Put PK-3 First, with or without Reading First

In late June both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees approved separate versions of the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, which funds federal education programs. Both the House and Senate committee bills would zero out funding for the Reading First program, which funds scientifically-based reading programs in grades K-3. If the bill passes in its current form, Congress will have cut funding for PK-3 literacy by $1 billion over two years. And that’s something early education advocates, regardless of their views on Reading First per se, should be up in arms about.

The appropriators cite unimpressive results from a recent evaluation of Reading First as a rationale for eliminating the program. They also cite management scandals that plagued the program last year but which the Department has addressed. Early Ed Watch has previously discussed why these are not necessarily good reasons to defund Reading First.

We agree that congress should not waste taxpayer dollars on ineffective education programs. But we also shouldn’t judge Reading First just on one, preliminary evaluation—particularly when other data sources yield more promising (albeit less rigorous) evidence. If the appropriators are going to defund Reading First based on one evaluation, there are a number of other programs, which they did choose to fund in the current bills, that have even less evidence of effectiveness and that we’d like to see them apply the same standard to—We’ve got some ideas about better ways to use that money.

Yet there’s a bigger picture here: If congress does indeed eliminate Reading First funding for fiscal year 2009, that will constitute a $1 billion cut in K-3 education funding over just two years. That’s a huge step backwards at the very time that many in congress are seeking to increase federal investments in young children.

Early education advocates are understandably excited about the prospects for increased federal investment in young children in the next congress and administration. But even as the political climate seems increasingly hospitable for new federal early education investments, the overall federal fiscal situation is making it all the more difficult to pay for those investments. Early education advocates will face increasing pressure to identify potential savings to offset the cost of new investments.

That makes it all the more important that early education advocates not stand idly by while congress eliminates $393 million that Reading First currently provides to support early education. If the appropriations committees are dead set on eliminating Reading First funding, early education advocates should put intense pressure on them to ensure that the funding remains focused on PK-3 education. Otherwise, the money freed up by eliminating Reading First will be distributed in dribs and drabs across a variety of committee members’ favored programs—or be used to fund earmarks—and little kids will wind up the net losers.

What could congress do for early education with $393 million in funding? Given American students’—and adults’—poor showings in reading, keeping the money focused on early literacy, under another name, would be a smart idea. Here’s another option: We’ve previously proposed creating a “2020 Early Education” state grant program that would provide grants to states to align standards, curricula, and teacher quality requirements from pre-k through third grade; improve the quality of PK-3 programs; and expand access to pre-k and full-day kindergarten for low-income students. That would be a good way to use $393 million, which would go a long way there. And we’re sure the early education community could come up with some other good ideas.

The current Committee Bills are not necessarily the death knell for Reading First. Appropriations bills still need to pass in the full House and Senate, go to conference committee, and either get the President’s approval or overcome a veto (which President Bush has already threatened for the bill). During that process, funding levels for many programs will change. Assuming, of course, that congress can even complete work on a Labor-HHS-Education bill this year at all. But right now the outlook for Reading First is certainly grim. All the more so, because the Bush administration and Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings aren’t expending much political capital to preserve their signature initiative.

Looks like it’s time for the early education advocacy community to gird up its loins and start pressuring congress to keep Reading First funding focused where it counts—on children from preschool through third grade.