This paper critically examines a study by Simon and Black (2011) evaluating the Differentiated Accountability Program (DAP) as implemented across seven of Florida's largest school districts. The paper explores how DAP is designed to help educators meet the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB), with a particular focus on School Improvement Plans (SIPs), professional development, and inclusive practices for students with disabilities. The analysis addresses Florida's SINI classification system, the variety found across districts, and the limitations of existing research in linking DAP interventions to measurable student outcomes. The paper concludes by advocating for more targeted, school-specific interventions over broad, global approaches.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) "require that students with disabilities have equal access to general education curricula and contexts" (Simon & Black, 2011, p. 160). These two laws provide the fundamental backbone of inclusive education. However, educators need support in order to comply with these federal regulations.
The Differentiated Accountability Program (DAP) serves that function. As a federal program, DAP is "designed to support educators in meeting IDEA and NCLB requirements," regardless of state differentiation (Simon & Black, 2011, p. 160). DAP is also "designed to afford states flexibility in aligning improvement efforts with individual schools' specific needs according to each school's AYP status, [and] requires schools in needs improvement status (SINI)" (Simon & Black, 2011, p. 160). Specific components of DAP may include professional development programs designed to help educators upgrade their skills related to teaching students with disabilities, designing more effective individualized education plans, or developing global school improvement plans (SIPs). Likewise, DAP promotes curriculum and instructional improvements so that schools and educators become better equipped to fully comply with IDEA and NCLB.
Simon and Black (2011) used an experimental design to evaluate the School Improvement Plans (SIPs) from the seven largest districts in the state of Florida. The goal of the study was to "find evidence of schools participating in the DAP for meeting the needs of students with disabilities" (Simon & Black, 2011, p. 160). Samples included only elementary schools. The authors explain their sampling techniques and also provide ample background information about Florida's approach to the DAP.
In Florida, the DAP is "designed to focus efforts to reduce achievement gaps between students in accountability subgroups through more distinctive forms of intervention that consider individual schools' and/or districts' needs" (Simon & Black, 2011, p. 161). Rather than being localized or district-based, the interventions and standards are deemed "global and transformative" (Simon & Black, 2011, p. 161). Moreover, Florida's diverse population and "the state's history of accountability reform, diversity, and performance of its identified subgroups" made it a pilot site for DAP itself (Simon & Black, 2011, p. 161).
Schools in Florida are classified according to a set of parameters based on past SINI status and the "grade" given to each school according to student performance outcomes. Tabulating these variables results in five possible categories that indicate the type and severity of interventions required for that school. There are five SINI categories in Florida, and schools from only one of those categories were included in the current research: SINI Correct I.
The authors should have better explained the classification matrix, as it has a direct bearing on the sample population chosen for the research. Understanding why Simon and Black (2011) chose only SINI Correct I schools would shed light on the applicability of the findings to other states and programs. According to the Ethics Extra! Newsletter (2008), schools classified as SINI Correct I are "schools with A's, B's, or C's, and ungraded schools, with at least 80% of AYP indicators met, in SINI 4 and higher" (p. 2). This places SINI Correct I schools somewhere in the middle in terms of severity of problems and the need for government intervention related to IDEA and NCLB compliance.
The classification system also includes schools that merely need preventative measures due to their already high performance outcomes. By contrast, schools that "show no signs of making progress" are classified as "intervene," and shutting those schools down may be recommended in such cases (Ethics Extra! Newsletter, 2008, p. 2).
"Variety across districts and gaps in outcome data"
"Case for targeted over global intervention strategies"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.