Graduation Dilemma by Carlene Marak
Posted by scary on Mar 11, 2008
All states are facing the same challenges when it comes to graduation of students with disabilities. Challenges include drop outs, state testing participation rate, state testing passing rates, success of exiting seniors and the list goes on. With good intentions, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004, has not solved the graduation dilemma and in some opinions, may have worsened the problem. Let me explain my view point.
BELIEF:
Studies show that when teachers raise their standards and expectations - clearly raising the bar for students, the student achievement will also substantially increase. While recognizing that some students with disabilities must overcome significant barriers, in high achieving schools, these obstacles are not seen as insurmountable. Students are offered ambitious and rigorous courses of study. 1 I believe this is the noble intent of NCLB and I, along with most educators, have always believed this to be true. We are beginning to chip away at the tip of the iceberg.
Now, what about those students with disabilities who have struggled with academics daily and upon reaching the secondary level, have almost given up? What about students who get physically ill worrying about passing the state exit or competency test prior to graduation? Those secondary students who are taking the exit test for the 4th and final chance and wish desperately to pass. We also know that some students drop out of school when they cannot meet this high standard. Below are the “reporting requirements” all states must use to show progress in this critical area of graduation.
Accountability:
The Office of Special Education Programs, (OSEP), has provided direction to the states by determining 20 Indicators in which all states will set criteria and report progress annually to OSEP in the State Performance Plan (SPP). All 20 indicators are interrelated. In addition, in summer of 2007, OSEP gave the states a Determination Ranking on a scale of 1 through 4 in which to measure progress on these 20 Indicators. The states’ Determination Ranking, of course, is based on the sum / data of all the local schools in each state. If the local schools rank #1 then they are in good shape. If they rank #3 or #4, at worse, they need intervention. If there are numerous schools in the state that rank low on each indicator, the state’s overall ranking on the Indicators in the SPP will be lower.
The specific Indicators referencing Graduation or impacting Graduation are:
- Indicator 1. Improving graduation rates for students with disabilities.
- Indicator 2. Decreasing dropout rates for students with disabilities.
- Indicator 3. Ensuring participation in statewide assessments for students with disabilities.
Indicator number 3 is directly related to the graduation rate. Each state can set the criteria in the SPP for annual progress on the Indicators. In my state, there are choices of which state assessment the student will take and the IEP Committee will determine the appropriate assessment and accommodations necessary. Sound good so far?
1. Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday Currency. See Part III, The Core Disciplines: Building the Learning Organization.
Below reflects the scenario (simplified) in my state:
|
OSEP Indicator Number
|
State Target Criteria
(can change when the SPP is updated for OSEP)
|
Statewide Assessments
Available
|
Correlation
|
|
1. Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating with a regular diploma
|
The graduation rate for students with disabilities
will increase 0.2% from the previous year’s rate.
|
|
All students get a diploma that looks the same. The transcript reflects accurate information.
|
|
2. Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school compared to the percent of all youth in the State dropping out of high school
|
The dropout rate for all students shall not exceed 2.9%
|
|
Drop out due to lack of curriculum options, state testing challenges, etc.?
|
|
3. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments.
|
AYP Target Criteria
in NCLB
Participation rate in both Math and Reading: 100%
Passing Performance on Math for 2007-08: 50%
Passing Performance on Reading for 2007-08: 60%
Passing Performance criteria increases annually.
|
Three choices are available:
State Test – with or without accommodations (97% of the sp.ed. population must take the same test that students in general education take)
State Test - Modified
(only 2% of sp.ed. population can take this or counts against AYP)
State Test - Alternate
(only 1% of sp.ed. population can take this or counts against AYP)
|
IEP Committee can choose a graduation option without passing state test.
The student’s transcript will denote if they have passed the state test or not.
|
Catch 22
- The target is students with disabilities must pass the same rigorous state test that all students take in order to graduate.
- Students with disabilities must pass the state test in order for schools to meet NCLB-AYP criteria.
- Students with disabilities may drop out because they cannot pass the state test.
Never fear, some states have come up with a “work around” to help students graduate without passing the state test, however, this “work around” does not help the district Determination Ranking for Indicator #3. If anything it only perpetuates the problem. * If the student cannot PASS the State Test, but stays in school through 12th grade, completes all required state/local credits = our state rule (and others as well) allows the student to graduate without passing the state test. Incentive??? Students may graduate and receive a regular diploma - “all diplomas look the same”.
- The transcript will specify if the student passed the state test or not and which test taken.
- The 97% of students with disabilities expected to take the “real” state test includes a percentage of students who are functioning at a very low level of mastery.
- Meeting AYP Indicator 3 will become increasingly more difficult each year.
Special educators and general educators alike will continue to work diligently with students using creative, peer reviewed research based instructional strategies with the genuine intent of improving outcomes for students. Our challenge is to create a learning environment whereby special education students see their goal to stay in school and work toward passing the academically demanding state test for graduation.