Within recent years, federal legislation has required schools to develop and implement standards-based accountability systems for the purposes of evaluating their performance. Although the implementation of accountability systems for K-12 programs is well underway, the design and implementation of such systems for Part C and Section 619 programs lag significantly behind. This article will provide a brief review of accountability-related laws and current efforts to design accountability systems for infants and young children with disabilities and will discuss the challenges inherent in the design of such systems for Part C and Section 619 programs. Finally, and most importantly, the article will address the implications of these accountability initiatives for personnel preparation programs within institutions of higher education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Apling, R., & Jones, N. (2005). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Analysis of changes made by P.L. 108-446 (Congressional Research Service RL32716). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
2.
Bagnato, S., & Neisworth, J. (1995). A national study of the social and treatment “invalidity” of intelligence testing in early intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 2, 81–102.
3.
Bailey, D. (2001). Evaluating parent involvement and family support in early intervention and preschool programs. Journal of Early Intervention, 2, 1–15.
4.
Bailey, D., & Bruder, M. (2005). Family outcomes of early intervention and early childhood special education: Issues and considerations.Menlo Park, CA: Early Childhood Outcomes Center/SRI International.
5.
Baker, E., & Linn, R. (2004). Validity issues for accountability systems. In S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education.N.Y.: Teachers College Press.
6.
Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2004). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? In S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education.N.Y.: Teachers College Press.
7.
Education Commission of the States (2000). Setting the standard: Will higher expectations improve student achievement?The Progress of Education Reform, 1. Denver, CO: Author.
8.
Fuhrman, S. (1999). The new accountability (CPRE Policy Brief RB-27). University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education.
9.
Fuhrman, S. (2003). Redesigning accountability systems for education (CPRE Policy Brief RB-38). University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education.
10.
Fuhrman, S. (2004). Introduction. In S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education.N.Y.: Teachers College Press.
11.
Government Performance Results Act of 1993.
12.
Greenspan, S., & Meisels, S. (1996). Toward a new vision for the developmental assessment of infants and young children. In S. Meisels & E. Fenichell (Eds.), New visions for the developmental assessment of infants and young children (pp. 11–26). Washington, DC: Zero to Three.
13.
Guralnick, M. (1997). The effectiveness of early intervention.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
14.
Harbin, G., & Neal, P. (2004). Family Benefits Inventory.Chapel Hill, NC: FPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
15.
Harbin, G., Rous, B., & McLean, M. (2004). Issues in designing state accountability systems.Chapel Hill, N.C.: FPG Child Development Institute.
16.
Herman, J. (2004). The effects of testing on instruction. In S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education.NY: Teachers College Press.
17.
High/Scope Educational Research Foundation (2003). Preschool Child Observation Record.Ypsilanti, MI: Author.
18.
Hresko, W. (1994). Developmental Observation Checklist System.Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
19.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Public Law No. 108-446, 20 U. S. C. 1400, H. R. 1350.
20.
LaParo, K., & Pianta, R. (2000). Predicting children's competence in the early school years: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 2, 443–484.
21.
Meisels, S., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2004). The Head Start National Reporting System: A critique. Young Children, 59.
22.
National Academy of Sciences (2002). NAS/NRC Report on minority students in special education.Washington, D.C.: National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences.
23.
National Association for the Education of Young Children (2003). Position Statement: Where we stand on curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation.Washington, DC: Author.
24.
The National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform.Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
25.
National Education Goals Panel (1998). Principles and recommendations for early childhood assessments.Washington, D.C.: Author.
26.
National Research Council (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
27.
Neisworth, J., & Bagnato, S. (2004). The mis-measure of young children: The authentic assessment alternative. Infants and Young Children, 2, 198–212.
28.
Neisworth, J., & Bagnato, S. (2000). Recommended practices in assessment. In S. Sandall, M. McLean, & B. Smith (Eds.), DEC Recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education.Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
29.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
30.
Parrish, D., & Phillips, G. (2003). Developing an early childhood outcomes system for OSEP: Key considerations.Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research.
31.
Patton, M. (1997). Utilization focused evaluation.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
Public Law 107-110 (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001).
33.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (2004). Assessment in special education.New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.
34.
Shepard, L., Kagan, S., & Wurtz, E. (1998). Principles and recommendations for early childhood assessments: Report to the National Education Goals Panel.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
35.
Shore, R., Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. (2004). Child outcome standards in pre-k programs: What is needed to make them work? (Preschool Policy Matters Issue 5). New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.
36.
U. S. Department of Education (2001). The longitudinal evaluation of school change and performance in Title I schools.Washington, DC: Author.
37.
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (2003). The National Reporting System. Retrieved from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb.
38.
Voress, J., & Maddox, T. (1998). Developmental assessment of young children.Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
39.
Wortham, S. (2005). Assessment in early childhood education.Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
