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. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis54.html

Executive Summary

Table 1. State Exit Exams and No Child Left Behind
 

^a Information is from Center on Education Policy (2003), with updating as appropriate.

^bHawaii does not have clear information about whether its exit exam will be used to meet criteria of NCLB.

^cOregon exam is actually for a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM). Students receive diplomas regardless of whether they pass the test to earn the CIM.

^dSouth Carolina will begin phasing in a new exit exam instead of the current Basic Skills Assessment Program; the new exam is alreadybeing used for NCLB accountability, but will not count as a graduation requirement for high school until 2006.

^eWashington was not identified in the Johnson and Thurlow (2003) study as a state planning to have an exit exam. Since the time of that study, it has added an exit exam requirement for a diploma.

We noted as we gathered information from the two sources and checked each state’s information against state Web sites that several states had changed the year in which their exams began to “count” for high stakes. Some states had phased in a new test while phasing out an earlier version of a graduation exam. For example, Texas moved from the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) to the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). Students who were enrolled in grade 9 or higher on January 1, 2001, were required to pass the TAAS, regardless of when they graduate. Students who were enrolled in grade 8 or lower at that time, must pass the TAKS. It was at this point, when we realized that there had been considerable change in the landscape, that we decided it would be important to include Oregon’s Certificate of Initial Mastery assessment program in our study even though it was not technically an exam used to determine whether a student would earn a standard diploma.

Eligible Student Groups

We looked at the states that have an alternative route to determine whether it was available for all students (which includes students with disabilities), or only for certain subgroups of students, such as students with disabilities. We did this both for those states in which the alternative method was already being implemented, and for those in which it was yet to be implemented because the high stakes assessment was not yet active (but in which an alternative route was planned and designed).

Table 3 indicates the group or groups of students considered eligible for the alternative route to a standard diploma in the 16 states with some type of alternative route 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 students that states cover in general.

Table 3. Students Targeted for Alternative Routes to Standard Diploma

Note: Shaded cell indicates that an alternative route is not an option for this group of students in the state. For example, California does not have an alternative route for “all students”; in current plans, an alternative route will be available only to students with disabilities in California for the exit exam that becomes active in 2006.

^a Minnesota indicates that while it does not have an alternative route for general education students at the state level, under limited circumstances, after February of the student’s senior year, a local school district can make accommodations options available as a “last chance” option to pass the test.

All but 3 of the 16 states have an alternative route available for all students, and 13 have an option intended for students with disabilities. Three states have created an alternative route available for all students (Georgia, Mississippi, and Oregon), without an additional alternative route specifically for students with disabilities. While Oregon does not technically have a high-stakes graduation exam, it has a test that leads to a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM). Three states (California, North Carolina, and Texas) have a process applicable only for students with disabilities with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or 504 plan. The most common approach is for states to have two alternative routes—one for students with disabilities and another for all students. Ten states (Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, and Virginia) take the two route approach (one for all students and one for students with disabilities).

As is evident in Table 3, in some states, both the all students group and the students with disabilities group are defined in a narrower way than simply the larger group. For example, for all students, four states (Alaska, Florida, Massachusetts, and New York) refer to either high school seniors or 12th graders. Oregon refers to all students in grades 9–12. Related to students with disabilities, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas do not include students on 504 plans, but instead refer to students on IEPs in their descriptions of students available for the alternative route. New Mexico indicates that 504 students might be considered, but technically are not covered by law. Other states (Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia) refer generally to students with disabilities (although Virginia puts a grade limit on the students—“starting in grade 8”). The remaining states (Alaska, California, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota) specifically refer to students with IEPs or 504 plans.

Initiating the Alternative Route to a Standard Diploma

Gaining entrance to the alternative route to a standard diploma does not happen automatically. Typically, there is a procedure that must be initiated by someone. Our review of state Web sites and follow-up state verification indicated considerable variability in whether this information was available or clear. When the information could be found, variability in who could initiate the process was evident.

Table 4 indicates who initiates the alternative route process when it is for all students (which can include students with disabilities) and when it is only for students with disabilities. For 3 of the 13 states in which an alternative route was available to all students, we were unable to find information that indicated who could initiate the alternative route process (Indiana, New York, and Ohio). In the remaining 10 states, the student or a family member only was the initiator in 3 states (Alaska, Georgia, and Oregon), an educator or other school personnel only could initiate in another 5 states (Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico and Virginia), and either family or school personnel could initiate in Minnesota and Mississippi. In Massachusetts, anyone (a parent, guardian, or educator) may request an appeal, but only the superintendent of schools or designee, or the director of an approved private special education school or collaborative may file an appeal (see profile in Appendix A). In Minnesota, after February of a student’s senior year, a student, parent, or the district may request that a general education student take the graduation exam with accommodations, even though the student does not typically use accommodations for instruction.

Table 4 also indicates who initiates the alternative route process when it is for students with disabilities only. For 5 of the 12 states in which an alternative route was available specifically for students with disabilities, we were unable to find information that indicated who could initiate the alternative route process (Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas). In the remaining 7 states, the IEP or 504 team was specifically cited by 4 states (Alaska, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Virginia), the IEP team or the Superintendent of Schools may initiate the process in Florida, a parent or guardian in California, and the student’s teacher (with principal authorization) in Indiana. In Massachusetts, a parent (or student over 18) may request an appeal and the superintendent must comply.

There may be specific criteria that have to be met as well. For example, students may or may not have to take the exit exam before an alternative route can be used; also, they may or may not have to earn a certain score or participate in remedial activities, or other activities.

Table 4. Initiator of Alternative Route

Note: Shaded cell indicates that an alternative route is not an option for this group of students in the state. For example, California does not have an alternative route for “all students”; in current plans, an alternative route will be available only to students with disabilities in California for the exit exam that becomes active in 2006.

^a Minnesota indicated that while it does not have an alternative route for general education students at the state level, under limited circumstances, after February of the student’s senior year, a local school district can make accommodations options available as a “last chance” option to pass the test.

Alternative Route Decision Making

Once the request is made to pursue an alternative route for obtaining a standard diploma, someone decides that either (a) the student may continue along the alternative route, or (b) the student has successfully met the requirements of the alternative route. Which type of decision made depends on the nature of the alternative route. Table 5 indicates 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.

Table 5. Decision-making Body/Approver for the Alternative Route

Note: Shaded cell indicates that an alternative route is not an option for this group of students in the state. For example, California does not have an alternative route for “all students”; in current plans, an alternative route will be available only to students with disabilities in California for the exit exam that becomes active in 2006.

Procedures used for all students often are different from those used for the subgroup of students with disabilities. For example, Alaska’s appeals process for all students uses a panel of three members appointed by the Commissioner of Education to determine whether to grant the appeal. Mississippi has a State Appeals of Substitute Evaluation Committee, and New Jersey has a Special Review Assessment (SRA) Panel that follows item-specific rubrics to make a determination. Oregon relies on an impartial panel of experts. Virginia leaves the decision to the local school. School districts make the determination (including the procedures used) in Minnesota.

Georgia and New Mexico give the power to decide or approve to the State Superintendent, as does Massachusetts with an MCAS Performance Appeals Board making a recommendation. Florida allows the State Commissioner to authorize an alternative test, although the legislature may remove that power. The process of decision-making in four states (Indiana, New York, North Carolina, and Ohio) was unclear on their Web sites, and remained so after verification for those states that confirmed their information.

Table 5 also indicates who makes the decision for the processes involving students with disabilities. In four states (Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Virginia), the IEP team determines whether the alternative method of achieving a diploma is approved. In Florida, the IEP team determines one alternative process and the Commissioner of Education has the responsibility for approving another process. In Indiana, the decision is made by the student’s case conference committee. For Alaska’s Optional Assessment, the Department of Education reviews the application; if the procedures have been followed, the Optional Assessment is approved. In California, the local Board of Education had responsibility for approving or denying alternative routes at the time of our study. The process of decision-making for students with disabilities was unclear on the Web sites of four states (New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas).

Nature of Alternative Routes to a Standard Diploma

There are many variations of alternative routes to achieve a standard diploma. It is difficult to generalize about these processes without understanding the specific criteria and requirements of the various alternative routes. Table 6 includes the name of each state’s alternative route, as well as a brief description of the process. These descriptions are based on the profiles in Appendix A. The information contained in Table 6 was verified by the states (via the profile), and specifically highlights the alternative route available for all students. More detailed information is provided in the State Profiles, as well as on the states’ Web sites (see Appendix B).

Table 6. Nature of the Alternative Route for All Students

Table 7 provides similar information about the alternative routes to a standard diploma for students with disabilities. In general, the options for students with disabilities are different from those for all students. References to the IEP are among the most striking difference. Still, even with this commonality in the processes for students with disabilities, there is a range of options that states are using for this group of students.

Table 8 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. In the table, the options for all students are positioned beside those available to students with disabilities only. It is noteworthy that there is little symmetry within states that have alternative routes both for all students and for students with disabilities only in terms of whether the student must first take the general assessment. In fact, in the 10 states that have alternative routes to standard diplomas for all students and for students with disabilities, less than half had the same pattern (Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia). A total of 6 states of 13 require all students to first fail the exit exam, while 5 states of 13 require students with disabilities to first fail the exit exam.

Table 7. Nature of the Alternative Route for Students with Disabilities

Table 8. Summary of Whether Alternative Route Requires Student to First Take (and Fail) the General Assessment

^a Florida provides two alternative routes. See Table 7.
^b Indiana provides two alternative routes. See Table 6.
^c Students with significant disabilities whose IEP or 504 team designate them for participation in the alternate assessment also have the option of moving to the “all students” alternative route (the performance appeal), but only after attempting the alternate “competency portfolio” at least twice.

Table 9 synthesizes the specific nature of alternative routes to a standard diploma for all students in terms of whether the route 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. Indiana is the only state that had two alternative routes available to all students. As a result, it has two checks in this table, and the totals in the columns for different test, different curriculum, different method, and waiver will add together to give a number (total = 14) that is larger than the number of states that have alternative routes for all students (n = 13).

Five states (Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Virginia) allow students to use other tests to demonstrate competency. A Florida statute initially permitted this option only for the 2003 school year, but the alternative was extended for another year and will be studied for future years. In New Jersey, high school students who do not pass the High School Proficiency Assessments (HSPA) may take the SRA after participating in a school-designed instructional program for the content area in question. Local school district staff review the Individual Student Reports to see whether the student has demonstrated proficiency on the language arts and/or the mathematics section of the HSPA. A student must have a partially proficient score in an HSPA content area in order to qualify to take the SRA. New York allows students to take an Advanced Placement test, SAT II, or International Baccalaureate test in lieu of the Regents Exam. In Virginia, students who do not pass the Standards of Learning (SOL) end-of-course exams may retake an alternative form of the test immediately, or may take a substitute test.

Table 9. Alternative Routes for All Students

Note: The total obtained from adding across the columns in this table (total = 14) is greater than the number of states (n = 13) because Indiana has two alternative routes available for all students.
^a Standardized tests, including SAT, ACT, College Placement Test, PSAT, PLAN, and tests used for entry into the military (available by statute for 2003 only, but extended for another year).
^b A locally administered, state-developed test made up of performance assessment tasks that are administered in a familiar setting, with additional required instruction.
^c In very limited circumstances, statute permits students to demonstrate competency through other standardized measures (considered a “waiver”).
^d Advanced Placement test, SAT II, International Baccalaureate test.
^e State provides list of substitute tests including AP exams, ACT, SAT II, etc.
^f CORE 40 curriculum-students must successfully complete all courses earning at least a “C."
^g Recommendation based on other tests or classroom work.
^h Performance appeal in which grades are compared with those of a cohort; if sufficient number in cohort are not available, then a portfolio is developed.
ⁱ State does not have an approved alternative route for all students, but a school district may permit a student without an IEP or 504 plan, after February in his or her senior year, to take the graduation exam with accommodations after repeated unsuccessful attempts.
^j Substitute evaluation with supporting evidence.
^k May pass one fewer test but must meet additional criteria.
^l Juried assessment (Classroom based work samples before expert panel).
^m Waiver under very specific, limited conditions such as death of parent, serious illness, etc.
ⁿ Waiver must include what will be accomplished in lieu of requirements and permission to review student’s records.

New Mexico allows the use of an alternative test only in limited instances with extenuating circumstances. For example, if a student transferred from another state and had not taken “New Mexico History,” the superintendent could request a waiver for that portion of the test, and submit evidence of competencies demonstrated through other standardized assessment measures. However, this option is used very sparingly and approved on a case-by-case basis.

Only one state had an alternative route to the standard diploma that was based only on completing a specific curriculum. Indiana has an alternative known as the Core 40 curriculum. The student’s principal must certify within a month of the student’s graduation date that the student has successfully completed all of the Core 40 requirements with at least a “C” grade. A student who does not pass the Graduation Qualifying Exam, and who does not meet the requirements of Core 40 may graduate by successfully appealing the test results under specific criteria adopted by the Board of Education. The student may be eligible to appeal if he or she has taken the graduation exam, completed all remediation opportunities provided by the school, maintained a minimum attendance rate of 95%, maintained a “C” average in all courses required for graduation, and has obtained a written recommendation from the student’s teacher in each subject area in which the student has not achieved a passing score. The principal must verify this information and documentation must be provided to ensure that the student has achieved the academic standard in the subject area based on tests other than the graduation exam or classroom work.

Six states have other approaches of demonstrating competency (Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, and Oregon). In Indiana, students who have not passed the test may appeal their results and earn a diploma by meeting all other graduation requirements and obtaining written recommendations from teachers in subject areas where a passing score was not obtained, and an agreement from the principal, as well as completing other requirements. Massachusetts has a performance appeal that involves the student comparing his or her grades to that of a cohort of students who have passed the MCAS. If a cohort of sufficient size is not available for comparison, then the student submits a portfolio.

Minnesota does not have an alternative route for general education students at the state level, but under limited circumstances, after February of the student’s senior year, a local school district can make accommodations options available as a ‘last chance’ option to pass the test, even if the student does not typically use accommodations for instruction. Mississippi allows all students who appear to have “mastered the subject area curriculum, but who were unable for two separate administrations to demonstrate mastery on the Subject Area Test,” to have the opportunity for an appeal. If a student does not pass the test, the student, the parent, or district personnel may appeal for a substitute evaluation. If the results of the substitute evaluation determine that the student has mastered the curriculum, a passing score will be substituted for a failing score on the Subject Area Test, and the Mississippi Department of Education will absorb the cost associated with the substitute evaluation.

In Ohio, the student must meet an array of criteria as an alternative to passing the high school graduation exam that consists of 5 tests. The student must pass 4 of the 5 tests, have a 97% attendance rate, have a 2.5 GPA, complete all the curriculum requirements, participate in intervention programs with a 97% attendance rate, and have letters recommending graduation from the high school principal and each high school teacher in subject areas not yet passed.

In Oregon, the State Board established an alternative pathway to the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) for students who are unable to demonstrate mastery on one or more statewide assessments required for the CIM. Students in the alternative are evaluated on a collection of classroom-based work samples through a process known as a juried assessment.

Two states have waiver provisions. In Alaska, it is possible for certain students to earn a diploma without passing the High School Graduation Qualifying Examination (HSGQE). Students in the “waiver” group include those who met the criteria of “rare and unusual circumstances,” such as the death of a student’s parent(s) if in the last semester of the student’s year of graduation, a sudden or serious illness or injury, or having passed a similar test in another state. Georgia makes reference to waiver provisions for students who do not pass the examinations, although the criteria are unclear on the Web site. There is a list of information that must be submitted to indicate what will be accomplished through a waiver or variance, the reason for the request, and permission for a record review.

Table 10 summarizes the specific nature of alternative routes to a standard diploma for students with disabilities in terms of whether the route 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. One state (Florida) has two alternative routes for students with disabilities, and thus two checks have been entered for these two alternative routes. Both fall within the same category even though they have different names and are carried out in slightly different ways. Because of the two checks, the totals in the columns for different test, different curriculum, different method of demonstrating competency, and waiver will add together to give a number (total = 14) that is larger than the number of states that have alternative routes for students with disabilities (n = 13). Considering the table overall, and compared to Table 9, it is evident that the overall distribution of states across the types of alternative routes is quite different for students with disabilities compared to all students.

Table 10. Alternative Routes for Students with Disabilities

Note: The total obtained from adding across the columns in this table (total = 14) is greater than the number of states (n = 13) because Florida has two alternative routes available for students with disabilities.

^a Optional Assessments are changes to the administration of the high school test, not to the content or format, i.e., using spell-checker, allowing student to ask questions of proctor, etc.

^b Tests may be modified or scores may be lowered.

^c The Regents Competency Exam is a safety net option for students to earn a local diploma.

^d Career Readiness pathway allows for student to pass with a score pre-determined by the IEP team; Ability Pathway is for students with severe cognitive disabilities and/or physical disabilities, or students with severe mental health challenges who must take either the exit exam or the alternate assessment and meet IEP pre-determined level of competency.

^e Occupational course of study with criteria determined by IEP team.                   

^f As recommended by teachers, tests other than Graduation Qualifying Exam or classroom work.

^g Portfolio assessment.

^h Portfolio assessment.

ⁱ Waiver for a portion of the test may be requested for students who take the exit exam with modifications that change what the test measures, and who meet a minimum score.

^j Exemption available for students with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills, if they meet all other criteria for graduation; waiver available for those students whose abilities cannot be accurately measured by the exit exam.

^k Exemption after taking (and failing) high school exit exam at least once.

^l IEP exemption.

^m IEP determined criteria for diploma.

Three states (Alaska, Minnesota, and New York) provide options that rely on different tests. For students with disabilities in Alaska, there is an Optional Assessment (OA) available to obtain a regular high school diploma. These students must have been unsuccessful when they took the high school graduation examination, and also must meet several other criteria in order to take the OA as an alternative to getting a high school diploma (see Alaska State Profile in Appendix A). In Minnesota, the graduation test may be modified or passing scores may be lowered for students with disabilities. Exemptions and individual passing scores are based on the student’s IEP or 504 plan and the recommendation of the IEP team. New York has a “safety net” for students with disabilities who fail the Regents graduation exam. This provision allows students to take and pass the Regents Competency Test to earn a local diploma. This alternative method has been extended through the 2009–2010 school year.

Two states (New Mexico and North Carolina) provide options that rely on the use of a different curriculum to demonstrate proficiency and meet the requirements of a standard diploma. New Mexico offers alternative pathways—standard pathway, career readiness pathway, and ability pathway—as a means to achieve a regular diploma or certificate of achievement. If the IEP team recommends a pathway other than the standard one, the team must provide documentation for selecting the alternative pathway. All students must still take the New Mexico High School Competency Exam (NMHSCE), except for those with the most severe cognitive disabilities who would take the alternate assessment. However, the IEP team can adjust the level of passing required for individual students with disabilities based on their IEP or 504 plan. The career readiness pathway focuses on the student’s interests, career preferences, and needs in determining selection of appropriate classes. The ability pathway is an individual program based on meeting or surpassing IEP goals and objectives. North Carolina also offers an occupational course of study for students with an IEP. However, no exit exam is required for students who are following the occupational course of study.

Three states (Indiana, Massachusetts, and Virginia) have different methods of demonstrating competency. In Indiana, the case conference committee of a student with a disability or 504 plan who does not pass the Graduation Qualifying Exam may determine that the student is eligible to graduate if he or she meets several very specific criteria, including a 95% attendance rate, maintaining at least a “C” average, and otherwise satisfying all state and local graduation requirements. In Massachusetts, a “competency portfolio” may be submitted in lieu of taking MCAS tests for students with disabilities who have been designated for alternate assessment by their IEP or 504 team. In Virginia, students must accrue verified credits. A verified credit is granted if students pass the class and the corresponding Standards of Learning (SOL) test. Students with disabilities who cannot be accommodated on the regular SOL tests can take a portfolio assessment called the Virginia Substitute Evaluation Program (VSEP).

Five states (California, Florida, New Jersey, Ohio, and Texas) have a waiver provision for students with disabilities. Florida actually has two different types of waivers, and thus was given two checks in Table 10. The ENNOBLES Act of Florida is legislation that provides for the waiver of the Grade 10 Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) for students with disabilities whose abilities cannot be measured accurately by the FCAT. The student’s IEP team may request a waiver of the FCAT requirement if that student meets all requirements set forth in the ENNOBLES Act. In addition to this waiver option, Florida also has a Special Exemption for “extraordinary circumstances” that allows the student to be exempt from “any or all sections of the test required for high school graduation with a standard diploma.” Students who are granted an exemption must meet all other criteria for graduation with a standard diploma.

The waiver options in other states are more like the first waiver option in Florida. California’s high stakes testing is not scheduled to begin until 2006. The plans indicated on the Web site provide the opportunity for a waiver only for students with disabilities. Students with an IEP or 504 plan who take the California test with modifications that fundamentally alter the test and what it purports to measure, and who receive a score of 350 or higher, may request a waiver for the portion of the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE). They would still qualify for a regular diploma. California is currently conducting a study to determine specifically how this process will be implemented.

In Ohio and Texas, students whose IEP excuses them from having to pass the exit exams may be awarded a diploma if they successfully complete the requirements of their IEP.

Comparability of Alternative Routes and Standard Routes

We classified the alternative routes to a standard diploma according to whether they were comparable to the standard route to the diploma. This classification was a judgment based on the information available on state Web sites and through the verification process. The states were classified as having comparable alternative routes to the standard route to earning a diploma if the state Web site or other public documents directly specified so via the following semantic identifiers: same standards, same criteria, meeting equivalent standards. The following identifiers indicated non-comparability: lower, waiver, exemption, fewer tests.

The criteria that we used were admittedly a very broad reflection of the comparability of an alternative route to a standard route. Yet, we believed the first line of credibility had to be what was presented to the public—therefore, our insistence on using only information that was publicly available and had at least face-value validity.

Table 11 lists the alternative routes for all students and for students with disabilities, indicating our judgment of the alternative route as comparable, as non-comparable (i.e., less rigorous) to the standard route, or “unclear” because not enough information was available. As indicated in the table, the alternative routes for all students tended to be comparable to the standard route (10 of 14), whereas those for students with disabilities tended to be non-comparable (8 of 14). Recall that this calculation included two alternative routes for all students in Indiana, both of which were judged to be comparable, and two alternative routes for students with disabilities in Florida, one of which was judged to be not comparable and one of which was judged to be comparable.

Table 11 includes footnotes that either clarify our judgments or note the concerns or comments of states about the judgments. Those states in bold letters disagreed in some way with our judgment. Some of these states indicated that comparability was reflected in the alternative process, even though not stated in public documents or on the Web site. At least one of these states suggested that we analyze the specific requirements that students had to meet; others suggested that comparability was implied by the lack of statements about not having to meet the same standard.

Table 11. Comparability of Alternative Route and Standard Diploma Route

Note: States in bold letters disagreed to some way with our judgment about comparability.

^a Alaska’s alternative for all students is allowed only under special circumstances, such as death in family, move from another state.
^bCalifornia is currently undergoing a legislatively-mandated study to determine its final criteria`for students with disabilities.
^c Florida has two alternative routes for students with disabilities that we did not judge to be of the same comparability. The waiver is not comparable to the standard route to a diploma. The special exemption allows for exemption from the graduation test “under extraordinary circumstances that create a situation where the results of administration of the graduation test would reflect a student’s impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills rather than the student’s achievement” (State Board of Education Rule). These situations are rare and the Department may receive one to two per year; this is judged to be comparable.
^d Georgia disagreed with our designation of unclear, but was unable to satisfy our requirements for public documentation of comparability.
^e Indiana has two alternative routes for all students: a different curriculum (the Core 40), and recommendations based on other tests or classroom work. We judged both of these to be comparable based on the state’s descriptions.
^fMinnesota does not have an alternative route for general education students at the state level, but under limited circumstances, after February of the student’s senior year, a local school district can make accommodations options available as a “last chance” option to pass the test.
^g New Mexico indicated that it believes all of its alternative routes are intended to be “comparable.” However, the description of the process for the Career Readiness pathway specifically requires students to “achieve a level of competency or targeted proficiency that is pre-determined by the IEP team,” which by our criteria would indicate “not comparable.”
^h North Carolina disagreed with our designation of not comparable, but was unable to satisfy our requirements for public documentation of comparability.
* Did not respond to request for verification.

Discussion

Controversy surrounds many graduation exams today, in part because they are being tied to more rigorous standards than the minimum competency tests of the 1980s. Questions have been raised about their cost effectiveness (Center on Education Policy, 2004), the rigor of the tests themselves (Achieve, 2004a, 2004b), and the value of the tests for targeting resources to those students who need them most to successfully complete school (Greene & Winters, 2004). Despite this controversy, increasing numbers of states have decided to adopt graduation exams to determine whether students will receive standard diplomas. The purpose of the study summarized in this report was to identify the alternative routes to the standard diploma that are available to students in those states with graduation exams.

We found that of the 27 states with currently active or soon-to-be active graduation exams, 16 had or planned to have—at the time that we conducted our study at the end of 2003—an alternative route to the standard diploma for students in their states. Only two of these states were in the planning phase; 14 states had existing alternative routes to the standard diploma. Of the 16 states, 10 had identified routes for “all students” and another route just for “students with disabilities.” The tendency of states to identify special routes for their students with disabilities is something that deserves further study and was, in fact, part of the reason for this study. It is important to determine both the mechanics of the routes (both for all students and for only students with disabilities) but also the comparability of the routes. Does the route that is available to students with disabilities reflect the same standards as that available to all students, or is the standard in some way less rigorous?

We found that states’ options for earning diplomas in ways other than the standard route are quite complex and multi-faceted. It is likely that because of the importance of the alternative routes, legislators, governors, state boards of education, and state departments of education all weigh in on them, and thus, the alternatives are in flux. Much information about alternative routes was vague or missing from Web sites, and verification did not always improve the amount or clarity of information that we had in many cases.

It is also still difficult, especially for the novice, to distinguish the alternative routes to a standard diploma from alternate assessments meant for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The language surrounding the two kinds of assessments often is not clear. This confusion has been carried into some reports that summarize graduation requirements, where an alternative route is identified that really is a state’s alternate assessment meant for students with significant cognitive disabilities, which really has nothing to do with the state’s graduation requirements.

There is a wide array of procedures that states have adopted for their alternative routes. This is reflected in the initiator of the alternative route, the decision-making body or approver of the alternative route request, and the nature of the alternative route itself. It was interesting to see that for all students, the alternative route most often involved taking a different test (n = 5) or by demonstrating competency in a different way (n = 6). Alternative methods included portfolios, grade comparisons, and juried assessments. In only a few states was a different curriculum or a waiver mentioned as the alternative route to the standard diploma.

For students with disabilities, the array of alternative routes looks considerably different. For example, most states (n = 5) have a waiver option for students with disabilities (6 alternative routes because Florida has two types of waivers). Next most frequent are different test (n = 3), different method of demonstrating competency (n = 3), and different curriculum (n = 2). In fact, when we conducted an analysis of the comparability of the standard route to the standard diploma and the alternative route to the standard diploma—based on the descriptions provided by the states—we judged that 10 of the 14 alternative routes (71%) available to all students were comparable to the standard route, while only 5 of the 14 alternative routes (35%) available to students with disabilities were comparable.

As we assembled information found on Web sites, we also examined the findings of other recent studies (see Appendix C), which included National Study on Graduation Requirements and Diploma Options for Youth with Disabilities (Johnson & Thurlow, 2003), which reported data collected in April of 2002, the document State High School Exit Exams Put to the Test, which used data collected in April and May of 2003, and Education Week’s Quality Counts 2004, which collected information in late 2003. Several inconsistencies were found in information about graduation exams and about alternatives available for those exams. In some cases, the inconsistencies could be attributed to different people providing information for the various studies; in other instances, the discrepancies were due to changes that occur over time in this rapidly evolving policy area. In still others, the inconsistencies may be due to misunderstandings of the concepts involved.

It is important to emphasize that the information in this rapidly changing area is a snapshot in time. Nearly every week articles appear in Education Week, as well as in local newspapers, focusing on the impact of high stakes testing and portending possible modifications to existing laws and regulations. For example, an April 16, 2004, article (Associated Press, 2004) indicated that Alaska high school seniors with disabilities would not need to pass the state’s new high school exam to graduate in the spring. This ruling came as a result of a class-action lawsuit that charged that the exam put students with disabilities at a disadvantage. On May 6, 2004, the Dallas Morning News indicted that there was a little known provision in an education finance bill that would eliminate the high school TAKS test completely, replacing it with a new series of 13 course-specific tests tied to classes. The article stated that one reason lawmakers were considering replacing the TAKS was because last year about half of all high school juniors failed at least one section. While the results of the test were not in as of this writing, the article indicated that approximately 100,000 students would be at risk of not graduating next year. There was no indication in the article of whether there would be alternative methods of achieving a high school diploma under this new proposal.

While there is much flux surrounding graduation exams themselves and the alternative routes that are available for them, there does not seem to be a push to remove the non-comparable routes that are available to students with disabilities. This raises several questions. Is it okay in the current context of accountability to essentially waive graduation requirements for students with disabilities in those states that have a graduation exam? When requirements are waived, is there some indication that this has occurred? 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 standard of proficiency from other students.

Thurlow and Thompson (2000) proposed that it was important to have the same diploma options available to all students, and that if more than one diploma option existed the names of those options should correspond to the knowledge and skills demonstrated by the student. For example, they suggested names just as Comprehensive Diploma, Course Completion Diploma, and Certificate of Attendance. Few states seemed to have taken this approach. Delaware is one state that adopted this type of approach in 2000, with its three types of diplomas: basic, standard, and distinguished. Yet, this three-tier system is causing controversy about whether it is right to tie the diploma so closely to one standardized test (Davis, 2004). And Delaware is not a state with an alternative route to a diploma, so the question of whether there is a need to identify when a student has taken an alternative route to obtain a diploma could be even more controversial.

Recommendations for Alternative Routes to a Standard Diploma

Several recommendations emerge from our analysis of states’ approaches to providing students with other ways to obtain a standard diploma. Some of these recommendations are a direct result of our findings, and others are an amalgamation of our findings and suggestions from other studies. They fall back on the assumption that the standard diploma is an important property right, and that an alternative route to this property right should uphold the same principles that the standard route itself holds. With this as a backdrop, we make six recommendations:

1. States with alternative routes to their standard diplomas must provide clear, easy-to-find information about the alternative route.
There is a wide variation in the clarity and ease with which information on alternative routes can be found. While we would assume that students who fail graduation exams have access to information about alternative routes through their schools and counselors, this is not always the case. Even if it is, it is important for information about alternative routes to a standard diploma to be publicly available. This allows a transparent understanding by the general public of the standard diploma and how students earn them, and ensures that other interested parties in a student’s academic career (such as parents, grandparents, guardians, and others) also have access to information about alternative routes that may not make it home from the school. When we started our search for information on alternative routes in late 2003, there were states in which it was extremely difficult to find information about alternative routes—even though we had seen them discussed by state officials in news articles. This changed over time. As we completed our verification process and revisited Web sites, we found that some had improved dramatically in terms of both the ease of finding information and the clarity of information once found. It is our belief that if an alternative route to a standard diploma is available in a state, information about it should be clear and easy for all to access. All critical details, such as whether the alternative requires students to meet the same standards as the regular route, should be stated in clear and explicit terms.

2. The alternative route must be based on the same beliefs and premises as the standard route to the diploma.
When states set up the requirements for their standard diploma they typically have conversations about the meaning of the diploma. These discussions generally involve what it means to be an educated citizen and what businesses and post-secondary institutions should be able to expect of those who receive a diploma from high schools. If an alternative route has the same end point—the standard diploma—it is important to ensure that it is based on the same beliefs and premises. In other words, there should be an assumption that the alternative route is another way to demonstrate knowledge and skills that are considered comparable to those measured when students obtain a standard diploma through the standard route.

It is clear from our analysis of the alternative routes that this is not true for all of the alternative routes that are currently available to students. It is true more often for those routes that are available to all students than it is for the routes that are available only for students with disabilities. Many states seem to believe that these students need to be excused from showing the same knowledge and skills to obtain the same diploma as other students obtain. In our study we did not specifically look for evidence that there was some indication provided that the students had obtained a standard diploma through a non-comparable alternative route. We know that Minnesota is a state that does indicate on student records when the diploma was obtained through a non-comparable alternative route (“passed—individual” rather than “passed—state”). Whether other states do this is unknown; there was no obvious indication of such on their Web sites.

3. The same route or routes should be available to all students.
There is no clear rationale for having an alternative route to the standard diploma that is different for students with disabilities. When states have had different routes for students with disabilities, it generally has been a non-comparable route. If it is assumed that this is not desired, as we have done here, then all other needs of students with disabilities should be addressed through the provision of accommodations and universally designed assessments (Thompson, Johnstone, & Thurlow, 2002; Thompson & Thurlow, 2002; Thompson, Thurlow, & Malouf, 2004). If there are particular concerns about students with disabilities because of a historical lack of access to the curriculum and standards, then a phase-in approach to graduation exams for students with disabilities (as was implemented by New York) may be most appropriate.

4. The alternative route should truly be an alternative to the graduation exam, not just another test.
It is important to lay out the assumptions behind the alternative route that is available to students. Those alternative routes that are simply other tests often are based on the assumption that students are already taking many assessments and have demonstrated their knowledge and skills through those assessments. States tend to indicate that as long as the assessments are of equivalent difficulty, they can substitute for the state tests. This argument does not necessarily address the link to state standards.

We believe that alternative routes to the standard diploma really have a unique function to play. They are needed for those students who truly are not able to show their knowledge and skills on a paper and pencil test, but who have indeed met the standards. Thus, for these students, another way of demonstrating their knowledge and skills is needed—not just a paper and pencil test. A number of states have recognized this need and have developed alternative routes that include portfolios, special curricula, and review panels.

5. The alternative route should reflect a reasoned and reasonable process.
The alternative route is made up of a number of decisions, each of which affects whether the process is reasonable, and has potential intended and unintended consequences. Involving stakeholders in the development of alternative routes, or at least in identifying the foundational beliefs and assumptions underlying the routes, should be part of the development process.

There is evidence that this is occurring with the alternative routes that we studied here, even though we did not talk directly with those who developed the alternative routes. For example, in the Massachusetts Performance Appeals, we saw evidence of a change that took place in January of 2004. In Florida, we saw that a policy that was implemented for one year was extended to a second year.

6. Procedures should be implemented to evaluate the technical adequacy of the alternative route and to track its consequences.
Just as the technical adequacy of regular assessments is important, so is the technical adequacy of alternative assessment routes, whatever their form. This is not as much a challenge when the alternative route is another test (although, of course, there still needs to be a demonstration of alignment to state standards) as it is when the alternative route is a different format, such as a portfolio or a panel review.

The importance of examining the consequences of the alternative route takes on just as much importance as examining the consequences of the regular graduation exam. There needs to be systematic tracking of the consequences of the alternative routes. How many students participate in the alternative route to the standard diploma? Are there too many for the system to handle? Does the alternative route increase the graduation rate or the dropout rate of students in general or of certain subgroups of students? These and other questions about consequences that stakeholders identify as important should be pursued.

Conclusion

Our study of alternative routes to a standard diploma has been challenging. The search was difficult, the verification tedious, and the cross-checking complex. In a previous analysis, Thurlow and Esler (2000) examined appeals processes for students with disabilities who failed graduation exams, a relatively restricted search. But we know now that there are many other options available—students do not necessarily have to fail the exam first, nor do they necessarily have to be on an IEP or have a 504 plan to use an alternative route. Knowing the many other options and the details and complexities probably made our search more challenging. We believe it resulted in more accurate information. Still, there is more research that needs to be done. Our broad analysis of comparability needs to be taken a step further. While public declarations of comparability are important, it is just as important to conduct an analysis of the alternative routes to determine their comparability. This analysis might include difficulty analyses and alignment to standards studies for other tests and portfolios, analyses of the content of courses of study, and other procedures as appropriate.

It is good that many of the states that have graduation exams have determined that they need to have an alternative route for students to obtain the standard diploma. Making this information more widely available in a clear and easy to understand format should be a goal for all states. Even if information about alternative routes is available in high schools, some state department of education staff had difficulty verifying the information, a sign that it is not common knowledge. The more public and transparent the information is, the better.

We think that states may also want to re-examine their decisions to allow students with disabilities to earn standard diplomas through alternative routes that are not comparable to standard routes to the diploma. In an era where high expectations have been targeted for all students, and the achievement of grade-level proficiency is expected of all but a small percentage of students with disabilities, states may be reinforcing the perception that students with disabilities cannot meet standards. The perpetuation of the myth that students with disabilities should be excluded from these high expectations of basic skills is disconcerting.

References

Achieve, Inc. (2004a). Do graduation tests measure up? A closer look at state high school exit exams. Washington, DC: Author.

Achieve, Inc. (2004b). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts. Washington, DC: Author.

Advocates for Special Kids (ASK) v. Oregon State Board of Education, Federal District Court, 1999, No. CV99-263 K1.

Associated Press. (2004). Disabled Alaska Students Can Waive Exams. Yahoo News. Retrieved April 2004 from: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl+story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=3&u=/ap/2004040

Benton, J. (2004). Bill May Spell the End of TAKS. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved May 6, 2004 from: http://www.dallasnews.com/cgi-bin/bi/gold_print.cgi

Brookhart v. Illinois State Board of Education, 697 F.2d 179 (7th Cir. 1983).

Center on Education Policy. (2002, August). State high school exit exams: A baseline report. Washington, DC: Author.

Center on Education Policy. (2003, August). State high school exit exams: Put to the test. Washington, DC: Author.

Center on Education Policy. (2004, May). Pay now or pay later: The hidden costs of high school exit exams. Washington, DC: Author.

Davis, M.R. (2004, April 28). Three-tier diplomas ignite Delaware spat. Education Week, 23(33), p. 21.

Debra P. v. Turlington, 644 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1981).

Gehring, J. (2000). Massachusetts Teachers Blast State Tests in New TV Ads, Education Week on the Web. Retrieved May 2004 from: http://edweek.com/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=12mcas.h20

Greene, J. P., & Winters, Marcus A. (2004). The Positive Effect of Exit Exams. Retrieved May 2004 from: http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/142978-6018-022.html

Guy, B., Shin, H., Lee, S., & Thurlow, M. (1999). State graduation requirements for students with and without disabilities (Technical Report 24). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Heubert, J. P. (2002) Disability, rate, and high-stakes testing for students. In G. Orfield & D. Losen, Editions 2002. Minority issues in special education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.

Johnson, D.R., & Thurlow, M.L. (2003). A national study on graduation requirements and diploma options for youth with disabilities (Technical Report 36). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Juleus Chapman et al. v. California Department of Education et al., 2001, No. C01-1780.

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.

News in Brief: A State Capitals Roundup. (2004, Aug 11). Education Week, 23 (44), p. 26.

O’Neil, H.F., Sugrue, B., Abedi, J., Baker, E.L., & Golan, S. (1997). Final report of experimental studies on motivation and NAEP test performance (CSE Technical Report 427). Los Angeles: University of California, Low Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

Quality Counts. (2004, January 8). Special education in an era of standards: Count me in. Education Week, 23(17).
Rene v. Reed, 751 N.E.2d 736, 742-43 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

Schwartz, R., & Gandal, M. (2000). Higher Standards, Stronger Tests: Don’t Shoot the Messenger, Education Week on the Web. Retrieved May 2004 from: http://edweek.com/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=19schwartz.h19

Thompson, S.J., Johnstone, C.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2002). Universally designed assessments: Better tests for everyone! (Policy Directions No. 14). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2003). 2003 special education outcomes: Marching on. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thompson, S.J., Thurlow, M.L., & Malouf, D. (2004, May). Creating better tests for everyone through universally designed assessments. Journal of Applied Testing Technology. http://www.testpublishers.org/atp.journal.htm

Thurlow, M., & Esler, A. (2000). Appeals processes for students who fail graduation exams: How do they apply to students with disabilities? (Synthesis Report 36). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M. L., & Johnson, D. R. (2000). High stakes testing for students with disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (4). 289–298.

Thurlow, M.L., & Thompson, S.J. (2000). Diploma options and graduation policies for students with disabilities (Policy Directions No. 10). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., & Anderson, C. (1995). High school graduation requirements: What’s happening for students with disabilities? (Synthesis Report 20). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Wiener, D. (2004). Using assessment data to improve student achievement. Presentation at the annual conference of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Boston, MA.

Appendix A

State Profiles

Alaska

The Alaska High School Graduation Qualifying Examination (HSGQE) is a test designed to provide information on whether students meet the essential competencies provided in the standards that have been set by the state. Beginning in 2004, high school students were required to pass the HSGQE to earn a high school diploma. The test covers reading, writing, and mathematics. Each content area contains multiple-choice questions with four possible answer choices. The multiple choice questions are machine scored. In addition to the multiple-choice questions, there are constructed-response questions which require students to demonstrate their skills in more complex levels of thinking. These are scored by professional staff experienced in providing reliable and consistent hand-scoring. All constructed-response questions allow for full or partial credit.

Information about Alternative Routes in Alaska

The following table provides an overview of the two alternative routes that have been created in Alaska—one for all students (high school seniors) and one for students with IEPs and 504 plans. These are described more generally in the text after the table.