wpid10020-wpid-this_is_dropout_nation_logo2Last week’s Dropout Nation analyses of states that excluded high percentages of kids in special education and English Language Learner ghettos garnered plenty of response from reformers and even some follow-up coverage from the Baltimore Sun and other outlets.  But what is the response from chief state school officers in Maryland, Tennessee and the other states on this year’s dishonor roll? Tennessee Education Commissioner Kevin Huffman, whose state’s performance on NAEP this year was questioned by this publication after revelations of high exclusion levels (including a 27 percent exclusion rate for eighth-graders in special ed on NAEP’s reading exam, and an 18 percent exclusion rate of 14 percent of eighth-grade special ed kids from NAEP’s math exam):

So here is the deal: Tennessee has a terrible history when it comes to NAEP exclusion. This year, we made a massive effort to significantly increase the inclusion rates for students with disabilities. We made really significant progress. We have to make more progress next time, particularly on eighth grade reading. At the same time, we cut exclusion rates by more than half across the board, which is a pretty good move in the right direction for one testing cycle.

My overall thought is this: you are right to keep pushing states on NAEP exclusion. And we are going to keep pushing on it, and hopefully make the same kind of progress on the 2015 assessment in terms of exclusion. We were within the NAGB goal on 3 of the 4 tests according to the report they sent us (after going 0 for 4 in 2011 and previously), so we need to get to 4 out of 4 next time.

BUT: it isn’t accurate to say that our exclusion rates were a cause of our growth in NAEP scores, given that we cut exclusion rates so significantly. Our participation rates went way up, and our scores did too.

This may be so for Tennessee. But as the National Assessment Governing Board, the U.S. Department of Education division that oversees NAEP notes, states that exclude more special ed and ELL students tend to have higher scores (and performance on NAEP) than those that exclude lower numbers of kids. But as Dropout Nation noted in its analysis of North Dakota’s high exclusion numbers, none of the tricks it did actually helped it improve its performance on the federal exams. So Huffman’s argument is plausible.

Let’s give Huffman and Tennessee credit for working to exclude fewer kids in special ed and ELL programs from NAEP. At the same time, Tennessee and all the other states must stop excluding their most-vulnerable kids from NAEP altogether. When states excludes the performance of large numbers of its most-vulnerable kids from being measured, they are essentially admitting that they are doing poorly by these children and are essentially engaging in test fraud. None of this is acceptable.