify the criteria they would use to select programs. 

There is clear evidence that states got this message—only three state educational 

agencies—California, Michigan, and American Samoa—specifically identified the 

core reading programs that their subgrantees would use in their Reading First applications. It has been repeatedly and falsely asserted that the approval of Michigan’s application sent a message to other states that they had to include certain programs in their applications. The fact is Michigan was among the first six states to 

receive its Reading First grant, and the other five states did not identify programs. 

It has been similarly asserted that the expert review panel tried to steer states toward certain programs, and would not recommend applications for approval until 

19

this occurred. The fact that only three states identified programs shows this simply 

did not happen. 

I believe much misunderstanding has arisen from confusion about the timing of 

events. The first Inspector’s General report, which purports to be about the application review, includes events that occurred after states had begun to implement their 

approved plans. As I noted earlier, questioning of programs was done to ensure that 

grantees were complying with the requirements of the law. But no one was ever told 

they must use a certain program or programs instead of others. 

Much has also been made of the fact that a technical assistance provider appears 

to have become somewhat persistent in recommending a particular instructional assessment on two occasions. Yes, this occurred, and as the Inspector General’s report 

shows, it was immediately addressed by the program office. Technical assistance 

providers had hundreds of contacts with states. That two isolated incidents of this 

kind could be identified among hundred of contacts is evidence of a very good track 

record of technical assistance, not a pervasive pattern of inappropriate activity. 

The same conclusions can be drawn about the Reading First program as a whole: 

while not perfect in every detail, the program has a very good track record. It has 

been well implemented and is making a real difference for states, districts, schools, 

and most importantly, children throughout the country. Reading First is one of only 

four Department of Education programs to receive an effective rating from the Office of Management and Budget—and the only program that is part of the No Child 

Left Behind Act to receive this distinguished rating. As you know, OMB’s assessment is based on program performance and management, and only 17% of Federal 

programs reviewed across the government have received an effective rating. 

The data from Reading First schools—which have been painfully and surprisingly 

absent from this debate about the program’s administration—speak for themselves. 

Reading First is a very large program—implemented in nearly six thousand 

schools—and despite its size there is clear evidence of its positive impact. Based on 

the data available when I left the Department, Reading First schools have shown 

dramatic gains on reading outcome measures across all grades and across all 

disaggregated subgroups. Sixty percent of third grade students in Reading First 

schools were reading at the proficient level on measures of reading comprehension—

up from 28% when the program began, and as you know, Reading First schools are 

by definition the most disadvantaged and lowest performing schools in their districts and states. 

These impressive increases hold for all subgroups across the same time period—

third grade economically disadvantaged students have increased from 20% to 58%; 

third grade English language learners from 13 to 59%; and students with disabilities from 12 to 33%. To give just two of the many examples of increases in State 

level data—students in Reading First schools doubled the gains of non-Reading 

First schools in Washington State, despite the fact that the poverty rate in Reading 

First schools is more than twice the rate in non-Reading First schools. Arizona announced that academic gains had ‘‘skyrocketed’’ in its Reading First schools, with 

students in all grades K-3 making dramatic gains that far outpaced comparison 

schools. Arizona has also seen the achievement gap close—the entire purpose of the 

historic No Child Left Behind Act itself. 97% of white students, 96% of Hispanic students and 95% of Native American students in its Reading First schools finished 

first grade at grade level. And the Bureau of Indian Affairs—which serves some of 

the highest needs schools and students in the country—saw the percentage of students at benchmark increase from 28% to 50% in its first two years of Reading First 

implementation. 

There is also clear evidence of the high level of satisfaction states have with how 

Reading First has been implemented and its impact on students. Reports from both 

the Government Accountability Office and the Center on Education Policy show not 

only that the states credit Reading First with improvements in student achievement, but that the states were satisfied with the Department’s implementation. 

What is perhaps most incongruous about the present controversy is that it has 

nothing to do with the success or failure of the program for America’s children. The 

complaints against the program were made by a handful of vendors, not by the program’s grantees or subgrantees. The Inspector General launched several extensive 

audits of Reading First based on these vendor complaints, and it became very clear 

early on that the Inspector General’s findings of mismanagement were a foregone 

conclusion. I was presented with preliminary findings before I had a single interview with the auditors. False findings of this kind are perhaps unsurprising given 

the climate of mistrust that has afflicted government service in recent decades. As 

Steve Kelman of Harvard University noted in a recent Washington Post op-ed on 

the Inspector General Process, there is a consistent focus on the negative, on controls rather than creativity, and on documentation rather than performance. Any 

20

shred of evidence that seems to support the investigator’s hypothesis—in this case 

a small number of regrettably coarse emails—can be elevated to the status of gospel. 

Let me conclude by returning to my original theme: Reading First has been an 

extremely successful program and its achievements for the nation’s children did not 

happen by accident. They are a result of faithful implementation of the law and a 

desire to maximize the program’s impact on children learning to read, both of which 

required ensuring that only instructional materials based on scientifically based 

reading research were used. I am proud of what the program has achieved and of 

my role in its implementation. My career has been devoted to public service—beginning in the foreign service, and then working to improve educational opportunities 

for disadvantaged children in Baltimore. This included being the first director of the 

Baraka School in Kenya, the subject of the award-winning documentary ‘‘The Boys 

of Baraka.’’

When I was asked to serve as director of Reading First, I was honored and humbled by the importance and magnitude of the task. I endeavored always to fulfill 

my role with integrity. I respected the chain of command at the Department of Education, faithfully executing orders from superiors, which I never had reason to question, and keeping superiors informed about the program. The suggestion that Reading First was mismanaged has deeply hurt me and my family and is completely unfounded. 

Did I take my responsibility for rigorous implementation of this program seriously? I respectfully and proudly tell you that, yes, I did, because I wanted to ensure 

compliance with the law, and maximize the program’s impact on children learning 

how to read. I am pleased to report that the effort has been a success. I can only 

hope that more children will learn to read as a result of this vitally important program in the years ahead. 

Thank you for your attention. 

TESTIMONY OF ROLAND GOOD, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, 

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 

Mr. GOOD. Chairman Miller and members of the committee, 

thank you very much for the opportunity come here and participate 

in clarifying the record about our involvement in Reading First. I 

have submitted written testimony, and I would like to summarize 

and elaborate on that today. 

First, I think that Reading First has been a remarkable and incredible bipartisan effort across Democrats and Republicans to 

make a much needed change in reading outcomes for our children 

and especially for the children who are most at risk, our poor and 

children from diverse backgrounds. 

I am a professor at the University of Oregon. For about the last 

20 years or so, I have been doing research and teaching and presenting on reading with particular emphasis on reading assessment, especially around the areas of early literacy and of a prevention-oriented model to ensure that all of our children are on track. 

Very early in the Reading First process, I was invited to participate on the assessment committee of the secretary’s Reading Leadership Academies. I was invited by Dr. Kame’enui and had the opportunity to participate on a committee of scientists and of researchers who in our field are without peer with the highest scholarly credentials that we have. I was very honored to be a part of 

that committee. 

As a result of that committee work, we began a process of establishing scientific standards and applying those standards to assessments to be able to put into practice the words about scientifically 

based reading research in evaluating assessments. In doing that, 

we followed the highest standards of avoidance of conflict of interest in the academy. 

21

As a professor, we are not unfamiliar with conflict of interest. 

Whenever we research, whenever we publish, there are always 

issues of conflict of interest. We address those within the university 

setting by first being public about what our investment is. Second, 

we focus on evidence. It is not about judgment, but it is about evidence, what science can we bring to bear. And third, we avoid direct participation in any evaluation of our own work or of our own 

product, and we have a blind review process of things that we are 

involved in. 

DIBELS was one of the 29 measures that was evaluated by that 

committee. In every review of DIBELS, I recused myself from any 

discussion and did not participate directly in any discussion of 

DIBELS, and I do not know who did. Whoever reviewed it is blind 

to me. That review encompassed DIBELS and many others. 

Subsequent to my involvement on the assessment committee, I 

also was faculty on the Western Region Reading First Technical 

Assistance Center for a period of time and participated in presentations at the secretary’s Leadership Academy and at subsequent 

Reading First national conferences. 

In that time, I would really championed the use of assessment 

in a prevention oriented model. I have used DIBELS as examples 

in those presentations. I have used other assessment measures as 

examples as well. 

Currently, I continue to do research and training around early 

literacy assessment. I continue to consult with states when I am 

requested to. 

I would really like to see this important innovation continue. I 

would really like to see the words ‘‘scientifically based reading research’’ turned into practice in a way that can be defended. I think 

we need to have a panel that is continuing, that is charged with 

review of programs and review of assessments, a panel and a process where it can be above even the appearance of a conflict of interest and rigorously supervised. All of that is very important to continue this important landmark work that is Reading First. 

This has been an opportunity to change in a very meaningful 

way the lives of our children who are most at risk. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you 

today. I would be very pleased to answer any questions you have. 

[The statement of Mr. Good follows:]

Prepared Statement of Roland H. Good III, Associate Professor,

University of Oregon 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members, it is a pleasure and honor to testify 

before you. For the past 19 years my colleague Ruth Kaminski, myself, and a team 

of researchers and graduate students have pursued a program of research expanding the measurement technology that is the foundation for DIBELS 6th Edition. Our 

work builds on the previous research begun initially by Professor Stan Deno and 

the team of researchers at the Institutes for Research on Learning Disabilities at 

the University of Minnesota and carried on today by many researchers in Curriculum-Based Measurement of Reading, or CBM. CBM is a measurement technology for developing brief, one-minute, repeatable, fluency-based measures of reading proficiency. The measurement technology has remarkable reliability and validity 

supported by over 30 years of research. Today that measurement technology is used 

in many reading assessments including DIBELS 6th Edition. 

Our research team has extended that measurement technology and research base 

in two primary areas: (a) a downward extension of the measures to the early literacy skills of phonemic awareness and phonics in kindergarten and early first 

22

grade, and (b) the extension of a decision-making model to general education settings with an emphasis on early intervention and problem prevention. 

Our research focus on early literacy assessment was motivated by a crisis in our 

reading instruction and reading outcomes for our children, especially our children 

from poor and diverse backgrounds. We began with an exhaustive review of the existing research literature at that time and identified core components of early literacy that should form the content of instruction and the target of assessment. 

Those 5 core components were eventually identified by the National Reading Panel 

as phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension. It is not a coincidence that we targeted very early essentially the same skills 

identified by the National Reading Panel: We were reading the same research. 

Our most important work so far has been the articulation of a prevention-oriented 

decision model supporting educators to use assessment to inform instruction to 

change reading outcomes. In the Outcomes Driven model, we recommend that educators use assessment to (a) identify need for support, (b) validate need for support, 

(c) plan and implement support, (d) evaluate and modify support, and (e) review 

support. Essentially those decisions require that assessment be used for the purposes of screening, diagnostic assessment, progress monitoring, and evaluation of 

outcomes. 

Those 5 core components and 4 purposes of assessment form the backbone of 

Reading First assessment requirements. I believe Reading First represents the state 

of the science about early literacy assessment and instruction. We did not develop 

early literacy assessment for Reading First, we have spent almost 20 years developing early literacy assessments for the state of the science about reading instruction. We arrived at essentially the same place as Reading First through a convergence of paths. 

Some see DIBELS 6th Edition as an extremely valuable measure that has been 

instrumental in helping schools with very high educational needs make dramatic 

changes in reading outcomes for their children. However, DIBELS 6th Edition is 

just a set of simple, easy measures that utilize public, readily available measurement technology. Others can and have developed competing measures using that 

measurement technology. The principle value of DIBELS 6th Edition is not in the 

measures themselves, it is in the extensive program of longitudinal research that 

documents the reliability, validity, and decision utility of the measures. From that 

research we know what level of early skill places a student at risk of not achieving 

later reading outcomes. We know what levels of early literacy skills students need 

to achieve by when in order to make adequate progress toward reading proficiency. 

Most important, we can evaluate a student’s progress toward goals on a direct and 

frequent basis and know, within weeks, whether our instruction is adequate or must 

be modified or enhanced on a student-by-student basis. 

Throughout our work with DIBELS 6th Edition and prior editions, we have tried 

to maximize the impact of our work for children. We strive to make this powerful 

measurement technology readily, easily, inexpensively available for educators. A 

version of DIBELS 6th Edition is easily available on the internet for free download 

and unlimited photocopying for educational purposes. We are unconditionally committed to continuing to have DIBELS future editions available for free download 

and unlimited photocopying as long as there are users who need it. We also have 

the same materials available in published form from Sopris West, and Wireless Generation offers the same assessment on a handheld Palm device. Ruth Kaminski and 

I developed a similar set of measures called Voyager Indicators of Progress (VIP) 

embedded within the Voyager Universal Literacy curriculum. Schools may choose to 

download for free, or purchase version, or use the handheld Palm. Or schools may 

choose to use the curriculum embedded version. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Dr. Simmons? 

TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH C. SIMMONS, PROFESSOR OF 

SPECIAL EDUCATION, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY 

Ms. SIMMONS. Mr. Miller and Mr. McKeon and members of the 

committee, like Dr. Good, I have submitted written testimony, and 

I will briefly summarize my involvement in Reading First for you 

today. Thank you for this opportunity. 

23

I have always told folks I had the most important and best job 

in the world. I get to teach future teachers. I get to observe in 

classrooms. I get to help solve school’s problems. 

And one of the biggest problems that Reading First is addressing 

is the number of children that we have who are not readers and 

who are not readers by the end of Grade 3, and we know that if 

a child is not a reader by the end of first grade, there is a very 

low probability that they will become a successful reader, and that 

is where I have spent my life’s work. 

I spent the first 10 years as a special educator in public schools. 

The next 10 years, I worked with schools to try to help them fix 

programs and reading programs. Asking teachers to fix an ineffective program is like asking a pilot to fly and build a plane at the 

same time. It is just physically impossible. So good programs and 

scientifically based programs are at the heart of what I do. 

Regarding my involvement in Reading First, I was involved in 

two primary areas. I worked as a member of the assessment committee. As Dr. Good and Dr. Kame’enui have described, this was 

an important work that helped establish assistance for schools as 

they tried to implement Reading First. There literally was no resource for schools to go to to help identify assessments to use, and 

that was the purpose of the assessment committee, was to provide 

some assistance to schools. 

Members of that committee were the most professional experts 

with whom I have ever worked. They never reviewed assessments 

with which they were affiliated. I am not an author of an assessment, but I can speak from participating in that committee that 

the rigor was at the highest level on that committee. 

My second area of involvement was in the area of presentations 

that I did. Two of those were at the Leadership Academy. Those 

presentations involved components of effective instruction, and at 

no point in those presentations did I endorse or promote specific 

programs. 

Though my involvement in Reading First was very limited and 

largely constrained to 2001 and 2002, it was a time of great excitement and great hope, and recently I have had opportunities to be 

observing in schools that have been involved in Reading First, and 

I can tell you that I see a big difference in those schools. 

I see children who at the beginning of kindergarten knew no letters and no sounds reading sentences and writing words. I see 

schools that look very differently than they would have without 

this assistance from Reading First, and it has been a privilege to 

participate in those activities. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Simmons follows:]

24


simm-1.eps
25


simm-2.eps
26


simm-3.eps
27

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Ms. Lewis? 

TESTIMONY OF STARR LEWIS, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER, 

KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Ms. LEWIS. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and 

honorable members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to share Kentucky’s experience in Reading First. 

I serve as the associate commissioner in the Kentucky Department of Education’s Office of Teaching and Learning, and in this 

role, I led our efforts during the Reading First grant-writing phase, 


simm-4.eps
28

and my office is responsible for the implementation of the Kentucky Reading First plan. 

I would like to begin my comments today by saying that Kentucky’s involvement in Reading First has been extremely beneficial, 

allowing us to create a statewide support system for beginning 

readers, their teachers and administrators. 

I am extremely proud of the Kentucky schools involved in this 

program and of the staff at the Kentucky Department of Education 

who support their efforts. However, there were some issues that we 

faced in Kentucky, issues the committee may want to consider as 

they prepare for reauthorization of Reading First. 

Our introduction to Reading First was in February of 2002 when 

we attended the department’s Reading Leadership Academy. Using 

the knowledge we obtained from the academy and other technical 

assistance provided, we drafted our proposal and submitted it to 

the department’s expert review panel for approval in May of 2002. 

Our commissioner at the time, Gene Wilhoit, reported to our 

board of education that this proposal was the best thought-out and 

well-written proposal he had seen. In short, we were confident that 

we had put together an excellent proposal and that it met all established criteria. 

Unfortunately, this proposal was rejected by the department’s expert review panel, as were our second and third proposals. It was 

only after our fourth submission that our proposal was approved. 

We had asked for but had not received the expert review panel’s 

actual comments. I must add that I did receive them yesterday 

from staff. But the summary sent to us by the Reading First director, Chris Doherty, repeatedly pointed to concerns about one of our 

proposed assessments. 

Our first two proposals did not include DIBELS. We were hoping 

to build on our existing experience with another assessment called 

Developmental Reading Assessment, or DRA. We really felt that 

we had strong experience and evidence of success from schools and 

districts using this assessment. 

After the expert review panel rejected our first two proposals, we 

contacted Mr. Doherty who referred us to RMC Research Corporation to obtain technical assistance. During our conversation with 

the RMC technical assistance team, we were given advice about a 

number of issues related to our proposal, but we were repeatedly 

advised to replace DRA with DIBELS. 

I mentioned on a conference call with the RMC team that endorsing DIBELS appeared to be a conflict of interest, given the involvement of a number of individuals connected to DIBELS who also 

served on the Reading First Academy assessment committee. The 

RMC team acknowledged the connections, but continued to say 

that our proposal would likely be viewed more favorably if we included DIBELS. After this call, we learned that one of the members of the technical assistance team, Joe Dimino, was a DIBELS 

trainer. 

Commissioner Wilhoit sent a letter to then-Secretary of Education Rod Paige appealing that decision to deny Kentucky’s funding based on inconsistencies in expert review panel decisions across 

states and on our concerns related to potential conflicts of interest. 

We received a response from Eugene Hickock, the former deputy 

29

secretary of education, assuring us that there were no discrepancies between state reviews and no conflicts of interest. 

After receiving the response from Mr. Hickok, we reorganized our 

proposal to more clearly and explicitly address the concerns of our 

panel and resubmitted in December 2002. In this second proposal, 

we addressed every concern identified in the summary provided by 

Mr. Doherty and even added DIBELS, but we did not drop DRA. 

On January the 8th, 2003, we received notification that our expert 

panel had again rejected our proposal. 

In March of 2003, we had a conference call with Mr. Doherty. We 

pointed out that we had been reviewing other state approved plans 

and that at least one included DRA. He assured us that the state 

in question had agreed to remove the assessment even after approval. While Chris never actually said the words, ‘‘Kentucky will 

never be funded as long as it includes DRA,’’ we all left the discussion understanding that to be the case. 

We removed DRA, kept DIBELS, resubmitted our proposal in 

March of 2003. We were approved for funding in the next month. 

During the proposal phase, Kentucky did not experience pressure 

concerning core programs or intervention programs. As we described in our proposal, Kentucky has legislation that gives all curriculum decision-making authority to school councils and explicitly 

prohibits the Kentucky Department of Education from mandating 

curriculum materials. 

However, after we started implementing Reading First and after 

our first federal monitoring visit, the monitoring team’s report 

raised concerns about Reading Recovery and Rigby as not being 

sufficiently grounded in scientifically based reading research. In 

the letter from Mr. Doherty accompanying the report, he did not 

name the programs specifically, but raised concerns. 

Again, we had a conference call with him during which he suggested that our funding might be in question if we continued to 

allow schools to purchase these two programs. We asked Chris to 

put in writing that we could not use Reading First funds for Reading Recovery or Rigby, he refused, but he did invite us to write a 

defense of the two programs. We did so and have never received 

a response from the department. 

Since the recent reports and the departure of Mr. Doherty from 

the department, we have received e-mails, letters and calls from 

new Reading First staff, but we have referred them to the letter 

we sent to Secretary Paige, and we have requested the names of 

our expert panel members and copies of their responses. We got the 

responses yesterday but not the names, and we had not received 

the information before then. 

I want to repeat that Reading First has been a success in Kentucky. I am here today to give feedback to the committee on the 

problems we faced so that Reading First can go forward stronger 

and continue to make a difference in classrooms across Kentucky. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Lewis follows:]

Prepared Statement of Starr Lewis, Associate Commissioner,

Kentucky Department of Education 

Chairman Miller, ranking member McKeon, and honorable members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to share Kentucky’s experience in Reading 

30

First. My name is Starr Lewis and I serve as the Associate Commissioner in the 

Kentucky Department of Education’s Office of Teaching and Learning. In this role, 

I led our efforts during the Reading First grant-writing phase, and my office was 

and is responsible for the implementation of the Kentucky Reading First plan. 

I would like to begin my comments today by saying that Kentucky’s involvement 

in Reading First has been extremely beneficial to our state. It has allowed us to create a statewide support system for beginning readers, their teachers and administrators. Reading First has shifted our focus onto struggling readers and provided 

Kentucky with the resources to give teachers the skills and tools needed to help 

these students. I am extremely proud of the Kentucky schools involved in this program and of the staff at the Kentucky Department of Education who support their 

efforts. However, there are some issues we faced in Kentucky, which the Committee 

may want to consider as they prepare for reauthorization of Reading First. 

Our introduction to Reading First was in February of 2002 when we attended the 

Department’s Reading Leadership Academy. The purpose of the Academy was to 

help states gear up for the implementation of Reading First. Using the knowledge 

we obtained from the Reading Leadership Academy and other technical assistance 

provided, we drafted our proposal and submitted it to the Department’s expert review panel for approval in May of 2002. Our Commissioner at the time, Gene 

Wilhoit, reported to our Board of Education that this proposal was the best thoughtout and well-written proposal he had seen. In short, we were confident that we had 

put together an excellent proposal and that it met the established criteria. We were 

excited about helping young readers and expected to implement Reading First starting in the fall of 2002. Unfortunately, this proposal was rejected by the Department’s expert review panel, as were our second and third proposals. It was only 

after our fourth submission that our proposal was approved. 

While we have asked for but have not received the expert review panel’s actual 

comments, the Department’s summary sent to us by the Reading First Director, 

Chris Doherty, repeatedly pointed to concerns about one of our proposed assessment 

tools. Our first two proposals did not include the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy Skills assessment tool, which is now commonly referred to as DIBELS and 

which was developed at the University of Oregon. Instead, we were hoping to build 

on our existing experience with another reading assessment tool, Diagnostic Reading Assessment (DRA). We felt that we had strong experience and evidence of success from schools and districts using DRA. After the expert review panel rejected 

our first two proposals, we contacted Mr. Doherty who referred us to RMC Research 

Corporation, a Department contractor, to obtain technical assistance. During our 

conversations with the RMC technical assistance team, we were given advice about 

a number of issues related to our proposal and we were repeatedly advised to replace our current assessment tool with DIBELS. I mentioned on a conference call 

with the RMC technical assistance team that endorsing DIBELS appeared to be a 

conflict-of-interest given the involvement of a number of individuals with connections to DIBELS and who also played roles in the implementation of Reading First 

in that they served on the Reading First Academy Assessment Committee. The 

RMC technical assistance team acknowledged the connections, but continued to say 

that our proposal would likely be viewed more favorably if we included DIBELS. 

After the call we learned that one of the members of the technical assistance team, 

Joe Dimino, was a DIBELS trainer. 

Commissioner Wilhoit, sent a letter to then Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, appealing the decision to deny Kentucky’s funding based on inconsistencies in expert 

review panel decisions across states and on our concerns related to potential conflicts-of-interest. We received a response from Eugene Hickock, the former Deputy 

Secretary of Education, assuring us that there were no discrepancies between state 

reviews and no conflicts-of-interest. 

After receiving the response from Mr. Hickok, we worked with two members of 

the RMC staff. After we had reorganized our proposal to more clearly and explicitly 

address the concerns of our panel, we resubmitted our proposal in December 2002. 

In this second proposal, we addressed every concern identified in the summary provided by Mr. Doherty and even included DIBELS, but we did not drop our current 

assessment tool. 

On January 8, 2003, we received notification that our expert panel had again rejected our proposal. 

In March of 2003, we had a conference call with Mr. Doherty. We pointed out to 

Mr. Doherty that we had been reviewing other states’ approved plans and that at 

least one included the assessment tool we wanted to use. Mr. Doherty assured us 

that the state in question had agreed to remove the assessment tool even after approval. While Chris never actually said the words, ‘‘Kentucky will never be funded 

as long as it includes DRA,’’ we all left the discussion understanding this to be the 

31

case. We removed the proposed assessment tool, included DIBELS and resubmitted 

our proposal in March of 2003. We were approved for funding in the next month. 

During the proposal phase, Kentucky did not experience any pressure concerning 

core reading programs or intervention programs. As we described in our proposal, 

Kentucky has legislation that gives all curriculum decision-making authority to 

school councils and explicitly prohibits the Kentucky Department of Education from 

mandating curriculum materials. However, after we started implementing Reading 

First and after our first federal monitoring visit, the monitoring team’s report raised 

concerns about Reading Recovery and Rigby as not being sufficiently grounded in 

scientific based reading research. In the letter from Mr. Doherty accompanying our 

monitoring report, he did not name the programs specifically but raised concerns. 

Again, we had a conference call with Mr. Doherty, during which he suggested that 

our funding might be in question if we continued to allow schools to purchase these 

two programs with Reading First funds. 

We asked Chris to put in writing that we could not use Reading First funds for 

Reading Recovery or Rigby. Chris refused, but he did invite us to send him a defense of the two programs. We did so, but we never received a response from the 

Department. 

Since the release of the recent OIG reports and the departure of Mr. Doherty from 

the Department, we have received emails, letters, and calls from new Reading First 

staff at the Department inviting us to share any concerns. We have referred Department staff to the letter we sent to Secretary Paige outlining our concerns. Also, we 

have requested the names of our expert panel members and copies of their responses, but we have not yet received that information. 

In closing, I want to repeat that Reading First has been a success in Kentucky. 

I am here today to give feedback to the Committee on problems we faced in Kentucky so that these issues can be addressed. Addressing these problems now will 

help ensure that Reading First will be stronger going forward and that it will continue to make a difference in classrooms across America. 

Additional written testimony: 

Preparing for this hearing gave me the opportunity to review the responses of our 

expert panel sent to use from Chris Doherty and Sandi Jacobs. In general I found 

the responses to be vague and not helpful, and they led to very few substantive 

changes in our proposal. The repeated rejections did lead to substantial delay in implementing our programs. We were a full year behind in getting reading programs 

implemented in our schools. 

The most substantial change we made in our plan related to the removal of our 

original proposed assessment and the addition of DIBELS. The developers of 

DIBELS point out that the test is available for free on the web. While this is the 

case, teachers have to print out the assessment in paper version. This requires 

teachers to manipulate a variety of tools at one time while at the same time listening to a child’s reading performance. In order to have DIBELS available in a form 

that promotes ease of use and fast turnaround of results, teachers need a handheld 

device with DIBELS software. In order to have this version of the tests, we contract 

with Wireless Generation. Following is a list of our contracts with Wireless Generation, totals that do not include the cost of the handheld devices: 

2004–2005—$244,700

2005–2006—$255,000

2006–2007—$225,000

I have been asked several times if we would switch to our original assessment 

if given the opportunity. My answer is that we are now a DIBELS state, and I 

would not want us to make a decision that would cause that much change for teachers implementing this program. 

I mentioned in my oral testimony that Kentucky’s Reading First schools have 

made gains in student achievement. Our Reading First schools made a 15% gain 

on Group Reading Assessment for Diagnosis and Evaluation (an additional assessment used in Reading First schools) in the number of students scoring at the Kentucky benchmark from the end of the 1st year of implementation to the end of the 

2nd year. They are also on pace to make another 10.5% gain this year from last 

year. Schools have a higher percentage of students at the benchmark at every grade 

level K-3. 

Reading First schools made a 19% gain on DIBELS in the number of students 

scoring at benchmark from the end of the 1st year of implementation to the end 

of the 2nd year. 

32

Reading First schools made better gains than the state average on our state assessment. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you very much. 

And thank you to all the panelists for your testimony and again 

for your participation. 

Mr. Higgins, as I understand it, we are currently funding Read- ing First at a little over $1 billion—is that correct?—and it has 

fluctuated somewhere between $900,000 and $1 billion over the 

last 5 years. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. 

Chairman MILLER. This is a very significant program within No 

Child Left Behind. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Definitely. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Higgins, looking at your final report, in 

your Finding 1A, you say the department did not select an expert 

review panel in compliance with the requirements of NCLB. 

You go on to point out that the law specifically described the 

panel selection process and states that the secretary, in consultation with the National Institute of Literacy, the National Academy 

of Sciences, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development—that people will be selected from those panels, three 

people from each of those organizations—is that correct?—and then 

the secretary will have selections. Is that correct? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. 

Chairman MILLER. You go on to also point out that none of the 

subpanels that were finally put together possessed adequate representation from each of the organizations identified in the law 

under No Child Left Behind. Is that correct? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. 

Chairman MILLER. You state—and if I could have Slide A—that 

‘‘the department created a total of 16 subpanels to review the state 

applications. A majority of the panels were nominated by the department in 15 of the 16 panels, and seven of the 16 subpanels consisted entirely of department-selected panelists.’’ Is that correct? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. 

Chairman MILLER. So these panels, these 16 panels, in your 

opinion, in your report, in matching them with the law, are out of 

compliance? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Correct. 

Chairman MILLER. So then prior to forming these subpanels, you 

tell us that a department official expressed concern that the use of 

the subpanels would not be in compliance with the law. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Correct. 

Chairman MILLER. And then the Office of the General Counsel 

and high-level department officials, including the assistant secretary, approved a plan for the department to create a 12-member 

advisory oversight panel. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Correct. 

Chairman MILLER. And, again, they were supposed to select 

three individuals, almost in accordance with the law, from NIFL, 

from NAS and from National Institute of Child Health and Development. Is that correct? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. 

33

Chairman MILLER. And I guess this is to try to come into compliance with the law. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Correct. 

Chairman MILLER. But it is not in compliance with the law. 

Mr. HIGGINS. No, it is not in compliance with the law totally, but 

I think they thought that this would bring them closer to being in 

compliance because the number of subpanels that there were they 

could not do with the 12 people. 

Chairman MILLER. So the 16 subpanels on Slide A, in fact, continue to be out of compliance with the law, and they are used for 

the reviews that Ms. Lewis talked about. Is that correct? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Right, but they thought that the advisory panel 

that they put that was supposed to have reviewed the results of the 

subpanels would satisfy the law. 

Chairman MILLER. Okay. So you go on to say that the advisory 

and oversight duties would include examining the progress of the 

subpanels, reviewing the recommendations of the subpanels, making final findings and recommendations for the secretary, thus ensuring a common high level of quality and consistency across the 

subpanels. That was the intent. 

Mr. HIGGINS. That was the intent. 

Chairman MILLER. And you say, ‘‘Although the assistant secretary of OESE and the Office of General Counsel officials agreed, 

the advisory and oversight panels were never created.’’

Mr. HIGGINS. Correct. 

Chairman MILLER. So the panel that was supposed to cure the 

original violations of the law was never, in fact, empanelled. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Right. 

Chairman MILLER. So, Mr. Higgins, why all this interest in the 

makeup of these panels and we essentially only end up with your 

department nominees? 

I am sorry. Mr. Doherty? Mr. Doherty? 

Mr. DOHERTY. I beg your pardon, sir. I heard Mr. Higgins’ name. 

Chairman MILLER. Did you hear the question? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Could you please repeat it? 

Chairman MILLER. Well, the question is, why do we have these 

panels, contrary to the law, essentially ending up with only department nominees as membership? And, as is pointed out by the inspector general, we have 15 of the 16 panels with a majority of 

members nominated by the department and we have a number of 

panels with all members nominated by the department. 

Mr. DOHERTY. The expert review panel process was very complicated and very challenging. 

We wanted to ensure that we had sufficient reviewers available 

in the event that all states came in with their applications at the 

same time. The funds were to become available as early as July 1, 

2002. The application was released in April, and we prepared the 

panel so that if all states or many states came in at the same time, 

we could process that. 

We modeled our review panel process on the Reading Excellence 

Act, which is the closest precursor program that exists to Reading 

First. We thought then and we think now that our efforts did meet 

the law. We had subpanels that satisfied the requirements of the 

34

statute, and we worked this process out with the Office of General 

Counsel. 

An advisory and oversight panel was suggested to us to ensure 

even clearer accordance with the law. We, in fact, sent out messages to a 12-member advisory and oversight panel, but, in fact, we 

never convened that panel because we viewed it as being necessary 

in the event that the subpanels did not come to consensus. 

So we certainly did not have the sense in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 

2005 that we were not in accordance with the law. We really did 

not. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Doherty, with all due respect, from day 

one, you were out of compliance with the law by the makeup of the 

panels. You made a decision not to include nominees from the other 

three organizations. 

Mr. DOHERTY. Sir, I disagree. We really had a logistics issue, and 

we had nominees——

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Doherty, we are talking about ethics. So 

your logistics overrode the law. 

Mr. DOHERTY. I respectfully disagree, sir. 

Chairman MILLER. Well, we asked you why this interest, and 

noncompliance with the law is found by the inspector general, and 

your answer is logistics. 

Mr. DOHERTY. No, I was trying to give some context as to how 

we put these panels together. First, we used the structure——

Chairman MILLER. The panels were out of compliance. Do you 

agree to that? 

Mr. DOHERTY. I am not sure. I——

Chairman MILLER. Have you read the inspector general’s report? 

Have you read the law? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Yes. 

Chairman MILLER. What is your answer again? 

Mr. DOHERTY. My answer is that we thought the panel configuration——

Chairman MILLER. No, no. The question is: Were you in compliance with the law? 

Mr. DOHERTY. I believe that we were. 

Chairman MILLER. You believe that you were. Continue. 

Mr. DOHERTY. As I say, we modeled our process after the Reading Excellence Act. They had the same requirements to have panels 

that satisfied various requirements. In our case, a panel needed to 

have a psychometrician, someone familiar with reliability and validity data. We needed to have an expert in professional development. We needed to have someone with classroom experience, and 

we had subpanels that reviewed these things. 

Chairman MILLER. So, Mr. Doherty, out of a nation of 300 million people, you could not find the people for these panels. I mean, 

this is like when the FDA said they could only find people who 

were on retainers from conflicted interest, and then when the law 

changed, they found out they could find people who were not conflicted. 

Mr. DOHERTY. We got——

Chairman MILLER. Out of the entire education community and 

all the researchers and all the people getting grants, from all of the 

35

universities and people with all of the history, it is only these people sitting at the table that can comply? 

Mr. DOHERTY. The size of the original panel was over 70 people. 

Chairman MILLER. Yes. 

Mr. DOHERTY. We received nominations from the agencies you 

mentioned, and yet we did have more nominees from the Department of Education for the reasons that we simply did not have 

enough nominations from the other agencies to meet the demand 

if all of the——

Chairman MILLER. So you just went ahead and violated the law. 

Mr. DOHERTY. We did not think we violated the law. We worked 

very closely with the Office of General Counsel in order to satisfy 

the law. 

Chairman MILLER. We will come back to that in a moment. 

Perhaps the IG has a better answer in his report when, on page 

17, he states, ‘‘The Reading First director’’—that would be you—

‘‘took direct action to ensure that a particular approach to reading 

instruction was represented on the expert review panel. Direct Instruction 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 implemented Direct Instruction in Baltimore City Schools since 1996. 

‘‘The Reading First director personally nominated three individuals who had significant professional connections to Direct Instruction to serve on the expert review panel. The Reading First director 

selected these selected these three individuals to serve on a total 

of seven of the 16 subpanels, and one of these individuals to serve 

as panel chair on five subpanels. These three individuals were collectively involved in reviewing a total of 23 state applications.’’

And then, a subsequent response from the Reading First director 

suggested his intention is to ensure a ‘‘Direct Instruction presence 

on the expert review panel: ‘Funny that the Baltimore City Schools 

calls me to inform me that there are some pro-Direct Instruction 

folks on my panel! Too rich!’ he says. The panelist then asked, 

‘Does he know who you are? Past and present?’ The Reading First 

director’’—that being you, Mr. Doherty—‘‘replied, ‘That is the funniest part. Yes! You know the line from Casablanca, I am shocked, 

I am shocked that there is gambling going on in this establishment? Well, I am shocked that there are DI people on this panel.’

‘‘Shortly before the exchange, the 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 stacked the expert review panel. The employee stated, 

‘The question is: Are we going to stack the panel so that programs 

like Reading Recovery do not get a fair shake?’ The Reading First 

director’’—that would be you, Mr. Doherty—‘‘responded, ‘Stack the 

panel? I have never heard of such a thing.’ ’’

That sounds like a better answer that complies with the facts, 

the laws as found by the inspector general. 

Mr. DOHERTY. May I respond? 

Chairman MILLER. You certainly can. 

36

Mr. DOHERTY. The suggestion that we did not screen for conflicts 

of interest in the expert review panel is not correct. It is pointed 

out in the IG’s report that the Reading First Program was not required to screen for conflicts of interest, and yet we chose to screen 

for conflicts of interest anyway using the strictest methods at the 

time which applied to discretionary grant programs, not formula 

grants like Reading First. 

So, although we were not required to screen, as pointed out by 

the inspector general himself, we chose to, and we worked hand in 

glove with the Office of General Counsel to come up with a screening process. We screened in accordance with the strictest standard, 

and we reviewed every application when it came in. 

The standard that we used, the one that is on the books, is direct 

financial involvement with a particular program. We actively 

screened for that, and when every application came in, circa 200 

or more pages, we read through those applications to make sure 

that no panel member who had a link with that program would review that application. 

Chairman MILLER. I thank you. 

Mr. DOHERTY. Were there people on the panels who were familiar with Direct Instruction? Yes, there were because the law requires subject matter expertise, and that is going to manifest in 

professionals having knowledge of and some links with programs, 

but not direct financial involvement, sir. 

Chairman MILLER. If I might respond, we understand there obviously would be people who would be linked to these various theories and programs, but the inspector general tells us, ‘‘A few days 

before the department publicly announced the panelists it had chosen to serve, one of the department’s nominated panelists contacted 

the Reading First director and shared his strong bias against Reading Recovery’’—strong bias against Reading Recovery—‘‘and the 

strategy for responding to any state that planned to include Reading Recovery in its application. The Reading First director,’’ Mr. 

Doherty, ‘‘responded, ‘I really like the way you are viewing and approaching this, not just because it matches my own approach—I 

swear!’

‘‘This individual later served as the panel chair of 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’’—I think he is the president’s 

guru on reading—‘‘former chief of childhood development and behavior at NICHD, advised the Reading First director and the assistant secretary of OESE and the senior advisor to the secretary 

that one of the panelists had been actively working to undermine 

the National Reading Panel’s report on Reading First initiatives. 

‘‘Lyon further stated, ‘Chances are that other reviewers can 

trump up a bias on her part.’ In a written response to all the people involved, the senior advisor said, ‘We cannot uninvite her. We 

will just make that sure she is on a panel with one of our barracuda types.’ ’’

Do you still think your panels are in compliance with the law? 

Do you still think this was about evenly distributing people who 

37

might support or believe in Direct Instruction or any other kind 

and that is all you were doing, is evenly distributing people? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Yes, sir, I do. I note for the record that when the 

54 state applications came in, only three applications even chose to 

write the names of core reading programs. So the panels, which 

were screened appropriately, did not even know the——

Chairman MILLER. That is interesting. They did not know the 

makeup of the panels. 

Mr. DOHERTY. I beg your pardon? 

Chairman MILLER. They did not know how the panels were created, and the question of whether they mentioned it or not is not 

at issue here. 

The question is: At the outset of this program, for the panels that 

are supposed to screen the time and the effort of people like Ms. 

Lewis in the state of Kentucky, they thought that they were walking into a law that required evenly distributed interests and knowledge and expertise and experience on the part of all of the panelists. That is not what they were talking into. 

As Ms. Lewis’s testimony points out, it is not all a matter of the 

written record, and we will visit that in my next round of questioning. 

Mr. McKeon? 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Higgins, in your testimony, you outlined the ways in which 

the department failed to follow the statute in creating the peer review panel and subpanels. You also show that the department 

might have sought to ensure that certain types of products had advocates on those subpanels, while other types of products did not. 

If Congress took steps to grant the department explicit authority 

to form subpanels but required those subpanels to include representatives from each of the four entities currently included in the 

statute and prohibited the subpanels from being comprised of a 

majority of members from only one of those entities, do you think 

that would help protect the integrity of the peer review process? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, I do think that would help, but you might also 

want to expand the group to more than four of the organizations 

that are out there that are experts in the field. That would be my 

only comment. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you. 

You also talk about how the peer review panelists’ comments 

were not made available to the states. 

If Congress took steps to require the department’s guidance for 

the peer review process to provide for publicly available documentation to support the recommendations of the peer review panels, do you think that would help create a more transparent process? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Definitely. 

Mr. MCKEON. One of the other suggestions that came out of your 

reports was to provide opportunities to states to talk directly with 

the peer review panel so the states could get a clearer understanding of what revisions were needed in their applications. 

Among other things, this would prevent department officials from 

mischaracterizing or misinterpreting the comments of the panels 

and thereby providing inaccurate information back to the states. 

38

If Congress required the department to provide states the opportunity for direct interaction with the panels, do you think that 

would create a stronger peer review process? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, I do. 

Mr. MCKEON. You discussed the weakness in the department’s 

efforts to screen for potential biases among the peer review panelists. It is accurate, correct that the statute currently does not require the department to screen panelists for potential conflicts of 

interest? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. 

Mr. MCKEON. If Congress amended the statute to require such 

a review that included a review of panelists’ financial interests in 

reading products and other professional connections to products or 

methodologies and included a requirement that the conflict of interest review be designed to prevent bias or the appearance of it, 

would that strengthen the peer review process and provide it more 

credibility? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, it would. 

Mr. MCKEON. Clearly, we want to strengthen the peer review 

process to ensure that these appearances of bias are avoided in the 

future, and our bill, what I introduced yesterday, does that. 

But I do want to be clear on one point: In its response to your 

report, the department responded that there were six panelists who 

had connections to particular teaching programs. Is that number 

accurate? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. 

Mr. MCKEON. And that is six out of how many? 

While they are looking at it, let me——

Mr. HIGGINS. Approximately 70. 

Mr. MCKEON. Six out of 70? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. 

Mr. MCKEON. The department further claimed that the inclusion 

of these six did not result in any, ‘‘problematic behavior or that any 

of these panelists review the state application that included such 

a program.’’

Did you find any evidence to support or refute this claim by the 

department? 

Mr. HIGGINS. No, we did not. 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Doherty, would you care to respond to that? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Yes. Thank you. 

From the beginning days of the program, we took conflicts of interest very seriously, as evidenced by the fact that we choose to do 

a rigorous screening for conflicts of interest, even though we did 

not need to. 

As I mentioned, the expert review panel members in only three 

out of 54 cases even had an opportunity to see actual program 

names in the application, and above and beyond that, we screened 

incoming applications to make sure that no one was presented with 

an application that had reference to a program that they were involved with. The standard that we used was the existing standard 

at the department, which was direct financial interest. 

As Mr. Higgins’ last answer, that is also my belief, that no members of the panel who even had a professional link with a certain 

program, which was itself not the standard of the day, was in a poVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:05 Oct 15, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-22\34496.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
39

sition to grant funds to that program. I do not believe there were 

any real conflicts of interest, although I regret any perception of 

conflicts of interest that may have occurred. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you. 

Mr. Higgins, your reports highlight a number of weaknesses with 

the conflict of interest screening process within the contracts between the department and RMC Research Corporation and subcontracts entered into by RMC to provide technical assistance. 

If Congress included a screening process for these situations that 

required a review of the potential financial interests in and other 

connections to particular products for each individual consultant 

hired under one of these contracts and required the screening process to be designed to prevent bias or the appearance of it, would 

that strengthen the technical assistance process? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, it would. 

Could I also correct a statement that I made before? 

Mr. MCKEON. Yes. 

Mr. HIGGINS. It was not 70. It was 25. 

Mr. MCKEON. Six out of 25? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you. 

Mr. HIGGINS. That we reviewed. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you. 

Mr. DOHERTY. May I make an important clarification to agree 

with Mr. Higgins? 

My understanding is that as part of their review, the inspector 

general reviewed 25 as a sample of the larger group of about 70. 

So the six that were found to have this link, which we do not perceive as a conflict of interest, was out of the 25. That is not to say 

there were only 25 expert panel members. 

Thanks for letting me clarify that. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you. 

Beyond what Congress can do to address your specific findings, 

Mr. Higgins, I do want to get into other aspects of your reports. 

We often hear complaints from grant applicants who think the 

department—and other agencies, for that matter—include requirements that are not perfectly defined in the statute. I guess that is 

because we do not always pass perfect bills here in Congress. 

In your September 2006 report, you state that the department 

included language in the application that was not based on the 

statutory language, and as a result, states were forced to meet 

standards that were not required by the statute. 

As I read your report, these nonstatutory-based requirements include having, ‘‘coherent instructional design that includes explicit 

instructional strategies, coordinated instructional sequences, ample 

practice opportunities and aligned student materials, protected 

dedicated block of time and small group instruction as appropriate 

to meet student needs with placement and movement base on ongoing assessment.’’

These all sound reasonable to me, although I am not an expert 

on reading instruction. Since you make a point of this in your report, my question is: Is it your view that in order to ask states to 

meet these types of conditions, Congress must specifically put such 

conditions in the statute in order for the application to be valid?’’

40

Mr. HIGGINS. What we were talking about——

Mr. MCKEON. Mic. Mic. 

Mr. HIGGINS. I need the microphone. 

What we were talking about was that there were specific requirements added to the statute for the panels to be reviewing. The requirement of requiring a 90-minute dedicated block of reading time 

and the requirement to require small groups of instruction, we believe, was designed to lock in Direct Instruction. We also believe 

that conversely that to eliminate requiring early intervention and 

reading——

Mr. MCKEON. So you are not suggesting that we do put that language in the statute? 

Mr. HIGGINS. No. I am not. No. 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Doherty, would you care to respond to that? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Yes, thank you. 

From the time that No Child Left Behind was signed into law, 

January 8, 2002, a great many people at the Department of Education worked very hard and very quickly to turn that excellent 

statute—and specifically, in my case, the portion that applies to 

Reading First—into an application package that states could respond to, fill out, be reviewed against, and then be given their 

funds for their program. 

Although I had never taken part in this exercise before, I quickly 

learned that there are a number of judgment calls when a team of 

people takes a guiding statute and turns it into a much larger and 

much more comprehensive application package to give to our 

states. 

We worked in concert with the Hill on that process. We went 

back and forth in rigorous discussions with both sides of the aisle 

on what the application package would entail, and we thought we 

faithfully and in a good manner translated—that is probably not 

the right word—but we took the guiding statute and made an application package out of it. 

As far as the coherent instructional strategy of protected dedicated block of time and small group instruction, we thought—and 

think—that those components emanate directly from the guiding 

research, and in no way was that designed to lock in Direct Instruction. If I am not mistaken, Direct Instruction today represents 

a very small percentage of Reading First schools. 

I do stress we did our best effort to determine an excellent statute into an excellent application and in no way made those decisions to lock in Direct Instruction. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you. 

Sticking with this issue, Mr. Higgins, I assume the department’s 

lawyers reviewed the application, made sure that it conformed to 

the law. Is that accurate, and if so, do you know why the department’s lawyers signed off on the application? 

Mr. HIGGINS. I do not know that the general counsel did review 

it, to be honest with you. 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Doherty? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Yes. The Office of General Counsel, on a complex 

a new program like this was involved in a very collaborative and 

supportive way from day one and ongoing. So we fully believe that 

41

the Office of General Counsel, along with many other offices, approved this application. 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Doherty, I want to spend some time talking 

about this influencing curriculum issue. I assume that you are familiar with Section 9527 of the SEA and Section 103 of the Department of Education Organization Act, both of which prohibit the federal government from dictating local school curriculum. How does 

the department define ‘‘curriculum’’? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Actually, I cannot give a formal answer as to how 

the department officially defines ‘‘curriculum.’’

Mr. MCKEON. Maybe you could respond on that for the record, 

if you could follow up later with that. 

Mr. DOHERTY. Okay. I certainly will. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you. 

What policies does the department have in place to ensure this 

prohibition is not violated? 

Mr. DOHERTY. I cannot speak authoritatively for the department 

as a whole. I can say that as regards Reading First, we from the 

first days felt what you might call a structural tension between the 

very explicit requirement in Reading First that all instructional 

materials must be based on scientifically based research and our 

statutory duty to undertake that obligation, that there is, I think, 

an undeniable underlying tension between that very clear bright 

line law and the sections of law that you mentioned earlier, sir. 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Higgins, maybe I will ask you that same question. What policies does the department have in place to ensure 

that prohibition is not violated? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Actually, we had asked the general counsel if there 

was a definition of ‘‘curriculum,’’ and they told us that there was 

not. So I do not think there are a lot of safeguards. 

Mr. MCKEON. No definition, so there is no reason——

Mr. HIGGINS. Exactly. 

Mr. MCKEON. So maybe that needs to be addressed. 

How did the department’s Office of General Counsel communicate with department staff regarding these prohibitions and the 

policies related to them, Mr. Doherty? 

Mr. DOHERTY. I do not recall any particular conclusion that the 

Office of General Counsel gave us as far as marching orders other 

than to say we worked closely with the Office of General Counsel, 

always aware that a new and different law, like Reading First, 

which specifically required us to ensure that all programs and materials were based on scientifically based research, was something 

that the department needed to do by law, and we never were told 

on any occasion that we were violating either of those other sections of law that you cited. 

Mr. MCKEON. How many states included a specific list of reading 

programs in their applications for funding? 

Mr. DOHERTY. To the best of my recollection, three of the 54 state 

educational agencies mentioned core reading programs by name in 

their applications to the expert review panel. The others, sir, described the criteria with which they would go forth and pick programs with their districts, and they were approved based on those 

criteria. 

42

Mr. MCKEON. Of those three, how many were sent back for revisions or were denied because of the programs included on their 

list? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Of the three states that cited programs? Sir, is 

that your question? 

Mr. MCKEON. Yes. 

Mr. DOHERTY. I do not recall how many times those three state 

educational agencies had their programs reviewed, but I do mention that there are 25 criteria which an application needs to satisfy, 

and although we are focusing on programs here, there are a great 

many other requirements as part of Reading First. So it is quite 

possible that those states in question might have had a round or 

two or three of review, and it may or may not have had anything 

to do with the programs that they cited in one part of their application. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you. 

Is my time expired, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman MILLER. Do you want to finish what you are asking. 

Mr. MCKEON. Well, I might have to submit some of these for the 

record because there are more than I am sure I have time for. 

Chairman MILLER. I thank the gentleman. 

I am going to go ahead and start my second round of 15 minutes. 

I want to advise the members of the committee I will probably 

only take 5 minutes because we do have a vote on. It is my understanding that we have nine. We have nine votes. 

Some of you will have children and grandchildren before we get 

back here. [Laughter.] 

I am going to start and take 5 minutes, and then we will recess 

for the votes. Then we will come back, I will finish, and then Mr. 

McKeon gets his time. 

I hate to be a stickler for the law, Mr. Doherty, but this law, as 

the inspector general says a number of times, is pretty explicit with 

respect to some guidelines for Reading First, and it was written by 

the proponents of Reading First. 

If I could look at Slide B in the guidance—and we will come back 

to what the guidance was—you decide that the guidance is fundamental, that is where you will put the law, and you state in this 

e-mail that ‘‘It has been suggested to me that the guidance may be 

the most problematic place to put some of your suggestions for increased boldness. Why? The guidance is the official place where the 

state people with the closest meaning to the law will go to see 

where Ed have overstepped the law and let them say in remarks 

to groups or face to face in meetings about what the review panel 

will or will not accept. The opportunities for boldness and perhaps 

extralegal requirements are many.’’

So, according to the inspector general’s report. The guidance is 

going to be used to provide a written facade of compliance with the 

law, but, in fact, what is going to take place off the record is to 

some extent different. 

The inspector general on page 15 goes on to say, ‘‘The assistant 

secretary’’—Susan Newman I believe it is—‘‘planned for the Reading First guidance to include language that was not in the statute 

and exclude language that was in the statute. 

43

‘‘After reviewing the revision of the department’s draft on the 

Reading First guidance, the assistant secretary for OESE,’’ Ms. 

Newman ‘‘wrote the Reading First director, ‘Under Reading First 

plans, I would like not to say ‘‘This must include early intervention 

and reading remediation materials,’’ which I think could be read as 

‘‘reading recovery.’’ Even if it is the law, I would like it taken out.’ ’’

We go to the question of it being the law, twice in the law, ‘‘based 

on scientifically based reading research, including early intervention and reading remediation materials, programs and approaches.’’ 

We say that twice in the law, Section 120(d)(1) and 1203(b), and 

the secretary says she wants that taken out of the law because it 

might let somebody capture reading recovery, which many schools, 

districts, states and others use, that somehow that might allow it 

to happen. 

So we are back to your giving her the signal earlier on that the 

opportunities for boldness and perhaps extralegal requirements are 

many. And they are. 

‘‘The Reading First director illustrated this strategy by providing 

the following examples in pre-reading notes documents: Providing 

expanded opportunities to students.’’ This is Section F2 2(b) of the 

guidance. It says, ‘‘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.’’

I do not know what that sentence says, but you say, ‘‘We make 

absolutely no mention of this opportunity in the application because we do not like it and we do not want to open the door to this, 

but it is in the law and it needs to be addressed somewhere reasonably official—like the guidance—as a best compromise.’’

Then you go on to state another example. ‘‘Are there any required priorities for funds reserved to the states? Yes, a state educational agency shall give priority to carrying out the activities described in Question F2.’’

You go on to say again, ‘‘My belief is that this is a potential back 

door through which some of the money could flow to unwanted directions, and, therefore, required priorities for funds reserved for 

the states element of the law is not—not—in the application, but 

we do have to reflect it, as we know it exists somewhere in the 

place, and that is the guidance.’’

So you threw out the guidance to the states. Ms. Lewis and others looked at this and said, ‘‘This is the process by which we are 

going to work,’’ and back door on your BlackBerry, you are undermining the integrity of the program. What was your commitment 

to the law and your apology is what, that mistakes were made, because that is kind of the mantra in the administration? 

Mr. DOHERTY. As the e-mail that you cited shows, I was being 

pressured for not being bold enough. I was being pressured in another e-mail that the inspector general cited for not being bold 

enough. The directive that was given to me was to take such-andsuch out. I indicated, as you read, that we were unable to do that. 

Again, we worked with a team of people to decide which parts 

of the statute would be reflected in application criteria and which 

parts of the statute——

44

Chairman MILLER. That pressure came from whom? You mentioned that in your opening statement also. 

Mr. DOHERTY. It is the woman that you mentioned. 

Chairman MILLER. Ms. Newman? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Yes, sir. 

Chairman MILLER. The assistant secretary? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Yes, sir. 

Chairman MILLER. So she was asking you to violate the law? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Well, I was just commenting on the slide that you 

put up there as far as ‘‘I want such-and-such taken out,’’ and my 

response, as I remember it, in that message was, you know, ‘‘We 

cannot do that. We need to address this,’’ and as I say, turning that 

statute into a program, into an application and into guidance involves judgment calls as to what goes where. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Doherty, maybe that is the way the ethics standards in this program lapsed. You do not get to override the 

law because you are turning the law into a program. 

Mr. DOHERTY. I did not mean to suggest that. 

Chairman MILLER. Agencies and departments and nonprofit organizations and states struggle with this all the time, and they do 

not just decide at some point, well, we will just violate the law. You 

do not get to do that. You do not get to do that. 

In this case, as pointed out, twice in the law that specific language is there. The department does not just get to ignore that. 

Mr. DOHERTY. I am sorry if I suggested that I thought we were 

ignoring the law. 

Chairman MILLER. Well, you suggested that because of logistics, 

because of the time frame, because you might get 50 applications 

all at one time—you have a whole litany of reasons why you did 

not have to abide by the law. 

Mr. DOHERTY. We thought then and think now that we did abide 

by the law. 

Chairman MILLER. Okay. With that, I will reserve the balance of 

time. 

The committee will adjourn, and we will return promptly at the 

end of the last vote. It will be a little while, so if somebody wants 

to get a cup of coffee or something, feel free to do so. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you very much. I apologize for the 

interruption here. This was supposed to be, when we scheduled 

this, a light day on the floor. It turned out to be a multiple-vote 

day on the floor. 

The meeting will reconvene. 

Ms. Lewis, you have listened to this conversation, and the inspector general spent some time on Kentucky. You, in your opening 

statement, went through some of the difficulties you have. I just 

wondered if you might have something you want to add in light of 

what you have heard back and forth here. 

Ms. LEWIS. Well, I have been a bit curious about the panel review process from the beginning. We asked early on in the denials 

of funding to find out who was on our expert review panel, and we 

were told that we could not know who was on the panel. 

As we looked at the summary of the reviews from the panel, we 

often found that the information we were given was vague, not 

45

very helpful. It would say things like, ‘‘There are pieces in this that 

are not sufficiently scientifically based,’’ but the panel review did 

not really give us specific information about what it was that was 

problematic in terms of our scientific basis. 

I guess what I would want to say about the overall process is 

when I look at our first proposal and I look at our fourth proposal, 

I do not see anything really substantially different in terms of our 

plan. We had really hoped to have Reading First in our schools in 

the fall of 2002, which is why we really scrambled to put together 

a proposal in May of 2002. Of course, with the delays that we had, 

being denied three times, it put us a year behind in implementation. 

Chairman MILLER. Did you have any awareness—or your team—

or when you talked to others, since a lot of states were making application, that, in fact, the panel review had been intercepted, if 

you will, that what you saw was not reflective of the panel review? 

Did you assume what you were seeing was the panel review? 

Ms. LEWIS. I assumed that what I saw in the comments from the 

summaries from the department that they reflected the panel reviews. As I mentioned earlier, I was given yesterday——

Chairman MILLER. When did you learn there were two versions? 

Ms. LEWIS. Yesterday. I was——

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Higgins, that would not be unusual? 

Mr. HIGGINS. That is what we found also. 

Chairman MILLER. You say in your report to us, ‘‘While the panel 

chair summaries’’—I guess which were supposed to be sent to the 

states, correct?—‘‘provide constructive comments, the impact of the 

expert panel review’s comments on the 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 expert review team reports.’’

That is what you saw. Is that correct, Ms. Lewis? 

Ms. LEWIS. That is what I saw. 

Chairman MILLER. ‘‘This 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 review or guidance or in the Reading First guidance.’’

So, in fact, there was a misrepresentation being made to the 

states, and in your report—I do not know if this is exhaustive or 

not—you cite the state of Nevada, the state of New York and the 

state of Georgia where sort of back-channel, off-the-record actions 

are taken and/or the information just does not comport with the 

initial panel reviews. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Right. Correct. We found that there were cases 

where the comments were changed, comments were left out, and 

there were additional comments added. 

Chairman MILLER. Is that allowed in the law? Is that discretionary, or is it allowed? 

Mr. HIGGINS. I would not think it would be allowed, but I do not 

know if——

Chairman MILLER. The panel reviews had specific duties under 

the law, as I understand it. Is that correct? 

46

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, but I do not think it got that specific about 

what was allowed and what was not allowed, but I certainly——

Chairman MILLER. Well, Mr. Doherty could have created this 

panel and not violated the law. He could have created this——

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, definitely. 

Chairman MILLER. He just created a fraud in terms of the states 

because they—I am not asking you to comment—got a misrepresentation of what the panels concluded or thought about their program. 

Mr. HIGGINS. They did not get what the panelists said. 

Chairman MILLER. So you had to go through, what, four submissions? Three submissions? 

Ms. LEWIS. The fourth submission was funded. 

Chairman MILLER. Well, it is interesting because we have the appearance again in the guidance and others of the law being followed, but there is this off-the-books activity by Mr. Doherty and 

others, and Kentucky was the recipient of some of that activity, 

but, apparently, you are tougher than you look because when you 

decided that you wanted him to put it in writing, you never heard 

back. 

Ms. LEWIS. Never heard back, no. 

Chairman MILLER. And you were funded. 

Ms. LEWIS. What we asked him to put in writing was to say that 

we could not use the two programs. 

Chairman MILLER. The inconsistency. Yes, yes. 

Well, thank you very much. And, again, I am sorry that it went 

like that for the state in terms of the delay and the rest. 

Excuse me one second. The inspector general—again Mr. Higgins—cited on page 19 that the ‘‘department intervened to release 

an assessment review document without the permission of the entity that contracted with the development.’’

Again, there was a process for an assessment review document 

to be created. I think this was prior even to the law, was it not? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. 

Chairman MILLER. And that was to do what? That was to advise 

the states? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Well, it was a review of the assessments, and what 

happened was that NIFL was uncomfortable with the results of the 

assessment, and they were not going to approve it. Mr. Doherty 

asked Mr. Kame’enui to put it on the Web site of the University 

of Oregon without the permission of NIFL. 

Chairman MILLER. And if you wanted to see what assessment 

tools had been reviewed—in theory by the department—that was 

the presentation—the only place that this existed was on this Web 

site, was it not? 

Mr. HIGGINS. The University of Oregon’s Web site. And NIFL did 

not know it was on that. 

Chairman MILLER. NIFL was supposed to create this. Were they 

not responsible for it? 

Mr. HIGGINS. The assessment committee was to produce it under 

contract for NIFL. 

Chairman MILLER. So, Mr. Kame’enui, how did you get this on 

the Web site without NIFL’s approval? 

47

Mr. KAME’ENUI. I received an e-mail from Mr. Doherty to post 

our findings from the Reading First assessment committee. 

Chairman MILLER. And you assumed what, that he was speaking 

for the department? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. Yes. 

Chairman MILLER. And so, as far as you were concerned, this 

was the official posting of these assessment tools. 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. That is correct. I was not aware of NIFL’s involvement in the support of the Reading First assessment at that 

time. That became evident later, not at the time. 

Chairman MILLER. But, Mr. Good, you were aware of this? 

Mr. GOOD. I was aware of what? 

Chairman MILLER. The troubles with posting this? Were you involved in the creating of the assessment committee? 

Mr. GOOD. I was not involved in the creation of the committee 

or the decision to post or not post on the Web site. 

Chairman MILLER. Do you sit on the assessment committee? 

Mr. GOOD. Yes. 

Chairman MILLER. And the assessment committee selected a 

group determined sufficient for Reading First? You looked at 29—

is that right?—and you selected 24. 

Mr. GOOD. We examined 29. Weren’t there 27 that had evidence 

of support? 

Chairman MILLER. There were seven that were directly tied to 

members of the committee. Maybe that is the seven you are thinking of. 

If we can look at Slide D, then I will try to conclude this. I do 

not think anybody is there. But what it points out is that you had 

29 tools subject to review, I believe, again, 18 of which were personally recommended by assessment committee members, and then 

I think the remainder were taken off the list from the Southeast 

Education Lab, or one of those organizations. Then the assessment 

committee members then reviewed these, and they found 24 of 

them sufficient for Reading First, and we have seven of those sufficient tied directly to assessment committee members. 

Mr. GOOD. That sounds about accurate. 

Chairman MILLER. So yes. Does ‘‘conflict of interest’’ cross your 

mind at all when you hear that? 

Mr. GOOD. As I say, we followed the standards of the academy 

in looking at that issue of conflict of interest. 

Chairman MILLER. What academy? 

Mr. GOOD. By that, I mean sort of the university world. If, for 

example, we are publishing a paper, that paper would be peer reviewed by other experts who know about it. We do not know that 

peer review group, and the person who does the review is not directly involved in the paper. So we followed really those standards 

as best that we could. 

Chairman MILLER. What about when the people reviewing each 

other’s papers know one another? 

Mr. GOOD. This is frequently the case in the university world. 

Chairman MILLER. The academy may want to review it as a potential conflict of interest. 

Mr. GOOD. The person who has authored the paper never knows 

who the reviewers are. 

48

Chairman MILLER. Yes. So you are suggesting that the members 

of the assessment committee did not know one another? 

Mr. GOOD. We knew each other, but we did not——

Chairman MILLER. You did not know one another’s products? 

Mr. GOOD. And we knew each other’s products. We were very 

public about that. But I do not know who reviewed DIBELS on 

that committee. So the specific people are blind to me, and for their 

products——

Chairman MILLER. I am out of time. We will have to come back 

to this. 

I want to yield to Mr. McKeon. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield 15 minutes to Mr. Castle, the subcommittee ranking 

member. 

Mr. CASTLE. I thank both the Chairman for holding this hearing 

and the senior Republican for his interest in what we are doing 

here as well. 

I have read the full notebook that was prepared for us, I have 

read your testimony, and I have listened to you here, and it is hard 

for me to conclude anything other than the fact that there were 

some conflicts of interest. There were ethical lapses here. I do not 

know if they were violations of the law or not. That is beyond my 

prerogative at this point. And I do not know if some of these things 

happened because of political or ideological or financial reasons or 

some combination of all of the above, but it all concerns me. 

But there is a certain irony to all this, and that is that virtually 

all of you—and my own state of Delaware in an opening statement 

which I submitted—basically praise this program of Reading First. 

We hear a lot of negatives about No Child Left Behind, but this 

is one program which we hear virtually all positives. 

So, hopefully, with the legislation that Mr. McKeon’s introduced 

which I have cosponsored, working with Mr. Miller, we can 

straighten out some of these problems and put forth a program 

which generally does what all of you have indicated, which is to 

help the children of this country be able to read sooner and better. 

I am going to start with—this is a very dangerous practice—a 

question I am going to ask all of you to answer. So, hopefully, you 

can be fairly brief in your answers. 

We have heard a lot today about improper procedures and biases 

against certain reading programs, notably Reading Recovery and 

DRA, Diagnostic Reading Assessment. On the other hand, we know 

Congress’s mandate to the department was to only fund scientifically based reading programs and assessments. In other words, 

the department was required to be biased against some programs. 

I do not think we can fairly answer the question whether the department was appropriately or inappropriately biased unless we 

know whether the programs were scientifically based or not. 

Why was there a perception that certain programs, such as Reading Recovery and DRA, were not scientifically based, and were 

those perceptions accurate? Now some of you may feel you cannot 

answer that, but I want you all to take a stab at it. 

Ms. Lewis, I would like to start with you and work that direction. 

Kentucky seems to have been hurt or biased against or whatever, 

49

but you may not know the answer to that particular question. I 

would be interested in your views. 

Ms. LEWIS. I can tell you how we tried to approach it. We went 

to technical assistance sessions with the U.S. Department of Education and the Reading First staff. As I point out in my testimony, 

we went to every technical assistance session, and one of them was 

on assessments. 

We were trying to learn what the program staff meant when 

they talked about scientifically based reading research. We felt that 

it was our job to take on learning what that meant and share that 

information with our schools. 

We looked into all the different assessments that we were considering using. We looked into their technical manuals. We looked into 

the information about their efficacy. We did lots of research with 

other states in terms of what kinds of assessments they were using 

and how effective they were. We also looked at the research on 

Reading Recovery. 

Now sometimes when I look at scientifically based reading research, it almost sounds like it is in the eye of the beholder, and 

I am going to give you an example of this. The department has a 

Web site called The What Works Clearinghouse. Now I would assume that The What Works Clearinghouse would care about scientifically based research programs. 

There are very few programs that make it on to The What Works 

Clearinghouse. Reading Recovery was just added to that list. It is 

a very narrow list, and I would assume that there are strong standards, high standards that programs would have to match. 

So my confusion about scientifically based reading research is: 

How does one determine that? Is it based on real concrete criteria, 

or is there room for opinions and thoughts about a particular program? 

Mr. CASTLE. Maybe we will get the answer. 

Ms. LEWIS. We did our best in applying what we understood 

about scientifically based reading research. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Dr. Simmons? 

Ms. SIMMONS. I am not familiar with the Diagnostic Reading Assessment, the DRA, so I cannot speak to that one. 

But my knowledge as a reading researcher on Reading Recovery 

is based on a synthesis of research that was one in about 5 years 

ago that was published in the Educational Researcher that indicated that it was effective in some conditions, but I cannot recall 

the specifics of that. 

But, overall, the conclusion was that after a summary of research 

and a review of that that it was not as effective as has been documented. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Dr. Good? 

Mr. GOOD. I have not conducted a review of Reading Recovery or 

of DRA, and I have not done research on them. I am not qualified 

to say that they are or are not scientifically based. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Doherty? 

50

Mr. DOHERTY. On the issue of the Diagnostic Reading Assessment and whether that particular assessment is valid and reliable—and in the case of Kentucky, the DRA was put forth for application—I can just say that from my memory four different 

psychometricians, four different folks extremely well versed and 

trained in determining whether assessments are valid and reliable, 

across six different panels came back to the department and said 

that the DRA was not valid and reliable for the purposes that had 

been suggested in the states. Not being a psychometrician myself, 

but requiring to have them on the panels, we in turn took that 

feedback and gave it back to the states; in one case, to Ms. Lewis 

in Kentucky. 

As far as Reading Recovery is concerned, I do not have anything 

to add to Dr. Simmons’ answer. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Dr. Kame’enui? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. Well, I think you posed the right question about 

how do we define scientifically based reading research, and I think 

it is fair to say that in educational research we have such an immature science, it is still formalizing, still developing, as Ms. Lewis 

noted. 

The What Works Clearinghouse, which utilizes the highest rigorous standards—randomized control trials, quasi-experimental 

trials—to look at the reading research, just basically noted that 

Reading Recovery met the highest standards. 

But prior to that, I think you noted it. It is very difficult to define 

scientifically based reading research. Up to the most current review 

of the research, Reading Recovery, the assessment, at least the 

judgment in the field, was that it did not meet the most rigorous 

standards, and there were other issues—the cost of it, the fact that 

it focused on individual students as opposed to groups of students 

and so on. 

So I think we still have a lot to learn about that. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Higgins, I was going to skip over you because I think it is 

beyond your prerogative. If you have something quickly you want 

to add, I would be happy to hear it. 

Mr. HIGGINS. No, I do not have anything to add. I do not think 

our office really has the expertise. 

Mr. CASTLE. I did not think so either, sir. 

Dr. Kame’enui, you stated during the assessment committee 

process, you never received guidance from the department or the 

contractor regarding conflicts of interest. Did the department or the 

contractor ever express any concerns about ensuring the impartiality of the committee’s report or ask you what you were doing 

to ensure impartiality? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. No, it did not. 

Mr. CASTLE. Let me ask Mr. Higgins then. Who has the responsibility to ensure that the contractors address these conflicts? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Well, I think the department had a responsibility 

in its oversight capacity, but I do believe that this was contract 

with NIFL. Are you specifically talking about the RLAs? 

Mr. CASTLE. Actually, I was asking more generally than that. 

51

Mr. HIGGINS. Well, I think the department has a responsibility 

to monitor it. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Dr. Simmons, the inspector general’s report highlighted your role 

in working with Maryland to develop their list of core reading programs. Could you tell us about that process and how you came to 

be involved in it, and were you then connected in any way to any 

of the programs ultimately chosen by Maryland, particularly Reading Mastery? 

Ms. SIMMONS. I was actually surprised when I was reading the 

inspector general’s report to see my name mentioned because I 

honestly had no recollection of that involvement. I do not have the 

e-mail documents that were referenced in that report, so I do not 

recall making recommendations to Maryland. 

However, if I did, I was referring Maryland to the Oregon review 

of programs, and the Oregon Reading First Center conducted a review of core reading programs that included conflicts of interest 

and no one associated with the program was involved in that review. 

And, no, I have no affiliation with Reading Mastery. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Let me ask this question, I think, of Mr. Doherty. From what we 

have heard, schools need a database system to go with DIBELS for 

the purpose of scoring the assessment and reporting the data. To 

what degree are you involved with the DIBELS database system 

operated out of the University of Oregon and how much are schools 

charged for that service and where does that revenue go? 

Actually, I am going to ask that question to several people. 

Mr. DOHERTY. Do you want me to start, sir? 

Mr. CASTLE. Well, you can start, yes. 

Mr. DOHERTY. Okay. If the first part of the question is whether 

I have any personal or professional connection to DIBELS itself, I 

do not. I do not now, and I never have in the past. 

For the rest, well, there are DIBELS experts on either side of 

me, but my understanding is that DIBELS, because you asked 

about the cost, I think, is free to those who want to use it and 

download it from the Web. 

Mr. CASTLE. Yes. Well, that is true, but there are also explanations of why that is complicated and why you need to subscribe 

rather than download it from the Web from reading the background on it. 

Mr. DOHERTY. I defer to those who created DIBELS for a much 

better answer. 

Mr. CASTLE. Let me go to Dr. Kame’enui then, if I may, on that 

question. 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. Yes. My involvement with DIBELS is not as an 

author, not as a creator. At the time, I was director of the Institute 

for the Development of Educational Achievement, which is a research entity at the University of Oregon, and we developed, with 

support from the university, the database system that supports 

DIBELS. 

As a result, schools can get access to that data system, use the 

data system. They can input children’s data from DIBELS and get 

52

reports back in about 30 seconds. The charge for the service of that 

is $1 per kid per year, primarily for the use of that data system. 

The revenues go to the university. I do not profit from the data 

system at all, and because DIBELS is a unique and innovative 

kind of assessment tool, it takes about a minute to use to assess 

and evaluate a child’s reading performance on different types of 

reading skills. 

So schools are attracted to it because they can use it in a minute, 

get access to results in about a minute and a half from the data 

system and then use that information to make timely decisions 

about instruction that is required for children. 

Mr. CASTLE. Dr. Good, your involvement with DIBELS? 

Mr. GOOD. Thank you. 

I have been involved with DIBELS data system from its inception. In fact, the prototype version of it was run by myself on my 

computer with research partners. 

We have, with DIBELS, made public all of the decision rules and 

all of the procedures, and there is nothing unique about DIBELS 

data system in creating those reports or using those decision rules. 

In fact, we do strongly recommend a database to use with DIBELS, 

but there are very many different options of database that are 

available. 

There is the AIMSweb data system which uses that information 

from our reports to report on DIBELS. There is the PMRN data 

system from Florida. There is the First Track——

Mr. CASTLE. I do not mean to cut you off, but I am going to move 

on, if I can, because I need to go through some other questions. 

Please sum up quickly. 

Mr. GOOD. Okay. And also many school districts create their own 

data system using those public decision rules. So there are lots of 

choices. DIBELS data system is only one. 

Mr. CASTLE. Dr. Simmons, what is your DIBELS involvement, if 

any? 

Ms. SIMMONS. I am not an author of DIBELS, and like Dr. 

Kame’enui, I was at the University of Oregon at the time. Any revenues that were created by schools’ choice to use the data system 

were always returned for the analysis and reports that were sent 

back to schools, and I made no profit from that. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Let me ask you a follow-up question, Dr. Good. The Reading 

Leadership Academies have attracted a great deal of attention, as 

we know. The inspector general found that DIBELS may have inappropriately endorsed at those academies. 

What role did you play at those academies? Did you ever speak 

with your faculty colleagues or people at the department about 

having a role at the academies or how you could disseminate information about DIBELS through those academies? 

Mr. GOOD. I participated in the development of the assessment 

module for the academy and presented that module, I think in 

Washington and in San Francisco. That presentation was vetted. I 

turned over that presentation to Department of Ed, and they reviewed it and the contents, gave feedback. I modified consistent 

with that and made that presentation. 

53

Mr. CASTLE. My time is up, I think. May I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman? 

One very last question to Mr. Doherty on DIBELS, and it relates 

to sort of where your testimony began. The assessment committee 

gave its stamp of approval to 24 different assessments. Why is it 

that DIBELS has faired so well in these stamps of approval? 

Mr. GOOD. I——

Mr. CASTLE. Actually, that is to Mr. Doherty. 

Mr. DOHERTY. My take on why DIBELS has faired so well has 

to do with the fact that, like the law itself, DIBELS looks at the 

things that are important to assess as the five components of reading—phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension and vocabulary—and it had assessments for K, 1, 2 and 3. 

So when the states were presented with the rather daunting task 

of needing to have valid and reliable assessments for all five components in four grades, they were really scrambling, and DIBELS 

looked at the reading assessment world in a similar manner, and 

it was ready to go. 

Second, there was another program that is highly regarded, the 

Texas Primary Reading Inventory. At the time the law came about, 

TPRI, as it is known, did not have its third-grade portion completed. So, when states chose to go with DIBELS, they essentially 

got a lot of the assessment burden covered by that one instrument. And lastly, although I understand that there is a $1-per-kid-peryear fee for the database service, it is also my understanding that 

it is free if you want it without the database service, and, frankly, 

I think that that also made it very attractive to states who are always trying to maximize their use of funds for something that 

seemed to fit so well and was free to them. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Without objection, I am going to ask for 10 

additional minutes just to follow up on that point, and I probably 

will not use all of my own time. With no objection. Thank you. 

Like a lot of questions, there is more than one answer. Mr. 

Doherty has one answer, and the inspector general has another, 

and in this case, the answer to Mr. Castle’s question, in Finding 

2, the inspector general says that the ‘‘secretary’s Reading Leadership Academy handbook and guidebook appeared to promote 

DIBELS.’’ I am shorthanding, skills assessment test. ‘‘The Reading 

First statute required the use of screening diagnostics, and we 

found the department appeared to promote by including articles 

featured in the handbook and the guidebook.’’

Mr. Inspector General, Mr. Higgins, this was the only article that 

was included in the guidebooks and the handbooks that were handed out to the states and at these training sessions. Is that correct? 

This 29-page article was the only one that was included on 

DIBELS? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Correct. On both the handbook and the guidebook. 

Chairman MILLER. So DIBELS was approved by that original 

committee where they are reviewing one another’s products before 

the law was passed where there were 29 products, 24 were found 

sufficient and seven were linked to the members of the committee 

who knew they were reviewing one another’s works. 

54

Mr. HIGGINS. Right. 

Chairman MILLER. And then on the assessment committees, we 

have Mr. Kame’enui—is that right?—Ms. Simmons, Mr. Good, who 

are on those committees. Is that correct? And Mr. Kame’enui’s 

school is getting royalties from DIBELS, Mr. Good is getting royalties from DIBELS, and Ms. Simmons is getting royalties from 

DIBELS, correct? You are not getting——

Ms. SIMMONS. No. There were no royalties from DIBELS. The 

dollars for the services went back to the University of Oregon. 

Chairman MILLER. But in your publishing with Mr. Kame’enui 

where you have DIBELS included in your textbook, I guess, I 

would say you are publishing now with DIBELS in your product. 

Is that correct? 

Ms. SIMMONS. I am not aware of that. 

Chairman MILLER. It is not a part of—what is the textbook that 

you put together with Mr. Kame’enui? What is the name of it? 

Ms. SIMMONS. The intervention program? 

Chairman MILLER. Yes. 

Ms. SIMMONS. It is called the Early Reading Intervention Program. 

Chairman MILLER. And that is packaged with DIBELS. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. SIMMONS. It is not. 

Chairman MILLER. It is not packaged with DIBELS. 

Ms. SIMMONS. No. 

Chairman MILLER. Is that right, Mr. Kame’enui? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. I do not think it is, sir, but I have been away 

from the University of Oregon and from the publishing world for 

about 3 years. So, at the time, it was not. 

Chairman MILLER. This is the product by Scott Foresman? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. The Early Reading Intervention is published by 

Pearson/Scott Foresman. That is right. 

Chairman MILLER. And this is Early Reading Intervention. Is 

that the product? 

Ms. SIMMONS. That is the kindergarten intervention, yes. 

Chairman MILLER. Yes. And you were negotiating with Scott 

Foresman while you were on the committee? 

Ms. SIMMONS. While I was on the assessment committee? 

Chairman MILLER. Yes. 

Ms. SIMMONS. I was working with Scott Foresman, yes, but not 

on anything related to DIBELS. 

Chairman MILLER. Well, you were working on Early Reading 

Intervention, which is published with DIBELS. 

Ms. SIMMONS. No, sir. Early Reading Intervention does not have 

DIBELS. 

Chairman MILLER. Well, I may be wrong, but that is the publisher. 

Ms. SIMMONS. The Early Reading Intervention does not have 

DIBELS. You may be speaking of the Scott Foresman program 

which was published in 2006 that I am now an author of. 

Chairman MILLER. Which is what? 

Ms. SIMMONS. It is a reading program that was published in 

2006 that is a kindergarten through Grade 3 reading program. 

Chairman MILLER. What is the name of it? 

55

Ms. SIMMONS. It is Scott Foresman. The name of it is Reading 

Street. 

Chairman MILLER. Okay. 

Ms. SIMMONS. Yes. It was published in 2006. 

Chairman MILLER. So you were negotiating with Scott Foresman 

when you were on the assessment committee? 

Ms. SIMMONS. No, sir. Not about that. 

Chairman MILLER. Not about that? 

Ms. SIMMONS. No. 

Chairman MILLER. So you are receiving no royalties from 

DIBELS? 

Ms. SIMMONS. No, sir. 

Chairman MILLER. But, Mr. Kame’enui, are you? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. I do not receive any royalties from DIBELS. 

Chairman MILLER. The center does? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. I am sorry. 

Chairman MILLER. Does the center at Oregon? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. The center receives support from the university 

to continue to support the database system. 

Chairman MILLER. And, Mr. Good, you do. You receive royalties. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. GOOD. Yes. I am with Dynamic Measurement Group, and 

Dynamic Measurement Group is paid royalty fees from Sopris West 

for the published version of DIBELS. 

Chairman MILLER. Which you benefit from. 

Mr. GOOD. I do not benefit directly from those fees. Those fees 

are held in trust, and we spend them on sort of redevelopment of 

DIBELS, research on DIBELS. Those fees do not go directly to——

Chairman MILLER. And that is the organization you work for. 

Mr. GOOD. But they do go to the organization I work for, correct. 

Chairman MILLER. So you work for what? What is it called? 

Mr. GOOD. Dynamic Measurement Group. It is DMG. 

Chairman MILLER. Do you work for them? 

Mr. GOOD. Yes. 

Chairman MILLER. Are you a shareholder? 

Mr. GOOD. Yes, I am a 50 percent shareholder. 

Chairman MILLER. Oh, I like to work for those kind of companies. 

Well, maybe that adds something to the question of why DIBELS 

is so pervasive across this Reading First Program. When we see the 

extent to which through almost every step that was critical to the 

states making decisions, we either have a conflict of interest or we 

see where the individuals responsible for running the program simply decided not to obey the law, and it has led to this situation. 

With that, I would like to yield to Mr. Yarmuth. Is he here? 

How much money comes into DMG from DIBELS? 

Mr. GOOD. Actually, I might have to pull that out. 

Chairman MILLER. While you are looking for that information, 

Mr. Yarmuth is here. 

Mr. Yarmuth, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It gives me particular pleasure to welcome Ms. Lewis, a constituent of mine and someone who has worked very diligently to 

improve education in our state. 

56

Ms. Lewis, when you heard Mr. Doherty talking about the types 

of things that they considered in applications and the emphasis on 

criteria and the mention that there was never a need to mention 

individual program providers, what was your reaction to that? Did 

that seem consistent with your experience? 

Ms. LEWIS. It is consistent with our experience in terms of reading programs, and it is true that we did not name any reading programs or any intervention programs in our proposal. We did, however, name the assessments. Again, this has been awhile, but I do 

not know why we would have named the assessments, had we not 

been required to do so. 

We felt that we had legislative cover, so to speak, in terms of not 

listing core reading instructional programs, but we did not feel that 

we had any kind of opt-out situation in terms of the assessments. 

We went to all the technical assistance workshops. We went to the 

ones on assessments. We put together what we felt was required, 

and we did name the assessment programs in our proposal. 

Mr. YARMUTH. And to reinforce and to clarify what you had said 

earlier, you made three applications which were rejected and then 

a fourth that was accepted, and you said that there was nothing 

substantially different from the first one to the fourth one. What 

about from the third one to the fourth one? 

Ms. LEWIS. In the third one, we did include DIBELS. That is 

when we started the inclusion of DIBELS in that process. And then 

in the fourth one, we removed DRA. Those were our big changes 

in terms of our proposal. 

Mr. YARMUTH. And in terms of the criteria and all the other factors related to the Reading First Program in Kentucky, those were 

the only two significant changes. 

Ms. LEWIS. We had questions along the way about our professional development plans. We were guided by our technical assistance team from RMC to name particular individuals from particular universities. In fact, we were encouraged to include presenters in our professional development from the University of Oregon and from Texas. 

At first, in our first couple of proposals, we were trying to make 

the argument that we have many people in Kentucky that meet the 

criteria that were stated for the professional development providers 

in terms of their experience with scientifically based reading research. 

If you look at our last proposal, I believe we did add information 

that we would contact other individuals, and, in fact, when I got 

the reviewer notes from yesterday, the reviewers were quite happy 

to see that we had named particular individuals from those particular universities. 

Mr. YARMUTH. So is it safe to say that, in your opinion, the pivotal factor in the ultimate acceptance of your proposal was the fact 

that you had included DIBELS and dropped DRA? 

Ms. LEWIS. Yes. 

Mr. YARMUTH. And that was the only significant factor? 

Ms. LEWIS. Yes. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you. 

57

Mr. Doherty, we have talked today a lot about conflicts of interest concerning the screening panel. Can you tell me whether you 

had any conflicts of interest in this process at all? 

Mr. DOHERTY. In this process? 

Mr. YARMUTH. Yes. 

Mr. DOHERTY. My wife is a part-time consultant for an organization that is involved with Direct Instruction, and I made the department aware of that. She has never worked in a Reading First 

school. She only works part-time in Baltimore, Maryland. So, in my 

opinion, I did not have and do not have now any conflicts of interest. 

Mr. YARMUTH. But isn’t it true that in 2002 you listed her in 

terms of the required conflict of interest disclosure because she had 

received income above a certain threshold from DI? 

Mr. DOHERTY. That is correct. I did fill out paperwork that indicated my wife’s employer and how much she made. 

Mr. YARMUTH. But you did not include that in subsequent years. 

Was there a change in the situation? 

Mr. DOHERTY. There was no change in the situation. The subsequent years was an oversight on my part, but in no way changed 

the fact that I had declared my wife and her part-time employment 

and had an official memo on the file to that effect. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Looking back over this whole process, Mr. 

Doherty, is there anything that after listening to the discussion 

today that you would have done differently, that we should take as 

instruction as to what we should do differently in terms of a person 

in your position in the process that you supervised? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Yes. I think that, although we endeavored from 

the first days to follow the conflicts of interest protocols and 

worked with the Office of General Counsel to do so, we obviously 

did not do a very good job of keeping the perception of conflicts of 

interest from taking root and, frankly, dogging the program from 

the beginning. 

So I think it is very clear that we and I did not do the kind of 

job we wanted to, although we endeavored to do so and followed 

the rules as they were written. 

But your point is well made. I definitely think to keep these 

kinds of impressions from dogging a very successful program, we 

should change and improve our procedures, yes. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman 

yield? 

Mr. YARMUTH. I will yield. 

Chairman MILLER. In response to this question, you filled out the 

form about your wife’s employment on the advice of the general 

counsel. Is that correct? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Yes. When I originally filled out the form and sent 

it in, shortly thereafter, I was contacted by the Office of General 

Counsel and asked, ‘‘Do you have any spousal employment?’’ and 

I said, ‘‘Yes, I do.’’ They said, ‘‘Well, you need to add that to the 

form.’’ I verbally over the phone with this person talked about my 

wife’s employment. It was added——

58

Chairman MILLER. This is an annual form? This is a department 

form? 

Mr. DOHERTY. It is an annual form. 

Chairman MILLER. So then you did not fill it out after that? 

Mr. DOHERTY. To the best of my recollection, 15 months after 

this conversation with the Office of General Counsel, I filled out 

the next form, and I proceeded to make the same innocent mistake 

that I had made on the first one, which is to very carefully list my 

mutual funds and other things, and I——

Chairman MILLER. So, after you were advised by the general 

counsel, you made an innocent mistake again to not list it? 

Mr. DOHERTY. That is correct. It was an oversight on my part. 

Chairman MILLER. You are looking at people here that have to 

fill these forms out every year. I mean, it is just amazing, your 

image of the law. 

Mr. McKeon? 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Castle? Five minutes for Mr. Castle. 

Mr. CASTLE. Well, thank you, Mr. McKeon. 

To Dr. Good, you mentioned that DIBELS is available for free on 

the Internet or could be bought through Sopris West. How do you 

say it? Sopris West? And since it is available for free, why would 

schools pay for it at all through Sopris West? 

Mr. GOOD. I do not have exact numbers of the numbers of schools 

who are using DIBELS because it is freely downloaded. A lot of 

people do it, and we do not have a record of it. 

Mr. CASTLE. Do you know how many are paying for it? 

Mr. GOOD. I have too many papers going around, but, for last 

year, there were about 800,000 students who had been tested with 

DIBELS using a paid version of it. I think we are tracking probably close to about three millions students now in DIBELS data 

system. I think there is probably at least another 800,000 in PMRN 

and other data systems. So I think maybe a third to one-quarter 

are using a published version as opposed to a freely downloaded 

version. It is a very rough kind of guestimate of it. 

Mr. CASTLE. When schools use DIBELS, they must also find a 

way to collect and report the data. I am told that you are involved 

with a company called Wireless Generation that provides those 

services. Is that correct? 

Mr. GOOD. Yes. Wireless——

Mr. CASTLE. And if so, what is the nature of that relationship? 

Mr. GOOD. I am not sure of our initial date for working with 

Wireless Generation, I would have to look that up, but we have a 

contract, an alliance agreement, with Wireless Generation. 

Mr. CASTLE. You say we. Who is we? 

Mr. GOOD. Dynamic Measurement Group. Dynamic Measurement Group has a relationship with Wireless Generation. 

Mr. CASTLE. And there an economic part of that contract? 

Mr. GOOD. Yes, there is. 

Mr. CASTLE. And can you explain briefly how that works? 

Mr. GOOD. Wireless Generation makes a payment to the Dynamic Measurement Group of 40 cents per child that they are 

doing as an alliance payment. 

Mr. CASTLE. Okay. What steps did you take to avoid any conflicts 

of interest or the appearance of conflicts? That has been a major 

59

underlying theme here. Did the Western Technical Assistance Center, the RMC Research Corporation or the department ever request 

formal disclosures from you or otherwise screen your involvement 

for conflicts of interest? Did the university require you to disclose 

conflicts of interest before being hired by their center? 

Mr. GOOD. No. 

Mr. CASTLE. No to all of the above? 

Mr. GOOD. No to all of the above. I have always been public 

about my role in DIBELS and involvement in DIBELS throughout 

all of these steps. I have not been particularly concerned about a 

conflict of interest in that regard in part because I have been very 

public about my role in DIBELS, but also in part because we have 

offered the assessment for free on the Internet, and we have always done so, and we are committed to continuing to do so. 

Mr. CASTLE. This is just a comment. There seems to be sort of 

a loose interpretation of these conflicts or a difference between government agents, employees and academics in this field based on 

some of the best language I have heard here today. 

Let me turn to a question for Dr. Simmons and Dr. Kame’enui. 

Dr. Simmons, you mentioned in your written statement a document you co-authorized with Dr. Kame’enui called ‘‘A Consumer’s 

Guide to Evaluating Core Reading Programs, Grades K-3.’’ That 

document has received significant attention, and the inspector general highlighted a few cases where states were referred to in this 

document. 

How is it that this document came to be viewed as the Reading 

First document containing a federally approved list of programs? 

Did you or anyone else that you are aware of ever use their involvement in Reading First to push this guide into programs included in it? 

I will ask both of you that question. 

Ms. SIMMONS. The Consumer’s Guide was a document that was 

created and published in 2000, and it was created to help schools 

identify criteria that are important in a research phase that should 

be part of reading programs. It was never developed for Reading 

First. 

I remember being asked by a colleague at the University of Oregon if we had any tools that could help evaluate reading programs, and I reminded him of the Consumer’s Guide, and I had no 

idea it was going to be used in Reading First, and I never encouraged or asked it to be used as a Reading First document. 

Mr. CASTLE. Dr. Kame’enui, can you shed any further light on 

that issue? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. I do not think I can. I think Dr. Simmons is 

right. This is a development. This is an instrument, a tool, an evaluation tool that we developed at a center that we had from 1991 

to 2002. We did a lot of work with publishers at the time. We created this tool, and it was adopted by Reading First Program. It is 

probably one of the few tools available to evaluate reading programs, and there is no proprietary interest or profit from that particular tool. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Kildee? 

60

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Inspector General, aside from a possible referral to the Department of Justice and in addition to your responses to Mr. McKeon 

on possible changes in No Child Left Behind, do you have other 

ideas where we could change No Child Left Behind that would minimize these problems? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Not at this time. All of the recommendations that 

we have are in our reports. 

Mr. KILDEE. Is there any thought of referring some of these matters to the Department of Justice? 

Mr. HIGGINS. We have referred some of these matters to the Department of Justice. 

Mr. KILDEE. You have referred some? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. 

Mr. KILDEE. So some of these matters are before the Department 

of Justice at this time. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

Inspector General, Mr. Doherty has testified that the inspector 

general’s findings of mismanagement were a foregone conclusion. 

Your office has spent a great deal of time on this matter, putting 

out six or seven reports. 

Can you comment on Mr. Doherty’s suggestion that your office 

did not conduct an impartial investigation? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Well, I do not agree with him. We have safeguards 

in place. We have standards that we have to follow. I just do not 

agree with it. May I also point out that the department agreed 

with our reports? 

Mr. KILDEE. The department did agree with your reports. 

Mr. HIGGINS. They also adopted all of our recommendations and 

have acted swiftly to put most of them in place already. 

Mr. KILDEE. Okay. So they, in a sense, validated your report 

then. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Well, that is my position, yes. 

Mr. KILDEE. Okay. Do you use the same basic standards that you 

always use as inspector general when you are investigating this 

area? 

Mr. HIGGINS. No. We use standards put out by the General Accounting Office for the audits, and we use standards put out by the 

president’s Council on Efficiency and Effectiveness for the inspections, with the one inspection. 

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Doherty, did you voluntarily resign from the department, or were you asked to resign? 

Mr. DOHERTY. I would say it was strongly suggested to me that 

I ought to resign. 

Mr. KILDEE. All right. Who else resigned at that time, and did 

they resign voluntarily or were they strongly suggested to terminate their employment? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Sir, is your question who else voluntarily resigned 

at the time? 

Mr. KILDEE. Yes. At the time. 

Mr. DOHERTY. At the time that I did? 

Mr. KILDEE. Yes, yes. 

61

Mr. DOHERTY. I do not recall anyone resigning along with me at 

about the same time, sir. 

Mr. KILDEE. Not Assistant Secretary Newman? 

Mr. DOHERTY. No, sir. She left the department in January of 

2003 or December of 2002, as best as I can recall. 

Mr. KILDEE. Okay. So, when these matters broke, you were 

strongly suggested, as you put, that you terminate your employment? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Yes, sir, that is the impression that I got, that it 

was suggested to me that I resign or else I might be fired. 

Mr. KILDEE. I thank you. 

And I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCKEON. I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Castle. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. McKeon. 

Ms. Lewis, let me go back to you. Let me, first of all you, thank 

you for being here. You have had a great deal of influence, I think, 

in our thinking here, and I am glad to hear that Reading First 

really has had a positive impact on your state in spite of some of 

the problems we have heard today. I keep hearing that throughout 

all this testimony. I think all of us are troubled by your experiences. 

You mentioned this, so I am not sure I understood where we are 

with this. Did you ever receive any feedback as to why DRA was 

not viewed as an acceptable assessment by the peer review team 

or the department? 

Ms. LEWIS. No. In the summaries that were sent to us by department staff, it was simply stated that DRA was not sufficiently valid 

and reliable, but there was no explanation as to why. 

Mr. CASTLE. Okay. Thank you. 

To you again, Ms. Lewis, if Congress created a more transparent 

peer review process that provided states the opportunity for direct 

interaction with the peer reviewers, do you think that would help 

prevent any repeats of what you and perhaps others have experienced? 

Ms. LEWIS. Yes. I think that we would have heard what the concerns were. We would have been able to get greater detail about 

their concerns and their guidance. But as it was in many cases, we 

were simply guessing about what the problems were. But I think 

had we been able to communicate with the panelists, we would 

have had a greater understanding and been able to make the 

changes we needed to make. 

Mr. CASTLE. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Higgins, let me go to you finally. I know you have made in 

your reports a lot of suggestions. I also know the department either 

willingly or begrudgingly has agreed to many of the suggestions 

which you have made. Do you have any other suggestions or anything else you want to highlight that should be done? 

As you know, Mr. McKeon has introduced legislation. I think all 

of us on this committee want to resolve this problem. We believe 

in Reading First, but we believe in running these programs correctly, and I was just wondering if you have anything you want to 

feature or anything beyond anything you have already said that 

you want to bring up to us. 

62

Mr. HIGGINS. Not at this time, but I would like the opportunity 

to think about it and follow up. 

Mr. CASTLE. Okay. You can submit further testimony in writing, 

and we can certainly submit a question to you. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. CASTLE. I would be personally very interested in hearing 

that myself. I think it is important. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Doherty, I was intrigued when you said you were not required to screen for conflicts of interest because it was not specifically mentioned in the law. Do we need to put that in the law? I 

mean, most people would think that that would be just kind of perfunctory that you had checked for conflicts of interest? People with 

conflicts of interest just would not be qualified to serve on these 

committees. Is that optional? 

Mr. DOHERTY. I agree with you that most people would assume 

that conflicts of interest screening would be done, and that is why 

we did it with Reading First, even though it was not required. I 

think perhaps making it required would be a good change, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, some of us would think it would be so inherently expected that we would not have to put it in writing, but with 

some I guess it may be so. 

You have indicated that these panels complied with the law. Was 

it your understanding that the law required these panels to have 

balanced representation from four sources—the Department of 

Education, National Institute for Literacy, National Research 

Council, the National Academy of Science and the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development? Is that your understanding, that the law required these panels to have balanced 

representation? 

Mr. DOHERTY. My understanding of the law was that those four 

agencies must all nominate individuals to the panel. 

Mr. SCOTT. The law did not require the panels to be balanced? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Off the top of my head, sir, I do not know whether 

that word was part of the statute, but I do know that all agencies 

needed to nominate members. We got nominees——

Mr. SCOTT. Based on what when you read the law, you thought 

you were in compliance? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. We have talked about conflicts of interest, and we 

asked Dr. Good how much money he was receiving. 

Mr. Higgins, did you go through to find out how much money 

was being generated by these decisions? 

Mr. HIGGINS. No, we did not. 

Mr. SCOTT. How much money the University of Oregon was getting when they apparently had an interest? 

Mr. HIGGINS. No, we did not look into the financial aspects of 

this. 

Mr. SCOTT. Did you look to see if anyone was getting campaign 

contributions as a result of any of these decisions? 

Mr. HIGGINS. No, we did not. 

63

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Doherty, how much money was involved in these 

decisions and was anyone getting campaign contributions as a result? 

Mr. DOHERTY. I am sorry. How much money was involved in 

which decision, sir? 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if you are helping one organization, DIBELS, 

did the University of Oregon get some money and another partnership was getting some money? How much money are we talking 

about? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Like the others, I have never heard and do not 

have a sense of how much money is involved in these particular decisions, and I do not know of any campaign contributions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Does anybody on the panel know of any campaign 

contributions that were affected or potentially affected or people 

giving money that might have influenced any of the decisions? 

Ms. Lewis, did I understand your testimony to say that you did 

not see any substantive difference between your application when 

it did not have DIBELS as the sole provider and when it did have 

DIBELS as the sole provider? There was not any other substantive 

difference? 

Ms. LEWIS. We do have other assessments in our proposal. 

Mr. SCOTT. Did that seem to make the difference? Was there any 

other substantive difference where they could have legitimately 

turned down the first couple of applications and approved the 

fourth, other than——

Ms. LEWIS. We felt we were ready to roll in May of 2002 and go 

forward with implementing Reading First in our schools. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Higgins, if someone is inappropriately denied, is 

there any remedy? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Well, I guess there would be appeal to the secretary. You mean a district was——

Mr. SCOTT. Well, after the fact. I mean, didn’t Kentucky lose a 

year of funding? 

Mr. HIGGINS. I do not know that there is any remedy. 

Mr. SCOTT. Not yet. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. And, Mr. Higgins, can you indicate whether or not 

the Department of Education has changed its policy to prevent this 

kind of thing from happening in the future? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Well, like I said previously, we made a series of 

recommendations. They very quickly accepted them, and we have 

seen them take a lot of the actions already. We have not evaluated 

the actions yet, and we plan to follow up on that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Have they taken action to avoid conflicts of interest 

in the future? Are you aware of anything? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Specifically, I do not know on that one. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Hare? 

Mr. HARE. Mr. Doherty, I am deeply troubled by a couple of the 

e-mails that you sent. 

I wonder if we could put Slide E up. 

In this, it says, ‘‘We want to beat the ‘expletive deleted’ out of 

them in a way that will stand up to any level of legal and whole 

64

language apologist scrutiny, hit them over and over with the 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 wouldbe party crashers who are standing on the front lawn waiting to 

see how we welcome these dirt bags.’’

My two questions are: Could you tell the committee who are the 

party crashers and the dirt bags are? 

Mr. DOHERTY. First, please allow me to say that I deeply regret 

the coarse language I used in that e-mail. It was written to a close 

colleague, and it was unprofessional, and I deeply regret it. 

When I referred, regrettably, to the crashing of the party, the 

party I was referring to was the statutorily required fact that only 

scientifically based instructional materials could be funded by 

Reading First. 

So, in this regrettable image that I have created, we were trying 

to energetically enforce that law and keep programs that were not 

aligned with research from getting into the program where we feel 

the program would have been watered down and would have become like so many other programs. 

We feel the program has been successful because of our energetic 

implementation of this good law. 

Mr. HARE. Well, I would concur that I think your e-mail really 

went over the line. 

If I could maybe have Slide C up for the other e-mail, please. 

It says, ‘‘This confidential update comes after a direct call I made 

to Maryland after a 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, the assistant professor at the University of 

Connecticut? Well, we need to ensure that when Maryland does do 

its application of Consumer Guide that Reading Mastery, a DI 

reading program published by McGraw-Hill, is not relegated to 

supplemental status, which would be horrible for so many schools 

in Baltimore.’’

My two questions to you, Mr. Doherty, are: Who is Mr. Carnine 

and who is Mr. Silbert, and why were they getting updated from 

you, and why should they be involved in this whole selection process by Maryland? 

And my second part to that question, it is my understanding that 

prior to working at Reading First, you were the executive director 

of Baltimore Curriculum Project which implemented Direct Instruction beginning in 1996. So can you explain what Direct Instruction is and why you are advocating for Reading Mastery, a Direct Instruction project? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Yes. First, Mr. Carnine and Mr. Silbert are affiliated with the University of Oregon and also affiliated with the Direct Instruction Program which is a family of different programs of 

which Reading Mastery is one. 

That particular e-mail came after the state of Maryland, as I recall from 2002 or 2003, had decided that Reading Mastery was one 

of their scientifically based programs. They were entering a followon decision as to whether that scientifically based program was a 

core comprehensive program or a supplemental program. 

65

In my experience with Direct Instruction, it is a core comprehensive program and I did send, you know, that e-mail in order to help 

ensure that a program that the state of Maryland had already chosen would be reviewed so as to classify it correctly. 

Mr. HARE. So you do not have any problem with the e-mail then? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Certainly now, as I look back at this e-mail and 

what has ensued, I certainly wish I had not sent that e-mail, but 

I did not think then and do not think now that I was pushing this 

program on Maryland because they had already made their decision to include Reading Mastery. As I say, they were making a follow-on decision as to whether this program was a core comprehensive program or a supplemental program. 

Chairman MILLER. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. HARE. Yes, I certainly would. 

Chairman MILLER. I am using your time. 

But it is just kind of interesting in response to your question, the 

one law you decided to strictly enforce was the law you could use 

to keep party crashers from participating in this process. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. HARE. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Ms. Shea-Porter? 

Oh, excuse me, Lynn. I did not know you came back. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. You can go ahead. 

Chairman MILLER. Okay. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have to say, first of all, Mr. Doherty, that I am very, very concerned about the tone of paternalism and heavy-handedness that 

comes from you. And I am concerned because, being familiar with 

education myself and knowing how states sometimes view the federal government and the Department of Education, this reflects 

very poorly on the department because it does look as if everything 

was orchestrated from the department, but, apparently, it was orchestrated in large measure by you, and I am deeply disturbed by 

this. 

What we have been able to do with federal funds is improve children’s ability to read, and we do not want the American public to 

lose confidence in this, and by doing something like this, they do 

lose confidence. They wonder if they are fully represented. You 

have had complaints from other programs that thought it was a 

fair, level playing field, and it was not, and I find that very, very 

disturbing. 

My questions are for Mr. Good, though. 

Dr. Good, your written statement for the record highlights many 

years of research on DIBELS, and I am assuming that federal 

grant funds may have been involved at some point during your research. If so, can you tell me how much and what it was used for? 

Mr. GOOD. DIBELS has really been sort of a loose research effort 

for a number of years and formally published under the name 

DIBELS starting in about 2003, is when the published version was 

first available. Prior editions of DIBELS were known under CBM 

Pre-Reading, under Primary Prevention of Early Academic Problems and under Individual Growth and Development Indicators. 

66

Federal funds were used to support the initial research and development on the measurement technology. DIBELS 4th edition 

was based largely on prototype measures that were developed with 

federal funds and also other measures that had been developed for 

research purposes under other projects. DIBELS 5th edition was a 

mixture of those prototype measures developed with federal funding and also measures that were developed with personal and private funds. 

DIBELS 6th edition then was reinventioned using the technology 

but not using any federal funds to develop the measures. All of the 

items were developed anew. All of the forms were developed anew. 

So no federal funds went into the development of DIBELS 6th edition. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. But federal funds did go into the previous 

ones. 

Mr. GOOD. Federal funds did go into the development of the 

measurement technology, and that measurement technology is used 

then by other test publishers as well and other tests are available 

with that. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Well, I would like to point out the good work, 

first of all, that federal funds can do in gathering some research 

that is helpful to America. However, I am concerned about that because if federal grant money was involved in development of what 

is now DIBELS—and how many people were involved in its creation?—how did you wind up with the DIBELS copyright? 

Mr. GOOD. We reinvented DIBELS off campus with our own personal and private funds, in part so that we could control the copyright and continue to maintain a free version of DIBELS available 

on the Web. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Dr. Good, could you rephrase that for me, 

please? You used federal funds in the research. 

Chairman MILLER. On campus. 

Mr. GOOD. We did use——

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. To gather the research. 

Mr. GOOD. We used federal funds for research and development 

of the technology that goes into the assessment. For example, federal funds developed the technology for Oral Reading Fluency as 

well, and we have built upon that technology as we implemented 

DIBELS. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. So, in other words, it was federal money, taxpayers’ money, that created the base upon which you created your 

company. 

Mr. GOOD. Yes. Federal funds created the knowledge base, the 

technology that we used to apply to develop the specific form that 

is DIBELS 6th edition. The federal funds supported the knowledge 

building, but they did not support this specific edition, DIBELS 6th 

edition. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay. Well, let me ask you then. You could 

not have created DIBELS without taxpayers’ money for the research. You had to have the research in order to create your final 

product. 

Mr. GOOD. We had to have the knowledge base and the technology to develop this final product. 

67

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Then may I ask you why you own it instead 

of the American people? 

Mr. GOOD. Why I what? 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Why your company is yours instead of belonging to those who paid for it, why you did not keep it inside the university or inside a setting that would give access and continue to 

develop it based on the fact that the American people paid for this? 

Mr. GOOD. The American people paid for the development of the 

knowledge. We created that knowledge, and we made that freely 

and publicly available for people to use, and others are using that 

knowledge as well. 

We created Dynamic Measurement Group in part to protect our 

ability to give the measures away for free. When we talked with 

the University of Oregon and about our desire to have control over 

publication of it, they were not interested in making that assurance. So we reinvented and we redeveloped the measures separate 

from the University of Oregon so that we could give them away for 

free. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Once again, I would like to mention I am disturbed by this, and also that I do not believe it is totally for free 

because I have been looking at what they are paying to have the 

handheld wireless set. So it is actually not for free. If they really 

want to maximize its use and have it make some kind of context, 

then they need the rest of the technology that you are selling. 

Thank you. 

Chairman MILLER. Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is quite a hearing. Thank you. 

So here is what I am getting out of it before I ask my questions. 

It seems like you are telling us, some of you up there, that there 

is only a very small group of experts in this country that would be 

qualified to write the rules, provide the overview of the program, 

train to review, recommend, and possibly profit from this very positive No Child Left Behind-mandated program. 

I mean, this is a huge country of wonderfully educated people. 

I am having the hardest time thinking that there is only a small 

group that can do all of this and that there was no room for any 

independent oversight, that there were no experts out there that 

did not have their, for lack of a better way to say it, finger in the 

pie in one way or another. 

Mr. Kame’enui—I do not think I got it—I think you are one of 

that very small group. What reading products did the state of Oregon select for Reading First? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. I am sorry. What reading products? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. What reading products? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. I cannot tell you what reading products the state 

of Oregon selected for Reading First. I imagine they made available 

a number of products that school districts could select from. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. So, in your capacity, did you refer anyone to the 

Oregon list of approved products while you were part of the Reading First initiative or involved with the Reading First initiative. 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. Yes. If people asked, I referred them to the curriculum review that the state of Oregon, the Oregon Reading First 

68

Center, conducted to evaluate a range of reading programs. That 

is right. I did refer them. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. And did you have any financial interest in the 

outcome of any of the programs that you recommended? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. At the time that I was director of the Oregon 

Reading First Center, I had an interest in the Early Reading Intervention Program that was published by Pearson/Scott Foresman in 

2002. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. And how far did that get in the process? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. Well, there were two different processes. There 

are curriculum programs that are designed for children K through 

6, and there is another process that reviews programs that are 

called intervention or supplemental programs that try to target a 

particular skill. So the Early Reading Intervention Program is designed for struggling readers at kindergarten. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. And they were accepted or you recommended 

them? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. It was reviewed. Again, I think the Oregon curriculum review was conducted in a way that would meet the appropriate standards for conflict of interest. They were reviewed independently by two to three different independent reviewers, and 

then the results were made public. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. And they were aware that it was one of your programs, that you had a part of that? 

Chairman MILLER. Would the gentlewoman yield? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes, sir. 

Chairman MILLER. Early Reading Intervention. 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. Yes. 

Chairman MILLER. You received revenues from that? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. I did. 

Chairman MILLER. So you get royalties from that? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. I do, yes. 

Chairman MILLER. And that is the program you developed with 

Ms. Simmons? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. That is right. 

Chairman MILLER. Okay. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. All right. Thank you. I have obviously missed the 

big piece of what has been going on while I was on the floor earlier. 

I am sorry. 

All right. Then I am going to change and ask Ms. Lewis a question. And I think you were asked this before, but I need to hear 

it, the name of the program that originally was the Kentucky program. What was that program before? 

Ms. LEWIS. It was the Developmental Reading Assessment that 

we had originally included in our proposal. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. So were you given reasons and rationale why it 

was not considered appropriate instead of DIBELS? 

Ms. LEWIS. Our panel summary said that it was not sufficiently 

scientifically based, reliable and valid, but they did not explain 

why. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Ever? 

Ms. LEWIS. No. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. So what happens to that company when they get 

that kind of an assessment without any explanation? 

69

Ms. LEWIS. I have had no conversation with DRA. I do not know 

how they responded. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Susan Davis? 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here. 

I wanted to go back, I guess, to Dr. Good. Did you have any role 

in the criteria that was developed to try and establish which programs were used? I was interested in the fact that you did not call 

out a number of programs in, I guess, what I would call an RFP 

of sorts for state education agencies. 

But I am trying to understand who actually played a role in putting that criteria together. Were you on the commission at that 

time, and did the commission actually play a role in that? 

Mr. GOOD. I was on the assessment committee, and we played 

a role in describing the criteria that we would an assessment to 

meet to be considered as scientifically based reading research supported assessment. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Was DIBELS fully developed at that 

time? Were you aware that they would meet the criteria, or did you 

know that if you established that criteria and then set out to be 

certain that it met that criteria that there would be some relationship there? 

Mr. GOOD. DIBELS 5th edition was available at that time. The 

criteria were really very standard criteria that are publicly available to evaluate assessments—reliability, decision utility, validity 

of the assessment—and we created a coding form to do that. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. If I could, I am sorry, I just wanted 

to just turn to Ms. Lewis. 

Were you under the understanding that, in fact, a Kentucky program answered that criteria and did it have an evaluation K 

through 3? 

Ms. LEWIS. Yes. In our opinion and application of the criteria, we 

felt that the assessment we selected met the established criteria. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. And I have no knowledge or whether 

or not it would have or not. I am just trying to understand how 

that chain of assumptions, if you will, or involvement was. 

When you were working with this criteria, did you have any 

knowledge of any other companies that would be putting forth proposals and what their basic fundamentals were specific to this kind 

of a program? Did you have any knowledge of any other programs 

around the country at that time? 

Mr. GOOD. I would have a general knowledge of assessments that 

are available, but not specific knowledge of their intent or what 

proposal they would put forward. These are general criteria that 

any assessment should meet. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Were any of the individuals from the 

company that Kentucky had worked with on the panels in any 

way? 

Mr. GOOD. Not that I know of. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Doherty, I am trying to understand. In some ways, I think part of what we are confused with is 

70

why an individual—and it just happens to be you, Dr. Good. It 

could have been somebody else, I guess—would have been instrumental in developing the criteria and also instrumental in working 

with the company that seemed to have answered that criteria so 

well. Do you know why you were asked to be on the commission? 

Mr. GOOD. I believe I was asked to be on that commission because of my expertise in reading and reading assessment. The most 

important work that I have done is not actually DIBELS. It is a 

decision model for how to use assessment generally to change outcomes for children. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Are you planning to take that into 

Spanish language? 

Mr. GOOD. Yes, we have a Spanish version that is a reinvention 

of DIBELS in Spanish. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you very much. I appreciate 

it. 

Mr. GOOD. You are welcome. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Doherty, how is it that Dr. Good 

became a commissioner? 

Mr. DOHERTY. First, I agree with Dr. Good’s general answer that 

due to his expertise in reading and reading assessment, that is 

what led to his being asked to be on the assessment committee, although, as Dr. Kame’enui pointed out, that committee was started 

on or about August of 2001. I joined the department in January of 

2002, so I do not know the specifics other than the people on the 

panel had the requisite research and experience background. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. I guess to Dr. Kame’enui, did you 

ever ask about the ethical concerns or the conflicts of interest? Did 

you inquire about that and to whom did you inquire? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. Not only did I ask about it, we established conflict of interest procedures, and we put them in place to ensure that 

members of the committee who had proprietary interest in an instrument would not review their own instrument. We did not receive any guidance, explicit or implicit guidance, from the Department of Education on how to go about on that conflict of interest. 

So we put in place our own. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Dr. Good, as well, did you make inquiries about conflicts of interest? You had mentioned earlier that 

it just seemed kind of nebulous to you a little bit. 

Mr. GOOD. In my participation on the assessment committee, one 

of the very first things that I did was acknowledge my role and involvement in DIBELS, although DIBELS at that time was not published and was not generating any revenue at that time. 

But I was very public and said, ‘‘Is that going to be a concern?’’ 

and we talked about what procedures would be in place, notably 

that I would not be involved in any discussion of DIBELS or participate in any way in the review of DIBELS. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

But you did participate in reviews of other programs? 

Mr. GOOD. Yes, I did participate in reviews of other programs. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Tierney? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

71

Mr. Chairman, I am going to use my time probably more for a 

statement than for questions. But I want to just sort of recap some 

of the reasons why I think people are concerned starting with 

where Ms. Davis left off with the conflict of interest. 

Mr. Doherty, you had specific recommendations from your ethics 

counsel to what questions to use with respect to ethics, and you left 

out just one of those questions, the one question you left off was 

‘‘Are you aware of any other circumstances that might cause someone to question your impartiality in serving as a reviewer for this 

competition?’’ That was designed to exclude individuals who had financial connections to products or programs, and you left that out, 

the only one you left out. 

You also did not bother to look at any resumes. The inspector 

general went through and said, you know, of over 25 resumes he 

looked through, six of them identified significant professional connections. We are concerned because that just seems a little too convenient. 

We are concerned that the department did not select the expert 

review panel in compliance with the requirements of No Child Left 

Behind because, as the inspector general says, probably then none 

of the applications that were approved are in compliance with the 

law. That should concern you also, although apparently it does not. 

We are concerned that the peer review process was not followed. 

The local state education groups were not given an opportunity to 

address issues and concerns by the expert panel reviewers. In fact, 

you then substituted your report without even telling them that 

you had done that. That should be of concern for you. Apparently, 

it is not. 

We are concerned that you set conditions that were not included 

in the statute. In fact, it seems that very little was taken from the 

statutes in some of those situations, and in your own language, 

some of it was extralegal. That is of concern and should be of concern to you. 

We are concerned that in implementing the program, you obscured the statutory process on that and the requirements. In fact, 

we are also concerned that after people had been approved—and 

this directly affects Massachusetts—you then meddled into it—or 

intervened, in the words of the inspector general—and tried to unwind some of the programs. 

In Massachusetts, you went in and you made a call after the 

process had been approved. I am going to go right to the page on 

that for you. I think it is page 25 if you want to see the inspector’s 

report. ‘‘In Massachusetts, the Reading First director’’—that would 

be you—‘‘raised questions about the SBRR qualifications of programs in four districts.’’ This is after the application had already 

been approved and they had been allowed to develop their own 

guide by the LEAs. 

This concern was raised in that situation, and the districts were 

using Wright Group, Rigby, Literacy Collaborative and Harcourt 

Collections, and basically, only the group that was using Wright 

Group elected not to change their program, and that is the one 

whose funding you stopped. That should be of concern to everybody 

here. 

72

Clearly, you had an agenda. The agenda is phonics, the agenda 

may be some people that you were associated with, and it goes 

right down the line. What is the difference, Mr. Doherty, between 

Wright Group—what is the one thing that differentiates that—from 

the other programs that you accepted? One was phonics, and one 

was whole language, correct? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Our agenda was the scientifically based reading 

research. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Yes, right. Now, just to interrupt for a second, because my time is limited, the difference between Wright and the 

others was that Wright was a whole language and the others were 

phonics, correct? 

Mr. DOHERTY. One aligned with the statute and one, apparently, 

did not. 

Mr. TIERNEY. I mean, you are a big educator, so I assume you 

understand English. One was phonics, and one was whole language. Am I correct? 

Mr. DOHERTY. To say that a program is phonics, the law requires 

five components of——

Mr. TIERNEY. All right. Never mind. Thank you, Mr. Doherty. I 

think we understand where you are from. 

Let me just read some statements and close out on this, Mr. 

Chairman, if I might, about why we are concerned here. 

And you folks can stop me at any point of time you think that 

this is inaccurate on that. 

When the department needed reviewers to evaluate reading assessment programs, they contacted the University of Oregon team 

that was led by Edward Kame’enui, Roland Good and Deborah 

Simmons. Mr. Good had developed an assessment called DIBELS, 

and Mr. Kame’enui, Good and Simmons had all served on the design team for Voyager Passport, which is a remedial program built 

around DIBELS. Ultimately, DIBELS was the only assessment 

used in Reading First, and Voyager was the most popular supplemental program. 

Then the department steered states to just three providers of 

professional development services—Kame’enui and Simmons of Oregon, Ms. Moats, and a Sharon Vaughn of the University of Texas. 

Ms. Vaughn, of course, was the other member of the Voyager Passport design team and one of four chairmen of the secretary’s Reading Literature Academy. That exerted a tremendous influence over 

Reading First, but the other chairmen were Moats, Kame’enui and 

his Oregon colleague, Mr. Carnine. 

Mr. Kame’enui and Simmons also wrote the Consumer’s Guide 

that most states use and agree to use to evaluate the Reading First 

Programs and ran one of Reading First’s three technical assistance 

centers in Oregon. Mr. Simmons and Kame’enui co-wrote another 

book, and Mr. Kame’enui earned more than $100,000 last year for 

royalties of another, according to his own financial disclosure statement. 

You can see the pattern here, Mr. Doherty, about what is going 

on. 

I will just close out with Elaine Garan who wrote a book in 2004 

entitled ‘‘In Defense of Our Children: When Politics, Profit and 

Education Collide’’ She recalled that when she was writing a book, 

73

she color coded the various financial connections that were running 

through Reading First. She said, ‘‘When it came to Mr. Kame’enui, 

I ran out of colors.’’

I think we ran out of colors on a lot of these connections, and 

we ran out of colors to figure out how many ways you tried to interfere with the absolute implementation of that statute as it was 

written. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield my time to 

the distinguished ranking Republican, Mr. McKeon. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Castle. 

Mr. Doherty, another state that has gotten attention that we 

have not talked about here today is Nevada. The inspector general’s report stated that although the panel chair summary for the 

Nevada’s application referred them to A Consumer’s Guide to 

Evaluate a Core Reading Program, the expert review team report 

that you prepared omitted these comments. Why was that? 

Mr. DOHERTY. If any comments that the state needed to hear 

from the expert review panel summary were omitted, it was by 

mistake an omission. We produced those summary reports in an effort to be helpful and focused for the states. In no way did we attempt to change the substance of what the expert review panel 

members were saying. We genuinely thought and we are aware of 

no prohibition against making a summary report. 

I cannot say that every single report—and there were probably 

a couple of hundred—did not omit something by mistake, but we 

tried extremely hard to streamline and standardize the kinds of 

feedback that a state would receive pegged directly to the criteria 

of the application. As far as a particular omission in Nevada’s report, I am unaware of that right now. 

Mr. MCKEON. You know, given the benefit of hindsight, should 

you have been given better and more support from the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Office of the General 

Counsel, especially when it came to examining possible conflicts of 

interest and establishing the peer review panels? 

Mr. DOHERTY. I think it is safe to say that we all agree that, 

given what we know now, we would have different procedures. At 

the same time, at the time, we were all on the same page—the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Ed, the Office of the Secretary. We worked together as a team, and 

we were on the same page. 

I cannot imagine that any members of those groups would disagree with the suggestion that when people do it again that they 

take the learning from this process and make sure that such a 

large and regrettable distraction from the program does not happen 

again. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you. 

Dr. Kame’enui, do you have any response to the previous questions? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. I appreciate the premise that in hindsight we 

would do things differently. We absolutely would do things differently. 

74

I think I would recommend, as others have noted, an independent panel where there is no proprietary interest from any 

member of that panel to review, vet curriculum materials, assessment materials and so on. I think that would be wise. 

At the same time, I think it is important to appreciate the context in which the Reading First assessment committee did its work. 

It was very early on. We were asked to do it in 4 months. We delivered in 8 months a product that I am still proud of, and had we 

been informed of conflict of interest criteria, we would have certainly implemented those and followed those by the book. 

We created our own that I thought and I still do think that it 

meets the academic standards that are in place today, and I regret 

the perception of conflict of interest, but there was no, as I noted 

in my testimony and wrote, real conflict of interest that we engaged in at any time, either in the review of the Reading First assessment materials or the review of the curriculum materials that 

we conducted. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you. 

And another one for Mr. Doherty, if you read all of the various 

reports, your head starts to spin after a while if you try to determine exactly what the reaction to Reading First has been in states 

and local school districts. 

On the one hand, we have the inspector general’s report that 

clearly indicates that some states felt like they were unfairly 

pushed toward certain programs, Kentucky being one of these. The 

GAO report backs up that claim. 

On the other hand, we have the Center on Education Policies’ 

2006 report and that same GAO report stating that most folks are 

happy with the way the Reading First Program has been implemented and feel like it is having a good impact. 

When you left the department, what was your overall impression 

of how states were reacting to Reading First and has that impression changed as a result of the inspector general’s reports? 

Mr. DOHERTY. I think it is hard to overstate the contrast between 

the controversy about Reading First here in Washington and the 

appreciation and support of Reading First in the vast majority of 

states across the country. 

Reading First was and will probably remain the highlight of my 

professional career. The respect and affection that I have for the 

state directors and the people who work in the districts is something that I cannot express. 

I think that the net effect of these six reports is to have mined 

thousands and thousands of e-mails and documents and come up 

with a very unrepresentative picture of a program that is very successful. I know that some state directors wanted to testify at this 

hearing today and offer a more positive opinion, and they were told 

that the panel is not interested in positive information about Reading First. 

I think the Reading First Program is successful because of the 

good law that was implemented faithfully by people who love the 

program. I do think that across the nation, Reading First is widely 

embraced, and I sincerely hope that it will only continue to improve 

in coming years. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you. 

75

Chairman MILLER. I appreciate your side, Mr. Doherty, except 

the problem is you are looking at a panel here that supports Reading First. That is why we are concerned about the integrity in the 

program from one end of this panel to the other, one of the authors. 

That is why we are concerned. 

Mr. Sarbanes? 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting the 

hearing and bringing scrutiny to this issue. 

The stakes are very high on this stuff, and there are many reasons. There are two in particular I would cite. The first is, as we 

have heard a little bit about already, there are these reading wars 

that have been going on for some time, and there are true believers 

in these wars, and they can be overzealous when it comes time to 

implement these programs. For that reason, it is incredibly important that whatever the review process is that is in place be balanced and neutral. 

The second reason the stakes are so high is that every school system in this country and just about every instructional professional 

is focused like a laser on the need to increase proficiency in math 

and reading by the year 2013, 2014, and everybody is under a lot 

of pressure to achieve that, and so when you get to the question 

of scientifically based research and what it supports in terms of 

reading programs, it is hard to overstate how important it is to be 

balanced and fair. 

I am concerned and alarmed at evidence of tipping the scales 

that we have heard today. It particularly offends me, the appearance that that occurred, vis-a-vis the state department of education 

in Maryland, as we heard Mr. Hare, I think, refer to. 

The potential for this to interfere with professional judgment 

that people are trying to exercise reminds me a little bit, particularly because we are talking about scientifically based research, of 

a hearing, Mr. Chairman, we had in the Oversight and Government Committee on the administration’s interference with the 

science on global warming. I mean, it seems to reflect a pattern 

and an impulse. 

Mr. Doherty, I guess what disappoints me is given your relationship to Direct Instruction, I would have thought you would have 

gone out of your way to ensure that the review process and the 

composition of these panels and so forth was done in a way that 

would make it absolutely clear that it was balanced and that there 

was no bias, and I wonder if you could just, looking back, tell me 

if you think you could have done a lot more to ensure that in the 

process. 

Mr. DOHERTY. Yes, I think that we could have done more to ensure that. I do want to point out that we did screen, and the 

screening that we did for Direct Instruction was consistent with 

the screening that was one at the department at the time, and 

none of those individuals that are cited had or have direct financial 

connections to the Direct Instruction program. 

These were people who had implemented the program, principals 

of schools who had used the program, but none of those properly 

screened people had direct financial involvement with Direct Instruction or, to my knowledge, have since joined in any financial 

way with Direct Instruction. But I absolutely agree that this whole 

76

day is evidence of how much better we could have done to have 

avoided the perception of conflicts of interest. 

Mr. SARBANES. See, the financial interest is just one aspect of the 

conflict of interest that, I think, we have touched on here. The 

other is just, as I say, this notion of true believers on these things 

that are very, very important. So I am as concerned about that aspect of it because we are talking about what are the best practices 

to ensure that children will learn and learn to read and do it under 

this timeline for proficiency expectations that has been imposed by 

No Child Left Behind. 

I am sorry that Ms. Lewis is not at the table any longer. I was 

going to ask her to reflect or to discuss or describe what she thinks 

the impact is on morale in the field when people work their best 

to exercise professional judgment to determine what the best kinds 

of programs are, make good faith presentations of that to their superiors and those who are in a position to exercise a lot of influence 

and then feel like the scales are being tipped and like there is an 

imbalance, and I certainly regret the impact that that must have 

had on people in the field. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My first question is directed to Dr. Roland Good. Since DIBELS 

is offered in Spanish, which you answered the question from Congresswoman Susan Davis, do you have plans to offer it to other 

countries, to offer it for sale to other countries? 

Mr. GOOD. Currently, the Spanish version of DIBELS—it is 

called IDEL—is really designed for use in the U.S. for English language learners or for children who are learning to read in Spanish 

in the U.S. I think it would be something that would be valuable 

in other Spanish-speaking countries for children learning to read in 

Spanish. However, we would have to do that research in that context first before we felt comfortable offering that in other settings. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Will the DIBELS data system ever leave the University of Oregon and become part of your company, DMG? 

Mr. GOOD. I do not see a viable way in which DIBELS data system would leave the University of Oregon. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. What does it cost to become a DIBELS-certified 

trainer? 

Mr. GOOD. We would ask DIBELS-certified trainers to attend our 

DIBELS trainers’ institute. I think the fee for that institute is 

$900, and it is a 4-day trainers’ institute. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Are you seeing a lot of people taking that up and 

going for the training? 

Mr. GOOD. Not very many. Instead what we see is most DIBELS 

trainers have not attended that institute. May I elaborate just a 

minute? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Yes. 

Mr. GOOD. There is a very large number of people who are 

DIBELS trainers. Only a very small number of DIBELS trainers 

have any financial relationship with Dynamic Measurement Group 

or with DIBELS. Most of the DIBELS trainers are reading experts 

who have developed that expertise in DIBELS training, and they 

provide that through their own system. 

77

Mr. HINOJOSA. In your testimony, you seem to always lead us to 

believe that you are not making money from all of this that we 

have discussed that you have created. Please tell me when was 

DIBELS made available for sale? 

Mr. GOOD. Our first royalties from DIBELS were in 2003. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Was your compensation at the University of Oregon based on revenues generated by DIBELS? 

Mr. GOOD. No. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Not at all? 

Mr. GOOD. No. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. My question to Jack Higgins, where does the OIG 

go from here after today’s hearing? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Well, the first thing we will be doing is following 

up on the recommendations that we made to the department to see 

if they do them, which we believe they are doing, and look at the 

effectiveness of the way they are implementing the recommendations. There are a few things that came up here today that we are 

going to follow up with, and if you have any suggestions for areas 

that you think we need to look at, we will be more than glad to 

hear what they are. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Well, it leads to a lot of concerns, and this has 

been a very interesting hearing. I have to say that the findings 

from this hearing need to go out throughout the country because 

we may be able to get additional information to this committee on 

facts that would impact the actions that you would have to take. 

I am concerned that much of the information that Mr. Doherty 

gave us leads us to want to search and find out more because it 

seems that $1 billion worth of federal investment in this program 

indicates that there could have been people who were benefiting 

from it being that they did not name all of the panelists that could 

have and should have been named. 

So I am pleased to have been able to listen to the testimony and 

to the many questions that were asked by my colleagues here as 

members of Congress. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Good, I had asked you about how much 

money your company had made. 

Mr. GOOD. Yes. Prior to 2003, there was no company and no revenue generated. From 2003——

Chairman MILLER. There would not be any money going to the 

company if there was no company and no revenue. Okay. 

Mr. GOOD. From 2003 through 2006, we have received royalty 

payments in the amount of about $1,291,333.79. 

Chairman MILLER. And you are a 50 percent shareholder. 

Mr. GOOD. I am a 50 percent shareholder. May I elaborate? 

Chairman MILLER. Yes. 

Mr. GOOD. Through 2005, we made contributions to the University of Oregon foundation to support——

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Good, I appreciate that. 

How long do these royalties continue? 

Mr. GOOD. Pardon? 

Chairman MILLER. How long will these royalties continue? 

Mr. GOOD. These royalties will continue while DIBELS is a published measure. 

78

Chairman MILLER. This company receives royalties off of the 

handheld? 

Mr. GOOD. We have an alliance agreement with Wireless Generation that we——

Chairman MILLER. So you get royalties off of that. You get 40 

percent of each student that is tested off the handheld. Is that correct. 

Mr. GOOD. Forty cents for each student. 

Chairman MILLER. That is one student per annum? 

Mr. GOOD. Pardon? 

Chairman MILLER. One student per year? 

Mr. GOOD. Yes. 

Chairman MILLER. Okay. And you expect that to continue? I 

mean, that is not a time-limited royalty agreement? 

Mr. GOOD. I think it is time limited for a few more years. 

Chairman MILLER. But you own the intellectual property, or 

would that be the end of it? Could they go ahead without you? 

Mr. GOOD. I do not think so. It would have to be——

Chairman MILLER. I bet they do not. 

Mr. Good, is it correct that you and Mr. Kame’enui and Ms. Simmons co-authored this 29-page article that was put into these—Mr. 

Higgins, what were they called? 

Mr. HIGGINS. Handbook and the guide. 

Chairman MILLER. The handbook and the guide. 

Mr. GOOD. Yes. 

Chairman MILLER. So who put them in the handbook and the 

guide? 

Mr. GOOD. I do not know. 

Chairman MILLER. Ms. Simmons? 

Ms. SIMMONS. I do not know. 

Chairman MILLER. I am sorry? 

Ms. SIMMONS. I am sorry, sir. This is the first time I was made 

aware that that article was in the guide, was in the handbook. 

Chairman MILLER. Is that right? 

Ms. SIMMONS. Is it a DIBELS assessment? 

Chairman MILLER. It is an article that you authored. 

Ms. SIMMONS. I have written articles with Dr. Good for sure, but 

I was not aware that it was in the handbook. 

Chairman MILLER. Dr. Kame’enui? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. I was not involved in the preparation of the 

handbook or the selection of the materials or the inclusion of materials, if it is the handbook that you are referring to as the guidance. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Doherty? 

Mr. DOHERTY. If you are referring to the binder that went out 

during the secretary’s——

Chairman MILLER. I am referring to the handbook and the guide 

that is referenced in the inspector general’s report. It had a 29-

page article in it on DIBELS. 

Mr. DOHERTY. Right. My understanding is that is the materials 

that were handed out at the secretary’s Reading Leadership Academies. Those materials were put together in the second half of 2001 

prior to my joining the department. To the extent that it was a 

NIFL contract, perhaps it was NIFL. 

79

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Higgins, do you know? 

Mr. HIGGINS. No, I do not know. But I know the document says, 

yes, Department of Education on the back of it. So somebody at the 

department had to approve it being put in there. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Kame’enui, I asked you this earlier, and 

I think your answer was yes. You are currently receiving royalties 

from Early Reading Intervention? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. I am. 

Chairman MILLER. According to the publisher, that is packaged 

with DIBELS. 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. At the time that I signed my royalty agreement, 

I did not know that that could be a marketing extension at this 

point in time, but, as I noted, I have been away from working with 

Pearson/Scott Foresman for 2 years. That could be, but I have no 

knowledge of that, sir. 

Chairman MILLER. And, Ms. Simmons, you are receiving royalties for Early Reading Intervention? 

Ms. SIMMONS. I do, sir, but——

Chairman MILLER. So, at the time you were serving on these 

panels, you were negotiating with people who had a Reading First 

product? 

Ms. SIMMONS. May I clarify, sir? The Early Reading Assessment 

Intervention does not have a DIBELS component to it. 

Chairman MILLER. Well, according to the publisher, it does. It is 

packaged with DIBELS. It is sold as a package with DIBELS. 

Ms. SIMMONS. I was not aware of that. 

Chairman MILLER. Were you aware that you were negotiating 

with Scott Foresman during the time you were on the panel? 

Ms. SIMMONS. On the assessment panel, sir? 

Chairman MILLER. Yes. 

Ms. SIMMONS. Yes. I was negotiating with Scott Foresman about 

a reading program, but not an assessment component. 

Chairman MILLER. You were negotiating with Scott Foresman 

about a Reading First product. Is that correct? 

Ms. SIMMONS. About a reading program that is used in Reading 

First. 

Chairman MILLER. In Reading First, yes. And you have received 

what in royalties for that so far? 

Ms. SIMMONS. I cannot give you specific figures, but I could give 

you estimates of what those are. 

Chairman MILLER. Why don’t you go ahead and do that? 

Ms. SIMMONS. Last year, it was about $150,000. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Kame’enui, is that consistent with your 

royalties you have received from that product? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. Yes, yes. 

Chairman MILLER. So let me see. That was in 2002. So you have 

received royalties for 3 years? 

Ms. SIMMONS. About 3 years. Yes, sir. 

Chairman MILLER. So about the same amount? 

Ms. SIMMONS. No, no. They have——

Chairman MILLER. It has grown? 

Ms. SIMMONS. It has grown over a period of time. 

Chairman MILLER. Same situation with you, Mr. Kame’enui? 

Mr. KAME’ENUI. Yes. 

80

Chairman MILLER. Is that consistent, Mr. Higgins, with what 

you know? 

Mr. HIGGINS. We did not look into the financial aspects. 

Chairman MILLER. You did not look into the royalties. 

So nobody knows how this DIBELS article, the only article on an 

assessment tool, got into the official documents that were given to 

states and others to look and decide on how to make these decisions? 

Mr. Rasa, do you know? 

Mr. RASA. No, I do not. 

Chairman MILLER. See, I hoped he brought you along so you 

could tell us. [Laughter.] 

There you are. 

Mr. RASA. I do know that 29 pages are in the——

Chairman MILLER. I am sorry. You need your microphone. 

Mr. RASA. I do know that the 29-page article is in both documents, and it covers DIBELS. 

Chairman MILLER. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. McKeon? 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Are we wrapping up now? 

Chairman MILLER. Yes. Go ahead. 

Mr. MCKEON. This has been very, very interesting to me. I have 

been here in Congress now for about 15 years, and we have passed 

legislation during that time that has started some new programs. 

One of them that kind of sticks out in my mind in my first term 

was AmeriCorps, and I opposed the program, but it was passed. It 

was started, and it was funded at less than half of the level of the 

program that we are talking about. 

I remember after a few years, we had a hearing. I remember we 

had the director of the program here, and at the time, we had tried 

to do an audit and they could not even tell us were the money was. 

They could not tell us how much money they had, they could not 

tell us how it was spent, and we could not get any kind of substantive idea of how the program was working. 

I think it has improved now, I think, considerably. 

Chairman MILLER. I hope. 

Mr. MCKEON. Yes. I am still not real excited about it. 

But the point is I have thought about this, you know, during our 

question-and-answer period and then while we were over voting. I 

have thought about this quite a bit. It seems to me you start a new 

program—and $1 billion is a lot of money—and you say, ‘‘Here. You 

are going to be responsible for this, and we want you to spend $1 

billion this year and $1 billion next year and $1 billion the next 

year, and we want you to use that money to help the young children who really need the help to learn to read.’’

I think we have pointed out flaws in the implementation and 

how it has been done and maybe some people have made some 

money off of it—you know, people make money a lot of different 

ways, for a lot of different reasons—and I guess we can look at 

things as the glass is half empty or half full, and we can question 

people’s motives. There are all kinds of things, but I think the bottom line, as I have seen it today, is the program has been very beneficial for a lot of young people, and it has worked very well. 

81

Let me just cite a couple of statistics. 

In Reading First schools, the percentage of first graders meeting 

or exceeding proficiency on Reading First fluency outcome measures increased by 14 percentage points, from 43 to 57 percent, from 

2004 to 2006. 

In Reading First schools, the percentage of third graders meeting 

or exceeding proficiency on Reading First fluency increased by 7 

percentage points, from 36 to 43 percent, during the same period 

of time. 

On average, the 16 states with baseline data increased the percentage of students meeting or exceeding proficiency on fluency 

outcome measures by 16 percent for first graders, 14 percent for 

second graders and 15 percent for third graders. 

Looking at these statistics, it seems to me that, as I said, the 

program has benefited a lot of young people. I think it has been 

a very good program, and I hope with all of this discussion there 

is no detraction from the program and that we can take what we 

have seen here today—I think everybody agrees that some things 

could have been done differently, and the bill that I introduced yesterday will address most of those issues as have been brought out 

by the inspector general’s report—and, hopefully, we will learn 

from this. We will take those things, incorporate them into the law 

and move to make the program better. 

I still feel when you introduce a program at the federal level and 

you have to come up with spending a lot of money in a very short 

period of time and put together all of the different components of 

that that all of you who have been involved in this to look at these 

kind of results must feel pretty good about that. 

I know there has been some discussion about agendas, phonics 

versus whole language. I was on a school board for 9 years before 

I came to Congress, and I was involved in some of those fights, and 

I know there was a period of time where reading really declined. 

Then there was this fight in our state about phonics versus whole 

language, and phonics was brought back into the process and reading did improve. 

I no way profess to be any kind of an expert in any of this, but 

I just hope that you can feel that you have been part of a good 

process, that it has done a lot of good for a lot of young people, that 

we can take what we have learned here today and make the law 

better as we go forward in the reauthorization process. 

And I want to thank you for your service. You know, I have been 

here now almost 15 years, and I see a lot of people in this town 

get crucified, and I am just really getting sick of it. So thank you 

for what you have done—all of you—and I hope, as I said, that we 

make this a positive experience. 

Chairman MILLER. I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for 

his participation and again for his suggestions that we will work 

with him for changes in this program as a result of the IG’s report. 

I am a little concerned. You talked about people getting crucified. 

I am a little concerned—more than a little concerned—about the 

evidence that has been presented to us in the inspector general’s 

report, and I am a little concerned that Mr. Doherty, in my opinion—that is my opinion—finds the law something to be worked 

82

around rather than worked with, except in the case of where we 

saw one e-mail where he used it to his or his friends’ advantage. 

The answer to violating the law is not that people are happy 

with you. That is not a justification in the law. If e-mail will tell 

you what a wonderful person you are, it is of little value compared 

to the law. You know, a lot of people go to a pizza parlor and they 

love the pizza, and it is produced by a criminal enterprise. It does 

not tell you anything about the enterprise. It tells you they love the 

pizza. 

We agree. We are fans of the program. But this implementation 

is very worrisome because I think you are very close to a criminal 

enterprise here. 

Have you made any criminal referrals, Mr. Higgins? 

Microphone. I cannot hear you. You have to do two things. You 

have to pull it closer, and then you have to turn it on. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HIGGINS. I am a slow learner. 

We have made referrals to the Department of Justice, and we are 

pursuing them. 

Chairman MILLER. Well, I have to tell you that that just does not 

surprise me at all because I think that this process was cooked 

from the very beginning. 

Mr. Good, I know you are proud to be on the assessments committee, and I know you were picked for your expertise, but the report you produced the assistant secretary thought about junking it. 

You could not find an official sponsor for it. The e-mails are going 

back and forth about how you are going to represent this and how 

you are going to respond if somebody asks you questions, has it 

been reviewed and is it ready yet and all of these things. 

And finally it ends up posted out on the Web site at the University of Hawaii on the assessments, right, Mr. Kame’enui—Oregon. 

Excuse me. Oregon. Hawaiian name, Oregon resident. 

So, apparently, it was not quite the crystal clear work in a lot 

of people’s minds, but there was enough subterfuge—and it is outlined very clearly, if you want to read the trail, in the inspector 

general’s report, the process that was used—to get it up and get 

it running, and it carries, again, conflicted recommendations because of the people’s financial interests and personal interests and 

intellectual interests in the assessments that they were reviewing. 

On the expert review panels, the inspector general makes it very 

clear, that Congress was very clear about the kind of participation 

they expected and the impartiality that they expected. That was 

completely overridden, and even when it was brought to your attention, Mr. Doherty, and you somehow figured to set up your independent review of that which never came into place, it went forward. So then we had conflicted review panels. 

When it was suggested to you that there was an ethical problem, 

you did not take the advice of the general counsel’s office. You went 

your own way. So you did not ask people that question that would 

have revealed. You did not look at their resumes to see whether or 

not you had conflicted individuals on these panels that were making determinations about other people’s intellectual property, about 

other people’s work, about determinations by school districts and 

others about those products. You chose to violate the law. 

83

You do not get to do that in this country because people rely on 

the law. School districts rely on the law. Families rely on the law. 

That is what people do, and you do not get to override that, but 

the fact of the matter is that you did. 

Then when the guidance was produced, the guidance, as we now 

see, was a front. It was a front for your little inside game. If you 

went to the guidance, it looked like it was on the level. If you went 

the other way, what you saw is that districts and individuals were 

being bashed off the record. Over and over and over again, they 

were being bullied. They were being bullied until they came into 

compliance with your vision of what Reading First should be. 

You know, we were very particular when we wrote this law because we understood the history of what somebody referred to as 

the reading wars. You were on the school board at about the time 

it almost engulfed our entire state. So we knew what was at stake. 

That is why we asked for that kind of broad participating and impartiality. That is why the law was there, for that exact reason, so 

zealots would not run off with this and destroy the program. That 

is why the law was there. 

I think you have to understand that, that we did not see that the 

academies were interested parties, were going out with guidebooks 

from the official government that carried one puff piece in it—one 

puff piece—authored by three people sitting at this table, three 

people who are getting royalties from some part of that work, three 

people who will continue to get royalties because some of this is in 

as many as 40 states. That sounds like a criminal enterprise to me. 

That sounds like an inside job. 

Fortunately, I think maybe Reading First has survived that, but, 

again, that is not the test. That is not the test for this committee. 

It is not the test for the IG. It is not the test for the department. 

The question is whether or not this program has been operated 

within the law. The IG suggested it has not been and strongly suggested it has not been. I think that when we put this evidence together, we may join you in those criminal referrals because something is very wrong here. 

Something is very, very wrong when a small group of people can 

direct and engage in the activities that were engaged here on behalf of a few programs and browbeat states and browbeat educational officers in those states and even go in after plans were approved and get people to give up programs or to change all in the 

name of some kind of intellectual adherence to the scientifically 

based reading programs, that that was the test that would be used. 

Yet we see even those who complied, if they were not part of the 

party, actions were taken against them, and then we see those who 

were excluded are now in The What Works list. Something is very 

wrong here. 

As to the suggestion that somehow this was all evidence driven, 

that this was all scientifically studied and that was the only concern, I have to think the IG has given us a record that suggests 

very strongly that pocketbooks and self-interests and future interests overwhelm the idea that this was to be somehow just scientifically based. 

You know, we took a lot of ridicule from people because we put 

that term in the law so many times because, you now, we knew 

84

what we were doing in changing the direction, we knew it was 

without controversy, and then we come along and see the very adherents of this program—from Mr. Lyons on down and tragically, 

I think, up into the department—we see the very adherents of that 

effort, that change, that, ‘‘reform’’ in your mind that somehow took 

it and prostituted it in its implementation beyond all recognition. 

Yes, the outcomes apparently are going to be okay, but I dare say 

this is not how in the land of laws you get to that result, and, I 

cannot tell you how dismaying this is. This was a huge decision by 

the Congress to dedicate this level of resources for this particular 

purpose, essentially a $1 billion rifle shot year after year, trying to 

meet the desires and the hopes of this nation that our children 

would reach reading proficiency at an early age, and to see that 

program scrambled in the manner in which you have done here is 

just unbelievable. 

I want to thank all of the members of the committee for their 

participation. It has been a long day. 

I want to thank Mr. McKeon and his staff for their help during 

the preparation for this hearing, and as I said earlier, I look forward to working with you on the changes that need to be made in 

the law. 

Thank you to all of the witnesses for appearing. 

Members will have 14 days to insert comments into the hearing 

record, and with that, the committee will stand adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Altmire follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress 

From the State of Pennsylvania 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this important hearing on the mismanagement of and potential conflicts of interest in the Reading First program. 

As members of the committee know, Reading First is a $1 billion a year program 

designed to ensure that all students are able to read at grade level by the end of 

third grade. Unfortunately, funds from the program were not used in an entirely 

appropriate manner and I am deeply concerned about how this mismanagement 

came about. 

A large part of the problem stems from a lack of Congressional oversight from this 

committee over the past six years. Without review, Reading First was mismanaged 

for much longer than would have been allowed to had appropriate Congressional 

oversight been occurring. That is why I am pleased with Chairman Miller’s leadership and applaud him for making oversight of programs in the Department of Education a priority of this committee. By doing so, he has brought the issues of Reading First to light. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this issue. I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

[Responses from Mr. Higgins to questions posed by Mr. Miller 

follow:]

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Education and Labor Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you and your colleagues on the Committee on 

Education and Labor for inviting me to participate in the April hearing on the Reading First program. I appreciated the opportunity to discuss the work my office has 

conducted in this area. Below you will find my office’s responses to the questions 

posed by Committee members in response to my testimony and that of the other 

85

hearing participants. Please know that my staff and I are available if you have any 

additional questions, or require more information.

(1) Should more than four groups be involved in the expert review panel?

We believe that identifying more groups to be involved in the expert review panel 

would improve the process, because it would provide a broader base from which to 

select panel members without affiliations or connections to the matters that would 

come before them. It is also critical that the U.S. Department of Education (Department) abide by the law’s requirement to involve identified groups in the process.

(2) Does the statute require more stringent language regarding conflict of interest?

We believe the conflict of interest language proposed in HR 1939 adequately addresses the screening concern; however, it does not adequately provide an approach 

for resolving identified conflicts of interest for staff and contractors.

(3) Who in the Department approved the final printing of the guidebook/handbook?

We reviewed our records, inquired with the contractor and the Department and 

found that Susan Neuman, in her capacity as the Assistant Secretary of the Office 

of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), oversaw the review and approval 

process for the final printing of the handbook and guidebook. Further, during the 

course of our work, we interviewed Ms. Neuman, who indicated that she was the 

ultimate arbiter for decisions made concerning the presentations at the Reading 

Leadership Academies, which formed the basis of the materials included in the 

handbook and guidebook.

(4) Does OIG have any other suggestions for amending the Reading First statute?

In addition to the conflict of interest language proposed in HR 1939, we suggest 

that the Congress clarify whether individual reading programs need to show scientific evidence of effectiveness in order to be eligible for funding under Reading 

First.

(5) Mr. Doherty stated in his written statement and in his oral testimony that he 

was only following the direction of his superiors and that he did nothing without 

their knowing. 

What is the official/unofficial chain of command? Who were Doherty’s superiors 

and what role did they play in directing Doherty?

The chain of command at the time of the Reading Leadership Academies appears 

to be listed on a page in the back of the Handbook which reads as follows: Secretary 

Rod Paige; Counsel to the Secretary Susan Schlafani; Senior Advisor to the Secretary Beth Ann Bryan; Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary Mike Petrilli; Assistant Secretary of OESE Susan Neuman; Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Joe 

Conaty; Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Tom Corwin; Chief of Staff to the Deputy Secretary Carolyn Snowbarger; Special Assistant Kerri Briggs; Reading First 

Director Chris Doherty; Reading First Senior Program Specialist Sandy Jacobs; and 

the remaining staff that assisted them. I have attached a copy of the Handbook 

page for your review. 

Subsequent to the Reading Leadership Academies, Susan Neuman resigned from 

the Department and Mr. Doherty reported to Ray Simon in his capacity as Assistant 

Secretary of OESE before Mr. Simon became Deputy Secretary. When Ray Simon 

became Deputy Secretary and Henry Johnson replaced him as Assistant Secretary 

of OESE, Doherty reported to both Mr. Simon and Mr. Johnson. 

As for the role of and direction given to Mr. Doherty by his superiors, this is a 

question that is more appropriate for the Department to address, as we do not have 

this information.

(6) Inspector General Higgins mentioned that the OIG made referrals to DOJ. We 

are aware of the Doherty referral, but request the number and names for other referrals resulting from the OIG’s work leading up to the hearing.

As this information is confidential, I can, here, only confirm the statement I made 

during the testimony that my office has made more than one referral. We have provided more detailed information to Committee staff in a confidential discussion. 

Thank you again for convening the hearing on this very important issue. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN P. HIGGINS, JR. 

[Internet address to Department of Education IG report, ‘‘The 

Reading First Program’s Grant Application Process, Final Inspection Report’’ (Microsoft Word document) follows:]

86

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/aireports/i13f0017.doc

[Internet address to Department of Education IG report, ‘‘RMC 

Research Corporation’s Administration of the Reading First Program Contracts, Final Audit Report’’ (Microsoft Word document) 

follows:]

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/a03f0022.doc

[Internet address to Department of Education IG report, ‘‘The 

Department’s Administration of Selected Aspects of the Reading 

First Program, Final Audit Report’’ (Microsoft Word document) follows:]

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/a03g0006.doc

[Internet address to Department of Education IG report in the 

form of a letter, dated January 18, 2007, ‘‘Review of the Georgia 

Reading First Program—Final Audit Report’’ (Microsoft Word document) follows:]

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/a04g0003.doc

[Internet address to Department of Education IG report, ‘‘Audit 

of New York State Education Department’s Reading First Program, 

Final Audit Report’’ (EDITOR’S NOTE: very large Microsoft Word document) follows:]

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/a02g0002.doc

[Internet address to Department of Education IG report in the 

form of a letter, dated October 20, 2006, ‘‘Wisconsin Department of 

Public Instruction’s Reading First Program—Final Audit Report’’ 

(Microsoft Word document) follows:]

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/a05g0011.doc

[Questions submitted to witnesses by Mr. Scott follow:]

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, DC, April 30, 2007. 

Christopher J. Doherty, 

Baltimore, MD.

Deborah C. Simmons, 

Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Edward J. Kame’enui, 

Commissioner, National Center for Special Education Research, Washington, DC.

Roland Good, 

College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

DEAR MR. DOHERTY, DR. SIMMONS, DR. KAME’ENUI, DR. GOOD: Thank you for testifying at the April 20, 2007 full Committee hearing titled ‘‘Mismanagement and 

Conflicts of Interest in the Reading First Program.’’

Representative Robert Scott (D-VA), has asked that you respond in writing to the 

following questions: 

1) How much money, directly or indirectly, have you, your employers, your business partners, or your family members received from the DIBELS assessment system, including, but not limited to, the costs of scoring tests and the purchasing of 

DIBELS-related technology? 

2) Are you aware of any political contributions made by you, your employer, your 

business partners, or your family members since 2001? If so, please list such contributions. 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the question to 

Sarah Dyson of the Committee staff at sarah.dyson@mail.house.gov, by COB on Friday, May 4—the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have any quesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:05 Oct 15, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-22\34496.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
87

tions, please contact Sarah at (202)226-9403. Once again, we greatly appreciated 

your testimony at this hearing. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman. 

[Responses to Mr. Scott’s questions from Mr. Doherty follow:]

Responses to Congressman Scott’s Questions From Mr. Doherty 

Response to Question 1

Neither I nor any family members have received any money, directly or indirectly, 

from any aspect of the DIBELS assessment system. My employer from 2002-2006 

was the Federal government. Neither my employer in 2001 nor my current employer 

received or currently receive any money from the DIBELS assessment system. I do 

not have any business partners. 

Response to Question 2

To the best of my recollection, I personally have made four political contributions 

from 2001-2006. They are: two contributions to George W. Bush, for an approximate 

total of several hundred dollars; one contribution to Connecticut representative Rob 

Simmons for one hundred dollars; and one contribution to a candidate for the Maryland House of Delegates, Andy Smarick, for fifty dollars. 

These figures are to the best of my memory; in order to meet your deadline of 

Friday, May 4th I am submitting these now but I have not located the exact records 

to fully corroborate these figures. 

No member of my immediate family member has made any political contributions 

from 2001 to the present. My employer from 2002-2006 was the Federal government. My employer in 2001 made no political contributions. My current employer 

is a philanthropic foundation and, to the best of my knowledge, does not make and 

cannot make any political contributions. I have not had any business partners from 

2001 to the present. 

[Responses to Mr. Scott’s questions from Dr. Kame’enui follow:]

May 4, 2007. 

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MILLER: In this letter, I provide my responses in writing to the 

questions from Representative Robert Scott (D-VA) that you posed in your letter 

dated April 30, 2007. Each question and my responses are provided below. 

Question #1: 

1. How much money, directly or indirectly, have you, your employers, your business partners, or your family members received from the DIBELS assessment system, including, but not limited to, the costs of scoring tests and the purchasing of 

DIBELS related technology? 

Response: 

Neither I nor any members of my family have received any money, directly or indirectly, from the DIBELS assessment system, including, but not limited to the 

costs of scoring tests and the purchasing of DIBELS related technology. I do not own 

a business, and thus, do not have a business partner. If, however, the question relates to individuals with whom I have had scholarly partnerships with, then that 

would include Deborah Simmons and Roland Good. I do not have any personal 

knowledge about whether either has received money from the DIBELS assessment 

system. Because of his role in developing DIBELS, I do know that Dr. Good receives 

royalties but I do not know the specifics of any such arrangements. 

My employer is the University of Oregon (Oregon University System). The University of Oregon (UO) operates a web-based data system designed to analyze the 

DIBELS assessment data via the internet. School officials (typically teachers) enter 

the data obtained from the DIBELS assessment battery into a website. Once the 

data are entered, school officials choose an array of reports that automatically analyzes the DIBELS data for each child and tells school officials who needs reading 

support and why. The charge for this service is $1.00 per child per year. All revenues obtained from what is typically referred to as the ‘‘DIBELS Data System,’’ are 

88

received and managed for the UO through the Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement (IDEA). I have served as Director of IDEA since 1995. As Director, I do not receive any income, revenue or financial support from the DIBELS 

Data System or from IDEA. At all times I only received my normal salary as a 

tenured professor at the University. 

Question #2: 

2. Are you aware of any political contributions made by you, your employer, your 

business partners, or your family members since 2001? If so, please list your contributions. 

Response: 

To the best of my recollection, I made a contribution in 2002 of approximately 

$100 to Ted Kulongoski’s Democratic gubernatorial campaign. Since 2001, my 

former wife, Brenda Johnson Kame’enui, has contributed $60 a year to the Oregon 

Education Association’s political action committee. In 2005, she contributed $75 to 

Dollars for Democrats. I am not aware of any other political contributions that my 

employer (the University of Oregon and the Oregon University System), my family 

members or I have made since 2001. 

Sincerely, 

EDWARD J. KAME’ENUI. 

[Responses to Mr. Scott’s questions from Dr. Simmons follow:]

College Station, TX, May 4, 2007. 

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Education and Labor Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Re: Response to Committee’s Request dated April 30, 2007.

DEAR CHAIRMAN MILLER: The correspondence for Chairman George Miller requested the following information and I respond as follows: 

1. How much money, directly or indirectly, have you. your employers, your business 

partners. or your family members received from the DIBELS assessment system including, but not limited to, the costs of scoring tests and the purchasing of DIBELS 

related technology?

Response: Neither I nor family members have received income from the DIBELS 

assessment system. I do not have information to be able to answer this question 

about other individuals or entities. I am not an author of DIBELs and earn no royalties from DIBELS.

2. Are you aware of any political contributions made by you, your employer, your 

business partners, or your family members since 2001? lf so, please list such contributions.

Response: Neither I nor family members have made political contributions since 

2001 and am not aware of campaign contributions of other individuals and entities 

listed in your request. 

Sincerely, 

DEBORAH C. SIMMONS. 

[Committee letters to witnesses follow:]

89


eltr-1.eps
90


eltr-2.eps
91


eltr-3.eps
92

[Transcript edits received from Dr. Kame’enui follow:]


kamr-1.eps
93


kamr-2.eps
94


kamr-3.eps
95


kamr-4.eps
96

[Transcript edits received from Dr. Simmons follow:]


simmr-1.eps
97


simmr-2.eps
98


simmr-3.eps
99


simmr-4.eps
100

[Follow-up testimony from Ms. Lewis follows:]

Follow-Up Testimony of Starr Lewis, Associate Commissioner,

Office of Teaching and Learning, Kentucky Department of Education 

As I mentioned during my testimony on April 20, 2007, I had not seen any of our 

Expert Panel review forms until I received them from Ryan Holden on April 19, 

2007. I had requested to speak with our Expert Panel members or to see their comments during our application process, but I was told by Chris Doherty that we 

would not be allowed to speak to panel members or know their identities and that 

we could not see their actual reviews. On April 19, 2007 I received two forms labeled Reading First Panel Chair Summary Forms and three forms labeled Technical 


simmr-5.eps
101

Review Form Summary Sheets. Attached is a chart that compares the information 

included in the five forms with the three Expert Review Team Reports we received 

from Reading First staff. 

As one can see from the chart, there are discrepancies between the information 

on the Expert Panel forms and the staff summaries. Furthermore, it is impossible 

to know which form applies to a particular submission. In any case, if there were 

four members to each panel, we should have received four Technical Review Forms 

per submission and one Reading First Panel Chair Summary Form per submission. 

The forms provided by staff represent only a fraction of the documentation that 

should be available. 

Also, the discrepancies between the panel members’ forms and the staff summaries might suggest that there was some discussion between staff and panel members, but again, one would reasonably expect some documentation of those discussions. 

Since I had to leave before the end of the hearing, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Representative Sarbanes’ question that he said he would have 

liked to ask me. He said he would ask me to reflect on and discuss the impact on 

morale in the field since we had made a ‘‘good faith presentation’’ not realizing the 

impact of the process on funding decisions. I must say that it was discouraging at 

the time because so much effort and time went into the repeated revisions and resubmissions. My staff members and I spent an inordinate amount of time and talent 

on this process, time and competence that could have spent on more productive 

work. 

After seeing the discrepancies between the panel member comments and the staff 

summaries, I am even more discouraged. I would ask members to give particular 

attention to the Technical Review Form Summary Sheet with Review Code C4. On 

that form, eight ratings were changed, by whom I have no way of knowing. Six ratings were changed from ‘‘Meets Standard’’ to ‘‘Does Not Meet.’’ One was changed 

from ‘‘Meets Standard’’ to ‘‘Exemplary.’’ One was changed from ‘‘Meets Standard’’ to 

‘‘Does Not Meet Standard.’’ I would also ask members to notice that the original rating from C4 on the standard related to Instructional Assessments, the standard that 

repeated caused us not to receive funding, was ‘‘Meets Standard.’’

Much of the discussion during the hearing was focused on how to improve the 

process in the future. My hope is that the process will be transparent and open and 

that states will have access to panel members. 

Again, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to share Kentucky’s experience 

related to Reading First. 

During the Reading First application process starting in June 2002 through final 

approval of the application in April 2003,the Kentucky Department of Education received three Reading First State Application Review-Kentucky Expert Review Team 

Reports. In the chart below, a comparison of discrepant statements found in those 

reports and the technical review panel and panel chair summary sheets provided 

to the Kentucky Department of Education in April 2007. 

It is important to note that in April 2007 only two Reading First Panel Chair 

Summary Forms were provided and only the final review was stamped with a date 

and time (April 10, 2003 12:03). Therefore, it is difficult to determine which Kentucky Reading First submission is reflected in the comments on the Technical Review Form Summary Sheets because no date is recorded. All comments on the three 

summary sheets appear to reflect only the first or second submission. One other 

note of interest is that on the front of all forms provided (both Panel Chair Summary Forms and Technical Review Forms) a typed notation (b)(6) was entered into 

a small box where the Panel Chair or Reviewer was to provide a signature. No explanation of this notation was provided, but page 6, item b states ‘‘Providing evidence that assessments are valid and reliable and are aligned with the instructional 

program.’’

Section/Criterion 

Reading First State Application Review-Kentucky Expert Review Team Report provided to KDE by Chris Doherty and 

Sandy Jacobs 

Reading First Panel Chair Summary Form 4A and 4 (fourth 

review and the Technical Review Form Summary Sheet 

(Identified as Reviewer Codes C4, 4D, and 4E) 

I. Improving 

Reading Instruction—District and School 

Based Professional Development—

First Submission 

‘‘* * * the proposal does not provide criteria for 

evaluation the content of district and school based 

professional development plans * * *’’

Criteria for evaluation of content were not a part 

of the rubric for this section, and the comment 

was not reflected in the summary statements. 

102

Section/Criterion 

Reading First State Application Review-Kentucky Expert Review Team Report provided to KDE by Chris Doherty and 

Sandy Jacobs 

Reading First Panel Chair Summary Form 4A and 4 (fourth 

review and the Technical Review Form Summary Sheet 

(Identified as Reviewer Codes C4, 4D, and 4E) 

State Outline 

and Rationale 

for Using Scientifically 

Based Reading 

Research 

Second Submission 

Concern about independent reading-comments that 

the Reading Panel meant repeated oral reading 

with feedback and guidance-not independent reading 

Reviewer Code 4E stated ‘‘quotes concepts that 

are not supportive of SBRR′′-no specific examples 

were provided 

Instructional 

Strategies and 

Programs 

Second Submission 

‘‘The review team noted that these two sets of 

standards [IRA Standards and the Children’s Literacy Rights] are more global, resulting in a disconnect * * *’’

Second Submission 

‘‘The review team encourages the State to consider 

submitting a draft sub-grant application. The team 

is aware that this is not a requirement, but feels 

it may help to demonstrate how the sub-grant selection process will result in selected schools 

meeting the requirements related to instructional 

strategies and programs, which is necessary to 

satisfy this criterion.’’

Found no reference by reviewers or panel chair to 

these two sets of standards. 

No comments from reviewers or panel chair mentioned submission of a sub-grant in this criterion. 

However, the panel chair (4A) states in the Instructional Materials criterion ‘‘Require sub-grant 

selection procedure to indicate how * * *’’ and 

Reviewer Code 4E indicated, ‘‘selection of programs-matrix needs criteria.’’

It is worth noting that the criterion related to subgrants always met standard and Reviewer Code 4D 

indicated the process is ‘‘clear and concise—very 

easy to understand.’’

Instructional 

Materials 

Second Submission 

‘‘The team also noted that the matrix does not include decodable texts.’’

No reference to decodable texts found in any of the 

comments. 

District and 

School Based 

Professional Development 

Second Submission 

‘‘* * * the review team found the criteria the 

State will expect to see in sub grant applications 

to lack an intense focus on scientifically based 

reading research and expressed concern that training in scientifically based reading instruction will 

be layered on top of existing programs.’’

‘‘The content is not entirely focused on the five essential components and scientifically based materials, programs and strategies, as topics such as 

literature circles and leveled text are also included.’’ 

Reviewer Code C4 states in the Instructional Materials criterion, ‘‘TA will be needed to understand 

how to layer programs and determine how they 

work together to meet the needs of diverse learners.’’

Reviewer Code 4D noted ‘‘? bii (SBRR)’’ as a comment. Bii refers to the rubric statement at the top 

of page 10 * * * implementing scientifically 

based instructional materials, programs, and 

strategies. However, no specific topics were offered 

as examples on this reviewer comment page or any 

other reviewer comments.

II. State Leadership and Management 

III. State Reporting and 

Evaluation 

All reports reflect all criteria to the State’s reporting and evaluation strategies met standards. 

IV. Classroom 

Level Impact 

Key Reading 

First Classroom 

Characteristics 

Second Submission 

‘‘* * * the review team still found a disconnect 

between classroom instructional activities and scientifically based reading research in the table that 

connects grade expectations, program of studies 

and core content for assessment. The benchmarks 

are appropriate, but do not appear to match with 

all of the corresponding activities. For example, 

there is no mention of decodable text. The focus is 

on predicting and using context clues.’’

The terms ‘‘decodable text, predicting, context 

clues’’ are not found in any comment. Reviewer 

Code C4 states, ‘‘The summary provided under 

phonics for Kentucky RF classrooms describes a 

practice that SBRR indicates is not the most effective way to teach phonics.’’

[Whereupon, at 2:19 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ