Diana Jean Schemo’s recent piece about the Reading First program (In War Over Teaching Reading, Some Districts Clash With U.S., March 9) misstated several facts. First, her claim that I selected members for the National Reading Panel is flat wrong. Then Education Secretary Richard Riley and Dr. Duane Alexander, Director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, were charged by Congress to select panel members. Second, she insinuates that Reading First supports only those reading programs based on phonics. That’s not true. Reading programs that receive funding must be comprehensive. Phonics is only one of five elements in such programs, and not necessarily more important than any of the others. The report of the National Reading Panel makes this clear. So does the law—at least a dozen times. Schemo’s implication that schools should have been allowed to use federal money for programs that were not based on the scientific criteria for Reading First funding is in direct contradiction with the law. Federal officials’ insistence that schools only use programs that aligned with the scientific research is exactly and specifically what the law requires.
And, scientifically based reading approaches, strategies and methods are now being implemented successfully in over 5,000 schools across the country leading to substantial improvements in the reading abilities of children from disadvantaged environments. The bottom line is this: Reading First provides federal funding to those programs incorporating methods that are based on scientifically proven principles of instruction. When I served at the National Institutes of Health, my job was to work with other scientists and identify and validate such instructional methods and specify the conditions under which they were effective. Our findings, in combination with corroborating evidence from dozens of studies conducted since 1965 by other groups in the U.S. and internationally, became the genesis for Reading First. These findings were reported in the National Research Council’s report in 1998 and in the National Reading Panel Report in 2000. Moreover, these findings were presented to several congressional committees from 1997 through 2005. The federal government wouldn’t dole out money for medical procedures that aren’t proven to work. Why would it do otherwise for reading?

Reid Lyon
Dallas, Texas