Earning a High School Diploma through
Alternative Routes
Synthesis Report 76
Martha L. Thurlow •
Miong Vang • Damien Cormier
June 2010
All
rights
reserved.
Any or
all
portions
of this
document
may be
reproduced
and
distributed
without
prior
permission,
provided
the
source
is cited
as:
Thurlow, M., Vang, M., & Cormier, D.
(2010). Earning a High School Diploma
through Alternative Routes
(Synthesis Report 76). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, National Center
on Educational Outcomes.
Table of Contents
Earning a
standard diploma has increased in importance
during the past several years. Not only is it a
document that improves post school outcomes, but
it also has become a part of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) accountability
system at the high school level—with the
required graduation rate including only those
students who have earned a regular/standard high
school diploma or higher. Complicating matters
in several states is the addition of an exit
exam requirement to the traditional coursework
requirements. The addition of a testing
requirement to other requirements for earning a
standard diploma is a challenge for students who
do not perform well on assessments. Many, but
not all, of these students have disabilities.
The purpose of the study reported here was to
examine the alternative routes to passing the
high school exit exam that were available during
the school year 2008-09 to students to earn a
standard high school diploma. We examined
alternative routes in the 26 states with active
or soon to be active exit exams. We documented
the alternative routes available for all
students and those specifically for students
with disabilities.
Nineteen states
were identified as having exit exams that had
designated alternative routes to the standard
diploma. Most of these states had multiple
alternative routes, totalling 46 across the 19
states. Thirteen of these states had alternative
routes for all students (which included students
with disabilities); sixteen had alternative
routes uniquely available to students with
disabilities. Ten of the states had both. Many
states had more than one route available for
either group of students. The 13 states with
routes for all students had a total of 23
alternatives. The 16 states with routes
specifically for students with disabilities had
a total of 23 alternatives.
Our analyses
revealed that information on alternative routes
is not always easily accessible, and that once
found, it is still not always easy to find some
of the most basic information about the route.
Routes vary in their names, with some being very
clear about their comparability to the regular
exit exam route, and others suggesting that an
alternative route does not require the same
level of performance as the regular route, even
though the result is receipt of a standard
diploma.
Alternative
routes also vary considerably in the process
involved, including whether the student must
first take the regular exit exam before being
allowed to pursue the alternative route, and who
must request the alternative route option. In
addition, there are variations in who approves
the performance reflected in the alternative
route, thereby allowing the student to earn a
standard diploma.
Several
differences were noted between the routes
designated for all students and those designated
only for students with disabilities, although
the differences did not apply to all states or
all alternatives. For example, students were
more often not required to take the regular exit
exam if they had disabilities. Furthermore,
approval decisions were more often made at the
local level for students with disabilities than
for all students.
Compared to a
previous analysis of alternative routes by
Krentz, Thurlow, Shyyan, and Thurlow (2005),
more alternative routes to a standard diploma
appeared to be available in states with exit
exams. Additionally, a greater discrepancy
emerged in the requirement to first take the
regular exit exam. Specifically, in the current
study, two-thirds of the alternative routes for
all students required that the student first
take the exit exam, whereas less than one-fourth
of those for students with disabilities had this
requirement. In 2005, Krentz et al. found about
one-half of the alternative routes required that
the student first take the exit exam, which was
the case for both students with disabilities and
all students.
Recommendations
made in 2005 continue to hold true today. The
recommendations are documented and discussed in
this report:
- Provide
clear, easy-to-find information.
- Base
alternative routes on the same
beliefs and premises as the
standard route to the diploma.
- Make the
same alternative routes
available to all students.
- Create
alternative routes that are not
just another test, but truly are
alternatives to the graduation
test.
- Develop a
reasoned and reasonable process
for the alternative route.
- Evaluate the
technical adequacy of
alternative routes and track the
consequences of each.
It is important
that states are pursuing alternative ways for
students to show that they have met the
requirements to earn a standard diploma. At the
same time, it is important for states to
continue to work toward improving these
alternative routes. Improvement includes
documenting the extent to which they are being
used and the consequences of their use,
including their long-term consequences for
post-secondary and career pursuits.
Top of page |
Table of Contents
The importance of
earning a standard high
school diploma within a
specific time frame is
escalating. This is due,
in part, to changes in
federal laws and
regulations that require
high schools to be held
accountable for the
graduation rates of all
their students. Although
the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) does not have
jurisdiction over high
school exit exams—unless
they are also used as an
ESEA accountability
measure—or over states’
graduation requirements,
ESEA does require that
one of the additional
measures used for
accountability at the
high school level be the
high school graduation
rate (Sec.
1111(b)(2)(c)(vi).
How to
define the high school
graduation has been a
subject of debate. In
the past, federal and
state estimates of
dropout rates have used
event, status, and
cohort rates (Lehr,
Clapper, & Thurlow,
2005; Thurlow, Sinclair,
& Johnson, 2002), with
rates varying as a
function of how they
were calculated. Similar
approaches are used to
calculate graduation
rates. It is now fairly
well accepted that a
cohort rate is
preferable, not just for
dropout rate
calculations but also
for graduation rates,
and many states have
adopted a method for
calculating high school
graduation proposed by
the National Governors’
Association (NGA, 2008).
This definition requires
states to calculate
their graduation rates
by dividing the number
of students graduating
within four years with a
diploma by the number of
first-time entering
ninth graders four years
earlier. In 2008, 16
states were using the
NGA procedure for
calculating graduation
rates and another 5
states were planning to
use it within a year
(NGA, 2008). Additional
states were planning to
use the NGA definition
within the next two to
three years (Final
Regulations, 2008, Sec.
200.19(b)(4)(ii).
High school graduation
rates have for some time
varied across the 50
states, regardless of
how the rate was
calculated. The high
school graduation rates
for 2006 reported in the
Common Core of Data
(Stillwell & Hoffman,
2009) indicated that the
national rate was 73%.
However, the rate varied
considerably across
states and for different
student groups. For
example, Nevada reported
a freshman graduation
rate of 55.8%, while
Wisconsin reported a
freshman graduation rate
of 87.5%. The rates for
ethnic groups varied as
well, with Asian/Pacific
Islanders showing the
highest average rate
(89.9%) and Black
non-Hispanic students
showing the lowest
average rate (59.1%).
Few
national data bases have
reported graduation
rates for students with
disabilities. Part of
the reason for this may
be that states have a
variety of exit
documents available to
students with
disabilities (e.g., IEP
diplomas), and varying
requirements that they
must meet to receive a
standard diploma
(Johnson, Thurlow,
Stout, & Mavis, 2007).
In addition, the Office
of Special Education
Programs, which collects
data from states,
typically has defined
graduation as exiting
school with a diploma or
certificate of
completion. Furthermore,
some of the states that
are using the NGA
approach when
calculating graduation
rates may allow students
with disabilities (and
English language
learners) to be assigned
to different cohorts
(NGA, 2008), further
increasing the
difficulty in
interpreting the
reported graduation
data.
The National
Longitudinal Transition
Study-2 (NLTS2) has
gathered information on
a nationally
representative sample of
students with
disabilities since
2000-2001; when combined
with a previous
longitudinal study of
students with
disabilities,
information is available
from 1987. The
calculation of school
completion for these
students counts those
students who receive a
regular high school
diploma, a certificate
of completion, or some
similar document (e.g.,
General Education
Development
Diploma—GED). NLTS2
reported that 72% of all
students with
disabilities completed
school, with the range
for individual
disabilities starting at
56% for students with
emotional disturbance
and going to 95% for
students with visual
impairments (Wagner,
2005). Students with
learning disabilities,
the most frequently
occurring disability
category, had a 72%
school completion rate.
Given
the evidence that
completing school with a
GED or other type of
exit document (such as a
certificate of
completion) is not
always treated as equal
to completing high
school with a standard
high school diploma
(Amos, 2008; Hartwig &
Sitlington, 2008), it is
important to know the
rate at which students
with disabilities
graduate with a regular
diploma. Increasingly,
it is becoming evident
that it is also
important for students
with disabilities to
meet other criteria
identified as important
for success after high
school, including
requirements that
signify college and
work-readiness (Achieve,
2008; Steinberg &
Almeida, 2008). The
Education Trust (Habash,
2008) argued that a top
priority in its agenda
for state leadership was
to collect better data,
expect improvement for
all schools, and make
improving graduation
rates a high priority.
It is important that
this occur for all
students, including
students with
disabilities.
Attention to successful
graduation in a timely
manner has been the
subject of discussion
over the past two
decades or more. The
research literature in
this area has addressed
dropping out of school
and its negative effects
for students and society
(Amos, 2008), the rigor
of graduation
requirements and high
school exit exams
(Achieve, 2008), and
international
comparisons of the
knowledge and skills of
American high school
students with those from
other countries (NGA,
CCSSO, & Achieve, 2008;
Organisation for
Economic Co-Operation
and Development, 2006,
2008).
Recent revisions in the
regulations to ESEA
suggest that there is a
policy interest at the
federal level in greater
accountability for the
graduation results of
all students, including
students with
disabilities. For
example, final
regulations governing
certain programs
administered under ESEA
released October 29,
2008 (citation to
Federal Register, 2008)
were accompanied by the
following explanatory
statements:
Similar to the
importance of
disaggregating
assessment results to
ensure that high
performance by the “all
students” group does not
mask low performance by
subgroups of students,
we believe schools and
LEAs need to be held
accountable for the
differences in
graduation rates among
subgroups. (U.S.
Department of Education,
2008, p. 64460)
and:
We agree that better and
more data alone will not
increase graduation
rates, but those data
will provide States,
LEAs, and schools with
critical information
that is necessary for
understanding the
reasons for low
graduation rates and for
designing better
programs and services to
help students graduate.
(U.S. Department of
Education, 2008, p.
64447)
The October 29, 2008
final rule was grounded
in beliefs of the
importance of students
completing high school
with a standard (i.e.,
regular) diploma within
four years of their 9th
grade year. The
importance for students
with disabilities was
highlighted several
times:
An adjusted cohort
graduation rate will
improve our
understanding of the
characteristics of the
population of students
who do not earn regular
high school diplomas or
who take longer than
four years to graduate.
. . (U.S. Department of
Education, 2008, p.
64447)
and:
It is important that
only students who
receive a regular high
school diploma (which
could include a higher
diploma) that is fully
aligned with a State’s
academic content
standards be included in
the four-year rate in
order to ensure that
graduation rates
accurately reflect the
percentage of students
who graduate with a
diploma that represents
what the state
determines all students
should know and be able
to do by the end of 12th
grade; alternative
credentials, such as a
GED credential and
modified special
education diplomas, do
not meet these
requirements. (U.S.
Department of Education,
2008, p. 64454)
and:
Students with
disabilities who fulfill
requirements for any
other State-approved
alternative award,
certificate of
attendance, or GED
credential or who
complete their IEP goals
but do not receive a
regular high school
diploma may not be
counted as graduating in
either the four-year or
extended-year rate,
consistent with the
definition of regular
high school diploma in
new §200.19(b)(1)(iv).
(U.S. Department of
Education, 2008, p.
64450)
Recently there has been
renewed attention to the
exit exam as one of the
requirements that must
be met for successful
completion of school and
to obtain a high school
diploma. In those states
that have them, the exit
exam introduces an
additional criterion for
students to meet but
also numerous
complexities in terms of
the number of times a
student can attempt to
pass the exam and the
ways in which the
criterion can be met.
Exit Exams
More than half of the
states have, or will
have in the next five
years, a mandatory exit
exam that must be taken
and passed as a
condition for receiving
a standard diploma
(Center on Education
Policy, 2008; Johnson,
Thurlow, Stout, & Mavis,
2007). These exams are
considered “high stakes”
because earning or not
earning a regular high
school diploma directly
affects an individual’s
future economic
self-sufficiency and
well-being as an adult
(see Johnson, Thurlow, &
Stout, 2007; Johnson,
Thurlow, Stout, & Mavis,
2007).
For many states, the
purpose for implementing
a state-level exit exam
was to ensure that the
students leaving high
school had a minimal set
of skills that showed
they were ready for the
workplace, college, or
other post-secondary
training (Heubert &
Hauser, 1999). And, more
recently, some states
have changed the nature
of the assessment that
must be passed. In some
cases, end-of-course
exams for a specific set
of courses have become
the exit assessment
(Center on Education
Policy, 2008).
Regardless of whether
there is a single test
or a set of tests that
must be passed, there
has always been concern
expressed about those
students who perform
poorly on tests but who
have the desired
knowledge and skills (Heubert
& Hauser, 1999). This
concern is generally
about more than simply
giving several
opportunities to take
the same basic test
(i.e., retesting).
Rather, it is about
allowing students to
show what they know and
are able to do through a
mechanism other than the
traditional exit exam.
Various organizations
have examined what
states do to ensure that
students have other ways
to demonstrate their
knowledge and skills
(Center on Education
Policy, 2007, 2008;
“Diplomas Count,” 2008;
Krentz et al., 2005).
However, much
controversy remains.
Many researchers and
policymakers have argued
that traditional exit
exams disproportionately
affect certain groups of
students negatively,
including minority and
economically
disadvantaged students,
English language
learners, and students
with disabilities
(Johnson, Thurlow,
Stout, & Mavis, 2007;
Orfield, Losen, Wald, &
Swanson, 2004; Reardon,
Atteberry, Arshan, &
Kurleander, 2009). More
specifically, for
students with
disabilities, it has
been suggested that
traditional test formats
put them at a
disadvantage for several
reasons including the
lack of universally
designed assessments and
the failure to provide
appropriate
accommodations for high
stakes testing
(Thompson, Thurlow, &
Malouf, 2004; Thurlow,
2007; Thurlow & Johnson,
2000; Thurlow, Thompson,
& Johnstone, 2007). In
response to these kinds
of concerns, sometimes
stimulated by legal
challenges, an
increasing number of
states is offering
alternative routes to
the standard diploma (Zabala,
2008).
Legal Issues
Legal challenges have
surrounded states’ exit
exams for some time (see
Heubert & Hauser, 1999;
Krentz et al., 2005;
Langenfeld, Thurlow, &
Scott, 1996). During the
early part of the
century, cases
addressing exit exams
and students with
disabilities emerged in
Indiana, Oregon,
Massachusetts, and
Alaska. The Indiana case
(Rene
v. Reed,
2001) determined that
three years constituted
adequate notice of the
upcoming graduation
exam, even for students
with disabilities, and
did not make a
determination about the
issue of whether a
sufficient number or
type of accommodations
were allowed for
students with
disabilities to
demonstrate their
knowledge and skills.
The cases in both Oregon
(Advocates
for Special Kids v.
Oregon,
1999) and Alaska
(settled out of court,
see Associated Press,
2004) were resolved by
addressing the
accommodations allowed
during the testing and
by providing either an
alternative diploma
(modified diploma in
Alaska) or an
alternative route to the
exit document
(certificate of initial
mastery in Oregon). The
Massachusetts case (Holyoke
v. Springfield,
2002) raised several
issues about the
Massachusetts
Comprehensive Assessment
System (MCAS); it
eventually settled out
of court with an
agreement by the
Massachusetts Department
of Education to allow
students with
disabilities access to
its alternative routes
with a lower score (216)
than required of other
students (220).
Another case that
emerged about the same
time (Juleus
Chapman et al. v.
California Department of
Education,
2001), has continued to
the point that
negotiations and
decisions were occurring
as late as 2008
(Disability Rights
Advocates, 2008).
Specifically, in May,
2008 a settlement
agreement was reached
between the plaintiffs
and the state. Prior to
reaching a settlement
agreement, California
had conducted another
study of
accommodations/modifications
and alternative routes
for the California High
School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE). The
recommendations of that
study were to waive the
requirement for students
with disabilities to
pass the CAHSEE, at
least for one year. In
response, California
passed a law that
allowed students with
disabilities to earn a
diploma regardless of
whether they passed the
CAHSEE, as long as they
met all other graduation
requirements (Disability
Rights Advocates, 2008).
In the settlement, the
state again agreed to
fund a study to examine
the impact of the CAHSEE
on students with
disabilities. That study
is to produce
recommendations for
policy changes (by
November, 2009) that
will be shared with the
California legislature.
However, in September
2008, California
Assembly Bill No. 2040
was approved by the
Governor, indicating
that the state will
identify a panel “to
make recommendations
about alternative means
for eligible pupils with
disabilities to
demonstrate that they
have achieved the same
level of academic
achievement in
the content standards in
English language arts or
mathematics, or both,
required for passage of
the high school exit
examination” (p. 95);
the board is required to
make and adopt
regulations that take
into consideration the
recommendations of the
panel by October 1,
2010.
Alternative Routes
All states provide the
opportunity for students
to retest when they do
not pass an exit exam.
Retesting assumes that
students eventually can
demonstrate their
knowledge and skills in
the same way as other
students, although they
failed to do so in a
previous attempt. Some
states have recognized
that there may be some
students who are not
able to show their
knowledge and skills on
traditional paper and
pencil tests, and that
it is not just a matter
of taking the test again
for students to be able
to demonstrate their
knowledge and skills.
This situation is
recognized most often as
occurring for students
whose disabilities
(e.g., physical
disabilities) prevent
them from responding via
paper and pencil. Even
if students with
disabilities are able to
respond to paper and
pencil formats, it may
be difficult to obtain
an accurate reflection
of their knowledge and
skills this way (Krentz
et al., 2005).
Various investigators
have explored the ways
provided by states with
exit exams to allow
students to exit school.
In 2003, the Center on
Education Policy
identified waivers,
alternative routes, and
other kinds of diplomas
for students who did not
pass the exit exam. In
the same year, Johnson
and Thurlow (2003)
identified exemptions,
other assessments, and
alternative methods for
completing the
graduation exam
requirement. Education
Week’s
Count Me In
issue (Quality Counts,
2004) also explored
appeals, alternate
assessments, and other
options for earning a
diploma.
It is important to
distinguish alternative
routes to a diploma from
alternate assessments
based on alternate
achievement standards
(AA-AAS), which are
assessments designed for
students with
significant cognitive
disabilities. These
assessments are used for
ESEA accountability, and
allow for students to
demonstrate proficiency
against different
achievement standards.
It is also important to
distinguish alternative
routes to a diploma from
other “pathways to
graduation.” The latter
is a descriptor that has
been used for strategies
to re-engage students
“who are slipping off
the graduation path”
(Youth Transition
Funders Group, 2008).
Among the strategies are
“recuperation and
recovery efforts” and
providing a “portfolio
of schools” for students
with differing needs.
In 2005, Krentz et al.
provided a comprehensive
examination of
alternative routes to a
standard diploma. They
specifically looked at
those routes available
to all students and
those available
specifically to students
with disabilities,
focusing on who
initiated the request
for an alternative
route, who approved the
request for the
alternative route, the
specific nature of the
alternative route
process, including
whether students had to
first fail the general
exit exam, and the
comparability of the
criteria reflected in
the alternative routes
and the criteria
reflected in the
standard routes. They
found that 16 states had
alternative routes, and
that the number of
alternative routes
available to students
was 13 for all students
and 13 for students with
disabilities (with some
having both, and some
having only one or the
other).
More recently, the
Center on Education
Policy (2008, 2009)
summarized basic
information on
alternative routes for
students with
disabilities. Based on
its survey, it noted
that all states that
have a requirement that
the student’s
performance on the high
school exit exam be used
to withhold a diploma
provide an alternative
measure for students
with disabilities. In
2008, 18 of the 23
states with the exit
exam requirement also
had an alternative route
for general education
students. In 2009, 18 of
24 states with an exit
exam requirement also
had an alternative route
for general education
students. The Center
clarified that these
alternative routes are
toward
graduation,
not necessarily toward
obtaining a standard
diploma. This is an
important distinction,
especially in light of
the ESEA graduation rate
calculation
requirements, and in
light of research
showing that a standard
diploma is related to
better outcomes than
other exit documents
(Hartwig & Sitlington,
2008; Wolpin, 2005)
The Center on Education
Policy (2008) also noted
that not all states can
provide information on
the percentage of
students using
“alternative routes”
(note that this use of
the terms refers to
other diploma options).
Those state that do
provide data, according
to the information
provided by the Center,
often mix the use of the
alternative route with
obtaining exit documents
other than the standard
diploma. For example,
the Center for Education
Policy reported the
following data:
In Mississippi, for
example, 61.2% of
students with
disabilities in the
class of 2007 received a
certificate of
completion or an
occupational diploma,
which do not require
that students pass the
state’s high school exit
exam. (p. 23)
It is important to be
able to examine data on
exit exam performance in
light of whether
students obtain a
standard diploma. These
data, along with data on
retesting and how many
students successfully
obtain a standard
diploma via a retesting
route are important to
examine, especially for
students with
disabilities. It is
clear that most states
with exit exams report
on both the
participation and
performance of students
with disabilities on
these exams (Thurlow,
Bremer, & Albus, 2008),
but it is not clear that
most states report on
the details for those
who do not complete via
the regular exit exam.
Study Purpose
The purpose of this
study was to examine in
detail the current
alternative routes that
states provide for
school-age students with
and without disabilities
to obtain a standard
diploma. These data will
provide an update to the
Krentz et al. (2005)
report and will provide
a refined and more
detailed analysis of the
Center for Education
Policy (2008) report on
high school exit exams
and various alternative
routes.
In pursuing this
purpose, we specifically
focus on a “standard” or
“regular” diploma, in
contrast to other types
of diplomas, including
those specifically
designated for students
who have already left
school. All advanced or
honors diplomas were
considered to be
standard diplomas.
Therefore, for the
purpose of this study, a
standard diploma is one
that confers on the
student access to both
post-school employment
and post-secondary
educational
opportunities and that
would be counted in ESEA
graduation rate
calculations for
accountability.
A second purpose of this
study was to gather data
from state Web sites on
participation and
performance of students
with and without
disabilities via
retesting and
alternative routes. Our
intent was to examine
the data that are
publicly available.
All of the information
that was gathered for
this report was
available publicly via
state Web sites, or was
a document to which we
were specifically
referred during the
verification process.
Because we wanted to
reflect what
parents/guardians or
students would be able
to access to obtain
information about
alternative routes, a
note of explanation is
provided whenever we
used information that we
did not specifically
find on the state’s Web
site.
Top of page
|
Table of Contents
Data for the current
study were obtained from
publicly available
information on state Web
sites during the summer
and fall of 2008. States
were selected first on
the basis of whether
they had an alternative
route in 2004 (Krentz et
al., 2005), then from
information on
graduation requirements
obtained by Johnson,
Thurlow, Stout, and
Mavis (2007), and
finally on the basis of
information included in
the Center on Education
Policy (2008) report on
high school exit exams.
An online search of
state Web sites was
conducted from June to
August 2008. States’Web
sites related to
Assessment,
Accountability, Special
Education,
and
Graduation Requirements
were searched
extensively. For states
that had searchable Web
sites several of the
following key words and
phrases were used in the
search: appeals, exit
exams, graduation
examination, graduation
requirements, high
stakes tests, high
school testing, standard
diploma, and waiver.
The initial search was
conducted by two of the
authors, who divided the
list of states in half.
Information about
graduation examinations,
details about
alternative routes for
obtaining a standard
diploma, and specific
criteria required to
participate in any
alternative route were
identified
independently. We sought
the most recent
information available,
including that for an
assessment for which the
graduation class had not
yet graduated. Data were
entered into summary
tables, and then a
random sample of five of
the states was selected
for cross checking to
ensure consistency in
the amount and nature of
information found on
state Web sites.
Information collected
from state Web sites was
summarized for each
state and then e-mailed
in September 2008 to
state assessment
directors and special
education directors
simultaneously for
verification (see
Appendix A for the
template used to create
a state profile). In
several cases, state
directors delegated the
task of verifying the
state profile to other
knowledgeable
specialists, including
education consultants
and other state
assessment personnel.
The states were asked to
verify the accuracy of
the information and to
supply publicly
available supporting
evidence if changes to
the information were
requested.
All states were
contacted during the
verification process. If
a response was not
received within two
weeks, a follow-up
e-mail was sent. In most
cases (85%), at least
one person (either from
the special education
office or the assessment
office) provided
feedback. Changes were
made only following
external verification
that any requested
changes were accurate.
In addition, all three
authors conducted
post-verification checks
of the states’
information, based in
part on the verification
information. This final
verified and rechecked
information is included
in this report.
A separate Web site
search was conducted to
find data on the
performance of students
on the exit exam, along
with the percentage of
students receiving a
standard diploma. In
addition, we searched
for data on the number
or percentage of
students retesting
because they did not
pass the exit exam on
the first attempt, and
data on the number or
percentage of students
using an alternative
route and the number or
percentage successfully
completing the
alternative route.
Top of page
|
Table of Contents
Table 1 shows the 26
states with exit exams
used to determine, in
part, whether a student
earns a diploma. For
each of these states,
the table presents the
year that the first
graduating class was
held to the exit exam,
and the names of the
diplomas that were
counted as “standard”
for this study. Appendix
B shows the names of all
the exit documents
awarded by these states
and whether they were
considered to be
“standard” or not for
this study. Appendix C
presents a profile for
each of the states with
an alternative route.
Table 1. First
Graduating Class and
“Standard” Diplomas in
States with Exit Exams
Table 1. First
Graduating Class and
“Standard” Diplomas in
States with Exit Exams
(continued)
State |
First Graduating Classa |
Diplomas Counted as “Standard” for Study |
Alabama |
2001 |
Alabama High School Diploma without Endorsement (AHSD) Alabama High School Diploma with Endorsementb |
Alaska |
2004 |
Standard High School Diploma |
Arizona |
2006 |
High School Diploma |
Arkansas |
2010 |
High School Diploma |
California |
2006 |
Standard High School Diploma |
Florida |
2003 |
Standard Diploma |
Georgia |
1994 |
High School Diploma High School Diploma with Sealc |
Idaho |
2006 |
Regular High School Diploma |
Indiana |
2000 |
Core 40 Diploma Core 40 Diploma with Honors Core 40 Diploma with Technical Honors |
Louisiana |
2003 |
Standard Diploma Standard Diploma with Academic Area of Concentration Standard Diploma with Academic Endorsement High School Equivalency Diploma |
Maryland |
2009 |
High School Diploma |
Massachusetts |
2003 |
High School Diploma Certificate of Masteryd
Certificate of Mastery with Distinctiond |
Minnesota |
2010 |
High School Diploma |
Mississippi |
2006 |
Regular High School Diploma |
Nevada |
2003 |
Standard High School Diploma Advanced High School Diploma |
New Jersey |
2003 |
State-endorsed High School Diploma |
New Mexico |
1990 |
New Mexico Diploma of Excellence |
New York |
2003 |
Regents Diploma Regents Diploma with Advanced Designation Local Diploma |
North Carolina |
1982, 2001 |
Standard Diploma |
Ohio |
2007 |
High School Diploma Diploma with Honors |
Oklahoma |
2012 |
Standard Diploma Standard Diploma with Certificate of Distinction |
South Carolina |
2006 |
State High School Diploma State High School Diploma with Academic Honors Award |
Tennessee |
2006 |
Standard High School Diploma |
Texas |
2005 |
High School Diploma (Minimum, Recommended, Distinguished Achievement) |
Virginia |
2004 |
Standard Diploma Advanced Studies Diploma |
Washington |
2008 |
High School Diplomae |
a
Based on information
from states’ Web sites,
as well as cross checks
with the IES site.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/saa_tab11.asp
. North Carolina has two
dates for first
graduating class because
a computer skills test
was added starting with
the graduating class of
2001.
b
Four types of
endorsements are
available in Alabama:
Advanced Academic
Endorsement (AHSD/AAE),
Advanced
Career/Technical
Endorsement (AHSD/ACTE),
Career/Technical
Endorsement (AHSD/CTE),
and Credit Based
Endorsement (AHSD/CBE).
c
Four types of seals are
available in Georgia:
Technology/Career
Preparatory Seal,
Technology/Career
Preparatory of
Distinction, College
Preparatory Seal, and
College Preparatory Seal
of Distinction.
d
Massachusetts added
these two certificates
starting with the class
of 2009.
e
Washington has two
certificates that are
noted on a student’s
transcript—they both
lead to the same
diploma: Certification
of Academic Achievement
(CAA) and Certificate of
Individual Achievement
(CIA). CIA is available
only to students with
disabilities.
As Table 1 indicates,
just under 50% of the
states with exit exams
had more than one
diploma that we counted
as a standard diploma.
Usually, when a state
had more than one
diploma, it had two
options. Still, some
states (Alabama,
Georgia) with their
various endorsements or
seals had as many as
five options that could
be considered to be
standard diplomas.
Number of Alternative
Routes
Figure 1 shows the
states with exit exams
and whether they had any
alternative route
available. This figure
shows that there were 26
states, at the time of
data collection, with an
exit exam requirement.
Nineteen of these states
had one or more
alternative routes
available, and seven of
them (Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, Oklahoma,
Nevada, Tennessee, South
Carolina) had no
alternative routes
available. Some of the
states with no
alternative routes had
not yet had the first
graduating class held to
the exit exam
requirement (Arkansas –
2010, Oklahoma – 2012).
Most of these states
were well beyond the
first graduating class
that was held to the
exit exam requirement
(Alabama – 2001, Arizona
– 2006, Nevada – 2003,
South Carolina – 2006,
Tennessee – 2005).
Figure 1. States with
Exit Exams and
Availability of
Alternative Routes to a
Standard Diploma
Table 2 shows whether the alternative route was available for all students (which includes students
with disabilities) or only students with disabilities, in the 19 states with public information on
their alternative routes. As seen in Table 2 (see shaded rows), 10 states had designated separate
routes both for all students (which includes students with disabilities) and for students with
disabilities (Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Texas, Washington). Of the remaining states, three had routes available only for all students
(Indiana, Mississippi, Virginia) and six had alternative routes available only for students with
disabilities (California, Idaho, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina).
Table 2. Status of Alternative Routes for Exit Exams
State |
All
Students |
Students
with Disabilities |
Availablea |
Not Available |
Availablea |
Not Available |
Alaska |
(1) |
|
(1) |
|
California |
|
|
(1) |
|
Florida |
(2) |
|
(1) |
|
Georgia |
(2) |
|
(1) |
|
Idaho |
|
|
(2) |
|
Indiana |
(2) |
|
|
|
Louisiana |
|
|
(1) |
|
Maryland |
(3) |
|
(2) |
|
Massachusetts |
(2) |
|
(1) |
|
Minnesota |
|
|
(1) |
|
Mississippi |
(1) |
|
|
|
New
Jersey |
(1) |
|
(1) |
|
New
Mexico |
|
|
(2) |
|
New
York |
(1) |
|
(2) |
|
North
Carolina |
|
|
(1) |
|
Ohio |
(1) |
|
(1) |
|
Texas |
(1) |
|
(1) |
|
Virginia |
(1) |
|
|
|
Washington |
(5) |
|
(4) |
|
Total #
States |
13 |
6 |
16 |
3 |
Figure 2. Number of
Alternative Routes
Available in the 13
States with Alternative
Routes for All Students
(N=23 Routes) and in the
16 States with
Alternative Routes
Unique to Students with
Disabilities (N = 23
Routes)
Figure 2 also shows the
number of separate
alternative routes
available in the 16
states with alternative
routes unique to
students with
disabilities. As is
shown in the figure, the
23 separate alternative
routes for students with
disabilities are
accounted for by one
state that has four
separate routes for
students with
disabilities, four
states that have two
alternative routes, and
eleven states that have
just one alternative
route unique to students
with disabilities.
Names of Alternative
Routes
States use a variety of
terms for their
alternative routes.
These terms are
presented in Table 3,
along with the total
number of alternative
routes in each state.
The number of routes per
state is consistent with
the information shown in
Figure 2, but in
addition shows that some
states have multiple
routes both for all
students and for only
students with
disabilities. For
example, Washington is
the state with the most
alternative routes
overall, with a total of
9 routes (5 for all
students and 4 for
students with
disabilities only).
Maryland is the state
with the next highest
number of alternative
routes, with a total of
5 routes (3 for all
students and 2 for
students with
disabilities only).
Table 3. Name of
Alternative Route
State |
All Students |
Students with Disabilities |
Total Routes |
Alaska |
• Waiver |
• Modified or Nonstandard High School Graduation Qualifying Exama |
2 |
California |
[Not available] |
• Waiver |
1 |
Florida |
• GED Exit Option Model
• Concordant Scores |
• FCAT Waiver |
3 |
Georgia |
• Waiver – Hardship
• Variance |
• Waiver—IEP |
3 |
Idaho |
[Not Available] |
• Comparable Graduation Requirements
• Graduation Criteria Established by IEP Team |
2 |
Indiana |
• Evidence-Based Waiver
• Work Readiness Waiver |
[Not available] |
2 |
Louisiana |
[Not available] |
• Waiver |
1 |
Maryland |
• Substitute Assessments (AP/IB)
• Combined Score Option
• Bridge Plan for Academic Validation |
• Modified HSA
• Modified HSA Plus |
5 |
Massachusetts |
• MCAS Performance Appeal—Cohort Review
• MCAS Performance Appeal—Portfolio Appeal |
• MCAS Alternate Assessments (MCAS-Alt) |
3 |
Minnesota |
[Not available] |
• Team Established Passing Standard |
1 |
Mississippi |
• Substitute Evaluation Process |
[Not available] |
1 |
New Jersey |
• Special Review Assessment |
• IEP Exempt |
2 |
New Mexico |
[Not available] |
• Career Readiness Pathway
• Ability Pathway |
2 |
New York |
• Appeals Process |
• Regents Competency Test Safety Net
• Low Pass Option |
3 |
North Carolina |
[Not Available] |
• NC Checklist of Academic Standards |
1 |
Ohio |
• Alternative Pathway |
• IEP Exempt |
2 |
Texas |
• Alternative Assessments for Exit-Level TAKS |
• ARD Exempt |
2 |
Virginia |
• Substitute Test for SOLs |
[Not available] |
1 |
Washington |
• Collection of Evidence
• WASL/Grades Comparison
• AP and College Admission Test Scores
• Transfer Student Waiver
• Special, Unavoidable Circumstance Appeals |
• Basic Performance on WASL
• Pass WAAS-DAW (Developmentally Appropriate WASL) • Pass WAAS-Portfolio
• Locally Determined Assessment System |
9 |
Total Number |
23 |
23 |
46 |
Note: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada,
Oklahoma, South
Carolina, and Tennessee
are not shown in this
table because they
either do not have an
alternative route
available for either all
students or students
with disabilities, or
they had no information
on their Web sites.
a
The Modified and
Nonstandard High School
Graduation Qualifying
Exams were counted as a
single alternative
route, although they
possibly could be
separated because the
Modified allows students
to substitute something
for a portion of the
test, and the
Nonstandard uses an
individual graduation
plan to guide how
requirements are met.
The names of the
alternative routes vary
considerably among the
states. The term
“waiver” is the most
frequent term used to
describe an alternative
route. Four states
identify a waiver as an
alternative route for
all students, with
Indiana having two
waiver options, and four
states identify a waiver
as an alternative route
for students with
disabilities. Only
Georgia had a waiver as
an alternative route for
all students as well as
a waiver for students
with disabilities. Other
terms used for
alternative routes often
described what was
involved in the
alternative route (e.g.,
Special Review
Assessment, Appeals
Process, Low Pass
Option).
Alternative Route
Eligibility Requirements
Even though alternative
routes may be targeted
generally to all
students or specifically
to students with
disabilities, states
sometimes provide more
details about the
students who have access
to alternative routes
within each of these
groups. The specific
characteristics of the
students targeted for
the alternative routes
are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Students
Targeted for Alternative
Routes to Standard
Diploma Table 4.
Students Targeted for
Alternative Routes to
Standard Diploma
(continued) Table 4.
Students Targeted for
Alternative Routes to
Standard Diploma
(continued)
Table 4. Students
Targeted for Alternative
Routes to Standard
Diploma (continued)
State |
Name of Alternative Route |
Target Groupa |
Eligibility Criteria |
Alaska |
Waiver |
ALL |
Students with extenuating circumstances— e.g., parent dies within last semester of graduation year; serious or sudden illness or physical injury prevents students from taking exam in final semester of graduation year; student passed competency exam in another state, etc. |
Modified/NonStandard HSGQEb |
SWD |
Students with disabilities who did not pass a portion of the exit exam and who require modifications in addition to accommodations, as long as working near grade level and a history of being unable to demonstrate proficiency on standardized instruments |
California |
Waiver |
SWD |
IEP or 504 students with plan that indicates student was scheduled to graduate |
Florida |
GED Exit Option Model Program |
ALL |
Students in school who are 18 years old and have passed the Tests of General Educational Development |
Concordant Scores |
ALL |
Students who have attempted to pass FCAT at least 3 times |
FCAT Waiver |
SWD |
Students with IEP who have attempted the FCAT at least 2 times |
Georgia |
Waiver-Hardship |
ALL |
Students who have a substantial hardship beyond their control |
Variance |
ALL |
Students with 90% high school attendance who earn a score within 1 standard deviation on test and have passed relevant end-ofcourse test |
Waiver-IEP |
SWD |
Students with IEPs whose disability makes them incapable of passing a section of the test, even with accommodations |
Idaho |
Comparable Graduation Requirements |
SWD |
Students who are eligible for special education services, have an Individual Graduation Plan, and are not demonstrating proficiency on the ISAT, and for whom it appears they will not be able to demonstrate proficiency |
Graduation Criteria Established by IEP Team |
SWD |
Students who are eligible for special education services, have an Individual Graduation Plan, and are not demonstrating proficiency on the ISAT, and for whom it appears they will not be able to demonstrate proficiency |
Indiana |
Evidence-based Waiver |
ALL |
Students who have written recommendation from teacher of subject area not passed, with assurance that student met standards as evidenced by classroom work or other tests |
Work Readiness Waiver |
ALL |
Students who have 95% attendance, at least a C average, and have not passed every year, and who then complete specific course and credit requirements |
Louisiana |
Waiver |
SWD |
Students with disabilities who have passed all but one of required portions of exit exam and who meet all other graduation requirements |
Maryland |
Advanced Placement(AP)/ International Baccalaureate (IB) |
ALL |
Students who pass either the Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate (no need to fail the HSA first). |
Combined Score Option |
ALL |
Students who did not earn a passing score on at least one HSA, but whose combined score on 4 tests reaches 1602 |
Bridge Plan for Academic Validation |
ALL |
Students who did not earn a passing score on a test two times, and then complete an assigned project |
Mod-HSA |
SWD |
Students with IEPs who meet specific criteria and earn a passing score on the Modified-High School Assessments |
Mod-HSA Plus Option |
SWD |
Students with IEPs who do not meet specific criteria and who earn a passing score on the Modified High School Assessments |
Massachusetts |
MCAS Performance Appeal-Cohort Review |
ALL |
Students who have failed the high school graduation tests in ELA and Math 3 times, and Science and Technology/Engineering 1 time, and for whom a cohort of at least 6 students meeting specific criteria can be identified |
MCAS Performance Appeal-Portfolio Appeal |
ALL |
Students who have met the requirements for a Cohort Review, but for whom a cohort of at least 6 students meeting specific criteria cannot be identified. |
MCAS-Alternate Assessment |
SWD |
Students designated by their IEP or 504 team to take the state’s alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards. |
Minnesota |
Team Established Passing Standard |
SWD |
Students with disabilities who have IEP or 504 plan |
Mississippi |
Substitute Evaluation Process |
ALL |
Students who did not pass a subject area test 2 times, but who have mastered the subject area curriculum |
New Jersey |
Special Review Assessment |
ALL |
Students who did not pass one or more sections of the exit exam during grade 11 and who attended special instruction |
IEP Exemption |
SWD |
Students with IEPs who have not been instructed in all the knowledge and skills tested |
New Mexico |
Career Readiness Pathway |
SWD |
Students with IEPs who have taken exit exam and earned IEP determined score, and who have meet Career Readiness standards |
Ability Pathway |
SWD |
Students with IEPs who complete a program that leads to meaningful employment |
New York |
Appeals Process |
ALL |
Students who earn within 3 points of passing score and have attempted the exam 2 times |
Regents Competency Test Safety Net |
SWD |
Students with IEPs or 504 accommodation plan or student declassified during grades 8-12 |
Low Pass Option |
SWD |
Students with IEPs who earned a score between 55 and 64 on Regents Exams |
North Carolina |
NC Checklist of Academic Standards |
SWD |
Students with IEPs who cannot participate in the standard administration of the regular test with or without accommodations (e.g., newly blind, recent traumatic brain injury, physical disabilities) |
Ohio |
Alternative Pathway |
ALL |
Students who have failed the graduation tests by 10 points or less, and meet other criteria |
IEP Exempt |
SWD |
Students with IEPs |
Texas |
Alternative Assessments for Exit-Level TAKS |
ALL |
Students who enter Texas educational system after January 1 of their senior year |
ARD Exempt |
SWD |
Students with IEPs |
Virginia |
Substitute Tests for SOLs |
ALL |
No apparent restrictions on which students can use substitute tests for SOLs |
Washington |
Collection of Evidence |
ALL |
Students who have taken the WASL at least one time |
WASL/Grades Comparison |
ALL |
Students who are in grade 12 and who have a cumulative grade point average of at least 3.2 across all courses |
AP and College Admission Test Scores |
ALL |
Students who have taken the WASL at least one time |
Transfer Student Waiver |
ALL |
Students who have transferred from another state during grade 11 or 12 |
Special, Unavoidable Circumstance Appeals |
ALL |
Students in grade 12 who wants to appeal his or her performance on WASL due to special, unavoidable circumstances, or students with disabilities who are at Awareness level of cognitive development in grade 11 or 12 |
Basic Performance on WASL |
SWD |
Students with IEPs in grades 10-12 who earn a level 2 (basic) on WASL in one or more qualifying subjects |
Pass WAAS-Developmentally Appropriate WASL (DAW) |
SWD |
Students with IEPs in grade 11 or 12 who earn a level 3 (proficient) on lower grade-level assessment; best for students at Concrete Conceptual or Below Grade level of cognitive development |
Pass WAAS Portfolio |
SWD |
Students with IEPs in grades 10-12 who earn a passing score on the alternate assessment portfolio, WAAS; best for students at the Abstract Symbolic to the Pre-symbolic or Early-symbolic level of cognitive development |
Locally Determined Assessments |
SWD |
Students with IEPs in grade 12; best for students at the Concrete Conceptual or Below Grade Level of cognitive development |
Note: Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, Nevada,
Oklahoma, South
Carolina, and Tennessee
are not shown in this
table because they
either do not have an
alternative route
available for either all
students or students
with disabilities, or
they had no information
on their Web sites.
a
ALL = all students,
including students with
disabilities; SWD =
students with
disabilities.
b
The Modified and
Nonstandard High School
Graduation Qualifying
Exams were counted as a
single alternative
route, although they
possibly could be
separated because the
Modified allows students
to substitute something
for a portion of the
test, and the
Nonstandard uses an
individual graduation
plan to guide how
requirements are met.
It is clear from Table 4
that the degree to which
there are additional
specifications about
eligible students varies
considerably by state.
For “all students,”
there are often
limitations on who has
access to an alternative
route (e.g., only those
students who have met
certain attendance
requirements, or who
have taken the exit exam
a certain number of
times and received a
certain level of score).
For students with
disabilities, one of the
systematic variations is
whether only students
with IEPs, or both IEP
and 504 students are
considered eligible for
the alternative routes
identified for students
with disabilities. Only
4 of the 16 states with
alternative routes for
students with
disabilities
specifically indicated
that 504 students could
be targeted (California,
Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New York).
One criterion that often
emerges when considering
whether a student can
pursue an alternative
route is whether the
student has first
attempted to pass the
regular exit exam and
failed. Some states
require that the student
take the regular exit
exam one or more times,
while others do not
require this. The
requirement varies by
the specific alternative
route in some states
also. Table 5 shows
whether students must
first take the exit exam
before having access to
an alternative route.
Table 5. Summary of
Whether Alternative
Route Requires Student
to First Take the
Regular Exit Exam
State |
Name of Alternative Route |
Target Groupa |
Student Must Take Regular Exit Exam First? |
Alaska |
Waiver |
ALL |
No |
Modified/NonStandard HSGQEb |
SWD |
Yes |
California |
Waiver |
SWD |
No |
Florida |
GED Exit Option Model Program |
ALL |
No |
Concordant Scores |
ALL |
Yes |
FCAT Waiver |
SWD |
Yes |
Georgia |
Waiver-Hardship |
ALL |
No |
Variance |
ALL |
Yes |
Waiver-IEP |
SWD |
No |
Idaho |
Comparable Graduation Requirements |
SWD |
No |
Graduation Criteria Established by IEP Team |
SWD |
No |
Indiana |
Evidence-based Waiver |
ALL |
Yes |
Work Readiness Waiver |
ALL |
Yes |
Louisiana |
Waiver |
SWD |
Yes |
Maryland |
Advanced Placement(AP)/ International Baccalaureate(IB) |
ALL |
No |
Combined Score Option |
ALL |
Yes |
Bridge Plan for Academic Validation |
ALL |
Yes |
Mod-HSA |
SWD |
No |
Mod-HSA Plus Option |
SWD |
No |
Massachusetts |
MCAS Performance Appeal-Cohort Review |
ALL |
Yes |
MCAS Performance Appeal-Portfolio Appeal |
ALL |
Yes |
MCAS-Alternate Assessment |
SWD |
No |
Minnesota |
Team Established Passing Standard |
SWD |
No |
Mississippi |
Substitute Evaluation Process |
ALL |
Yes |
New Jersey |
Special Review Assessment |
ALL |
Yes |
IEP Exemption |
SWD |
No |
New Mexico |
Career Readiness Pathwayc |
SWD |
No |
Ability Pathway |
SWD |
No |
New York |
Appeals Process |
ALL |
Yes |
Regents Competency Test Safety Net |
SWD |
No |
Low Pass Option |
SWD |
Yes |
North Carolina |
NC Checklist of Academic Standards |
SWD |
No |
Ohio |
Alternative Pathway |
ALL |
Yes |
IEP Exempt |
SWD |
No |
Texas |
Alternative Assessments for Exit-Level TAKS |
ALL |
No |
ARD Exempt |
SWD |
No |
Virginia |
Substitute Tests for SOLs |
ALL |
No |
Washington |
Collection of Evidence |
ALL |
Yes |
WASL/Grades Comparison |
ALL |
No |
AP and College Admission Test Scores |
ALL |
Yes |
Transfer Student Waiver |
ALL |
No |
Special, Unavoidable Circumstance Appeals |
ALL |
No |
Basic Performance on WASL |
SWD |
Yes |
Pass WAAS-Developmentally Appropriate WASL (DAW) |
SWD |
No |
Pass WAAS Portfolio |
SWD |
No |
Locally Determined Assessments |
SWD |
No |
Note: Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, Nevada,
Oklahoma, South
Carolina, and Tennessee
are not shown in this
table because they
either do not have an
alternative route
available for either all
students or students
with disabilities, or
they had no information
on their Web sites.
a
ALL = all students,
including students with
disabilities; SWD =
students with
disabilities.
b
The Modified and
Nonstandard High School
Graduation Qualifying
Exams were counted as a
single alternative
route, although they
possibly could be
separated because the
Modified allows students
to substitute something
for a portion of the
test, and the
Nonstandard uses an
individual graduation
plan to guide how
requirements are met.
c
Student must take the
exit exam, but a
different passing score
is identified by the IEP
team.
All but 3 of the 19
states with alternative
routes (Indiana,
Louisiana, Mississippi)
had at least one
alternative route that
did not require that the
student first take the
regular exit exam. In
those states that had at
least one alternative
route that the student
could pursue without
first taking the regular
exit exam, the routes
that did not require
taking the regular exit
exam first (n = 27) were
more often available to
students with
disabilities (n = 18)
than to students without
disabilities (n = 9).
Figure 3 shows the
distribution of whether
a student must first
take the regular exit
exam for all students
and for students with
disabilities. As is
evident here, the
numbers are quite
different. The
alternative routes
available to students
with disabilities are
much more likely to not
require that the student
first take (and fail)
the regular exit exam,
whereas the alternative
routes available to all
students are much more
likely to require that
the student first take
(and fail) the regular
exit exam.
Figure 3. Number of
Alternative Routes that
Do and Do Not Require
Students to First Take
the Regular Exit Exam,
for All Students and for
Students with
Disabilities
Alternative
Route
Request
States
may have
differing
policies
for how
to gain
access
to an
alternative
route.
Two
factors
are
related
to this
part of
the
process.
First,
someone
must
request
that a
student
use an
alternative
route.
Second,
someone
must
decide
and
approve
the
alternative
route.
Generally,
an
individual
must
request
the
alternative
route.
Many
states
have
specific
requirements
for who
can
request
the
alternative
route.
Table 6
shows
the
person
who is
to
request
the
alternative
route,
for each
of the
alternative
routes
that
states
have.
Table 6. Requester of Alternative Route
State |
Name of Alternative Route |
Target Groupa |
Who Requests? |
Alaska |
Waiver |
ALL |
Student |
|
Modified/NonStandard HSGQEb |
SWD |
Student |
California |
Waiver |
SWD |
No Information |
Florida |
GED Exit Option Model Program |
ALL |
Student |
Concordant Scores |
ALL |
Student |
FCAT Waiver |
SWD |
Parent or legal guardian, and IEP team |
Georgia |
Waiver-Hardship |
ALL |
Student or parent/legal guardian |
Variance |
ALL |
Student or parent/legal guardian |
Waiver-IEP |
SWD |
Student or parent/legal guardian |
Idaho |
Comparable Graduation Requirements |
SWD |
IEP Team |
Graduation Criteria Established by IEP Team |
SWD |
IEP Team |
Indiana |
Evidence-based Waiver |
ALL |
Student or parent/legal guardian |
Work Readiness Waiver |
ALL |
Student or parent/legal guardian |
Louisiana |
Waiver |
SWD |
No Information |
Maryland |
Advanced Placement(AP)/ International Baccalaureate (IB) |
ALL |
Student |
Combined Score Option |
ALL |
Student |
Bridge Plan for Academic Validation |
ALL |
Student |
Mod-HSA |
SWD |
Student |
Mod-HSA Plus Option |
SWD |
Student |
Massachusetts |
MCAS Performance Appeal-Cohort Review |
ALL |
District Superintendent, on behalf of student |
MCAS Performance Appeal-Portfolio Appeal |
ALL |
District Superintendent, on behalf of student |
MCAS-Alternate Assessment |
SWD |
District Superintendent, on behalf of student |
Minnesota |
Team Established Passing Standard |
SWD |
IEP or 504 Team |
Mississippi |
Substitute Evaluation Process |
ALL |
Student, Parent, or District Personnel |
New Jersey |
Special Review Assessment |
ALL |
District SRA Coordinator |
IEP Exemption |
SWD |
IEP Team |
New Mexico |
Career Readiness Pathway |
SWD |
IEP Team |
Ability Pathway |
SWD |
IEP Team |
New York |
Appeals Process |
ALL |
Student, Parent, or Teacher |
Regents Competency Test Safety Net |
SWD |
IEP Team or Section 504 Multidisciplinary Team |
Low Pass Option |
SWD |
No Information |
North Carolina |
NC Checklist of Academic Standards |
SWD |
IEP Team |
Ohio |
Alternative Pathway |
ALL |
Student and School Counselor |
IEP Exempt |
SWD |
IEP Team |
Texas |
Alternative Assessments for Exit Level TAKS |
ALL |
Student |
ARD Exempt |
SWD |
IEP Team |
Virginia |
Substitute Tests for SOLs |
ALL |
Principal or Superintendent |
Washington |
Collection of Evidence |
ALL |
Student |
WASL/Grades Comparison |
ALL |
School District Staff Member (e.g., Principal) |
AP and College Admission Test Scores |
ALL |
Student |
Transfer Student Waiver |
ALL |
Student or Parent |
Special, Unavoidable Circumstance Appeals |
ALL |
Student or Parent |
Basic Performance on WASL |
SWD |
IEP Team |
Pass WAAS-Developmentally Appropriate WASL (DAW) |
SWD |
IEP Team |
Pass WAAS Portfolio |
SWD |
Student or IEP Team |
Locally Determined Assessments |
SWD |
Student and School Counselor |
Note: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee are not shown in this table because they either do not have an alternative route available for either all students or students with disabilities, or they had no information on their Web sites.
a ALL = all students, including students with disabilities; SWD = students with disabilities.
b The Modified and Nonstandard High School Graduation Qualifying Exams were counted as a single alternative route, although they possibly could be separated because the Modified allows students to substitute something for a portion of the test, and the Nonstandard uses an individual graduation plan to guide how requirements are met.
As is evident in Table 6, states vary in their designations of who can request the alternative route for a student. In many cases, the student makes the request. In most of the alternative routes that are only available to students with disabilities, the IEP team or the 504 team makes the request. In a few states, a school official (superintendent, principal, school counselor) makes the request for the alternative route.
Alternative Route Decision Making Body/Approver
Typically, there is a decision-making body or approver when a student opts for an alternative route to a standard diploma. The decision-making body or approver generally determines whether the student has met the alternative route criteria for earning a standard diploma. Table 7 shows who these decision makers or approvers are in the 19 states with alternative routes. The approver may vary by specific route, which is also reflected in Table 7.
Table 7. Alternative Route Decision-making Body/Approver
State |
Name of Alternative Route |
Target Groupa |
Decision-Making Body or Approver |
Alaska |
Waiver |
ALL |
Local School Board |
Modified/NonStandard HSGQEb |
SWD |
IEP or 504 Team |
California |
Waiver |
SWD |
Local School District |
Florida |
GED Exit Option Model Program |
ALL |
Local School District |
Concordant Scores |
ALL |
State Department of Education |
FCAT Waiver |
SWD |
IEP Team |
Georgia |
Waiver-Hardship |
ALL |
State Board of Education |
Variance |
ALL |
State Board of Education |
Waiver-IEP |
SWD |
State Board of Education |
Idaho |
Comparable Graduation Requirements |
SWD |
IEP Team and Principal |
Graduation Criteria Established by IEP Team |
SWD |
IEP Team and Principal |
Indiana |
Evidence-based Waiver |
ALL |
State Board of Education |
Work Readiness Waiver |
ALL |
State Board of Education |
Louisiana |
Waiver |
SWD |
No Information |
Maryland |
Advanced Placement(AP)/ International Baccalaureate (IB) |
ALL |
State Department of Education |
Combined Score Option |
ALL |
State Department of Education |
Bridge Plan for Academic Validation |
ALL |
Local School |
Mod-HSA |
SWD |
IEP Team |
Mod-HSA Plus Option |
SWD |
State Department of Education |
Massachusetts |
MCAS Performance Appeal-Cohort Review |
ALL |
Performance Appeals Board |
MCAS Performance Appeal-Portfolio Appeal |
ALL |
Performance Appeals Board |
MCAS-Alternate Assessment |
SWD |
Performance Appeals Board |
Minnesota |
Team Established Passing Standard |
SWD |
IEP or 504 Team |
Mississippi |
Substitute Evaluation Process |
ALL |
State Appeals Substitute Evaluation Committee |
New Jersey |
Special Review Assessment |
ALL |
District Superintendent, High School Principal, County Superintendent |
IEP Exemption |
SWD |
IEP Team |
New Mexico |
Career Readiness Pathway |
SWD |
Building Administrator |
Ability Pathway |
SWD |
Building Administrator |
New York |
Appeals Process |
ALL |
Appeal Committee |
Regents Competency Test Safety Net |
SWD |
Building Administrator |
Low Pass Option |
SWD |
No Information |
North Carolina |
NC Checklist of Academic Standards |
SWD |
IEP Team |
Ohio |
Alternative Pathway |
ALL |
Principal and Superintendent |
IEP Exempt |
SWD |
IEP Team |
Texas |
Alternative Assessments for Exit-Level TAKS |
ALL |
School District |
ARD Exempt |
SWD |
ARD Committee |
Virginia |
Substitute Tests for SOLs |
ALL |
State Board of Education |
Washington |
Collection of Evidence |
ALL |
Local School District |
WASL/Grades Comparison |
ALL |
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction |
AP and College Admission Test Scores |
ALL |
School Official and Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction |
Transfer Student Waiver |
ALL |
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction |
Special, Unavoidable Circumstance Appeals |
ALL |
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction |
Basic Performance on WASL |
SWD |
IEP Team |
Pass WAAS-Developmentally Appropriate WASL (DAW) |
SWD |
IEP Team |
Pass WAAS Portfolio |
SWD |
IEP Team |
Locally Determined Assessments |
SWD |
Local School District |
Note: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee are not shown in this table because they either do not have an alternative route available for either all students or students with disabilities, or they had no information on their Web sites.
a ALL = all students, including students with disabilities; SWD = students with disabilities.
b The Modified and Nonstandard High School Graduation Qualifying Exams were counted as a single alternative route, although they possibly could be separated because the Modified allows students to substitute something for a portion of the test, and the Nonstandard uses an individual graduation plan to guide how requirements are met.
There is considerable variation in the identified person or regulating body that processes the request for a student to pursue an alternative route to obtain a standard diploma (see Table 7). Furthermore, there can be differences within a state between the decision maker or approver for all students and for students with disabilities. The decision maker or approver for all students varies from a local level decision maker (e.g., local school board, principal, local school district) to a state board of education or state department of education decision. Some variation also is evident for alternative routes for students with disabilities, although the primary decision maker or approver is the IEP team. Some states that require a state level decision to be made for “all students” require a local decision for students with disabilities. In two states (Georgia, Massachusetts) the same decision-making body or approver was identified for both groups of students (all students and students with disabilities).
Nature of Alternative Route
All Students. The specific nature of the alternative route can vary from being more like a test to being a completely different process (e.g., portfolio, comparison of grades). In general the alternative route itself can be described in terms of the whether it involves participating in a specific curriculum, taking a test, showing proficiency through some other method, or simply having requirements waived. Table 8 shows the general nature of the alternative routes for all students.
Table 8. Nature of Alternative Routes for All Students
State |
|
|
All Students |
|
|
Different Test |
Different Curriculum |
Different Method of Demonstrating Competency |
Waiver |
Other |
Alaska – Waiver |
|
|
|
X |
|
Florida – GED Exit Option Model Program |
X |
|
|
|
|
Florida – Concordant Scores |
X |
|
|
|
|
Georgia – Waiver-Hardship |
|
|
|
X |
|
Georgia – Variance |
|
|
|
X |
|
Indiana – Evidence-based Waiver |
|
|
X |
|
|
Indiana – Work Readiness Waiver |
|
X |
|
|
|
Maryland – AP or IB |
X |
|
|
|
|
Maryland – Combined Score Option |
|
|
|
|
X |
Maryland – Bridge Plan for Academic Validation |
|
|
X |
|
|
Massachusetts – Performance Appeal-Cohort Appeal |
|
|
|
|
X |
Massachusetts – Performance Appeal – Portfolio Appeal |
|
|
X |
|
|
Mississippi – Substitute Evaluation Process |
|
|
X |
|
|
New Jersey – Special Review Assessment |
|
|
X |
|
|
New York – Appeals Process |
|
|
|
X |
|
Ohio – Alternative Pathway to Graduation |
|
|
|
X |
|
Texas - Alternative Assessments for Exit-Level TAKS |
X |
|
|
|
|
Virginia - Substitute Tests for SOLs |
X |
|
|
|
|
Washington - Collection of Evidence |
|
|
X |
|
|
Washington - WASL/Grades Comparison |
|
|
|
|
X |
Washington - AP and College Admission Test Scores |
X |
|
|
|
|
Washington - Transfer Student Waiver |
X |
|
|
|
|
Washington - Special, Unavoidable Circumstance Appeals |
|
|
X |
|
|
Total |
7 |
1 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
Note: The following states with alternative routes are not included in this table because they do not have
a route designated for all students: California, Idaho, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina. Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee are not shown in this table because they do not
have an alternative route available for either all students or students with disabilities, or they had no
information on their Web sites.
Table 9. Nature of Alternative Routes for Students with Disabilities
State |
|
Students with Disabilities |
|
|
Different Test |
Different Curriculum |
Different Method of Demonstrating Competency |
Waiver |
Other |
Alaska – Modified or Nonstandard Graduation Qualifying Exama |
X |
|
|
|
|
California – Waiver |
|
|
|
X |
|
Florida – FCAT Waiver |
|
|
|
X |
|
Georgia – Waiver-IEP |
|
|
|
X |
|
Idaho – Comparable Graduation Requirements |
|
|
X |
|
|
Idaho – Graduation Criteria Established by IEP Team |
|
|
X |
|
|
Louisiana – Waiver |
|
|
|
X |
|
Maryland – Modified HSA |
X |
|
|
|
|
Maryland – Modified HSA Plus Option |
X |
|
|
|
|
Massachusetts – Alternate Assessment |
X |
|
X |
|
|
Minnesota – Team Established Passing Standards |
|
|
X |
|
X |
New Jersey – IEP Exempt |
|
|
|
X |
|
New York – Regents Competency Test Safety Net |
X |
|
|
|
|
New York – Low Pass Option |
|
|
|
|
X |
North Carolina – NC Checklist of Academic Standards |
|
|
X |
|
|
Ohio – Exemption |
|
|
|
X |
|
Texas – ARD Committee Exempt |
|
|
|
X |
|
Washington – Basic Performance on WASL |
|
|
|
|
X |
Washington - Pass WAAS Developmentally Appropriate WASL (DAW) |
X |
|
|
|
|
Pass WAAS - Portfolio |
X |
|
|
|
|
Locally Determined Assessments |
X |
|
|
|
|
Total |
8 |
0 |
5 |
7 |
3 |
Note: The following states with alternative routes are not included in this because they do not have a route
designated specifically for students with disabilities: Indiana, Mississippi, Virginia. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee are not shown in this table because they do not have an
alternative route available for either all students or students with disabilities, or they had no information on their
Web sites.
a The Modified and Nonstandard High School Graduation Qualifying Exams were counted as a single alternative
route, although they possibly could be separated because the Modified allows students to substitute something
for a portion of the test, and the Nonstandard uses an individual graduation plan to guide how requirements are
met.
Table 9 shows that, in general, the same types of routes were used for students with disabilities,
but the order of frequency was different. A different test (n = 8), a waiver (n = 7), or a different
method of demonstrating competency (n = 5) accounted for 20 of the 23 alternative routes for
students with disabilities. No alternative routes involved a different curriculum. Other approaches
were used by three states; these generally involved some type of comparison. For example, in
Minnesota, the Team Established Passing Standards alternative route allows the student to pass
the GRAD exam at an individually modified level of difficulty determined by the IEP team.
New York’s Low Pass Option allows the student with a disability to score between 55 and 64
rather than the typically required score of 65 on the Regents Exams. In Washington, the Basic
Performance on WASL alternative route is similar to the New York’s Low Pass Option, in that a
student with an IEP who scores at a basic level on the WASL (level 2)—rather than proficient
level (level 3) —is considered to have met the requirements for earning a standard diploma.
Top of page |
Table of Contents
The controversy surrounding graduation exams has persisted over the years. Policymakers continue
to put in place processes that allow students to graduate with a standard diploma through
alternative routes. These alternative routes may or may not be supported by evidence of their
validity and fairness.
The number of states adopting exit exams as part of their assessment systems has remained relatively stable in the past few years, with 26 states currently having active or soon-to-be active exit or end-of-course exams. We identified 19 states that had designated alternative routes to the standard diploma at the time of our study, which was conducted primarily during the summer of 2008. Of the 19 states, 23 identified routes existed for “all students” and 23 routes were designed just for “students with disabilities.”
The purpose of our study was to examine the characteristics of these alternative routes and to identify the differences that exist between those available to all students (including students with disabilities) and those available only to students with disabilities. We explored the nature of the routes and the processes involved in them.
We found that states’ alternative routes for earning a standard diploma are complex and multifaceted. It is likely that because of the importance of the alternative routes, legislators, governors, state boards of education, state departments of education, and stakeholders all weigh in on them. As a result, the alternative routes are varied and often changing. Documenting these alternatives routes when they often change and when they may not be transparent or easily accessible on state Web sites increases the challenge of accurately portraying alternative routes available to students, including those students with disabilities.
Although the number of states with exit exams did not change much since the Krentz et al. (2005) study, the number of alternative routes available to students, based on what was found on state Web sites or sent to us, increased considerably (from 30 to 46). Krentz and colleagues found that there were 15 alternative routes for all students and 15 specifically for students with disabilities. The current update of alternative routes revealed 23 alternative routes for all students and 23 alternative routes specifically for students with disabilities.
Requirements for the alternative routes and the nature of the alternative routes also have changed somewhat from the 2005 report (Krentz, 2005). Although previously the requirement to first take the exit exam existed for about half of the alternative routes, whether designed for all students or students with disabilities, there is now a different distribution. For all students, almost two-thirds of the alternative routes require that the student first take the regular test, whereas for students with disabilities, less than one-fourth of the alternative routes require that the student first take the regular test. The nature of the decision-making body or approver also differed for all students and students with disabilities, and there have been shifts over time as well. For example, Krentz et al. found that about one-third of the alternative routes for students with disabilities had the IEP team as the decision maker or approver and another one-fourth had no information about who made the decision or approved the results from the alternative route. In this study, over half of the alternative routes for students with disabilities had the IEP team making decisions and only a couple had no information available. For all students, none of the alternative routes had no information about the decision making or approver. In all other cases, the decision-making body or approver was either at the state level or at the school level.
In contrast to differences for all students and students with disabilities that seem to suggest that the approaches are more divergent than in the past, other indicators suggest a merging of the approaches for the two groups. For example, the nature of the alternative route seems to have shifted, at least to some degree, toward being more similar. In the 2005 report (Krentz et al.), by far the most frequent alternative routes for all students involved either a different test or a different way of demonstrating competency, whereas for students with disabilities the most frequent alternative routes involved waivers. In this study, more waiver options appeared for all students, whereas more options that involved different tests or different methods of demonstrating competency emerged specifically for students with disabilities.
Transparent information on alternative routes is not available in all states that have alternative routes. Sometimes it was difficult to distinguish an alternate assessment (such as the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards—AA-AAS) from an alternative route. This was the case despite the fact that the AA-AAS generally has very different purposes. To complicate matters, in some states, the AA-AAS actually was identified as one of the alternative routes for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Thus, students with significant cognitive disabilities were able to obtain a standard diploma regardless of whether they met the same grade-level achievement standards as required for the exit exam. Furthermore, there were a number of alternative routes used by states that led to a variety of different diplomas, ones not considered equivalent to a standard or regular diploma. These alternative diplomas may lead to further confusion when navigating alternative routes because they are sometimes presented as being alternative routes to a diploma, but there is no explicit statement that the diploma obtained is not the same as the standard diploma. An example of this is the Substitute Evaluation Program in Virginia, which leads to a modified diploma.
Continued concerns exist about the comparability of various alternative routes to the traditional route where students must take and pass the regular exit exam. Some states have attempted to address the concern about comparability by using special notations. For example, students with disabilities who pass at a lower score level in Minnesota receive a standard diploma but it is noted on the students’ records that they “passed—individual level.” We found no evidence that other states with similar alternative routes had this kind of designation to indicate to employers or higher education officials that the student had earned the standard diploma at a different level of proficiency from other students.
Although comparability is sometimes difficult to discern, there are hints about the comparability of an alternative route to the exit exam route in some of the language surrounding some of the alternative routes currently being used in states. For example, in some states the names of the alternative routes raise questions about their comparability to the exit exam route (e.g., Ability Pathway, Low Pass Option, waiver). Other names clearly suggest comparability (Idaho’s “Comparable Graduation Requirements”).
Comparability of alternative routes will continue to be a critical issue that states, educators, parents, students, employers, and the community at large must grapple with. With the clear differentiation in outcomes from different diploma options, it is likely that similar differentiation also will emerge for standard diplomas obtained in different ways.
Recommendations
Krentz et al. (2005) made several recommendations after looking at alternative routes to a standard diploma. They were:
- States with alternative routes to their standard diplomas must provide clear, easy-to-find information about the alternative route.
- The alternative route must be based on the same beliefs and premises as the standard route to the diploma.
- The same route or routes should be available to all students.
- The alternative route should truly be an alternative to the graduation exam, not just another test.
- The alternative route should reflect a reasoned and reasonable process.
- Procedures should be implemented to evaluate the technical adequacy of the alternative route and to track its consequences.
These recommendations from 2005 continue to be relevant today, as indicated by the findings of the current study.
Provide clear, easy-to-find information. Although less so the case than five years ago, it continues to be challenging—in many states—to find clear, concise, and easy to follow information on the alternative routes that are available to students to receive a standard diploma. In many states, it is difficult even to find information on regular graduation requirements, much less alternatives to them. States need to continue to work toward greater transparency about the ways in which students can graduate with a standard diploma as well as why the alternative routes exist.
Base
alternative
routes
on the
same
beliefs
and
premises
as the
standard
route to
the
diploma.
With the
increased
number
of
alternative
routes
that
have
emerged
in the
past
five
years,
it seems
that the
need for
clarity
about
the
assumptions
and
meaning
of
alternative
routes
is
greater
than
ever
before.
Clear
explanations
of why
specific
alternative
routes
were
developed
was
noticeably
lacking
in the
information
found on
state
Web
sites.
In fact,
it was
rare to
find a
state
that
provided
information
on the
assumptions
underlying
graduation
requirements
in
general.
There
was a
lack of
definitions
about
what a
regular
diploma
was
supposed
to mean,
something
that has
been
recommended
for
states
with a
variety
of
diploma
options
besides
the
regular
diploma
(Thurlow
&
Johnson,
in
press).
Make the
same
alternative
routes
available
to all
students.
Contrary
to this
recommendation
made
five
years
ago, it
appears
that
states
are
identifying
increasing
numbers
of
alternative
routes
designated
only for
students
with
disabilities,
and
sometimes
only
those
students
with
disabilities
who have
Individualized
Education
Programs
(IEPs).
Of
course,
all of
the
alternative
routes
for
all
students
are also
available
to
students
with
disabilities,
but the
proliferation
of
routes
available
only to
students
with
disabilities
is
surprising.
This
development
leads
one back
again to
the
question
of
comparability—does
a lack
of
comparability
explain
why some
routes
are
available
only to
students
with
disabilities?
Create
alternative
routes
that are
not just
another
test,
but
truly
are
alternatives
to the
graduation
test.
This
recommendation
by
Krentz
et al.
(2005)
has been
pursued,
to some
extent,
by the
increased
number
of
states
that
have
created
alternative
routes
that use
portfolios
or ways
to
examine
the
coursework
and
class
performance
of
students.
Still,
many
states
simply
have
identified
other
tests
for the
students
to take,
such as
GED
tests,
substitute
tests,
or other
versions
(such as
a lower
developmental
level)
of the
state
test, or
have
determined
that all
requirements
can be
“waived”
given
certain
conditions.
Develop
a
reasoned
and
reasonable
process
for the
alternative
route.
Krentz
et al.
(2005)
suggested
that
whether
the
alternative
route
process,
is
reasonable,
and
reflects
a
reasoned
development
and
implementation
process
depends
on
identifying
foundational
beliefs
and
assumptions
underlying
the
process.
They
also
suggested
that
examining
intended
and
unintended
consequences
is one
aspect
of this
process.
We found
little
evidence
that
states
are
examining
the
consequences
of
alternative
routes.
One
indication
of
noting
consequences
that we
would
have
expected
to see
was
documentation
of the
number
of
students
obtaining
standard
diplomas
through
the
various
routes.
We did
not find
this
information
on state
Web
sites.
Although
states
have
become
used to
public
reporting
of their
data,
and even
their
graduation
rates,
they
have not
ventured
into
publicly
reporting
data on
the
specific
diplomas
and the
routes
that
students
have
taken to
earn a
standard
diploma.
The
Center
on
Education
Policy
(2009)
was able
to look
at
initial
pass
rates
and
cumulative
pass
rates.
But this
is not
the same
as
obtaining
a
breakout
of the
rates at
which
students
are
pursuing
alternative
routes.
In our
examination
of the
Web
sites of
all the
states
with
alternative
routes,
we found
only two
states
(Massachusetts,
New
Jersey)
with any
information
on the
numbers
of
students
pursuing
alternative
routes,
and the
information
that was
provided
was
minimal,
and was
buried
in other
information
(see
Thurlow
et al.,
2009).
Evaluate
the
technical
adequacy
of
alternative
routes
and
track
the
consequences
of each.
We found
no
evidence
on
states’ Web
sites,
nor
any published
studies,
on the
technical
adequacy
or
consequences
of
alternative
routes.
This
remains
a
critical
need,
especially
as
states
seem to
be
increasing
their
reliance
of
alternative
routes
to the
standard
diploma.
Conclusion
There
continues
to be a
need to
examine
more
closely
the ways
in which
students
are able
to earn
a
standard
diploma.
The
search
for this
information
should
not be
so
difficult.
Still,
it is
important
that
states
are
pursuing
alternative
ways for
students
to show
that
they
have met
the
requirements
to earn
a
standard
diploma.
The next
challenge
is to
document
the
comparability
of the
alternative
routes
to the
standard
route,
so that
employers
and
post-secondary
institutions
can be
assured
that
every
student
who has
a
standard
diploma
is
entering
the
workplace
or the
post-secondary
institution
with the
same
knowledge
and
skills.
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Achieve. (2008).
Out of many, one: Toward
rigorous common core
standards from the
ground up.
Washington, DC: Author.
Amos, J. (2008).
Dropouts, diplomas, and
dollars: U.S. high
schools and the nation’s
economy.
Washington, DC: Alliance
for Excellent Education.
California Assembly Bill
No. 2040. (2008, Sep
30). CHAPTER 666 to add
Sections 60852.1 and
60852 to the Education
Code, relating to the
high school exit
examination.
Center on Education
Policy. (2003).
State high school exit
exams: Put to the test.
Washington, DC: Author.
Center on Education
Policy. (2007).
State high school exit
exams: Working to raise
test scores.
Washington, DC: Author.
Center on Education
Policy. (2008).
State high school exit
exams: A move toward
end-of-course exams.
Washington, DC: Author.
Diplomas Count. (2008,
June 5).
Education Week, 27(40).
Disability
RightsAdvocates. (2008).
Chapman v. California
Department of Education.
Retrieved from
http://www.dralegal.org/cases/education_testing/chapman_v_ca.php" target="_blank"
http://www.dralegal.org/cases/education_testing/chapman_v_ca.php
Habash, A. (2008).
Counting on graduation:
An agenda for state
leadership.
Washington, DC: The
Education Trust.
Hartwig, R., &
Sitlington, P.L. (2008).
Employer perspectives on
high school diploma
options for adolescents
with disabilities.
Journal of Disability
Policy Studies,19(1),
5-14.
Heubert, J. P., &
Hauser, R. M. (1999).
High stakes: Testing for
tracking, promotion, and
graduation.
Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Johnson, D. R., &
Thurlow, M. L. (2003).
A national study on
graduation requirements
and diploma options for
youth with disabilities
(Technical Report 26).
Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota,
National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Johnson, D. R., Thurlow,
M. L., & Stout, K. E.
(2007).
Revisiting graduation
requirements and diploma
0ptions for youth with
disabilities: A national
study
(Technical Report 49).
Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota,
National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Johnson, D.R., Thurlow,
M.L., Stout, K.E., &
Mavis, A. (2007).
Cross-state study of
high stakes testing
practices and diploma
options.
Journal of Special
Education Leadership, 20(2),
53-65.
Juleus Chapman et al. v.
California Department of
Education et al.,
2001, No. C01-1780.
Krentz, J., Thurlow, M.,
Shyyan, V., & Scott, D.
(2005).
Alternative routes to
the standard diploma
(Synthesis Report 54).
Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota,
National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Langenfeld, K., Thurlow,
M., & Scott, D. (1996).
High stakes testing for
students with
disabilities: Unanswered
questions and
implications for
students with
disabilities
(Synthesis Report 26).
Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota,
National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow,
M. L., Christensen, L.
L., & Cormier, D.
(2007).
States’ alternate
assessments based on
modified achievement
standards (AA-MAS) in
2007
(Synthesis Report 67).
Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota,
National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Lehr, C. A., Clapper, A.
T., & Thurlow, M. L.
(2005).
Graduation for all: A
practical guide to
decreasing school
dropout.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
NGA, CCSSO, & Achieve.
(2008).
Benchmarking for
success: Ensuring U.S.
students receive a
world-class education.
Washington, DC: Council
of Chief State School
Officers.
Orfield, G., Losen, D.,
Wald, J., Swanson, C. B.
(2004).
Losing our future: How
minority youth are being
left behind by the
graduation rate crisis.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University, The Civil
Rights Project.
Organisation for
Economic Co-Operation
and Development. (2006).
Education at a glance:
OECD indicators 2006.
Paris: OCED.
Organisation for
Economic Co-Operation
and Development. (2008).
Education at a glance
2008.
Paris: OECD.
Quality Counts. (2004,
January 8). Special
education in an era of
standards: count me in.
Education Week, 23(17).
Reardon, S. F.,
Atteberry, A., Arshan,
K., & Kurleander, M.
(2009).
Effects of the
California High School
Exit Exam on student
persistence,
achievement, and
graduation
(Working Paper
2009-12). Palo Alto, CA:
Stanford University,
Institute for Research
on Education Policy and
Practice.
Rene v. Reed,
751 N.E.2d 736, 742-43
(Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
Schaeffer, R. (2006).
CA judge says students
shortchanged, upholds
exit exam anyway.
FairThttp://www.fairtest.org/ca-judge-says-students-shortchanged-upholds-exit-exam-anyway" target="_blank"
est, The National Center
for Fair and Open
Testing. Retrieved from
http://www.fairtest.org/
ca-judge-says-students-shortchanged-upholds-exit-exam-anyway
Steinberg, A., &
Almeida, C.A. (2008).
Raising graduation rates
in an era of high
standards: Five
commitments for state
action.
Washington, DC: Achieve,
Jobs for the Future
Project.
Stillwell, R., &
Hoffman, L. (2008).
Public school graduates
and dropouts from the
common core of data:
School year 2005-06 –
First look.
Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education,
National Center for
Education Statistics.
Thompson, S. J.,
Thurlow, M. L., &
Malouf, D. (2004, May).
Creating better tests
for everyone through
universally designed
assessments.
Journal of Applied
Testing Technology.
Retrieved from the World
Wide Web:
http://www.testpublishers.org/atp.journal.htm
Thurlow, M. L. (2007).
State policies and
accommodations: Issues
and implications. In C.
C. Laitusis & L. L. Cook
(Eds.),
Large-scale assessment
and accommodations: What
works?
Arlington, VA: Council
for Exceptional
Children.
Thurlow, M.L., &
Johnson, D.R. (2000).
High stakes testing of
students with
disabilities.
Journal of Teacher
Education, 51(4),
305-314.
Thurlow, M. L., Bremer,
C., & Albus, D. (2008).
Good news and bad news
in disaggregated
subgroup reporting to
the public on 2005-2006
assessment results
(Technical Report 52).
Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota,
National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M. L., &
Johnson, D. R. (in
press). From high school
to success—Implications
of diploma options for
the future.
The State Education
Standard.
Thurlow, M. L.,
Sinclair, M. F., &
Johnson, D. R. (2002).
Students with
disabilities who drop
out of
school—Implications for
policy and practice.
Issue Brief, 1(2),
1-7. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota,
National Center on
Secondary Education and
Transition.
Thurlow, M., Thompson,
S., & Johnstone, C.
(2007). Policy, legal,
and implementation
issues surrounding
assessment
accommodations for
students with
disabilities. In L.
Florian (Ed.),
Sage Handbook of Special
Education.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
U.S. Department of
Education. (2008,
October 29)
Improving the academic
achievement of the
disadvantaged: Final
rule. Federal Register,
73(210),
64436-64513.
Wagner, M. (2005).
Characteristics of
out-of-school youth with
disabilities. In M.
Wagner, L. Newman, R.
Cameto, N. Garza, & P.
Levine,
After high school: A
first look at the
postschool experiences
of youth with
disabilities
[A report of the
National Longitudinal
Transition Study-2
(NLTS2)] (pp. 2-1 –
2-8). Menlo Park, CA:
SRI International.
Retrieved from
http://www.nlts2.
org/reports/2005_04/nlts2_report_2005_04_complete.pdf
Wolpin, K. I. (2005,
February). Education
data in the NLSY79:A
premiere research tool.
Monthly Labor Review,
15-20. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/02/art3full.pdf
Youth Transition Funders
Group. (2008).
Closing the graduation
gap: A superintendent’s
guide for planning
multiple pathways to
graduation.
Chicago, IL: Author.
Zabala, D. (2008).
State high school exit
exams: Students with
disabilities
(Exit Exams Policy Brief
3). Washington, DC:
Center on Education
Policy.
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Template for State Profiles for States to Review and
Verify
State Alternative Route Profile - [State Name]
Document Source(s):
[Web Address]
1. Status of Alternate Routes for Exit Exams
This table provides a summary of the status of
alternative routes available to all studetns and only available to students
with disabilties
1.
Status of Alternate
Routes for Exit Exams
All Students |
Students with Disabilities |
Available |
Not Available |
No Information |
Available |
Not Available |
No Information |
[state reponse] |
|
|
[state response] |
|
|
This table provides a
summary of whether each
of the options first
requires the student to
take the general
assessment, and by
inference, to fail the
exit exam, before having
access to the
alternative route to the
standard diploma.
2.
Students Targeted for
Alternative Routes to
Standard Diploma
This table shows the
group or groups of
students considered
eligible for the
alternative route to a
standard diploma (if
available). The table is
divided into all
students and students
with disabilities, with
the exact words that are
used by the states
entered into the table.
This table also reveals
the groups of studens
that states cover in
general.
All Students |
Students with Disabilities |
Target |
Comments |
Target |
Comments |
[state response] |
|
[state response] |
|
3. Decision-making
Body/Approver for the
Alternative Route
This table depicts the decision-making body or approver when the alternative
route is for all students (which can include students with disabilities) and
when it is only for students with disabilities.
All Students |
Students with Disabilities |
[state reponse] |
[state response] |
4. Nature of the
Alternative Route
This table provides specific information on the types of option(s) available
to both students with and without disabilities.
All Students |
Students with Disabilities |
[state reponse] |
[state response] |
5. Status of Alternate Routes for Exit Exams
This table provides a summary of whether each of the options first requires the student to take
the general assessment, and by inference, to fail the exit exam, before having access to the alternative
route to the standard diploma.
All Students |
Students with Disabilities |
Must Fail |
Must Not Fail |
No Information |
Other |
Must Fail |
Must Not Fail |
No Information |
Other |
[state response] |
|
|
|
[state response] |
|
|
|
6. Types of Alternative Routes
This table synthesizes the specific nature of alternative routes to a
standard diploma for all students and students with disabilities in terms of
whether the routine involves (a) taking a different test, (b) completing a
specific curriculum, (c) using a different method of demonstrating proficiency,
or (d) obtaining a waiver from requirements.
All Students |
Different Test |
Different Curriculum |
Different Method of Demonstrating competency |
Waiver |
Other |
[state response] |
|
|
|
|
Students with Disabilities |
Different Test |
Different Curriculum |
Different Method of Demonstrating competency |
Waiver |
Other |
[state response] |
|
|
|
|
Top of page |
Table of Content
Names of Diplomas in States and Whether Considered "Standard"
State |
Exit Documents Available to Students |
Standard? |
Yes |
No |
Alabama |
Alabama High School Diploma without Endorsement (AHSD)
Alabama High School Diploma with Endorsement
b
Alabama Occupational Diploma Graduation Certificate |
X
X |
X
X |
Alaska |
Standard High School Diploma Certificate of Achievement Modified Diploma |
X |
X
X |
Arizona |
High School Diploma Certificate of Completion |
X |
X |
Arkansas |
High School Diploma |
X |
|
California |
Standard High School Diploma Certificate/Document of Educational Achievement/Completion |
X |
X |
Florida |
Standard Diploma Special Diploma Option 1
Special Diploma Option 2
Certificate of Completion
Special Certificate of Completion
Certificate of Completion-College Placement Test Eligible |
X |
X
X
X
X
X |
Georgia |
High School Diploma
High School Diploma with Sealc
Certificate of Performance
Special Education Diploma |
X
X |
X
X |
Idaho |
Regular High School Diploma |
X |
|
Indiana |
Core 40 Diploma
Core 40 Diploma with Honors
Core 40 Diploma with Technical Honors
General Diploma |
X
X
X |
X |
Louisiana |
Standard Diploma Standard Diploma with Academic Area of Concentration Standard Diploma with Academic Endorsement High School Equivalency Diploma Certificate of Achievement Skill Certificates |
X
X
X
X |
X
X |
Maryland |
High School Diploma Maryland High School Certificate of Program Completion |
X |
X |
Massachusetts |
High School Diploma Certificate of Masteryd
Certificate of Mastery with Distinctiond
Certificate of Achievement |
X
X
X |
X |
Minnesota |
High School Diploma Certificate of Achievement |
X |
X |
Mississippi |
Regular High School Diploma Occupational Diploma |
X |
X |
Nevada |
Standard High School Diploma
Advanced High School Diploma Certificate of Achievement |
X
X |
X |
New Jersey |
State-endorsed High School Diploma |
X |
|
New Mexico |
New Mexico Diploma of Excellence State Certificate |
X |
X |
New York |
Regents Diploma
Regents Diploma with Advanced Designation
Local Diploma
IEP Diploma |
X
X
X |
X |
North Carolina |
Standard Diploma Certificate of Achievement |
X |
X |
Ohio |
High School Diploma
Diploma with Honors
High School Equivalence Diploma |
X
X |
X |
Oklahoma |
Standard Diploma
Standard Diploma with Certificate of Distinction |
X
X |
|
South Carolina |
State High School Diploma State High School Diploma with Academic Honors Award South Carolina High School Certificate |
X
X |
X |
Tennessee |
Standard High School Diploma Special Education Diploma |
X |
X |
Texas |
High School Diploma (Minimum, Recommended, Distinguished Achievement)
Certificate of Coursework Completion |
X |
X |
Virginia |
Standard Diploma
Advanced Studies Diploma
Modified Standard Diploma
Special Diploma |
X
X |
X
X |
Washington |
High School Diplomaa |
X |
|
a
Based on information
from states’ Web sites,
as well as cross checks
with the IES site
http://nces.ed.gov/
programs/statereform/saa_tab11.asp
. North Carolina has two
dates for first
graduating class because
a computer skills test
was added starting with
the graduating class of
2001.
b
Four types of
endorsements are
available in Alabama:
Advanced Academic
Endorsement (AHSD/AAE),
Advanced
Career/Technical
Endorsement (AHSD/ACTE),
Career/Technical
Endorsement (AHSD/CTE),
and Credit Based
Endorsement (AHSD/CBE).
c
Four types of seals are
available in Georgia:
Technology/Career
Preparatory Seal,
Technology/Career
Preparatory of
Distinction, College
Preparatory Seal, and
College Preparatory Seal
of Distinction.
d
Massachusetts added
these two certificates
starting with the class
of 2009.
e
Washington has two
certificates that are
noted on a student’s
transcript – they both
lead to the same
diploma: Certification
of Academic Achievement
(CAA) and Certificate of
Individual Achievement
(CIA). CIA is available
only to students with
disabilities.
Top of page |
Table of Contents
A|C|D|F|G|H|I|K|L|M|N|O|P|R|S|T|U|V|W
Profiles of States with
Alternative Routes
Alaska
To
receive Alaska’s
Standard
High
School
Diploma, Alaska
students
must
earn at
least 21
credits,
and some
school
districts
require
more.
The
State
Board of
Education
& Early
Development
stipulates
that
students
earn
four
credits
in
language
arts,
three in
social
studies,
two each
in math
and
science,
and one
in
health/physical
education.
Local
school
boards
set the
remaining
nine or
more
credit
requirements
for
their
own
schools.
Many
students
earn
credits
beyond
those
required
as a
minimum.
To earn
a
diploma,
students
must
also
achieve
passing
grades
on all
three
tests on
the
Alaska
High
School
Graduation
Qualifying
Exam
(HSGQE),
which
measures
competency
in
reading,
writing,
and
math.
Students
who
experience
disabilities
can, as
part of
an
Individual
Education
Program
or 504
Plan,
and with
the
approval
of the
state
Department
of
Education
& Early
Development,
take and
pass
optional
exams.
Students
who do
not pass
the
HSGQE or
an
approved
optional
exam
receive
a
Certificate
of
Achievement.
A
student
with
disabilities
who does
not pass
a
portion
of the
HSGQE
may take
the
Modified
HSGQE if
the
student
requires
modifications
in
addition
to the
accommodations
already
provided.
Information about Alternative Routes in Alaska
Table 1 provides an overview of the alternative routes that are available in Alaska. Alaska has two alternative routes—one for all students, and one only for students with disabilities. For both all students and students with disabilities, the student is the one to request the alternative route. The approving body is the local school board for all students, and the IEP or 504 team for students with disabilities. For the Waiver, students do not need to first take the HSGQE. For the Modified or NonStandard HSGQE, students must first take the regular HSGQE before requesting the Modified or Nonstandard HSGQE.
Table 1.Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for Alternative Routes
Name |
Target Group |
Who Requests |
Who Decides |
Waiver from HSGQE |
All Students |
Student |
Local school board |
Modified High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE) for Non-standard HSGQEa |
Students with Disabilities |
Student |
IEP or 504 Team |
a The Modified HSGQE and Nonstandard HSGQW were counted as a single alternative routes, although they possibly could be separated. Table 2 shows information on the specific criteria for students to participate in an alternative route. The waiver for all students covers a variety of unique situations (e.g., late arrival in state, parent death). The Modified or Nonstandard HSGQE requires that the students has not passed a portion of the HSGQE.
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard Diploma
Name |
Specific Criteria |
Waiver |
The student arrives within the final two semesters of his or her intended year of graduation; parent dies within the last semester of the student’s intended year of graduation; a serious or sudden illness, or a physical injury, prevents the student from taking the exam in the final semester of his or her intended year of graduation; a disability arises too late in the student’s high school career to develop a meaning full and valid assessment; a student has passed a competency exam in another state that assesses the same content areas, and is a high school exit exam. |
Modified HSGQE or Nonstandard HSGQEa |
A student with a disability who does not pass a portion of the exam may take the Modified HSGQE if the student requires modifications in the addition to the accommodations already provided. A students with a disability who does not pass a portion of the exam may take the Nonstandard HSGQW if the student meets three requirements: (a) is working at or near grade level, (b) has taken but is not proficient on the HSQGE, and (c) has a documented history of being unable to demonstrate proficiency on a standardized assessment because of one or more conditions. |
Note: The alternative route available only to students with disabilities is in bold. a The Modified HSGQE and Nonstandard HSGQW were counted as a single alternative routes, although they possibly could be separated.
Each of the alternative routes in Alaska is described in more detail here.
Waiver from HSGQE
Students may request an application for a waiver from the HSGQE for several reasons. Depending on the reason, there are different requirements that the student must follow and submit with the request.
During the process of approval, the student who applied for a waiver must continue to take the HSGQE until the local school board approves of the waiver. The school board must notify the student by registered mail whether the application was approved or denied. The school board must also provide a copy of its decision to grant or deny a waiver to the Commissioner of Education and Early Development. If the waiver is denied, then the student may appeal the denial to the Commissioner of Education and Early Development. The appeal must be postmarked no later than 30 days following the student’s receipt of the school board’s decision to deny.
Arriving Late into Alaska Public School System. The student must submit documentation from the school in Alaska where the student is currently enrolled, including the enrollment date. The document must verify the date of the student’s physical presence in Alaska prior to enrollment in any of the school options in the state. The submitted documentation must also include the out-of-state school district that the student is transferring from, including their enrollment date, and exit date.
Rare and Unusual Circumstances. This includes death of a parent, where the parent must have died in the last semester of the student’s senior year (must provide documentation with date of death); serious and sudden illness or injury to which prevented the student from taking the HSGQE. A documented disability from the student’s IEP team; a district or system error in which a documentation will verify that the mailed test materials were not received, or lost. If the student is unable to participate due to a disability, the student must submit an approved copy of the Request for Permission (student must have taken either the modified or nonstandard HSGQE before applying for the waiver). If the student passed another state’s competency exam, the out-of-state school in which the student transferred from, must transmit directly to the regional school board which will include the student’s transcripts demonstrating that the student has passed all parts/subtest of an out-of-state exam. The student may also get advice from Education and Early Development to take an alternate assessment.
Modified or Nonstandard HSGQE
Modified HSGQE. The IEP or 504 team indicates the student needs an alternative assessment program for the HSGQE on the student’s plan. The team completes the Modified HSGQE application and submits it to the Department of Education and Early Development. If the application is denied, the team may appeal the decision to the Commissioner of Education and Early Development.
Nonstandard HSGQE. The IEP or 504 team indicates the student needs an alternative assessment program for the HSGQE on the student’s plan. The team completes the application for the nonstandard test and submits it for approval by the Department of Education and Early Development. If the Department of Education and Early Development denies approval, the team may appeal the decision to the Commissioner of Education and Early Development. In addition to the application, the student must have one or more of the following document conditions:
- The student has a severe emotional or behavioral impairment or a pervasive development or other disability that causes the student to be unable to concentrate on the HSGQE, even with accommodations or appropriate modifications;
- The student cannot cope with the demands of a prolonged test because of multiple physical disabilities, severe health-related disabilities, or a neurological disorder;
- The student has a significant motor or communication disability that causes the student to need more time than is reasonable or available for testing, even with extended time.
World Wide Web Resources
Content |
Web Address |
Earning a High School Diploma |
http://www.eed.state.ak.us/tls/assessment/HSGQE/GuidetoHSdiploma2008.pdf |
Top of Appendix C
California
The California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) was a requirement starting with the
class of 2006 to receive a Standard High School Diploma. The CAHSEE has two parts, English-
Language Arts and Mathematics. Both parts contain multiple choice questions, with the addition
of an essay for the English-Language Arts portion.
In 2004, the California legislature (Senate bill 964-Burton) required the Superintendent of Public
Instruction to develop and the State Board of Education to approve and provide alternatives to
students with disabilities. The alternative was also a waiver, which allowed students with an
IEP or 504 plan to take the CAHSEE with a modification.
In 2007, Senate Bill 267 required all local educational agencies to grant a high school diploma
to each student with disabilities who was scheduled to graduate from high school in 2007, and
has not passed the CAHSEE.
In 2008, California Education Code Section 60851(c) allowed local school district governing
boards to waive the requirement to pass the CAHSEE for students with disabilities who test with
a modification score of 350 or above. This waiver only applied to the class of 2008. Apart from
this, the student must have an active IEP or 504 plan that indicates the student was scheduled to
graduate with the class of 2008 and the student had taken one or both portions of the CAHSEE
with one or more modifications and received a passing score.
Information about Alternative Routes in California
One alternative route is available in California. It is designated for students with disabilities (see
Table 1). This alternative route does not require that students first take the regular CAHSEE.
Table 1. Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for Alternative Routes
Name
|
Target Group
|
Who Requests
|
Who Decides
|
Waiver
|
Students with Disabilities
|
No Information Found
|
Local school districts
|
Table 2 provides information on the specific criteria for participation in the waiver in California.
This information indicates that the student may either have an IEP or a 504 plan.
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard Diploma
Name
|
Specific Criteria
|
Waiver
|
The student must have an IEP or 504 plan that indicates the student was scheduled to graduate.
|
Note: The alternative route available only to students with disabilities is in bold.
The waiver alternative route in California is described in more detail here.
Waiver
In addition to the student having an IEP or 504 plan indicating the student was scheduled to graduate with their respective class, the student must have also taken one or both portions of the CAHSEE with one or more modifications and received the equivalent of a passing score (350 or above).
World Wide Web Resources
Content
|
Web Address
|
Waiver
|
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/08waiverltr.asp
|
Top of Appendix C
Florida
As part of Florida’s graduation requirement to receive a Standard Diploma, students must take the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). The FCAT measures student performance on benchmarks in reading, writing, mathematics, and science from the Sunshine State Standards (SSS). It is a part of Florida’s overall plan to increase student achievement by implementing higher standards.
The FCAT was first administered to sophomores in 1998. It has undergone a variety of changes since the first administration, including adding writing (2000) and science (2003), In 2005, multiple-choice items were added and the named changed to FCAT Writing+. Students who have not passed the Grade 10 FCAT have up to five opportunities to pass it before graduation. Students may retest on the reading or mathematics section of the FCAT or both sections, in the fall and spring of their junior and senior years. Students who have not successfully
passed the Grade 10 FCAT prior to their expected graduation may retake the FCAT as many times as they want until they pass it.
Information about Alternative Routes in Florida
Table 1 provides an overview of the three alternative routes in Florida. Two of the routes are for all students and one route is only for students with disabilities. One of the routes for all students, the GED Exit Option Model Program, does not require that students first take the regular FCAT. The other two routes, one for all students and one only for students with disabilities, require that the student first take the FCAT.
Table 1. Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for Alternative Routes
Name
|
Target Group
|
Who Requests
|
Who Decides
|
GED Exit Option Model Program
|
All students
|
Student
|
Local School District
|
Concordant Scores
|
All students
|
Student
|
Department of Education
|
FCAT Waiver
|
Students with Disabilities
|
Parent or legal guardian with student, and IEP team
|
IEP team
|
Table 2 shows information on the specific criteria for students to participate in an alternative
route. The two routes available to all students each allow the student to use a different test score
for the FCAT. The alternative route available to students with disabilities is a waiver based on
an IEP team decision.
Name
|
Specific Criteria
|
Concordant Scores
|
Any student who attempts to pass the FCAT at
least three times without earning a passing
score may use scores from an ACT or SAT.
|
GED Exit Option Model
Program
|
Any student who is at leaste 18 years old
and who has not earned a standard diploma may
earn a State of Florida diploma by passing the
Tests of General Educational Development (GED).
|
FCAT Waiver
|
The student's IEP team may decide whether
the FCAT accurately measures the student's
ability to master the FCAT. The student
needs to first attempt the FCAT at least twice,
and meet all other graduation requirements.
|
Note: The alternative route available only to students with disabilities is in bold.
Each of the alternative routes in Florida is described in more detail here.
Concordant Scores
Florida implemented the concordant scores alternative route in 2003-2004. It is an alternative
route available to all students. A senior can graduate with a standard diploma by receiving a
score comparable to the FCAT passing score. A student who uses this alternative route must
take the FCAT a total of three times without earning a passing score in order to use scores from
the ACT or SAT. Students who are new to the public school system starting in their 12th grade,
do not need to meet this requirement.
The passing score for reading when taking the FCAT is 1926; the student must receive a score
of 410 on the SAT or a 15 on the ACT to be considered comparable. For mathematics, the passing
score when taking the FCAT is 1889; the student must receive a score of 370 on the SAT
or 15 on the ACT.
GED Exit Option Model Program
Students who have not received a passing FCAT score can earn a State of Florida diploma by
passing the GED test. This alternative route is only offered in some school districts. This alternative
route is included here because it does not exclude students who are still in school, and
thus is an alternative route available to students in school.
FCAT Waiver
An FCAT Waiver may be granted if the IEP team determines that the FCAT does not accurately measure a student’s ability, even with accommodations. This option is only available to students who are in their senior year and pursuing the traditional 24-credit standard program.
In addition that, the student must have attempted to take the test twice, and there must be documentation that the student has mastered the Sunshine State Standards test on the FCAT.
World Wide Web Resources
Content |
Web Address |
High School Diploma Options for Students with Disabilities |
http://fldoe.org/ese/pdf/hs_options_ese.pdf |
Course Code Directory System Guide |
http://www.fldoe.org/articulation/CCD/files/0708/GradRequ07_08.pdf |
FCAT Graduation Requirements (Concordant Scores) |
http://fcat.fldoe.org/pdf/fcatpass.pdf |
Diploma Decisions for Students with Disabilities, What Parents Need to Know |
http://fcat.fldoe.org/pdf/fcatpass.pdf |
Top of Appendix C
Georgia
All students must take the Georgia High School Writing Test (GHSWT) and the Georgia High School Graduation Tests (GHSGT) to receive a High School Diploma. The GHSWT is first administered to students in the fall of their eleventh-grade year. The GHSGT is first adminis-tered to students in the spring of their eleventh-grade year in areas of English/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.
There is no limit to the number of times a student may retake the graduation assessments until he or she meets the passing criteria. Upon meeting these criteria, students who have met all other graduation requirements are eligible to receive a high school diploma.
Information about Alternative Routes in Georgia
An overview of the two alternative routes in Georgia is shown in Table 1. Georgia offers to all students a Hardship Waiver and a Variance. For students with disabilities, the state offers an IEP Waiver. It is the responsibility of the student or the student’s parent or legal guardian to initiate a waiver or a variance. The variance does not require that students first take the regular GHSGT, while the other two alternative routes do require the student to have first taken the GHSGT.
Table 1. Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for Alternative Routes
Name
|
Target Group
|
Who Requests
|
Who Decides
|
Waiver - Hardship
|
All students
|
Student or parent/legal
guardian
|
State board of
Education
|
Variance
|
All students
|
Student or parent/legal
guardian
|
State board of
Education
|
Waiver - IEP
|
Students with
disabilities
|
Student or parent/legal
guardian
|
State board of
Education
|
The process of the alternative routes begins with the student, or the student’s parent or legal guardian, submitting a request in writing to the local superintendent of schools of the system that the student attends or attended. Initial information that needs to be included in addition to the specified criteria is:
a. Specific facts that would justify the waiver or variance.
b. The reason why the variance or waiver requested would serve the purpose of the underlying
requirement. The reasons must be in accordance with the purposes of the waiver or
variance.
c. Written permission for the Georgia Department of Educational staff to receive all records
that pertain to the request.
Table 2 shows the specific criteria for students to participate in an alternative route in Georgia.
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard Diploma
Name |
Specific Criteria |
Waiver–Hardship |
The student has not had a reasonable opportunity to pass a section of the GHSGT or GHSWT due to a substantial hardship beyond the student’s control. |
Variance |
The student must pass at least three sections of the GHSGT and GHSWT. The student may pass either three sections of the GHSGT, or two sections of the GHSGT plus the GHSWT. The student must also have an attendance record of 90%, excluding excused absences while enrolled in grades 9-12. The student’s scale score falls within one standard error of measurement for passing the relevant section of the GHSGT or GHSWT, using the student’s highest score over multiple administration; the student has successfully passed each related End-of-Course Test, where applicable, for the sections of the GHSGT in which the variance is sought. |
Waiver – IEP |
The student’s disability makes him/her incapable of passing a section of GHSGT or GHSWT, even with the provision of all allowable accommodations. |
Note: The alternative route available only to students with disabilities is in bold.
Each of the alternative routes in Georgia is described in more detail here.
Waiver – Hardship
Substantial hardships may include a significant, unique and demonstrable economic, technological, legal, or other type of deprivation. The student must still adequately demonstrate with a record of coursework and earned credits that the student possesses the knowledge required to pass the GHSGT and/or GHSWT.
Variance
Students who request a variance must first have attempted, a minimum of four times, the relevant sections of the GHSGT or GHSWT. Students must also provide documentation of having received remediation in the sections for which the variance is being sought.
Waiver–IEP
While the student’s disability will not preclude him/her from taking the assessments, the disability and its impact on the student’s achievement must be documented in the student’s individual education plan (IEP) over time. Just like the Hardship Waiver, the student’s record of coursework and earned credits should adequately demonstrate that the student possesses the knowledge required to pass the GHSGT and/or GHSWT.
World Wide Web Resources
Content |
Web Address |
Waivers and Variances of high School Graduation Assessments Guidelines |
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/Waivers%20Variance%20Guidelines.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F6CCE12CA193F128E65 9E405913281A7D3002972D0BE3FBC41&Type=D |
Diploma Options |
http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/documents/curriculum |
Transition Manual for Students with Disabilities (Diploma Options page 30) |
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/specialed_transition_ manual.pdf?p=4BE1EECF99CD364EA5554055463F1FBB77B0B70FE CF5942E12E123FE4810FFF5B440E78DF74A7BADF823002584844BB 6&Type=D |
Top of Appendix C
Idaho
Passing the Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) is required to receive a regular high school diploma. The test measures a student’s competency in reading, language usage, mathematics, and science. The ISAT was first administered as a requirement for high school graduation in 2002. The ISAT is administered every fall and spring; schools may also choose to give it in winter.
Students use a computer to take this test. Computer administration allows the test to immedi-ately adjust to the performance of each student and provides information quickly to the teacher and student.
Information about the Alternative Routes in Idaho
Two alternative routes are available in Idaho – both routes are designated for students with dis-abilities (see Table 1). Students who are eligible for special education services must have an Individualized Graduation Plan. The plan must include at least one evaluation measure in the core academic areas. If the student is not demonstrating proficiency on the ISAT and it appears the student may not be able to demonstrate proficiency, then another evaluation mechanism must be identified and agreed upon. The alternative routes in Idaho do not require that the student first take the regular ISAT.
Table 1. Target Groups, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for Alternative Routes
Name
|
Target Group
|
Who Requests
|
Who Decides
|
Comparable Graduation
Requirements
|
Students with IEP
|
IEP Team
|
IEP Team and Principal
|
Graduation Criteria
Established by IEP Team
|
Students with IEP
|
IEP Team
|
IEP Team and Principal
|
Table 2 presents information on the specific criteria for each of the laternative routes available to students with disabilities
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard Diploma
Name |
Specific Criteria |
Comparable Graduation Requirements |
Student is one with an IEP and an Individualized Graduation Plan (which is developed for all students with IEPs in grade 8). Annual reviews of the plan determined that the student will meet comparable graduation requirements. |
Graduation Criteria Established by IEP Team |
Student is one with an IEP and an Individualized Graduation Plan (which is developed for all students with IEPs in grade 8). Annual reviews of the plan determined that the student will meet alternate requirements developed through the IEP process. |
Note: The alternative routes available only to students with disabilities are in bold.
Each of the alternative routes in Idaho is described in more detail here.
Comparable Graduation Requirements
In addition to the student’s IEP, the student must also have an Individualized Graduation Plan. The IEP team uses a chart to determine which methods can be used to demonstrate a student’s proficiency on the standards. The chart includes the type of method, the description, scoring and what the student needs to score or grade as proficient.
Graduation Criteria Established by IEP Team
When the IEP team addresses completion of the student’s secondary program by adapting regular graduation requirements, these needs to be:
- Adapting the course content, course objectives, instructional strategies, grading, assessments; or
- Identifying alternative methods for demonstrating competence.
World Wide Web Resources
Content |
Web Address |
Students with Disabilities Graduation Decision Guidance (page 6) |
http://www.sde.idaho.gov/specialeducation/docs/Features/GraduationGuidance.pdf |
Indiana
Diplomas were first withheld from students who
did not pass the exam in 1999–2000. Initially, there were two levels of
achievement on the graduation exam: "pass" and "did not pass." Beginning
in 2004, there were three levels: "pass+," "pass," and "did not pass."
Starting with the fall of
2006, students who were entering high school were encouraged to complete the
Core 40, and beginning with students who enter in high school in the fall of
2007 (graduating class of 2011), the completion of the Core 40 became a
graduation requirement. Students were still able to take the General Diploma
route through an opt-out process, although the General Diploma is not a standard
diploma.
The decision to make the Core
40 the standard route to graduation was because in 2005, more than half of
Indiana’s high school graduates earned the Core 40 diploma.
Information about Alternative Routes in
Indiana
Two alternative routes have
been created in Indiana, both of which are available to all students (see Table
1). Students are required to first take the regular
assessment before requesting to
participate in either of the alternative routes.
Table 1. Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for
Alternative Routes
Name
|
Target Group
|
Who Requests
|
Who Decides
|
Evidence-based Waiver
|
All students
|
Student or parent/legal
guardian
|
State Board of
Education
|
Work-Readiness Waiver
|
All students
|
Student or parent/legal
guardian
|
State Board of
Education
|
Table 2 provides information on the specific criteria for
participation in the waivers available in Indiana. This information indicates
that although these options are available to all students, they have specific
requirements and approval processes.
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard
Diploma
Name
|
Specific Criteria
|
Evidence-based Waiver
|
Student must obtain written
recommendation from a teacher of the sub-ject
area in which the student has not yet received a
passing score. The written recommendation must
be approved by the principal of the student’s
school and be supported by documentation that
the student has attained the academic standards
in the subject area based on either classroom
work, or tests other than the graduation exam or
classroom work.
|
Work-readiness Waiver
|
Student must complete the course
and credit requirements for a general diploma,
maintain a least a "C" average, maintain school
attendance at 95%, and take the graduation exam
in each subject area in which the stu-dent did
not achieve a passing score at least one time
every school year after the school year in which
the student first takes the graduation exam.
|
The waivers available as alternative routes in Indiana are
described in more detail here.
Evidence-based Waiver
In addition to having to take
the exam each year in the subject area where the student did not first pass, the
student must also satisfy all state and local graduation requirements, maintain
a "C" average or equivalent, complete remediation opportunities provided by the
student’s school, and maintain a 95% attendance rate (with excused absences not
counting).
Work-readiness Waiver
Similar to the Evidence-based
Waiver, the student must take the exam each year at least once, complete
remediation opportunities, maintain school attendance, a "C" average and satisfy
local and state graduation requirements. In addition to this, the student must
complete course and credit requirements for a general di-ploma (using the
opt-out waiver), including the career academic sequence; a workforce readiness
assessment, and at least one career exploration internship or cooperative
education or workforce credential recommended by the student’s school.
World Wide Web Resources
Content
|
Web Address
|
Waiver Rule
|
http://www.doe.in.gov/dps/teacherprep/testing/WaiverRule.html
|
GQE Requirements
|
http://www.doe.in.gov/istep/gqe/
(Click
on Meeting the GQE Require-ments)
|
Core40 FAQ
|
http://www.doe.in.gov/core40/docs/faq.pdf
|
Waiver
The student must include evidence that the student participated in remediation and how the disability or disabilities impacted the student’s inability to pass the assessment. In addition to this, the Waiver is only available to graduating seniors or students who have previously left school who have a disability.
World Wide Web Resources
Content |
Web Address |
GEE Waiver |
http://www.doe.state.la.us/Lde/eia/2592.html |
High School Graduation Requirements |
http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/7516.pdf |
Top of Appendix C
Louisiana
The Graduation Exit
Examination (GEE) is part of Louisiana’s criterion-referenced testing (CRT)
program. The GEE measures how well a student has mastered the state content
standards, and is administrated at grades 10 and 11 as a graduation requirement
to receive a standard diploma.
In spring of 2001, the GEE
English language arts and mathematics tests were administered for grade 10, and
in spring 2002, the GEE science and social studies tests for grade 11 were
ad-ministered. The GEE requires high school students to exhibit sufficient
knowledge and skills to be eligible for a high school diploma.
In 2005, the Louisiana
Department of Education Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted a
waiver process for students with disabilities seeking a standard high school
diploma.
Information about alternative Routes in
Louisiana
One alternative route is
available in Louisiana. It is designated for students with disabilities (see
Table 1). Students who participate in this alternative route must first take the regular GEE.
Table 1. Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for
Alternative Routes
Name
|
Target
Group
|
Who
Requests
|
Who
Decides
|
Waiver
|
Students
with Disabilities
|
No
Information
|
No
Information
|
Table 2 provides information on the specific criteria for
participation in the waiver in Louisiana. This information indicates that the
student must have a disability and must have passed certain portions of the exit
exam to qualify for the waiver.
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard
Diploma
Name
|
Specific Criteria
|
Waiver
|
The student must have passed all
but one of the required portions of the GEE, and
meet all other graduation requirements. Also,
the student must be a graduating senior (or a
student who previously left school).
|
Note: The alternative route available only to students with
disabilities is in bold.
The waiver alternative route in Louisiana is described in more
detail here.
Waiver
The student must include evidence that the student
participated in remediation and how the disability or disabilities impacted the
student’s inability to pass the assessment. In addition to this, the Waiver is
only available to graduating seniors or students who have previously left school
who have a disability.
World Wide Web Resources
Content
|
Web Address
|
GEE Waiver
|
http://www.doe.state/la.us/Lde/eia/2592.html
|
High School Graduation
Requirements
|
http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/7516.pdf
|
Top of Appendix C
Maryland
The
Maryland
High
School
Assessments
(HSAs)
are high
school
end-of-course
assessments
based on
the
Maryland
Content
Standards
for
English,
algebra/data
analysis,
biology,
and
government.
Over
time,
the use
of
constructed
response
items
has
decreased;
by the
2009
administration
of the
HSAs,
all
items
were
selected
response
items.
The HSAs
replace
the
Maryland
Functional
Tests.
To earn
a
Maryland
high
school
diploma,
students
must
pass the
HSAs. In
addition,
they
must
meet
other
requirements.
These
include
completing
credit
and
service-learning
requirements
(i.e.,
21
credits
in
English,
math,
science,
social
studies,
fine
arts,
physical
education,
health
education,
technology
education,
and
either
advanced
technology
education
or
foreign
language;
75 hours
service),
attending
school
for four
years
(past
grade
8), and
completing
any
local
graduation
requirements.
If a
student
does not
pass an
HSA, the
student
must
complete
intervention
or
assistance
programs
before
retaking
the
test.
The
student
has four
opportunities
to take
retake
an HSA
(October,
January,
May,
summer),
with an
additional
opportunity
offered
to
seniors.
Students
who pass
the HSAs
and meet
the
other
graduation
requirements
earn the
Maryland
High
School
Diploma.
Another
option
for
students
is the
Maryland
High
School
Certificate
of
Program
Completion;
this is
available
to
students
with
significant
disabilities.
To earn
the
Certificate
of
Program
Completion,
students
must
complete
their
IEP
requirements
(which
will be
accompanied
by an
exit
document
that
cites
the
student’s
skills).
Another
option
exists
in
Maryland
for
those
students
no
longer
enrolled
in high
school:
they can
either
take and
pass the
five GED
tests
(if they
are at
least 16
years
old and
have
been out
of
school
for at
least 3
months),
or they
can take
and pass
national
competency-based
External
High
School
Program
performance
assessments
(if they
are at
least 18
years
old and
have
been out
of
school
for at
least 3
months).
Information about Alternative Routes in Maryland
Five options exist as alternatives to passing the four HSAs in Maryland. Some are designated for all students, while others are only for students with disabilities (see Table 1). First, there are three testing substitutions that students can pursue in place of the HSA: Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate tests (considered one option), the Modified HSA (which is available only to students with disabilities who meet specific participation criteria), and the Modified-HSA Plus Option. The two other options are: (a) Combined-Score Option, and (b) Bridge Plan for Academic Validation. Students do not have to take the HSAs before they can pursue three of the alternative routes (all except the Modified-HSA Plus Option and Bridge Plan for Academic Validation). For the other two (Combined Score Option, Bridge Plan for Academic Validation), they must have first taken the HSA.
Table 1.Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for Alternative Routes
Name |
Target Group |
Who Requests |
Who Decides |
Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) |
All students |
Student |
Department of Education |
Combined-Score Option |
All students |
Student |
Department of Education |
Bridge Plan for Academic Validation |
All students |
Student |
Local school |
Modified-HSA |
Students with disabilities |
Student |
IEP team |
Modified-HSA Plus Option |
Students with disabilities |
Student |
Department of Education |
Table 2 provides the specific criteria used for students to be able to pursue each alternative route in Maryland.
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard Diploma
Name |
Specific Criteria |
Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) |
Student must earn a score that has been approved by the Maryland State Department of Education for the substitute assessment that is taken. The student does not need to fail the HSA first. |
Combined-Score Option |
Student must earn a combined score of 1602 on the four HSA tests, even if each test individually was not passed (412 on algebra/data analysis; 396 on English; 400 on biology; and 394 on government). The nature of this option suggests that the student has not passed at least one HSA. |
Bridge Plan for Academic Validation |
Student must complete assigned project in each targeted content area in which an HSA test was not passed (including the Modified-HSAs), after taking the test two times. |
Modified-HSA |
Student must earn a passing score on the Modified-High School Assessments. This assessment may only be taken by students with disabilities who have IEPs who meet specific participation criteria. The student does not need to fail the HSA first. |
Modified-HSA Plus Option |
Student must earn a required score on the Modified-High School Assessments. This option is available to students with disabilities who have IEPs who may not meet the criteria for participation in the Modified-HSA, but who have failed the HSA the first time it was taken. |
Note: Those alternative routes available only to students with disabilities are in bold.
Each of Maryland’s alternative routes is described in more detail here.
Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB)
Any student may take either an advanced placement test or an International Baccalaureate test that is in an HSA test content area. If the student receives a score that has been approved by the Maryland Department of Education as passing, the AP or IB score can substitute as a passing score on the relevant HSA. This option is open to any student.
Combined Score Option
This is an option for students who take the HSA tests, but do not pass one or more of them. The student does not have to retake any test if the total score obtained by adding all the earned scores together is 1602 points. Any student who takes the four HSA tests and earns at least this total score is considered to have met the assessment requirement.
Bridge Plan for Academic Validation
The Bridge Plan option was introduced in the 2008-2009 school year, after successful pilot testing in summer 2008. Before participating in this option, students must have failed the HSA or Mod-HSA two times (or did not achieve a total of 1602 points on the HSAs). This option consists of students completing an independent project in the content areas (and covering comparable content) in which they did not pass the HSA or Mod-HSA. The Maryland Department of Education indicated that these independent projects are ones that can be completed under the guidance of a teacher over several days or weeks, and involve about 8-12 hours of independent student time.
Modified-HSA
The Modified-HSA was introduced in spring 2008 as an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) for the high school level. The Modified-HSA has tests in the same areas as the HSA (English, algebra/data analysis, biology, government). It is an assessment that was developed for students with disabilities. The tests comply with federal guidelines for AA-MAS, which include being based on grade-level content standards, but with achievement standards that reflect less difficulty than those for the regular grade-level achievement standards assessments (HSAs), and for school accountability purposes, allowing only up to 2% of the total population of students (about 20% of students with disabilities) to be counted as proficient on the assessment. Find more information to describe this option and the guidelines for participation.
Modified-HSA Plus Option
The Modified-HSA Plus Option was introduced in summer 2008. The tests are the same as for the Modified-HSA, but the students eligible for the option includes those who do not meet the participation guidelines for the Modified-HSA, as long as they are students with disabilities. The student who uses this option must first have taken the regular HSA test and failed it. There is no indication that students who select this option must first participate in intervention or assistance programs (such as online courses for the HSA content are that was not passed), as they must do to retake the HSA.
World Wide Web Resources
Content |
Web Address |
Diploma Routes |
http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/nr/rdonlyres/b057da27-3ffb-40f998b8-7ead2535f779/17088/parents_guide_08_eng.pdf |
Massachusetts
The
Massachusetts
Comprehensive
Assessment
System
(MCAS)
includes
assessments
used in
grades
3-8 and
high
school
for
school
accountability
purposes.
The high
school
assessment
is also
used for
a
Competency
Determination
(CD) as
part of
local
graduation
requirements
that
must be
met to
earn a
Massachusetts
high
school
diploma.
Starting
with the
2010
graduating
class,
students
must
meet the
CD
requirement
in
English
language
arts
(ELA),
mathematics,
science,
and
technology/engineering
(STE);
prior to
this
(since
the CD
requirement
first
started
with the
graduating
class of
2003),
students
had to
meet the
CD
requirement
only in
ELA and
mathematics.
The
assessments
contain
multiple-choice,
short-answer,
and
open-response
items,
and
prompts
for the
writing
portion
of ELA.
To earn
a
Massachusetts
Competency
Determination,
students
must
pass the
grade 10
MCAS
tests;
each
must be
passed
with a
score of
220 or
higher.
Starting
with the
graduating
class of
2009,
students
also may
earn a
Certificate
of
Mastery
or a
Certificate
of
Mastery
with
Distinction.
For a
student
to earn
the
Certificate
of
Mastery,
a score
of
Advanced
must be
obtained
on at
least
one of
the
grade 10
MCAS
tests,
and at
least a
score of
Proficient
on the
others.
To earn
a
Certificate
of
Mastery
with
Distinction,
a
student
must
qualify
for the
Certificate
of
Mastery,
plus
also
demonstrate
accomplishment
in both
Arts/Humanities
and
Mathematics/Science
and meet
or
surpass
performance
standards
set for
SAT II
or
Advance
Placement
exams in
the
content
areas in
which an
Advanced
score
was not
achieved.
Specific
criteria
for
these
assessments
have
been set
by the
Massachusetts
Department
of
Education,
along
with
lists of
additional
achievements
that
must be
demonstrated
(e.g.,
regional
or state
science
fair
winner).
Information about Alternative Routes in Massachusetts
Three options exist as alternatives to passing the four MCAS tests in Massachusetts (see Table 1). Two of these are called Performance Reviews: (a) MCAS Performance Review–Cohort Review, and (b) MCAS Performance Review–Portfolio Appeal. Both of these alternative routes are available to all students. The third option is the MCAS–Alternate Assessment. It is an alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards that is available only to students with disabilities. Students do not have to first take the MCAS before they can pursue the MCAS–Alternate Assessment. They do have first take the MCAS to pursue either of the Performance Reviews; there are up to five MCAS retesting opportunities for these students.
Table 1.Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for Alternative Routes
Name |
Target Group |
Who Requests |
Who Decides |
MCAS Performance Appeal – Cohort Appeal |
All students |
District Superintendent, on behalf of student |
Performance Appeals Board, with members appointed by the Commissioner of Education |
MCAS Performance Appeal – Portfolio Appeal |
All students |
District Superintendent, on behalf of student |
Performance Appeals Board, with members appointed by the Commissioner of Education |
MCAS – Alternate Assessment |
Students with disabilities |
District Superintendent, on behalf of student |
Performance Appeals Board, with members appointed by the Commissioner of Education |
Table 2 provides information on the specific criteria for participation in each of the three alternative routes available in Massachusetts. This information demonstrates the differences between the routes and the process involved in students gaining access to them.
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard Diploma
Name |
Specific Criteria |
MCAS Performance Ap- |
The grades of the student who did not pass the MCAS and the stu |
peal – Cohort Appeal |
dent’s MCAS scores are compared to those of other students (ones who scored between 220 and 228, which is the minimum passing standard) on the MCAS and who were enrolled in the same sequence of courses in the content area for which an appeal was filed. Some adjustments are made for students with disabilities – different score that had to be attained on the MCAS before an appeal can be filed, and allowing for other evidence to be submitted. Students must meet specific criteria before filing an appeal – failed the MCAS test, attendance rate, and participation in academic support. |
MCAS Performance Ap- |
For cases where a cohort cannot be used for comparison, a portfolio is |
peal – Portfolio Appeal |
prepared of the student’s work in the content area for which the appeal is filed. The portfolio must confirm to specific criteria (e.g., include a table of contents and specific numbers and types of evidence depending on the content area). Similar to the Cohort Appeal, students with disabilities have different MCAS score criteria, and may submit additional evidence for the appeal. Students must meet specific criteria before filing an appeal – failed the MCAS test, attendance rate, and participation in academic support. |
MCAS – Alternate |
Student who meets the participation criteria for the MCAS-Alternate |
Assessment |
participates in the MCAS-Alternate based on grade-level achievement standards. In addition, a student who participated in the MCAS-Alternate may file an appeal if he or she participated in the MCAS-Alt in the content area at least two times. |
Note: The alternative route available only to students with disabilities is in bold.
Each of the alternative routes in Massachusetts is described in more detail here.
MCAS Performance Appeal – Cohort Appeal
The grades of the student who did not pass the MCAS (but attained a score of at least 216) and the student’s MCAS scores are compared to those of at least 6 other students (ones who scored between 220 and 228, which is the minimum passing standard) on the MCAS and who were enrolled in the same sequence of courses in the content area for which an appeal was filed. For students with disabilities, the score of 216 need not have been attained before an appeal is filed; further, additional documentation identified by the IEP team to indicate the student’s knowledge and skills may be included in the appeal. For the Cohort Appeal, the student must fail the MCAS before filing an appeal (3 times for ELA or math; 1 time for STE). The student also must have an attendance rate of 95% during the school year of the appeal, and must have participated in school sponsored tutoring or other academic support services in the content area for which the appeal is filed.
MCAS Performance Appeal – Portfolio Appeal
For cases where a cohort cannot be used for comparison (e.g., fewer than 6 students taking the same courses), a portfolio is prepared of the student’s work (cumulative and current) in the content area for which the appeal is filed. The portfolio must confirm to specific criteria (e.g., include a table of contents and specific numbers and types of evidence depending on the content area). For the Portfolio Appeal, the student must fail the MCAS before filing an appeal (3 times for ELA or math; 1 time for STE). The student also must have an attendance rate of 95% during the school year of the appeal, and must have participated in school sponsored tutoring or other academic support services in the content area for which the appeal is filed.
MCAS – Alternate Assessment
Students who are eligible to participate in the MCAS–Alternate Assessment are eligible for the Competency Determination if they are in the MCAS–Alternate is judged against grade-level achievement standards. MCAS–Alt students are also eligible to file an appeal, if they have participated in the MCAS–Alt at least two times.
World Wide Web Resources
Content |
Web Address |
Laws and Regulations |
http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr30.html?section=05 |
MCAS Appeals |
http://www.doe.mass/edu/mcasappeals/filing/guidelines.pdf |
Minnesota
The Minnesota
Graduation-Required Assessments for Diploma (GRAD) are designed to mea-sure
reading, writing, and mathematics, with the goal of students being on track to
the essential skills and knowledge needed for graduation. Beginning in 2006-2007
(for 9th
graders), the tests have been administered
across grades, with retesting opportunities in subsequent grades. GRAD Written
Composition is administered in grade 9, Reading in grade 10, and Mathematics in
grade 11. The graduating class of 2010 is the first class held to the GRAD,
which replaced the Basic Standards Tests (BSTs)—the previous tests used as a
graduation requirement. Retesting opportunities for each content area are
available in years following the grade in which each is administered.
In addition to passing the
GRAD, students must earn 21.5 course credits. For the state graduation
requirements, these must include 4 credits of language arts, 3 credits of
mathematics, 1 credit of arts, 3 credits of science, and 3.5 credits of social
studies. The other 7 credits are considered elective, unless local graduation
requirements designate specific classes.
Information about Alternative Routes in
Massachusetts
One alternative route is available
in Minnesota. It is available only to students with disabilities, which includes
students with either an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or a 504 accommodation plan (see Table 1). The alternative route involves the team
(either IEP or 504) establishing an appropriate passing standard for the
student. As suggested by the nature of this alternative, students
do not have to first take the GRAD
before pursuing the alternative route.
However, the student’s team must conduct a formal review to establish the
"appropriate" pass-ing standard.
Table 1. Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for
Alternative Routes
Name
|
Target Group
|
Who Requests
|
Who Decides
|
Team Established
Passing standard
|
Students with
disabilities
|
IEP or 504 Team
|
IEP or 504 Team
|
Table 2 presents the specific criteria used to be able to pursue
the alternative route in Minnesota.
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard Diploma
Name |
Specific Criteria |
Team Established Passing Standard |
No specific guidelines or criteria were presented for when it is appropriate for the IEP or 504 Plan team to suggest that an alternative to the regular passing standards for the GRAD is needed. When the team does establish a different passing standard, the student receives a designation of “Pass Individual.” |
Note: The alternative route available only to students with disabilities is in bold.
The Team Established Passing Standard alternative route in Minnesota is described in more detail here.
Team Established Passing Standard
No details were found about recommended procedures for which students might need an team established passing standards, nor how the alternative standard might be set.
World Wide Web Resources
Content |
Web Address |
GRAD |
http://education.state.mn.us/mde/Accountability_Programs/Assessment_ and_Testing /Assessments/GRAD/General_Information/index.html |
Graduation Requirements |
http://education.state.mn.us/mdeprod/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dD ocName=001070&RevisionSelectionMethod=latestReleased&Rendition =primary |
IEP-504 Route |
http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Accountability_Programs/Assessment_and_Testing/Assessments/GRAD/General_Information/index.html |
Mississippi
The Mississippi SubjectArea
Testing Program includes four subject area tests:Algebra I, Biology I, U.S.
History (from 1877), and English II. These tests replace the Functional Literacy
Exam (FLE), which was the previous requirement for graduation. All four subject
area tests were first required of entering 9th
graders in 2002-2003 (graduating class
of 2005-2006).
In addition to passing the
tests, students must earn Carnegie units in the subject areas. Students may
retake a test three times each year until a passing score is earned. Students
with disabilities who do not earn a regular high school diploma may earn an
Occupational Diploma. This is done by completing certain coursework requirements
and also submitting a portfolio of work. The courses and portfolio evidence must
cover the areas of employment English, job skills math, life skills science, and
career preparation (social studies). The IEP team meets for an exit meeting to
evaluate whether IEP goals and objectives were met and the completion of all
requirements for the Mississippi Occupational Diploma. The final portfolio is
reviewed and approved by the principal prior to graduation
Information about Alternative Routes in
Mississippi
One alternative route is
available in Mississippi (see Table 1). This alternative route is avail-able to
all students; no unique alternative route is designated only for students with
disabilities. Information on the Subject Area Testing Program Appeals Process
indicates that an appeal may be filed by a student, parent, or district
personnel when there is reason to believe that the student has mastered the
subject area curriculum, but the student was unable to demonstrate mastery of
the Subject Area Test. It also indicates that the students must take the test on
two separate administrations. Thus, students do have to
fail the Subject Area Test before
they can be considered eligible to pursue the appeals process.
Table 1. Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for
Alternative Routes
Name
|
Target Group
|
Who Requests
|
Who Decides
|
Substitute Evaluation
Process
|
All students
|
Student, Parent, or
District Personnel
|
State Appeals
Substitute Evaluation Committee
|
Table 2 provides information on the specific criteria for
participation in the Substitute Evaluation Process in Mississippi. This
information indicates that students who passed a course, and therefore earned
the Carnegie unit, but failed the subject area test and students who failed a
subject area test during a retest may appeal for a Substitute Evaluation
Process.
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard
Diploma
Name
|
Specific Criteria
|
Substitute
Evaluation Process
|
Students who did not pass the
Subject Area Test two times, but who have
mastered the subject area curriculum are
eligible to submit an appeal to substitute a
portfolio of evidence. The appeal is made to the
district, which if viewed as having merit, moves
to the state level. When the State Appeals
Substitute Evaluation Committee determines that
sub-mitted evidence indicates that the student
has demonstrated mastery, then a passing score
is substituted for the failing score.
When an appeal is denied, or if
the evidence review indicates that the student
has not demonstrated mastery, then the student
must continue to participate in the testing. In
addition, the district is then held responsible
for the cost of the Substitute Evaluation review
process (in contrast to the case when the
student’s evidence is determined to show
mastery, where the state bears the cost of the
substitute evaluation).
|
The single alternative route in Mississippi is described in more
detail here.
Substitute Evaluation Process
Students who are thought to
have mastered the subject area curriculum, but who have not been able to pass
the Subject Area Test on two separate administrations may submit an appeal first
to the district. This appeal is submitted by either the student or the student’s
parents. The district then submits the appeal to the state, where a
"determination of merit" is made to deny or grant the request. If the request is
granted, then evidence is submitted that shows the student has demonstrated
mastery of the subject area curriculum. The evidence is reviewed by the State
Appeals Substitute Evaluation Committee. If this committee determines that the
student has demonstrated mastery, then a passing score is substituted for the
failing score.
When an appeal is denied, or
if the evidence review indicates that the student has not demonstrated mastery,
then the student must continue to participate in the testing. In addition, the
district is then held responsible for the cost of the substitute evaluation
review process (in contrast to the case when the student’s evidence is
determined to show mastery, where the state bears the cost of the substitute
evaluation).
The evidence that is submitted
must include a written statement with supporting evidence that the student
mastered the subject area curriculum and the reasons that the student will be
successful with a substitute evaluation. The specific evidenced that is
submitted must include: (a) nine-week grades from report card, (b) letter from
the student’s teachers that describes the student’s work habits, class
participation, homework assignments, class projects, and attendance record, and
(c) portfolio of work completed by the student and tests that demonstrate the
student’s own work and knowledge of the subject area curriculum.
World Wide Web Resources
Content |
Web Address |
Occupational Diploma |
http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/Special_education/pdfs/occupat_diploma.pdf |
Appeals |
http://www.mde.k12.us/acad/OSA/appeal.pdf |
Top of Appendix C
New
Jersey
Passing
the New
Jersey
High
School
Proficiency
Assessment
(HSPA)
is a
requirement
for
students
to earn
a high
school
diploma.
The HSPA
is
required
of all
students
who
entered
grade 11
during
the
2001-2002
school
year
(thus,
the
first
graduating
class of
2002-2003).
The HSPA
replaced
the
grade 11
High
School
Proficiency
Test
(HSPT11),
which
was used
as a
graduation
requirement
from
1993 to
2001.
The HSPA
covered
reading,
writing
(together
considered
Language
Arts
Literacy),
and
mathematics
content
standards
from
2001
through
2006. In
2007, a
science
test was
added to
the
HSPA.
Starting
in March
2006,
the HSPA
was
administered
to all
students
so that
it could
be used
for ESEA
accountability
purposes
at the
high
school
level.
The HSPA
is
administered
in grade
11
(March).
It
includes
both
multiple
choice
and open
ended
items.
Students
must
earn a
score of
200
(partially
proficient)
in each
content
area on
the HSPA
to be
eligible
for a
standard
high
school
diploma.
Students
who do
not pass
HSPA
have two
opportunities
to
retest
in the
specific
content
area in
their
senior
year
(October
and
March).
State
materials
are
clear
that
students
who have
completed
all
local
graduation
requirements
(e.g.,
course
completion)
but who
do not
pass the
HSPA
will not
receive
a high
school
diploma,
unless
they
satisfactorily
pursue
two
other
options
that are
available
to them
while in
school.
In
addition,
New
Jersey
has two
options
for
those
students
who have
left
school,
which
are (a)
pass the
tests of
General
Educational
Development
(GED),
or (b)
return
to
school
the
following
year at
the time
of
testing
and
successfully
take the
HSPA.
Information about Alternative Routes in New Jersey
Two alternative routes are available to students in New Jersey (see Table 1). One of these is for all students (Special Review Assessment) and one is only available to students with disabilities who are on Individualized Education Programs (IEP Exempt). Students who participate in the Special Review Assessment do have to fail HSPA before they can pursue that alternative route (and, in fact, must continue to take the HSPA in the content area that was failed). Students who are considered IEP Exempt do not have to fail HSPA before they can pursue that alternative route (however, because the HSPA is the high school assessment for NCLB, they are required to participate in the assessment at least once, unless they are participants in the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards—the Alternate Proficiency Assessment (APA).
Table 1.Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for Alternative Routes
Name |
Target Group |
Who Requests |
Who Decides |
Special Review Assessment |
All students |
District SRA Coordinator |
District superintendent and high school principal verify that performance met or exceeded graduation requirement proficiency level; county superintendent reviews for compliance. |
IEP Exempt |
Students with disabilities |
IEP Team |
IEP Team |
Table 2 provides information on the specific criteria for participation in the special review assessment and the IEP exempt alternative routes in New Jersey.
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard Diploma
Name |
Specific Criteria |
Special Review Assessment |
When a student does not pass one or more of the sections of the HSPA during grade 11, the school arranges for the students to take special SRA instruction, which is targeted to the area failed. The student is required to attend the special instruction to proceed in the SRA process. The student then must pass two Performance Assessment Tasks (PATs) for each cluster in the failed content area. |
IEP Exempt |
The Individualized Education Program (IEP) team determines that that the student has not been instructed in all the knowledge and skills tested in the content area by HSPA, due to the nature or severity of the student’s disability. The team then exempts the student from the HSPA, either one or all areas tested. However, the student must take each HSPA test at least once for ESEA accountability purposes. The exempted student receives the standard high school diploma. |
Note: The alternative route available only to students with disabilities is in bold.
Each of the alternative routes in New Jersey is described in more detail here.
Special Review Assessment
For students who do not pass one or more of the HSPA content area tests in the spring of the student’s 11th grade year, the school starts the process for the Special Review Assessment. Specifically, the school provides targeted instruction (for the content area that was failed), and the student is required to participate in this targeted instruction. The instruction is provided at specific times (which can be during a weekday, at night, or on a Saturday). The state requires that the school personnel involved in the instruction (designed and created) be content teachers. The student must take the fall administration of the HSPA content area for which instruction was received. If, at this point, the student still has not passed the test, then the students must begin the SRA process. This involves passing two Performance Assessment Tasks (PATs) for each cluster in the content area.
The SRA tasks correspond to the HSPA, and are in the form of printed tasks that are distributed to the district test coordinators by the New Jersey Department of Education. The PATs are scored by two or three readers using a rubric.
IEP Exempt
For students with disabilities who have Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), the IEP team can decide that the student should be exempt from passing one or more of the content areas in the HSPA as a graduation requirement. In this case, the IEP team determines that the student has not been instructed in all the knowledge and skills that the HSPA covers, with the assumption that the lack of instruction is due to the nature or severity of the student’s disability. Despite exemption from the HSPA requirement to earn a standard high school diploma, the student must take the HSPA for ESEA accountability purposes.
World Wide Web Resources
Content |
Web Address |
High School Proficiency Assessment Parent Guide |
http://www.state.nj.us/education/assessment/hs/hspa_guide_english.pdf |
Special Review Assessment |
http://www.state.nj.us/education/assessment/hs/sra2 |
Alternative Approaches |
http://www.state.nj.us/education/assessment/hs/sra/expectations.pdf |
New Mexico
The New Mexico High School Competency Exam (NMHSCE) is
administered in grade 10, and is required for students to earn a standard
diploma. In addition to passing the exam, students who were in grade 9 in
2009-2010 must also earn 4 units in English, 4 units in math (with 1 unit equal
to, or higher than, Algebra 2), 3 units in science, 3 ½ units in social science,
1 unit in physical education, 1 unit in career cluster course or workplace
readiness or language other than English, and 7 ½ elective courses. The NMHSCE
covers language arts, reading, math, science, writing, and social studies.
In addition to the high school diploma, students with
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) may earn a certificate. This indicates
that the student is on track to graduate, but still has transition or academic
needs that need to be addressed by the school and by adult service providers.
The certificate enables the student to participate in graduation activities, yet
continue in school. A follow-up action plan must be developed for students who
receive a certificate. The state is clear that any student with an IEP who earns
a standard diploma is no longer eligible to receive special education services.
Information about Alternative Routes in New Mexico
Two alternative routes are available in New Mexico. These are
only available to students with disabilities (see Table 1). New Mexico also has
what it calls a Standard Pathway, which does not alter the requirement to pass
the high school competency exam. The Standard Pathway was not considered to be
an alternative route because the student must pass all sections of the
graduation exam as well as meet other standard graduation requirements. The
Career Readiness Pathway and the Ability Pathway are alternative routes. For the
Career Readiness Pathway, students must first take the regular NMHSCE. For the
Ability Pathway, students must first take either the NMHSCE or the alternate
assessment.
Table 1. Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for Alternative
Routes
Name
|
Target Group
|
Who Requests
|
Who Decides
|
Career Readiness
Pathway
|
Student with
disabilities
|
IEP Team
|
Building Administrator
(responsible for integrity of process)
|
Ability Pathway
|
Students with
disabilities
|
IEP Team
|
Building Administrator
(responsible for integrity of process)
|
Table 2 provides information on the specific criteria for
participation in the two alternative pathways in New Mexico. This information
indicates that the student is required to have an IEP to participate in these
alternative routes.
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard Diploma
Name
|
Specific Criteria
|
Career Readiness
Pathway
|
Students must take the NMHSCE,
achieving a level of proficiency determined by
the IEP team. In addition, students meet the
Career Readiness Standards, as defined by the
IEP team.
|
Ability Pathway
|
Students take either the NMHSCE
or the NM Alternate Assessment, earning a
proficiency level determined by the IEP team. In
addition, students complete a program of study
designed to lead to meaningful employment. The
IEP team individualizes the ability pathway for
each student’s needs.
|
Note: The alternative route available only to students with disabilities is in
bold.
The New Mexico Public Education Department indicates that it is
expected no more that 10-15 percent of graduating students will graduate through
the Career Pathway, and that no more than 1-3 percent of graduating students
will graduate through the Ability Pathway. In fact, if a school exceeds the
maximum recommended percentage, it must submit a waiver for all affected
students to the Department’s Special Education Bureau. For both alternative
pathways, the IEP team is instructed to consider the standard pathway first. IEP
teams cannot change a senior’s designated pathway after the 20 th
school calendar day.
Each of the alternative routes in New Mexico is described in
more detail here.
Career Pathway
The Career Readiness Pathway allows the IEP team to determine
the level of proficiency for passing the NMHSCE, which the student must take. In
addition the student follows the NM Career Readiness Standards, with benchmarks
as defined by the IEP team. The student must meet the minimum number of credits
required by the district for graduation, earning them through standard or
alternative courses. The IEP documents the mastery of the standards and
benchmarks.
Ability Pathway
The Ability Pathway is designed for a specific group of
students—those with severe cognitive or physical disabilities, or students with
severe mental health challenges. These students follow a program of study that
the IEP has indicated will lead to “meaningful employment,” and that consists
mainly of goals and objectives related to functional life and community skills.
For each student, the IEP team designates the goals, objectives, and benchmarks
that will provide
the most appropriate program for the student. Students on the Ability Pathway must take either the NMHSCE or the NM Alternate Assessment.
World Wide Web Resources
Content |
Web Address |
New Mexico High School Competency Exam |
http://www.ped.state.nm.us/AssessmentAccountability/AssessmentEvaluation/NMHSCE/index.html |
Alternative Pathways |
http://state.nm.us/seo/transition/tam.pathways.to.diploma.pdf |
New York
New York administers Regents Exams in five areas—English,
mathematics, science, social studies,
and
foreign
languages—as
a
requirement
for
earning
a
Regents
Diploma.
Students
must
pass
each of
these
tests to
earn the
Regents
Diploma.
The
scores
that the
student
must
earn
have
increased
across
years,
with the
class of
2012
(those
entering
9th
grade in
2008),
having
to pass
all five
Regents
Exams
with a
score of
65 or
above.
To earn
a
Regents
Diploma
with
Advanced
Designation,
students
must
pass
eight
exams
with a
score of
at least
65, with
the
additional
tests in
the
areas of
mathematics,
science,
and
language
other
than
English.
For
students
with
disabilities,
New York
also
offers
the
Regents
Competency
Tests.
These
tests
focus on
reading,
mathematics,
science,
social
studies,
and
writing.
The
Regents
Competency
Tests
are
considered
a safety
net for
students
with
disabilities;
they are
scheduled
to
continue
to be
available
for
students
with
disabilities
who
enter
grade 9
prior to
September
2010.
Students
who take
the
Regents
Competency
Tests
earn a
local
diploma.
In
addition
to the
high
school
diploma
(either
Regents
or
local),
students
with
Individualized
Education
Programs
(IEPs)
may earn
an IEP
diploma.
This
diploma
is
intended
for
students
with the
most
significant
disabilities.
Earning
it is
based on
achievement
of IEP
goals.
The
Department
notes
that if
an IEP
diploma
is
awarded
before a
student
is 21
years of
age, the
diploma
should
be
accompanied
by a
written
statement
of
assurance
that the
student
can
continue
to be
eligible
to
attend
public
schools.
Information about Alternative Routes in New York
Three alternative routes are available in the state of New York (see Table 1). One route, which is available to all students, is called the Appeals Process. The other two routes, the Regents Competency Test Safety Net and the Low Pass Option, are available only to student with disabilities. Both the Appeals Process and the Low Pass Option require that the student first take the Regents Exams. Students do not have to first take the Regents Exams before they take the Regents Competency Test.
Table 1.Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for Alternative Routes
Name |
Target Group |
Who Requests |
Who Decides |
Appeals Process |
All students |
Student, parent, or teacher |
Appeal Committee |
Regents Competency Test Safety Net |
Students with disabilities |
IEP Team or Section 504 Multidisciplinary Team |
Building Administrator |
Low Pass Option |
Students with disabilities |
Information not found |
Information not found |
Table 2 provides information on the specific criteria for participation in the Appeals Process, the Regents Competency Test Safety Net, and the Low Pass Option.
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard Diploma
Name |
Specific Criteria |
Appeals Process |
Student must earn a score within 3 points of the 65 required to pass an exam before submitting an appeal, as well as meet other criteria (including attempting the exam 2 times). The principal forms a committee that reviews the appeal. |
Regents Competency Test Safety Net |
Student may be either on an active IEP or 504 Accommodation Plan, or be a student who was declassified while in grades 8-12. Instead of taking the Regents Exams, the student takes the Regents Competency Exam. Specific requirements for documentation vary by whether the student is on an IEP or 504 Accommodation Plan, or has been declassified. |
Low Pass Option |
Student satisfies the conditions of this alternative route by earning scores between 55 and 64 on the Regents Exams. |
Note: The alternative routes available only to students with disabilities are in bold.
Each of the alternative routes in New York is described in more detail here.
Appeals Process
The Appeals process is a request to graduate with a lower score on a Regents Examination. The appeal must be submitted for each examination by the student or the student’s parent/guardian or teacher. It is submitted to the school principal. A student can submit only up to two appeals requests. The student must have taken the Regents exam two times before an appeal can be submitted, and must have scored within 3 points of the 65 required for passing. In addition, the student must have participated in the academic help provided by the school for the subject, have an attendance rate of 95 percent, and have a course average in the subject that meets or exceeds the required passing grade by the school. The Appeal Committee reviews the appeal to determine whether the student has demonstrated the knowledge and skills in the state learning standards. The Committee includes the school principal (as chair), three teachers (not to include the teacher of the student making the appeal), and one additional administrator. The Appeal Committee may decide to also interview the student, the student’s teacher, or the Department chairperson who recommended the appeal. All appeals are to be reviewed within 5 days of submission. The school superintendent may interview the student, and is the one who signs off on the appeal. Students who successfully complete the Appeals Process receive a local diploma.
Regents Competency Test Safety Net
Students with disabilities have the option of taking the Regents Competency Test instead of the Regents Exams. This test covers reading, mathematics, science, social studies, and writing content, and is not linked necessarily to Regents coursework. This option is available only up to the grade 9 class entering prior to September 2010. Students do not have to first take and fail Regents Exams. Students who qualify to participate in this alternative route are (a) students with disabilities identified through a Committee on Special Education (CSE), (b) students with disabilities identified through a Section 504 Multidisciplinary Team, and (c) students with disabilities who have been declassified in grades 8-12. Documentation is required for the latter two groups; for those on 504 plans, the determination that the student will participate in the Regents Competency Test must be documented on the student’s Accommodation Plan created by the Multidisciplinary Team. For those who have been declassified, there must be documentation by the CSE on the student’s IEP. For students currently in special education with active IEPs, the safety net does not have to be indicated on the student’s IEP. Students who take and pass the Regents Competency Test earn a local diploma.
Low Pass Option
This alternative route is for students with disabilities who take the Regents Exams but do not earn the required score of 65. By scoring between 55 and 64 on the Regents Exams, the student with a disability earns a local diploma.
World Wide Web Resources
North Carolina
North Carolina has two assessments that are part of its high
school graduation requirements: end-of-course exams and a test of computer
skills. The end-of-course exams are administered in grades 9-12 and the general
test administration consists of a multiple choice exam format with or without
accommodations. The computer skills test is first administered in grade 8 and is
required for graduation. This test was first administered to students who
entered grade 8 in 1998, which was the graduating class of 2001. The computer
skills test is in its third edition; it was first administered to students
entering grade 8 in the 2005-2006 school year. End-of course examinations first
came into effect for the graduating class of 1982 in North Carolina. Currently,
North Carolina requires end-of-course exams in the following content areas:
Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, Physical Science, Biology, Chemistry, Physics,
English I, Civics and Economics, and U.S. History. North Carolina only has one
diploma option, although students can opt to choose from three tracks—career
preparation, college tech preparation, and college/university preparation. North
Carolina also offers a certificate of achievement for students who satisfy all
state and local graduation requirements, but fail to pass all competency tests.
These students are also given a transcript and permitted to participate in
graduation activities.
Information about Alternate Routes in North Carolina
One alternative route is available in North Carolina. It is
designated for students with disabilities (see Table 1). Students need not first
take the end of course and computer skills test to pursue the alternative route.
Table 1. Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for Alternative
Routes
Name
|
Target
Group
|
Who
Requests
|
Who
Decides
|
North
Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards
|
Students
with Disabilities
|
IEP team
|
IEP team
|
Table 2 provides information on the specific criteria for
participation in the North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards. This
information indicates that the student must have a documented IEP to participate
in this alternative route.
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard Diploma
Name
|
Specific Criteria
|
North Carolina
Checklist of Academic Standards
|
A student is to participate in
this alternate assessment if his or her
individualized education plan (IEP) team decides
that it is appropriate. Only a very limited
number of students will take the NCCLAS.
|
Note: The alternative route available only to students with disabilities is in
bold.
The alternative route in North Carolina is described in more
detail here.
North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards
The North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards (NCCLAS ) is
based on grade-level content and grade-level achievement standards. Students are
eligible to participate in this assessment option if they cannot participate in
the standard administration of the regular test with or without accommodations.
Examples provided were the newly blinded, students with recent traumatic brain
injuries, and students with physical disabilities that prohibit the student from
being able to manipulate materials required for test.
There are a number of corresponding tests for the NCCLAS, such
as end-of-course exams in Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, English I, Civics &
Economics, and U.S. History. Field tests for tests in Biology, Chemistry,
Physical Science, and Physics were also conducted during the 2006-2007 school
year. The process involves an assessor maintaining a student work folder over
the course of the year and for a final student profile, an objective level
scoring, a final goal level scoring and an online submission of scores to be
completed at the end of the year. The final goal level scoring and the online
submission of scores are done by two assessors, whereas the final student
profile and the objective level scoring are completed by a single assessor.
World Wide Web Resources
Content |
Web Address |
Assessment of Students with Disabilities |
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/policies/tswd/ |
North Carolina Testing Program Assessment Options |
Elementary and Middle School: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/policyoperations/nctpassessmentoptions.pdf
High School: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/policyoperations/nctphsassessmentoptions.pdf
|
North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards |
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/policyoperations/assessingswdacctconf07.ppt |
North Carolina Graduation Requirements |
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/graduation/ |
Top of Appendix C
Ohio
To
obtain a
High
School
Diploma
in Ohio,
students
need to
meet
both the
curriculum
and
graduation
test
requirements.
The Ohio
Graduation
Test is
first
administered
to
students
in the
spring
of 10th
grade
and is
subsequently
offered
6 times
until
graduation.
Students
who fail
to pass
the test
on their
first
try have
the
opportunity
to test
again in
the
summer
between
10th
and 11th
grade
and
between
11th
and 12th
grade,
as well
as in
the fall
and
spring
of 11th
and 12th
grade.
Regardless
of a
student’s
academic
standing,
the OGT
is
required
by state
law to
be
passed
in order
to
receive
a
diploma
in Ohio.
The
graduating
class of
2007 is
the
first to
be
required
to pass
the OGT
in order
to
graduate
from
high
school;
this
graduation
requirement
is to be
in place
until
2013.
The OGT
tests
are
given in
5 major
content
areas.
In 1997,
Ohio
increased
the
number
of
credits
required
to
obtain a
high
school
diploma.
Further,
the
requirements
for a
high
school
diploma
with
honors
were
also
increased
in 1998.
These
two
diplomas
are
mutually
exclusive
and a
high
school
student
may only
meet the
requirements
to
obtain
one of
the two.
Information about Alternative Routes in Ohio
Two alternative routes are available in Ohio (see Table 1). One is designated for all students and the other is only for students with disabilities. The Alternative Pathway to Graduation, which is for all students, requires that the student first take the Ohio Graduation Test. The Exemption route does not require the student to first take the OGT.
Table 1.Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for Alternative Routes
Name |
Target Group |
Who Requests |
Who Decides |
Alternative Pathway to Graduation |
All Students |
Students and school counselors |
Principal and Superintendent |
Exemption |
Students with an IEP |
IEP Team |
IEP Team |
Table 2 provides information on the specific criteria for participation in the alternative pathway to graduation and the exemption in Ohio. This information indicates that for the exemption, the students must have an IEP. However, this is not a requirement for participation in the alternative pathway to graduation.
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard Diploma
Name
|
Specific Criteria
|
Alternative Pathway to
Graduation
|
The student may use this
alternative route when he or she only failed one
of the graduation tests by 10 points or less, as
well as meeting a number of criteria described
below.
|
Exemption
|
A student with an IEP may be
exempted from taking and passing the OGT and
still graduate with a standard high school
diploma.
|
Note: The alternative route available only to students with disabilities is in
bold.
The alternative routes in Ohio are described in more detail
here.
Alternative Pathway to Graduation
The student must meet a number (7) of criteria in order to
qualify for this alternative route. The most important component being that the
student must have only failed one of the graduation tests by 10 points or less.
The other criteria include a 97 percent attendance rate for every year over the
past 4 years, no expulsions in the last four years, a grade point average of 2.5
(out of 4) in the subject area that the OGT was failed, completion of the
curriculum in the OGT content area that was failed, the participation in
intervention programs targeting the OGT content area failed, and a letter of
recommendation from the teacher in the content area failed
and the
student’s high school principal.
Exemption
Division (L) of ORC §3313.61 allows a student with an IEP to be
awarded a diploma without obtaining the required scores on the OGT, if his or
her IEP team has exempted him or her from obtaining the required scores.
World Wide Web Resources
Content
|
Web Address
|
OGT
|
http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/
ODEPrimary.aspx?Page=2&TopicID=9&TopicRelationID=216
|
Ohio Graduation
Requirements
|
http://www.education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=1702&ContentID=15291&Content=61683
|
Alternative Pahtway to
Graduation
|
http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=216&ContentID=23705&Content=65513
|
Exemption
|
http://education.ohio.gov/GD/DocumentManagement/DocumentDownload.aspx?DocumentID=53403
|
Top of Appendix C
Texas
The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) came into
effect in 2003, replacing the previous test called the Texas Assessment of
Academic Skills (TAAS). Students in Texas are required to pass all their courses
according to three high school programs (minimum, recommended, and distinguished
achievement), as well as pass an exit-level TAKS in math, science, social
studies, and English language arts, in order to receive their High School
Diploma. These tests are based on the curriculum standards known as the Texas
Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). Students have five opportunities to take
and pass the TAKS while in high school.
Interestingly, the TAKS will eventually be replaced by
end-of-course assessments in Algebra I, Algebra II, geometry, biology,
chemistry, physics, English I, English II, English III, world geography, world
history, and United States history. These assessments will have implications for
graduation for students in their freshman year of high school in 2011. The
purpose of the end-of-course assessments at lower levels is to ensure readiness
for advanced coursework, whereas the purpose of higher-level tests is to ensure
college readiness.
Information about Alternative Routes in Texas
Two alternative routes are available in Texas. Both are
designated for students with disabilities (see Table 1). Neither of these routes
requires that the student first take the regular TAKS.
Table 1. Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for Alternative
Routes
Name
|
Target Group
|
Who Requests
|
Who Decides
|
Alternative Assessments for Exit-Level TAKS
|
Students
entering the Texas educational system after
January 1st of their senior year of high school
|
Student
|
School
district
|
Admission,
Review, Dismissal (ARD) Committee Exempt
|
Students
with an IEP
|
IEP Team
|
ARD
Committee
|
Table 2 provides information on the specific criteria for
participation in the Alternative Assessments for Exit-Level TAKS and the ARD
Exempt options.
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard Diploma
Name
|
Specific Criteria
|
Alternative Assessments for Exit-Level TAKS
|
Special case alternative route
available to students who entered the Texas
educational system after January 1st
of their senior year of high school and
may replace their Exit-Level TAKS requirement
with a number of other assessments.
|
ARD Exempt
|
The Texas Admission, Review and
Dismissal (ARD) committee determines that a
student with a disability is exempted from
taking the TAKS for reasons other than having
failed the TAKS.
|
Note: The alternative route available only to students with disabilities is in
bold.The alternative routes in
Texas are described in more detail here.
Alternative Assessments for Exit-Level TAKS
This alternative is only available to students entering public
schools in Texas for the first time after January 1 st
of their senior year or after an absence of at
least four years from any public school in the state. This option does lead to a
standard diploma, but is clearly only applicable to a very limited number of
students. To meet this requirement, the student must earn a state designated
scores on the SAT verbal/critical reading test or ACT English test (for English
language arts) or SAT mathematics test or ACT mathematics test (for
mathematics), along with earn passing score on exit level science and social
studies. The student is responsible for providing official scores to the school
district. This rule became effective in 2006.
ARD Exempt
The student may be identified to participate in the modified or
alternate TAKS assessments (TAKS-M & TAKS-Alt) and may or may not be required to
pass the regular, modified, or alternate TAKS in order to meet graduation
requirements, as determined by the Admission, Review and Dismissal (ARD)
committee. Failing the TAKS is not a justification for changing a student’s IEP
so that the student is Exempt from the Exit Level TAKS.
World Wide Web Resources
Content |
Web Address |
Texas Graduation Requirements |
ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/grad/2008-09_GradBro.pdf |
TAKS Information |
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=948&menu_id3=793 |
Alternative Assessments for Exit-Level TAKS |
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/faq/alt_exit_assess.pdf |
Upcoming End-of-Course Assessments Information |
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=3302&menu_id3=793 |
ARD Exempt |
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/.../special_education/testing_req/testing_guidelines_flowchart_a.pdf |
Top of Appendix C
Virginia
The
state of
Virginia
has
implemented
its
requirement
to
complete
the
Standards
of
Learning
(SOL)
end-of-course
(EOC)
exams in
the form
of
verified
credits.
Thus,
students
must
pass EOC
exams in
core
content
areas
and
receive
a
verified
credit
for
every
exam
that
meets or
exceeds
the
passing
criteria
as
outlined
in their
course
requirements
to
receive
a
Standard
Diploma
or an
Advanced
Studies
Diploma.
To
receive
an
advanced
studies
diploma,
beginning
with the
graduating
class of
2004,
students
must
successfully
pass two
EOCs in
English,
Mathematics,
Laboratory
Science,
History
and
Social
Science,
and one
Student
Selected
EOC.
Therefore,
students
seeking
an
advanced
studies
diploma
are
required
to
complete
9
verified
credits.
The
verified
credits
came
into
effect a
year
later
for the
standard
diploma,
with the
graduating
class of
2006
required
to pass
two EOCs
in
English
and four
Student
Selected
EOCs. To
receive
a
standard
diploma,
the
graduating
classes
of 2007
and
beyond
are
required
to pass
two EOCs
in
English,
and one
EOC in
Mathematics,
Laboratory
Science,
History
and
Social
Science,
as well
as one
Student
Selected
EOC.
Therefore,
students
seeking
a
standard
diploma
graduating
in 2006
and
beyond
are
required
to
complete
six
verified
credits.
In
Virginia,
there
are
three
diploma
options
other
than the
one
resulting
in a
standard
high
school
diploma.
The
Modified
Standard
Diploma
is
intended
for
students
with
disabilities
who are
unlikely
to meet
the
credit
requirements
for the
standard
diploma.
These
students
are
required
to pass
the
eighth-grade
level
assessments
in
literacy
and
mathematics,
although
these
requirements
may be
met by
substituting
high
school
level
end-of-course
assessments.
Students
enrolled
in the
Modified
Standard
Diploma
must be
permitted
to
pursue a
Standard
or
Advanced
Studies
Diploma
at any
point in
their
high
school
career
and may
not be
excluded
from
courses
and
tests
required
to earn
either
standard
diploma.
There is
also a
Special
Diploma
that is
awarded
to
student
with
disabilities
who
complete
the
requirements
of their
IEP, but
do not
meet the
necessary
requirements
to
obtain
other
diplomas.
The
other
diploma
option
available
to
students
in
Virginia
is the
Certificate
of
Program
Completion,
the
requirements
for
which
are
defined
by the
local
school
board.
Generally,
students
receive
this
Certificate
when
they
complete
their
individually
specified
program,
while
not
qualifying
for
other
diplomas.
Information about Alternative Routes in Virginia
One alternative route to a standard diploma is available in Virginia. It is designated for all students (see Table 1). Students are not required to first take the EOCs before pursuing the alternative route.
Table 1. Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for Alternative Routes
Name
|
Target Group
|
Who Requests
|
Who Decides
|
Substitute Tests for
SOL EOCs
|
All students
|
Principal or
Superintendent
|
State Board of
Education
|
Table 2 provides information on the specific criteria for
participation in the substitute tests for SOL EOCs in Virginia.
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard Diploma
Name
|
Specific Criteria
|
Substitute Tests for SOL EOCs
|
The student may use scores from
a state board approved substitute assessment to
meet his or her SOL EOC requirement.
|
The alternative routes in Virginia are described in more detail
here.
Substitute Tests for SOL EOCs
For this alternative route, students must earn state designated
proficient or advanced score on a range of substitute assessments (e.g., AP,
Cambridge International Examinations, WorkKeys, etc.) approved by the State
Board of Education in each of the required content areas. The list of substitute
tests is extensive and includes at least three test options in every content
area covered by the SOL EOCs.
World Wide Web Resources
Content
|
Web Address
|
Virginia Diploma
Graduation Requirements
|
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/2plus4in2004/dip-standard.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.doe.virginia.gov/2plus4in2004/dip-standard.shtml
|
End-of-course Exam
Information
|
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/Assessment/home.shtml# Standards_of_Learning_Tests" target="_blank"http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/Assessment/home.shtml#
Standards_of_Learning_Tests
|
Substitute Tests for
SOL EOCs
|
www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/Assessment/SubTestChart.pdf
|
Top of Appendix C
Washington
The
Washington
Assessment
of
Student
Learning
(WASL)
in
reading,
writing,
and math
is
currently
required
as a
graduation
requirement
for the
class of
2009 to
2012 to
receive
a High
School
Diploma.
The
graduating
class of
2013
will
have the
additional
requirement
of
having
to pass
the WASL
in
science.
Washington
has two
certificates
that are
noted on
a
student’s
transcript—they
both
lead to
the same
diploma:
Certification
of
Academic
Achievement
(CAA)
and
Certificate
of
Individual
Achievement
(CIA).
While
the
state
currently
encourages
students
to earn
these
certificates,
the
graduating
class of
2013
will be
the
first to
be
required
to earn
the
certificates
to
graduate.
The CIA
is
available
only to
students
with
disabilities.
Information about Alternative Routes in Washington
Nine alternative routes are available in Washington (see Table 1). Five alternative routes are available to all students, and four are available only to students with disabilities. Just three of the alternative routes require that the student first take the WASL–Collection of Evidence, AP and College Admission Test Scores, and Basic Performance on WASL.
Table 1.Target Group, Requesting Parties, and Approval Body for Alternative Routes
Name |
Target Group |
Who Requests |
Who Decides |
Collection of Evidence |
All students |
Student |
Local school district |
WASL/Grades Comparison |
All students |
School district staff member (e.g. Principal) |
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction |
AP and College Admission Test Scores |
All students |
Student |
School Official and Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction |
Transfer Student Waiver |
All students |
Student or Parent |
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction |
Special, Unavoidable Circumstance Appeals |
All students |
Student or Parent |
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction |
Basic Performance on WASL |
Students with disabilities |
IEP Team |
IEP Team |
Pass WAAS-Developmentally Appropriate WASL (DAW) |
Students with disabilities |
IEP Team |
IEP Team |
Pass WAAS-Portfolio |
Students with disabilities |
Student or IEP Team |
IEP Team |
Locally Determined Assessments |
Students with disabilities |
Students and school counselors |
Local school district |
Table 2 provides information on the specific criteria for participation in the numerous alternative routes available in Washington.
Table 2. Specific Criteria of Alternative Routes to Standard Diploma
Name |
Specific Criteria |
Collection of Evidence |
CAA Option in which a set of classroom work samples are reviewed by a panel of educators. |
WASL/Grades Comparison |
CAA Option in which a student’s grades in English and/or Mathematics are comparable to those of students who took the same courses and also passed the WASL. |
AP and College Admission Test Scores |
CAA Option in which a student demonstrates key skills represented in the WASL through Advanced Placement, SAT or ACT tests. |
Transfer Student Waiver |
Earned a passing score on another state’s high school exit exam or its ESEA high school exam. |
Special, Unavoidable Circumstance Appeals |
The appeals review board determines that the student is more likely than not to possess the skills and knowledge required to meet the state standard. |
Basic Performance on WASL |
CIA option in which the student earns a level 2 (basic) on the WASL in one or more qualifying subject areas. |
Pass WAAS-Developmentally Appropriate WASL (DAW) |
CIA option in which the student earns a level 3 (proficient) on lower grade level assessment, DAW. |
Pass WAAS-Portfolio |
CIA option in which the student earns a passing score on the alternate assessment portfolio, WAAS. |
Locally Determined Assessments |
The student earns a state approved cut score on a specified standardized measure of academic achievement. |
The alternative routes available to students in Washington are described in more detail here.
Collection of Evidence
This is a CAA Option in which a student compiles a set of classroom work samples (with the help of a teacher) that is then reviewed by a panel of educators determining that student’s subject-specific classroom work samples show that the student has the skills that are tested on WASL. This option can be used in core content areas such as math, reading, and writing. There are specific guidelines for the collection of evidence outlined by the state. Students must take the WASL at least once to qualify for this option.
WASL/Grades Comparison
This is a CAA Option in which a student’s grades in English or Mathematics is comparable to those of students who took the same courses and also passed the WASL. Therefore, this option may be used to meet the math, reading, or writing standard. This option is only available to students in grade 12 and who have a cumulative grade point average of at least 3.2 across all their courses.
AP and College Admission Test Scores
This is a CAA Option in which a student demonstrates the key skills represented in the WASL by scoring 3 or higher on specified AP tests or earning state designated score on SAT or ACT. The scores on the SAT that must be met or exceeded are 470, 350, and 380, for mathematics, reading, and writing, respectively. The scores on the ACT that must be met or exceeded are 19, 13, and 15, for mathematics, reading, and writing, respectively. There are a number of AP tests that count toward this option, such as Calculus or Statistics for mathematics; English Literature and Composition, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Psychology, United States History, World History, United States Government and Politics, or Comparative Government and Politics, for reading; and English Language and Composition for writing.
The student pursuing this route must take the WASL at least once, regardless of whether he or she already took and met the standard on one of these other tests. Further, students may be reimbursed for these tests if they are to be used to demonstrate proficiency in one or more the content areas of the WASL.
Transfer Student Waiver
This option is available to students who have transferred from another state during their 11th or 12th grade year. These students are able to receive credit for having passed an exit exam in his or her previous state, thus exempting the student from having to take the WASL to graduate. The exit exam in the previous state must have been used for ESEA purposes for it to qualify under this option.
Special, Unavoidable Circumstance Appeals
The parent of a student or the student in 12th grade can request an appeal to his or her performance on the WASL due to a special, unavoidable circumstance. The other reason to request this appeal is if a 12th grade student has transferred to a public school from a private or home school setting and wants direct access to a state approved alternate assessment. The appeals review board determines that the student’s evidence indicates the student more likely than not possesses the skills and knowledge required to meet the state standard. This option is also used for students with disabilities considered to be at the Awareness level of cognitive development in 11th or 12th grade.
Basic Performance on WASL
This is a CIA option for a student with an IEP who earns a level 2 (basic) on the WASL in one or more qualifying subject areas. This option can be used by students in grade 10-12 and can be taken with or without accommodations. Further, this option is specified as being best suited for students at the Concrete Conceptual on Grade Level on the continuum of cognitive development.
Pass WAAS-Developmentally Appropriate WASL (DAW)
This is a CIA option for a student with an IEP who earns a level 3 (proficient) on the lower grade level assessment, DAW. This option can be used by students in grades 11 and 12, and can be taken with or without accommodations. Further, this option is specified as being best suited for students at the Concrete Conceptual on or below Grade Level on the continuum of cognitive development.
Pass WAAS-Portfolio
This is a CIA option for a student with an IEP who earns a passing score on the alternate assessment portfolio, WAAS. This option can be used by students in grades 10-12. Further, this option is specified as being best suited for students ranging from the Abstract Symbolic to the Pre-or Early-symbolic levels on the continuum of cognitive development.
Locally Determined Assessments
The student can meet the exit exam requirement by earning a state approved cut score on the Woodcock Johnson Achievement Test–III, the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, 2nd ed., or the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (2nd ed.). This option can be used by students in grade 12 and is specified as being best suited for students at the Concrete Conceptual on or below Grade Level on the continuum of cognitive development.
World Wide Web Resources
Top of page |
Table of Contents | Top of Appendix C
|
|