For more information, please contact:
Paul Marchand (202) 783-2229
Katy Beh Neas (202) 347-3066
Leslie Jackson (301) 652-2682
Jane West (202) 289-3903
Stephen Spector (301) 306-7070
 

June 3, 2004
The Honorable Roderick Paige
Secretary
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20202

Dear Secretary Paige:
 

We, the undersigned members of the Education Task Force of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, are writing to express our concern about the potential misuse of the minimum subgroup size provision within the adequate yearly progress (AYP) provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities is a coalition of approximately 100 national disability organizations working together to advocate for national public policy that ensures the self determination, independence, empowerment, integration and inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in all aspects of society. The Education Task Force consists of parent, service provider, disability advocacy and special education organizations.
We have two specific concerns. Our first concern relates to the minimum group size requirements. Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of NCLB provides that the desegregation of data by subgroup for the purposes of calculating AYP “…shall not be required in a case in which the number of students in a category is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student.” We are very concerned that some states are selecting a minimum subgroup size (“n”) that is so large that it results in that subgroup not being identified for purposes of calculating whether or not a school has made AYP. As a result, some schools with significant numbers of students with disabilities will not be required to disaggregate their data by subgroup. We think it is of the utmost importance for the Department to review every state's request to change its "n" number to ensure that schools are still held responsible for reporting on subgroups of students, including students with disabilities, for purposes of AYP.

For example, we understand that the State of Maryland has proposed changing its “n” size to 15 percent of the school system or state population. Since Maryland identifies approximately 10.5 percent of its students as being students with disabilities, we are concerned that in many schools, if not all of them, a subgroup of students with disabilities would not be identified for purposes of reporting AYP. Thus, a school would appear to be meeting its AYP goals even though its students with disabilities might not be making progress.

Our second concern relates to the composition of each subgroup. Members of the staff of the U.S. Department of Education recently briefed the CCD Education Task Force on NCLB, and clarified that one child can be included in more than one subgroup. We understand that Maryland is also requesting a revision of this requirement so that a student would only count in one subgroup category; low income, special education and limited English proficiency, in order of priority. For example, if a student with disabilities is also in the low income subgroup he or she would not be counted as part of the special education subgroup. This revision would substantially skew the number of students in the special education subgroup at the school level unless this rule solely applies for subgroup size calculation and not for other data disaggregation purposes or for the calculation of the confidence intervals that are applied to the subgroup scores.

If Maryland’s two proposed revisions to its accountability plan are approved, we are very concerned that other States will follow Maryland’s lead. We urge you to provide guidance to all states to clarify that the minimum subgroup size provisions of NCLB are to protect student confidentiality and ensure the statistical significance of subgroup data. States should be expected to justify how the “n” size they select is tied to one or both of these issues.

We know that you are a strong supporter of students with disabilities having the same level of accountability as other students. Unfortunately, states seem to be looking toward a large “n” as a loophole in accountability for special education students. We urge you not to let that happen.

Thank you for considering our views. We would appreciate a prompt response to this letter.

Sincerely,

Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Foundation for the Blind
American Music Therapy Association
American Occupational Therapy Association
Association of University Centers on Disabilities
Bazelon Center on Mental Health Law
Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Council for Exceptional Children
Council for Learning Disabilities
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Easter Seals
Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health
Helen Keller National Center
Higher Education Consortium for Special Education
International Dyslexia Association
Learning Disabilities Association of America
NAMI
National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Center for Learning Disabilities
National Coalition on Deaf-Blindness
National Down Syndrome Congress
National Down Syndrome Society
National Mental Health Association
School Social Work Association of America
TASH
Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children
The Arc of the United States
Tourette Syndrome Association
United Cerebral Palsy Association

Cc:
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
House Education and the Workforce Committee
Maryland Delegation