This is the third part of a series of discussions about Reading First and Reid Lyon's responses to some questions about what transpired.

1) And now Robert Slavin- Given that the complaint he filed with the OIG resulted in the eviscerationof the Reading First program as well as several individuals reputations, what can you say about the veracity of his claims.Also, what does his Success for All program and his other work have to do with Reading First?

It would take me a month to answer this question in full.In researching my book on science and education policy, I have examined his allegations and documents that he and the Success for All Foundation have distributed.At the outset I was disappointed by how someone who had a reputation for scientific accuracy could get so many facts wrong.In essence, Slavin and the Foundation slandered a number of people, and made allegations about the Reading First program that are not supported by the facts.

To this date, I have seen nothing in the OIG reports, the press, or in any other document that provides actual evidence that individuals or companies profited from Reading First illegally or unethically.To be clear, Slavin has the right to articulate his concerns.But for the life of me, I can't get my hands around why someone who is an accomplished scientist would ignore facts and then engage in a National Enquirer type witch hunt.

Let me give you some examples, starting with the aspersions he cast my way, given that I am most familiar with my role in Reading First.

In a document published by the Success For All Foundation titled "the Mismanagement of Reading First: Summary of Evidence," Slavin made a number of allegations about my relationships with policy makers and other reading scientists, and about my Reading First duties that, in traditional tabloid fashion, were designed to portray me as part of a web of corruption in the Reading First program.I made an initial decision not to respond to this for a couple of reasons.

First, the claims were baseless and silly.

Second, and related to the first, I thought Slavin had some hack put the nonsense together to get the attention of an audience he wanted to reach.

But I came to learn over time that Slavin's insinuations were actually being treated as fact, where allegations that he and the SFA Foundation made were repeated almost verbatim in the press and elsewhere. Slavin's allegations against me and my role in Reading First were blatantly false.

Some examples:

Slavin alleges that I forced New York City to adopt the Voyager Reading Program or risk losing its Reading First funding.I think Slavin probably plagiarized this nonsense from some equally false gossip printed elsewhere. What are the facts? I never mentioned the Voyager Reading program to anyone in New York or any other state.I did not know the specifics about the Voyager Reading Program nor have I EVER ENDORSED IT IN ANY CONTEXT.

I had met Randy Best only in passing at one education conference prior to Reading First.Indeed, I never endorsed any reading program.Slavin suggests that I pushed Voyager because I later took a position with another company founded by Randy Best – the CEO of Voyager.The facts are that I accepted a position with Higher Ed Holdings (HEH) to develop a college of education – an interest I have had for years, given the need to prepare teachers in more systematic and evidence-based ways.HEH had nothing to do with Voyager.It did not develop or distribute any reading programs.In fact, the two graduate programs whose assessment and accountability systems I helped design at HEH were on Educational Leadership and Curriculum and Instruction, respectively – not reading.Not to mention the fact that Randy Best had not even conceived of an initiative to develop a college of education when Reading First began nor during the first several years of its existence.

Slavin was not alone in perpetuating this lie.Most education reporters, including Schemo from the New York Times, Kathleen Kennedy Manzo from Education Week and Grunwald from the Washington Post linked me to Voyager and its use in New York City.If you examine their stories, it looks like they just copied Slavin and one another without providing any evidence for the accusation other than hearsay. I have continually asked the reporters and education officials in New York City to provide evidence that I ever endorsed Voyager (or any other program).No one has ever done so, nor come forward to take responsibility for the allegation.Slavin never called me for any confirmation or clarification, even though his claim damaged my reputation.

**** In the third interview addressing the questions concerning Robert Slavin I made a mistake in a portion of my answer. I erroneously indicated that Diana Jean Schemo of the N.Y. Times and Kathleen Kennedy Manzo of Ed Week followed Slavin’s assertion linking me to the Voyager Reading program and its use in New York City. This is incorrect. Neither reporter repeated this allegation in any of their stories addressing Reading First.

Another example: Slavin claims that I have a close personal relationship with President Bush, and that I thus had "an enormous informal influence on Reading First." Slavin alleges that this influence allowed me to help plan the National Reading First meetings, consult with states on Reading First activities, and make speeches across the country on the program.The gist of this nonsense is that I was supposedly able to influence instructional program selection which is simply not true.First of all, I provided the President and his staff with data and advice on reading development, reading difficulties, and reading instruction. This was done in the appropriate Federal offices – not over dinner somewhere.I tried to base my advice on the best converging scientific evidence, believing, as Daniel Moynihan once said, that "we are entitled to our own opinion, but we are not entitled to our own facts."

I will say that the President's evident desire to ensure that Federal funds were provided to only that "which worked" was rare among the politicians I'd worked with. (The only other elected official I'd known who cared about crafting policy based on research in a serious way prior to the development of the Reading Excellence Act, NCLB and Reading First was Bill Goodling, the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, who retired in 2001).

That said, I have always been nonpartisan. Before Bush, I worked with Congress and the Clinton administration in helping to develop the research foundation for the Reading Excellence Act, the first piece of education legislation that used the term "Scientifically Based reading Instruction."My experience in working on the Reading Excellence Act was known by Bush education staff, and they felt it could be useful in developing Reading First. I had also been asked by then Governor Bush and his staff to advise him on reading research as early as 1996.He was far ahead of his time in trying to ensure that kids were provided instruction that worked.Even as a registered democrat in Maryland, I was extremely impressed with his focus on doing the right things for the students in Texas.If I had any real influence with the Reading First program is was from my work with Bob Sweet in developing the scientific basis for the legislation and in providing the Reading First office with summaries of research on programs to ensure they met all Reading First Criteria.That role never involved endorsing or recommending any program.

Second, I never had any role in planning annual Reading First meetings. When I was asked to speak at one of these meetings, it was for the purpose of explaining SBRR and its role in the assessment and resolution of reading difficulties. I was happy to do this, and when my schedule permitted I did so.I was never asked to discuss the implementation of the program nor any educational programs that may or may not meet Reading First scientific criteria.

Third, I never consulted with any states on their Reading First programs, and any speeches I made in different states and districts were about SBRR – not the development of Reading First applications or the implementation of Reading First programs.No states or groups asked me to review or comment on their Reading First programs.I was asked on numerous occasions and in different venues to review the most current research on reading and I am hopeful that information helped individuals gain a clearer understanding of what constitutes SBRR, whether or not the school district, state, or group had any relationship to a Reading First program.

I had no role in developing plans, reviewing, or recommending individuals to participate in technical assistance functions or activities.It is the case that I worked hard to provide this administration, previous administrations, and the Congress, past and present, with the most accurate information about the current research that could inform policy and practice in the area of reading, early childhood, and special education.I did this through yearly Congressional testimony before numerous committees and individual meetings with policy makers and government officials.This is all a matter of public record.

Again, I have to say I am simply amazed that someone who has been taken seriously as a scientist would fail to check the factual basis for allegations that could damage someone's reputation.Again, Slavin never called me to discuss his allegations.

Fourth, I certainly was not considered a supporter of any commercial reading program. Indeed, several in the publishing/vendor community told me that they did not appreciate me at all.I believe they felt that by not endorsing their program, I was not supporting them.

But it was clear to me that the major publishing companies never had robust plans or internal research programs to obtain their own and/or independent program specific evidence.This simply was not in their business models and while many gave lip service to research, it was frequently rhetoric and hype.When publishers would visit NICHD to show me their programs in the hope that I would possible endorse their wares, they left my office disappointed.Keep in mind that any individual or representative from a publishing company had the right to come to discuss their programs and plans with federal officials.In fact, I was delighted to be able to discuss with them a number of NIH funding mechanisms that could be used to conduct research on the effectiveness of their program.

But, more often than not none had actual evidence of effectiveness obtained through rigorous studies designed to test for effectiveness nor did many appear inclined to carry out such studies in the future.In fact, Bob Sweet and I were hopeful that the Reading First law would stimulate publishers and vendors to take seriously the need to carry out well designed effectiveness studies.And, as Reading First progressed, a number of large publishers began to play ball on the effectiveness field.Many came to meetings at the Department of Education to discuss how they could best design studies to determine effectiveness.As we speak, at least one of the major publishers has spent millions in carrying out well designed and independent effectiveness research as have several companies that produce supplemental materials.

While Slavin's gossip-mongering about me was inaccurate and malicious, his attacks on Louisa Moats went beyond the pale.For example, his Success for All Foundation intimated that because Moats and I were "…close personal friends… as well as co-authors on published papers, her LETRS professional development program was provided an advantage in state adoptions.Nonsense. Moats and I had not worked together for 8 years prior to Reading First and our last published paper was in 1997.Not to mention the fact that she is exceptionally competent and clearly does not need any help from me to do superb work.

If LETRS was selected it was because it met Reading First criteria for professional development programs.A review of the facts shows that most states approved a wide range of professional development options for teachers in the schools, including workshops and courses developed within each state.

Slavin and the Success for All Foundation also disparaged Moats' expertise and credentials in reading and her experience in working with urban schools. This can only be described as very dumb.

Here are the facts:Moat's doctoral training at Harvard was in Reading, under Jeanne Chall, Carol Chomsky, and Catherine Snow. It would be hard to find better mentors in this field than those.

Before Reading First, she had been teaching teachers for more than 20 years in a number of state education initiatives and in several graduate programs. She was asked by the California State Department of Education to develop academies for the California Reading Initiative in 1996-97, under a state grant given to the Sacramento County Office of Education.

Moats' publications are not only numerous but influential in the development of reading practices and policies.She had written four books and a number of refereed papers, invited papers, and book chapters, prior to Reading First.

Slavin and the Foundation also reported that she had never visited an urban school outside of a small study in Washington DC is ludicrous.A quick call to the Sacramento County Office would have let Slavin know how many very diverse districts and schools Moats was involved with.And that "small study" that Moats led in DC was actually a $10 million dollar NICHD/NIH study titled the NICHD Early Interventions Research Project which generated several very influential scientific publications by Barbara Foorman, and others including Moats. Moats was on the ground in Washington, DC from 1992 until 1996 working with teachers and children from the most impoverished schools in the district.This was her full time job – working with teachers in the schools every day.The schools she worked with were unique and challenging and required significant help at every level.

How could Slavin get this so wrong, particularly when it impugned a very good person's hard won reputation?By the way, Slavin and the Foundation distributed this nonsense to major media outlets, the OIG, and to a host of other parties through email and his Foundation's website.There are many more errors that Slavin made in smearing Moats, but the inaccuracies noted here are an example of what can be found in all the other allegations he made against her.Why would he disseminate these blatant falsehoods?You tell me.

Slavin also charged that the three technical assistance centers promoted the use of a "three-tier model" of instruction.I was not familiar with the content of his specific allegations in this area until I discussed his complaints with individuals familiar with the Reading First implementation.I was then directed to the concerns he raised including the following:

"The three-tier model is a reading instruction plan promoted by the three technical assistance centers funded by the U.S. Department of Education. Although it lacks any evidence of effectiveness and was mentioned in only three states proposals, it has been aggressively promoted among Reading First schools nationally, pushing out alternative models with far better evidence of effectiveness…"

In trying to understand whether this allegation had merit I talked at length with scientists who have and are developing three tier frameworks, as well as individuals familiar with the work of the Technical Assistance Centers and state Reading First directors.

Again, it seems the facts are at odds with the allegations.First, Slavin may have been confused by the term "model" as used in the phrase, three-tier model.I am not sure this was the case because I can't get in his head, but many are confused about this issue.According to those who were researching and developing three tier models, it was never developed to be a model as in a "school reform model".Rather it is a framework within which any program – including Success for All – can be implemented.It simply provides an organizational scaffold for providing supplemental and intervention instruction. It also was developed with prevention as a focus and to ensure that regular education take responsibility for children struggling to learn to read prior to the typical over referral to special education.

Moreover, I have been told repeatedly by those responsible for the TACs that the "model" was not aggressively promoted by the Reading First office or the Technical Assistance Centers. Officials from the TACs would try to provide help if a state or district has decided to employ a three-tier framework, but I cannot find any corroboration from any State or District Reading First director that they were pressured by the TAC providers to use a three tier model. Again, it was the states that appreciated its value through their own experiences and research and then requested information from the TA centers.

The state Reading First directors were clearly aware that the framework did not require any particular basals or programs and it was not a nefarious tool to drive schools toward particular commercial basal series or any other specific programs or approaches.The OIG audit examined this particular allegation with null findings.Again, if there is evidence to the contrary, I would welcome being enlightened as we certainly did not envision any "model", or program for that matter, to be advocated for by any Reading First staff - including contractors – when the law was written.

With respect to your other questions, Slavin had nothing to do with the development of the Reading First legislation, or its predecessor, the Reading Excellence Act.That said, I have always been impressed by the care and the attention to data Slavin brought to the development of SFA.I had used SFA as an example of one program with proven instructional effectiveness in reading.I provided testimony to Congress on the role of research in education and identified SFA as an example of an evidence-based reading program when asked for an example of one. I also indicated to the OIG during my interview that both SFA and Reading Mastery were two programs that could have met the program specific effectiveness criterion that was initially drafted in the law.Both programs had several years of data carried out by independent researchers and published in respected scientific journals. This was not an endorsement – just a simple statement of the facts.Because of this, I was very surprised at the sloppy evidence gathering Slavin undertook in his attacks on people and the Reading First program.

As we discussed in an earlier question, given that the rigorous effectiveness criterion was not in the final draft, many programs would claim to meet the "based on" criterion.Thus SFA was among many that a state and/or district could consider for adoption.As hard as I have tried, I have not ever been able to find anyone who says they were pressured by the Department to not use SFA or, if they were using it, to discontinue the program.Given the seriousness of Slavin's allegations, this information must be obtained under oath. For whatever reason districts and schools were not enamored with SFA, the market made its choices – not the Department of Education.

These are just a few examples of what I consider to be false statements of fact by Slavin and the SFA Foundation.There are many more that are equally untrue.The blatant disregard for evidence to support these and other allegations have led me to conclude his accusations were baseless and born out of a failure to check facts. I was surprised during the congressional committee hearings on Reading First that no witnesses were called that would testify under oath that they were pressured to not use SFA given that this allegation was at the genesis of attacks on the Reading First program.I will certainly revise the conclusions I have drawn about the distance between Slavin's allegations and the facts that have been presented to me if valid evidence to support the accusations is presented.I would welcome the opportunity.

To repeat myself, I have been disappointed that no respected education researcher, policy researcher, or Department of Education entity has fully dissected Slavin's allegations, identified all the evidence he used to support each allegation, and then examined the strength of that evidence in supporting the accusations.No doubt, this is tedious work but it must be done and preferably by a number of independent individuals and entities. As I am carrying out my own research on the veracity of the "evidence" I have been surprised at the amount of scandal mongering based, as best as I can identify, on back-fence gossip, and hearsay.I am hopeful that those who have generated the accusations against individuals and the Reading First program will step forward and provide objective evidence that the allegations are valid.I cannot find any evidence of illegal or unethical behavior in the massive amount of emails between the Reading First office and state and district Reading First officials.Nor can I find any evidence of this in the emails I am reviewing between the TACs and publishers/vendors, and Reading First state and district officials. To me, identifying the actual evidence of any wrongdoing is essential if we are going to improve a program beyond putting in place safeguards against the perception of conflicts of interest – don't get me wrong - these safeguards are critical.Evidence needs to be provided that identifies the instances when illegalities were actually committed.And when this evidence is presented, it needs to be reported under oath.In short, the record must be set straight.

Published April 4, 2008

First Part: An On-Going Conversation with Reid Lyon : About Reading First
Second Part: An On-Going Interview with Reid Lyon: About Reading First