Increased accountability, rising academic standards, and high-stakes assessments place pressures on education agencies to provide alternative exit options for high school students. This study highlights state-level diploma options, graduation requirements, and the potential impact on students, specifically those with disabilities and others at risk. Findings illustrate the need for alternative diploma options that have value and meaning for all students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002, December). An analysis of some unintended and negative consequences of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University, Tempe. Retrieved February 6, 2003, from www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0211-125EPRU.pdf
2.
Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children, 66, 509-514. Retrieved December 5, 2001, from Expanded Academic ASAP database.
3.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2002, October). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. A technical assistance resource. Retrieved October 9, 2002, from www.cec.sped.org/pp/OverviewNCLB.pdf
4.
Donlevy, J. C. (2000). The dilemma of high stakes testing: What is school for? [Electronic version]. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27, 331-338.
5.
Elliott, J. L., Erickson, R. N., Thurlow, M. L., & Shriner, J. G. (2002). State level accountability for the performance of students with disabilities: Five years of change?Journal of Special Education, 34, 39-47.
6.
Giacobbe, A. C., Livers, A. F., Thayer-Smith, R., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2001). Raising the academic standards bar: What states are doing to measure the performance of students with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 12, 10-17.
7.
Gronna, S. S.,Jenkins, A. A., & Chin-Chance, S. A. (1998). Who are we assessing? Determining state-wide participation rates for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 407-419.
8.
Guy, S. H., Lee, S. Y., & Thurlow, M. L. (1999). State graduation requirements for students with and without disabilities (Technical Report No. 24). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center for Educational Outcomes. Retrieved December 5, 2001, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical24.html
9.
Heubert, J. P. (2001). High-stakes testing: Opportunities and risks for students of color, English-language learners, and students with disabilities (Policy Directions No. 10). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Retrieved April 4, 2002, from www.cast.org/ncac/index.cfm?i=920%230
10.
Hoffer, T. B. (1997). High school graduation requirements: Effects on dropping out and student achievement. [Electronic version]. Teachers College Record, 98, 584-608.
11.
Johnson, E., Kimball, K., Brown, S. O., & Anderson, D. (2001). A statewide review of the use of accommodations in large scale, high stakes assessments. Exceptional Children, 67, 251-264.
12.
Lanford, A. D., & Cary, L. G. (2000). Graduation requirements for students with disabilities: Legal and practice considerations. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 152-160.
13.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1997). Students with disabilities and high school graduation policies. Policy Update, 5(6), 1-2.
14.
O'Neill, P. T. (2000). Pass the test of no diploma: High stakes graduation testing and children with learning disabilities. Retrieved November 13, 2001, from www.ldonline.org/ld-indepth/assessment/oneill.html
15.
Schiller, K. S., & Muller, C. (2000). External examinations and accountability, education expectations and high school graduation. American Journal of Education, 108, 73-90. Retrieved December 5, 2001, from Expanded Academic ASAP database.
16.
Stevenson, D. L., & Schiller, D. S. (1999). State education policies and changing school practices: Evidence from the national longitudinal study of schools, 1980-1993. American Journal of Education, 107, 261-277. Retrieved December 5, 2001, from Expanded Academic ASAP database.
17.
Thurlow, M. (2000). Standards-based reform and students with disabilities: Reflections on a decade of change. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(1), 1-16. Retrieved March 8, 2002, from Expanded Academic ASAP database.
18.
Thurlow, M., & Esler, A. (2000). Appeals processes for students who fail graduation exams: How do they apply to students with disabilities? (NCES Synthesis Report 36). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center for Educational Outcomes. Retrieved November 21, 2001, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis36.html
19.
Thurlow, M., & Thompson, S. (1999). Diploma options and graduations policies for students with disabilities (Policy Directions No. 10). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved December 5, 2001, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policyl0.htm
20.
U. S. Department of Education. (1997). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 Amendments, P.L. 105-117, 20 U.S. Code BB 1401-1486. Retrieved February 26, 2002, from www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/Policy/IDEA/thelaw.html
21.
U. S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, U.S.C. 107-110, B 1, 115 Stat. 1425. Retrieved March 25, 2002, from www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/index.html
22.
Yell, M. L. (1998). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
