---

---

• Standards & Indicators
• Supporting Evidence & Research

Supporting Evidence & Research

The Schooling standards and indicators are based on sound evidence and research that supports their utility in the field. The information below identifies and presents research, federal government documents, commissioned reports, and other sources that serve as the foundation upon which these standards are based. This compilation should not be viewed as all-inclusive, but rather as illustrative of the range of research and expert analysis currently available. See more about the research.

Ensuring Access to Academic and Non-Academic Courses and Programs of Study

To prosper and gain the knowledge and skills necessary for success in a variety of settings, all students-including students with disabilities-must have access to educational curriculum and instruction designed to prepare them for life in the 21st century (Murnane & Levy, 1996). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) underscores this assumption, as does federal legislation in the areas of workforce development, youth development, postsecondary education, and other areas. For students with disabilities, this assumption was the basis, in part, for the requirements included in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) legislation of 1990, 1997, and 2004. Under IDEA, states must provide students with disabilities access to the general education curriculum, including: the identification of performance goals and indicators for these students, definition of how access to the general curriculum is provided, participation in general or alternate assessments, and public reporting of assessment results. All of these requirements are embedded within a context of standards-based education, in which standards for what students should know and be able to do are defined at the state level, appropriate standards-based education is provided, and success in meeting expectations is measured through large-scale assessment systems.

The need for access requirements in legislation was supported by research demonstrating both a lack of educational success (or a lack of any information about educational success) for many students with disabilities (e.g., McGrew, Thurlow, & Spiegel, 1993; Shriner, Gilman, Thurlow, & Ysseldyke, 1994-95), and the all too common provision of an inappropriately watered-down curriculum (Gersten, 1998) or a curriculum undifferentiated for students with disabilities (McIntosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, & Lee, 1993). According to Nolet and McLaughlin (2000), the 1997 IDEA reauthorization was "intended to ensure that students with disabilities have access to challenging curriculum and that their educational programs are based on high expectations that acknowledge each student's potential and ultimate contribution to society" (p. 2). Within the educational context of the late 1990s and early 2000s, this means that all students with disabilities, regardless of the nature of their disability, need to have access to standards-based education.

Providing meaningful access to the general curriculum requires a multifaceted approach. Appropriate instructional accommodations constitute one piece of this picture (Elliott & Thurlow, 2000). Other elements include the specification of curriculum domains, time allocation, and decisions about what to include or exclude (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000). The process of specifying the curriculum in a subject matter do main requires cataloging the various types of information included in the domain (facts, concepts, principles, and procedures) and setting priorities with respect to outcomes. Allocation of time for instruction should be based on the priorities that have been established. Decisions about what to include or exclude in curriculum should allow for adequate breadth (or scope) of coverage, while maintaining enough depth to assure that students are learning the material. Universal design is another means of ensuring access to the general curriculum (Orkwis & McLane, 1998). When applied to assessment, universal design can help ensure that tests are usable by the largest number of students possible (Thompson, Johnstone, & Thurlow, 2002).

Research indicates that a variety of instructional approaches can be used to increase access to the general curriculum and standards-based instruction (Kame'enui & Carnine, 1998). Approaches such as differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 1999), strategy instruction (Deshler et al., 2001), and technology use (Rose & Meyer, 2000) are showing that access to the curriculum can be substantially improved, with positive outcomes for students with disabilities.

Other researchers have examined the teaching and learning conditions and strategies in schools that lead to positive outcomes for students (Wagner, 1993). Gersten (1998), The National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (2004a), and Nolet and McLaughlin (2000) noted that students with disabilities and other at-risk students need access to the full range of curriculum options, not watered-down versions, if they are to meet content and performance standards. Research by Tralli, Colombo, Deshler, and Schumaker (1999) indicated that many low-achieving students can be taught strategies that will raise their performance to meet content standards. Other academic and non-academic components that have been linked to positive youth outcomes include:

1. A broad spectrum of work-based learning components such as service learning, career exploration, and paid work experience (American Youth Policy Forum & Center for Workforce Development, 2000; Benz, Yovanoff, & Doren, 1997; Hamilton & Hamilton, 1997; National Commission on the High School Senior Year, 2001);
2. Academic and related standards (Nolet and McLaughlin, 2000), and a full range of postsecondary options (National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, 2004a);
3. Universally designed curricula and materials (Bowe, 2000; Orkwis & McLane, 1998) including culturally appropriate strategies (Burnette, 1999; Hale, 2001);
4. Instructional approaches that include the use of technology (Rose & Meyer, 2000) and learning supports including advising and counseling (Aune, 2000); and
5. A move to smaller learning communities (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2001; Darling-Hammond, Ancess, & Ort, 2002; Stern & Wing, 2004).

Basing Assessment on Appropriate Standards

States and districts have become engaged in the work of identifying content standards and setting performance standards for what students should know and be able to do in the 21st century (American Federation of Teachers, 2001; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2003). While these standards-setting efforts may not initially have considered students with disabilities (Thurlow, Ysseldyke, Gutman, & Geenen, 1998), as time has passed, many states have reconsidered their standards in this light. This reconsideration occurred, if for no other reason, because the IDEA assessment requirements indicate that states need to develop alternate assessments for those students who cannot participate in general assessments. The alternate assessments, like the general assessments, are to be aligned to the state's standards, a requirement reinforced by the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

The IDEA requirements for inclusion of students with disabilities in assessments and access to the general curriculum have been reinforced strongly by NCLB, which requires that students with disabilities participate not only in assessments but also in accountability systems. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that schools are held accountable for access to the general curriculum, high expectations, and improved learning. Requirements for students with disabilities to be included in state accountability systems and for measuring whether schools have achieved adequate yearly progress (AYP) have heightened the importance of access to the general curriculum for all students with disabilities, while also raising concerns about access to transition-related curricula and experiences (Furney, Hasazi, Clark/Keefe, & Hartnett, 2003).

Research (Thurlow, Elliott, & Ysseldyke, 1998) and reviews of standards-based approaches (Elmore & Rothman, 1999; McDonnell, McLaughlin, & Morison, 1997; Thurlow & Johnson, 2000) indicate that assessments and standards must be aligned and that all youth, including those with disabilities, must be included in large-scale assessments and other accountability measures to ensure that accountability systems are valid. Further, schools should provide the supports and resources to help all students meet challenging standards (National Research Council & Institute of Medicine, 2004). Assessment accommodations, alternate assessments, and other performance indicators should be addressed within accountability systems (National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, 2004a; Thurlow et al., 1998), and assessment results should be used in individualized educational planning. Standards should also look beyond purely academic goals and include the knowledge and skills required for desired postsecondary outcomes such as employment, higher education, and civic engagement (Achieve, Inc. 2004; National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, 2004a).

No Child Left Behind requires that educational decisions be based on student performance data and research-based instructional strategies, and that performance data be shared with parents and other stakeholders. Components of this data-based decision-making process that have been identified through research and best practice reviews include:

1. Reporting data in understandable language and in useful categories (Halpern, 1990; Hogan, 2001),
2. Sharing data and analyses with a broad range of stakeholders and the general public (Halpern, 1990; Hogan, 2001),
3. Including stakeholders in the process of developing data collection instruments (Florio & DeMartini, 1993; Halpern, 1990; Hogan, 2001), and
4. Using data to evaluate programs and develop additional programs and services (Halpern, 1990; Hogan, 2001).

Improving School Completion

The prevalence of students dropping out of school is one of the most serious and pervasive problems facing special education programs nationally. The National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) found that more than a third of students with disabilities exited school by dropping out. The NLTS data also revealed that factors such as ethnicity and family income are related to dropout rates, and that some groups of special education students are more apt to drop out than others. Of youth with disabilities who do not complete school, the highest proportions are among students with learning disabilities and students with emotional/behavioral disabilities (Wagner et al., 1991).

National data indicate that there has been some improvement in the overall graduation rate of students with disabilities in the United States. Between the 1995-1996 and 1999-2000 school years, the percentage of youth with disabilities graduating with regular diplomas, as reported by states, grew from 52.6% to 56.2%. During the same period, the percentage of students with disabilities reported as having dropped out of school declined from 34.1% to 29.4% (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). While these data are encouraging, the dropout rate for students with disabilities still remains twice that of students without disabilities.

Concern about the dropout problem is increasing because of state and local education agencies' experiences with high-stakes accountability in the context of standards-based reform (Thurlow, Sinclair, & Johnson, 2002). State and local school districts have identified what students should know and be able to do and have implemented assessments to ensure that students have attained the identified knowledge and skills. However, large numbers of students are not faring well on these assessments. For youth with disabilities, several factors beyond academic achievement affect their performance on these tests, including accurate identification of their disability, provision of needed accommodations, and availability of educational supports that make learning possible regardless of disability-related factors. The provision of accommodations is of particular importance in helping to ensure students' success within state standards and reform initiatives.

In the United States, dropout prevention programs have been implemented and evaluated for decades, but the empirical base of well-researched programs is scant, and well-done evaluations of dropout prevention programs specifically targeted towards students with disabilities are rare. Perhaps the most rigorously researched secondary level program for students with disabilities at risk of dropping out is the Check & Connect program (Christenson, 2002; Sinclair, Christenson, Evelo, & Hurley, 1999). Using randomized assignment to experimental and control groups, these researchers found significant positive effects of their program. Check & Connect includes the following core elements:

1. A monitor/advocate who builds a trusting relationship with the student, monitors the student on risk indicators, and helps problem-solve difficult issues between the student and the school;
2. Promotion of student engagement with the school;
3. Flexibility on the part of school administrative personnel regarding staffing patterns and use of punitive disciplinary practices; and
4. Relevancy of the high school curriculum to students.

The empirical literature on dropout prevention programs for at-risk students (including, but not limited to, students with disabilities) is somewhat broader but still lacking in high-quality research designs. Lehr, Hansen, Sinclair, and Christenson (2003) analyzed dropout studies published between 1980 and 2001; 45 research studies were included in the final integrative review. Of these, less than 20% employed randomized assignment procedures, and not a single study was a true experiment. Nonetheless, the findings were quite consistent with well-researched components of the Check & Connect model and were also consistent with a number of other empirical sources of information. Two common components of successful secondary dropout prevention programs are work-based learning and personal development/self-esteem building (Farrell, 1990; Orr, 1987; Smink, 2002). Equally important, however, is tailoring or contextualizing these and other intervention components to the particular school environment (Lehr et al., 2003). Finally, early intervention also appears to be a powerful component in a school district's array of dropout prevention strategies. In an experimental study collecting longitudinal data for 22 years, Schweinhart and Weikart (1998) documented impressive outcomes of their High/Scope Perry preschool project, which involved three- and four-year-olds who were at risk of school failure.

Skill Development as a Means to Improve Educational Results

Training and professional development for educators and other stakeholders have been identified as critical components of school reform and improving student achievement and other outcomes. Research studies and analyses of best practices have identified the following essential components of training and development programs:

1. Ensuring that school personnel have the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to effectively perform their duties (Joyce, 1990);
2. Incorporating student performance data and effective strategies for improving student achievement into professional development (National Association of Elementary School Principals, 1996; National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2001);
3. Including educators, family members, and other stakeholders on school leadership teams (National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, 2004b);
4. Person-centered planning activities for youth, such as involving them in individualized school- and career-related decision-making and planning (National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, 2004b); and
5. Collaborative leadership (National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2001).

Many new teachers are entering the field without the specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to support transition. Miller, Lombard, and Hazelkorn (2000) report that few special education teachers have received training on methods, materials, and strategies for developing meaningful Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) that include goals and objectives on transition or that specifically address students' transition needs through curriculum and instruction. Further, many special education teachers underutilize community work-experience programs and fail to coordinate referrals to adult service providers.

Beyond preservice training, high-quality continuing professional development is needed to ensure that teachers are up-to-date and fully able to support students in the transition from school to adulthood. Miller et al. (2000), in a national study, found that nearly 8 out of 10 teachers (79%) reported receiving five hours or less of inservice training regarding inclusion of students with disabilities in their districts' school-to-work programs. Further, nearly half (49%) indicated they had received no inservice training related to inclusionary practices for students with disabilities. These findings are consistent with the report published by the National Center for Education Statistics regarding the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers (Lewis et al., 1999). This report notes that fewer than 2 out of 10 teachers (19%) spent more than eight hours per year on professional development activities to address the needs of students with disabilities, despite the fact that teachers report that professional development of longer duration is more effective. The promotion of improved levels of collaboration between general education and special education is in response to another area of need. General education classroom teachers, work-study coordinators, career and technical education instructors, and high school counselors all play an important role in supporting the transition of students with disabilities. These general education personnel need training and other support to help them work effectively with students with disabilities. A recent study of personnel needs in special education (Carlson, Brauen, Klein, Schroll, & Willig, 2001) found that general educators' confidence in serving students with disabilities was dependent on their relationship with special education teachers: those who often received instruction-related suggestions from special educators felt significantly more confident.

Basing Graduation Requirements on Meaningful Measures and Criteria

Requirements that states set for graduation can include completing Carnegie Unit requirements (a certain number of class credits earned in specific areas), successfully passing a competency test, passing high school exit exams, and/or passing a series of benchmark exams (Guy, Shin, Lee, & Thurlow, 1999; Johnson & Thurlow, 2003; Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Anderson, 1995). Currently, 27 states have opted to require that students pass state and/or local exit exams in order to receive a standard high school diploma (Johnson & Thurlow, 2003). This practice has been increasing since the mid-1990s (Guy et al., 1999; Thurlow et al., 1995). States may also require any combination of the above requirements. Variability in graduation requirements is complicated further by an increasingly diverse set of diploma options. In addition to the standard high school diploma, options now include special education diplomas, certificates of completion, occupational diplomas, and others.

Many states have gone to great lengths to improve the proportion of students with disabilities passing state exit exams and meeting other requirements for graduation. Strategies have included grade-level retention, specialized tutoring and instruction during the school day and after school, and weekend or summer tutoring programs. While these may be viewed as appropriate interventions and strategies, there is little research evidence supporting these practices. Available research indicates, for example, that repeating a grade does not improve the overall achievement of students with disabilities (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1992; Holmes, 1989).

The implications of state graduation requirements must be thoroughly understood, considering the negative outcomes students experience when they fail to meet state standards for graduation. The availability of alternative diploma options can have a considerable impact on raising graduation rates. However, the ramifications of receiving different types of diplomas need to be considered. A student who receives a non-standard diploma may find their access to postsecondary education or jobs is limited. It is also important for parents and educators to know that if a student graduates from high school with a standard high school diploma, the student is no longer entitled to special education services unless a state or district has a policy allowing continued services under such circumstances. Most states do not have such policies.

References

Achieve, Inc. (2004). The expectations gap: A 50-state review of high school graduation requirements. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 24, 2005, from http://www.achieve.org/files/coursetaking.pdf

Allington, R., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1992). Does high stakes testing improve school effectiveness? Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 20(2), 179-190.

American Federation of Teachers. (2001). Making standards matter: A fifty-state report on efforts to implement a standards-based system. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 24, 2005, from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/msm2001.pdf

American Youth Policy Forum & Center for Workforce Development. (2000, June). Looking forward: School-to-work principles and strategies for sustainability. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 24, 2005, from http://www.aypf.org/publications/aypf_looking.pdf

Aune, B. (2000). Career and academic advising. In H. A. Belch (Ed.), Serving students with disabilities (pp. 55-69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Benz, M. R., Yovanoff, P., & Doren, B. (1997, Winter). School-to-work components that predict postschool success for students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 151-165.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2001). Targeted literature review of major constructs and their components: Evaluating the National School District and Networks Grants Program. Retrieved May 24, 2005, from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/nr/downloads/ed/researchevaluation/GatesLitReview.pdf

Bowe, F. (2000). Universal design in education. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

Burnette, J. (1999). Critical behaviors and strategies for teaching culturally diverse students. Retrieved May 24, 2005, from http://ericec.org/digests/e584.html

Carlson, E., Brauen, M., Klein, S., Schroll, K., & Willig, S. (2002). Study of personnel needs in special education: Key findings. Washington, DC: Westat. Retrieved May 24, 2005, from http://ferdig.coe.ufl.edu/spense/KeyFindings.pdf

Christenson, S. (2002, December). Check & Connect: A model to enhance student engagement and prevent dropout. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Dropout Forum, Washington, DC.

Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Ort, S. W. (2002, Fall). Reinventing high school: Outcomes of the Coalition Campus Schools Project. American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 639-673. Retrieved May 24, 2005, from http://www.schoolredesign.net/srn/binary/Reinventing%20HighSchool%20-%20LDH%20et%20al.pdf

Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, B. K., Bulgren, J. A., Hock, M. F., Knight, J., et al. (2001). Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(2), 96-108. Retrieved May 24, 2005, from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/0938-8982.00011/abs/

Elliott, J. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2000). Improving test performance of students with disabilities in district and state assessments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Elmore, R. F., & Rothman, R. (Eds.). (1999). Testing, teaching, and learning: A guide for states and school districts. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Farrell, E. (1990). Hanging in and dropping out: Voices of at-risk high school students. New York: Teachers College Press.

Florio, E., & DeMartini, J. R. (1993, September). The use of information by policymakers at the local community level. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 6(1), 106-123.

Furney, K., Hasazi, S., Clark/Keefe, K., & Hartnett, J. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of shifting policy landscapes in special and general education reform. Exceptional Children, 70(1), 81-94. Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/MembersOnly.cfm&ContentID=1280

Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with learning disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities Practice, 13(3), 162-170.

Guy, B., Shin, H., Lee, S.-Y., & Thurlow, M. L. (1999). State graduation requirements for students with and without disabilities (NCEO Technical Report 24). Retrieved May 25, 2005, from University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes Web site: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical24.html

Hale, J. E. (2001). Culturally appropriate pedagogy. In W. H. Watkins, J. H. Lewis, & V. Chou (Eds.), Race and education: The roles of history and society in educating African American students (pp. 173-185). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Halpern, A. S. (1990). A methodological review of follow-up and follow-along studies tracking school leavers from special education. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 13(1), 13-27.

Hamilton, M., & Hamilton, S. (1997). Learning well at work: Choices for quality. New York: Cornell University Press. Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://legacyhuman.wpg.cornell.edu/youthwork/pubs/guide.pdf

Hogan, C. (2001, June). The power of outcomes: Strategic thinking to improve results for our children, families, and communities. Washington, DC: National Governors Association. Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://www.nga.org/cda/files/1999OUTCOMES.pdf

Holmes, C. T. (1989). Grade-level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 16-33). London: Falmer Press.

Johnson, D. R., & Thurlow, M. L. (2003). A national study on graduation requirements and diploma options for youth with disabilities (Technical Report 36). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition and National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical36.htm

Joyce, B. (1990). Changing school culture through staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kame'enui, E. J., & Carnine, D. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lehr, C. A., Hansen, A., Sinclair, M. F., & Christenson, S. L. (2003). Moving beyond dropout towards school completion: An integrative review of data-based interventions. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 342-364.

Lewis, L., Parsad, B., Carey, N., Bartfai, N., Ferris, E., & Smerdon, B. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999080.pdf

McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morison, P. (Eds.). (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

McGrew, K. S., Thurlow, M. L., & Spiegel, A. (1993). An investigation of the exclusion of students with disabilities in national data collection programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(3), 339-352.

McIntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., Haager, D., & Lee, O. (1993). Observations of students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60(3), 249-261.

Miller, R. J., Lombard, R. C., & Hazelkorn, M. N. (2000). Teacher attitudes and practices regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in school-to-work and technical preparation programs: Strategies for inclusion and policy implications. In D. R. Johnson & E. J. Emanuel (Eds.), Issues influencing the future of transition programs and services in the United States (pp. 127-136). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, National Transition Network.

Murnane, R. J., & Levy, F. (1996). Teaching the new basic skills: principles for educating children to thrive in a changing economy. New York, NY: Free Press.

National Association of Elementary School Principals. (1996). Standards for quality elementary and middle schools, kindergarten through eighth grade (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2001). Supporting principals who break ranks: Recommendations from Breaking Ranks II for creating systems that support successful high schools. Reston, VA: Author.

National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (2004a). Current challenges facing the future of secondary education and transition services for youth with disabilities in the United States. Retrieved May 26, 2005, from University of Minnesota, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition Web site: http://www.ncset.org/publications/discussionpaper/default.asp

National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (2004b). Person-centered planning: A tool for transition. Retrieved May 26, 2005, from University of Minnesota, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition Web site: http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1431

National Commission on the High School Senior Year. (2001). Raising our sights: No high school senior left behind. Princeton, NJ: Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation. Retrieved May 26, 2005, from http://www.woodrow.org/CommissionOnTheSeniorYear/Report/FINAL_PDF_REPORT.pdf

National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging Schools: Fostering High School Students' Motivation to Learn. Committee on Increasing High School Students' Engagement and Motivation to Learn. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access. Retrieved May 26, 2005, from http://www.cec.sped.org/osep/udesign.html

Orr, M. T. (1987). Keeping students in school. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2003). Learning for the 21st century: A report and mile guide for 21st century skills. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/downloads/P21_Report.pdf

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2000). Universal design for individual differences. Educational Leadership, 58(3), 39-43.

Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1998). High/Scope Perry preschool program effects at age twenty-seven. In J. Crane (Ed.), Social programs that work (pp. 148-162). New York: Russell Sage.

Shriner, J. G., Gilman, C. J., Thurlow, M. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1994/95). Trends in state assessment of educational outcomes. Diagnostique, 20(1-4), 101-119.

Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Evelo, D. L., & Hurley, C. M. (1999). Dropout prevention for youth with disabilities: Efficacy of a sustained school engagement procedure. Exceptional Children, 65(1), 7-21.

Smink, J. (2002). Effective strategies for increasing high school graduation rates (Webcast presentation). Retrieved May 26, 2005, from http://www.nccte.org/webcasts/description.aspx?wc=40

Stern, D. & Wing, J. Y. (2004, January). Is there solid evidence of positive effects for high school students? Retrieved May 26, 2005, from http://casn.berkeley.edu/resources/solid_evidence.pdf

Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis44.html

Thurlow, M. L., Elliott, J. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1998). Testing students with disabilities: Practical strategies for applying with district and state requirements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

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

Thurlow, M. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Johnson, D. R. (2002). Students with disabilities who drop out of school—Implications for policy and practice. Issue Brief, 1(2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=425

Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., & Anderson, A. (1995). High school graduation requirements: What's happening for students with disabilities? (Synthesis Report 20). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis20.html

Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J., Gutman, S., & Geenen, K. (1998). An analysis of inclusion of students with disabilities in state standards documents (Technical Report 19). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical19.html

Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tralli, R. Colombo, B., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1999). The Strategies Intervention Model: Supported inclusion at the secondary level. In D. Deshler, J. Schumaker, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham, (Eds.), Teaching every adolescent every day: Learning in diverse middle & high school classrooms, (pp. 250-280). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2001/index.html

Wagner, M., Newman, L., D'Amico, R., Jay, E. D., Butler-Nalin, P., Marder, C., et al. (1991). Youth with disabilities: How are they doing? Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M. (1993). The transition experiences of young people with disabilities: Implications for policy and programs. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Next > Download Transition Toolkit

Top of Page

Overview | NASET Members | Acknowledgments | Home

© 2010 Regents of the University of Minnesota
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.
Online Privacy Policy

National Alliance
for Secondary Education and Transition