Re "Failing in reading," editorial, May 9
I find it ironic that your editorial board finds fault with Reading First because it narrows the curriculum. How long ago was it that you advocated Open Court as the solution for effective reading instruction?
Whatever the problems with Reading First, at least it infuses funds in professional development, provides direct support to teachers, promotes local assessments and supports teacher collaboration. All of that has a greater chance of making a difference in the long run than diverting funds to private tutors.
By the way, No Child Left Behind already requires "underperforming" schools to allocate funds to "private outside reading tutors." Where's its accountability?
Keni Brayton Cox
The writer is assistant professor of educational leadership at Cal State Fullerton.