More NYT on Reading First

Diane Jean Schemo doesn't know how to read a statute. There's no other explanation for this paragraph in this NYT article:

Reading First has come under heavy fire in Congress and elsewhere. Previous audits of the program, and some local school officials, said the department had used the law to promote reading programs with a heavy reliance on phonics, which focuses on the mechanics of sounding out syllables, rather than methods emphasizing additional strategies for making sense of texts. The House and the Senate are planning hearings.

There's a very good reason why ED forced schools to adopt reading programs "with a heavy reliance on phonics, which focuses on the mechanics of sounding out syllables." That's what the law required. Follow along closely.

Section 1202(c)(7)(A) of the Reading First statute states:

an eligible local educational agency that receives a subgrant under this subsection shall use the funds provided under the subgrant to carry out the following activities:

...

(ii) Selecting and implementing a learning system or program of reading instruction based on scientifically based reading research that— (I) includes the essential components of reading instruction

The "essential components of reading instruction" is defined in section 1208(3) as:

The term ‘essential components of reading instruction’ means explicit and systematic instruction in—
(A) phonemic awareness;
(B) phonics;
(C) vocabulary development;
(D) reading fluency, including oral reading skills; and
(E) reading comprehension strategies.

I've emphasized the word "phonics" so you don't miss it.

let me translate the legalese into English for you. In order to get a Reading First grant, a school must select and implement a reading program that includes the explicit and systematic instruction in phonics, among other things. Notice how the statute says "phonics" and not "methods emphasizing additional strategies for making sense of texts" as Schemo suggests.

It was ED's job to make sure that schools followed this law. But, according to Schemo, when ED enforced to law they "used the law to promote reading programs with a heavy reliance on phonics."

Using Schemo's twisted logic ED would have lost no matter what they did. Had ED allowed reading programs "emphasizing additional strategies for making sense of texts" it would have clearly violated the law. And, if ED only permitted phonics based programs, as it did, it was illegally promoting phonics based reading programs.

Pathetic.