States Reported Changes as Well as Improvements in Reading Instruction Since the Inception of Reading First

States reported that there have been a number of changes and  improvements in reading instruction since the implementation of Reading  First. There has been an increased emphasis on the five key components  of reading, assessments, and professional development with more  classroom time being devoted to reading activities. However, according to  publishers we interviewed, there have been limited changes to  instructional material. Publishers Reported Making Few Changes to Reading Programs, and States Reported Adopting a Variety of Approaches to Select Reading Programs

Three of the four major publishers of reading programs we spoke with  reported that they had not made significant changes to the content of their  reading programs as a result of Reading First. States Awarded Reading First Sub- Grants to School Districts Using a Variety of Different Criteria, and Some States Reported Difficulties with Implementation

States varied in how they exercised their flexibility to set additional  eligibility and award criteria as allowed by the Reading First program, and  some states reported difficulty with implementing key aspects of the  Reading First program while other states did not. Of these districts, nearly 2,100 applied for and nearly 1,200 received  Reading First sub-grants in the states’ first school year of funding. After  applying eligibility criteria, Education reported that states determined that  over 3,400 school districts were eligible to apply for Reading First sub- grants for states’ first school year of funding, or about 20 percent of all  school districts nationwide. 3). Education Provided a Wide Range of Guidance, Assistance, and Oversight, Generally Satisfying State Officials, but Education Lacked Controls to Guard against Mandating or Endorsing Curricula and Did Not Provide Written Monitoring Procedures

Education officials provided states a wide variety of guidance, assistance,  and oversight, but Education lacked written procedures to guide its  interactions with the states and provided limited information on its  monitoring procedures. Education’s guidance and assistance included  written guidance, preparatory workshops, feedback during the application  process, and feedback from monitoring visits. For  example, according to state officials, Education officials and contractors  made suggestions to some states to adopt or eliminate certain reading  programs, assessments, or professional development providers. For example, officials from four states reported receiving  suggestions from Education or its contractors to adopt specific reading  programs or assessments. We also found that while Education officials laid out an ambitious plan to  annually monitor every state, they failed to develop written procedures  guiding its monitoring visits. As a  result, states did not always understand monitoring response procedures,  timelines, and expectations. Recommendations

In addition to addressing the IG’s recommendations to develop internal   (1) policies and procedures to guide program managers on when to solicit  advice from General Counsel and (2) guidance on the prohibitions  imposed by section 103(b) of the DEOA, we recommend that, in order to  ensure that the department complies with statutory prohibitions against  directing, mandating, or endorsing state and local curricular decisions, the  Secretary of Education also establish control procedures to guide  departmental officials and contractors in their interactions with states,  districts, and schools. (2) What criteria have states used to award Reading First sub-grants to  districts, and what, if any, difficulty did states face in implementing the  program? We conducted a Web- based survey of the Reading First Directors in all 50 states and the District  of Columbia.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Reading First program was designed to help students in kindergarten through third grade develop stronger reading skills. This report examines the implementation of the Reading First program, including (1) changes that have occurred to reading instruction; (2) criteria states have used to award sub-grants to districts, and the difficulties, if any, states faced during implementation; and (3) the guidance, assistance, and oversight the Department of Education (Education) provides states. GAO's study is designed to complement several studies by Education's Inspector General (IG) in order to provide a national perspective on some of the specific issues being studied by the IG. For this report, GAO administered a Web-based survey to 50 states and the District of Columbia, and conducted site visits and interviews with federal, state, and local education officials and providers of reading programs and assessments.

What GAO Found

States reported that there have been a number of changes to, as well as improvements in, reading instruction since the implementation of Reading First. These included an increased emphasis on the five key components of reading (awareness of individual sounds, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, and reading comprehension), assessments, and professional development with more classroom time being devoted to reading activities. However, according to publishers we interviewed, there have been limited changes to instructional material. Similarly, states report that few changes occurred with regard to their approved reading lists. States awarded Reading First sub-grants using a variety of different eligibility and award criteria, and some states reported difficulties with implementing key aspects of the program. After applying federal and state eligibility and award criteria, Education reported that over 3,400 districts were eligible to apply for sub-grants in the states' first school year of funding. Of these districts, nearly 2,100 applied for and nearly 1,200 districts received Reading First funding. Education officials made a variety of resources available to states during the application and implementation processes, and states were generally satisfied with the guidance and assistance they received. However, Education developed no written policies and procedures to guide Education officials and contractors in their interactions with state officials and guard against officials mandating or directing states' decisions about reading programs or assessments, which is prohibited by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) and other laws. Based on survey results, some state officials reported receiving suggestions from Education officials or contractors to adopt or eliminate certain reading programs or assessments. Similarly, the IG reported in September 2006 that the Department intervened to influence a state's and several school districts' selection of reading programs. In addition, while Education officials laid out an ambitious plan for annual monitoring of every state's implementation, they did not develop written procedures guiding monitoring visits and, as a result, states did not always understand monitoring procedures, timelines, and expectations for taking corrective actions.