Early Elementary Curricular Alignment and Teacher Perspectives on Standards-Based Reform

The author investigated the alignment of reading instruction to Wisconsin Model Academic Standards for Reading, grades 1-4 (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 1998a). Teachers in 18 hearing-only, 10 mixed (hearing and deaf students), and 8 deaf-only classrooms were study participants. Teacher groups demonstrated equal alignment to the standards. The study also measured teachers' views on standards. Teachers in hearing-only and deaf-only classrooms scored higher on a scale measuring receptivity toward standards than teachers in mixed classrooms. Teachers in hearing-only classrooms considered the standards good guidelines though perhaps too prescriptive. Teachers in deaf-only and mixed classrooms viewed standards as tools to ensure equity for students but also focused on challenges like the emphasis on phonetics and their need to include sign in deaf students' instruction. Limitations include the challenge of generalizing standards-based analysis, the small number of participants, and use of self-report measures of classroom instruction. How do students with hearing loss fare in the current era of educational accountability and standards-based reforms? Students with disabilities, even those mainstreamed into regular classrooms, have traditionally experienced lower levels of instructional quality and frequently have been excluded from required curriculum (National Center for Education Outcomes, 1998). Many schools now approach students with disabilities inclusively, bringing to regular education classrooms many who had traditionally been placed in special units. At the same time that deaf students' are increasingly being integrated into diverse educational settings, state and national agencies are calling for higher standards of student achievement (e.g., Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 1998a, 1998b; National Reading Panel, 2000). However, it is not clear whether inclusive placement results in equitable exposure to curricular content-that is, the opportunity to learn (McDonnell, McLaughlin, & Morison, 1997). The foremost premise of standardsbased reform is that clear expectations will facilitate effective instruction and improve student achievement. The intention is to facilitate student achievement by creating a "coherent system" in which each component of education policy and practice reflects a clear set of goals and, hopefully, positive student outcomes. Standards-based reform therefore pushes issues of curriculum content to the center of deaf education policy discussions. The nature of hearing loss places a unique set of demands on pedagogy for language and literacy. The special needs of deaf students require professionals trained in deaf education as well as interpreters, supplemental time spent on language skills, and classroom environments that sometimes consist of students with multiple disabilities. The challenge for educators of the deaf is to incorporate these demands into subject-matter standards proposed by external state and federal agencies. In an address to the International Congress on the Education of the Deaf, Donald Moores (1991) situated the question of what to teach deaf students in the context of two other pressing questions in deaf education: Where, and how, should deaf students be taught? The three questions are thus linked together. The first objective of the present study was to investigate the content of Opportunity to Learn standards across different classroom contexts. For the study, Opportunity to Learn was denned as curricular alignment to Wisconsin state standards for reading in the early elementary grades (i.e., standards for first through fourth grade). I looked at how educational setting (where students are taught) affects student exposure to material on state standards (iMba? students are taught). Webb (1997) observes that "teachers give more credence to documents they understand are in agreement, are useful, and will serve to benefit their students" (p. …