CEP Paid For The Glowing Report HISD Used To Review It

• Mr. Richardson, Since I'm the author of the above article, I wanted to take a moment to address some of your points. First, let me clarify that this item was just a brief summary of LULAC's criticisms, and of course was not meant to be a deep analysis of Dr. Goddard's evaluation and a line-by-line response to LULAC's allegations. That is certainly a worthy endeavor, but will have to be explored in a future article. As for the emphasis on the fact that CEP paid for the work: In general, we believe our readers understand the oft-irreverent headlines within the context of our blogs. Obviously, one could argue the merits of the headline, but it remains extremely important to clarify that CEP funded the work. The fact that it was part of the contract is irrelevant: the financial source of any study certainly needs the light of full disclosure. Read any medical journal, and you will of course see that the researchers who administer clinical trials always disclose the benefactors of the study. The purpose is just to supply readership with as much information as possible. Would you suggest it wouldn't be prudent for the authors of a study of a new drug manufactured by Wyeth to not disclose the fact that the research itself was funded by Wyeth? It doesn't mean, on its face, that the research was tainted, but it is certainly germane. Next: the mere fact that we reported on LULAC's criticism does not reflect a tacit endorsement of their claims. I certainly understand the fact that you are proud of and confident in CEP's work and would take issue with any allegations you believe to be unfounded. Again, this is something I hope we can explore in the future, and I hope you or another CEP representative would choose to be part of such an article. I assure you that, while our reporting includes the perspectives of people who may have a bias, the reporting itself is not contaminated. As with any multi-million dollar contract involving the educational well-being of Houston's most at-risk students, the CEP evaluation should be scrutinized with the utmost diligence and care. These students deserve nothing less. Thank You, Craig Malisow 713.280.2481

• June 8, 2010 Ms. Margaret Downing THE HOUSTON PRESS 1621 Milam, Suite 100 Houston, Texas 77002 Dear Ms. Downing: The Houston Press� characterization of Dr. Roger Goddard�s third party evaluation is not only inaccurate but also extremely insulting to a well-respected researcher. The Houston Press made a great issue over the fact that CEP paid for the evaluation. It is obvious that the press failed to read CEP�s contract with HISD that required CEP to make payment. The facts are: � CEP agreed to a third party evaluation. � HISD selected Dr. Goddard as the third party evaluator. � Regardless of the outcome of the evaluation, CEP was contractually obligated to pay for the evaluator selected by HISD. Had it been a negative evaluation, CEP would still have had a contractual obligation to pay for it. The Houston Press did not take issue with the terms of the selection or payment of the third party evaluation when it announced Dr. Goddard�s selection on February 1, 2010. I doubt this would be an issue now had the evaluation been negative. CEP has had a number of positive external reviews and evaluations, including; � March 2010 review by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) in which they stated that CEP met all 30 of the TEA best practices used to evaluate DAEP�s. � March 2006 review from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a highly critical review of Texas DAEPs in which CEP was singled out as the DAEP that works. These documents are attached, not that we think this will overcome your editorial bias. Sincerely, Randle Richardson CEO

TotalComments: 2