A Regular High School Diploma Cannot Be Based on Coursework Aligned with Iowa’s Alternative Academic Achievement Standards and Alternative Assessment

 In the past year, I've responded to several calls from parents who were struggling to respond to challenges from their child’s private and Medicaid insurers, asking the parents how their children, who the parents and school district said had substantially limited expressive and receptive communication skills and functioned at the level of a two-to-three-year old, had earned regular high school diplomas. 

Calls like this concern me because students whose high school instruction was entirely or mostly based on Iowa’s Essential Elements are not eligible to receive a regular high school diploma.  

Under state and federal law, a regular high school diploma may not be based on high school credits in courses based on Iowa’s Essential Elements for Students with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities. 34 C.F.R. § 300.102(a)(3)(iv); Iowa Admin. Code r. 281–41.102(1)(c)(4). A regular high school diploma is the high school diploma (or a higher form of diploma) awarded to the vast majority of graduating students, and doesn’t include any other form of diploma, GED, certificate of completion, certificate of attendance, or any similar lesser credential. 34 C.F.R. § 300.102(a)(3)(iv); Iowa Admin. Code r. 281–41.102(1)(c)(4).

The reasons state and federal law do not permit a regular high school diploma to be based on high school courses aligned with alternate academic achievement standards include:

1. Preserving the Integrity and Value of the High School Diploma. The legal requirement that a regular diploma must be aligned with a state's regular academic achievement standards prevents dilution of the diploma’s value in certifying to employers, postsecondary institutions, and others that a graduate has met the state’s academic requirements. 34 C.F.R. § 300.102; K.L. v. R.I. Bd. of Educ., 907 F.3d 639, 652 (1st Cir. 2018).

2. Preventing Premature Termination of Special Education. The IDEA requires that students with disabilities receive a FAPE until they either age out or graduate with a regular high school diploma. If a regular diploma could be awarded based on alternate, less rigorous academic standards, school districts could use such diplomas to terminate special education services before students with disabilities have aged out of special education eligibility at age 21. See e.g., K.L. at 652.

3. Ensuring Access to the General Curriculum. Requiring that alternate academic achievement standards are based on the state’s regular academic achievement standards ensures access of children with significant cognitive disabilities to the general curriculum (34 C.F.R. 300.39(b)(3)(ii); Iowa Admin. Code. r. 281-41.39(c)(3)(ii)) and to prepare for further education, employment, and independent living. 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A).

4. Ensuring Transparency and Informed Decision-Making. The IDEA and the Every Student Succeeds Act require that IEP teams and parents be informed about the implications of taking courses based on alternative academic achievement standards and alternate assessments. 34 C.F.R. § 300.160(3); 34 C.F.R. § 200.6; Iowa Admin. Code r. 281-41.160.

Free Speech 4: Speech Advocating Illegal Conduct

Question:  Does the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protect a public school student from the consequences of wearing a t-shirt featuring an illegal drug or underage drinking to public school or a school-sponsored event?

Answer:  No.

In Morse v. Frederick, a student appealed his school suspension, claiming that his high school had violated his First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 396 (2007).

In that case, a school district sponsored an event during school hours at which students and staff could stand in front of the high school, on either side of the street, to watch the Olympic Torch Relay as it passed by the school on its way to the winter games in Salt Lake City, Utah. At the appointed time, students and teachers left their classes and assembled on either side of the street in front of the school. Once outside, teachers and administrators monitored the students' actions.

Frederick, a high school senior, and his friends chose to stand on the side of the street across from the school. As the torchbearers and camera crews approached, Frederick and his friends unfurled a 14-foot banner bearing the phrase: “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” The large banner was easily read by the students on the other side of the street. The school principal crossed the street and directed the students to take down the banner because the banner appeared to advocate illegal drug use in violation of school policy. All but Frederick complied. The banner was confiscated and he was subsequently suspended from school.

On review, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the school officials did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the banner and suspending Frederick. The Court concluded that the “substantial disruption” rule of Tinker was not the only basis for restricting student speech. Considering the special characteristics of the school environment and the government’s interest in preventing student drug abuse, the Court decided that the school was entitled to take steps to safeguard the students entrusted to their care from speech that could reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use. Based on this reasoning, courts have given public schools a fair amount of leeway in deciding whether student expression poses a danger to their other students or staff.