A mini research investigating the challenges experienced by special needs students in a mainstream classroom, in Antigua and Barbuda, following the implementation of an initiative to prepare them for the Common Entrance Examinations (now called national Assessment)

1. Running head: ACCOUNTABILITY: ASSESSING DEAF 1
Accountability: Assessing Deaf Students
Cynthia Crump
(Revised 2014)

2. Accountability: Assessing Deaf Students 2
In Antigua and Barbuda, children and young people with special needs, through
the Education Act, has the right to compulsory education, to facilitate their development
(Antigua & Barbuda Associations of Persons with Disability, 2002). Students who are
deaf and hard of hearing (SDHH) are under the heading of disabled, having hearing loss
ranging from mild to profound losses. In 2010, three SDHH in Antigua and Barbuda
took the national Grade 6 examinations for the first time.
This paper is a presentation and analysis of an interview with the Principal of the
School for the deaf and hearing impaired in Antigua and Barbuda. First, a brief
biography of the Principal is given. Next, is a literature review of concepts relevant to
the accountability of assessment of SDHH, followed by an analysis of the data. The
The Principal or Head of the School for the Deaf became a teacher of the hearing
impaired in 1992. At that time, the students were under the care of the Red Cross
Association in Antigua and Barbuda. In 1997, when the government of Antigua and
Barbuda took charge of the students, she continued to perform in the capacity of teacher
and gained the Principal position in 2007.
The Principal is pursuing a Masters’ degree in Deaf Education. In part, the
Principal’s personal philosophy points to “equal opportunity to quality education” and a
“desire … to continue to help D/deaf children and adults to become literate, productive
citizen who will be able to compete with their hearing counterparts in any area of
society” (Principal, School for the Deaf, August 30, 2010). The Principal’s goals for the
school and students include:

3. Accountability: Assessing Deaf Students 3
1. Despite the disability, students will be able to perform and eventually take the
Caribbean Examinations Council Secondary Examinations Certificate (CSEC)
examinations.
2. Students will begin school earlier at age two instead of five to improve their
communications skills and not left behind.
Literature Review
The literature search gives insight into appropriate sub-headings. The main issue
is accountability. Sub-headings are: (a) Importance of Assessment of the disabled (b)
Accommodations; (c) Challenges; (d) Reporting; and (e) Policy decision-making. The
review ends with a summary
Accountability
Accountability is a major issue in education (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Capizzi, 2005),
especially since the call for the inclusion of students with special needs “in the general
curriculum and school accountability systems” (Mitchel & Karchmer, 2006, p. 1). Suskie
(2009) defined accountability as “a systematic method to assure those inside and outside
the …education system that…students…are moving toward desired goal” (p. 61). One
goal is closing the achievement gap with accountability, and one key component is
assessment (Steffan, 2004). In one forum, educators identified test scores and graduation
rate among the most important measures of school accountability. One believed
employability should be as important (Johnson, 2003).
Importance of Assessment of the Disabled
The National Association for the Disabled (NAD), The No child left Behind
(NCLB) Act, and The Individual with Disability Act (IDEA) are supportive of including

4. Accountability: Assessing Deaf Students 4
deaf students in national assessment in all ways possible (Dodd & Scheetz, 2003; Fuchs
et al., 2005). . The scores from such assessment could be measures of the students’
progress towards the school goals (Johnson, 2003). also stress the involvement of the
deaf in assessment Michael Bello (Johnson, 2003) blames the failure of deaf students on
failure to use assessment as a tool in classrooms.
The Individual with Disability Act (IDEA) mandates that students with disability,
should experience, and progress in the national curriculum, as nondisabled students ().
IDEA and NCLB now work together. Their goal is to ensure that no longer students with
disability, including the deaf and hard of hearing, miss the opportunity to take part in
district and national assessment afforded to students in the mainstream (Johnson, 2003).
The curriculum and support are major aspect of assessment; therefore, the named
organizations support the following:
1. Access to the same standards and benchmarks that other students do;
2. Support to help them succeed;
3. A system of assessments that tracks their progress (Clerc Center, 2010, Para.
10).
Information pertaining to assessment of students with special needs in Antigua and
Barbuda is implicit, stating: The Education Act (2008) Antigua and Barbuda under the
sub caption of Students Rights and Responsibilities stated: Subject to available resources,
all persons are entitled to receive an educational programme appropriate to their needs in
accordance with the provision of this Act” (Part 2, Div. 1: 14, p. 20). Further
A student who is entitled to a special education programme shall
have the programme delivered in the least restrictive and most

5. Accountability: Assessing Deaf Students 5
enabling environment to the extent that resources permit and it is
considered practicable by the Director of education in consultation
with professional staff of the school and the Ministry of Education
and the parents, having due regard for the educational needs and
rights of all students (Part 4, Div. 4: 83, p. 48).
Accommodations
The concept of social justice features highly in the need for appropriate
interventions and accommodations in assessment; all students must have their needs met
regardless of social, economic, or health issues (Sathany, 2004). More states are putting
plans in place to enable students with disability to access assessments, to fulfill the
mandate of the IDEA; but the use of accommodations remains controversial.
Researchers suggest guidelines to develop valid and appropriate accommodations to meet
the needs of disabled students (Horvath, Kampfer-Bohach, & Kearns, 2005).
Accommodation is any procedure designed to give equitable opportunities to
instruction and/or assessment (Popham, 2009). For example, alterations to standards or
grade level expectations (Guskey, 2009), or “changes in the way tests are given that differ
from the conditions under which tests are standardized” (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Capizzi, 2005,
p. ). Educators could provide changes in the administration of a test, but not alter the
contents. The changes should benefit students, meeting their needs and help them to
access learning, and demonstrate learning, during instruction or testing (Horvath et al.,
2005).
The deaf and hard of hearing are included when the NCLB mandates “appropriate
assessment opportunities for all students” (Crawthon, 2006, p. 338). If disabled students

6. Accountability: Assessing Deaf Students 6
do not have the same access and equity to valid accommodations as their nondisabled
peers, this is tantamount to unfairness (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Capizzi, 2005). Fuchs et al.
cautioned educators to ensure individualized accommodation, only then could
accommodations be effective and valid, “level the playing field” (p.2). Research
(Horvath et al., 2005) emphasized that even in a group of disabled, each student needs
special consideration for their educational needs. Accommodations for each student must
be based on that student’s unique attributes, rather than on the label placed on the student.
Categories (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Capizzi, 2005; Nitko & Brookhart, 2007) include:
• Presentation: directions, format
• Response of students – oral as opposed to written
• Setting or location, individual or group
• Timing or schedule extended time, day, hour
• Technological support equipment or resources to assist.
Horvath et al. (2005) found the following were used most often during assessment; (a)
additional time; (b) additional explanation; (c) small group or individual administration;
(d) use of a reader or scribe. Fuchs et al. also identified four common specific
accommodations, including, (a) extended time; (b) writing directly on the test (not
supported by research); (c) oral presentation (most useful for mathematics); and (d)
alternative setting (in a resource room to lessen distractions). To this list, Cawthon
(2007) might add (a) test direction interpreted; (b) test items read aloud; and (c) test items
interpreted (p. 41). Educators support the use of accommodations during assessment only
if the same accommodations are used during instruction (Horvath et al., 2006).

7. Accountability: Assessing Deaf Students 7
Challenges
An act is a challenge when one must put extra effort and determination for
success (Mutasa, 2000). This definition could apply to the “planning, working and …
improvisation” (p. 923) required when teaching the deaf and hearing impaired. Mutasa’s
highlighted several challenges as a result of research among the hearing impaired in
Zimbabwe. First, pedagogical challenges linked to lack of signing skills and educational
knowledge or experience working with hearing impaired. Second, social performance
challenge, considering the social and emotional stability of the hearing impaired students.
Third, academic challenges mainly pointing to the ability of hearing impaired students,
which affected performance levels negatively. Fourth, communicative challenges to
teach and help the students, and which would influence previously named challenges.
Johnson (2003) noted the disability of the hearing impaired could severely affect
their writing and reading levels, affecting the interpretation of their abilities. Initially, it
seemed the NCLB did not consider the limitations of this group of students, whose
limited access to language would affect performance. In some cases, the testing
experience resulted in lowered grade level placements for hearing impaired students.
Popham (Johnson, 2003) suggested lessening the challenges to students by
limiting the domain of teachable skills. One concern of NAD is placing deaf and hard of
hearing students inappropriately in mainstream settings, which affects effective access to
communication, hampering their acquisition of necessary competence. Popham
suggested “instructionally supportive assessment” (p. ) which would focus on important,

8. Accountability: Assessing Deaf Students 8
measurable, reportable, and teachable by mainstream teachers. Fuchs et al. (2006) noted
these provisions are a challenge to educators and administrators.
Reporting
Cawthon (2007) told how reporting of some SDHH outcomes or report cards, was
sent directly to their schools. In some states, the referral or sending school received the
data. It is possible to aggregate SDHH data to the state level to promote accountability.
Cawthon noted it was more beneficial and transparent to focus on student outcomes than
placement.
Policy Decisions
Policy decisions are the result of collaboration between stakeholders, including
government agencies, administrators, parents, teachers, students, and community groups
(Cawthon, 2007). Horvath et al. (2006) identified three themes, useful in determining
accommodations for SDHH; (a) individual differences; (b) student self-determination to
select accommodation; (c) policy discrepancy in relation to the use of accommodation for
instruction and assessment. The research emphasized that even in a group of disabled,
each student needs special consideration for their educational needs. The researchers
suggested:
Accommodations for each student must be based on that student’s
unique attributes, rather than on the label placed on the student….
Educators must consider the conjunctive nature of [disability] and
determine how each accommodation can help the student access
the general education curriculum. This individualized means of
determining accommodations will help to avoid the “laundry list”

9. Accountability: Assessing Deaf Students 9
phenomenon and ensure that students are not denied essential
accommodations (p. 185).
Presentation and analysis of Data
Question 1:
1. Your students experienced the Grade 6 national assessment for the first time in
June 2010. What prompted this change? Why was the change important?
The Principal spoke of significant educator’s concern through the repeated questions such
as “Why don’t you allow them to take the common entrance examinations?” She seemed
concerned that SDHH had equity and access as hearing children and demonstrated belief
in their ability.
In this … age when everyone is pushing for equal opportunity, just give
them an opportunity to prove themselves to show what they can do.
Giving the students the opportunity to take the national assessment would be
encouragement to the students, and preparation for tertiary education or the field of work.
They should be challenged to work at their grade level and not be
pitied because of their hearing loss.
2. How did stakeholders respond to the (proposed) change? That is, students,
teachers, parents, ministry of education (MOE) personnel.
Some themes that emerged for the four groups are shown in table 1
Table 1
Themes: Stakeholders’ Response to the Change
Students Parents Teachers MOE
Apprehension
Teaching methods
Supportive
Excited
Willingness
Commitment
Accepting/supportive
Concerned

10. Accountability: Assessing Deaf Students 10
You know, just being in a special education program for all their
years, and then, at this point wanting them to work along with the
hearing-impaired children at the TNK School, which was a little
difficult for them at the beginning. …the hours were also longer
and I think that itself was sort of a discouragement to them because
they would see the other children at the school for the deaf leaving
and they would have to stay until 8-3:00.
The data revealed the perception that the students seemed apprehensive working
with teacher and hearing students in a mainstream classroom. SDHH students had to
adjust to the school culture, longer hours of school since their usual hours were from
8:00-1:30, and a new teacher in the preparation stage because the teaching methods and
assessment were different.
The SDHH teacher:
…Was very willing to work with, she put in the extra hours
without complaining.
The parents:
The parents were excited about it because they saw this as an
opportunity for their children to be assessed or given the same
opportunity as the hearing children.
The MOE were interested in what accommodations would be necessary to help the
students complete their examinations.
3. What were the challenges (teaching, learning, assessment, preparation)?

11. Accountability: Assessing Deaf Students 11
a. How did you (the school community) prepare for the challenges?
Several challenges emerged. The classroom teacher though recently trained,
lacked the specific training necessary to plan and teach the SDHH. The longer hours for
teaching and assessment cause the students to be tired, and since they were using hearing
aids, the noise level affected their hearing. Their teacher was signing as the mainstream
teacher spoke; therefore, they had to adjust to that culture.
So, the class teacher for the school for the deaf was to mainly interpret
what the teacher of TNK was saying, so in that way, she wasn’t really
responsible so much for the planning of the lesson. But she also had to do
some planning in that she had to prepare visual aids - more visual aids for
our students so any supportive information that they would need she did
that with them.
Their mainstream peers know them, but it was unusual for them to be in class
together, therefore socializing was problematic.
…Working along with the hearing children, dealing with the one
or two children who may make fun of them. Most of the children
were supportive but one or two would make verbal remarks
Eventually, the students exhibited negative emotional, social, and psychological
behaviors that were of concern.
After investigating we realized it wasn’t that they had a problem
with the teacher, just they had a problem with the changes, so half
way through the school year, we had to bring them back up [to
their restrictive environment]

12. Accountability: Assessing Deaf Students 12
The Principal noted that while the public is calling for mainstream and integration, it is
not as easy to implement. Based on the evidence much preparation is necessary to make
the plan successful.
b. How did the MOE prepare for the challenges?
The Ministry of Education, they agreed to support modification and accommodation.
The Principal listed the following challenge.
- Extending the time
- Giving the children time as they needed to complete the
exercise
- Interpreters –we were allowed to have one interpreter per
child, so in all we had three interpreters for the three
children…
- Students were allowed to work by themselves –not with the
hearing children.
- Students were given extra break as needed between the
different sessions.
The examiner and the principal allowed breaks to match students’ needs.
There is a possibility to get tired, so sometimes we would give
them a little break, get a little stretch, take a drink of water…
because they are different children and they work differently, we
found that one child was able to complete Paper I and take a break,
whereas another one maybe needed a break in between.…

13. Accountability: Assessing Deaf Students 13
Notably, the students had to do two subjects each day like their hearing
peers, because the MOE did not grant the request for one subject per day
for the SDHH. On test days, therefore, they had to work from 9:00 – 5:00.
2. What were the results?
The MOE reported the results as usual in the media, then sent a letter to the Principal.
This is evidence of little communication and no consultation. The three students were
successful and awarded scholarships to secondary schools, but the principal decided on
keeping them at the School for the Deaf.
The students are still here, in our secondary program. …we
thought it best to keep them here at the school because of anything
that would have to be in place for them. They would need a
teacher for the subjects in the secondary school and for years there
has always been a shortage for that; because of that we thought it
best to keep them here.
3. What impact do you foresee in the field of education (teaching, learning,
assessment) of the hearing impaired in Antigua and Barbuda (because of the
change)?
The Principal outlined that as a result of the change in assessing the SDHH she
envisaged (a) training for teachers in deaf education; (b) early intervention before age
five; (c) challenge for SDHH to work at the same pace or as close as possible to the
hearing peers; and (d) reduction in the number of items.
Whereas you may have 10 for the hearing children, the deaf will
have 7 or 5, but … will be testing the same thing [objective]. So, I

14. Accountability: Assessing Deaf Students 14
think that would help. …I would like to see more of that being
done, assessment that cater for the deaf, because not all assessment
will be relevant to the deaf education, so I would like to see more
of that done.
In reference to policy decision-making, the Principal stated, the MOE
(government) should revisit the Education Act and address the needs of the disabled. The
Principal identified the need to cater to school age children with disabilities who are out
of school. Planning would be a major aspect of the way forward. Cawthon (2007) stated
the importance of interaction between policy and practice.

15. Accountability: Assessing Deaf Students 15
References
Clerc Centre. (2010). NCLB, IDEA, and Deaf Children. Laurent Clerc Deaf Education
Centre. Gallaudet University. Retrieved from
http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/Clerc_Center.html
Cawthon, S. W. (2006). National survey of accommodations and alternate assessment for
students who are deaf or hard of hearing in the United States. Journal of deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 11(3), 337-359. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enj040
Cawthon, S. W. (2007). Hidden benefits and unintended consequences of NO Child Left
Behind policies for students who are deaf and hard of hearing. American
Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 460-492 doi: 10.3102/0002831207306760
Dodd, E. F., & Scheetz, N. A. (2003). Preparing today’s teachers of the deaf and hard of
hearing to work with tomorrow’s students: A state wide needs assessment.
American Annals of the Deaf, 14(1),
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Capizzi, A. M. (2005). Identifying appropriate test
accommodations for students with disabilities. Focus On Exceptional Students,
37(6), 1-8.
Guskey, T. R. (Ed.). (2009). Practical solutions for serious problems in standards-based
grading. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Guskey, T. R., & Jung, L. A. (2009). Grading and reporting in a standards-based
environment: Implications for students with special needs. Theory Into Practice,
48(1), 53-62. doi. 10.1080/00405840802577619

16. Accountability: Assessing Deaf Students 16
Horvath, L. S., Kampfer-Bohach, S., &Kearns, J. F. (2005). The use of accommodations
among students with deaf-blindness in large scale assessment systems. Journal of
Disability Policy Studies, 16(3), 177-187. doi:10.1177/10442073050160030501
Johnson, R. C. (2003). Commentary/Educational reform meets deaf education at a
national conference. Sign Language Studies, 4(2), 99-
Popham, W. J. (2010). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (6th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Sathany, D. J. (2004). Deaf vocational assessment needs: Equality vs fairness. An
Applied Knowledge Report Submitted for: In Candidacy of the Doctorate Degree
of Career Counseling. Retrieved from http://www.newstartservices.com/deaf.pdf
Steffan, P. C. (2004). Navigating the difficult waters of the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001: What it means for education of the deaf. American Annals of the Deaf,
149(1), 46-50.