Transcript of NCSET teleconference call held on February
The Implications of Standards, Assessments, and Accountability
on Graduation Requirements and Diploma Options
Martha Thurlow, Ph.D., Director
National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota
View the PowerPoint
presentation referenced in this teleconference (in PDF format:
37 slides, 622 KB). (Also available as an accessible
Word document.) Small numbers
in the text below (i.e., 35) refer to
the slide being discussed.
MS. JOHNSON: Welcome to the teleconference entitled
“The Implications of Standards, Assessment, and Accountability
on Graduation Requirements and Diploma Options.” I’m
Donna Johnson, a Research Fellow with the National Center on Secondary
Education and Transition (NCSET) here at the University of Minnesota.
As many of you know, NCSET, in partnership with federal agencies
and national organizations, is co-hosting a second National Leadership
Summit on Improving Results for Youth in Washington, D.C. June 14-15
of this year. At our teleconferences from now until June, NCSET
will highlight featured presenters from the National Leadership
Summit. Today we are pleased to have the director of the National
Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO), Dr. Martha Thurlow, to address
the implications of contemporary U.S. policy and practice for students
with disabilities, including national and statewide assessment policies
and practices, standard-setting efforts, and graduation requirements.
Dr. Thurlow has conducted research in special education for the
past 30 years in a variety of areas, including assessment and decision
making, learning disabilities, dropout prevention, effective classroom
instruction, and integration of students with disabilities into
general education settings.
DR. THURLOW: 1 I’m
happy to be here today to talk about graduation requirements and
diploma options. This is a topic that has a new complexion within
the current context of standards, assessments, and accountability.
It’s important that we continue to examine this topic and
consider the consequences of various policy decisions for students
with disabilities and continue to look for evidence-based practices
for options to improve the outcomes of students with disabilities.
I hope today to be able to address the status of what is and identify
issues and what can be. I have a lot of slides in my PowerPoint,
and I will try to move rapidly so that we have time for questions
and answers. 2 I have four general topics
- Increasing Standards—New Pressures: the pressure for increasing
standards at the high school level, specifically, for students
to complete school with the regular diploma;
- AYP [adequate yearly progress] Complications—With and
Without Assessments: the complications that have been added to
graduation and high school assessments and how these complicate
matters for students with disabilities;
- Diploma Options and Issues: what they mean for the educational
outcomes of students with disabilities; and
- Evidence-Based Practices: indications of improved outcomes on
graduation exams and practices that promote those outcomes. I
think we always need to be looking at some of those indicators
of success and how that success is achieved.
3-6 Starting with Increasing Standards
and New Pressures, we know that the current context of standards-based
education has given new focus to improving outcomes for all students.
There have been lots of specific efforts and lots of talk about
graduation, but there have been few recent efforts that specifically
look at graduation outcomes.
- Achieve, an organization that looks at the diploma, has created
a three-year project called the American Diploma Project, which
is devoted to examining the diploma requirements in the states.
They have had several reports that look at what’s going
on in this area, and they’ve noted the lack of rigor of
current requirements for graduation. Two recent reports to pay
attention to are “Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma
that Counts” and “The Expectations Gap: A 50-State
Review of High School Graduation Requirements.” To access
them, go to: http://www.achieve.org/publications/national_reports_view
- Another study released this month, by Peter D. Hart Research
Associates, interviewed public high-school graduates in the classes
of 2002, 2003, and 2004, including 861 students currently in two-
and four-year colleges and 626 high-school graduates not currently
enrolled in college, including 257 who had been enrolled in college
but who had withdrawn. They also interviewed 40 employers and
300 instructors who teach first-year students at two- and four-year
colleges. They interviewed people who are interested in students
going beyond their high-school years. We don’t know how
many of the students were students with disabilities, but we can
imagine that a significant proportion of them were, or least some
proportion of them were. Major conclusions drawn from this study
- Many high school graduates are not prepared for college
or entry-level jobs. The majority of students in college or
in the workforce say that they are not prepared for either
setting that they’re in, and about 40% of the students
say they’re not prepared for what is expected of them,
and this is confirmed by college instructors and employers.
- College students have gaps in preparation for academic expectations.
About 14% of college students feel that they are able to do
what is expected of them across six dimensions.
- Non-students have gaps in job skills. Those who have gone
into vocational situations also say they are not prepared
for what is expected of them.
- Real-world experiences of those who withdrew from college
also show gaps in preparation.
I’m not going to go into all of the detail of these findings,
but it’s a quick view of what’s happening with the students
who are leaving our high schools.
- Employers agree that high school education leaves many students
- College instructors are the harshest critics of public high
schools. They estimate that 42% of high school graduates are
not adequately prepared by their high schools for college classes
and are struggling or having to take remedial courses to catch
- The quality of preparation the students receive in high school
is closely associated with high expectations and solid academic
standards. Related to that finding, one-fourth of all high school
graduates said that they faced high academic expectations in
high school and were more likely to feel well prepared for the
expectations of college and to be performing well or to be well
prepared for the expectations of work.
- Beyond the decision to go to college, demographics have less
impact. When they divided between those who went to college
and those who didn’t go to college, within those two groups,
they found small differences for demographic groups of income
- Knowing what they know now, high school graduates would have
worked harder and chosen a more rigorous curriculum.
- Higher standards, tougher courses, and more evaluations are
strongly supported by all who participated.
The title of that report is “Rising to the Challenge: Are
High School Graduates Prepared for Work?”
7 The second topic that I want to discuss
is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Complications. On one hand, we
have a lot of information telling us that we don’t have enough
rigor in what we’re getting in high school for all students,
including students with disabilities. On the other hand, we have
AYP considerations and school accountability that we are considering
at the same time. If we raise high school standards, what’s
going to happen with our AYP requirements? We have a little bit
of a conundrum and this is what I wanted to touch base on, the complications
that are created by AYP, reflecting the accountability measure of
No Child Left Behind. If those standards are raised, then what’s
going to happen with AYP?
8 There are a couple of factors to
consider. One of those factors is the graduation rate, which is
a high school indicator for calculating AYP for No Child Left Behind.
The only diplomas that were to count as indicators of graduation
were standard diplomas or anything considered to be higher than
a standard diploma, such as an honors diploma or some kind of endorsement
on a diploma. Certificates of attendance, special education diplomas,
and things like taking too long to earn the standard diploma do
not earn school accountability points unless a variation has been
approved as part of a school accountability plan. There’s
been a summary of what has been approved by Erpenbach, Forte-Fast,
and Potts (2003) prepared for the Council of Chief State School
Officers. They did an analysis of states’ plans and found
that there have been some states that requested a variation in their
definition of graduation rate, an indicator that goes into AYP.
In order to get a higher graduation rate, can you have more rigorous
requirements? Well, probably you’re going to worry about having
more rigorous requirements. In school accountability plans, the
primary exception has been to allow an extra year to obtain a standard
diploma when this has been consistent with an educational philosophy
already evident in the state or to allow the IEP team—for
students with disabilities—to determine the number of years
to obtain a standard diploma. Those have been the kinds of exceptions
allowed. GEDs or other types of exit documents are not allowed to
be included in the graduation rate calculations for NCLB accountability.
We still hear about some states increasing their graduation requirements.
In the February 7 Education Daily, there was an article about Indiana
raising its graduation requirements. We’re in a period of
conflict between increasing the rigor, raising the graduation requirements,
and attention to AYP, and what we’re going to do to meet some
of those requirements, such as the graduation rate requirement.
Slide 9 talks about another issue,
the assessment piece. There’s not a requirement for a graduation
exam to be part of the AYP calculation, but several states have
decided that their graduation exams will be the exam that counts
at the high school level. When students have to pass the test to
graduate, that adds another hurdle, and then for that to be counted
as the NCLB test, it almost counts twice. I’ve listed the
states that have indicated they are using their graduation exam
also as their NCLB exam. There are 15 states: Alabama, Alaska, Florida,
Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi,
Nevada, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
There are additional states that are planning to have exit exams
that look like they’re planning to have those as No Child
Left Behind counting exams. The fact that we will have this kind
of double situation has implications for students with disabilities.
Available on the NCEO Web site at http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Technical36.htm,
the National Study on Graduation Requirements and Diploma Options
for Youth with Disabilities report discusses who has which kind
of diploma options based on data collected in 2002. It is important
to review people’s considerations of the consequences of some
of those different diploma options. So today, I have highlighted
opinions about the consequences of some of these.
Slides 10-11 look at some of the consequences
that we perceive of students having to pass exit exams to obtain
a standard diploma and we looked both at intended and unintended
consequences. Some of the perceived intended consequences are that:
- More students will participate in the general education curriculum
and achieve results;
- There will be higher academic expectations that will improve
access to postsecondary education and employment;
- Differences between general education and special education
will be reduced;
- Exit exams signify a minimum standard for all students and give
clear meaning and values to diplomas earned; and
- Educators will use differentiated instructional strategies,
including accommodations, to assist students in meeting higher
academic standards and passing exit exams.
State directors of special education shared these opinions with
us. There have been few studies that have actually been able to
track what the consequences are, and studies that have been done
have come up with contradictory results. A couple of weeks ago in
Education Week there was another study that reported where they
found an association between states having high school exit exams
and lower achievement. They identified lower achievement, because
they found lower overall SAT scores. Right away people were contesting
the results of that research for a number of reasons, and every
time a study is done, the same kind of thing happens—there
are reasons why the results are contested.
Slides 12-13 show that state directors
talked about unintended consequences of having to pass an exit exam
to earn a standard diploma. Concerns were that
- Some students with disabilities will fail to receive a diploma,
resulting in higher dropout rates;
- Students’ self-esteem is lowered by repeated failures;
- Dissatisfaction and conflict of parents may result, and the
possibility for lawsuits may occur, because we know that some
of these consequences have come to be;
- Some students may need to remain in school longer to meet requirements
of a standard diploma; and
- State and local districts may be forced to create alternative
diplomas and pathways to ensure that students exit with some form
of high school exit credentials.
Jane Krentz and I were on a NCSET teleconference where we talked
about some of the alternative routes to the diploma (see http://www.ncset.org/teleconferences/transcripts/2004_04.asp)
and that report is going to be on the NCEO Web site. Synthesis Report
54 addresses alternative routes to the standard diploma, which does
happen and is an important part of having exit exams (that is, having
alternative routes for students who cannot take a pencil and paper
test or cannot demonstrate their knowledge and skills on a paper
and pencil test).
Slide 14 portrays the status of graduation
exams in the U.S., indicating which states have required graduation
exams and which ones require districts to have graduation exams.
Again, what I wanted to do is give a snapshot of where states are
in terms of graduation exams and to indicate that we know states
have graduation exams coming on board, and right now they are addressing
whether or not they will have an array of diploma options. They
are thinking about what those options will look like and other kinds
of factors that will come into play.
The information we have about graduation exams needs to be updated,
and a new survey is going to be conducted soon to get the latest
information. It’s important to keep this information up-to-date,
especially in relationship to students with disabilities. I believe
it’s possible that states now have alternate assessments based
on alternate achievement standards that may play a role in states’
exit exam considerations. I suspect this because I’ve heard
discussions in states about students who are proficient on the alternate
assessment may earn a certain kind of certificate, which then qualifies
them for a diploma. Students who do not reach proficiency on the
alternate assessment would not receive a certificate, and then they
would not earn a diploma. This opens up a whole new kind of consideration
and some additional issues that states may have to work on if they
follow that kind of pathway. There are some new issues that may
come along as our assessment systems are diversifying in the ways
that they are.
Slides 15-16 show that there are several
diploma options available for all students and some just for students
with disabilities. The meaning of different options is not always
clear so I’ve listed some of the broad category names: standard
diploma, IEP, special education diploma, certificate of achievement,
certificate of attendance, occupational diploma, and modified diploma.
Although NCLB has said that the standard diploma is what is counted
in graduation rates for AYP purposes, states have a history of having
many options available for students. Attempts to include many of
these in the AYP graduation rate were not successful, yet most states
have kept the array of options that they have had.
Slide 16 indicates the hidden issue
that we have not talked about: standard diplomas may be obtained
under very different conditions yet be treated the same. Students
who are getting the standard diploma may get that standard diploma
in different ways, yet for No Child Left Behind, it’s viewed
as being the same thing. For example, students may be excused from
taking a test yet be able to get a standard diploma because they
have met their IEP goals. In some states, students may be able to
pass a test at a lower level and still receive a standard diploma.
Situations like the list shown on slide 17
need to be viewed with great caution. The National Center of Special
Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM) has taken this graduation
rate information and listed from the states, the highest graduation
rate and then down. I took the states with the ten top graduation
rates according to that list. Hawaii was first, then Ohio, then
Arkansas. These data are for 2002-03 and reflect the OSEP data for
students ages 14-21. The states in the top ten for graduation rate
include states with and without exit exams. They also include states
that do and do not have diploma options. Some of the states on the
list allow students with disabilities to use alternate means to
earn the standard diploma that are not allowed in other states.
Compatibility of the data is a huge question, as stated on NCSEAM’s
Web site. Even though it’s stated there, you can’t understand
exactly what that means unless you know that in some of these states
students can meet a lower standard to get a standard diploma. In
some of these states, the students have to meet the exact same standard
as every other student to get the diploma. That’s the hidden
issue that we have to deal with or at least acknowledge.
Slides 18-19 list some of the consequences
identified for using multiple diploma options. Our state directors
identified both intended and unintended, and we’ll start with
- The possibility of having increased numbers of students within
the state receiving some form of high school diploma;
- Local school districts having more flexibility in determining
the manner of student exit;
- Creating options that are viewed as motivating and engaging
for students with disabilities and that would reduce the dropout
- The ability to recognize general education students for high
performance in relation to honors diplomas would be increased;
- A state is better able to maintain high academic standards for
its regular, or standard, diploma when alternate diploma options
Slides 20-22 list some of the unintended
consequences of having multiple diploma options:
- IEP teams fail to hold students with disabilities accountable
to pass high school exit exams; expectations are lowered for some
students with disabilities;
- Alternative diploma options are viewed as substandard;
- There’s a perception that the use of multiple diplomas
will result in developing special tracks for students to follow—in
other words, we view a student who is going into the special education
diploma as needing to be put only in those kinds of classes;
- Communicating different options to parents and students is problematic;
- Access to postsecondary education programs for students with
diplomas other than the standard diploma is limited if the alternative
diploma is viewed as watered-down in content or is of little meaning
to the postsecondary education system admissions staff; and
- Interpreting the meaning of different diploma options in terms
of a student’s skills and abilities is confusing for employers.
Special education directors also talked about intended and unintended
consequences of having a single diploma option—of course,
this would be the standard diploma. Slides 23-24
- More students with disabilities earn the standard diploma,
and this was an intended consequence;
- There would be high expectations for students, including students
with disabilities, and these would be maintained;
- Having a single diploma option helps build consistency regarding
the meaning of the requirements associated with the diploma. All
students work on the same state standards, so it’s a little
- The single option provides future employers and postsecondary
education institutions a clearer and more detailed record of the
student’s performance; and
- The single option creates an important sense of equity. All
students are extended the same options, tested on the same standards,
and viewed by school personnel, as well as community members,
as equally participating.
25-27 Unintended consequences of having
a single diploma option—these are the ones state directors
of special education told us. While this is a list, discussions
about these tend to be very emotional because they reflect strong
beliefs that underlie the consequences.
- As graduation requirements increase, fewer students actually
receive a standard diploma—this is a perceived consequence;
- The dropout rate may increase as students who cannot meet high
standards and cannot pass statewide test opt to drop out;
- The standard diploma becomes perceived as too general and watered
- In order to help students with disabilities to meet the requirement
for a standard diploma, states lowering their overall standards
for general education students is a concern; and
- The numbers of special education students remaining in school
up to age 21 may be increased, because they cannot meet all of
the requirements of a standard diploma earlier.
28 I thought it was important to end
with some actual data, not just talk about what we think the consequences
are, but to really begin to look at some data while we wait for
more longitudinal data to see what states are finding. I’ve
got graduation exam data from Massachusetts, a state that has been
reporting its graduation exam data in ways that make it easy to
see what’s happening for subgroups with retesting and across
the years. We need more state data on Web sites that are in an easy-to-look-at
format. If your state is a state that has data in this format, I’d
be very happy to find out about that, so share that with me.
Slide 29 shows Massachusetts’s
competency determinations. MCAS is their graduation exam, and grade
10 is the first grade in which they take this exam. For the class
of 2003, this figure shows how they perform the first time they
take the test and then on their retesting opportunities. It shows
regular education students and students with disabilities. You see
that the first time students with disabilities take this test, 30%
of them earn the competency determination. That means they pass
the test the first time. By the sixth retest, 85% of them have passed.
Slide 30 shows the class of 2004, and
you see that the first time they take the test, 32% pass. It’s
showing progress across the years as well as retesting opportunities.
By the fourth retesting opportunity, 84% of the class of 2004 has
passed, whereas it took to the sixth retesting opportunity for the
class of 2003. It takes going back and forth between these two slides
to be able to see a couple of different ways in which progress is
31 Massachusetts has another slide that
shows four classes of data over time. Each class has different amounts
of data because they haven’t had as many retesting opportunities,
but it shows how, on their first testing opportunity at grade 10,
their first time taking the test, their percentage passing has increased,
and then how they’re performing better on each retesting opportunity,
so their performance is going up over time as well.
Currently in Massachusetts, researchers are asking about the characteristics
of schools and classrooms where students with disabilities are performing
better than expected. Slide 32 shows
a study that’s been conducted at the University of Massachusetts
by the Donahue Institute, called the Donahue Institute Study, which
identified urban districts in schools that demonstrated better than
expected Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) achievement.
They looked at the achievement of students with special needs in
grades 4, 7, and 8 in districts that were identified as urban based
on two criteria, enrollment of 4,000 students or more and demography
that placed them in the lower half of the state’s demographic
distribution of communities.
Slides 33-37 delineate the findings
of this comprehensive study, which identified 11 practices as central
to the success of the urban districts and schools, and for them
to achieve success for students with disabilities to perform better
than expected. I thought it was important to highlight these because
even though we’re talking about diploma options, we’re
talking about graduation requirements and we’re doing this
within the context of standards, assessments, and accountability.
It goes back to what is happening in terms of our practices for
kids and it will always go back to what do we need to do to be successful
there. I thought that this study was particularly relevant because
it honed in on students with disabilities and what was happening
for them to be performing better than expected. I’m going
to highlight the 11 practices identified in this study, and then
I’m going to open it up to questions.
- Pervasive emphasis on curriculum alignment with the Massachusetts
framework. At both the district and school levels there was a
tremendous emphasis on curriculum alignment with the curriculum
framework in Massachusetts. Everything was evaluated in the schools
and then in the districts per fidelity with the framework. Attention
to this was considered fundamental to the achievement of all students,
including those with disabilities.
- Effective systems to support curriculum alignment, including
the common element of staff whose positions are accountable for
supporting and monitoring curriculum at the school building or
classroom levels. They had people who kept track of that and watched
to make sure that was happening.
- Emphasis on inclusion and access to the curriculum. That emphasis
was reflected in the considerable attention that was given to
the delivery of the general education curriculum to all students.
- Culture and practices that support high standards and student
achievement. The study’s authors reported that school leaders
and most staff related a firm and convincing belief that students
with special needs should pursue mastery of the general curriculum,
and that most of them can succeed on a test if properly prepared.
These beliefs reflect the culture in practices and support high
standards in student achievement.
- Well-disciplined academic and social environment. (I’m
only giving a snapshot of what’s in the report, so I would
encourage you to go to the Web site, http://www.donahue.umassp.edu/,
and look at in more detail at what the study and the authors report.)
The popular notion that students with special needs are disruptive
or exhibit behavior problems was not reflected in these schools.
There was a well-disciplined academic and social environment maintained.
The positive school climate was attributed to specific elements
of their operations such as proactive behavior management.
- Use of student assessment data to inform decision-making. This
was a routine that shaped the curriculum, lesson planning, approaches
to instruction of individual students in the identification of
students who may be at risk academically.
- Unified practice supported by targeted professional development.
The authors referred to a belief of school staff that we are all
on the same page. So everything was focused in on a standard and
making everything revolve around that.
- Access to resources to support key initiatives. These were clearly
targeted to certain areas such as literacy rather than social
studies and science.
- Effective staff recruitment, retention, and deployment. There
was a clear emphasis on quality of staff—effective staff
recruitment, retention, and deployment were essential practices.
- Flexible leaders and staff that work effectively in a dynamic
The first 10 practices are results of effective leadership.
The eleventh is “Effective leadership is essential to success.”
Across sites, leaders were observed to have a very clear direction
and a strong commitment to building systems that support the success
of all students. And essential leadership is really a very key part
That was a whirlwind trip through increased standards, AYP complications,
diploma options and issues, and some evidence-based practices. Now
we will open it up to comments and questions.
MR. CLARK: This is Gary Clark from Kansas. On
slide 9, I just wanted some clarification.
The way it’s stated there, it seems like a double whammy in
terms of students having to pass a test to graduate, and then sometimes
these tests are the NCLB test, too. That seems like a twofer—that
is, you don’t have to do more than one, rather than two things,
a double whammy is what I’m saying. In other words, if one
test does it all, then they can meet the NCLB standards and graduation
versus having to take maybe a state assessment and NCLB, which would
be a double whammy.
DR. THURLOW: Yes, okay. You’re right, and
I’m right. So you’re right, that they are getting both
the graduation test and the NCLB test, so they don’t have
to attempt two different things. My consideration was that they
are having that test counted for the NCLB test, and it’s also
going into the graduation rate requirement. Does that make sense?
MR. CLARK: Yeah, that’s a slight difference
in the way that we’d just be looking at it just in terms of
the exam versus the consequences of that exam and what it would
MS. DOHRMAN: I’m calling from Georgia. First
I’d like to just clear what I thought I heard, and you can
tell me if I heard you correctly, and then I’ll ask my question.
I’m coming from the caveat that you titled “Hidden Issues,”
and you stated that arbitrary states have eluded the “No Child
Left Behind” federal law by allowing some special ed students
to meet a different set of requirements and still earn a standard
diploma. Did I hear you correctly?
DR. THURLOW: Well, I don’t think I said
it that way. I said there were some hidden issues in the standard
diploma. But I didn’t go so far as to say “No Child
MS. DOHRMAN: My question is you did say that
some states have been able to allow special education students to
graduate with a standard diploma through different means.
DR. THURLOW: Yes, I did.
MS. DOHRMAN: Okay, now my question is, because
of what I hear about the graduation rate and how it’s calculated,
and the definition that I use until further notice is the one that’s
used by the National Center for Educational Statistics, and it does
have the special ed diploma and the denominator of that graduation
rate. My question was that because I was also reading the transcript
by Margaret Spelling, the new Secretary for the U.S. Department
of Education, and she was referring to some states who were not
in full compliance with testing issues for special education, I
was wondering were these some of the things that, perhaps, she was
alluding to with this whole testing question? Because I get asked
that a lot.
DR. THURLOW: I really can’t speak to what
she might have been alluding to, but my guess would be that that
was not it. I mean my guess would be that she was referring to some
states that may not have their alternate assessment in place yet
or that don’t have all their kids in their regular assessment.
That still is an issue. Or they’re not reporting on their
general assessments yet or their students with disabilities disaggregated.
I believe there are still some broader issues that she might have
been referring to.
MS. WODRASKA: I’m with the Arizona Supreme
Court. I oversee detention education throughout Arizona, and I was
wondering if you have any of this information, have you looked at
correctional education statistics and how the standardized tests
are affecting the youngsters that are involved in correctional education,
whether long-term or short-term?
DR. THURLOW: No, but that’s a very good
question. So can you add a little bit to your question in terms
of are you wondering about increased rates of things going into
MS. WODRASKA: Well, I’m sure you know in
Arizona we have several thousand youngsters that go through our
correctional education system every year in detention, juvenile
corrections, jail schools, and adult corrections. And a large percentage
are being identified as special ed whether they come into us that
way or we identify them through child find. We do have a standardized
test, the AIMS test, in Arizona, and there has been some controversy
about the validity of the test and the educational requirements
tied to that test and the youngsters that are in an incarcerated
status when they must take the test. I was wondering if any of this
information has been looked at through a secure-care correctional
DR. THURLOW: No, I do not believe it has. I
do know there is a study going on that’s looking at some of
the issues around segregated settings, and correctional institutions
may be part of that study. But I’m not specifically sure exactly
what questions are being asked. So it would be well worth connecting
you with that person. Or if there’s a way to do that. If you
could email me at firstname.lastname@example.org,
I could try to do that for you.
MS. JOHNSON: I’d like to thank Dr. Thurlow
for sharing her time and expertise with us, and our next NCSET teleconference
will feature Eduardo Garcia of the National Council of La Raza.
Mr. Garcia will present on the Escalara Project, a national career
preparation initiative for Latino youth. This teleconference will
be held on Tuesday, March 22 at 1:00 Central Time. So I hope you
will be able to join us. Thanks again for participating, and thank
END OF TELECONFERENCE
^ Top of Page ^