Several University employees are at the center of a political, ethical and educational controversy.
University education researchers have been accused of reaping financial rewards for their subjective involvement in George Bush’s high-profile child literacy program, commonly known as the No Child Left Behind Act.
Reading First is a program that was established by the act. At the cost of $900 million a year, its aim is to provide state grants for the improvement of children’s reading skills in grades K-3.
Last fall, the federal education department’s inspector general released a report asserting that University educators advised states to purchase textbooks and materials they had developed themselves, resulting in tens of thousands of dollars in annual royalty income.
The federal government hires reading experts to advise states that are just beginning to use Reading First on how to draft their grant proposals for the program.
Eugene is central to Reading First because in addition to providing employees, the University plays host to a Reading First technical-assistance center. The other two are located at Florida State University and the University of Texas at Austin.
But the University is even more involved with Reading First.
As part of the program, an “assessment review committee,” including four University researchers, uses the U.S. Department of Education guidelines to recommend materials that meet Reading First’s requirements. The committee endorsed a product called the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, developed by two University School of Psychology employees: courtesy assistant professor Ruth Kaminski and Roland Good, associate professor and assessment review committee member.
The University’s Web site also features a page devoted exclusively to DIBELS, including links to download the model.
Good denied evaluating his own product – 18 years in the making – and defended DIBELS’ legitimacy and effectiveness. He contended that there was no conflict of interest because of the program’s availability as a free online download, and because he and Kaminski decided to donate all income generated from the product through 2005 to a University Foundation research fund.
Good said that Center on Teaching and Learning professor and assessment review committee Chairman Edward Kameenui invited him to participate on the committee.
“I participated on the assessment review committee,” Good said, “but did not participate in any review or evaluation of DIBELS. I was not present at any time it was reviewed or discussed.”
On Jan. 30, the University released a statement regarding the audit of Reading First. It praised the College of Education and its faculty prior to stating “the findings of this audit highlight concerns regarding the administration of the federal Reading First program and not the University of Oregon or the quality of its research.”
The statement also mentioned the University’s Office for Responsible Conduct of Research, created in 2005, which was designed to teach faculty and staff how to avoid and manage potential conflicts of interest. The document assured that the University will continue to deal with “any potential conflict of interest concerns related to the University’s involvement in the Reading First program.”
According to the statement, the University is “deeply committed to the ethical conduct of research, including the management of conflicts inherent when there are both public and private interests involved.”
Both University spokesman Phil Weiler and College of Education Dean Michael Bullis declined further comment.
Good said the University is a key institution in nationwide literacy progress and assessment.
“I think any time you are out front and leading that it is also sort of an opportunity to encounter criticisms as well,” he said.
Still, there has been speculation that this controversy does not bode well at all for the Reading First program.
Jack F. Jennings, director of the Center on Education Policy, a nonpartisan Washington, D.C., association that has closely examined Reading First.
He said the program “has clearly been run unethically,” but “it would be a shame to lose sight of the good effects.”
Jennings also noted the fact that school principals have praised the program and it seems to have positive effects on students’ test scores. “They wanted to get what they thought were the right programs in place, but they trampled on ethics and procedures in the process.”
Good was steadfast in his defense of Reading First, and suggested that the program has yet to complete its work.
“I think that Reading First has been and is a very remarkable accomplishment,” said Good. “I never would have predicted that accomplishment, say, five or seven years ago. Around Reading First there’s really been a very significant and substantial change in how reading is taught in schools that are lowest in achievement outcomes.”
Good also said he fears the program will become a “political casualty.”
“It’s generated a huge impact and now I think there’s sort of a changing of the political climate from a Republican-led to a Democrat-led,” he said. “This is an initiative that should transcend politics. I rather worry that it will not be championed by either party. I don’t know what the future will bring for it.”
Contact the higher education reporter at [email protected]
University employees face ethics controversy
Daily Emerald
February 12, 2007
0
More to Discover