Relating to excluding certain adult students receiving special education services from computation of completion rates for purposes of public school accountability.
The bill's implementation will begin with the 2015-2016 school year and is intended to create a more equitable assessment of schools in relation to their student populations. By excluding certain adult special education students from the completion rates, schools may avoid being penalized for the challenges that these students may face in completing their educational programs. This could ultimately lead to improved accountability ratings for schools that serve diverse populations, particularly those with special education needs.
SB1867 amends the Education Code of Texas by excluding certain adult students receiving special education services from the computation of completion rates for public school accountability measures. Specifically, it defines the criteria under which these students will be excluded: they must be at least 18 years old, have completed all credit requirements for graduation, yet have not finished their individualized education programs (IEPs). This legislative change aims to provide a more accurate reflection of school performance metrics by removing students who may not fit the standard completion criteria from overall completion statistics.
The general sentiment around SB1867 appears to be largely supportive, especially among educators and advocates for special education. Proponents argue that the bill recognizes the unique challenges faced by adult students in special education and aims to promote a fairer evaluation of institutional performance. However, some concerns may arise regarding the potential for misinterpretation of school accountability if completion metrics do not accurately reflect all student outcomes, leading to debates on how schools represent their success.
Some notable points of contention may include concerns regarding whether the exclusion of these students from completion metrics could lead to situations where schools are perceived to perform better than they may in reality for specific student groups. Critics could argue that while the intention is to provide fairness for students with special needs, it might inadvertently allow schools to gloss over their responsibilities toward ensuring that all students, including those with IEPs, receive the support they need to achieve completion.