The U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 for the Every Student Succeeds Act would let too many English-language learners, students in special education, minorities, and disadvantaged slip through the cracks, according to a report for the Alliance for Excellent Education, an advocacy organization.
The proposed regulations allow states to pick any 鈥渘鈥� size, or minimum number of students from a particular group that a school would have to have for that group to count for accountability purposes. But the draft rules say if it states want to go above 30, they must justify it. (Thirty is currently a middle-of-the-road 鈥渘鈥� size according to this report from the department.)
So, for instance, if a state鈥檚 鈥渘鈥� size is 20 and a school has 18 English language learners in the 3rd grade, the school wouldn鈥檛 have to break out its test data relative to other kids. And it wouldn鈥檛 necessarily have to take action if they aren鈥檛 performing well. The idea behind an n-size is to protect student privacy, and make sure the data that identifies which schools need help is statistically sound.
The Alliance is recommending states set an 鈥渘鈥� size of 10 or below. Right now, only 13 states are at or below that number, according to the Alliance. And eight have a number of 40 or more, the report says.
How did the Alliance arrive at 10? That鈥檚 the number recommended by , as well as . And the organization says changes in ESSA from its predecessor, the No Child Left Behind Act鈥攊ncluding looking beyond just a test score to gauge school performance and identifying schools for improvement every three years鈥攕peaks to the need for a lower n-size than the average under NCLB.
鈥淎 high n-size could mean 鈥榥o action鈥� for many students, especially students of color and students from low-income families who make up roughly half of all K-12 students, yet graduate from high school at rates much lower than other students,鈥� said Alliance for Excellent Education President Bob Wise in a statement.
The department can鈥檛 just tell states what their 鈥渘鈥� size has to be, though. ESSA, which seeks to crack down on the federal role in K-12, makes it really clear that the 鈥渘鈥� size is supposed to be state-determined. In fact, it says so at least three different times in the text. And at one point, it specifically prohibits the education secretary from setting a minimum 鈥渘鈥� size or from telling any state what its 鈥渘鈥� size should be. It does, however, call for states to justify and explain the 鈥渘鈥� size they choose, and to use the same 鈥渘鈥� size for all groups of kids.
The Alliance, however, sees a way to handle this. Here鈥檚 what it says in the report:
ED should issue regulations under ESSA that prohibit states from setting an n-size above 10 students for reporting and accountability purposes unless the state demonstrates that setting a higher number would not exclude a significant number of students and schools. Under this regulation, states still would maintain the flexibility to set an n-size below 10 students. ED has the authority to place these parameters around the state determination of n-size to ensure that states meet reporting and accountability requirements under ESSA. Although under ESSA, the U.S. Secretary of Education is prohibited from setting a minimum number of students needed to form a subgroup, there is no language within ESSA prohibiting the Secretary from setting a maximum n-size or a cap. (ESSA experts/ed-geeks: Do you agree that ED has this authority?)