<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:28431.wais]
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: DISAGGREGATING
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT BY SUBGROUPS
TO ENSURE ALL STUDENTS ARE LEARNING
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
June 13, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-43
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
28-431 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice George Miller, California,
Chairman Ranking Minority Member
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Sam Johnson, Texas Major R. Owens, New York
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Robert C. Scott, Virginia
Judy Biggert, Illinois Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Ric Keller, Florida John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Jon C. Porter, Nevada David Wu, Oregon
John Kline, Minnesota Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado Susan A. Davis, California
Bob Inglis, South Carolina Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Cathy McMorris, Washington Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Kenny Marchant, Texas Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Tom Price, Georgia Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico Tim Ryan, Ohio
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana [Vacancy]
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Thelma D. Drake, Virginia
John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
York
[Vacancy]
Vic Klatt, Staff Director
Mark Zuckerman, Minority Staff Director, General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 13, 2006.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' Chairman, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Miller, Hon. George, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Brittain, John C., chief counsel and senior deputy director,
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.............. 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Kuhlman, Cynthia, Ph.D., principal, Centennial Place
Elementary School.......................................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Peiffer, Ronald A., Ph.D., deputy State superintendent,
office of academic policy, Maryland State Department of
Education.................................................. 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Simon, Hon. Raymond, Deputy Secretary of Education, U.S.
Department of Education.................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: DISAGGREGATING
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT BY SUBGROUPS
TO ENSURE ALL STUDENTS ARE LEARNING
----------
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon [chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McKeon, Petri, Castle, Johnson,
Ehlers, Biggert, Platts, Osborne, Wilson, Porter, Kline,
Marchant, Price, Boustany, Foxx, Kuhl, Miller, Kildee, Andrews,
Scott, Woolsey, McCarthy, Kucinich, Holt, Davis of California,
McCollum, Davis of Illinois, Grijalva, Van Hollen, and Bishop.
Staff Present: Amanda Farris, Professional Staff Member;
Ray Grangoff, Legislative Assistant; Jessica Gross, Press
Assistant; Richard Hoar, Professional Staff Member; Lindsey
Mask, Press Secretary; Deborah L. Emerson Samantar, Committee
Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Toyin Alli, Minority Staff Assistant;
Alice Cain, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Lauren
Gibbs, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Lloyd Horwich,
Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Tom Kiley, Minority
Communications Director; Joe Novotny, Minority Legislative
Assistant/Education; and Mark Zuckerman, Minority Staff
Director/General Counsel.
Chairman McKeon. The quorum being present, the Committee on
Education and Workforce will come to order. We are holding this
hearing today to hear testimony on, No Child Left Behind:
Disaggregating Student Achievement by Subgroups to Ensure All
Students Are Learning.
With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record
to remain open for 14 days to allow members' statements and
other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be
submitted into the official hearing record. Without objection,
so ordered.
Good morning. I would like to thank my colleagues for
joining me here today for the second in our series of hearings
on the No Child Left Behind Act. I extend a special note of
gratitude to our Committee's senior Democrat, Mr. Miller, and
the Education Reform Subcommittee's Chairman, Mr. Castle, for
joining us and helping to spearhead this important series of
hearings. I think all of us can agree that these hearings will
be a tremendous asset as we approach next year's
reauthorization of this act.
Today's hearing will address concerns that the test scores
of some disadvantaged and minority students are not being
disaggregated in school and district adequate yearly progress
calculations under the No Child Left Behind Act. Breaking down
student achievement data by subgroups, such as African-American
students, special education students, and limited English
proficient students, is required by No Child Left Behind to
ensure that academic progress is being made overall and within
key subgroups.
No Child Left Behind also requires that disaggregated
subgroup data must be statistically significant and must not
allow students to be included--must not allow students to be
individually identified. These provisions were included in the
law because Congress wanted to ensure that schools and
districts were not unfairly identified based on the performance
of a very small number of students. We also wanted to ensure
that the privacy of all students was protected.
While I understand that this is a complex issue, I am
concerned that States are being allowed to establish minimum
subgroup sizes that are too large and are thereby failing to
disaggregate data for too many students. For instance, one
Associated Press article cited that as many as 1.9 million
students' test scores--that is one out of every 14 scores--are
not being disaggregated among accountability subgroups, and
this certainly was not the intent of Congress when we passed No
Child Left Behind in 2001.
My question is one I am sure I share with many of my
Committee colleagues: How do we ensure that the maximum number
of students have their scores disaggregated while still
ensuring that schools and districts that are truly in need of
additional assistance are identified as not making adequate
yearly progress? My colleagues on both sides of this Committee
have joined me in writing to Secretary Spellings to share our
concerns, and I am eager to hear from Deputy Secretary Simon as
to what steps the Department is taking to ensure this issue
will be addressed fairly and effectively.
I am also eager to learn more about how the disaggregation
of student performance under No Child Left Behind is helping to
ensure that students are learning. The ultimate goal of No
Child Left Behind is, of course, to leave no child behind. To
allow anything shy of that would be a huge disservice to
students, parents, taxpayers and eventually our future. This is
a good law worthy of our continued support as well as our
continued scrutiny. And I am looking forward to this hearing
and the remaining hearings in this series.
With that, I now yield to my friend, Mr. Miller, for his
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman McKeon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Good morning. I'd like to thank my colleagues for joining me here
today for the second in our series of hearings on the No Child Left
Behind Act. I extend a special note of gratitude to our Committee's
senior Democrat, Mr. Miller, and the Education Reform Subcommittee's
Chairman, Mr. Castle, for joining us and helping to spearhead this
important series of hearings. I think all of us can agree that these
hearings will be a tremendous asset as we approach next year's
reauthorization of the act.
Today's hearing will address concerns that the test scores of some
disadvantaged and minority students are not being disaggregated in
school and district adequate yearly progress calculations under the No
Child Left Behind Act.
Breaking down student achievement data by subgroup--such as
African-American students, special education students, and limited
English proficient students--is required by No Child Left Behind to
ensure that academic progress is being made overall and within key
subgroups.
No Child Left Behind also requires that disaggregated subgroup data
must be statistically significant and must not allow students to be
individually identified. These provisions were included in the law
because Congress wanted to ensure that schools and districts were not
unfairly identified based on the performance of a very small number of
students. We also wanted to ensure that the privacy of all students was
protected.
While I understand that this is a complex issue, I am concerned
that states are being allowed to establish minimum subgroup sizes that
are too large, and are thereby failing to disaggregate data for too
many students. For instance, one Associated Press article sited as many
as 1.9 million students' test scores--that's 1 out of every 14 scores--
are not being counted among accountability subgroups. And this
certainly was not the intent of Congress when we passed No Child Left
Behind in 2001.
My question is one I am sure I share with many of my Committee
colleagues: how do we ensure that the maximum number of students have
their scores disaggregated, while still ensuring that schools and
districts that are truly in need of additional assistance are
identified as not making adequate yearly progress?
My colleagues on both sides of this Committee have joined me in
writing to Secretary Spellings to share our concerns, and I am eager to
hear from Deputy Secretary Simon as to what steps the Department is
taking to ensure this issue will be addressed fairly and effectively. I
am also eager to learn more about how the disaggregation of student
performance under No Child Left Behind is helping to ensure that
students are learning.
The ultimate goal of No Child Left Behind is--of course--to leave
no child left behind. To allow anything shy of that, would be a huge
disservice to students, parents, taxpayers, and--eventually--our
future. This is a good law, worthy of our continued support, as well as
our continued scrutiny. And I am looking forward to this hearing and
the remaining hearings in this series. With that, I now yield to my
friend, Mr. Miller for his opening statement.
______
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much for calling this hearing to discuss a very troubling
problem with the way that No Child Left Behind law is being
implemented, one that undermines No Child Left Behind's central
promise to provide an equal education to all of America's
children.
At its core, NCLB is a civil rights law. By holding schools
accountable for the education of all children, the law seeks to
close the achievement gap between white students and minority
students. That achievement gap, which is really an opportunity
gap, has stubbornly persisted for generations. To prove that
the achievement gap is closing, the law requires that a State
break down annual test results by subgroups, such as income and
race. By disaggregating the data in this way, the school's and
the school district's overall academic performance cannot
obscure the problems, that specific groups of its students are
struggling. When poor minority children are not achieving
proficiency along with their peers, States must provide
remedies targeted to the schools those students attend.
The law's unyielding demands have raised expectations and,
in many places, have raised achievement. That is why it is more
troubling to learn that some States appear to be circumventing
the primary goal of the law and exploiting the legal loophole
in order to exclude from accountability the measures of scores
of children from racial and ethnic minority groups and with
disabilities.
In a recent investigation, the Associated Press found that
the test scores of nearly 2 million children were not being
counted under the law's required racial categories. The test
scores of nearly half of all Native American children in the
United States are being excluded from their schools' subgroup
data. There are scores of--so are the scores of one-third of
all Asian children in the United States, including all 65,000
Asian children who live in the State of Texas, and so are the
scores of about 10 percent of black and Hispanic children
nationwide. Overall, these test scores of black, Hispanic,
Asian and Native American children are seven times more likely
to be excluded from subgroup data than are the test scores of
white children.
It is wrong for States to exclude these children's scores,
and it is wrong for the Department of Education to allow this
practice. This practice undermines No Child Left Behind as a
force for the advancement of civil rights and educational
achievement. No Child Left Behind's philosophical roots go back
to the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education
decision. The reason we needed No Child Left Behind in the
first place was that, five decades after the Brown decision,
our country still fails to offer poor minority children the
same educational opportunities as their peers. Poor minority
children are still more often assigned to less challenging
classes with less qualified teachers than are higher-income and
white students. This opportunity gap or the lack of access to
an equal education affects academic achievement; 74 percent of
white fourth graders read well, nearly twice the rate of black
fourth graders. Latino and Native American fourth graders fair
only slightly better. More than half a century after the Nation
committed itself to education equality, fewer than half of all
minority children can read proficiently. It was this two-class
educational system that No Child Left Behind was intended to
put an end to once and for all. And I am looking forward to
hearing the testimony of Deputy Secretary Simon. In April--I
want to put on the record that, in April, after the Associated
Press's investigation was published, 15 Committee members wrote
to Secretary Spellings and asked for the Department's immediate
attention to this issue. Unfortunately, we are still waiting
that response, and I hope that we will receive part of that
response this morning. I look forward to hearing from all of
the witnesses what can be done through implementation and
enforcement of this provision to ensure the true meaning of the
spirit of No Child Left Behind is, in fact, honored, and
children are given the opportunity to become proficient in
their education. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for convening
this most important hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing today to
discuss a very troubling problem with the way the No Child Left Behind
law has been implemented--one that undermines No Child Left Behind's
central promise to provide an equal education for all American
children.
At its core, No Child Left Behind is a civil rights law. By holding
schools accountable for the education of all children, the law seeks to
close the academic achievement gap between white students and minority
students. That achievement gap--which is really an opportunity gap--has
stubbornly persisted for generations.
To prove that the achievement gap is closing, the law requires the
states to break down annual test results by subgroups, such as income
and race. By disaggregating the data in this way, a school or school
district's overall academic performance cannot obscure problems if
specific groups of its students are struggling.
When poor and minority children are not achieving proficiency along
with their peers, states must provide remedies targeted to the schools
those students attend. The law's unyielding demands have raised
expectations--and, in many places, achievement.
That is why it is all the more troubling to learn that some states
appear to be circumventing the primary goal of the law and exploiting a
legal loophole in order to exclude from accountability measures the
scores of children from racial and ethnic minority groups and with
disabilities.
In a recent investigation, the Associated Press found that the test
scores of nearly two million children are not being counted under the
law's required racial categories.
The test scores of nearly half of all of the Native American
children in the United States are being excluded from their schools'
subgroup data. So are the scores of one-third of all Asian children in
the U.S.--including all 65,000 Asian children who live in the state of
Texas. And so are the scores of about 10 percent of black and Hispanic
children nationwide.
Overall, the test scores of black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native
American children are seven times more likely to be excluded from
subgroup data than are the test scores of white children.
It is wrong for the states to exclude these children's scores, and
it is wrong for the Department of Education to allow this practice.
This practice undermines No Child Left Behind as a force for the
advancement of civil rights.
No Child Left Behind's philosophical roots go back to the Supreme
Court's 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision. The reason we
needed No Child Left Behind in the first place was that, five decades
after Brown, our country still fails to offer poor and minority
children the same educational opportunities as their peers.
Poor and minority children are still much more often assigned to
less-challenging classes and less-qualified teachers than are higher-
income and white students.
This opportunity gap--or lack of access to an equal education--
affects academic achievement: seventy-four percent of white fourth
graders read well--nearly twice the rate of black fourth graders.
Latino and Native American fourth graders fare only slightly better.
More than half a century after this nation committed itself to
educational equality, fewer than half of all minority children can read
proficiently. It was this two-class education system that No Child Left
Behind was intended to put an end to, once and for all.
I am looking forward to hearing Deputy Secretary Simon's testimony.
In April, after the Associated Press investigation was published, 15
committee members wrote to Secretary Spellings and asked for the
Department's immediate attention to this issue. Unfortunately, we are
still waiting for a response. I hope Deputy Secretary Simon is able to
provide one.
I also look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses about what
can be done through implementation and enforcement of this provision to
ensure that the true meaning and spirit of No Child Left Behind is
honored.
Thank you.
______
Chairman McKeon. Thank you.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today, and
I will begin by welcoming them and introducing them.
First, we will hear from Deputy Secretary Ray Simon who has
served in the position of United States Deputy Secretary of
Education since May 26, 2005. As Deputy Secretary, he plays a
pivotal role in overseeing and managing the development of
policies, recommendations and initiatives that help achieve
President Bush's education priorities, especially the No Child
Left Behind implementation. Deputy Secretary Simon previously
served as Assistant Secretary For Elementary and Secondary
Education at the U.S. Department of Education. Prior to that he
was Chief State School Officer for Arkansas for 6 years. He
also served as superintendent of the Conway, Arkansas, School
District from 1991 to 1997. He has been involved in education
since 1966 when he began his career as a math teacher at North
Little Rock High School.
Then we will hear from Dr. Ronald A. Peiffer who is Deputy
State Superintendent for the Maryland State Department of
Education. Dr. Peiffer has provided leadership for policy
development and communications for the Maryland Department of
Education over the past decade. He has served as an educator
for more than three decades by working as a teacher and a local
school system administrator in Maryland with experience in
developing local curriculum and assessment policies. Dr.
Peiffer has provided leadership and helped develop policy for
various aspects of the State's school accountability system
since he joined the State Department in 1987. He also oversees
strategic planning, policy development and communication
efforts that reach educators, parents, the business community
and the public.
Next will be Dr. Cynthia Kuhlman, principal of Centennial
Place Elementary School. Dr. Kuhlman has been an educator in
the Atlanta Public School System for the past 28 years. During
that time, she has had responsibilities in the areas of
teaching, supervision and administration across the divisions
of instruction, human resource services and finance. She is
also a college instructor, a coauthor, a presenter at national
conventions and a recipient of numerous awards and fellowships.
Finally, we will hear from Mr. John C. Brittain. Brittain?
Mr. Brittain. Brittain.
Chairman McKeon. Brittain. The chief counsel and senior
deputy director of Lawyers' Committee or Civil Rights Under
Law, a position he has held since March of 2005. He has a
background of 35 years in the legal profession, in the past 28
years in legal education with a substantial experience in
public interest litigation. After several years of private
practice specializing in civil rights law, Mr. Brittain joined
the faculty--Brittain. Brittain?
Mr. Brittain. Yes, Brittain. Brittain.
Chairman McKeon. Brittain. My family came from there. I
should be able to say it.
Joined the faculty at the University of Connecticut Law
School where he specialized in international and domestic human
rights. After 20 years of teaching at the University of
Connecticut, Mr. Britain joined the faculty at Texas Southern
University's Thurgood Marshall School of Law where he also
served as dean for several years.
Very distinguished panel. I would like to remind you that,
when you begin, you will see a green light. When your time is
running out, you will see a yellow light. When your time has
run out, you will see a red light.
Secretary Simon.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAYMOND SIMON, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF EDUCATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Mr. Simon. Good morning, Chairman McKeon, Congressman
Miller and members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me
today to discuss No Child Left Behind and the State
accountability systems on which it relies. We start off in
agreement. We agree with the chairman that the law has been a
positive step forward for students, teachers, parents and
taxpayers. We agree with Congressman Miller that the law is
making a difference. I hope my testimony will be useful as you
consider its reauthorization. You deserve to know whether the
No Child Left Behind Act is working as intended, and I am here
to report that it is.
Across the country, test scores in reading and math in the
early grades are rising, and the achievement gap is finally
beginning to close. Students once left behind, I am pleased to
say, are now leading the way, making some of the fastest
progress. We know this because No Child Left Behind measures
the academic performance of all students through testing, and
we know it because the law breaks down these results by
students' subgroup, African-American, Hispanic, students with
disabilities, the economically disadvantaged, limited English
proficient and more.
This disaggregation of data, as it is known, is at the
heart of law. It shines a bright light of accountability on all
schools, for all parents and taxpayers to see, and it allows
teachers to catch students before they fall behind to see where
we are today. It is important to know where we came from. Prior
to the law's passage, schools were not held accountable for the
subgroups, only a handful were disaggregating data for
accountability purposes. Reading, language arts and math
assessments were only required three times in a student's
entire K-12 education, and some States did not participate in a
national assessment of educational progress.
All that has changed. Today, parents know more, teachers
know more, Congress knows more, and the U.S. Department of
Education knows more. Every State and the District of Columbia
has a school accountability plan, reading and math assessments
and data broken down by subgroup. We are light years ahead of
where we were 5 years ago. This data is helpful in determining
whether we are making adequate yearly progress toward our
primary mission of all students and grade levels in reading and
math by 2014. This effort depends on valid and reliable
accountability systems that accurately reflect student
performance while protecting student privacy.
The No Child Left Behind Act allows space to set a minimum
number in defining a student subgroup called the N size.
Congress recognized the need to ensure accuracy and avoid
distortions when, to quote the law, the number of students in a
category is insufficient to yield statistically reliable
information. This numerical floor varies from State to State.
Most States use an N size of about 30 to 40 students per
school. Taken together, about 25 million more students are
currently accounted for, a huge increase over pre-NCLB levels.
But the question naturally arises, due to N size alone, are
there some students being left behind? The answer is, no, even
when, say, only four Hispanic students are enrolled in a
school, those students' test scores may, depending on the
student, be accounted in a second, third or fourth subgroup,
such as limited English proficient or economically
disadvantaged, that exceeds the minimum N size. These scores
are also counted toward the school district's performance in
that subgroup.
Finally, and most importantly, in schools such as Frankford
Elementary in Delaware and Centennial Place Elementary,
represented by Principal Kuhlman with us today, their scores
are reviewed individually by teachers. These teachers and those
in thousands of schools across the country that have truly
adopted the mission of No Child Left Behind use test results to
guide instruction and use their individual and collective
creativity to focus with laser-like precision to tap the
strengths and identify the weaknesses of each child. Thus, the
law, with built-in redundancies, partnering with creative
teachers enable us to get as close to 100 percent
accountability as we possibly can.
It is a delicate balancing act to develop a State
accountability system that is both valid and reliable or, to
put another way, fair and accurate. That is why we have taken a
firm stance against calls to increase N size minimums,
approving only one State's request so far this year. We want to
ensure children are counted in every possible way. Our goal is
to work closely with States to maximize the inclusion of
students in all subgroups while maintaining public confidence
and accountability.
To this end, the Department is planning to host a National
Technical Assistance Conference later this year for State
assessment and accountability directors in concert with our
assessment and accountability comprehensive center. With full
testing under NCLB now underway, we will work with States to
acquire new impact data on school and student inclusion rates
and discuss with them a process for justifying how their
specific N size is necessary for valid and reliable results. In
the meantime, we will continue to follow the core principles of
No Child Left Behind as we help States leverage the law into
approved academic performance.
And I know I speak for the Secretary when I say that we
look forward to collaborating with Congress as well. Thank you
and I will be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time
and also to inform you that the Secretary's response to the
letter that Congressman Miller referenced will be coming to you
this afternoon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Raymond Simon, Deputy Secretary of
Education, U.S. Department of Education
Good morning. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the
State accountability systems designed for No Child Left Behind and, in
particular, our efforts to work with the States to develop valid and
reliable methods of measuring achievement and disaggregating
achievement data by groups of students.
I want to begin today by saying unequivocally that increasing
accountability for students at all levels--in the school, the school
district, and the State--is at the core of President Bush's No Child
Left Behind reforms. In fact, NCLB was designed to shine a light on
those students who have so often been left behind in our Nation's
schools: African-American and Hispanic students, students with
disabilities, students with limited English proficiency (LEP), and
economically disadvantaged students. NCLB requires that these students
be tested annually, that their scores be publicly reported, and that
schools, districts, and States be held accountable for their academic
performance. This is the only way to close achievement gaps between
minority students and their peers and ensure that all students read and
do math on grade level by 2014.
State accountability plans under NCLB reflect these goals, and use
student assessment data in reading and mathematics to determine whether
each district and school is making adequate yearly progress (AYP)
toward the statutory requirement of 100 percent grade-level proficiency
by 2014. A fundamental component of AYP is looking at assessment data
disaggregated by various subgroups based on race, ethnicity, poverty,
disability, and limited English proficiency. A school makes AYP only if
each subgroup--not just the overall student population--meets annual
proficiency objectives. Before the passage of NCLB, only two States
used disaggregated data to determine school performance under their
accountability systems. And while we share the concern of Members of
this Committee about the exclusion of small minority subgroups from AYP
decisions, it is worth noting that thanks to NCLB, more than 9 million
minority students, or 85 percent of minority students in the tested
grades, are now included in school-level accountability determinations.
At the same time, if we want to accelerate the progress of No Child
Left Behind--as we must to meet the law's proficiency goals--it is
essential to work with States to raise that percentage even higher by
maximizing the inclusion of minority student subgroups. This effort
will be the focus of my testimony today.
The addition of subgroup accountability to State accountability
systems under NCLB represented a major breakthrough for our education
system, but the use of disaggregated data to measure AYP brought its
own challenges. Many of you are familiar with this issue, but the
amount of public misunderstanding is great enough that I'd like to
briefly explain the basics.
The Use and Impact of Minimum Group Sizes, or N-Sizes
In holding schools accountable for the performance of various
student subgroups, it is important to design State accountability
systems that reliably identify schools as not making AYP. Reliability
in this case means minimizing the probability of inaccurately
identifying a school as missing AYP or in need of improvement. Subgroup
accountability complicates this task because the achievement of small
groups of students can vary considerably from year to year, even when
curricula and instruction are identical, because of sampling error
associated with testing different groups of students. Congress
recognized this problem when it drafted NCLB, and thus required AYP
decisions to include specified subgroups except when ``the number of
students in a category is insufficient to yield statistically reliable
information.''
States have responded to this requirement by setting minimum group
sizes, or n-sizes, to determine how many students of a particular
population must be enrolled in tested grades in a school for the
assessment scores of those students, taken together, to be a reliable
basis for making judgments about how well that population is performing
academically. These minimum n-sizes vary considerably from State to
State, and currently range from 5 to 52, with most States using an n-
size of 30 or 40 students. In a large State with a diverse population
of students, subgroups in most schools may be large enough to permit a
larger n-size, while in a smaller State with many rural schools or
sparse and homogenous populations, even a small n-size may result in
the exclusion of most subgroups from AYP determinations.
It is important to understand that students are included in every
group to which they belong. For example, a Hispanic student who is from
a low-income family and is an English language learner would be
included in four separate subgroups: the ``all school,'' Hispanic,
economically disadvantaged, and limited English proficient groups. The
potential for counting this student's achievement four separate times
for AYP purposes reflects an intended redundancy in NCLB accountability
systems that now permits relatively few students to be left behind in
our education system. Thus, even if there are too few Hispanics in this
student's school to meet the minimum group size for Hispanics, but the
number of economically disadvantaged students exceeds the n-size, her
assessment scores would be counted in the economically disadvantaged
subgroup for accountability purposes.
In addition, if there are not enough students in a particular
subgroup at the school level to meet n-size requirements, the scores of
these students are aggregated to the district level, where subgroup
accountability also is an essential part of AYP determinations. For
example, while there may be only a handful of African-American students
in individual schools across a district--not enough to permit reliable
measurement of school performance--aggregation of these students'
scores at the district level will provide a clear picture of the
district's performance in educating these students.
Aggregation of subgroup scores to the district level is one way the
statute deals with the challenging goal of ensuring both validity and
reliability in State accountability systems. A valid system, which
provides a complete picture of a school's performance by including all
subgroups, requires a very small n-size. On the other hand, a reliable
system, which correctly classifies schools as making or missing AYP,
requires a very large n-size. Two researchers who looked at this issue,
Richard K. Hill and Charles A. DePascale of the National Center for the
Improvement of Educational Assessment, concluded that while States
should pick a small n-size, say 10 students, to ensure validity, ``it
would be justifiable for a State to select a minimum N of 300'' to
ensure reliability.
Education's Decision-Making on N-Size Levels
Clearly, setting n-size limits involves a careful balancing act,
given the very wide range of possible options suggested by available
research on the subject. As noted earlier, the Department has approved
a range of State approaches, with the most commonly used n-size falling
between 30 and 40 students. Many rural States tend to use a smaller n-
size to account for their small schools. For example, North Dakota has
no minimum subgroup size and Maine has an n-size of 20. Some States,
such as California, Georgia, and Washington, combine a flat number and
a percentage of a school population as their minimum group sizes.
When approving State requests to modify n-sizes, the Department
looks at all the factors involved in AYP determinations, including the
average size and diversity of the State's schools. States must provide
data on the estimated impact of the proposed change, and the Department
examines the effect of the change on the number of schools that still
have subgroups included in the AYP calculation. We are taking a hard
look at these requests this year. Most requests are for larger minimum
n-sizes, but we also are seeing several States move toward greater
inclusion by proposing to eliminate higher group sizes for students
with disabilities and limited English proficient students.
In fact, as part of our proposed regulations providing greater
flexibility to States in measuring accountability for students with
disabilities, States will no longer be permitted to establish different
group sizes for separate subgroups, including students with
disabilities and limited English proficient students. We believe that
States now have sufficient flexibility in measuring the achievement of
these subgroups that different group sizes are no longer justified.
The Department also is taking a harder line on requests for larger
n-sizes this year because these requests generally do not make sense at
the current stage of NCLB implementation. States now are testing
students in each of grades 3-8, which naturally improves the validity
and reliability of decisions about school effectiveness by increasing
the number of students tested and thus increasing the number of
students in each subgroup. While we continue to review data and take
into account the precedent of previous decisions, we increasingly are
taking the position that an increase in minimum group size--i.e.,
including fewer students in subgroup accountability--does not
contribute to universal proficiency, nor does it put kids first.
Nevertheless, larger n-sizes may be appropriate in the overall
context of a State's accountability system. Last year, for example, the
State of Florida requested a change in n-size from 30 students for all
schools to a minimum of 30 students or a figure equal to 15 percent of
enrollment, with a cap of 100 students. This means that for a school
enrolling 400 students, the n-size would be 15 percent of 400, or 60
students. But for a school enrolling 1,000 students, 15 percent would
equal 150 students, which exceeds the 100-student cap, so the minimum
n-size for that school would be 100.
While 100 sounds very high, it makes sense in the particular
context of Florida, and, thus, for several reasons, the Department
approved Florida's request. First, with some of the largest and most
diverse schools in the Nation, many Florida schools have subgroups
larger than 100 students. Second, because Florida bases its subgroup
counts on all students in the school, and not just students in the
tested grades, more schools have subgroups that meet the 100-student
limit than would be the case in other States. And third, Florida does
not use any other statistical adjustments to determine AYP.
As a result of these factors, data submitted by Florida showed that
the percentage of schools accountable for minority subgroups remained
high, and higher than in many States with lower n-sizes. At the same
time, these factors specific to Florida suggest that an n-size of 100
would not be appropriate for other States that have a different mix of
schools and a different approach to calculating AYP.
Ensuring That Accountability Systems Are Valid and Reliable
We knew, of course, that statistical tools such as minimum group
sizes could have the effect of moving accountability from the school to
the district level for some minority students, particularly in small
schools. We also know that short of instituting an n-size of ``one
student,'' there will always be some students who are counted for AYP
purposes only in the ``all student'' subgroup. Nevertheless, last
April's Associated Press analysis of minority group exclusion
reinforced our determination to more rigorously examine the impact of
n-size limitations and do a better job of working with States to ensure
the maximum possible inclusion of minority subgroups in school-level
accountability decisions.
I have already noted our reluctance to approve requests for larger
n-sizes over the past year. This policy reflects a larger shift toward
tightening up our oversight of NCLB accountability provisions as we
approach full implementation of the law. We are giving greater scrutiny
to State requests for changes to their accountability plans, including
changes to minimum n-sizes, and we are strengthening our monitoring of
public school choice and supplemental educational services options. To
give one example, now that States have expanded assessments to cover
all the grades required by NCLB, and thus are testing many more
students, it is fair to examine more closely the impact of n-size
limitations and other statistical tools on the inclusion of minority
students in NCLB accountability determinations. As has been the case
since the President signed NCLB into law, our goal is to work with
States to maximize the inclusion of students in all subgroups while
maintaining or increasing public confidence in State accountability
efforts.
In addition, we will be taking steps over the coming months to draw
on all available expertise and research to examine how States can
improve the validity of their accountability systems through maximizing
student inclusion.
As one example of this effort, the Department is planning, in
concert with our Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center, to
host a technical assistance conference later this year to help States
improve their systems for ensuring the validity and reliability of
their accountability decisions. This conference will provide an
opportunity to examine more closely the impact of the wide range of
statistical tools used by States on the overall effectiveness of their
accountability systems.
I am hopeful that we will be able to draw on the lessons learned
from the planned conference, as well as other related activities, to
provide technical assistance to this Committee as it prepares to
reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. I
expect the Committee will face many of the same challenges during
reauthorization that the Department and the States have faced in
finding the right balance of flexibility and accountability consistent
with the core principles of No Child Left Behind, and I know I speak
for the Secretary when I say that we look forward to working with you
on this task.
Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions.
______
Chairman McKeon. This afternoon did you say? We will get
the letter this afternoon?
Mr. Simon. Yes.
Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. That is great.
Dr. Peiffer.
STATEMENT OF RONALD A. PEIFFER, DEPUTY STATE SUPERINTENDENT,
MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Mr. Peiffer. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Miller, and members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here representing Maryland in this very
important discussion.
Disaggregation of data is something that has been very
important in Maryland's accountability system well before No
Child Left Behind. In 1989, we had a Governor's commission that
began an accountability system called Maryland School
Performance Program. And by 1993, we were reporting on a
regular basis the disaggregation by race, subgroup, special
services subgroups and so on, including gender. We have used
that information for an accountability system as we identified
low-performing schools beginning in 1994. And we have
consistently done that.
However, under our old accountability system, we generally
looked at schools on the average. We looked at the average
performance, and we reported the disaggregated data, and we
used the disaggregated data to inform the decision about low-
performing schools when we had to intervene. However, when No
Child Left Behind came along, we were at a point where we
needed to transition to something that was more focused and
more surgical. And as a consequence, we moved with a Committee
of about 200 Marylanders that we brought in, using national
experts, to look at how we might do that, and we have developed
what we think is a very good system.
Our accountability system is based on the same categories
that are provided in the Federal law. However, our N size, our
minimum group size, if you will, is five. And we believe ours
is probably the smallest in the country. And what that does is
it provides, when you report, you ensure that every student
appears that will not be--will not be capable of being
identified. This is a statistical tool--a statistical measure I
guess that has been in place for a number of years. It is not
really a new measure, No. 5. However, in the area of
accountability, it becomes a little more complicated because
you need to make sure, as Secretary Simon said, you need to
make sure that the number is statistically reliable and does
not reveal students' names and identities. So we have used a
statistical tool called the confidence interval, which is not
unlike the plus or minus five points that you see recorded
about poll results. And the size of the margin of error, if you
will, around the results has a lot to do with the size of the
group. A small group gets a large margin of error. A large
group gets a small margin of error. As a consequence, by
applying that to progress measures, determination for schools
around the country, right now in the 2005 Education Week, I
think you will find that Maryland had an AYP, about 75 percent
of our schools making AYP. That is about the national average.
By moving to an N-5, it did not unfairly disadvantage our
schools. What we have also done is to use the disaggregated
data as a part of our new funding distribution to local school
systems. By knowing the high-risk students you have in school
systems, school systems get additional dollars. Then, annually,
they have to tell us in the master planning process how they
are spending those dollars to ensure that they are targeted
toward the students and moving away from the typical multi-
funding stream approach to funding local school systems.
Our State dollars combined together with the Federal
dollars allow local school systems to be very strategic about
the way they are spending their dollars. We believe that this
is helping. In Maryland we have had a lot of cooperation from
our local school systems, and our schools in working with this
had a tremendous amount of cooperation from the U.S. Department
of Education in making sure that we could apply this in a good
and fair way.
Over the years and in most recent years, we have been able
to say that some schools have paid very close attention to the
disaggregated data and made significant changes. North Glen
Elementary School, for example, in Anne Arundel County was, I
believe, recently visited by the President. Their third graders
in reading, African-American students, were performing at
approximately 32 percent proficiently level. That is up to 93.8
percent in this last test.
We have other schools that are showing similar kinds of
gains. We have other schools for which we have a lot of work
ahead. We believe it is the right thing to do. We believe No
Child Left Behind has really helped us go far beyond what we
did that we thought was groundbreaking in the 1990's into an
era where I think we are more serving the needs of each and
every student.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peiffer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald A. Peiffer, Ph.D., Deputy State
Superintendent, Office of Academic Policy, Maryland State Department of
Education
Introduction
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Congressman Miller, Congressman Van
Hollen, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
talk with you today about the importance of subgroup disaggregation and
the minimum group size of five that Maryland uses in its system of
reporting and accountability.
As the Deputy State Superintendent of Academic Policy at the
Maryland State Department of Education, I work with the Department
staff and local school systems to develop policy in numerous areas,
chief among them Maryland's system of school accountability. With State
Superintendent Grasmick's strong and able leadership, Maryland
incorporated No Child Left Behind (NCLB) into its ongoing
accountability system, which has been in place since 1990.
Historical Perspective
For some states, the ideas of school accountability and data-
reporting by race or other categories were not common before NCLB. But
in Maryland, we have a long history of both that dates back to 1989,
when the Governor's Commission on School Performance issued a report
calling upon the Maryland State Department of Education to develop a
comprehensive public accountability system for schools, systems, and
the state. The report issued recommendations based on the egalitarian
premise that all children can learn and have the right to attend
schools in which they will succeed, no matter where they live. All
schools, regardless of the demographic characteristics of their
students, were to be held accountable for their students' educational
achievement, and all children were to be given a real opportunity to
learn equally rigorous content.
This commitment to equal academic opportunities for ALL students
became the premise and promise of Maryland's school-reform efforts. In
response to the Commission's report, the Maryland State Board of
Education established the Maryland School Performance Program, the
first step in our action plan for revitalizing public education.
Because we were committed to improving education for every child,
we realized that we could not just report average achievement data.
Reporting only average performance can mask problems among certain
groups of students. The only way to understand whether a school is
serving all its students well is to report achievement data by the
student subgroups. If a school is performing at a satisfactory level
overall but terribly among certain groups of students, then we want to
know that, so we can begin addressing the problem.
Thus, since the early 1990s, Maryland has reported its achievement
data for all students and for subgroups of students, such as racial
groups, students receiving special education services, and students
eligible for Free or Reduced-Price meals, which is a proxy for poverty.
Also during this time, Maryland decided upon a minimum group size
of five for reporting student results. The minimum group size is
admittedly small, but we believe it is essential in ensuring that
students are ``counted'' and don't disappear from the system. We did
not report results from groups of less than five to ensure that the
individual student identifiers could not be devised from the publicly
reported school-level results. This is consistent with generally
applied statistical rules. Because Maryland at that time did not tie
any sanctions directly to subgroup performance, there were no
particular concerns from districts or stakeholders about the minimum
subgroup size of five.
Maryland and NCLB
As you know, NCLB not only requires public reporting of subgroup
performance, it also requires states to include subgroup performance in
their Adequate Yearly Progress calculations, thereby holding schools
responsible for improving subgroup achievement. This was a significant
change in Maryland, as previously we were reporting for subgroups but
not tying it directly to consequences. We were certainly shining a
light on achievement gaps, and putting pressure on schools to pay more
attention to subgroups, but we hadn't yet taken the next step of
issuing sanctions to schools and districts that were not improving
achievement for all groups of children.
In 2002, Maryland linked educational funding to subgroups with the
Bridge to Excellence Act, which established a new formula for
calculating how much money each school system receives from the State.
Under the new formula, school systems receive additional funding for
all students, plus additional funds based on the numbers of students
who receive special education services, have limited English
proficiency, or qualify for free or reduced-price meals. By 2008,
public schools will receive more than 1.3 billion in additional
funding.
In order to receive the funding, each of Maryland's 24 school
systems is required to prepare a Master Plan for approval by the State
Board of Education. This Master Plan must document the school system's
goals and strategies for improving achievement among all groups of
students, including students receiving special education services,
students with limited English proficiency, and students who qualify for
free and reduced-price meals, and other groups.
In preparing Maryland's response to NCLB, we had many discussions
around minimum group size. As you know, the minimum group size is the
size at which a group of students ``counts'' toward Adequate Yearly
Progress. For example, a very high minimum group size, such as 100,
would mean that schools would not be accountable for any group smaller
than 100 students. In Maryland, such a scenario would ensure schools
would never be responsible for anything other than average student
performance. The subgroups essentially would disappear from the
accountability system.
This was not what we wanted for Maryland. Our chief concern was in
identifying a group size that would ensure we were including all
students. As I mentioned before, Maryland has a long history of
reporting subgroup data. We wanted to continue our push for higher
achievement for all groups of students. Therefore, we did not want to
pick a group size that was so high that subgroups in hundreds of
schools across the state would disappear.
However, it was also important to us that the Adequate Yearly
Progress determinations be accurate. We certainly did not want schools
to be identified for significant consequences such as restructuring
based on the performance of a handful of students if such action was
not warranted. We knew that we needed to balance what was fair and
appropriate for schools with what was the right thing to do for
children.
In the end, we found the balance we were looking for by keeping our
minimum group size of five and adding a confidence interval.
Confidence Interval
As you know, in order to be making Adequate Yearly Progress under
NCLB, schools and districts must meet the annual targets in reading and
math. These annual targets increase each year until all students attain
proficiency in 2013-2014.
You are probably familiar with the concept of Confidence Interval
as it applies to survey and poll results. The plus or minus margin of
error that is cited along with poll results is analogous to our
Confidence Interval.
As it applies to NCLB and school accountability, the confidence
interval is a range of scores around the annual target. As long as the
subgroup scores at the lowest point in the confidence interval range,
it will be considered to have met the annual target. For example, if a
school's annual reading goal is to have 50% of students at proficient,
the confidence interval for a particular subgroup might be from 40% to
60%. As long as the subgroup's score is in the confidence interval
range, then the subgroup has achieved the annual goal.
Confidence intervals protect schools from the small margin of error
that is inherent in every measurement system. They do this by providing
a cushion around the annual target. The size of the cushion varies
according to the size of the group. The smaller the group, the larger
the interval. The larger the group, the smaller the interval. As long
as the group performs within the confidence interval, it will be
considered to be meeting the annual target.
Maryland's minimum subgroup size of five is small, but it is at
that point that the confidence interval, the cushion if you will, is at
its largest. So, even though we are reporting and holding schools
accountable for small subgroup sizes, we are giving schools some leeway
in achieving the targets.
We instituted the Confidence Interval not just because it was the
right thing to do for schools, which it is, but because it is an
appropriate thing to do statistically. When assessment groups are
small, the performance or absence of just a few students can have a
dramatic effect on the average score. The statistical help provided by
the Confidence Interval allows us to have a good level of confidence
that the decisions made about low-performing schools are fair and
accurate.
Conclusion
By applying a Confidence Interval, Maryland has been able to
maintain a small minimum group size of five, thus ensuring that
subgroups of students are not disappearing from the accountability
system. At the same time, we're protecting schools from erroneous
identification for sanctions due to subgroup performance.
A few years ago, there was some anxiety on the part of local
districts about the consequences of a small minimum group size.
However, once implementation began in earnest, the districts saw the
value of the small group size. They now appreciate being able to assure
parents that students are included in the accountability system and
that subgroup performance is not being swept under the rug.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss Maryland's use of subgroup
disaggregation, minimum group size, and Confidence Interval. I look
forward to providing any additional information you may need or
answering any questions you may have.
______
Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much.
Dr. Kuhlman.
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA KUHLMAN, PH.D., PRINCIPAL, CENTENNIAL
PLACE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Dr. Kuhlman. Good morning, Mr. McKeon, Congressman Miller.
It is my pleasure this morning to be here to discuss the
disaggregation of student achievement by subgroups to ensure
that all children are learning.
As principal of Centennial Place Elementary School in
Atlanta Public Schools, I have been very proud of our progress
in making sure that all children are learning at a very high
level of proficiency and that we are closing achievement gaps.
This morning I would like to talk a little bit about
background information of our school, some of our interventions
and also specific information about student achievement by
subgroups. Our school opened in August 1998. It replaced a very
low-performing school that had operated for years in that
community and was part of an overall community revitalization
effort. We have 520 students; 95 percent are African-American;
4 percent other minorities; and 1 percent white. We are a Title
I school with 60 percent of our students receiving free or
reduced lunch.
Our school serves a wonderful new housing development that
was funded by a HOPE VI grant. It replaced a very deplorable
housing project, Techwood and Clark Howell Homes in midtown of
Atlanta, and it is 40 percent public housing subsidized, 20
percent low income and 40 percent market rate housing. We also
serve two shelters for homeless women and children and
families, over 120 students a year from these shelters but no
more than 30 at a time due to the transience rate. We also
serve a little home ownership community near Georgia Tech
University, and in addition to that, one-third of our students
come to Centennial Place by choice.
We have a number of wonderful businesses in our community
that also pay close attention to the progress of the school,
the Coca-Cola Company, Sun Trust Bank, Holland & Knight law
firm, Georgia Tech University, Georgia State University, with a
high level of participation and community involvement.
Some of our interventions: We have school uniforms. That
helps us with the management of the wonderful economic
diversity that we celebrate. We also have a year-round
calendar. We start school in mid-July and end in mid-June and
do 9 weeks on, 3 weeks off, with required remedial course work
during the break periods for students who aren't meeting
standards and wonderful enrichment classes for those that are.
We do an extended day program, and we do thematic teaching and
project-based learning.
We have a very exciting science-focused curriculum that
keeps children actively engaged in learning. We also spend
considerable time with other subjects like foreign language.
All of our students take Spanish every day. And we have a heavy
arts integration with the help of our partners at Georgia Tech,
Georgia State, the Robert Ferst Center for the Arts and the
Atlanta Symphony Orchestra. Our kids attend interactive week-
long workshops with artists such as Chuck Davis. They have gone
to the Ferst Center to play Yo-Yo Ma's cello. And I say all
this to say that exciting learning in standards-based education
is an important variable.
Three years ago, in 2003-2004, we recognized that our two
subgroups of black students and economically disadvantaged
students were making exactly the level of progress that we
expected, 90 percent or better proficiency. We were very
disappointed, and thanks to No Child Left Behind reporting data
by subgroups, that our students with disabilities were not
achieving commensurate to the other students. So we took it
upon ourselves to initiate a number of variables, including
more collaboration with teachers, more focused modifications in
the testing and more professional development for the teachers,
to bring up that performance. And we have noticed an increasing
closing of the gap that exists with our students who have
disabilities. So we are leveling out on all playing fields now.
I want to end with just one nice story about our students
who had attended Fowler before we existed, and there was a
depressing story that never had a Fowler student attended
Georgia Tech University despite the fact that it was right at
our back door. Well, this year, I just attended our first
graduating group of students; our first fifth graders finished
high school this year. And they were represented on the program
and on the stage with honor society ribbons, high financial
scholarships to colleges, straight As, grade point averages
above 90 percent, and next year, we do anticipate our first
student graduating from high school and attending Georgia Tech.
So we have made a lot of progress, and we are appreciative to
No Child Left Behind for the increased rigor that Georgia will
implement with its new standards and for the public
presentation of disaggregated data by subgroups.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kuhlman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cynthia Kuhlman, Ph.D., Principal, Centennial
Place Elementary School
Atlanta, GA, June 13, 2006.
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to speak with you this morning about disaggregating
student achievement by subgroups to ensure that all students are
learning. It is an honor for me to represent our school, Centennial
Place Elementary, as well as our dedicated stakeholders throughout our
community. As principal of Centennial Place, I am very proud of our
progress toward eliminating an achievement gap among our subgroups and
maintaining high standards and expectations for achievement by all
students. In my allocated time, I hope to provide for you a description
of our school and community, some important background information
about the changes that have taken place over the past ten years and a
general analysis of our student achievement results. I will conclude
with an anecdotal comment about the longitudinal progress that our
students have experienced over the eight years of our existence as the
new Centennial Place Elementary School.
School and Community Information
Centennial Place Elementary School is a child-centered, community-
based themed school that focuses on Science, Mathematics, and
Technology. The school draws its student population from the Centennial
Place neighborhood and surrounding communities including two shelters.
The students bring a multiplicity of diversities in cultures,
languages, socioeconomic status and customs.
The school's mission is to build a learning culture that provides a
positive, personal educational experience for each child. We actively
engage a community of learners in science, mathematics, and technology
so that they become problem solvers, critical thinkers, effective
communicators and life-long learners. Visitors to Centennial see a
school where children are self-directed, engaged in spontaneous
learning, and facilitators in project-based/hands-on learning
activities. In addition, children are becoming conscientious protectors
of the environment, becoming fluent in a second language, participating
in rich opportunities for arts integration and becoming proficient in
the sensible use of technology.
Our teaching staff accepts the decision-making responsibilities
involved in molding the minds of the future. Visitors see teachers who
are empowered to make decisions about implementing an all inclusive,
spiraling curriculum that fosters higher order critical thinking
skills, best practices, and inquiry learning. Such empowerment promotes
a curriculum that improves daily decision-making, collaboration,
professional development, and differentiated instruction to meet
individualized student needs.
Centennial Place has a strong community and parental support system
where active involvement is encouraged and expected. The school's
governance model offers families and the community a voice and an
opportunity to participate in the decision-making process at the
school. Our visitors see a school where parents are actively engaged in
meaningful support of the instructional program. Parents participate in
parent workshops, action learning and on-going research and assessment.
Most importantly, parents adhere to the contractual agreement that is
crucial to student success.
In the Centennial Place School community, successful business
corporations and higher education institutions share our vision for a
'break-the-mold school.'' They have committed to supporting the
curriculum by volunteering, tutoring, and mentoring. Our community
stakeholders include: the Coca-Cola Company, the Georgia Institute of
Technology, Sun Trust Bank, Georgia Natural Gas Company, Publix
Supermarket, the YMCA, the Atlanta Housing Authority, the Integral
Group (Community Collaborative Team), Georgia State University, the
Atlanta Symphony, the Georgia Protection Division, the Georgia
Aquarium, and the law firm of Holland & Knight. These partners are
committed to the belief that the school exists to serve the child and
that each child will be a successful learner.
Background Information
The Learning Village idea for Centennial Place was conceived by a
coalition of Atlanta Public Schools educators, university leaders, and
community business stakeholders. This coalition was committed to
creating an urban-community school that could intervene by resolving
contradictions, shattering barriers, and providing a world-class
education for urban youth. The Learning Village concept is grounded in
a commitment of inclusion and opportunity for an entire generation of
children. The ultimate goal of this unification is to create a pipeline
beginning at Centennial to feeder middle school (Inman) and high school
(Grady) and ultimately ending with our students enrolling into the
Georgia Institute of Technology.
The birth of Centennial Place Elementary was a result of teachers
at the then Fowler Elementary School and community leaders realizing
that the school would need to make changes in order to meet the needs
of the transforming community. Fowler Elementary school served the then
Techwood/Clark Howell community, which was one of the oldest public
housing projects built under Franklin Roosevelt. For many years the
community was an impoverished area plagued with drugs and gang activity
was rampant. Fowler was considered the ``safe haven'' for children in
grades K-5. It provided students with standards-based learning.
Parental involvement was minimal. Those parents who did become involved
were dedicated to making a difference but their impact was not
significant enough to cause change. The administrators and teachers
that worked at Fowler were committed to changing the perception of
student failure in this low-economical setting. They worked together to
implement several initiatives that guided instruction and the
governance of the school. Some of these were the Special Instructional
Assistance (SIA) program which was a theme based program that offered
hands-on instruction in grades K-2 only, the Project Impact program
which was a systematic approach to teaching mathematics, the Science
Initiative in grades four and five, and the Writing to Read program in
grades Kindergarten and first.
Several businesses in the area recognized the need to support the
community elementary school because of the challenges students from
impoverished areas face. Some of these partnerships included: The Coca
Cola Company, the Georgia Institute of Technology, and Georgia State
University. These partnerships offered resources as well as a mentoring
program for students. Although Fowler seemed to have all the right
ingredients, the test scores as well as the perception of the faculty,
staff, parents and the community stakeholders indicated that there was
still a need for a more systematic approach to ensure the success of
all students throughout the school. Changes were occurring not only in
the community but also in education and the school and the community
began to set the foundation for meeting the needs of students in the
changing global world.
On June 30, 1995, Atlanta Public School Board members hosted a
luncheon in the President's Conference Room at Georgia Tech with Dr.
Ben Canada, Superintendent for Atlanta Public Schools (APS).
Representatives from the Center for Education Integrating Science,
Mathematics, and Computing (CEISMC) and members from the Georgia
Institute of Technology's (Georgia Tech) office for Minority Education
Development (OMED) met to discuss the opportunities for developing a
state-of-the-art elementary school to replace the current Fowler
Elementary School. This school was to be built on a new location in the
community on Luckie Street between a new YMCA building and the Carnegie
Library, a Historic Registry edifice.
The proposed new Centennial Place community would involve
redevelopment of the devastated urban area with Hope VI federal funds,
a federal housing program begun under President Ronald Reagan with the
aim of redeveloping blighted public housing projects and helping
residents become homeowners. Centennial Place was planned as an
innovative inner-city concept that includes individuals and families
living seamlessly in subsidized housing along with middle income
families in non-subsidized housing. The community includes a mixture of
town homes and apartment homes both rental and ownership, 40 percent of
which are reserved for public housing clients, 20 percent for low-
income residents, and the rest designated for at-market prices. Central
to the success of this concept would be the school serving as the
catalyst that would attract residents, especially families, to the
community. Approximately $1 billion was invested in the five-mile
radius of the new and old school. Approximately $100 million was to be
invested in the development of this mixed income community composed of
the new school, YMCA, a supermarket, new housing, and the rest of the
community.
Student Achievement
Since opening in August of 1998, we have seen continual improvement
with our test scores. The percentage of students not meeting
expectations has decreased. We believe the targeted assistance by
tutors and ``real world contexts'' have positively impacted our overall
scores. We have not only met our Superintendent's targets five years
but have also met AYP six consecutive years earning us the distinction
as a Title I Distinguished School. During the 2003-2004, we received an
award from Education Trust Foundation for ``Dispelling the Myth'' with
student achievement and economic diversity and continue to be
recognized as a model school through The Achievement Alliance.
The school sets forth clear and high expectations for student
learning. They address academics as well as behaviors and habits of
mind. The entire community works relentlessly to ensure that all
students meet these expectations and succeed at the highest possible
level, and that no student falls through the cracks. For example, we
recognized the need to provide periodic reviews for instruction on a
timelier basis and a year-round calendar with quarterly remediation and
enrichment opportunities was adopted. In addition to our year-round
calendar, we have implemented an extended day program to increase the
instructional day, hence, increasing time-on-task by focusing on
specific skills. Because of the diversity of socio-economic backgrounds
of students at Centennial Place, all stakeholders voted to accept our
school uniform initiative. We continually monitor progress to identify
and assist those students in need of special help. Our process includes
rigorous data analysis; the creation of individualized student profiles
with attendance, grades, standardized scores, and interventions;
implementing student instructional plans based on profiles; and
utilizing ongoing authentic assessments benchmarking progress.
Students who qualify for the Program for Exceptional Children (PEC)
are served in an interrelated model at Centennial. The In-School Team
(IST) develops an individualized education plan (IEP) for each student
designating the amount of pull-out time and/or collaborative services
necessary. The plan is developed to target each student's needs as well
as differentiating instruction for the various learning styles. The
interrelated and classroom teacher identify the objectives from the new
Georgia Performance Standards that most closely align with the Georgia
Criterion Reference Competency Test (CRCT) to aid in developing
individualized instructional plans for the interrelated classroom. Some
plans call for the interrelated teacher to provide services through
consultation with classroom teacher concerning the individual student's
needs. The classroom teacher and the interrelated teacher collaborate
to create benchmarks and develop assessment strategies to provide
interventions for the student to meet grade level standards. The IEP is
monitored quarterly as determined by the teacher and yearly as
determined by the IST to make sure that the testing addendum for
student is amended if appropriate. In addition, the School Testing
Coordinator remains abreast of allowable accommodations from the state.
Examples of strategies to improve reading/language arts may include but
are not limited to: concept mapping for comprehension, CORE strategies
with phonics and decoding skills, and one-on-one instruction. The
interrelated teacher and administrators participate in school visits to
monitor high achieving schools where PEC has been successful.
Summary
At Centennial Place, we have welcomed the opportunity to comply
with The No Child Left Behind Act. Prior to this important legislation,
Centennial Place stakeholders developed a vision and mission that
sought to dispel any myths that poor and minority students could not
achieve commensurate with other young Americans. At Centennial Place,
we have two subgroups mandated by NCLB--Black Students and Economically
Disadvantaged Students. With these subgroups, we have not only narrowed
the achievement gap, but we have also maintained a consistently high
level of performance among all groups of students. In 2004-2005, all
subgroups maintained a 90 percent or higher proficiency level on all
tests.
Our subgroup of Students with Disabilities, while large enough to
report results, is not large enough to legally require a performance
standard for Adequate Yearly Progress. When we noticed in 2003-2004,
that we had a significant achievement gap with our students with
disabilities performing far below their non-disabled peers, we were
determined to make significant changes and improvements. The changes
included increased collaboration among regular and special education
teachers and parents, allowable modifications in test administration
included in the IEP, narrowing the scope and increasing the depth of
instruction for specific standards and tracking individual student
progress very carefully. These modifications were extremely effective
in helping us achieve our desired outcomes. During the 2004-2005 school
year, we nearly doubled the percentage of students with disabilities
who were proficient in all subjects.
Georgia's standards are in the process of revision to be made more
rigorous, which means making AYP will be a little more difficult. We
support the new more rigorous standards and have confidence that our
children and teachers are up to the challenge.
Conclusion
I want to conclude by again thanking you, Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee, for allowing me to share our story with you this
morning. I promised to conclude my presentation with an anecdotal story
about our students' longitudinal progress over the past eight years.
When we first opened our school in 1998, we were haunted by a story
that no student from Fowler had ever attended the Georgia Institute of
Technology. The children grew up literally across the street from one
of the most prestigious science and technology institutions in the
south, but none had been admitted. Moreover, Fowler students were not
going to any colleges or universities. Last week, I had the pleasure to
attend the Grady High School graduation ceremonies to observe our first
fifth grade class of students as they graduated from high school. Our
Centennial Place students were proudly represented in the printed
program and on the stage for distinguished honors such as scholarships
to prestigious universities around the country, Hope Scholarships to
Georgia universities, memberships in the National Honor Society, GPA's
of 90 percent or higher and subject area awards for straight A's or
Outstanding Distinction in the Subject Area. We are also anticipating
the strong possibility that one of our students, who will graduate from
high school next year, will indeed attend the Georgia Institute of
Technology.
ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS: CENTENNIAL PLACE ELEMENTARY ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS
[Student data-subgroups; 100% participation rate thruout]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full academic
year students w/ Black Students w/ Economically
scores disabilities disadvantaged
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005-2006 Reading/Lang. Arts*....... 222 students 205 students 26 students 119 students
Basic/does not meet............. 13.1% 13.9% 34.6% 18.5%
29 students 28.5 students 9 students 22 students
Proficient/meets................ 61.3% 62.4% 55.8% 64.7%
136 students 128 students 14.5 students 77 students
Advanced/exceeds................ 25.7% 23.7% 9.6% 16.8%
57 students 48.5 students 2.5 students 20 students
Meets & exceeds................. 86.9% 86.1% 65.4% 81.5%
193 students 176.5 students 17 students 97 students
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004-2005 Reading/Lang. Arts........ 209 students 198 students 23 students 127 students
Basic/does not meet............. 4.3% 4.0% 15.2% 5.5%
9 students 8 students 3.5 students 7 students
Proficient/meets................ 47.4% 49.7% 56.5% 53.9%
99 students 98.5 students 13 students 68.5 students
Advanced/exceeds................ 48.3% 46.2% 28.3% 40.6%
101 students 91.5 students 6.5 students 51.5 students
Meets & exceeds................. 95.7% 96.0% 84.8% 94.5%
200 students 190 students 19.5 students 120 students
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003-2004 Reading/Lang. Arts........ 223 students 212 students 17 students 134 students
Basic/does not meet............. 6% 6% 47% 8%
14 students 13 students 8 students 11 students
Proficient/meets................ 46% 47% 38% 55%
101.5 students 100 students 6.5 students 73.5 students
Advanced/exceeds................ 48% 47% 15% 37%
107.5 students 99 students 2.5 students 49.5 students
Meets & exceeds................. 94% 94% 53% 92%
209 students 199 students 9 students 123 students
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005-2006 Mathematics............... 222 students 205 students 26 students 119 students
Basic/does not meet............. 6.3% 6.8% 19.2% 7.6%
14 students 14 students 5 students 9 students
Proficient/meets................ 64% 65.9% 69.2% 73.1%
142 students 135 students 18 students 87 students
Advanced/exceeds................ 29.7% 27.3% 11.5% 19.3%
66 students 56 students 3 students 23 students
Meets & exceeds................. 93.7% 93.2% 80.8% 92.4%
208 students 191 students 21 students 110 students
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004-2005 Mathematics............... 209 students 198 students 23 students 127 students
Basic/does not meet............. 9.6% 9.6% 13% 10.2%
20 students 19 students 3 students 13 students
Proficient/meets................ 69.9% 72.2% 82.6% 72.4%
146 students 143 students 19 students 92 students
Advanced/exceeds................ 20.6% 18.2% 4.3% 17.3%
43 students 36 students 1 student 22 students
Meets & exceeds................. 90.4% 90.4% 87% 89.8%
189 students 179 students 20 students 114 students
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003-2004 Mathematics............... 223 students 212 students 17 students 134 students
Basic/does not meet............. 11% 12% 59% 16%
25 students 25 students 10 students 21 students
Proficient/meets................ 63% 64% 41% 67%
141 students 136 students 7 students 90 students
Advanced/exceeds................ 26% 24% 0% 17%
57 students 51 students 0 students 23 students
Meets & exceeds................. 89% 88% 41% 84%
198 students 187 students 7 students 113 students
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005-2006 Science................... 222 students 205 students 26 students 119 students
Meets & exceeds................. 96% 96% 85% 95%
213 students 196 students 22 students 113 students
Advanced/exceeds................ 23% 21% 12% 13%
52 students 43 students 3 students 16 students
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004-2005 Science................... 209 students 198 students 23 students 127 students
Meets & exceeds................. 97% 97% 96% 98%
203 students 193 students 22 students 124 students
Advanced/exceeds................ 25% 22% 17% 19%
52 students 44 students 4 students 24 students
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003-2004 Science................... 223 students 212 students 17 students 134 students
Meets & exceeds................. 94% 94% 53% 92%
210 students 199 students 9 students 123 students
Advanced/exceeds................ 24% 22% 0% 16%
54 students 47 students 0 students 21 students
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005-2006 Social Studies............ 222 students 205 students 26 students 119 students
Meets & exceeds................. 95% 95% 92% 93%
212 students 195 students 24 students 111 students
Advanced/exceeds................ 23% 22% 8% 13%
52 students 45 students 2 students 15 students
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004-2005 Social Studies............ 209 students 198 students 23 students 127 students
Meets & exceeds................. 97% 97% 96% 96%
203 students 193 students 22 students 122 students
Advanced/exceeds................ 21% 18% 9% 14%
43 students 36 students 2 students 18 students
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003-2004 Social Studies............ 223 students 212 students 17 students 134 students
Meets & exceeds................. 95% 95% 65% 93%
212 students 201 students 11 students 125 students
Advanced/exceeds................ 22% 21% 0% 15%
50 students 45 students 0 students 20 students
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The GPS based CRCT for Reading & Lang. Arts in 2005-2006 is an entirely new and different test. Both the
content and the performance standards have changed. Consequently, performance on these new tests cannot be
meaningfully compared to results from previous years. Results should be regarded as a new ``Baseline'' for the
new GPS based tests.
------
Chairman McKeon. Thank you.
Mr. Brittain.
STATEMENT OF JOHN C. BRITTAIN, CHIEF COUNSEL AND DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW
Mr. Brittain. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Miller, and other members of the Committee.
Since the Lawyers' Committee's inception in 1963, we have
advocated on behalf of children of color. The title of this
hearing aptly describes the critical need from a civil rights
perspective for school districts to publicly disclose data on
the performance of specific groups of students, particularly
those who have been the historic victims of discrimination. The
Lawyers' Committee recommends that the Committee provide for
the continuation of the disaggregation of the data. In
addition, to fix the N size loophole problem, the Committee
should consider proposing legislation that continues to provide
the States with discretion. However, it would set a maximum
limit on the number of excluded students. If the States do
exclude certain students, it should review the data on the
excluded students to determine the level of efficiency. In all
cases, of course, the excluded student should receive the
maximum remedial measures to aid those in need of improvement
and to expand upon their learning opportunity.
From the perspective of advocates for educational equity
and improvement, data on the performance of school districts in
the aggregate and performance of groups of students in
particular groups is so crucial to the extent of measuring the
scope of inequality as well as the hopeful evidence that some
schools are making improvements. Therefore, the civil rights
legal organization, joined with the professional educators in
promoting the transparency and the disaggregation of data on
student achievement.
Mr. Chair, I don't see the countdown on my monitor. How
much time do I have left?
Chairman McKeon. Two minutes.
Mr. Brittain. Thank you. No Child Left Behind, to a certain
extent, has forced very difficult political choices for some
States. They can either improve education or they can lower the
bar. Unfortunately, No Child Left Behind has created a lot of
unintended consequences. No Child Left Behind in some States
has been interpreted to mean, no State shall look bad, in terms
of their annual yearly progress. To comply with the goals of No
Child Left Behind, to increase those student learning and
achievement scores, some States could either improve education
or they could lower the bar of success. Given sometimes the
principle that a rational actor often tends to choose the
course of least resistance, some State education authorities
have opted to lower the bar or omit data to look good because
this choice offers less resistance than improving the product
of education in the schools.
The N size controversy demonstrates that some States have
taken advantage of the legal loopholes in No Child Left Behind.
We can certainly stipulate that some States may be justified in
not considering a small number of students' scores, for
example, where the subgroup is truly too small to yield
statistically valid results on the accountability purposes.
However, it is nothing short of unconscionable that such large
numbers and percentages of African-American, Latino, Native
American students, as you described in your opening remarks,
are left behind. And we will not go into detail about the 2
million students who were not counted across this Nation.
So, in conclusion, when students don't score--when
students' scores don't count and their schools continue to make
annual progress, students are denied their statutory rights and
benefits under No Child Left Behind. If No Child Left Behind is
going to fulfill its promise as a civil rights education
program of this generation, aggressive steps must be taken by
States and by the Federal Government to ensure that students
who are the primary intended beneficiaries of Title I are not
ignored in the end.
I would like the privilege, Mr. Chair, to supplement my
testimony with two additional documents: A memo of law--a
memorandum of law that the NAACP and the Lawyers' Committee
filed in the case entitled Connecticut v. Spellings, pending in
the Federal Court in Connecticut, and I would also like to
introduce a set of news clippings regarding the pending
application of the NAACP to intervene in that case concerning
No Child Left Behind to provide a complete record of my
testimony here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brittain follows:]
Prepared Statement of John C. Brittain, Chief Counsel and Senior Deputy
Director, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Introduction
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law wishes to thank
the Honorable Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, and the Honorable
George Miller, Ranking Member, and the members of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce for giving me the opportunity to testify
today about the importance of ``Disaggregating Student Achievement by
Subgroups to Ensure All Students Are Learning.''
Former President John F. Kennedy started the Lawyers' Committee
over forty-two year ago when he summoned two hundred and fifty of the
top lawyers in the nation to provide pro bono legal assistance in civil
rights cases. Our core mission is to ensure equality for primarily
racial and ethnic minorities in education, housing, voting, employment,
minority businesses, environmental justice and community development.
We have a long history in litigation and public policy advocacy on
behalf of children of color. I was honored to come to the Lawyers'
Committee last year as Chief Counsel and Deputy Director, after a
thirty-seven year career in academia and public interest practice with
expertise in school desegregation and educational equity. In addition
to serving as chief counsel and deputy director for the Lawyers'
Committee, I also direct our Education Project.
Recently, the Lawyers' Committee filed a motion to intervene in a
well publicized federal lawsuit by the State of Connecticut against the
Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, and the United States
Department of Education regarding the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
on behalf of the State Conference of the NAACP and several individual
plaintiff parents and their school age children, who attend low-
performing Title I schools in Hartford. See Appendix A and B.
The Lawyers' Committee is a member of the Leadership Conference on
Civil Rights, which supported many of the provisions in NCLB and
supported final passage, as well as full funding. The Lawyers'
Committee has not examined or taken a position on each and every
provision of NCLB, however, and like most organizations, there may be
provisions in the law we determine should be improved in the next
reauthorization. We look forward to reporting back to the House
Committee on Education as we progress in our process of reviewing
implementation of the law, as well as the statutory, regulatory and
enforcement barriers to full realization of NCLB's promise.
The title of this hearing aptly describes the critical need, from a
civil rights perspective, for school districts to publicly disclose
data on the performance of specific groups of children, particularly
those who have been historic victims of unequal educational
opportunities.
The Promise of NCLB
The NCLB Act joins generations of legal efforts to secure equal
educational opportunities for racial and ethnic minorities, poor and
other disadvantaged schoolchildren. The journey in the modern era began
with Brown v. Board of Education aimed at dismantling the dual system
of de jure segregation. That quest continued with equal financing suits
to eliminate disparities in funding between property rich and poor
school districts that relied heavily on property taxes to fund local
education. More recently, a new generation of adequacy funding suits
seek to make the state pay for the standard of education that is
guaranteed by law. All of these efforts are designed to produce
equality in theory, as well as in the output of educational
achievement.
Amidst this backdrop, the NCLB Act became the federal government's
means to ensure the highest level of educational attainment,
particularly for low income and under performing children. From the
perspective of advocates for educational equity and improvement, data
on the performance of school districts in the aggregate and the
performance of groups of students in the disaggregate provide crucial
information on the extent and scope of inequality, as well as hopeful
evidence that some schools are improving. Therefore, civil rights legal
organizations join with many professional educators in promoting the
transparency and the disaggregation of data on student achievement.
NCLB's premise is that all children can learn and are capable of
becoming proficient in reading and math. Further, NCLB's promise is
that all schools will provide the quality teaching, curriculum aligned
to standards, and resources needed to make good on this goal by the
year 2014. This may seem like too little time for school boards and
school officials at the state and local level. But for children and
their parents consigned to low-achieving schools, like those in
Hartford, the timeline in NCLB is not soon enough. For example, the
entire Hartford School District has ``failed to make 'adequate yearly
progress' under NCLB and has been identified by the State as a district
``in need of improvement'' under Title I.'' See Memorandum of Law In
Support of Motion To Intervene on Behalf of Connecticut State
Conference of the NAACP and Minority Parents And Students In
Connecticut (``Motion To Intervene'') at 4, Connecticut v. Spellings,
No. 3:05-CV-01330 (D. Ct. Jan. 30, 2006). While NCLB promises to ensure
that all schools will provide all students with a quality education by
the year 2014, for students who attend school in the Hartford School
District, 2014 is much too late. As it stands now, these children
attend substandard schools that are failing to provide them with an
education that will enable them to compete on a level playing field
with other students in the state, the nation and the world. Motion To
Intervene at 12. In fact, if conditions in the failing schools in
Hartford, Connecticut, and other cities throughout the country, are not
improved immediately, there is little chance that students forced to
attend these failing schools will have a realistic opportunity to
succeed in school or in life.
The Importance of Disaggregated Student Achievement Data
Simply put, when test scores are not broken down by race, income
and other important categories, our nation's wide and unacceptable
achievement gaps are covered up. When minority students don't count,
there is little incentive for schools to pay attention to their needs.
Schools are able to boast of successes even when their minority, low-
income, or disabled students are barely able to decipher words or solve
simple math problems.
When these historically underserved groups of students do count,
achievement gaps are exposed and schools can no longer slide by, or be
considered successful when they fail to properly educate their minority
students. Again, using Connecticut as an example, while 88% of white
fourth grade students in Connecticut are considered proficient in math,
only 56% of African-American Connecticut fourth grade students are
considered proficient in math. See Summary of Student Achievement on
the Connecticut Mastery Test, available at www.cmtreports.com/iReport/
Report.aspx . Similarly, while 76% of white fourth grade students are
considered proficient in English only 41% of African-American fourth
grade students are considered as such. Id.
When minority students' scores count, educators know they must
educate all students to high standards, and they can be empowered to do
so. Robust reporting of achievement data can provide educators with
tools to identify the individual students and groups of students who
most need their help. Parents have information not only on their own
child's achievement, but on how that achievement compares to his/her
subgroup within the school, the school as a whole, the school district
and the state. Parents can shop for schools, if they are able, with
better ``consumer information.'' They can decide whether to try to take
advantage of NCLB's transfer provisions if their child is in a school
``in need of improvement.'' And parents, acting together or through
organizations like the NAACP in Connecticut, can organize and pressure
their state and local officials to do a better job in improving their
schools and ensuring the high-quality teachers and resources they need
to succeed.
History of Disaggregated Student Achievement Data Under Title I
Beginning in 1994, Congress required disaggregation of student
achievement data on state assessments required under Title I. This
measure was not originally included in the legislative drafts of the
bill in the House or the Senate, including the bill proposed by the
Clinton Administration. Under the visionary leadership of members of
this Committee, however, including that of Rep. Major Owens (D-NY),
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) and other members of the Black and Hispanic
Caucuses, joined by members on both sides of the aisle, Congress agreed
to require all schools, school districts and states receiving Title I
funds to disaggregate student achievement data as follows:
Within each State, local educational agency, and school by gender,
by each major racial and ethnic group, by English proficiency status,
by migrant status, by students with disabilities as compared to
nondisabled students, and by economically disadvantaged students as
compared to students who are not economically disadvantaged.
Improving America School's Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-382, Sec. 1111
(b)(3)(I), 108 Stat. 3518, 3525 (1994).
However, two problems arose with this new provision: 1) the federal
government and the states were reluctant to impose real accountability
on schools and school districts for the actual progress of any of the
subgroups, and 2) many states did not report complete, user-friendly
data disaggregated by the required categories. As a result, while there
was some increase in the availability of data on achievement gaps,
there was very little encouragement to work toward actually closing
them.
In the NCLB of 2001, however, there was strong bipartisan consensus
that overall scores, or averages, should not be allowed to obscure the
large achievement gaps between poor and non-poor and minority and
majority students. Thus, both the accountability and the reporting (or
``report card'') requirements were tightened.
The result has been greater transparency, and in many schools,
greater attention to closing the gaps and improving educational
opportunity for groups of students historically ``left behind.''
The NCLB Undercount: the Recent ``N'' Size Controversy = ``Gaming the
System''
The recent reports by the Associated Press on the so-called ``N''
size issue reflect one of a number of ways states have tried to ``game
the system,'' according to Dianne Piche of the Citizens' Commission on
Civil Rights.1 See Appendix C. The ``N'' size refers to the minimum
number of students needed in a subgroup before that subgroup's scores
are counted for purposes of determining ``adequate yearly progress''
(``AYP'') under NCLB.
NCLB has forced states to make some difficult political choices:
they can either improve education or lower the bar. Unfortunately NCLB
has created a law of unintended consequences. The No Child Left Behind
Act has been interpreted to mean, ``No State Wants to Look Bad'' in
terms of annual yearly progress. To comply with one of the goals of
NCLB, to increase learning for all students, states have narrowed their
strategies to two logical choices--improve the quality of education or
lower the bar for satisfying state goals set on standardized tests.
Given a further scientific principle that a rational actor often tends
to choose the course of least resistance, many state education
authorities have opted to lower the bar or omit data to look good
because this choice offers less resistance than improving the product
of education in the schools. See James E. Ryan, Article, The Perverse
Incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 932, 947-
48 (2002). The ``N'' size controversy demonstrates that some states
have taken advantage of a legal loophole in NCLB.
Congress did not prescribe a minimum ``N'' size in the law, or even
an acceptable range. Rather, the law leaves it up to the states to set
their ``N'' size (as well as other accountability requirements) and to
submit their accountability plans to the Secretary of Education for
approval. The regulations issued by the Department of Education,
provide in relevant part:
Sec. 200.7 Disaggregation of data.
(c) Inclusion of subgroups in assessments. If a subgroup under Sec.
200.2(b)(10) is not of sufficient size to produce statistically
reliable results, the State must still include students in that
subgroup in its State assessments under Sec. 200.2.
(d) Disaggregation at the LEA and State. If the number of students
in a subgroup is not statistically reliable at the school level, the
State must include those students in disaggregations at each level for
which the number of students is statistically reliable--e.g., the LEA
or State level.
Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged, 67 Fed. Reg.
71709 (December 2, 2002) (codified at 34 C.F.R. Sec. 200.7).
We can stipulate that there may be some justification for not
considering a small number of students' scores, for example, where a
subgroup truly is too small to yield statistically valid or fair
results for accountability purposes. But, it raises reasonable
suspicion that some states are trying to permit schools and districts
to evade their responsibilities when the minimum ``N'' sizes range from
5 students in a subgroup in the state of Maryland to up to 100 students
in California. Moreover, the Center for Education Policy, which has
been tracking NCLB implementation, reported that 23 states moved to
increase their minimum ``N'' size in 2004-05.2 Finally, we are not
aware of any states that have moved to decrease their ``N'' size
recently in order to enhance accountability for their subgroups.
However, it is nothing short of unconscionable that such large
numbers and percentages of African-American, Latino and Native American
students' scores are ``left behind.'' For example, the AP series
reported:
<bullet> Nearly 2 million students across the nation have scores
that were not counted.
<bullet> The vast majority of these students were minority
students. Less than 2 percent of white students' scores were excluded
at the school level, while about 10% of African American and Latino
students' sores were left out of AYP subgroup calculations. Over 1/3 of
Asian students' scores and just under 1/2 of Native American students'
scores were excluded.
<bullet> Nearly 400,000 students' scores were excluded in
California where the ``N'' size can be as large as 100 students.
African American students may be numerous enough to be counted in
schools elsewhere in the country, but because of the state's excessive
minimum group size rules, in many parts of this diverse state, we found
that their scores are not counted at the school level.
When students' scores don't count and their schools continue to
make AYP, students are denied statutory rights and benefits under NCLB.
Take California, for example. If NCLB is going to fulfill its promise
as the civil rights education program of this generation, aggressive
steps must be taken by states and the federal government to ensure that
the students who are the primary intended beneficiaries of Title I are
not ignored.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I recommend that NCLB maintain the full provisions
for disaggregation of data. In addition, to fix the ``N'' size loophole
problem, the Committee should consider proposing legislation that
continues to provide states with discretion, but sets a maximum limit
on the number of excluded students. In addition, if the state excludes
a minimum number of students from testing, it should review the data on
the excluded students to determine their level of proficiency. In all
cases of excluded students, school districts should use remedial
measures to aid those students in need of improvement.
appendix a
Not Getting Left Behind, WASH. POST, Feb. 5, 2006, at B06,
available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/
02/04/AR2006020400915--pf.html.
Not Getting Left Behind
It's been a long time in coming, but at least a few of President
Bush's opponents are beginning to see the potential of his No Child
Left Behind legislation. Thanks to the law, which requires states to
assess children annually and to break down the results by minority
group and income level, it has for the first time become possible to
track which schools are failing which students. More important, the law
also requires states to turn schools around and help them succeed.
True, neither the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law nor
the NAACP, two of the organizations that are beginning, cautiously, to
see the possibilities of the law, is exactly advertising its support.
But last week, the Connecticut chapter of the NAACP did quietly come
down on the side of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, who is
being sued by Connecticut over some of the act's provisions. The
state's politicians are angered by Ms. Spellings's refusal to waive
some of the No Child law's requirements--specifically, the state wants
to test its children every other year, instead of every year--and they
contend that the law doesn't provide the necessary funding to allow
states to meet its requirements.
Civil rights lawyers point out that this line of argument could
enable states not to comply with other laws, among them the Civil
Rights Act, which was also ``unfunded.'' But John Brittain, chief
counsel to the Lawyers' Committee, goes further, noting that
Connecticut, although the wealthiest state in the country, also has the
biggest achievement gap between white and minority students. ``Children
deserve those annual assessments,'' he says, so that they can be given
the help they need. In terms of its goals and intent, if not its
implementation, he also calls No Child Left Behind potentially the
``greatest civil rights education statute that has ever been passed.''
These are brave statements: Not all civil rights advocates will be
pleased to see the Connecticut NAACP joining a lawsuit on the same side
as the Bush administration. They may also be too radical for much of
the Democratic Party. In his response to the State of the Union speech
last week, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) repeated his party's
line, claiming the act is ``wreaking havoc on local school districts.''
The NAACP needs to drag its friends around to its point of view. By
helping to fine-tune and implement the law instead of constantly
running it down, Democratic politicians, child welfare advocates and
teachers unions could help fix broken school systems as well. A profile
of once-disastrous, now-successful Maury Elementary School in
Alexandria by The Post's Jay Mathews last week showed what can be
achieved if teachers and administrators use the law well. It's an odd
idea, getting the Democrats to embrace a Republican project. But if
they are brave enough to do it, thousands of inner-city children will
be better off.
appendix b
Jeff Archer, Civil Rights Groups Back NCLB Law in Suit, EDUC. WEEK,
Feb. 8, 2006, available at http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/02/
08/22conn.h25.html.
Civil Rights Groups Back NCLB Law in Suit
Connecticut NAACP files to intervene on side of Bush administration.
By Jeff Archer
Civil rights groups are seeking to join the federal government in
defending the No Child Left Behind Act from a legal challenge by
Connecticut, potentially giving the Bush administration important, if
unlikely, new allies in arguing for the law.
The Connecticut NAACP, on behalf of three minority students in
high-poverty schools, filed papers in federal court in New Haven,
Conn., on Jan. 30, asking the judge in the Connecticut v. Spellings
case to allow the group to intervene on the side of the U.S. Department
of Education.
Connecticut v. Spellings
Connecticut Makes Oral Arguments
Connecticut filed a lawsuit in August charging that the No Child
Left Behind Act is an unfunded mandate. A judge told state Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal last week to get more documentation for the
state's case.
Civil Rights Groups Weigh In
Four civil rights groups, including the Connecticut NAACP and the
national office of the NAACP, last week sought to join the U.S.
Education Department in defending the No Child Left Behind Act. Dennis
C. Hayes, the general counsel for the national NAACP, explained that
allowing Connecticut to opt out of the federal law's test requirements
would set a dangerous precedent for other states.
Also providing legal support for the effort are lawyers from three
national groups: the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights and the
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, both based in
Washington; and the national office of the NAACP in Baltimore.
Scot X. Esdaile, the president of the Connecticut NAACP, said the
filing should not be read as an endorsement of the federal government's
handling of the education law, but rather as an attempt to ensure that
the voices of poor and minority students are heard in the case.
``If you want to get at the table, you have to choose a side,'' he
said. ``On this particular issue-not on all the intricacies of the law-
we choose to stand on the side of the federal government.''
Calling the No Child Left Behind Act an illegal ``unfunded
mandate,'' Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal filed suit
against the Education Department in August, after the agency refused to
grant the state waivers from some of the law's testing provisions.
(``Connecticut Files Court Challenge to NCLB,'' <http://www.edweek.org/
ew/articles/2005/08/31/01conn.h25.html> Aug. 31, 2005.)
Connecticut education officials say that assessing students in
grades 3-8, as the law requires, will cost $8 million more than federal
officials are providing. The state has tested only in grades 4, 6, and
8, as well as grade 10, and it questions the education value of
expanding its assessments.
Bad Precedent?
Dennis C. Hayes, the general counsel at the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People's Baltimore headquarters said
allowing Connecticut to opt out of such a critical part of the federal
law would set a dangerous precedent by encouraging policymakers
elsewhere to do the same.
``If we view No Child Left Behind in terms of civil rights, then we
are concerned about a state begging to be excused from participating or
complying with an act intended to help disadvantaged people,'' he said.
Signed into law by President Bush in early 2002, the No Child Left
Behind Act seeks to hold schools and districts accountable for student
performance, particularly among those students traditionally seen as at
risk of academic failure.
Civil rights leaders have been split in their views of the law.
While agreeing with its goals, some argue that it relies too heavily on
test scores and stigmatizes low-income students. Others see it as an
effective way to redirect resources to needy students.
Lawyers for some of the groups seeking the intervention say they
still have concerns about the law, but they worry about letting a state
off the hook for improving student achievement.
Although Connecticut's overall student performance is among the
highest in the country, the achievement gaps between its minority and
white students are some of the widest in the country, by some measures.
``The key question is about the accountability of state and local
officials for the progress of students,'' said William L. Taylor, who
chairs the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights and is a long-time
desegregation lawyer.
Specifically, the Connecticut NAACP asked in its motion last week
to become a defendant in the suit, along with the U.S. Education
Department. Should the judge grant that, and the case moves forward,
the civil rights lawyers from each of the groups could then argue
against Connecticut's suit in court.
John R. Munich, an Atlanta-based lawyer who has followed the case,
said the result could be that a suit over who pays for what would
concentrate more than it would otherwise on the educational needs of
the law's intended beneficiaries.
``It adds an extra dimension to the lawsuit, and I assume what the
civil rights groups will try to do is focus on the impact of NCLB on
children,'' said Mr. Munich, a partner at Sutherland, Asbill, and
Brennan LLC, which often represents states in education finance cases.
No Decision on Dismissal
Reacting to last week's motion, Chad Colby, a U.S. Education
Department spokesman, said, ``We're encouraged by their support.''
But Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal said in a statement
that he regretted that he and the NAACP, ``are on different legal sides
when we share the basic goals of No Child Left Behind.''
Gary Orfield, the director of the Civil Rights Project at Harvard
University and a critic of the way the NCLB law has been carried out,
called it ``unwise'' for civil rights leaders to have taken the action.
``I think it's important that they be specific and limit their
targets, and don't allow themselves to be used as allies to enforce a
law that really has serious, counterproductive effects on schools that
serve minorities,'' he said.
Last week's action came as U.S. District Judge Mark R. Kravitz, who
is presiding over the case, heard oral arguments from both the state
and the federal government on a motion by the latter to dismiss the
case. The civil rights groups also filed papers in support of the call
for dismissal.
Any expectation of a speedy decision on whether to dismiss the case
was swept away on Jan. 31 when Judge Kravitz told Mr. Blumenthal to
amend his complaint with new information about the minimum cost of
putting in place the additional testing required by the NCLB law.
The Education Department argues that Connecticut's estimates of
what it will cost to meet the requirements include a testing regimen
more expansive than what the law requires.
Mr. Blumenthal has until Feb. 28 to file the additional documents,
after which the federal government will have 30 days to respond. By
then, Connecticut plans to have administered the additional tests at
the heart of the dispute.
Both sides also have until the end of this month to comment on the
Connecticut NAACP motion to intervene.
appendix c
Lynn Olson and Linda Jacobson, Analysis Finds Minority NCLB Scores
Widely Excluded, EDUC. WEEK, Apr. 26, 2006.
Analysis Finds Minority NCLB Scores Widely Excluded
By Lynn Olson and Linda Jacobson
The federal government is permitting many schools to escape
accountability for the progress of racial or ethnic subgroups under the
No Child Left Behind Act, according to a computer analysis released by
the Associated Press last week.
Under the law, signed by President Bush in 2002, schools must meet
annual performance goals for their student populations as a whole and
for specific groups of students. Those groups include racial and ethnic
minorities and students who are from low-income families, speak limited
English, or have disabilities-as long as enough students in each
category meet minimum group sizes set by each state and approved by the
U.S. Department of Education.
Schools receiving federal Title I aid that miss the targets, known
as adequate yearly progress, or AYP, for two or more years are subject
to increasingly serious consequences.
But, according to the AP's analysis, the minimum group, or ``N,''
sizes set in many states are so large that schools aren't being held
accountable for the subgroup performance of some 1.9 million students
who fall into various racial or ethnic categories in calculations of
AYP.
While Louisiana will count a subgroup once it has 10 students, for
example, in California each subgroup must have at least 50 students and
make up 15 percent of students tested in the school. (Once a California
subgroup has at least 100 students, it no longer has to meet the 15
percent minimum.)
In most cases, schools must still publicly report the subgroup
performance of students, even if it doesn't meet the size for counting
that group in AYP calculations. All of the scores are supposed to be
included in calculating whether a school's student body as a whole has
met its AYP targets.
``I do think that states have gamed the system,'' said Dianne M.
Piche, the executive director of the Citizens' Commission on Civil
Rights, an advocacy group based in Washington. ``What we learned from
this is that minority students are much more likely not to be counted
than white students.''
State officials countered that even when students' test scores
aren't counted for subgroup accountability in a racial or ethnic
category at the school level, they still may be counted in another
category, and in subgroup results at the district level.
``Just because they're not included in the ethnic group, [it]
doesn't mean they're not in the English-language-learner group,'' said
Pat McCabe, the director of policy and evaluation for the California
Department of Education.
``We're a big state, and we have a lot of students,'' he said.
``They made it sound like we're hiding the kids.''
According to the AP, the achievement scores of more than 400,000
minority students in California are not being counted by their racial
or ethnic categories at the school level when determining AYP results.
Minority Reporting
To arrive at a nationwide estimate of how many students are not
included in racial or ethnic subgroups in calculating AYP at the school
level, the Associated Press, a news-gathering cooperative, used 2003-04
school enrollment figures collected by the federal government and the
current minimum ``N'' sizes approved for each state.
The AP analyzed enrollment for each school in grades 3-8 and in
grade 10, because the law requires states to test students annually in
grades 3-8 and at least once in high school for purposes of calculating
progress. The analysis focused only on the law's five major racial and
ethnic categories: white, black, Asian, Native American, and Hispanic.
It did not examine students in other categories, such as those with
disabilities, to avoid double-counting students who fall into multiple
categories.
It found that the scores for fewer than 2 percent of white children
nationally aren't being counted as a separate category in calculating
AYP at the school level. In contrast, Hispanic and black students have
roughly 10 percent of their scores excluded from subgroup
accountability, as do more than one-third of Asian students and nearly
half of American Indian students.
Chad Colby, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Education, said,
``It's something that [Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings] is
going to look into.''
But he noted that before enactment of the law, an overhaul of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, only a handful of states were
even reporting test scores broken down by racial and ethnic subgroups,
something they routinely do now.
Based on the AP's own analysis, Mr. Colby added, about 93 percent
of students are included both in a school's overall population and in a
racial or ethnic category for purposes of calculating AYP.
``I will be seeking from Secretary Spellings detailed information
about this problem and about what steps she and her department are
taking to correct it,'' said Rep. George Miller of California, the
ranking Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee.
The provision in the law was meant to ensure that judgments made
about schools are statistically valid and reliable. But Ross Wiener, a
principal partner with the Education Trust, a Washington-based advocacy
group that has strongly supported the law, said, ``If we were really
looking to achieve those goals, there would be much more consistency
across states.'' He suggested the Education Department convene experts
to craft more uniform guidelines.
endnotes
\1\ Citations to some of the AP stories:
<bullet> 2 million scores ignored in 'No Child' loophole, THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS, Apr. 17, 2006, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12357165/
from/ET/.
<bullet> Nicole Ziegler Dizon, Ben Feller, and Frank Bass, States
Omit Minorities' School Scores, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, http://
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/17/
AR2006041700677.html.
<bullet> Nicole Ziegler Dizon, No Child Loophole Masks Achievement
Gap for Black Students, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, Apr. 17, 2006, http://
www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/politics/14362964.htm.
<bullet> No Child Left Behind, WALL STREET JOURNAL, available at
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB114626648623739377.html?mod=googlenews--wsj.
\2\ Lynn Olson, Shifts in State Systems for Gauging AYP Seen As
Impeding Analysis, EDUCATION WEEK, Nov. 30, 2005; Center on Education
Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left
Behind Act (2006).
______
Chairman McKeon. No objection. Those documents will be
included in the record.
Has roll been called? We have just been called to the floor
to vote, and if we can ask you to be patient with us, we have a
couple of votes, and we will return in about 20, 25 minutes. So
the Committee will stand in recess then until the conclusion of
those votes. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Osborne [presiding]. If we could please resume seats,
etc.
I apologize for the delay. The Chairman misrepresented the
length of time, you will notice. And we are now ready for
questions, and I will start.
As you know, we have 5 minutes to ask our questions and get
your answers in so we can try to be--make the interchanges as
rapidly as possible with respect to this.
And let me start with you, Secretary Simon. The whole N
size thing concerns me. I am not saying I disagree with it, but
I am not sure I totally grasp it, and I am not sure I totally
grasp the mathematics of it. Since you were a math professor,
math teacher, maybe you can help me with this. And Dr. Peiffer
has indicated Maryland may be the smallest N size at five. I
think my State, Delaware, is 40. But then there are percentages
in some of these States that make it a lot larger.
It seems to me the whole concept of No Child Left Behind
and, as Mr. Miller said, in addition to it being an education
act, it is a civil rights act as well as it is to educate
everybody. And when you have these differing group sizes
regardless of the size of the particular school or the class,
it seems to me it begs the possibility that there are more kids
being left behind when you get your N sizes or disaggregated
group sizing too large. Or is the algebra or math of this such
that I am not correct in terms of what I am saying? And I will
have some follow-up questions, but let us just start with that.
I mean, these are basically State plans in which the Department
of Education is allowing a substantial amount of variance, and
my question to you is, why?
Mr. Simon. I think we have to go back to when the law was
first created. In 2003, when the plans were due, this was brand
new for States and for the Department. In terms of these plans
and how to make the plans fair and reliable, make them fair to
the States as well as make them fair to children, we were
breaking new ground, and so in the correct, I think, haste to
get these accountability plans in, we tried to make that
balance, the right tension between what was fair to schools and
States and what was fair to kids.
In the interim, we have had about half of the States since
2003 request a change in their N size. Many, I will have to
tell you, we have said, no, to on their first request. So the
final approval that you see on their official plan changes were
many times a result of negotiation with them from an initial
request.
We look at a lot of information when we determine an N
size. We don't just say, well, because State X has 40, then you
are automatically going to get 40. We have ask, in every
instance when there has been a change request for an N size, we
ask for impact data. We ask it from the school level. How many
schools will this impact in terms of getting subgroups out of
accountability? We look at the size of the school. We look at
the distribution of kids. We look at the racial balances. We
look at a lot of things, and we make the State justify to us
how that is going to make their plan as reliable as it can be.
Now, that having been said----
Mr. Osborne. Not to interrupt you. Why don't we just have
one number for everybody? I mean, playing devil's advocate, why
not just say, it is 30 for everybody or whatever it may be?
Mr. Simon. Simply because the States----
Mr. Osborne. Thirty or less.
Mr. Simon. The States, in terms of how they organize their
schools, some States have very small schools, and an N size of
30 is not appropriate. It would be too big. It would let all
kids out of accountability, all subgroups out of
accountability. Other States, such as Texas and California,
they have schools of over 1,000 or 2,000 kids. The size of 30
probably wouldn't be reliable enough for a school that large.
So we look at, again, individuality of how the State schools
are organized.
Now, that having been said, starting this year with the
latest rounds of requests for changes of N size, we had, I
believe, 10 States request to increase an N size. We have not
granted any of those. We granted one, and that was to Alaska,
and what they were doing was getting--they had higher N sizes
for their special ed and LEP kids. So we agreed on a compromise
where their normal or their regular N size was raised a little,
but their LEP and special ed N size was dropped. So now they
are on a consistent N size. That is the only approval we have
had this year. We basically said, no, with the--with this past
year being the watershed year, if you will, in terms of all
grades being tested, this is the first year every State has all
grades tested.
Mr. Osborne. Let me bring Dr. Peiffer in on this.
Maryland is a relatively small State but has some fairly
large schools. Do you agree with this? Or do you have a very
different vantage? Not that I am trying to pitch you against
each other. I am just curious on your views of the N size,
particularly in light of what Maryland has done.
Mr. Peiffer. For Maryland, it was a logical choice in the
respect we had been using an N-5 during the 1990's with their
old accountability system, and transitions over to No Child
Left Behind, it really didn't create a concern here.
Now, our schools we have a relatively dense population. It
is a small State, 890,000 students perhaps. Our schools,
particularly in the suburban areas and urban, are relatively
large, but we felt that even with those, we are finding that
some schools might have elementary schools that might have 40
special education students, and 40 would eliminate that
subgroup, and in many cases, as far as the special services
subgroups, that would be the largest of them. So we felt a five
pretty well represented what we wanted to do with schools.
Mr. Osborne. OK. I still have to work this out in my own
mind. I am not disagreeing with anything anybody has said here.
I just want to make sure I understand that. I guess I just have
this concept that you could have an N size that is, at least
for most schools, would be a workable number at a certain cap.
Of course, if I had my way, I might even have a national
standard exam to go along with all this, too, but that is a
whole other issue you probably don't want to get into today,
but I think it is an important subject in terms of our review
as far as what the authorization's going to do. And Secretary
Simon, I am concerned in what some of these applications are
for these schools you are turning down, et cetera. Not State by
State, but just in general, what you are looking for? And why
you are making the decisions at the Department that you are?
And I have a lot of faith in what you all do over there, so I
would be interested in knowing about that. But my time is up
and let me yield 5 minutes to Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simon, toward the end of his testimony, Mr. Brittain
States that when students' scores don't count and their schools
continue to make AYP, students are denied statutory rights and
benefits under No Child Left Behind. Is that accurate?
Mr. Simon. Yes, sir. I would agree with that.
Mr. Miller. So what happens to these students now that they
don't count?
Mr. Simon. I want to respectfully disagree that they do
count. As I indicated before, in many cases, these students
are----
Mr. Miller. Does not the status of the school trigger a
series of events in terms of interventions and theoretically
additional funding that flows to those schools because of the
status of that school?
Mr. Miller. Sure. Yes.
Mr. Miller. When I look at the competition for school
dollars in school districts, certainly big diverse districts,
that status may prove to be a relief to somebody who is
apportioning dollars to schools because, theoretically, they
are AYP, and you have other schools that aren't AYP, and you
have to do some triage.
Mr. Simon. That is important to us. We want to make sure if
a school is identified, it truly is an improvement. If it is a
false positive, we don't want that either.
Mr. Miller. Identified as AYP because of the N number, and
those students may not get the right tutoring, may not get the
transfer, may not get mentoring, may not get additional flows
of money that are targeted from the national act to those
schools that are schools in need.
Mr. Brittain, is that accurate?
Mr. Brittain. Yes. Precisely, Congressman Miller. That is
what we are complaining about, that the whole set of
interventions are not made available, including the basic
notice that they may have a right to tutors; they may have a
right to transfer. Many nonperformance schools, they have a
right to a whole set of other aid, special circumstances.
Mr. Miller. That is how we wrote the law in the beginning.
We were trying to close a gap, and the remedial services and
hopefully revenues would be made available to schools to--
because now you have identified a cohort of students that are
in need of help.
Mr. Peiffer, this was touched upon by Mr. Castle, but you
obviously have made--you have overridden the idea of how this
is unreliable if you have five students in a school of 800 or
900.
Mr. Peiffer. When we look at the subgroup--my apologies.
When we look at the subgroups, we use the confidence interval
statistic so we are not being unduly fair--unduly harsh on the
school, so it is if a very, very small subgroup, we would
accept a target a little bit lower than their normal target for
AYP for that year. If it is a small group. If it is a very
large group, it is pretty much on target for the year. So that
is--that the statistical allowances we have put in place have
helped people feel it has been pretty fair.
Mr. Miller. It would seem to me that there is a very high
burden on the Department of Education in accepting an N group
that is of any substantial size because if this starts to
appear to be fairly arbitrary--I appreciate the rationales, but
the acts and the numbers seem to be fairly arbitrary. If that
is the case, then you have the Department of Education denying
fundamental and basic services that have been designed to help
the achievement of these children, from those children getting
those services, because it sets the status of the school which
triggers the following actions. Does that seem to follow?
Mr. Simon. Well, as I indicated before, we say, no.
Mr. Miller. I know you say no. I am wondering what you said
yes to.
Mr. Simon. Again, in the case--in the case that we just
heard here, they have a confidence interval that goes along
with the five. Five is extremely low, and we always sing their
praises for having an N size that low. That is commendable.
Don't get me wrong.
Mr. Miller. Is it possible you could have a much lower
number with the confidence index, and that would tell you more
about that school and whether that is a rational determination
or not as opposed to 200; you know, if Texas and California
look alike in a lot of ways, and we have completely different
numbers.
Mr. Simon. I think that is right, and that is one, as I
mentioned in my testimony, the Secretary intends to call later
this fall when we get the latest numbers in from this round of
testing. This will be the first year every State will have
tested all their grades. We want to get the States in and get
not only N size but a number of other factors. We want to look
at confidence intervals.
Mr. Miller. Right now, under current law, you can talk to
the States all you want, but under current law, what triggers
the events that lead--you know, we need to call schools in need
of improvement because, in theory, the Federal Government is
going to ride to the rescue with some offerings that are
available to the students and to the families, maybe this year
for the first time with some revenues to those schools that are
in need of improvement so that they can work their way out of
it. But if they are never triggered, if they never show up on
the scale, where do these students go to get that kind of help?
Mr. Simon. Again, we think we have had a pretty good
balance in what we have approved and what we haven't approved,
knowing it has got to be looked at again.
Mr. Miller. These are stunning numbers of students that are
excluded. And even if you want to say, well, they are counted
in another way, they are counted in another category, they are
economically disadvantaged or some other fashion, that still
leaves schools where the fact is the N number has excluded
students because they are not counted even if you try to put
them in multiple boxes. I mean, that is----
Mr. Simon. Yes, sir. We are totally in agreement. That is
why we, again, think it is important to take another look at N
size, and we have, and we are this year.
Mr. Miller. If I just might, Mr. Chairman, when you say you
are taking another look at it, you are taking another look at
it in what fashion?
Mr. Simon. In the sense that we intend to get the States
together and reexamine, have each one of them reexamine each
one of their N sizes as well as other measures they are using
and justify to us now that we are testing more. We are 3 years
into the law, justify to us in a way that we didn't require in
the early days as to why you still need an N size of whatever.
Mr. Miller. There is a lot of rationales why schools or
States say they need these N sizes. I guess, Mr. Peiffer, we
will hold you up as a model here until someone--but I assume
you have large schools, suburban--you have metropolitan-area
schools that are of substantial size, if I am familiar with
Maryland. You have some rural schools.
Mr. Peiffer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Miller. You have some rural schools that are relatively
small. You have schools that are heavily impacted by
minorities. You have schools that are a majority minority.
Mr. Peiffer. Yes.
Mr. Miller. You have English learner schools, ad I have
been out in some of the areas of Maryland; that is growing.
Mr. Peiffer. That is correct.
Mr. Miller. And yet the N sizes remain to be five with
this, with some kind of index.
Mr. Peiffer. Yes, sir. To all schools.
Mr. Miller. I think, you know, that starts to look like the
threshold that you may have to start working back from. I am
assuming the validity there, because Mr. Brittain makes a
fundamental point, you know, about this because now we are
into--we are into the question of equal protection, and whether
or not we have used an arbitrary standard to do this. You know,
I think that No Child Left Behind--I am very proud of it
because the fact is, you know, for the first time ever, we have
legislatively made a commitment to educate every child to
perform proficiently. But recognizing the gap that existed and
the deficiencies that existed, we set in a series of triggers
that would yield additional help to those students and to their
families, and that is being shortstopped by what in many
instances appears to be an arbitrary setting of this inside
that excludes these students from being counted. My time is up,
and I see you reaching for the gavel. Thank you.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
I would yield myself time to ask questions. I think I was
next in order here. The only comment I would have is that I
used to teach statistics. And a five, it is pretty hard to get
any kind of significance; if one person fails, that is 20
percent, and in 20, one person fails, that is 5 percent. So I
guess I would be interested, Dr. Peiffer, in just asking you
how you find any statistical significance in using an N as
small as five.
Mr. Peiffer. The statistic actually changes as you get
closer to the 100 percent target in 2014. And it is by the
nature--it is a statistics course beyond the one I took when I
was in college. If you look at each year between now and 2014,
the assistance that a school might get with an N-5 will become
smaller and smaller until it will actually become zero because
the fact is, the goal in 2014 is to have 100 percent of the
kids proficient, period. There really wouldn't be any margin
around that.
Mr. Osborne. OK. I am not sure I totally understand that,
but I accept it as being well reasoned, and somebody smarter
than I must have worked on it.
Mr. Brittain, you made a very interesting comment. You said
that No Child Left Behind leaves two choices, either you have
to improve education or you have to lower the bar.
And I just wondered what your assessment was? Do you feel
that a large number of States have indeed lowered the bar? And
do you feel that, from your perspective, that most States have
made an honest good-faith attempt, or just what perception do
you have of how things are being implemented.
Mr. Brittain. In my written testimony, Congressman Osborne,
I do point to a law review article by one of my colleagues, Jim
Ryan, who has studied the States and their determination of
their testing standard. Some, such as I believe Georgia, have
just increased their standard. Others have lowered their
standards. Just like the N factor is the discretion given to
States to comply, .we would hope that a more full investigation
of what are our State standards would be made, and like the N
factor, there would be some effort to try to establish insofar
as the standards meet a minimum standard. And there are good
States, like on the N factor, and not so good States. And there
are good States on setting good rigorous standards, and there
are some not so good States. And that is one of the unintended
consequences of No Child Left Behind.
Mr. Osborne. So what you are saying, it is rather mixed as
far as your perception?
Mr. Brittain. Yes, and a continuation of the statement made
by Congressman Miller with some of the inequality and
unevenness and some of the lack of standards and arbitrariness
in setting these minimum standards.
Mr. Osborne. Certainly no one wants to look bad. It is sort
of a fundamental factor of human nature.
And so we understand that.
Seems like the one opportunity to have some universal
assessment is the NAEP test, and yet I realize that many States
resist a national standard. They say, well, we are unique; we
are somewhat different.
And I guess a question to any or all of you is, do you feel
that the nuclear NAEP is being used correctly or that it should
be relied on more or that the principle of allowing each State
to have quite a bit of discretion is working? Because, as you
know, some type of a national standard would certainly
circumvent some of the problems that you have already pointed
out. So you have about a minute left, so if you want to make a
quick comment, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Simon. From my perspective, from our perspective, we
think the NAEP is very important. It does set a benchmark
against which all States can be measured.
But I think also Congress is wise in allowing individual
States to set their own standards. That is what education is
about. It is a State function. We can't do that from
Washington, D.C.
NAEP is good in that it is a watchdog if you will on State
standards and State performance. When you compare proficiency
levels, grade levels in the individual States, they vary quite
a bit. NAEP is the one standard that you can get back to. They
can work in harmony with one another. You have to understand;
they are different. NAEP is different from a State test. But I
think it is a good benchmark upon which we can look at the
whole country.
Mr. Osborne. So would you suggest that if a State is by
their own assessment performing very well but by NAEP standards
not performing well, that some adjustment should be made?
Mr. Simon. I think it is a good basis for conversation
within the State. I think if I were a citizen in the State with
a child in the schools, I would be asking, why is that so? And
do you in fact expect less from my child?
Mr. Osborne. From the standpoint of your Department, do you
feel this would be a wise tool to begin to use?
Mr. Simon. Again, I think NAEP was designed for a specific
purpose. When we talk about proficiency on NAEP, we are not
talking about grade level in a sense. It was a very--it is a
high expectation exam. So I think we would have to really go
back and look at why we have NAEP and what the real mission of
No Child Left Behind is, but I think there is certainly a role
for both State exams and NAEP in this process.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, my time is up. I would like to hear
from all of you on that, but I don't have time. So at this
time, I would yield to Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. The concept of the N
size was created to ensure the reliability of the data and also
to protect the privacy of the students.
Unfortunately, this has created a loophole that can prevent
us from really knowing why and how many low-income students or
minority students and students with disabilities are struggling
in school.
Without the disaggregation of data, we are really blind in
addressing the problems of subgroups, and this was not exactly
a brand new idea when we passed this bill because the previous
reauthorization--and I was chairman then--we had disaggregation
of data at that time in 1993. So it wasn't something that was
just thrown upon you that you couldn't get used to. It has been
a part of the Federal law, tightened up of course, and in the
last No Child Left Behind was dating back to 1993. So there has
been some experience with this.
Let me ask you this, how can we maintain a meaningful
disaggregation of data and still protect the privacy of
students, which was one of the reasons we put this in, and also
still identify, as Mr. Brittain has pointed out, the schools
that need some special help? How can we achieve both, all three
of those. I will address that to----
Mr. Simon. I think the Secretary's intention of gathering
together the States to re-examine their plans, and when we say
gather the States, we mean also to bring in psychometricians,
statisticians that understand what reliability and validity are
about, to understand how that is measured, to examine every
State with those experts, to re-examine what, for example,
their N size--that is one of the things we are talking about,
but also in conjunction with their use of competence interval,
their use of standard measures, their use of other statistical
measures, to get some professionals that can relook at this
now. In view of the fact we have more kids being tested now,
what was appropriate in 2003 for an N size school in Michigan
may not be appropriate any more because Michigan is not testing
the same number of children. It is testing more children than
it was in 2003, what was reliable, what was necessary for
validity and reliability then may or may not be appropriate
now. And so I think that is why it is important to re-examine
it, re-examine it with some professional assistance, and then
require some type of justification for a State to say it wants
an N size of X.
Mr. Kildee. It seems that, initially, when the States were
setting their N size, there was great flexibility and, even
from your Department, a certain laissez-faire as they set their
N size, but now there is a greater rigidity when it comes to
changing their N size. Am I characterizing that correctly?
Mr. Simon. Yes, sir. And I as I mentioned in my testimony,
not because of the personnel that are there but because of
experience. We are a lot smarter now than we were in 2003.
Mr. Kildee. I notice Michigan recently asked that their N
size be increased from 30 or 1 to 30 plus 10, and you turned
that down. Have you changed that many States within the past
year, their N size?
Mr. Simon. Within the past year, we have had 10 requests
for changes. We have only granted one, and that was to get the
N sizes consistent among various subgroups.
Mr. Kildee. All right. All right. Is there any way that we
could have a better objective, Federal norm or at least some
guidelines as to the N size because, as I said initially, they
are all over the lot, wide disparities from one State to
another? Is there any way we can establish some guidelines if
not a norm for the N size for the various States?
Mr. Simon. I think that is what we hope will come out of
our discussions later on this year with the chiefs, with the
States, with their accountability directors and with
professionals in measurement, is to give us some data that we
can give you to help inform you when you make those decisions.
Mr. Kildee. Keep in mind the three reasons. One is
disaggregation of data. One is to protect the privacy of the
students. And the other is to make sure we give special help to
those schools who really are not performing as they should.
Keep those three objectives in mind.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Marchant.
Mr. Marchant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to focus with Dr. Kuhlman on specifically the
students with disabilities. My child is a student that went
through 12 years of public school considered to be disabled.
And can you discuss with me, over on your chart, it looks
like--let me just ask you a few questions. In 2003 and 2004,
under the reading and language arts, you had 17 students
classified as students with disabilities.
And then in 2005, 23. And then in 2006, 26. Was that an
actual jump in the student population of students with
disabilities, or was that reclassification of other students?
Dr. Kuhlman. No, it was an increase over those 3 years.
Mr. Marchant. And do you find, does your State give any
kind of a waiver for students with disabilities in their
testing?
Dr. Kuhlman. There is no waiver on testing the students
that we have. We have students who are mildly disabled with
speech and language disorders, learning disabilities, behavior
disorders and health impairments in that group. And all of our
special ed students are tested. There is no waiver.
Mr. Marchant. So they are not taken out of the equation in
any way?
Dr. Kuhlman. No. Now, we are not legally mandated under No
Child Left Behind to make AYP with the group because it is such
a small subgroup, just the topic we are talking about today.
But at our school, we took that seriously. When we saw our
other two subgroups--and you can see on the same chart--
performing in 2003 and 204 in the 90 percent proficiency level,
and special ed students down in the 40's and 50's, that is
where we said we were grateful for the reporting because while
we analyze data on an individual student-by-student basis, we
didn't group students, so the fact that data were reported for
those students was helpful to us in knowing that we really
needed to make some changes and focus on improvements for our
students with disabilities.
I was a special ed teacher, so it was important to me that
at our school we not have significant gaps with students with
disabilities.
Mr. Marchant. In Texas, we have had a lot of situations
where many of our schools that for years were rated exemplary
in this last testing cycle lost their rating primarily because
they included, they took more of an inclusive testing policy
and then, when they were stripped of their exemplary status,
went back and appealed to the State. And their appeal basically
was based largely on the fact that they had included too many
disabled students. And the State didn't allow them to pull
those students back out and restore their exemplary status.
Would you say that is generally the policy with most States?
This is for the panel.
Are most States moving toward Dr. Kuhlman's model, or are
most States living with what they are able to do as far as that
goes?
Mr. Peiffer.
Mr. Peiffer. I can only speak for Maryland. We work very
hard to make sure that all of our students with disabilities
are included in the accountability and assessment program. We
have an assessment for the lowest 1 percent of students who are
very seriously disabled and alternative assessment. We are
waiting for guidance from the U.S. Department of Education on
another assessment that will be called a modified assessment
that will be more in tune to the needs of the next 2 percent of
students above that.
And I think the key with all of the limited English
students and the special education students both, if they are
they are to be included in adequate yearly progress, we need to
make sure that the tests we have in place for those students
are a fair and accurate measure of what they know and are able
to do. But we are very much committed to making sure that those
students are included.
Mr. Marchant. And, Mr. Simon, what is the goal of the
Department of Education along these lines?
Mr. Simon. This particular issue is probably if not the
single most issue that is discussed and considered most by the
States, it is in the top two. And we have done a lot. I think
States are really moving to get students with disabilities
included appropriately in assessment and in teaching. Many
times, they don't know what to do. And so we intend, in
addition to releasing rules and regulations, we intend to
release technical assistance to help States understand how we
can identify these students properly, how to test them
properly, how to teach them properly.
Mr. Marchant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Marchant.
Mr. Andrews.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the panel and thank the chairman for
the hearing. I think it is imperative that the result of the No
Child Left Behind be that we find more creative ways to educate
students, not more creative ways to create records to show that
we are educating students when we are not.
And I think that this size of the N issue sounds very
arcane, but it isn't. It is very fundamental and very serious
about whether we are going to take these obligations seriously.
And I am glad we are having this hearing.
There is another part of this equation, and it is whether
or not the resources that we are sending from the Federal
taxpayers are being properly applied to meeting the needs of
the children in the schools, and I wanted to ask Secretary
Simons some questions about some issues I called to the
attention of Secretary Spellings in April.
First, I want to say, we have had some excellent responses
from Secretary Spellings' legislative staff. Ms. West in
particular has been quite attentive in getting back to us. But
we still haven't gotten to the bottom of the question I asked
Mr. Secretary, and here is what it is: Based on news reports,
which of course means that it may or may not be true, but based
on news reports, there were--the following three issues were
called to my attention. In the Columbus, Ohio, public schools,
we had No Child Left Behind money spent on cell phones, $23,000
worth; a $1.2 million increase in overtime spending; and we had
$47,000 spent on furniture the district could not locate when
it was audited.
In Cottonwood, Arizona, $1.1 million was spent over a 13-
month period on after-school programs. I am told that programs
of this nature typically are very low budget, cost about $300
per student. This one averaged out to $4,900 per student.
And in New Jersey, in my own State, in the city of
Elizabeth, which has six schools on the needs improvement list,
it is reported that the school board spent $600,000 in a buyout
for a school administrator, some of which may have come from No
Child Left Behind money, and then over $100,000 on television
advertising in a dispute with the city government over where to
build a new school under the State's school construction
program, a political dispute about where the school ought to be
built.
I don't know if these things are true. But I would like to
know if they are true. And more importantly, I would like to
know what strategy the Department has to focus on this.
And I will tell you why I think this is particularly
important. The principle change between No Child Left Behind
and the prevailing law was that we were going to tether this
Federal money to very specific performance standards and
objectives. When Title I started, as you know, we said, here,
here is a sum of money, do good things with it. And then, in
2000, the Goals 2000 legislation--I guess it was prior to
that--we said, do good things with the money, here is what we
would like you to accomplish. And when that was not
accomplished, in No Child Left Behind we said, here is a large
sum of money, here is what you need to accomplish, here is how
we are going to measure your achievement, and here are the
series of remedial actions you must take in order to make these
changes happen, which is the whole genesis of AYP.
You can't really measure that progress unless you are sure
the money is going to the things that it ought to go to, and I
got to tell you, not only are children in these districts being
cheated when they are not being counted, but they are also
being cheated when money the Federal taxpayers are sending for
after-school programs and reading tutors and preschool and
summer school are being spent on cell phones and political
advertising campaigns and furniture that can't be found.
So what are we doing about that?
Mr. Simon. Yes, sir. Thank you.
And we did receive your letter, and quite frankly, we have
had a number of individuals working on that. Those audits that
you referenced were not a result of our audits. So we are
trying to track down who did the audits, the source of their
information and then where that information goes.
We audit from the Department of Education through Title I.
We audit States and then, within States, selected school
districts. And we have never pretended to audit every school
district in the United States. So, short of that, we work with
the States.
Now that having been said, every individual district, I am
sure this is true in every State, it certainly is in my State,
has to do an annual audit, which is, I am assuming that is
where this information was found. Part of an annual audit at
the district level includes auditing Federal funds. That
information generally is sent to the State department for the
State department to look at. It is also sent to legislative
committees to investigate. I know, many times again in my
State, there were numerous occasions where superintendents were
called before legislative committees to talk about audits of
Federal funds as well as State funds.
If we determine through whatever source that there is a
miss, it has been an abuse of Federal funds, and certainly we
get involved in that. We will work through the State department
in conjunction with them to see what is necessary, if the facts
are there, if they are true and then how we might go about
recovering those funds. We just haven't gotten to the bottom,
totally, of everything you have asked us to do, but we are
certainly pursuing that.
Mr. Andrews. If I may, can you tell me when we will have an
answer?
Mr. Simon. Sir, I can't tell you for sure. But I will get
an answer to you this afternoon. I have not been working
directly on that. But my staff has.
Mr. Andrews. I want to make it very clear, your staff has
been very responsive to this. I know my time is up. I want to
say one more thing. This is more than just about these three
districts. See, my experience in local government has been that
Federal money is treated as a little freer than money raised
from the taxpayers that are sitting right in front of you. And
there is a tendency for districts to, certainly not all
districts, but districts that have a bent toward this kind of
carelessness to begin with to be even more careless with
Federal money.
And frankly, the ability of State education departments
varies. There are some that are very competent and very
thorough in their audits, and there are others less thorough.
But every single one of those dollars that is being spent in
Arizona or Ohio or New Jersey is being raised by my taxpayers
in New Jersey, Mr. Kildee's taxpayers in Michigan, Mr.
Osborne's taxpayers in Nebraska. And we think we have a very
special obligation, not only to the taxpayers but to the
children who are being cheated if these allegations are true. I
thank you.
Mr. Osborne. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is good to hear that every single member up here agrees
that it is important for schools and parents and the public to
have access to disaggregated data on student achievement.
What I would like to ask each of you, and starting at the
with Mr. Brittain, is, tell me one of or tell me the most
important way that this information can be used to help
students? Particularly the students that aren't measuring up,
meeting their AYP, what would be the most important way you
have used this information?
Mr. Brittain. I would use the information that you provide
them with special services to help them meet their level of
achievement, their level of progress and ultimately to find the
highest level of their proficiency. I believe that is the most
important way that, particularly if you are talking about the
excluded students, they are not being helped.
And from a civil rights perspective, I think that the
parents and the students deserve to be informed of all of their
rights under No Child Left Behind. And certainly, they should
be informed that, if their school has finally been designated
by the long process of not performing, they should be entitled
to their transfer right under this.
One of the proposals we make, Congresslady Woolsey, is
that, for the excluded students who are not counted in the N
factor, they should receive their remedial measures no less.
That would go to Congressman Miller's point of view that they
are being denied their rights of No Child Left Behind as well
as being excluded from the data. So we would say as one fix
that if you are going to exclude them from the data, you know
who they are, you have their testing information, you still go
and provide them with their remedial right.
Dr. Kuhlman. At Centennial Place, we have made AYP for 6
consecutive years, so we haven't been subject to any of the
sanctions under No Child Left Behind. But we have found the
data and the disaggregation of data that is presented to us to
be very helpful in informing instruction, in planning
additional resources for students that need additional help,
just as I explained with the students who have disabilities. We
were really able to focus on intensifying collaboration among
teachers and parents, and really narrowing the scope of our
curriculum and standards and going deeper with those kids in
the program so that they were able to perform more
satisfactorily. So I think that the actual presentation of data
really helps schools zero in, whether they are subject to
sanctions or not, in terms of making substantive improvements
in the instructional process.
Ms. Woolsey. Dr. Peiffer.
Mr. Peiffer. Disaggregated data is used pervasively
throughout Maryland from the school system on down. Of course,
at the State level, we look at that to help us determine
whether we are putting our efforts in the right systems and
groups and so on.
But at the school system level, quite frequently, they are
looking at the principal assignments to make sure that they are
going into--the right principal is going into the right
schools. I met with the assistant superintendents for
instruction from our 24 school systems back in March. And they
talked at great length about how they are working with
principals so they are smarter about looking at the data so
they can make good instruction for students. So they are trying
to do it, institutionalize that approach.
So if you think about, for most of our schools, they know
that AYP is important. They know the performance of those
individual students is important. So it really overrides almost
every other factor in terms of making decisions at the school
and system level.
Ms. Woolsey. Dr. Simon, from your perspective?
Mr. Simon. I have to agree, when the individual test result
and individual teaching data about those kids gets into the
hands of the individual teacher to help that child, regardless
of whether that child is in subgroup 1, 2 or 3, it all goes
back to what that teacher knows about that child and what he or
she is able to do with that child in the classroom and to be
able to focus what that child needs.
Ms. Woolsey. I would like to ask you, the President has
repeatedly underfunded No Child Left Behind in his budget. Does
the administration and does the Department think that we don't
need any additional funding for these services?
Mr. Simon. If you look back on the history of No Child Left
Behind, there are record amounts of Federal funds that have
gone into assisting schools and teachers. Teachers become
better teachers. Schools become better schools. We believe that
money has been well spent. It is showing up in increased
achievement.
Ms. Woolsey. So you think that is enough. I mean, we don't
need any more than what is on the table now?
Mr. Simon. I think the Federal Government has been very
generous in its funding of education and being good partners
with States.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, I disagree with you on that one.
Thank you.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was just going to comment, a person who assisted me on my
education policy is a Minnesota State auditor. Just in
complying in 1 year, we spent $19 million getting the tests all
straightened out for No Child Left Behind, so I was wondering
if the State of Minnesota had received $19 million from the
Federal Government to offset that, and I think the answer is,
no.
So any achievement we have done in Minnesota, I would say
that we have done it with Minnesota's taxpayers' dollars.
I am glad we are having this discussion because I am very
concerned about, what are we measuring?
Every State has its own standard. You say you are going to
look at the national standard, the NAEP, and juggle some
formula and bring the schools in or the States in and say,
well, maybe you should be changing your standards here or there
so we have something that we can measure.
All the cell sizes are different.
And we need to be doing much better than this. We are all
adults here in the room. We all know when we show up to work,
and we are measured on performance, or when we purchase
something. We don't let every State set standard performance
for cars. We know, when we purchase a car, how reliable it is
going to be, what the gas mileage is going to be like. But yet
when it comes to our schools, we seem to think that we can do
whatever.
Now you can make your point for the Department that it is a
State's right to provide an education. And I agree with that.
It is in Minnesota's State constitution. But what is happening
right now is, because Minnesota has its standards, and you
point out that some States have higher standards than others in
some of the testimony, then nationally, when we go to rank
these schools and they are up next to each other, there isn't a
big asterisk next to it saying, oh and by the way, these States
did lower the bar, and they still have students that aren't
making adequate yearly progress. And those students who aren't
making adequate yearly progress might be the students that are
in, especially in minority categories, scoring at the top of a
bar in another State. So what have we really done for those
children?
If this is to be a Federal program, then I think we need to
move toward a standard Federal system in measuring our outcomes
here.
I say that because we have--we are a very mobile society.
We have Hispanic immigrant students that we are going to be
trying to measure. That is pointed out in testimony. And so I
would like a little more of a discussion about how do we get to
one measuring bar. And then, just to point out, if we have
special ed students that aren't making adequate yearly
progress, shame on the Federal Government for not funding
special ed for how many years? We have failed to do that. What
makes us think we are going to be more, have more success with
No Child Left Behind without the appropriate funding for that?
And then I am just curious, when the Department looks at
African-American students right now, black students, how are
refugees being counted? And what are we going to do about
school districts that have a lot of, a large refugee
population, that are not only dealing with language, but they
are dealing with culture shock and, in Minnesota, even with
weather shock in the winter.
So how, especially in my State, when Asian and black
students are counted, how are we counting? And what is the
Department doing for refugee students and making sure that, as
our country takes in these refugees, that our school districts
gets the funding that they need to make these refugees
successful?
Mr. Simon. In terms of the last issue you raised, limited
English proficient students, that is a subcategory that is
required as a subgroup both for reporting and accountability.
We work with the schools. We have a specific office, Office of
English Language Acquisition, that works with States. There are
regulations in place that talk to a State about how these
students can be treated for adequate yearly progress, schools
are given, under proposed regs that being written now, are
basically being given a year for those students to come in
where they are not held accountable for assessments. But there
are requirements for those children to be tested for their
limited English language proficiency. There are opportunities
with assessment and teaching for those students to hopefully
exit that category as soon as they can properly participate in
testing.
We give them credit for moving students out of those
categories. Our objective is to get those students into a
regular classroom as soon as possible. We want to give States
credit for their doing that.
So and we are continuing to work with States to improve
assessment of these children. That has been one of the big
concerns that States have had is how they test these children
to really understand the level of their language proficiency
and their ability to participate in English and math exams. And
so it is a continuous thing we are working on. I think, again,
we are smarter today than we were 3 years ago. I think those
children are being better served than they were 3 years ago.
Mr. Marchant [presiding]. Mrs. McCarthy.
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, sir. I thank everybody for their
testimony. I think it has been really interesting for the
majority of us.
Dr. Kuhlman, I just want to ask a quick question, with the
resources that you receive, not only from the Federal
Government and from your private corporations that are in a
partnership with you, then on the State level, the amount of
money that you are getting, would you say that you are actually
receiving more money for your school than maybe the average
minority school would be getting?
Dr. Kuhlman. No, we are funded under the same formula that
all Atlanta public schools are funded. We actually have a lower
free and reduced lunch rate than the average Atlanta public
school, so we get a little bit, proportionately, less in Title
I.
And our resources in the community are in kind resources,
not dollars. But I will say that the value is enormous. And
that would be my statement, that all kids need these resources
that our kids have been so able to benefit from, and
encouragement to community members and organizations to get
involved in their public school and to help and to public
schools to reach out and bring the community into the schools
so that they can help.
Mrs. McCarthy. Well, I thank you, and it sounds like your
school has the winning formula. With that, I would like to
yield the balance of my time to Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, and if I might just thank
the gentleman for yielding. I would like to pick up on the
conversation with Mr. Kildee.
We have tried to be very supportive of the Secretary as the
Secretary has tried to walk through the competing demands from
the law of the States and everybody involved in it. But, and I
recognize that the Secretary inherited some of these N number
decisions that were made, and that starts to be the benchmark
from which you then have to work from.
But I think if we are right in that this determination, as
presented by Mr. Brittain, is about whether or not students
will or will not get the services that are required and
provided for under Federal law, that the only way out of this
is to really put together an independent objective technical
committee to look at this. And I would invite the civil rights
community into that because if this is accurate--and I think it
is accurate--it does go to whether or not these children will
have an opportunity to be proficient or not.
But I think that, as you were suggesting that you are
trying to do something like that, I don't think this can be a
case-by-case basis any longer because, if nothing else, for the
moment, I think Maryland just knocks that out of the box. And
again, I am not suggesting that that is the answer. But I think
that--I would hope that the Secretary would think long and hard
about putting together that kind of technical committee to
decide what makes sense and what doesn't make sense and what
can be justified here when you recognize that it will end up
essentially being about whether significant numbers of students
are denied access to those resources.
So I just want to say that.
I was also looking at an old friend of mine, Hayes Mizell,
who has been involved in these issues for some time back in
2003, sent me a speech that he gave in Maryland to the Howard
County Schools' Faulkner Ridge Staff Development Center in
Columbia. And in that he was talking, he was trying to get
people to think anew with No Child Left Behind. But he went
back to a very old point, and he quoted a talk about Brown v.
Board of Education; he quoted, Louisiana's abysmal performance
on African-American students prompted a member of the State
board of education of Louisiana to say, we will never reach our
goals as a State if we don't improve the performance of our
poor and black students. And if we don't measure it, then you
don't count it. And if you don't count it, then you don't pay
attention. And if you don't pay attention, then you don't fix
it.
And I want to say that I probably heard that from the
President of the United States a dozen times while we were
putting together No Child Left Behind. And the Secretary has
said it I think many, many more times than that. When people
want to challenge standards and accountability and all that
flows from that. And my worry is--I am not suggesting
intentionally--but we have created a group of students here who
may very well not be counted and therefore may not be paid
attention to and therefore may not receive the services.
So, I would hope that your--I don't want to hold you to
saying this is what you are going to do, but I would hope that
this would blossom into a really independent technical look at
how you develop what may be a rational decision that in some
cases some of these school scores may not need to count, and if
that is even the case, how do you still then make sure that
services get to those children that the law says that they must
get? And I think it is a two-part question.
Hopefully there won't be many in the second part of the
question if we do the N number right. But I think it has to be
there as a fall back, as Mr. Brittain has suggested, because we
know, for a child to lose this opportunity in just a school-
year period of time, the problems start to cascade on
themselves. That is why we have testing at this level and we
have the development of these scores and we have this
information, this disaggregated data, so we can get in there
and deal with these problems in a realtime basis. So I just
wanted to hopefully expand a little bit on that question by Mr.
Kildee and your response to it and my suggestion to your
response to it. Thank you.
Thank you for yielding.
Mr. Marchant. Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you all for being here.
I wanted to raise one issue that we haven't talked about so
much in the potential loopholes that are out there. Could you
please address the issues of when students are counted, as per
their, how long they have been in the school? And it is my
understanding that schools don't necessarily have to count for
AYP until they have been in the school for half a year, some
schools almost a full year. What is your feeling about that? Is
that something that we ought to be addressing? And how do we
sort that out if in fact not only are students not being
counted if the N size is too small, but our transfer students
who move around a great deal. Certainly our students who are on
military bases move around a great deal, and generally
speaking, children who have fewer advantages move around more
than children who are more stable. So how do we reconcile all
that? What do you think we should be doing?
Mr. Simon. The accountability from No Child Left Behind is
at the school level. So when we talk about a school needing an
improvement, we want to say that that school is unable for
whatever reason to get their children to grade level. So part
of the protection, if you will, or the fairness to the school
is that they be judged on children they have had an opportunity
to teach.
And so the law provides that a child that is held for
adequate yearly progressive purposes must have been in that
school for a full academic year. Now that is defined somewhat
by the States. Some may start their full academic year October
one, some may start it September one. But basically, the child
must be in that school a year.
Now a district, however, if a child moves from school A to
school B within a district, the district is held accountable if
that child has been in the district a year even though the
school might not be, if he was in one school 3 months and
another school 6 months, the schools may not be held
accountable, but the districts would be. Similarly, within a
State, if a child moves within a State, the State is
responsible.
That having been said, I go back to Principal Kuhlman and
what they are doing in her school. It doesn't matter whether
the child has been there 2 days or 2 years or 2 months. They
pay attention to what the child knows and does not know,
because they look at the data that child brings with them, they
look at data they accumulate on that child when they are in
school. That is what is going to teach kids. Accountability is
important, and it will help direct funds to schools that need
to be helped. But all that accountability is worthless if the
classroom teacher doesn't have the tools and the knowledge and
the desire to really pay attention and help that kid. That is
where the real work gets done.
Mrs. Davis of California. I would agree with you, but I am
just wondering, again, in a dialog fashion, if in fact the
schools are not truly held accountable for those children who
move a lot, then doesn't that send a different message to them?
I know that, years ago, we did disaggregate and we did believe
that even though a school might have a transiency rate of 150
percent in terms of turnover, the school was always accountable
for those kids. And I hear what you are saying, that the
teachers still have that responsibility. But I am just
wondering whether we ought to look at that, whether that is
somehow giving a pass for those youngsters.
Dr. Kuhlman.
Dr. Kuhlman. I would say that our superintendent in Atlanta
public schools agrees with you. We have targets that are
established for us, school by school. And we include every
child in those targets. If they arrive the day of the test,
they are counted in our accountability system. So sometimes it
is, you know, you take a little hurt on that. And I always
think that in terms of the real substance of our instruction,
those children that have been there for a full academic year
have had the opportunity to benefit our program. But at the end
of the day, we are accountable for all of the students.
Mrs. Davis of California. Should that be a separate N size,
students who have been at the school for half a year opposed to
a full year, should they be pulled out in some way?
Dr. Kuhlman. It would be interesting to look at them
separately, and we do that. And frankly, we don't have a lot of
difference. Now I think that--I know that would vary from
school to school, too.
Mrs. Davis of California. When it comes to military
students, do you think that in any way those scores should be
looked at any differently? Is there any interest in doing that
and enough studies to indicate that, in fact, there may be
services beyond that impact that the young people are not
receiving?
Mr. Simon. I had the privilege of visiting a military
school in Germany a few weeks ago. And the military schools
overseas are not under No Child left Behind. The law doesn't
apply to them. That have been having been said, they have
adopted voluntarily many of the provisions of No Child Left
Behind. And I can tell you, we need to model many of our
schools after what the military schools do for their children.
And it starts with the key for them is the family being
involved. As the commander of the base we were at said, when a
child gets in trouble at school, it is not just the child; the
father and the mother whoever is in the military is brought
before the commanding officer, and the child is, their progress
is talked about. Some good things, and they are certainly
interested in maintaining a consistency as their children move
from school to school.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you. I appreciate that. My
time is up.
I really was asking more about those children who are
identified but are not in military schools, are in the regular
school system, where they are receiving impact aid and there
may be some additional issues regarding accurate testing. Thank
you very much, I appreciate it.
Mr. Marchant. Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Simon, is there any technical difficulty to
collecting all of the data without any regard to N size?
Mr. Simon. I am not sure if I fully understand your
question, but there is a problem in collecting data. States are
getting better. When we began No Child Left Behind, the data
collection systems in many of our States were very inadequate
to meet the reporting requirements of the law.
Mr. Scott. I am not talking about reporting. I am talking
about just collecting the data. Then, you could decide what to
report, is the second question, but you can collect the data
regardless of N size, isn't that right?
Mr. Simon. Oh, sure, now, but again, the format of the
data, the quality of the data is a lot better today than it was
3 years ago, and so we are beginning to collect more and more
information. We know a whole lot more now.
Mr. Scott. One of the problems is, if you are under the
level now, the N size in each school, you could have thousands
of children in a school district but not enough in any school,
and none of them get counted; isn't that right?
Mr. Simon. Yes.
Mr. Scott. Is there any rationale or basis for having a
different N size for one school district or one State than
another?
Mr. Simon. Again, we believe there is. And that is what we
have tried to exercise since the beginning of No Child Left
Behind by taking into account a number of factors. But we
haven't set one N size for everybody.
Mr. Scott. Do you have those factors listed somewhere?
Mr. Simon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Scott. If you could supply that to the committee.
Now the testing is one thing. The farmers tell us you don't
fatten the pig by weighing the pig. We want to know what
happens after the test is given. And what do you do with
information? Now if you know in a district, in a school
district, that there are a number of children failing but not
the critical mass in each school, it is my understanding that
all of the sanctions are school-based not school-district-
based?
Mr. Simon. There are sanctions at the school and district
level.
Mr. Scott. Now if you have say 200 students, none of whom
have been counted in any particular school, who you have
identified as that category as being left behind, are there
services that could be provided for them?
Mr. Simon. Yes, sir. Also, those schools, if the individual
schools, if the child is not counted at the individual school
because of N size, very likely they are going to be counted at
a district level. And if the district puts in an improvement,
that also triggers funding and requirements that the district
has to provide to the schools that got them there.
Mr. Scott. So if you have one or two students in each
school in a particular category, not enough in any school, then
you can provide services to those students?
Mr. Simon. Yes, sir, and it would certainly behoove a
district to do that because if the schools are not taken care
of, then the district remains in improvement and the sanctions
get quite intense.
Mr. Scott. So you have a category where the district fails
because a category of students fail, but no individual school
is implicated?
Mr. Simon. Correct.
Mr. Scott. Now, the other things that we can do with the
data, has any--we want fully qualified teachers. The data could
show that a particular teacher has a historic inability to
teach certain categories of students.
If you found that, would that jeopardize the teacher's
qualifications?
Mr. Simon. Not from a Federal perspective. We don't get
that detailed in a school's business, but the whole issue of
how to qualify teachers is one that is front and center of this
issue, is also the line for States to get their teachers highly
qualified.
Mr. Scott. Would you encourage school districts to know if
a teacher isn't teaching, say, black students?
Mr. Simon. Absolutely, and they are required to report
that.
Mr. Scott. They are required to report that for a teacher?
Mr. Simon. For a school, the number of teachers and
individual teachers, if a individual teacher is not highly
qualified, the students of that teacher, the school is required
to report that to the parent.
Mr. Scott. Can you lose your highly qualified status if you
are consistently failing to teach certain categories of
students?
Mr. Simon. That would be a State's obligation to do it. It
is not a requirement from the Federal Government. We have a
requirement that a teacher be highly qualified. Now once they
are highly qualified, if they fail to perform, that is not
something that we have ventured into very extensively. We do
things to encourage that for those teachers not to be in there,
but there is no penalty from the Federal Government at this
point on that.
Mr. Scott. Does the disaggregated data identify the
students that are dropping out by district?
Mr. Simon. It is available particularly at the State and
school district level.
Mr. Scott. Could you say a word about how you, what
standard you used to determine whether or not disabled students
are passing?
Mr. Simon. Again, that goes back to the State's standard.
The Federal Government, we have some regulations regarding the
numbers and types of special education students that can be
counted as proficient. There are limits that are set by the
Federal Government, but, ultimately, it is up to an individual
State's standards to a large degree.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Marchant. Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses. You have been patient, but of
course, this is really important. It gets to the heart of No
Child Left Behind. You know, we would like to say that no child
is left behind, really, no child. Of course, we don't know if,
in this school, there is five; and another school, there is 20;
and another school, there is 50; and pretty soon, you have a
couple of million students you don't know who are being left
behind.
And it is not as some people have suggested a matter of
mathematics or statistics. This is a philosophical point. And
so a range between 5 and 200 is really not a mathematical
decision. It is a choice that the school, that the State, the
schools are making.
What I would like to ask, Mr. Peiffer, is if, what would
you say you have had to sacrifice in order to maintain this
small N of 5? You can either, well, make the assessments, the
testing easier, so you lower the bar, and you can make it that
way. Or you are willing to tolerate more schools just not
making, not being perceived as making adequate progress, being
classified as adequate progress schools.
What do you think a school system, or a State, gives up or
has to give up to maintain as high of standards as you have?
Mr. Peiffer. With our local school system officials, I
think there is a lot of fear that if we had a very small N size
that there would be an inordinate number of schools identified
as not making adequate yearly progress. We had to work very,
very hard over the first couple years with this law to try to
help local school system officials and parents and others in
what it really meant. So, ultimately, I don't think we have had
to give up anything. It is a combination of the N of 5; it has
also been this competence interval statistic that gives this
sense of fairness. And once we incorporated the two together, I
think there has been a sense that it has been pretty fair.
Again, I think I mentioned in my earlier comments that the
Education Week report that came out in January, looking at the
2005 AYP list, puts Maryland about in the middle of the
country, about in or near the national average in terms of the
number of schools that have made AYP. So I think it really
hasn't disadvantaged us in any way. But most importantly with
our constituency and our advocates for students with
disabilities and limited English proficient students and their
various racial groups and their parents, I think they also feel
their students are appearing in results and we are paying
attention to them. So I think the advantage to that has been
very important to us.
Mr. Holt. Do you think, Mr. Peiffer, if there were a
national cap put on N, 30, 25, 50, you would still maintain 5?
Mr. Peiffer. I don't see that there is a lot of interest
right now in changing the N of 5, and it, strangely enough, I
get approached in the grocery store by parents who seem to
understand statistics enough that they understand the N of 5,
so it has gotten to be a part of the culture with parents as
well, so I think we are very comfortable with where it is.
Mr. Holt. And, if it were, if there were a national
standard set, a cap, what difference would it make to a State
like you that sets, well, this rather high bar or low N?
Mr. Peiffer. I am not quite sure how the standard would
apply if it were higher than 5 and that were the standard
applied elsewhere. I am not sure we would be--in other words,
if that were the cap, that you needed to be under that certain
figure, I think there would be a lot of pressure on the part of
our local school systems to go to a higher number if you will.
Mr. Holt. OK. Thank you.
I thank the witnesses.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Marchant. I would like to thank the witnesses for their
time and testimony, and the witnesses and the members for their
participation today. It was a great panel. Thank you for
bearing with us during our votes and the business of the House.
If there is no further business, the committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:14 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
<all>