Over the past few months states have been busy formulating new annual targets for their state performance plans (SPP) for FFY 2020-2025. The new 6 year targets were to be submitted to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the U.S. Dept. of Education along with states’ SPP Annual Performance Report (APR) on February 1, 2022.

These new targets were to be developed with stakeholder involvement, as this OSEP memo points out. SPP targets are used to annually review states’ performance on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). And, in turn, states use the targets to evaluate IDEA implementation of local school districts. The SPP/APR submissions are currently under review at OSEP – including the new targets for FFY 2020-2025.

Here’s the problem …

Based on information shared with stakeholders in several states (see AR, CO, FL, KY, MD, SD) the data being used to set 6 years of expectations on the participation and performance of students with disabilities on state assessments (known as SPP Indicator 3) are data from the state assessments conducted in the 2020-2021 school year.

This is a BIG problem since the participation and performance of students with disabilities in 2020-2021 was heavily impacted by continued school closures, remote instruction, high absenteeism as well as lack of implementation of students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and a shortage of qualified special education and related services personnel.

So … using data from 2020-2021 to set targets on participation and performance for the next 6 years ensures low expectations. Essentially, the learning loss of students with disabilities will be baked into performance targets for 6 years!

As the U.S. Dept. of Education’s Office for Civil Rights reported in Education in a Pandemic: The Disparate Impacts of COVID-19 on America’s Students, “[f]or many elementary and secondary school students with disabilities, COVID-19 has significantly disrupted the education and related aids and services needed to support their academic progress and prevent regression. And there are signs that those disruptions may be exacerbating longstanding disability-based disparities in academic achievement.”

Now, setting 6 years of annual targets for performance on state assessments in math and reading based on 2020-2021 results will exacerbate the disparate impact of COVID-19.

According to this article from the Region 15 Comprehensive Center (funded by the U.S. Dept. of Ed):

“While 2021 assessment data can still be a helpful barometer of how well educators and schools supported students’ grade-level learning, it is not appropriate to use these data alone to make inferences about student success or school quality, particularly if such inferences are attached to significant decisions or consequences. To avoid drawing incorrect conclusions from assessment data about student success or school quality, policymakers and education leaders should consider lowering or removing any high stakes attached to 2021 assessment results.”

This Education Week article on results of 2021 testing points out “even though educators are hungry for insight, assessment experts are urging caution. This year, more than any in recent memory, calls for extreme care and restraint when analyzing statewide test scores, drawing conclusions, and taking action, they say.”

And, as this NCIEA article points out, efforts should be made to “minimize the long-term influence of ‘fragile indicators’ such as proficiency rates when forced to use the imperfect assessment data from 2020-2021.”

Allowing states to set SPP targets using 2020-2021 state assessment data is sure to maximize the impact of COVID-19 on students with disabilities for years to come. Buckle up.

The U.S. Dept. of Education has released new data on students with disabilities (eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA). Section 618 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that each state annually submit data about the infants and toddlers, birth through age 2, who receive early intervention services under Part C of IDEA, and children with disabilities, ages 3 through 21, who receive special education and related services under Part B of IDEA.

The new data – the first since start of the COVID-19 pandemic – shows the number of eligible children in 2020 remained essentially the same as in 2019, ending a steady stream of significant increases over prior years.

Because of a change in the way schools are to report children with disabilities who are 5 years old, the number of students in the 3-5 age range has declined and the number of “school age students” (formerly students ages 6-21) has increased. Beginning in 2020, schools were required to report 5 year olds in kindergarten as School Age Students with Disabilities. The chart below shows the impact of this change.

The percent of the population served continues to vary significantly across states, ranging from a high of 12.98% in Maine to a low of 6.56% in Hawaii

CHANGES IN DISABILITY CATEGORIES

The distribution across disability categories of School Age Students with Disabilities in 2020 remained largely unchanged, with a slight increase in the number of children in the Developmental Delay category which is frequently assigned to students in the early grades. The Autism category continues to grow while other categories such as Specific learning disabilities and Speech/language impairments continue to decline.

NUMBER OF YOUNG CHILDREN DECLINES SIGNIFICANTLY

While the 3-21 group was unchanged, the number of children served under IDEA Part C saw a significant decline. The number of children (birth through age 2) declined by 63,847 or 15% from 2019 and the percent of population served fell from 3.7% to 3.2%. This decline is quite troubling and could reflect the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on very young children including such things as foregoing regular check-ups which could recognize developmental delays.

The percent of the zero to 3 population receiving early intervention services under IDEA Part C varies significantly across states, ranging from a high of 10.45% in Massachusetts to a low of .82% in Hawaii. All but 3 states (DC, SC, WY) reported drop in percent being served. See this table for change by state.

The section 618 data collection has been migrated to a new (very user- unfriendly) platform – the “Open Data Platform.”

The new release provides data on the following:

· School Year 2019-20 Part B Assessment
· School Year 2020-21 Part B Child Count and Educational Environments
· School Year 2019-20 Part B Discipline
· School Year 2019-20 Part B Dispute Resolution
· School Year 2019-20 Part B Exiting
· Federal Fiscal Year 2019/ School Year 2019-20 Maintenance of Effort Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening Services
· School Year 2019-20 Part B Personnel
· School Year 2020-21 Part C Child Count and Settings
· School Year 2019-20 Part C Dispute Resolution
· School Year 2019-20 Part C Exiting

In June 2021 the U.S. Dept. of Education (ED) Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) released the annual IDEA state determinations. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires ED to annually assign every state a “rating” on its implementation of IDEA, based on the state’s performance on its State Performance Plan (SPP). The 2021 determinations are based on performance for fiscal year 2019. Each state is assigned one of the following ratings:
– Meets requirements and purposes of the IDEA Part B
– Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of IDEA Part B
– Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA Part B
– Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA Part B

The map below shows the 2021 rating for each state. Based upon these ratings, 60 percent of the nation’s IDEA-eligible students are educated in states that “Need Assistance” in implementing the requirements of IDEA Part B.

The method for determining the rating is described in this document:
How the Department Made Determinations – Part B

Here is how to locate information for your state’s 2021 rating:
– Go to this page
– Locate your state’s 2021 SPP/APR Submission Part B and State Determination Letters PART B
– Click and download the MS WORD document of the 2021 SPP/APR Submission PART B
– Go to the end of the MS WORD document and click on the PDF icon that says “results matrix -2021b.” This document – titled “2021 Part B Results-Driven Accountability Matrix” – provides the scoring for each element of the matrix used to determine the state’s rating.

Beginning in 2014 OSEP began using the “Results-Driven Accountability” (RDA) Matrix to arrive at states rating. We have spent a great deal of time examining RDA. Our critique of the current RDA process is examined in depth in this report, “Results Driven Accountability Needs Substantial Intervention.” We discuss in detail what’s working and not working after several years of RDA-based state determinations. As the chart below shows, the number of states earning a “Meets Requirements” rating has not improved under RDA. Get ratings by state for 2014 to 2021 here. (PDF, 1 pg)

See also:
Federal Monitoring and Enforcement of IDEA Compliance, National Council on Disability, 2018

States are required to report annually to the U.S. Dept. of Education (ED) the “4-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR)” for all students and separately for many student subgroups, including students with disabilities. The 4-Year ACGR for the 2018-2019 school year was released on March 22, 2021.

ABOUT THE ACGR: The ACGR was put into place in 2008 via Federal regulations to help bring uniformity to the way states calculate the high school graduation rate. Reporting began with the 2010-2011 school year. The ACGR was subsequently included in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) passed in 2015. It is also the subject of non-regulatory guidance released by ED in January 2017.

States are to report only those students who graduated with a “regular high school diploma” in four (or fewer) years. ESSA defines a “regular high school diploma” as the “standard high school diploma awarded to the preponderance of students in a State that is fully aligned with the State’s standards.”

The ED guidance makes these important points regarding the ACGR for students with disabilities:

• A State may not include a recognized equivalent of a diploma as a regular high school diploma for the purpose of calculating the four-year or extended-year ACGR. (ESEA section 8101(43)(B)). Thus, students who graduate with a credential other than a regular high school diploma, such as a general equivalency diploma, modified diploma, certificate of completion, certificate of attendance, or a diploma based on meeting a student’s IEP goals, may not be counted in the numerator as having earned a regular high school diploma, but must be included in the denominator of the four-year and extended-year ACGR. (A-14, pg 13) A diploma based on meeting IEP goals will not provide a sufficient basis for determining that the student has met a State’s grade-level academic content standards; rather, it will only demonstrate that the student has attained his or her IEP goals during the annual period covered by the IEP. Therefore, a diploma based on attainment of IEP goals, regardless of whether the IEP goals are fully aligned with a State’s grade-level content standards, should not be treated as a regular high school diploma.(A-15, pg.13)
• States may count a student with the most significant cognitive disabilities who graduates with a State-defined alternate diploma in the cohort for a four-year ACGR within the time period for which the State ensures the availability of a free appropriate public education under section 612(a)(1) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)(A-16, pg.13)

However, because the U.S. Congress invalidated the Federal regulations governing accountability under ESSA, some issues regarding the calculation of the ACGR remain unsettled. These include:

• How states determine who is a “student with a disability” for inclusion in the subgroup. Therefore, states may be determining who is included in a variety of ways (started the cohort with an IEP, exited the cohort with an IEP, etc.) This lack of clarity impacts the comparability of the ACGR for students with disabilities across states.
• How states count students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who graduate with a State-defined alternate diploma in the four-year and extended-year ACGR. Therefore, states may be using different methodologies for this purpose.

In comparing ACGRs across states, the substantial differences in the requirements for a regular high school diploma used by states must also be taken into consideration. A 2017 report by the National Center on Educational Outcomes examined the diploma options, coursework and exit exam requirements for students with IEPs compared to those without IEPs.  A regular high school diploma (as defined by ESSA) does not represent the same knowledge and skills across states nor does it necessarily indicate college and career readiness.

The ACGR plays an important role in the accountability plans that states were required to develop and implement as required by ESSA. States must set long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for the ACGR, including by student subgroups.

While ACGR comparisons across states are difficult due to the issues discussed above, what is worth scrutiny is the GAP between students with disabilities and all students on the 4-year ACGR within each state. The table below provides the GAP for 2018-19 by state. (Keep in mind that the GAP would be larger if it were possible to compare students with disabilities to those without disabilities.)
Download the chart (PDF)

The chart below shows the performance of students with disabilities over the nine years since ACGR reporting began. Download the chart (PDF)

See also:

State-by-state Graduation Rates for Students with Disabilities:
2017-2018
2016-2017
2015-2016

Diploma Options, Graduation Requirements, and Exit Exams for Youth with Disabilities: 2017 National Study (National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2019)

Diplomas that Matter: Ensuring Equity of Opportunity for Students with Disabilities (Achieve, 2016)

Almost all students with disabilities are capable of graduating on time. Here’s why they’re not (Hechinger Report, 2017)

Graduation Issues and Considerations for Students with Disabilities Webinar presented by The Advocacy Institute and the National Center on Educational Outcomes (archived recording) Webinar Handout (PDF)

Diplomas at Risk: A Critical Look at the Graduation Rate of Students with Learning Disabilities (2013)

In June 2020 the U.S. Dept. of Education (ED) Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) released the annual state determinations. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires ED to annually assign every state a “rating” on its implementation of IDEA, based on the state’s performance on its State Performance Plan (SPP). The 2020 determinations are based on performance for fiscal year 2018. Each state is assigned one of the following ratings:
– Meets requirements and purposes of the IDEA Part B
– Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of IDEA Part B
– Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA Part B
– Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA Part B

The map below shows the 2020 rating for each state.

The method for determining the rating is described in these documents:
– IDEA Determinations Fact Sheet
– How the Department Made Determinations – Part B

Here is how to locate information for your state’s 2020 rating:
– Go to this page
– Locate your state’s 2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B
– Click and download the MS WORD document of the 2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B
– Go to the end of the MS WORD document and click on the PDF icon that says “results matrix 2020 part B.” This document – titled “2020 Part B Results-Driven Accountability Matrix” – provides the scoring for each element of the matrix used to determine the state’s rating.

Now for the value of the “Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) Matrix. We have spent a great deal of time examining RDA. Our critique of the current RDA process, introduced in 2014, is examined in depth in this report, “Results Driven Accountability Needs Substantial Intervention.” We discuss in detail what’s working and not working after several years of RDA-based state determinations. As the chart below shows, the number of states earning a “Meets Requirements” rating has not improved under RDA. Get ratings by state from 2014-2020 here. (PDF, 1 pg)

While OSEP announced that it would make substantial changes to the RDA determinations process in the determination letters sent to states back in 2019 (see note below), ultimately the same process was used to make the 2020 determinations.

We continue to hope for substantial changes to RDA – changes that would result in improved outcomes for students with disabilities.

Stay tuned.

See also:
Federal Monitoring and Enforcement of IDEA Compliance, National Council on Disability, 2018

NB: The 2019 determination letters included this notice:

“The Secretary is considering modifying the factors the Department will use in making its determinations in June 2020 as part of its continuing emphasis on results for children with disabilities. Section 616(a)(2) of the IDEA requires that the primary focus of IDEA monitoring must be on improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities, and ensuring that States meet the IDEA program requirements, with an emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities.

The proposed Part B determinations process will include the same compliance factors as in past years, with one addition. For the 2020 determinations, rather than weighting each compliance factor equally, OSEP is considering assigning greater weight to those compliance factors most directly related to improving results for children with disabilities. For the 2020 determinations process we are also considering, as two additional results factors, State-reported data on: preschool child outcomes and the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP). Using preschool outcomes for Part B determinations is consistent with the use of the early childhood outcomes factor that has been used for Part C determinations since 2015. Use of this factor emphasizes the importance of preschool outcomes in promoting later school success for students with disabilities. The inclusion of the SSIP as a results factor in making determinations would continue OSEP’s emphasis on incorporating a results-driven approach as States identify evidence-based practices that lead to improved outcomes for children and youth with disabilities. In addition, we are considering several changes to the results factors related to the participation and performance of children with disabilities on assessments, including: (1) using Statewide assessment results, rather than the NAEP performance data; (2) looking at year-to-year improvements in Statewide assessment results and taking into account the full Statewide assessment system, including alternate assessments; and (3) no longer comparing each State’s assessment performance with that of other States. Finally, OSEP will be revisiting ways of measuring improvement in the graduation rate of students with disabilities. As we consider changes to how we use the data under these factors in making the Department’s 2020 determinations, OSEP will provide parents, States, entities, LEAs, and other stakeholders with an opportunity to comment and provide input through OSEP’s Leadership Conference in July 2019 and other meetings.”

States are required to report annually to the U.S. Dept. of Education (ED) the “4-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR)” for all students and separately for many student subgroups, including students with disabilities. The 4-Year ACGR for the 2017-2018 school year was released on March 13, 2020.

ABOUT THE ACGR: The ACGR was put into place in 2008 via Federal regulations to help bring uniformity to the way states calculate the high school graduation rate. Reporting began with the 2010-2011 school year. The ACGR was subsequently included in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) passed in 2015. It is also the subject of non-regulatory guidance released by ED in January 2017.

States are to report only those students who graduated with a “regular high school diploma” in four (or fewer) years. ESSA defines a “regular high school diploma” as the “standard high school diploma awarded to the preponderance of students in a State that is fully aligned with the State’s standards.”

The ED guidance makes these important points regarding the ACGR for students with disabilities:

• A State may not include a recognized equivalent of a diploma as a regular high school diploma for the purpose of calculating the four-year or extended-year ACGR. (ESEA section 8101(43)(B)). Thus, students who graduate with a credential other than a regular high school diploma, such as a general equivalency diploma, modified diploma, certificate of completion, certificate of attendance, or a diploma based on meeting a student’s IEP goals, may not be counted in the numerator as having earned a regular high school diploma, but must be included in the denominator of the four-year and extended-year ACGR. (A-14, pg 13) A diploma based on meeting IEP goals will not provide a sufficient basis for determining that the student has met a State’s grade-level academic content standards; rather, it will only demonstrate that the student has attained his or her IEP goals during the annual period covered by the IEP. Therefore, a diploma based on attainment of IEP goals, regardless of whether the IEP goals are fully aligned with a State’s grade-level content standards, should not be treated as a regular high school diploma.(A-15, pg.13)
• States may count a student with the most significant cognitive disabilities who graduates with a State-defined alternate diploma in the cohort for a four-year ACGR within the time period for which the State ensures the availability of a free appropriate public education under section 612(a)(1) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)(A-16, pg.13)

However, because the U.S. Congress invalidated the Federal regulations governing accountability under ESSA, some issues regarding the calculation of the ACGR remain unsettled. These include:

• How states determine who is a “student with a disability” for inclusion in the subgroup. Therefore, states may be determining who is included in a variety of ways (started the cohort with an IEP, exited the cohort with an IEP, etc.) This lack of clarity impacts the comparability of the ACGR for students with disabilities across states.
• How states count students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who graduate with a State-defined alternate diploma in the four-year and extended-year ACGR. Therefore, states may be using different methodologies for this purpose.

In comparing ACGRs across states, the substantial differences in the requirements for a regular high school diploma used by states must also be taken into consideration. A 2017 report by the National Center on Educational Outcomes examined the diploma options, coursework and exit exam requirements for students with IEPs compared to those without IEPs.  A regular high school diploma (as defined by ESSA) does not represent the same knowledge and skills across states nor does it necessarily indicate college and career readiness.

The ACGR plays an important role in the accountability plans that states are required to develop and implement required by ESSA. States must set long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for the ACGR, including by student subgroups.

While ACGR comparisons across states are difficult due to the issues discussed above, what is worth scrutiny is the GAP between students with disabilities and all students on the 4-year ACGR within each state. The table below provides the GAP for 2017-18 by state.  (Keep in mind that the GAP would be larger if it were possible to compare students with disabilities to those without disabilities.)

Gap between all students and students with disabilities 2017-18 ACGR by state:

Download this chart (PDF)

The chart below shows the performance of students with disabilities over the eight years since ACGR reporting began.

Download this chart. (PDF)

NOTE: States reporting an ACGR more than 5 percentage points different (higher/lower) than the prior year for any subgroup are asked to provide an explanation for the increase/decrease to ED. Below are the explanations provided to ED by states with substantial increase/decrease in their ACGR for students with disabilities from 2016-17 to 2017-2018 (excerpted from the ACGR Data Notes at https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/data-files/index.html#acgr). LEA and school level ACGR data are also available.

District of Columbia (-6): DCPS reported a lower graduation rate in SY 2017-18 compared to SY 2016-17; this change drove much of the observed state-level changes as DCPS students comprise approximately half of all DC students.

Florida (+11): The data reflect ongoing efforts by Florida to raise its graduation rate across all subgroups.

Louisiana (+7): Louisiana has shown growth in the overall state grad rate and made significant strides with these specific subgroups. In general, Louisiana’s overall cohort graduation rate increased over this period, with subgroups outpacing the average. In particular, Louisiana has increased its support and resources for high schools to serve historically disadvantaged groups of students.

New Mexico (+5): State indicated that data were correct as reported.

Ohio (-19): A change in business rules – due to ESSA – regarding the assignment of students to the HOM, LEP and CWD subgroups changed in SY 2017-18. These subgroups became an “if ever” subgroup in SY 2017-18 changing from a student’s status as of graduation as in previous years. This change in business rules affects the number of students both counted as graduates and non-graduates which resulted in changes to the subgroups graduation rate.

Vermont (-8): No response

Washington (+11): No response

Wyoming (-5): No response

See also:

State-by-state Graduation Rates for Students with Disabilities:
2016-2017
2015-2016

Diploma Options, Graduation Requirements, and Exit Exams for Youth with Disabilities: 2017 National Study (National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2019)

Diplomas that Matter: Ensuring Equity of Opportunity for Students with Disabilities (Achieve, 2016)

Almost all students with disabilities are capable of graduating on time. Here’s why they’re not (Hechinger Report, 2017)

Graduation Issues and Considerations for Students with Disabilities Webinar presented by The Advocacy Institute and the National Center on Educational Outcomes (archived recording) Webinar Handout (PDF)

Diplomas at Risk: A Critical Look at the Graduation Rate of Students with Learning Disabilities (2013)

States are required to report annually to the U.S. Dept. of Education (ED) the “4-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR)” for all students and separately for many student subgroups, including students with disabilities. The ACGR was put into place in 2008 via Federal regulations to help bring uniformity to the way states calculate the high school graduation rate. Reporting began with the 2010-2011 school year. The ACGR was subsequently included in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) passed in 2015. It is also the subject of non-regulatory guidance released by ED in January 2017.

States are to report only those students who graduated with a “regular high school diploma” in four (or fewer) years. ESSA defines a “regular high school diploma” as the “standard high school diploma awarded to the preponderance of students in a State that is fully aligned with the State’s standards.”

The 4-Year ACGR for the 2016-2017 school year was released on January 24, 2019. Below is a report on the performance of students with disabilities during the seven years since ACGR reporting began. The ED guidance makes these important points regarding the ACGR for students with disabilities:

• A State may not include a recognized equivalent of a diploma as a regular high school diploma for the purpose of calculating the four-year or extended-year ACGR. (ESEA section 8101(43)(B)). Thus, students who graduate with a credential other than a regular high school diploma, such as a general equivalency diploma, modified diploma, certificate of completion, certificate of attendance, or a diploma based on meeting a student’s IEP goals, may not be counted in the numerator as having earned a regular high school diploma, but must be included in the denominator of the four-year and extended-year ACGR. (A-14) A diploma based on meeting IEP goals will not provide a sufficient basis for determining that the student has met a State’s grade-level academic content standards; rather, it will only demonstrate that the student has attained his or her IEP goals during the annual period covered by the IEP. Therefore, a diploma based on attainment of IEP goals, regardless of whether the IEP goals are fully aligned with a State’s grade-level content standards, should not be treated as a regular high school diploma.(A-15)
• States may count a student with the most significant cognitive disabilities who graduates with a State-defined alternate diploma in the cohort for a four-year ACGR within the time period for which the State ensures the availability of a free appropriate public education under section 612(a)(1) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)(A-7)

However, because the U.S. Congress invalidated the Federal regulations governing accountability under ESSA, some issues regarding the calculation of the ACGR remain unsettled. These include:

• How states determine who is a “student with a disability” for inclusion in the subgroup. Therefore, states may be determining who is included in a variety of ways (started the cohort with an IEP, exited the cohort  with an IEP, etc.) This lack of clarity impacts the comparability of the ACGR for students with disabilities across states.
• How states count students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who graduate with a State-defined alternate diploma in the four-year and extended-year ACGR. Therefore, states may be using different methodologies for this purpose.

In comparing ACGRs across states, the substantial differences in the requirements for a regular high school diploma used by states must also be taken into consideration. A 2015 report by the National Center on Educational Outcomes examined the coursework and exit exam requirements for students with IEPs compared to those without IEPs. However, many states have made changes to their diploma requirements since this report was compiled. In other words, a regular high school diploma (as defined by ESSA) does not represent the same knowledge and skills across states nor does it necessarily indicate college and career readiness.

The ACGR plays an important role in the accountability plans that states are required to develop and implement required by ESSA. States must set long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for the ACGR including by subgroups.

Download this chart here (PDF)

States reporting an ACGR more than 5 percentage points different (higher/lower) than the prior year for any subgroup are asked to provide an explanation for the increase/decrease to ED. The information submitted by such states appears at the end of this report.

GAPS MATTER. While ACGR comparisons across states are difficult due to the issues discussed above, what is worth scrutiny is the GAP between students with disabilities and all students on the 4-year ACGR within each state. The table below provides the GAP for 2016-17 as well as the change in the GAP from the previous year. (Keep in mind that the GAP would be larger if it were possible to compare students with disabilities to those without disabilities.)

Download this chart here (PDF)

Below are the explanations provided to ED by states with substantial increase in their ACGR for students with disabilities from 2015-16 to 2016-2017 (excerpted from the ACGR Data Notes at https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/data-files/index.html#acgr). LEA and school level ACGR data are also available.

Alabama: Alabama did not report ACGR data to ED for several subgroups including students with disabilities nor did the state respond to ED’s inquiry regarding the substantial difference in graduation rate for many subgroups including students with disabilities. After a review of its data, Alabama announced a revised graduation rate. See this news story.

Alaska: Alaska’s requirement that all graduates receive a valid score on a College and Career Ready Assessment was repealed on June 30, 2016. Graduation rates may have increased more than expected due to the elimination of this requirement.

Florida: The state indicated that data were correct as reported.

Hawaii: The state indicated that data were correct as reported.

Louisiana: No response

Nevada: The degree to which the change in graduation rate requirements caused the dramatic increase in rates across the state and within subgroups is difficult to accurately attribute as increase could also be the result of education reform initiatives enacted over the past several years. This being said, one policy action by the SEA is likely to have contributed significantly to the increase. This change was that students in the class of 2017 were the first students who did not have to earn a passing score on a high school state assessment for over a decade.

As the NDE considered a policy change for requirements to earn a regular high-school diploma, an analysis was conducted of the graduation rate trends for subpopulations. For students with disabilities, the graduation rate with a regular diploma had grown incrementally from 23% in FFY2005 to 28% in FFY2014. When students with disabilities were unable to pass each section of the high-stakes graduation examination, despite earning required credits, they earned adjusted diplomas. Adjusted diplomas accounted for approximately 32% of diplomas issued. After the policy was changed to no longer require students to pass a high-stakes examination to earn a regular diploma, there was an increase in the rate of students with disabilities earning a regular diploma that was comparable to the rate of students who previously earned adjusted diplomas. These data support an inference that the growth in the regular diploma graduation rate for students with disabilities is the result of the policy change to no longer require students to pass a high-stakes examination.

Virginia: The divisions that increased had more standard and advanced diplomas (which count towards the federal graduation rate), and the ones that decreased had an increase in dropouts.

Related articles:

Graduation Rates for Students with Disabilities: 6 Years (2010-2015)

Graduation Gaps for Students with Disabilities: 2015-2016

Diploma Options, Graduation Requirements, and Exit Exams for Youth with Disabilities: 2017 National Study (National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2019)

Study Finds Wide Variation in Graduation Rates for Students with Disabilities; Little Relationship with Graduation Policies (2015)

Graduation Issues and Considerations for Students with Disabilities Webinar presented by The Advocacy Institute and the National Center on Educational Outcomes (archived recording) Webinar Handout (PDF)

Diplomas that Matter: Ensuring Equity of Opportunity for Students with Disabilities (Achieve, 2016)

Almost all students with disabilities are capable of graduating on time. Here’s why they’re not (Hechinger Report, 2017)

Below is the graduation GAP between all students and students with disabilities by state for the 2015-2016 school year. Gaps range from a high of 47 percentage points in Mississippi to a low of 3 percentage points in Arkansas. A recap of the changes in the 4-year ACGR for students with disabilities by state from 2010 to 2015 is available here.

Download this table (PDF).

The complete 2015-2016 Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) is available here.