Key Points: 

• Parents say ‘premature graduation’ denies students with disabilities vital services

• State insists number of credits governs graduation and associated funding 

• Advocates, board members push for flexibility and guidance for districts 

A clearer legal position from the Arizona Department of Education on graduation requirements for students with disabilities sets the stage for more robust guidance as districts and parents seek to ensure those entitled to additional years of schooling under federal law aren’t pushed out too early.

Parents, attorneys, districts and State Board of Education members have continued to flag the problem of “premature graduation,” where students with disabilities are made to graduate in four years, thus cutting off access to services and legal protections, despite federal law allowing students to stay in school until age 22. 

The Arizona Department of Education maintains that a student is considered a graduate when they complete all required credits. After a student graduates, they are no longer entitled to public funding. 

Districts claim pressure from the department to graduate students within four years, and cite obstacles in offering additional services due to a funding gap at the federal and state levels. 

Parents and disability attorneys say children are not truly earning their credits and are being denied crucial transition services and thus readiness to exit high school and enter adult life or postsecondary education. 

“Graduating students before they are truly ready denies them appropriate education and a fair shot at success,” Janet Walk, a parent, told the state board. “My daughter deserves an education that recognizes her potential, provides meaningful growth opportunities and respects her right to develop at her own pace.” 

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, students with disabilities are guaranteed a Free Appropriate Public Education from age 3 to 22, if a student’s birthday falls before the end of the school year. 

Districts and charter schools are required to continue providing an education either upon graduation or upon a student aging out. 

The split between the department, districts, parents and attorneys arises from the legal interpretation of “graduation.” 

The Arizona Department of Education denied advising or pressuring school districts to graduate students “prematurely,” but provided more insight into their position on the law. 

Colette Chapman, associate superintendent of the Department of Education, said schools may choose to support students beyond graduation. However, she acknowledged they would no longer be entitled to federal legal protections or associated state or federal funding. 

Additional input from the department pointed to statutes governing Average Daily Membership, which is the total enrollment of both fractional and full time students used to calculate funding for schools. 

Students are defined by enrollment in credits that “count toward graduation.” 

“If a student has completed the requirements for graduation, no further classes ‘count toward graduation,’” Doug Nick, communications director, said in a statement. “Therefore, any student who has met the requirements for graduation is not counted as part of Average Daily Membership, and the state and Federal governments therefore will not provide funding for that student.”

Parents and disability attorneys have long advocated for graduation to be based on a student’s holistic preparation for adult life, rather than the number of credits. 

“As long as they get the credits, as long as they have the credits, they’re going through,” said Lori Kirsch-Goodwin, an education attorney and parent of a student with disabilities. “And yet, when you really analyze it, you see, they either really didn’t earn the credits, they might have been passed through, or they just didn’t get the transition that they needed before they get in the real world.” 

Kirsch-Goodwin added the current system does not live up to the spirit of federal law. 

“FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education) is not just education. It’s getting people ready to live in the real world, be independent, have jobs. And so you spend all this time getting kids through school, and then what are they really ready for?” Kirsch-Goodwin said. 

Walk, a parent, told the board her daughter was made to graduate “simply because she had the credits, credits that were gifted to her in classes where she did not even begin to understand the curriculum.” 

Walk was joined by about a dozen parents who had written public comments, having experienced or feared the same issue. 

Amanda Glass, an attorney for Disability Rights Arizona, said the issue of when a student should be cut off from public education and tandem services predates the current administration. 

She and Kirsch-Goodwin noted the primary way to counter graduation decisions is to challenge the credits earned. 

“We have kids who are very significantly impacted, who are in these life skills, self contained classes, and the districts will call them English. So if you are in the life skills English class, and you do that for four years, you have four credits of English,” Glass said. “And even though general education kids might be reading Shakespeare and Victor Hugo, they have a very different curriculum, let’s say, than what the life skills English kids are doing, which is maybe learning to spell their name.”

Glass said that, although the deficit-based approach helps, it’s not ideal. 

“We don’t like that. We don’t like that that’s the only way to fight — to essentially say this kid couldn’t earn a diploma, they shouldn’t be allowed to graduate,” Glass said. “We feel like there needs to be more flexibility there. Give these students a chance to be in challenging classes with accommodation to actually earn these credits. Maybe it takes them longer to do it, but you give them that time and that opportunity.” 

Rebecca Beebe, director of governmental affairs for the Arizona School Administrators Association, noted in her testimony to board members that IDEA also requires schools to put students in the least restrictive environment, with a starting point being a general education classroom. 

“With that said, we definitely hear and understand the concerns of the parents,” Beebe said. “We definitely support more flexibility for students who do need more time to stay enrolled past four years without penalty, either to the student or to the school that’s educating them, so long as the flexibility is not too broad and not too prone to unintended consequences.” 

She asked the board to aim any rule changes at students with significant intellectual disabilities or those needing extra transition services. And she noted that a main outstanding factor is ensuring continued funding for those students. 

Linda Burrows, deputy associate superintendent of academic standards, elaborated on some potential solutions for districts, including expanding course catalogs to include extended-time core credits and transition courses, so students could extend their time in school. 

Burrows stressed the issue was a local control decision best left to districts. 

Looking ahead, Karla Phillips-Krivicka, a board member and founder of Champions for Kids, a disability advocacy organization, noted the potential for new rulemaking on the board’s part regarding the definition of “graduate” in the future. 

However, first, she urged the department to focus on creating greater clarity for districts through formal guidance. 

“I can tell you the schools don’t know that they have all those options. That’s all we’ve been asking for is options,” Phillips-Krivickas said. “Districts need to know what the sandbox looks like.”