Reading & Literacy

Audit Faults Wisconsin’s ‘Reading First’ Grant Process

By Kathleen Kennedy Manzo — October 30, 2006 2 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

Wisconsin education officials failed to ensure that schools and districts that received federal Reading First grants adhered to the program’s strict guidelines, a failing that, if not rectified, could cost the state nearly $6 million of its $45 million allocation, a federal report concludes.

The audit by the U.S. Department of Education’s inspector general, dated Oct. 20, found that nine of the state’s 26 grant recipients had not received the required approval of a review panel and may not have met all the requirements for receiving the money.

The “Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s Reading First Program” is posted by the U.S. Department of Education’s inspector general.

State officials acknowledged that some of the local grant proposals were stronger than others, and they agreed with the inspector general that the state needs to monitor more closely the program’s implementation and give additional guidance to Reading First schools and districts.

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction “supports the Reading First program and will do whatever it takes to guarantee successful implementation of all its programs,” Julie Enloe, Wisconsin’s Reading First coordinator, wrote in her response to the inspector general.

The report is the second of six reviews of the $1 billion-a-year Reading First program being conducted by the inspector general. The first, released in September, was a scathing critique of the federal Education Department’s management of the program following an examination of program documents, e-mail correspondence between federal employees and consultants, and interviews. (“Scathing Report Casts Cloud Over ‘Reading First’,” Oct. 4, 2006.)

‘Is This All There Is?’

The new report is limited to Wisconsin’s performance in administering the grants. Little detail about the state’s difficulties in getting approval for its grant during the program’s rollout in 2002 and 2003 is given.

Some Wisconsin educators had complained, for example, that consultants and reviewers rejected the specific reading programs the state had proposed, and pressured them to adopt other programs or assessments.

There is also no explanation of the decision by officials in the Madison school district to give back its $2 million grant shortly after it was approved. Madison Superintendent Art Rainwater decided to drop out of the program after federal consultants told district officials they would have to abandon their existing literacy initiative and adopt a commercially published core reading program, he wrote in a detailed memo to the school board. (“States Report Reading First Yielding Gains,” June 8, 2005.)

“Is this all there is?” Kathy Champeau, who heads a task force on the federal No Child Left Behind Act for the Wisconsin State Reading Association and is a member of the state’s Reading First leadership team, said of the inspector general’s audit.

“I was shocked at the limited scope of the report,” she said, “and that it didn’t address … the coercion the state faced to use certain published programs.”

Those issues, however, were not within the scope of the audit, which was to determine whether the state education department followed the requirements of the Reading First program in issuing the grants to local education agencies, the report says. Other audits may include more detail on the Wisconsin program.

Ms. Champeau contended that the Wisconsin department went to great lengths to monitor the grants and ensure that the participating reading programs were of high quality.

A version of this article appeared in the November 01, 2006 edition of Education Week as Audit Faults Wisconsin’s ‘Reading First’ Grant Process

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
School & District Management Webinar
Stop the Drop: Turn Communication Into an Enrollment Booster
Turn everyday communication with families into powerful PR that builds trust, boosts reputation, and drives enrollment.
Content provided by TalkingPoints
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Special Education Webinar
Integrating and Interpreting MTSS Data: How Districts Are Designing Systems That Identify Student Needs
Discover practical ways to organize MTSS data that enable timely, confident MTSS decisions, ensuring every student is seen and supported.
Content provided by Panorama Education
Artificial Intelligence Live Online Discussion A Seat at the Table: AI Could Be Your Thought Partner
How can educators prepare young people for an AI-powered workplace? Join our discussion on using AI as a cognitive companion.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Reading & Literacy Quiz Quiz Yourself: Is Your District Truly Science of Reading Aligned?
Answer questions on the science of reading alignment in your district, including classroom materials, achievement data, and regulations.
Reading & Literacy Spotlight From Decoding to Growth: Every Student’s Journey Forward
This Spotlight highlights what students need to become confident and capable readers, starting with a strong foundation in decoding.
Reading & Literacy Letter to the Editor Small-Group Reading Instruction Can Be Effective
Don't get rid of small-group instruction just yet, urges this letter to the editor.
1 min read
Education Week opinion letters submissions
Gwen Keraval for Education Week
Reading & Literacy Letter to the Editor Experts Diss Small-Group Instruction. Why?
Experts shouldn't label the practice as ineffective, argues this letter to the editor.
1 min read
Education Week opinion letters submissions
Gwen Keraval for Education Week