High School Dropout Rates Among Students With Disabilities

Introduction and Background

The United States has had a well-documented struggle with dropout rates in public education. Tyler and Lofstrom (2009) reported that the U.S. high school dropout rate consistently fluctuates between 22% and 25%. The Editorial Projects in Education (EPE) Research Center (2010) estimated that approximately 1.3 million youths drop out of high school every year. Of these, many are considered to be students with disabilities. Feng and Sass (2010) reported that the likelihood that students with educational challenges — such as those in special education — will drop out of school is double that of their peers. Furthermore, Mellard (2005) noted that, even though it is easy to talk about dropout rates, it is much harder to keep track of them, and that tracking special education dropout rates is especially challenging, yet critical for communicating the significant dropout issues of youth with disabilities to Congressional and state lawmaking bodies, state and local commissioners, and the general community (Iosifides, 2011).

Therefore, the effort to address the challenges of high school dropouts should include examining the significant subpopulation of students with disabilities who opt to discontinue their high school education. This qualitative case study explores the lived experiences of individuals with disabilities who dropped out of a selected high school between 2009 and 2012 and examines the issues and policies that affect the dropout problem among youth with disabilities.

In today's information age, financial stability and professional achievement are strongly correlated with educational attainment (Gratz, 2009). Obtaining a high school diploma significantly enhances a young person's capacity to earn a living wage and to assure economic security (Spring, 2008). Individuals who drop out of high school thus enter the job market at a disadvantage. As Levin (2009) noted, "High school graduation captures both the cognitive and the non-cognitive attributes that are important for success in adulthood, and it is usually a minimum requirement for engaging in further training and higher education" (p. 8). Higher education characteristically enhances opportunities for advancement in a chosen profession (Gratz, 2009). Today's world is widely considered a "knowledge-driven economy" where employability is measured by one's level of education and unique set of skills (Kennedy, 2010, p. 821). Education and specialized skills are acquired through attending high school and are further developed during postsecondary education.

Conversely, a student who does not graduate from high school encounters seemingly insurmountable obstacles in securing employment in an increasingly competitive market (Tyler & Lofstrom, 2009). The recent economic recession has further narrowed dropouts' job opportunities (Fogg, Harrington, & McMahon, 2010). Dropping out of high school is a strong predictor of serious negative consequences for both the individual and society.

These already formidable challenges are further exacerbated for the high school dropout with a disability. Individuals with disabilities typically feel alienated throughout their high school experiences (Edgerton, 2001). As they venture out into mainstream society, these problems carry over and are intensified by frequent dependence on welfare and health services and by difficulties in meeting the demands of society (Tymchuk, Lakin, & Luckasson, 2001).

Students with disabilities who require special accommodations in the workforce routinely face obstacles in securing employment even when they are well educated (Ford, 2007). When individuals with disabilities drop out of school, they may be inadequately prepared for the challenges of gaining and maintaining employment, and are thus at risk of becoming unproductive citizens (McNeal, 2011). Vilhjalmsdottir (2010, p. 678) reported that "dropping out of school is a move that can have dramatic consequences in a career." The added challenge of managing disability-related barriers in the workplace can compound these consequences significantly.

Dropout prevention is presented as an effective strategy for increasing literacy rates, expanding career opportunities, and decreasing unemployment rates among students with disabilities. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) both support the goal of decreasing dropout rates for the general population as well as for students with disabilities. The standard elements of dropout prevention programs include: raising standards and expectations while providing support to help at-risk students meet them; identifying early warning signs of dropping out and intervening effectively (Knight & Ruddock, 2008); improving classroom instruction; ensuring teacher and school accountability; improving teacher quality; including vocational training and counseling in the school curriculum; and increasing the participation of families, peers, and the community, particularly in supporting at-risk students (Martin & Fabes, 2008).

One important limitation of these efforts is that their success has been primarily measured through standardized assessments (Abedi, 2004), which have been widely criticized for failing to address the unique needs of students with disabilities. Boeije (2009) argued that students already struggling with achievement in schools can expect to find the stringent standards imposed by standardized testing unattainable; feeling hopeless, these students are likely to give up their educational pursuits at the earliest opportunity. It has also been argued that standardized testing and assessment negatively affect the motivation of some students and thus increase the dropout rate, because teachers are forced to teach to the tests within a narrow curriculum, compromising student engagement (Rumberger & Palardy, 2005).

The shift toward standardized testing has failed to result in a meaningful reduction of high school dropout rates, and students with disabilities continue to be marginalized by the culture of testing in public education (Dynarski et al., 2008). The needs of students with specific educational challenges are diverse and complex, and the solutions to their needs are not revealed in the results of standardized testing (Crawford & Tindall, 2006). Special education issues that demand more immediate attention include ensuring that special education teachers have appropriate textbooks, providing them with help to complete required paperwork relative to student assessments and intervention, and investigating why a disproportionate number of children of color end up in special education (Shorr, 2006, p. 1).

Ascertaining the characteristics that dropouts display and identifying the common reasons why students with disabilities drop out is vital to developing and applying effective dropout prevention strategies and programs. According to the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), students with disabilities are diverse and have different needs and goals (Gargiulo, 2011). These students differ from one another in ability, age, learning style, and personality; come from all cultural backgrounds and may speak languages other than English; have unique learning needs requiring specially designed instruction, adapted materials, speech-language therapy, or adaptive physical education; may have cognitive impairments ranging from mild to profound; may have learning disabilities requiring specific teaching strategies; may have physical disabilities requiring wheelchairs or other assistive devices; may have sensory impairments such as hearing or vision loss; might have emotional conditions; and may have their learning complicated by chronic health problems and multiple disabilities (Gargiulo, 2011).

Contrary to common myths, students with disabilities can succeed in school, and when provided with an adequate education, they grow mentally and socially (Gargiulo, 2011). Much variation exists within this population; however, particular disability classifications are more strongly linked to negative educational outcomes, as well as to a lack of confidence, self-consciousness, and difficulties in understanding language and instructions (Heckman & LaFontaine, 2010). In addition, students with disabilities are "more likely [to] become involved in major disciplinary incidents like suspensions and expulsions than are their peers in general education programs… [and] regularly attain significantly lower levels of academic performance than the average student" (Swanson, 2008, p. 1). These factors certainly contribute to dropping out and to the lifelong consequences that follow.

I have always taken a particular interest in students with disabilities; my goal has been to help these students perform to their fullest potential and to ensure that they complete high school in order to reverse the dropout rate among special education students. This research study is therefore very important to me in my quest to assist my students. I believe that, if I can understand the experiences that culminate in the decision to drop out of high school, I can reduce those experiences as a teacher and, further, encourage administrative changes that could help special education students stay in school.

The disabilities experienced by special education students place them at a disadvantage in pursuing financial stability and professional success (Ford, 2007). Special education students who graduate with disabilities will eventually require special accommodations in the workplace, and some may have cognitive disabilities that limit their career opportunities (Levinson & Palmer, 2005). Not completing high school inherently increases the challenges that these individuals face as they strive to become productive members of society and attain personal independence. To reduce dropout rates among students with disabilities, strategies beyond increased government spending on special education programs should be investigated. Understanding the experiences of students with disabilities is a starting point for developing such strategies.

It is important that predictive factors or indicators are recognized early in order to delay or even stop special education students from dropping out. Balfanz, Herzon, and MacIver (2006) asserted that four indicators predict a student's risk of dropping out of high school: (a) missing school more than 20% of the time, (b) earning a poor final behavior grade, (c) failing English, and (d) failing math. Directing additional interventions toward students with disabilities is often thought to drain resources that could potentially yield results elsewhere; Balfanz et al. (2007) contended that students with disabilities routinely receive extra interventions while other students who might benefit from additional interventions are not successfully identified. Until predictive factors can be better identified, the concern that targeting interventions at specific populations may or may not be effective will remain.

Interventions helping to ensure that students with disabilities graduate from high school should not be perceived as a financial drain but, rather, as an investment. Interventions for one group of students may simultaneously benefit other groups. Identifying common reasons why high school students with disabilities drop out can inform the successful application of various dropout prevention strategies and techniques that might eventually be generalized to other populations. While students may drop out for diverse reasons, common factors may exist that point to opportunities for change within the school so as to better support at-risk students. Thus far, the literature has focused too narrowly on identifying students at risk of becoming part of the dropout statistics among special education students and has rarely focused on early indicators and warning signs behind the high dropout rate of special education students. This research study attempts to fill that gap by gaining personal insight from the perspective of students with disabilities who decided to drop out of school.

The purpose of this qualitative case study is to explore the lived experiences of individuals with disabilities who dropped out of a selected public high school in Virginia between 2009 and 2012, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of the special education program with students who are at high risk for dropping out of high school. Research studies typically focus on the common attributes and demographics of students with disabilities who dropped out, rather than on the experiences that led to and influenced their decision to drop out. In-depth interviews will be the primary data-gathering method, drawing on at least 15 participants who will be asked to share their experiences as they came to the decision to drop out of high school. The results of this study may contribute insight into the causes of attrition rates and suggest strategies that can address the problem.

This qualitative research study is guided by three research questions:

1. What are the common experiences of students with disabilities who drop out of school? This question is based on a gap in the existing literature resulting from researchers' tendencies to focus more on statistics and consequences rather than on a personal account of the students themselves. In the present study, I will seek insight into students' experiences that influenced their decisions to drop out of school near graduation.

2. What are students' perceptions of how the special education program was running at their school, and whether or not they believe it was effective?

3. What were the common factors contributing to the decisions of the study participants to drop out of school? I anticipate that examining the experiences of students with disabilities who dropped out of school will yield common factors that contributed to their decisions.

Theoretical Framework

Delimitations refer to those aspects of a research study that are within the control of the researcher (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012). Delimitations are intentional selections of boundaries for conducting the research and are informed by time, resources, location, and the scope of the study. The scope of this study is to identify the reasons why students with disabilities drop out of school at rates disproportionate to students in general education programs. The contributing factors may be related to a lack of interest in education, a lack of a sense of belonging in school, absenteeism because students view school as a hostile environment, and inappropriate curriculum because the school does not completely meet their special academic needs.

This study will require the collection of rich and detailed data, and the best method for collecting this kind of data is to work with a small sample size. In-depth interviews will allow students with disabilities to share their experiences and perceptions that contributed to their decisions to drop out of high school near graduation. Using a larger sample size would require too much time and resources to gather and analyze the data. Time and resources also contributed to the decision to delimit the study to one specific location (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010).

Limitations are factors that "expose the conditions that weaken the study" (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012, p. 114) and the "external conditions that restrict or constrain the study's scope or may affect its outcome" (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012, p. 103). One such factor is the breadth of the term "disability." The broad nature of the term may result in wide variations among reported factors that contributed to dropout, and this range of unique experiences and circumstances could limit the generalizability of the findings. The type and severity of students' disabilities are critical to the study, as they affect other outcomes. For instance, students with more severe disabilities may have a greater likelihood of high absenteeism, which positively correlates to the probability of dropping out (Lehr, Johnson, Bremer, Cosio, & Thompson, 2004, p. 12). Spencer (2009) conducted a study of attendance records of 42 eighth-grade students at an urban school and determined that students who were persistently absent eventually dropped out.

Based on the recommendation of Lehr et al. (2004), initial data will be gathered on each participant to learn more about that person's background. The data will include age, gender, socioeconomic background, ethnicity, native language, region, mobility, ability, parents' employment, school size and type, family structure, and type of disability. The legal definition of severe disability — a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities (34 CFR 350.5, as cited in U.S. Law, 2011) — will be applied in this study. Each student's disability will be classified by level of severity using this definition, and the classification will be validated by a professional school counselor. Federal legislation has identified 12 categories of disabilities applicable to students: autism, deafness, blindness, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, mental retardation, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairments, other health impairments, recognized learning disabilities, speech/language impairments, brain trauma, and visual difficulties (Siegel, 2011; Wasburn, 2005).

The transcription and coding of journaling, interviews, and field notes from observations provide ways of identifying issues that need to be addressed. Identifying issues depends on what the participants are willing to share, and thus the openness of subjects is another potential limiting factor. For instance, stressful life events are very personal; if a participant elects not to disclose painful experiences, those experiences will not be available for analysis. Access to school counseling records might therefore prove essential to this study. Although counseling records are confidential, the school administration will permit access with proper consent according to the rules and regulations of the school system. All data will be carefully guarded to ensure that no violations of confidentiality occur.

Characteristics and factors commonly associated with dropping out include grades, disruptive behavior, absenteeism, school policies, school climate, parenting, sense of belonging, attitudes toward school, educational support in the home, grade retention, and stressful life events (Lehr et al., 2004, pp. 12–13). Some variables are easy to identify, while some may need careful observation and access to private information. For instance, personal problems disclosed in confidential environments, such as juvenile delinquency, will probably have an impact on the decision to drop out but may not be voluntarily disclosed.

The research literature has proposed various reasons why students with disabilities exceed the nation's high school dropout rate. The main reasons relate to the students' own abilities and to the ability of social and educational institutions to effectively respond to those disabilities (Bloom, 2010; Heckman & LaFontaine, 2010; Stearns & Glennie, 2006). These themes fall within the theoretical framework of social cognitive theory, which assumes that beliefs about "self-efficacy" function together with "cognized goals, outcome expectations, and perceived environmental impediments and facilitators" in directing how humans are motivated to act and how their "well-being" is regulated (Bandura, 1998, p. 623). In other words, an individual's belief in his or her ability to succeed (self-efficacy) impacts learning outcomes. According to Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons (1992), self-efficacy, in the context of social cognitive theory, is related to student motivation to learn and student engagement in the learning process.

Institutional Failures Associated With Dropping Out

Themes in the literature confirm the view of social cognitive theory by demonstrating that students underachieve as a result of a lack of motivation to learn, a significant causal factor in student dropout (Zimmerman et al., 1992). Motivation is described as related to engagement, or how the student's "cognitions, behaviors, and affects are energized, directed, and sustained" for the duration of in-school experiences or activities (Schunk & Mullen, 2012, p. 219). Within the theoretical framework of social cognitive learning, motivation refers to processes that are impacted by the person's emotions and perceptions as well as the contexts in which those perceptions are formed, including peer relations, classrooms, community, and home (Schunk & Mullen, 2012).

Student engagement is also captured by the theory of self-determination, which argues that opportunities for adjustment to conditions that influence self-motivation and student engagement correspond with engagement in learning (Wehmeyer, Agran, Palmer, Martin, & Mithaug, 2003). Since students with disabilities must make adjustments to regulate what they are capable of learning and what they want to learn, opportunities for such adjustment are important. Argan, Wehmeyer, Calvin, and Palmer (2008) argued that promoting "self-regulated learning" techniques among students with cognitive disabilities is especially useful for helping these students achieve better academic outcomes (p. 106). Self-determination theory assumes that when students feel connection to and involvement with teachers, they are more likely to feel in control and therefore "more likely to display autonomous reasons for engaging in academic activities" (Close & Solberg, 2008, p. 32).

The present study examines motivation and engagement from the perspective of both social cognitive theory and self-determination theory as a means of understanding how perceptions of self-efficacy and motivations for retention are directed by opportunities for controlling one's own learning outcomes. McNeely and Falci (2004) also found that students who had difficulty processing information from oral presentations and written materials and who showed evidence of low self-esteem were more likely to leave school than their peers without those characteristics.

Students with disabilities are not the only ones at risk of dropping out. Dropout rates have increased for all students, and studies have identified a subgroup termed "at-risk" as being more likely than others to drop out (Mayya & Ramnarayan, 2004). However, the dropout rates among students with disabilities and special needs far exceed those among students enrolled in general education programs (Murray & Naranjo, 2008).

Researchers have consistently indicated that students with disabilities struggle to graduate from high school. D'Angelo and Zemanick (2009) found that only 52% of students in special education graduate from high school. Moreover, while 57% of students with specific learning disabilities and 59% of those with other health impairments graduate, the rates are only 37% for students with mild intellectual disabilities and 35% for those with behavioral or emotional disabilities.

Kortering (2009) noted that these figures stand in stark contrast with the 69% graduation rate of students who are blind or deaf. These figures belie the original goals of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which sought to provide special education that would enable students with disabilities to become productive members of society. Kortering (2009) even questioned the validity of the individualized education plan (IEP), the very basis of special education, if its application fails to improve outcomes for students with disabilities in high school.

Despite the protections and support measures provided to students with disabilities in the public school system, this population remains significantly at risk for dropout prior to high school graduation. Institutional failures disenfranchise these students and lead them to withdraw prior to graduation. Given the significant and lifelong consequences of high school dropout, understanding these factors and addressing them is critical.

In many cases, high schools continue to struggle with offering full and appropriate special education services for students with special needs (Bello, 2006; Schulte & Villwock, 2004; Woods, 2007). Bello (2006) noted that Catholic high schools had no formalized system for special education, and that private schools have no legal requirement to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Bello found that most private schools employed special educators, but that most special education was undertaken through accommodations in inclusive classroom situations and that other, more specialized services were lacking. Most schools in Bello's (2006) study also reported experiencing conflicts between the college preparatory mandates of the curriculum and finding ways to accommodate students with disabilities while still fulfilling achievement standards. These schools tended to limit admissions to those whose needs were deemed manageable within the framework of their standards.

Although Bello (2006) faulted Catholic and other private schools for inconsistencies and discriminatory practices, Maag and Katsiyannis (2010) found similar issues with federally mandated and approved early-intervention programs. According to Maag and Katsiyannis (2010), many of these programs are inconsistent with the policy for early intervention, as the criteria for identification and placement are impossible for preschool children to meet. For the most part, only students with a longer history of struggling with behavioral and emotional disorders will meet the criteria for early intervention.

This situation is unfortunate because early intervention in preschool can remove a number of the problems that contribute to the dropout phenomenon. For instance, early intervention can treat the behavioral and emotional disorders that contribute to underachievement and poor performance and can prevent the need for students to repeat a grade later on. However, since intervention can occur only after it is well established that a student is struggling, the student may already be alienated from the school environment and well on the way to dropping out before anyone notices the problem, making it difficult to reengage the student.

Wasburn-Moses (2005) worried that teachers are asked to do too many things for too many diverse students, making it difficult to do anything well, including special education inclusion. To determine how realistic it is for teachers to adopt inclusion, Wasburn-Moses (2005) surveyed special education teachers, finding that most of them taught courses in several different content areas, usually in self-contained settings, and held numerous nonteaching roles. These multiple requirements were placed on novices as well as experienced teachers. All teachers had to instruct reading, writing, and other basic skills; make accommodations where needed; work with parents, general education teachers, and administrators; and complete an enormous amount of paperwork. As a result, fewer than half of the special education teachers spent more than one hour each week working directly with any special needs student one-on-one. Wasburn-Moses (2005) recommended release time, less demanding roles for novice teachers, and other ways to allow special education teachers to have more one-on-one time with their students.

Wasburn-Moses (2006) also found that most service delivery remains fragmented and that the curriculum and quality of instruction offered to students are inadequate. Not only did students with disabilities have limited options, but inclusion programs lacked coherence. Special education teachers were more likely to focus on basic skills than on content-area instruction, and they tended to teach science and social studies rather than the core topics of reading and math. The teachers in Wasburn-Moses' (2006) study further indicated that most courses offered in inclusive classrooms remained too rigorous and were inappropriate for special needs students, and that too few accommodations were offered (Dynarski & Smink, 2008). Outside agency support for vocational training was deemed poor, with few courses focusing on the functional life skills students with disabilities would need following graduation.

Laprairie, Johnson, Rice, Adams, and Higgins (2010) also argued that inclusion policy was limited because it did not consider that teachers had to be trained to teach students with disabilities. Laprairie et al. (2010) found that most graduates from preservice teacher training in Texas were unprepared to teach students with special needs in general education classrooms; the teachers overwhelmingly stated that they needed more training. Laprairie et al. (2010) listed 10 issues that general education teachers should know about special education, including a full understanding of IDEA and its stipulations, especially IEPs; the principle of least restrictive environment; the various types and severities of disabilities they may encounter; what a Section 504 plan is and how to apply for it; their role in meeting the stipulations of the student's IEP; how and by whom the IEP was developed; current best-practice findings regarding inclusion; the role of special education teachers in general classrooms; the kinds of modifications and accommodations that can be fairly offered to special needs students; and the availability of additional school personnel to help address special needs. Overall, Laprairie et al. (2010) argued that, if preservice training informed all teachers on these 10 points, most general education teachers would be able to manage inclusion with the help of special education teachers.

Cook, Tankersley, and Landrum (2009) argued that special educators' teaching practices themselves may be a source of problems. A research-to-practice gap exists in special education, and many teachers use practices that have been shown to have little positive effect on students, while ignoring research-based or evidence-based practices (EBPs) that have demonstrated positive impact on student outcomes. Cook et al. (2009) conducted a case study examining the extent to which special educators were using EBPs. They compared clinical psychology to school psychology, finding that clinical psychology had established a solid grounding in EBP, while school psychology had a much less firm basis. Cook et al. concluded that special education practice must seek to adhere more diligently to EBPs and thereby close the research-to-practice gap.

Teachers play a vital role in supporting all students, including those with disabilities. Lack of engagement and support from teachers can have a detrimental effect on student motivation and persistence. Murray and Naranjo (2008) conducted a qualitative research study by interviewing 11 students with disabilities who were about to graduate from an urban school in an area where 80% of the students had either repeated a grade or failed to complete school altogether. One interviewee identified a systematic failure relative to the school's practices, stating that "Some teachers just give you work, and when you ask them to help you, they get an attitude and say 'you gotta do-it-yourself' or 'ask your mama to help you'" (Murray & Naranjo, 2008, p. 150).

Another interviewee noted that it was difficult to sit in a classroom when one cannot understand or complete the lesson, and that teachers were not observant of or responsive to students who struggled. Those students who were able to complete school did so largely because of their own personal drive and determination, parental assistance, and their willingness to actively seek assistance from other adults; teachers were not considered a source of support (Murray & Naranjo, 2008).

The study drew attention to the fact that there are at-risk schools, not just at-risk students, and that the dropout phenomenon is in part an institutional failure. The at-risk student is a product of both individual risk factors and a school's inability to adequately identify and respond to those risks. Institutional failure, however, appears to carry the bulk of the responsibility for the dropout phenomenon in at-risk schools.

Clark, Cushing, and Kennedy (2004) examined the effectiveness of an intensive on-site technical assistance model to improve inclusive practice at the middle and high school levels. They used a case-study approach with 16 teachers from one middle school and two high schools, helping special educators to improve their practice through ongoing, collaborative technical support. The results indicated that most inclusion activities failed to focus on individual student skills and were not offered based on student preferences, adaptations were not linked to students' IEPs, instruction often took place using the same people and materials, and parents played a minor role in the process. The study also found that intensive, on-site technical assistance resulted in higher-quality assessments, better IEP implementation, and improved access of students with disabilities to the general curriculum. Clark et al. (2004) concluded that inclusion of high school students with disabilities often failed to engage students because it was not implemented according to best practices, but that intensive technical assistance provided to special educators could in fact improve overall program quality, student outcomes, and student engagement.

Bloom (2010) examined whether there was a link between the overall school climate of a secondary school and teacher and staff attitudes toward inclusion. The study found that teacher attitudes toward inclusion often determine the quality of inclusion undertaken at a school. A questionnaire was distributed to the staff of a mainstream secondary school in Tel Aviv, Israel, followed by in-depth interviews. The study found that, in schools experiencing change, the change itself appeared to damage the school climate, and that staff members tended to accept changes and innovations only when controlled and supervised by the head teacher. There was also little collaboration between teachers in implementing inclusion, and overinflated claims for the benefits of inclusion led to cynicism and skepticism among the teaching staff, especially when accompanied by a lack of guidance on how to implement the new policy.

To examine the effectiveness of the process of creating and monitoring student progress through an IEP, Martin, Marshall, and Sale (2004) studied the interactions between stakeholders at IEP meetings over three years from middle to high school. IDEA mandates that both parents and students must be involved in IEP planning and meetings, and in decision making regarding educational goals. However, studies found that most IEP meetings remain dominated by special education teachers (Schunk & Mullen, 2012). Martin et al. studied 1,638 participants at 393 IEP meetings held over three years and found that special educators essentially ran the meetings. The students often did not know the reasons for the meetings, what to do at the meetings, or whether or not the meetings did them any good. IEP meetings were not standardized and differed greatly depending on which stakeholders attended. The fact that special educators continue to dominate meetings and that student participation is limited represents a persistent gap between theory and practice.

Weishaar (2010) argued that IEP planning for special needs students can be vastly improved using a strengths-based approach, which has been used in counseling for more than a decade but has only recently been introduced into special education. Weishaar demonstrated how a strengths-based approach can improve the preparation, presentation, and documentation of the IEP process and argued that the primary goal of such a program is to expedite the creation of a trusting relationship between school and parents so that both can help a student with disabilities transition more successfully to post-school life.

A primary barrier to graduation for students with disabilities is the exit exam within a standardized educational paradigm. Students who fail to earn a standard diploma are less likely to gain employment after school or to attend college (Erickson, Kleinhammer-Tramill, & Thurlow, 2007). The fact that exit exams routinely prevent special needs students from receiving standard diplomas — often causing them to graduate with nontraditional completion certificates — presents problems. While these certificates often enable qualified students with disabilities who have pursued alternative routes to graduate, they may also be used to push students out of school without the proper skills required for success in life (Erickson et al., 2007).

Erickson et al. (2007) examined the relationship between graduation testing and the use of alternative high school completion documents for students with disabilities. The study found that: (a) students with disabilities graduate with nontraditional certificates far more often than mainstream students; (b) students with disabilities are more likely to receive these certificates in states that mandate exit exams; (c) students with mental impairment were far more likely to be offered nontraditional diplomas than students with learning, speech-language, or emotional disabilities; (d) students who lived in states with exit exams were more likely to be offered alternative certification; and (e) the overall percentage of students receiving nontraditional diplomas has remained the same over the past decade.

Erickson et al. (2007) suggested that giving nontraditional diplomas to students with disabilities may compromise their post-school opportunities. The correlation between exit exam use and nontraditional exit certificate rates proves that the exit exam regime has undermined the goal of inclusion. In other words, the nontraditional diploma may be a way of papering over what is, in effect, a kind of dropping out — releasing the student from high school without being fully qualified for life after school.

Woods (2007) also found that exit exams remain a major hurdle for students with disabilities because few accommodations are made for special education students. The teachers in Woods' study recommended that students with special needs be given extra time, allowed to use word processors, and offered more test preparation in order to prepare them to pass the exit exams at levels comparable to the general student population. Such accommodations are often not acceptable within the rules of standardized testing.

Schulte and Villwock (2004) found that standardized tests are not a fair measurement for those in special education because some students are not even capable of reading without help. They argued that standardized testing did not provide an accurate picture of student progress and that schools should develop value-added assessments of progress so that test results can be combined with special education information to assess progress more meaningfully. They concluded that, in order for the scores obtained by students with disabilities on standardized tests to be useful for evaluating progress, they must be combined with data from additional assessments.

Reardon, Arshan, Atteberry, and Kurlaender (2010) acknowledged that there are two sides to the argument about the utility of exit exams. Supporters argue that exit exams reflect the shift toward raising standards and accountability in schools and are intended to motivate students to work harder. Critics claim that exit exams do not serve a useful purpose for students already struggling in school, as these students are not likely to be motivated — their past experiences with exams already cause them to expect to fail, and they will simply drop out rather than confront more failure (Reardon et al., 2010). Reardon et al. conducted a qualitative research study of four large school districts in California and found that failing an exit exam in Grade 10 had no appreciable impact on course selection, performance, staying in school, or graduation rates. However, they did not account for the possibility that students may have already dropped out in anticipation of the exams.

Griffin (2010) argued that the lack of transitional programs for students with disabilities contributes to dropout rates. In most high schools, all general education students begin to receive college admissions counseling in grades 10 and 11, while students with disabilities rarely receive comparable counseling. By improving the sense of belonging as well as motivation to succeed, college admissions counseling may improve retention and graduation rates. The fact that many high schools balk at the difficulties involved in counseling students with disabilities about college admissions — sometimes even assuming that their education will end with grade 12 — represents a programmatic shortcoming rooted in institutional practice (Spring, 2008).

Wagner and Davis (2006) argued that an exemplary transition program for students with emotional disabilities should entail rigor, relevance, attention to the whole child, and involvement of students and families in goal-driven transition planning. Using data from a national longitudinal study of students with disabilities transitioning into post-school life, the authors found that more students are being exposed to best practices and that they are receiving more social and life-skills training and working with peers more often. However, they still often do not participate in inclusion and are thus limited in their contact with general education students, and have limited access to vocational programs that might improve their transition chances.

Mellard (2005) called for transition programming that encourages students to set goals beyond secondary education, which in turn necessitates the completion of secondary education. Mellard found that learning disabled students who graduate from high school are often ill-prepared to succeed in college and generally do not transition effectively to college settings. Decisions about what kind of transition to promote — to community college, four-year college, work, or none — are complex and are often made without student awareness of the consequences. While transition planning was originally conceptualized as student-centered, it remains difficult to involve students meaningfully in the process.

Mellard (2005) proposed an ideal transition program to help learning disabled students both complete high school and make an effective transition to college. A good transition plan must teach students effective study skills and learning strategies, offer job tryouts, address needed accommodations for college entrance exams, identify target colleges, and provide assistance in the application process. Mellard concluded that transition programming is critical in giving students with disabilities a sense of belonging to their high school.

Edgar (2005) argued that, with NCLB, the purpose of school has become "truncated to a sole focus on preparing workers for the global economy" (p. 173), blaming institutional issues for the failure of special education to reduce dropout rates. Curtis, Rabren, and Reilly (2009) studied the degree to which students who received special education in high school integrated successfully into post-school life. Using Halpern's quality of life scale, they examined post-school outcomes such as employment, financial security, educational attainment, and integration into society. While 82% of respondents indicated that high school had prepared them for life, fewer than 15% continued their education. More than 90% were satisfied with their current living situation, though only 67% were employed, with only 60% working full-time. Curtis et al. expressed concern that high school special education fails to properly prepare students with disabilities to live independently after school.

Greene (2007) asserted that current special education is fundamentally flawed, primarily because it provides incentives for schools to over-identify students as needing special education, especially when categories are ambiguous. Greene noted that the number of children referred to special education increased by 60% since the passage of IDEA in 2000, with one in every eight students listed as needing special education services. Greene suggested that a voucher system allowing students with disabilities to attend private schools would improve the overall quality of special education. In Florida, the McKay program used a market model to provide vouchers to students with IEPs, enabling families to place students with disabilities where their needs would be met. Studies found better outcomes for students — 80% of parents reported that all services were provided in private school contexts, as opposed to 30% in public schools, and students in McKay private school programs were bullied only 5.3% of the time, compared to 46.8% of the time in public schools.

For a number of years, researchers have suspected that the overrepresentation of African Americans in referrals to special education indicated that the system had been abused to shuttle troublesome students into a non-graduation track (Gravois & Rosenfield, 2006; Hart, Cramer, Harry, Klinger, & Sturges, 2010; Smith & Kozleski, 2005). Blanchett, Mumford, and Beachum (2005) argued that urban schools in particular tend to practice "structural racism and discrimination" in which poor and African American students are systematically referred to special education (p. 71). Gritzmacher and Gritzmacher (2010) surveyed Native American students as to their satisfaction with special education and found that many respondents felt there remained a great deal of cultural insensitivity in the assessment process, with test instruments failing to reflect the cultural preferences and values of Native Americans. The absence of a distinct set of best practices in special education referral, assessment, and placement has resulted in significant inefficiencies, patterns of over-referral, and possible discriminatory practices.

Brandon, Higgins, Pierce, Tandy, and Sileo (2010) noted that "parents are a key component to the school success of their children" (p. 208) and that parent disengagement puts children at risk for dropout. Their qualitative case study suggested that persistent alienation of parents from the school environment contributes to the general dropout phenomenon. Brandon et al. carried out a survey based on the Barriers to School Involvement Survey with 421 parents of African American students. The results indicated that lack of parent involvement was largely due to a lack of conscious effort by schools to involve parents.