Spellings Blasts Reading First Cuts

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Oh throw that you so much for your despatch at settle time. It helped me in my assignment. Thanks Alot

Penis Enlargement of AL 7:36PM May 25, 2010

What is it about Texas politicians?

piglizard of MI 2:42PM July 11, 2008

Oh the unbearable burden of 46 symbols. Poor American first grader. In China they learn several thousand. Are you saying that children in America are so dumb that they can't learn 46. There are apes and dogs that learn more than that.
Attach a lollipop to each of those 46 symbols and they'ed have them down pat in a few hours!!
I was appalled to learn that many 6th & 7th graders cannot read cursive any longer as it it not required after the 5th grade. Everything has to be done on a computer.
We have dumbed down our education to the point we no longer set any kind of standard for the world. No wonder we look to Asia and India for people to fill our job markets, for engineers and other such vocations.
Sad, Sad ,Sad.

Beverley Bartz of WA 3:10PM July 09, 2008

DO YOU REALIZE EVERY AMERICAN CHILD HAS TO LEARN FOUR ALPHABETS?
I RECOMMEND USING ONLY PRINTED CAPITALS IN EARLIEST GRADE, THEN LATER INTRODUCE THE LOWER CASE PRINTED LETTERS. A FIRST GRADER HAS TO LEARN 46 SYMBOLS, AND LEARN THAT DIFFERENT SYMBOLS SOUND THE SAME. CURSIVE HAS THE SAME PROBLEM, BUT IS TAUGHT LATER.

H DUFF of CA 11:54PM July 08, 2008

It is fascinating to see how decisions get made by some in this country.
The allegations and criticisms mentioned in this article and in the above feedback are based in speculation, not on facts and student performance. As was pointed out in a previous comment, the Inspector General at the US Department of Education investigated but found no actual conflicts of interest. That is a matter of public record. Despite this, many highly knowledgeable people who supposedly demonstrated a conflict of interest are no longer serving in the positions of concern. The US Department of Education has bent over backwards to remove the possibility of such conflicts because of the value of this program. Furthermore, the data reported by public servants at the state and federal level show significant gains in student reading achievement. There is no reason for us (yes, I am one) to lie. In fact, the data are available for public review so that anyone can see the facts.
The children of our nation deserve the unbiased respect of our Congressional leaders despite whoever may be President at the time. They cannot afford to wait for the next potential Presidential candidate and Congress to realize that this program worked. The children are sitting in classrooms this year all across the country. This funding cut short changes them now and the needs they have in the immediate future.
Reading First set the standard for education being processed well through the lenses of data and what actually works. It deserves the same due process before Congress: that the facts be used for decision-making, not uninformed misinformation.

Steve Underwood of ID 4:32PM July 08, 2008

Children are, and will be hurt in the political theater surrounding Reading First. Some facts: First, The Office of the Inspector General found no actual conflicts of interest in the management of Reading First (see OIG Reports) Second, Sen. Ted Kennedy had concerns that directors of Reading First technical assistance centers were receiving royalties from publishers while working for the program. But in most cases, these royalties were for books published before they worked for Reading First, or for books not connected to Reading First. In any case, Reading First technical assistance centers did not recommend specific textbooks or reading materials. Third, a Department of Education study recently published and showing that Reading First funding did not result in significant gains in achievement when compared to schools that did not receive the funding has been widely criticized for not paying attention to a well known fact – Both Reading First and non-Reading First schools within the same district were typically using the same reading programs. Non-Reading First schools did not want their kids to fail so they adopted Reading First programs and paid for them with state or district funds. For example, The Reading First evaluator for Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Washington and Wyoming reported gains in all five states in the percent of students meeting third grade benchmarks. She also reported that 65 percent to 95 percent of non-Reading First schools in districts receiving Reading First funds used the same assessments, purchased the same reading materials, provided similar assistance to struggling students and hired similar reading coaches. Alabama was found by independent evaluations to increase kindergarten reading development such that a remarkable 89 percent of students met literacy benchmarks at the end of kindergarten, with almost no racial gap. State wide evaluations of Reading First programs in California, Ohio, Idaho and many others demonstrated significant improvement in reading capabilities on state reading tests. If Reading First is on the chopping block it is not because it lacks effectiveness and is helping millions of struggling readers. It is because of political malpractice.

Reid Lyon of TX 12:08PM July 08, 2008

Instead of paying for insider deals it would have made more sense to give every first grader a gift certificate for www.headsprout.com. This program gives a money back guarantee. Headsprout takes any human from early phonics to early reading in a step by step, reliable, repeatable effective and inexpensive online process that can be used in the classroom, a library or at home. That's probably why it's use is limited to folks who actually want kid's to learn how to read and don't care about how.

John Stallcup of CA 1:51PM July 07, 2008

The corruption charges are quite serious as the FBI is involved. The former director of Reading First stacked "impartial" review panels with representatives of the industry - those folks who were guaranteed to make millions selling these silly reading first reading kits and testing materials - and they were charged with determining the efficacy of various reading first materials. This never happened in the Clinton years and it is a complete and damming shame that this administration is so bent on corrupting education to only forward the financial interests of its corporate and political backers.

FM of WV 6:51PM July 06, 2008

Why is Spellings using such language to blast the Reading First cuts?
The US Department of Education has not enforced conflict of interest policies and does not provide necessary oversight of the multi-billion dollar Reading First program.
Politically connected university "researchers" receive royalties and paybacks from the sales of curriculum products and tests promoted for use in Reading FIrst.
Many of the same "researchers" who are personally profiting from these tests and curriculum products are also involved in reporting the "data" and "merits" of Reading First.
The US taxpayers and parents of the children involved in Reading First deserve answers from the USDE as well as a Department of Justice investigation.

Ken of CO 5:56PM July 03, 2008

I don't know the back story, but I'll bet Democrats would simply prefer to do this after they have Obama---rather than "take it away from children" as Spellings would have us believe. Story here should describe the "corruption" that is alleged.

Daniel David of NM 2:45PM July 03, 2008