by Kathleen Kosobud, on behalf of LDA of Michigan
2011 is the first year where high school graduates will be awarded diplomas based on the completion of the Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC), a "rigorous" menu of 16 to 18 credit requirements. Although advanced students will have the opportunity to test out of some of these courses and will be able to make special arrangements for early college enrollment, and there are some provisions to enable students to extend the length of time for completing some mathematics classes, the course requirements have made graduation with a diploma far more rigid and prescriptive than in the past. Of course, in the past, Michigan had only one or two course requirements, so pretty much anything went, as long as a student completed 21 credits.
This new curriculum has had a negative impact on enrollment in Career and Tech Education (CTE) courses. Although there was talk of analyzing the course content of CTE to recognize the integration of math and science content in many of these courses, it seems instead to have had the effect of reducing enrollment in CTE courses, as students struggle to fulfill the curriculum requirements by taking the "plain vanilla" math and science courses. As a result, it has left students little or no room in their schedules for CTE. For students with disabilities, this means a loss of opportunity to develop some needed competencies in a meaningful context.
Image: Ladder going up into the clouds; Source: lifehack.org
The "plain vanilla" Michigan Merit Curriculum, which is ideally suited for students who expect to complete 4-year liberal arts degrees in college may, in fact, be hindering students whose career choices are in technical fields or the arts, unless districts are able to see their ways clear to creatively reconfiguring academic coursework to link it with the applied fields in which many of Michigan's young people could be useful and successful. A meaningful, well-rounded high school education could be shaped around the MMC. There are hints of this happening around the state, despite an economic slump the size of the Grand Canyon. However, for many districts, course development is an added cost that simply cannot be taken on.
The problem is, because there are few resources available to devote to making the MMC a robust and truly innovative reform--the kind of reform needed to develop a 21st Century Workforce of unimaginable versatility--we are left with the "bare bones" of a high school education. Narrowing the range of course offerings is unlikely to produce positive graduation and career readiness for students at risk, or with disabilities. Further, moving students with disabilities into segregated "resource" courses may reduce their odds of meeting the MMC.
Readers who thought this blog entry was going to be a continued monologue about the intricacies of applying for a Personal Curriculum (PC) can rest easy. This is the entry where we talk about "fairness". Now, you've all heard it: "Fairness isn't when everyone gets the same thing, it's when everyone gets what they need." Yessir! That's right! But...
Sometimes things come in packages that look pretty darned promising (at least when presented to the legislature), but when you open them up, there's nothing there. I'm thinking this is one of those times: nice package, no substance. The Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC), the golden calf that will save Michigan from a future of decline, has triggered a response that leaves many more children behind, as public school funds become scarcer, and curricular triage becomes the mode of the day.
The impact of the MMC on inclusion has turned the clock backwards. Yes, it is regressive. Students with disabilities who were included in general education classes are being re-segregated into "remedial" or "adjusted studies" classes; the old rational-technical factory model made popular at the turn of the 20th century. Students who fall behind in their studies are being funneled into "credit recovery" classes. Suddenly, the solution to learning diversity is no longer differentiated services, but "differentiated" places.
Instead of assuming competence, these "triage strategies" structurally re-segregate students away from their peers, and away from rich learning environments where everyone contributes their experience to aid in knowledge-construction. Instead, young people are being separated out, based on estimates of their limitations, and placed in environments of "knowledge constriction". This is indecent, at least, and a flagrant violation of the civil rights of individuals with disabilities, children who are English language learners, children in poverty, and children whose skin color triggers assumptions of (in)competence. It is a violation of every child's right to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
These strategies are punitive; they fail to recognize that people are not all made the same. Struggling students, are counseled out of electives (often the classes where they are able to develop skills in their areas of strength), so that they can take double loads of academics to make up for classes that they have already failed once. These are acts that shame, and discourage. The Dropout Challenge becomes just that--a challenge to be the first to drop out.
Individual districts (some but not all), overwhelmed by regulatory requirements "make it up as they go", often with little or no actual information. Parents call LDA of Michigan as they watch their children with disabilities fail classes where they have inadequate support, are told that they can't apply for a Personal Curriculum for their child until they are taking Algebra II, are told that they can't apply for a Personal Curriculum for their child until their child has failed a class, or they are told that a Personal Curriculum can only be written to adjust the Mathematics curriculum. Parents should be protected from these fabrications, but there is only a meandering path, with many diversions along the way, leading eventually to clarity if they remain resolute.
In crafting the MMC legislation, the legislature made an effort to provide for a Personal Curriculum for students with disabilities, but the information is made inaccessible through its' diffuse distribution. The Michigan Department of Education (MDE) has a Personal Curriculum web page, where official guides to the PC are posted, but much of the information that would help parents to become well-educated advocates for their children is housed in other places: videos on an REMC website, guidance documents, sample course outlines, and legal advice on the MAISA website, an invitation-only "ning" for PC Liaisons. Did you know, for instance that there's a PC liaison at every intermediate school district (ISD) and every regional educational service area (RESA) in the state? Further, the state has so embraced 21st Century Technology (a false economy if it is to serve all of our citizens) that many of these resources are simply not available for those who are "digitally divided" from them.
Information on the PC is distributed piecemeal across a number of people in any local district. School counselors (caseloads of approximately 350 general education students per counselor at many high schools) are identified as the first contacts for requests for PCs. School principals are the next point of contact. Special educators and school psychologists participate in PC development meetings to validate the need for course adjustment, but the PC remains a "general education" initiative. School boards set the cut scores for passing courses and receiving diplomas, and set the adjusted cut scores for PCs. A pay-for-service website (not all districts have subscribed to this) is available to streamline the adjustment process for the PC, and to calculate when the modified threshold is reached.
And then, there are the stories:
LDA of Michigan heard from a parent whose son had struggled mightily with academic content all through school. Anticipating that he would continue to struggle through high school, as he entered ninth grade his special education teacher told him that he would not be earning a diploma, but a certificate of completion. Later, he turned to his mother and asked, "If I'm not going to earn a diploma, why should I bother going to school?"
Another parent called when her child, in her senior year, was taking double courses in Algebra II (parts a and b) concurrently because she was unable to persuade the school that her child needed a PC due to her identified disabilities in mathematical reasoning. She was being asked to take her child out of band so she could take a team-taught course in science that was only offered in conflict with the band schedule.
A parent called because her daughter's school refused to allow her daughter to walk with her class for graduation, because she would need to complete an additional semester's courses before she actually graduated. The parent was not asking for an early diploma, only for her daughter to have the privilege of walking with her class in deference to the hard work that her daughter had already shown, and to her commitment to complete despite having to continue classes after this school year.
A parent called to ask why her son's school refused to consider a PC, and placed him in a first year algebra course, even though he was performing four years below grade level, and was already failing the course.
A parent wrote to say that her daughter, on the basis of her identified impairments had been taken out of general education classes and placed in a resource class. The assumption was that her daughter would derive no benefit from inclusion, in spite of having been included for years.
LDA of Michigan has been encouraged to write our legislators, or school boards if we encounter problems with our local district's enactment of the MMC. Although we have been discouraged (by personnel in the Michigan Office of Special Education) from filing special education complaints for such uncivil treatment of children with identified disabilities, we encourage you to file rather than letting your child's needs go unmet. We are reminded that this is a general education, and not a special education initiative, even though it involves children with IEPs.
Our children with disabilities are facing the denial of opportunity to earn diplomas, under such perverse enactments of the MMC. Further, they face an uncertain future beyond high school, without diplomas. It remains to be seen what other opportunities will be closed to them: technical training, college, jobs with robust career ladders, and the opportunity to earn a living wage. We just don't have very much information about what the lack of a diploma might bring.
Contact LDA of Michigan and let us know what your district is doing to ensure that your child is able to successfully attain a diploma, and if not, how that may affect your child's post-school prospects. We need to know, and share the practices of districts that have risen to the occasion, as well as solving problems where they exist.
