Program Accountability for Students who are Visually Impaired

Abstract

Administrators across the country are collecting and analyzing program and student-specific data to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004), and state performance plans. Although most states are not required to disaggregate data for students who are visually impaired (that is, those who are blind or have low vision), educational programs that serve this population are mandated to analyze these data for the effectiveness of programs. One such process is results-based accountability, which Friedman (2005) described as a disciplined way of thinking and taking action that can be used to improve the performance of programs, agencies, and service systems. Multiple data points are required to meet the mandates of the federal and state requirements, such as data on students' achievement in both academics (reading, math, and science) and functional outcomes or instruction in the Expanded Core Curriculum (ECC) content area (Hatlen, 1996), least restrictive environment, timely and accurate assessments, and use of research or evidence-based instructional strategies. PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY Friedman (2005) described accountability as the relationship between persons or groups in which one is responsible to another for something that is important. Program accountability is about a cultural change from perception to data-driven decision making. It answers the question about whether a particular program is working or not working to improve the outcomes of its students. In addition, it allows professionals to clarify their most important purposes, to set measurable goals that demonstrate if the purposes have been met, and then to take action. Programs, agencies, and service systems that provide for the education of children and youths who are blind or have low vision are responsible to parents, students, and state and federal data systems to demonstrate their effectiveness. Although much attention of late has been paid to the definition of highly qualified teachers in the No Child Left Behind Act, the real question is, Is anyone better off from receiving our services? Friedman (2005) identified seven questions for programs to address that can help answer this question: 1. Who are our customers? 2. How can we measure if our customers are better off? 3. How can we measure if we are delivering services well? 4. How are we doing on the most important of these measures? 5. Who are our partners? 6. What works to do better? 7. What do we propose to do? For programs to be able to answer the proposed questions quantifiably, a rigorous process must be in place to collect and analyze program-specific and student-specific data. One such process is Quality Programs for Students with Visual Impairments (QPVI), developed by the first author in 1985. Although another program-review process specific to visual impairment was found in a literature review (California Department of Education, 1997), it appeared to be more subjective and outdated and lacked an analysis of specific data on students. QPVI Seeing the need for program accountability, the first author developed the QPVI process on the basis of her perspective as a teacher of students who are visually impaired in public schools, in a special-purpose school (a school for students who are blind), and in regional services. Since the 1980s, QPVI has evolved in keeping with public laws and promising practices in the field of visual impairment. The result is a multifaceted program-accountability process that is designed to be applicable to any service delivery model, including special-purpose schools. What follows is a brief description of the key features of the process and how QPVI has been used to gather data to document the current status of a program and to plan for continued improvement in a program for students with visual impairments, including those who are deaf-blind or have additional disabilities. …