Accountability-Based Reform: The Impact on Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students

3. What Does Accountability Measure?

41 3 WhatDoesAccountabilityMeasure? Whereas Chapter 2 gave an overview of the main components of accountability reform, this chapter focuses specifically on the construct of content standards. Curricular standards drive both the content of instruction and, important when looking at accountability reform, the content of assessment. The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature on content area standards and to raise important issues that may apply to students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Content Standards: What Is Tested? Since the 1994 authorization of ESEA, states have been urged to develop rigorous content standards for their students in core content areas. By focusing assessment on core content areas, accountability reform has only increased the importance of a clearly articulated, standards-based curriculum (Hess, 2003). For example, at the start of NCLB, only math and reading were assessed in the required grades. In 2007, states added science to the state assessments in selected grades. Although states are allowed to test other content areas such as social studies, much of the discussion regarding assessment for 42 Chapter 3 accountability purposes has been limited to math and reading subject areas. In the context of education for students who are deaf or hard of hearing, standards for reading play a prominent role. As discussed in Chapter 1, the achievement gap between students who are deaf or hard of hearing and their peers has been greater for reading than for math. Reading is also intimately tied to language, and some students who are deaf or hard of hearing have a very different language and communication background from children without a hearing loss. Several national agencies have put forth standards, guidelines, and objectives for literacy achievement in the elementary grades (e.g., National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2000; National Reading Panel, 2000). The current move in national reading policy is to emphasize decoding strategies in reading instruction. The National Reading Panel (2000) reviewed 100,000 studies on how students learn to read. The panel concluded that [e]ffective reading instruction includes teaching children to break apart and manipulate the sounds in words (phonemic awareness), teaching them that these sounds are represented by letters of the alphabet which can then be blended together to form words (phonics), having them practice what they have learned by reading aloud with guidance and feedback (guided oral reading ), and applying reading comprehension strategies to guide and improve reading comprehension. (p. 10) The National Reading Panel standards for reading achievement and assessment provide an example of priorities that have been put into place for all students in public education, including students with disabilities and English Language Learners. Thompson, Johnstone, Thurlow, and Clapper (2004) analyzed, in depth, the content of state standards for literacy. This analysis found that states focused not only on basic skill acquisition but also on knowledge of the conventions of written language, how reading can be an interactive, higher order thinking activity, how to problem solve, and reading as a catalyst for personal growth. Under current accountability reforms, each state develops and defines its own standards in the core content areas. (Work is under way to develop a Common Core of State Standards that would bring together state expectations for student academic progress.) A complete list of links to current state standards documents can be found on the National Center for Education Outcomes Web site: http://education What Does Accountability Measure? 43 .umn.edu/nceo/). The Minnesota State Department of Education gives an excellent example of how states have drawn on the National Reading Panel report to establish their own standards for reading. Minnesota has literacy development standards and benchmarks, by literacy skill, for each grade in K–8 and collectively for Grades 9–12. For example, students at the end of their kindergarten year are to have acquired the word recognition skills outlined in Box 3.1. The Minnesota example gives a clear outline of word recognition goals for students entering first grade. This list alsoclosely resembles recommendations from the National Reading Panel, with a focus on phonetics and decoding as tools for developing word recognition and reading fluency. Other literacy skills, including comprehension and engaging in diverse types of literature, are also included on the state standards. This set of objectives can largely be measured with student demonstration of reading skills (see Kame’enui, Fuchs, Francis, Good, O’Connor, Simmons et al., 2006, for a review of assessment strategies for standards-based literacy...