WHO WE ARE    |   PUBLICATIONS   |  PRESENTATIONS   |  PROJECTS   |   RELATED SITES   |   STAFF   |   SITE MAP   |   SEARCH   |   WHAT'S NEW   |   HOME 

High School Graduation Requirements: What's Happening for Students with Disabilities?

NCEO Synthesis Report 20

Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes
in collaboration with St. Cloud State University and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education

Prepared by:

Martha L. Thurlow, James E. Ysseldyke, and Cheryl L. Anderson

May, 1995

Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Thurlow, M.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E  & Anderson, C.L. (1995). High school graduation requirements:  What's happening for students with disabilities? (Synthesis Report No. 20). 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/Synthesis20.html

Abstract

Although increasing the high school graduation rate is now a national education goal, requirements for graduation are not set at the national level.   And, while the goal is said to apply to all students, including those in special education programs, what high school graduation means for these students is not clear.   We collected documentation from state departments of education to examine high school graduation requirements for students in general, and for student with disabilities.   Forty-four states use Carnegie course unit requirements ranging from 10.25 to 24.00 credits.  Seventeen states currently have requirements for either a minimum competency test or exit exam.  Local education agencies in several states have the option of establishing more stringent requirements than called for in state guidelines.   Exit documents that are awarded to students with disabilities also vary from state to state (e.g., standard diplomas, modified diplomas, certificates of attendance), with similar requirements sometimes earning different types of exit documents in different states.  These inconsistencies in graduation requirements and their implications for the future are discussed.

Overview

Graduation from high school is an integral and cherished part of the U.S. educational system. Having sufficient numbers of students graduate is viewed as important to our nation's competitiveness in a global society. High school graduation is viewed as so important that increasing the graduation rate is one of our nation's educational goals. Goal 2, first endorsed by the governors and the President of the U.S. in 1989, and now codified in law through Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Public Law 103-227), states that "by the year 2000, the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent" (P.L. 103-227). This goal is supported by two objectives that call for (a) a significant reduction in school dropout rates, along with the successful return and graduation of 75% of those who have already dropped out, and (b) a reduction in the gap between the high school graduation rates of students with minority and non-minority backgrounds.

While this is a national goal, supported by a national law, there is no mention in the law or the goal of what the requirement is for a student to graduate. Requirements for high school graduation are not set by the U.S. Department of Education. Rather, they are set either through state regulations or by local districts in concert with general state guidelines.

Now, at the same time that our nation has set a 90 percent high school completion rate as the goal to be reached by the year 2000, many states (or local districts) have been increasing high school graduation requirements as part of an overall education reform movement (Medrich, Brown, Henke, Ross & McArthur, 1992). The requirements that states set for graduation can range from Carnegie unit requirements (a certain number of class credits earned in specific areas), to successfully passing minimum competency tests, high school exit exams, and/or a series of benchmark exams. States may also require almost any combination of these. The diversity in possible requirements for graduating from school is complicated by a similarly diverse set of possible types of graduation documents. The high school diploma is not the only document that represents successful completion of high school. Among the array of possibilities are diplomas with endorsements, certificates of attendance, and standard diplomas, to mention a few.

Understanding the range of requirements for students with disabilities to successfully "complete school" is thus a complicated but important task. Goals 2000 is very clear in its language that its goals, objectives, and supports for reform are for all students, and that "all students" includes students with disabilities. When Goal 2 states that the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent, it is to be assumed that calculation of the percentage is based on all students, including those served in special education programs. The need to understand the requirements for students with disabilities to graduate, and to examine the possible implications for policy, is particularly important because of the finding that students with disabilities experience significant negative outcomes when they do not earn a high school or equivalent diploma (Affleck, Edgar, Levine, & Kortering, 1990; Bruininks, Thurlow, Lewis, & Larson, 1988; Edgar, 1987; Hasazi, Gordon, & Roe, 1985; Wagner, 1992). And, we have data to suggest that more stringent graduation requirements may be related to greater rates of dropping out of school among students with disabilities compared to their counterparts without disabilities (Wagner, 1991).

Previous Research on Graduation Requirements

A decade ago, the possible effects of changing high school graduation requirements were noted by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (1985). It concluded that increasing graduation requirements could eliminate a curricular balance involving a "universe of learning," and leave students with diverse interests and needs few opportunities for courses in various content areas outside of the basic curriculum emphasized in the graduation rules. In addition, ASCD posed the possibility that increased requirements might have the unintended effect of causing "at-risk" students to abandon their quest for diplomas. ASCD did not move beyond the at-risk students to consider students with disabilities.

Most literature on graduation requirements is written from the perspective of general education, and does not consider students with disabilities. Even the U.S. Department of Education's (1992) document Heading Toward Commencement simply noted that students with disabilities are one of the minority groups mentioned in the second objective of Goal 2 because of the significantly discrepant graduation rate of these students. But the Department document did not provide suggestions on how to address the issue other than to say that "communities will therefore want to examine graduation rates for these students as well as the rate for the community as a whole" (p. 13). In the Goal 2 Technical Report (1993), the Office of Educational Research and Improvement did indicate a need for research to identify the factors that lead these students to drop out at a much higher rate than their general education counterparts, and suggested that OERI should incorporate the results of OSERS research and development programs on this issue into its efforts to address the high school completion rate.

One study was conducted on graduation policies and practices for students with disabilities in the mid- to late 1980s. At that time, Bodner, Clark, and Mellard (1987) found that:

• Forty-seven states had legislation or state board of education requirements of minimum credits for graduation.
  
  
• Thirty-six of those states had increased their requirements since the passage of Public Law 94-142 (Education of the Handicapped Act of 1975).
  
  
• Thirty states had minimum competency programs, and of these, fifteen determined a student's exit document by scores on a minimum competency test.

Bodner et al. (1987) classified policies for granting diplomas for students with disabilities into three categories: (1) standard diploma and same standards as regular education, (2) standard diploma and different standards, and (3) modified diploma and different standards. Bodner et al. also cited the approaches to implementing these options that were identified by Higgins (1979) and Ross and Weintraub (1980):

awarding the same diploma to all students who meet regular standards, a special diploma to special education students who have individualized standards specified in their IEPs or who pursue standards based on a different curriculum, and a certificate to special education students who meet some, but not all, of the regular graduation requirements. (p. 10)

In their conclusions about the impact of educational reform and graduation requirements, Bodner et al. (1987) argued that the push for more academic coursework could lead to a narrowing of the curriculum. This could be taken to the point where the curriculum is inappropriate for many students in special education, particularly those requiring education in functional living skills.

In a recent document on graduation tests, Mehrens (1993) discussed the issues surrounding the implementation of high school graduation tests, which are viewed as a prime example of high stakes assessments (those with significant consequences for someone). He recommended that states considering the use of such tests move slowly. He urged them to address the following issues before implementation: curriculum/content specification; psychometric properties of the test; and the educational, legal, human, and financial resources needed. He also recommended that specific test-taking procedures be adopted for special education students, including exemption, administrative adaptations, and adapted versions of the test.

Research on Minimum Competency Tests

At about the same time that A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) was first released, Wildemuth (1983) was reviewing approaches that have been used to accommodate students with disabilities in minimum competency test (MCT) graduation programs. Among the various approaches that she summarized were exclusion from testing programs, use of different standards, and use of different tests.

Vitello (1988) looked at three policy options for students with disabilities. First, students with disabilities may be required to pass the standard MCT to receive a diploma. The second option for students with disabilities is to be exempted from the MCT, with graduation diplomas granted for successful completion of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). Third, different competency standards may be developed for students with disabilities.

Catterall (1989) found a discrepancy between the beliefs of school administrators and students about such tests. While administrators expressed the opinion that the tests are not a serious impediment or threat to graduation, students who initially failed one of these tests were more likely to express doubts about their graduation prospects than students who had not failed.

After examining the effects of minimum competency testing on students with disabilities and other groups for the National Center for Education Statistics, Medrich et al. (1992) reported that states have implemented MCT testing programs in several ways, specifically:

• state-developed test, with state-defined minimum score to receive a diploma
  
  
• state-developed test, with the local education agency setting passing standards
  
  
• state-developed test used only to award special advanced or honors diplomas
  
  
• state-defined competencies required for graduation, with the local education agency determining the method of assessment

In their report, Medrich et al. also noted the diversified nature of most MCTs, which can range from simple reading tests to tests that assess competency in several skill areas. Because of the variety of MCTs and the lack of research, Medrich et al. did not present any recommendations. Instead, they concluded that it was very difficult to make generalizations about the possible effects on student performance of such graduation testing.

Legal Issues and Implications

Because graduation requirements are high stakes for students, it is to be expected that the requirements would be tested in the courts. Phillips (1993) discussed the federal statutes that afford protection for individuals with disabilities: the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Federal courts have held that IDEA, though it mandates individualized education programs for students with disabilities, does not guarantee a particular educational outcome. Section 504 requires that reasonable accommodations be made for the known physical or cognitive limitations of otherwise qualified individuals for any public programs receiving federal funds. These accommodations must be judged on an individual basis. ADA extended these requirements to private entities.

In 1988, Vitello identified some of the possible legal issues related to the three options that he identified for the use of MCTs for students with disabilities. Among them were:

• Does denial of a diploma to a student who fails an MCT constitute a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 or IDEA, or the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
  
  
• Should students with disabilities be exempt from MCT's and be awarded a regular diploma based on completion of IEPs?  If so, does this constitute a violation of equal protection for students without disabilities who fail MCTs and cannot receive a standard diploma?

Vitello expressed the opinion that standardized MCTs that require all students to achieve a minimum level of academic uniformity are contrary to the intent of individualized instruction for students with disabilities under P.L. 94-142, and that appropriate education could be compromised if the IEP is designed to help the student pass the MCT for the purpose of obtaining a diploma.

In a review of legal issues surrounding testing of persons with disabilities, Pullin and Zirkel (1988) discussed "test-for-diploma" programs and the participation of students with disabilities. Courts have held that:

the use of minimum competency tests to determine the award of regular high school diplomas to students with handicaps is neither per se unconstitutional nor a per se violation of the federal statutes concerning education of the handicapped. (p. 13)

In addition, when a testing requirement is implemented, there must be sufficient accommodations in test administration, and adequate advance notice to plan for instruction in the skills and knowledge tested through a student's IEP, or to make an informed decision to not gear the IEP to the test.

Kortering, Julnes, and Edgar (1990) reviewed case law related to the graduation of students receiving special education services. Based on the cases reviewed, the following guidelines were provided to school districts:

• Local districts have the discretion to restrict the award of standard diplomas.  However, in awarding nonstandard diplomas to special education students, the practice must be consistent with the state's interest.
  
  
• Procedures the results in differentiating special education students should be founded on fair standards that have been explained to the student and parents, and students must be given an opportunity to satisfy the standards as is or through the provision of reasonable accommodation.
  
• Goals and standards on an IEP are a means of evaluating whether a student can graduate, and can be used in place of district requirements.

Phillips (1993) provided a discussion of the Debra P. v. Turlington case, considered the landmark case regarding tests to award diplomas. The trial court established that a high school diploma is a property interest, which makes it subject to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in this case imposed the requirements of curricular validity and adequate notice on high school exit exams. This case addressed general education students; it did not specifically address the rights of students with disabilities. Phillips posed three questions regarding the extension of the Debra P. case to students with disabilities:

1. Can diplomas be withheld from disabled students who satisfactorily complete their IEPs but are unable to pass the test?
   
   
2. If diplomas can be denied to disabled students, are the procedural and substantive due process requirements different in
   any way from the constitutional requirements for nondisabled students?  and
   
   
3. What are the criteria for determining the testing accommodations that must be provided to disabled students, if any? (p. 70)

On the topic of differentiated diplomas, wherein endorsements are granted to students passing the tests at different (i.e., higher) standards, Phillips (1993) stated that such endorsements may be viewed as a relevant property right if employers make employment conditional on endorsements rather than diplomas. However, she further stated that standardized diplomas with endorsements for exceptional performance may be more politically viable than differentiated diplomas or withholding diplomas for substandard performance since:

students who fail the endorsement tests or do not take the tests because they are in special education programs still can receive unendorsed high school diplomas if they satisfy all course or IEP (Individualized Educational Program for students with disabilities) requirements. (p. 29)

While Bodner et al. (1987) provided an excellent overview of the status of graduation policies and practices, their document did not contain any state-by-state descriptions of these practices. All data were aggregated in their study. We conducted our study to update the information provided by Bodner et al. and to produce information on what specific states are doing. We asked the following questions:

1. How are state graduation requirements applied to students with special needs?
   
   
2. Do students with special needs receive a standard diploma upon completion of their studies, or some type of modified exit document (e.g., special diploma or certificate of completion)?
   
   
3. If the state requires a competency exam or exit exam, do students with disabilities participate?  If so, what types of modifications and/or accommodations are made for them?

Method

In order to obtain information on individual states' practices, we collected documentation from state departments of education about their graduation requirements. This documentation may take the form of state statute or regulations from the department of education. We received information from all 50 states. In only 22 states were students with disabilities addressed in the documentation that we received. When students with disabilities were not addressed, we contacted the state again, this time redirecting our inquiries to the department of special education; this was done through telephone calls.

We also were interested in determining whether a high school graduation test was a prerequisite for obtaining a diploma. The original documentation that we received often did not address this issue. If the information was not included, we called back to obtain it. This call was generally redirected to the assessment unit. All information was collected between April 1994 and October 1994.

Results

While obtaining information on graduation requirements for students with disabilities may seem like a straightforward task, this was not necessarily the case; the information was not readily accessible. In many instances, our phone inquiry into how graduation requirements are applied to special education students was met with a counter-query: What district are you calling in regards to? This demonstrates that defining graduation rules for students with disabilities at a state level is often not possible. While states may have state level policies or suggested practices, local education agencies may be left the discretion of how to implement these policies.

Forty-four states have established specific Carnegie course unit requirements. Course requirements for graduation vary widely from state to state, ranging from a requirement for 10.25 credits (Illinois) to requirements for 24.00 credits (Florida, Utah), distributed among English, math, social science, science, arts and electives. Most states requiring a specific number of credits require from 16 to 20 credits (see Figure 1). State requirements in many instances are minimum standards that the state has established. Local education agencies (LEAs) in several states have the option of establishing more stringent requirements. Increased requirements may include passage of a high school exit exam or competency test, in addition to more academic credit requirements. Six states (Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Wyoming) leave the final determination of graduation credit requirements (through addition or distribution decisions) to LEAs. In one of these states (Colorado) the LEAs are solely responsible for determining requirements for graduation. In Nebraska, 200 credit hours are required by the state, but the distribution of credits is left to the discretion of the LEAs, as long as 80% of the credits are in the core curriculum subjects of English, math, science, and social science. The remaining four states (Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Wyoming) have state requirements for a portion of credits (from 1 to 2.5), and the LEAs add to these requirements. Table 1 shows the specific state credit requirements.

When we asked states whether students were required to pass an exit exam in order to earn a diploma, the answer was negative in all but a handful of states. However, several states that said successful exit test performance was not required actually do require students to pass a minimum competency test (MCT) in order to earn a diploma, making these tests, in effect, high school exit exams. We use the terms interchangeably. Currently, 17 states have some form of exit exam in place on a statewide basis (see Figure 2). Arizona and Indiana have graduation tests pending for 1996 and 1995, respectively. Local education agencies may establish MCT requirements in those states giving them the discretion to establish more stringent graduation requirements than those mandated by state law.

Many states hold students with disabilities to the same standards as other students, including course credits and passage of an exit exam, in order to receive a standard diploma. Others award a regular diploma upon completion of a student's IEP program. Still others award a modified diploma or a certificate of completion upon successful completion of IEP goals and objectives. Several states reserve a certificate of attendance option for those students with severe or profound disabilities. Many of these options are practices that the state has suggested to LEAs. Since local education agencies have been given so much discretion in establishing requirements and practices, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly which policies may actually be used. Table 2 shows the types of exit documents in use by the states.

Table 1.  High School Graduation Requirements (Carnegie Course Units) in Curricular Areas

Table 2.  Exit Document Options for Students with Disabilities

All states have standard diplomas as an option for students with disabilities; what differs are the requirements that must be met in order to obtain the standard diploma. Table 3 shows the various requirements that must be met for students with disabilities to earn a standard diploma. The largest number of states requires either a specific number of credits or passing an exit exam in addition to earning a specific number of credits. Some of the states (New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas) requiring both credits and passing scores on an exit exam allow for the waiver of some credits and/or of parts of the proficiency exam for individual learners. In these instances, the IEP team determines what is appropriate for the learner, and documentation of this becomes part of the IEP. In nine states, completion of the IEP is the only requirement for obtaining a standard diploma. However, "completion" may still mean different things in different states (see Appendix), with the common alternatives being either completion of the IEP program or meeting IEP goals. States in the "undefined" criterion are those in which the local education agencies determine their own requirements.

Table 3.  Standard Diploma Requirements for Students with Disabilities

Table 4.  Modified Diploma Requirements for Students with Disabilities

Requirements for modified diplomas are shown in Table 4. Not only are modified diplomas used much less frequently, but the nature of requirements is spread out much more. The most frequent requirement is "LEA policy," which actually translates to different requirements. Table 5 shows the requirements for certificates. They are quite diverse. While completion of the IEP is most frequent (but still may be called a certificate of performance or certificate of achievement), what it actually entails may differ as well.

Discussion

When we examined graduation requirements for students with disabilities, we found information similar to that of Bodner et al. (1987). While Bodner et al. found 46 states required a specific number of credits for graduation, we found 44 states with specific requirements for credits in English, math, social science, and science. Most emphasized are English credits, with 84% (37 states) requiring 4 credits, and 16% (7 states) requiring 3 credits. For math, 30% (13) require 3 credits, 68% (30) 2 credits, and 2% (1) 1 credit. For social science, 5% (2) require 4 credits, 61% (27) 3 credits, and 34% (15) 2 credits. For science, 18% (8) require 3 credits, 75% (33) 2 credits, and 7% (3) 1 credit. The requirements reported in this study indicate an upward trend in the credits required for graduation since the publication of Bodner et al. in 1987.

Table 5.  Certificate Requirements for Students with Disabilities

In A Nation at Risk (1983), the National Commission on Excellence in Education made the following curriculum recommendations for graduation requirements: 4 English, 3 math, 3 science, 3 social science, and .5 computer science. At this time, only eight states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee) follow these recommendations (excluding the computer science requirement).

Bodner et al. (1987) reported 14 states with a state policy for one exit document, the standard diploma, for all students meeting regular or alternate requirements. In our study, we found 19 states with such a policy, an increase of 10%.

Bodner et al. (1987) also found that 17 states had policies requiring a different exit document from a standard diploma for special education students who did not meet regular graduation requirements, and 19 states left this determination to the LEA. We found that 31 states have either state or local policies for alternative exit documents, which represents a 10% decrease in the number of states using such options. Just as Bodner et al. found, we found all states that have differentiated exit document options also allow a special education student to earn a standard diploma by meeting regular graduation requirements.

In 1987, Bodner et al. reported that 21 states required a competency test for high school graduation. Fifteen of those states used the test score to determine the type of exit document to be awarded. In contrast, we found 17 states requiring a competency test for graduation, and two additional states with testing programs pending (see Figure 2). It is not possible to compare the changes by states between the two studies, since Bodner et al. provided only aggregated data.

For many states that award standard diplomas or certificates for students with disabilities, the certificate option is reserved for students with severe or profound disabilities (personal communication with several states). This type of policy is confirmed through state reports of students with disabilities who exit the educational system, where the percentage of students graduating through certification in these states averages 20% of the number exiting with a diploma (U.S. Department of Education, 1994) This figure is inflated by states awarding certificates to students with disabilities not passing an exit exam. In New Hampshire, students with disabilities may receive a certificate, but this does not terminate the students' eligibility for special education assistance until age 21.

The information we gathered represents a snapshot of graduation requirements and competency tests. Like many issues in education, the information is in a state of flux as states continue their education reform efforts. For example, the state of Minnesota currently recommends that students with special needs be granted a standard diploma upon completion of their IEP; however, the state is currently looking at implementing an exit exam, and thinking about exempting these students from the testing. Without a passing grade on the competency test, these students will be eligible only for a certificate of completion.

The variety of practices that states have developed regarding graduation and students with disabilities demonstrates that there is not one model that satisfies everyone. There are strong arguments on each side of the issue of standard versus differentiated diplomas for students with disabilities. Those in favor of granting standard diplomas believe that differentiated diplomas perpetuate stigmatization, while those in favor of differentiated diplomas believe that a standard diploma stands for a certain achievement level, and granting this to students who achieve at a different level corrupts the educational process (DeStefano & Metzer, 1991). One proponent of standard diplomas that we talked to stated that "regular education students get undifferentiated diplomas (e.g., merit), why should special education students get differentiated diplomas?" (personal communication with Frank DiMauro, Connecticut). Little is known about the impact that differentiated diplomas have on student motivation or potential for employment, and further research is needed (DeStefano & Metzer, 1991).

There are those who believe that a high school diploma is a reflection of time spent in class, and not reflective of a particular level of achievement. West Virginia has addressed this issue by graduating students with a "warranty," based on their performance on the California Test of Basic Skills in eleventh grade. Each county determines the criterion performance necessary to receive the warranty, which certifies a certain level of proficiency. If an employer determines that the student is not performing at that level of proficiency during the five years following graduation, the student may go back to school at no cost to the sending group.

In Heading Toward Commencement (1992), the U.S. Department of Education discussed the issues surrounding school dropouts, and offered the following suggestions to raise graduation rates for disadvantaged, at-risk, and LEP students:

• individualized instruction
  
  
• specialized coursework
  
  
• alternative school schedules
  
  
• school choice plans
  
  
• avoidance of assignments that stigmatize low achievers
  
  
• close ties with parents
  
  
• steps to deal with students' out-of-school problems

While the Department does not offer these suggestions for students with disabilities, these practices certainly are applicable to all students.

DeStefano and Metzer (1991) remind us that the goals of regular and special education are the same -- to prepare students for independence and self-sufficiency, and that a continuum of outcomes should be accepted. They called for, and we echo, a need for guidelines that help assure fair treatment under the law, and that promote consistency across teachers, schools, and districts; and further research and evaluation to determine the impact of varying practices and policies on students and programs.

References

Affleck, J., Edgar, E., Levine, P., & Kortering, L. (1990). Postschool status of students classified as mildly mentally retarded, learning disabled, or nonhandicapped: Does it get better with time? Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25 (4), 315-324.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (1985). With consequences for all: A report from the ASCD task force on increased high school graduation requirements. Alexandria, VA: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 266 160)

Bruininks, R. H., Thurlow, M. L., Lewis, D. R. & Larson, N. W. (1988). Post-school outcomes for students in special education and other students one to eight years after high school. In Bruininks, R. H., Lewis, D. R., & Thurlow, M. L. (Eds.), Assessing outcomes, costs, and benefits of special education programs (Report Number 88-1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Department of Educational Psychology, University Affiliated Program on Developmental Disabilities.

Bodner, J. R., Clark, G. M., & Mellard, D.F. (1987). State graduation policies and program practices related to high school special education programs: A national study. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Department of Special Education, National Study of High School Programs for Handicapped Youth in Transition. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 294 347)

Catterall, J. S. (1989). Standards and school dropouts: A national study of tests required for high school graduation. American Journal of Education, 98 (1), 1-34.

DeStefano, L. & Metzer, D. (1991). High stakes testing and students with handicaps: An analysis of issues and policies. In R. E. Stake, (Ed.), Advances in Program Evaluation, Vol. 1A, (pp. 281-302). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Edgar, E. (1987). Secondary programs in special education: Are many of them justifiable? Exceptional Children, 52 (6). 555-561.

Hasazi, S.B., Gordon, L.R., & Roe, C.A. (1985). Factors associated with the employment status of handicapped youth exiting school from 1979-1983. Exceptional Children, 51, 455-469

Kortering, L., Julnes, R., & Edgar, E. (1990). An instructive review of the law pertaining to the graduation of special education students. Remedial and Special Education, 11 (4), 7-13.

Medrich, E. A., Brown, C. L., Henke, R. R., Ross, L., & McArthur, E. (1992). Overview and inventory of state requirements for school coursework and attendance. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 346 619)

Mehrens, W. A. (1993). Issues and recommendations regarding implementation of high school graduation tests. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 984)

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1993). Reaching the goals: Goal 2 high school completion. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 363 455)

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1993). Reaching the goals: Goal 2 high school completion technical report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 365 471)

Phillips, S.E. (1993). Legal implications of high-stakes assessment: What states should know. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 985)

Pullin, D. & Zirkel, P. A. (1988). Testing the handicapped: Legislation, regulations and litigation. West's Education Law Reporter, 44 (1), 1-18.

Ross, J. & Weintraub, F. (1980). Policy approaches regarding the impact of graduation requirements on handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 47, 200-203.

U.S. Department of Education (1994). Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education (1992). Heading toward commencement: Questions and answers on reaching national education goal 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 354 596)

Vitello, S. J. (1988). Handicapped students and competency testing. Remedial and Special Education, 9 (5), 22-27.

Wagner, M. (1991). Dropouts with disabilities: What do we know? What can we do? Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341 226)

Wagner, M. (1992). What happens next? Trends in postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. The second comprehensive report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 356 603)