Carol Burris and
Diane Ravich were both supporters of improved national standards but withdrew support due to the way CC was implemented and doubts about age appropriateness.
a) I'm not sure what an acceptable percentage would be only that 7% seems really low. Children with IEPs vary drastically in capacity. A child could have an IEP and appear anywhere on the IQ Bell Curve but may have limitations in areas physical or intellectual that make standardized testing invalid for assessing anything but taking tests. Ravitch discusses cut scores on her blog.
b) Standards are not a violation of civil rights. Hours of mandatory testing, which in the end doesn't lead to a real diploma could very well be a rights violation. Education in the US is mandatory, the Common Core's standardized assessments are intended in the long run to be mandatory, but what if those tests don't actually measure a students knowledge of the material? If a child is capable of high school and college (or tech school) work but incapable of earning a high school diploma because they can't get through the bubble test filter wouldn't forcing that child to sit through those exams be a rights violation? By law American children with disabilities are guaranteed a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects the rights of individuals with disabilities in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance, including federal funds. Section 504 provides that: “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . .”1
Another area of inquiry could be, "What is the purpose of education?"