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

5. Accountability and Schools

5 AccountabilityandSchools Schools are the “units of accountability” within the structure of accountability reform. In other words, test score reports and evaluation of success or failure begins primarily at the school level, not at the teacher or student level. Although some states have teacher-centered accountability through merit pay programs based on student test scores, schools are the primary focus when reporting student progress on state assessments. The many educational structures that serve students who are deaf or hard of hearing experience accountability in different ways. On the whole, settings that stand alone and are considered separate from other structures, for example, schools that serve special populations (e.g., schools for the deaf) receive more attention in accountability reforms than specialized programs that are combined or share resources with regular education. Test scores for students who are deaf or hard of hearing at district programs or regular education settings are combined with those for larger groups of students such as students with disabilities. Accountability reforms are thus less salient for settings that have more integration with peers than for schools for the deaf. Schools for the deaf therefore serve as a focal point for how current accountability reform affects educational structures that serve students who are deaf or hard of hearing. 69 70 Chapter 5 Accountability as Sanctions Accountabilityreform,ifimplementedinanaccurateandfairmanner,hasthe potential to reward those schools that provide quality education to students and to provide consequences for those that do not. As outlined in Chapter 2, in the current version of accountability legislation (NCLB), the focus is on the consequences, or the sanctions, for not meeting annual performance benchmarks. A reward for meeting these benchmarks is primarily the absence of sanctions, not tangible gain in resources or local control. NCLB therefore relies on the “sticks” more than the “carrots” that may be used in other versions of accountability reform (Abernathy, 2007). Although future reauthorizations may emphasize a different mix of incentives, any new models will be layered on the accountability framework currently in place. The next section of this chapter looks at the details of these sanctions in greater detail. One thing to note about the current accountability approach is the progressive nature of sanctions. NCLB designations for Title I schools that do not meet AYP guidelines get increasingly serious the longer those schools appear on the “in need of improvement” list (20 U.S.C. Section 6316(b)). As outlined in Chapter 3, Title I schools are those that receive federal funding to increase educational opportunity for students from low-income backgrounds . Even if individual schools do not serve large numbers of students from low-income backgrounds, almost all districts participate in the Title I program and receive federal funds. (Depending on the individual state policy, non-Title I schools may receive a state report card and face sanctions.) A list of the AYP sanctions is given in Table 5.1. In Year 1 of not meeting AYP, schools are labeled “in need of improvement.” There are no sanctions in the first year; schools are essentially given a warning before tangible consequences occur. After two consecutive years of failing to meet AYP, parents of Title I children in the school are given the option of transferring their children to another school in the district. This option is referred to as “public school choice,” and the district is responsible for transportation to the new school until the original school has met AYP goals for two consecutive years (discussed further in Chapter 7). In Year 3, the school must provide supplemental services such as tutoring and after-school programs to Title I students who remain at the school. Year 4 of not meeting AYP benchmarks brings potential changes in staff, curriculum, and reorganization of the management Accountability and Schools 71 structure. Finally, Year 5 of not meeting AYP benchmarks results in making a large-scale change in teaching staff, reopening the school as a charter school site, or establishing state management of the school. For schools for the deaf that are already run by the state, restructuring or charter options are more likely than continuing with the same school administration. One important consideration in understanding accountability-based reform is the stringency of its criteria. In other words, are the consequences directed at a few underperforming participants or are they to be applied to all participants? This question is relevant on the student level, teacher level, school level, or district...