Table Of Content

Journal of Early Intervention http://jei.sagepub.com Reactions From the Field: Accountability: Whose Job Is It, Anyway? H.R. Turnbull and Ann P. Turnbull Journal of Early Intervention 2000; 23; 231 DOI: 10.1177/10538151000230040201 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jei.sagepub.com Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children Additional services and information for Journal of Early Intervention can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jei.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jei.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Downloaded from http://jei.sagepub.com by M Peterson on May 28, 2008 © 2000 Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. JournalofEarlyIntervention,2000 Vol.23,No.4,231–234 Copyright2000bytheDivisionofEarlyChildhood,CouncilforExceptionalChildren REACTIONS FROM THE FIELD Accountability: Whose Job Is It, Anyway? H. R. TURNBULL & ANN P. TURNBULL University of Kansas Kudos to Guralnick for his leadership in ed- Let’s approach the accountability question iting this book and for his keen sense of the fromtwoperspectives,theethicalandthenthe future. Because he so clearly seeks account- dictionary perspectives. And then let’s think ability for the pastandmostespeciallyforthe morebroadly aboutaccountability.RabbiHil- future, we too focus on accountability. lel asked, in a now-familiar question, ‘‘If not Mike comments that, ‘‘ ... since the mid- you, who? If not now, when?’’ That’s an eth- 1970s, there have been remarkable advances ical perspective: If you are not accountable withrespecttoearlychildhoodinclusion.’’He now, who will be now or later? A different goes on to say that ‘‘ ... much remains to be perspective is a dictionary one: ‘‘Account- accomplished’’ then he identifies ‘‘significant ability’’ refers to taking responsibility and concerns’’ with regard to ‘‘four central goals holding oneself and others to account for the of early childhood inclusion,’’ and acknowl- who, what, when, where, why, how, and ‘‘so edges that ‘‘the field has got to resolve many what’’ (what outcomes, what differences?) of longstanding issues stemming from differenc- their actions. es in values, philosophies, and practices.’’ Let’s consideroneofthoselongstandingis- Accountability for Systems Change sues: the feeling that many parents had 20 Agenda years ago, and thatmany stillhavetoday,that Guralnick’s on-the-mark answer is to consti- inclusion primarily depends upon their own tute (a) a National Leadership Forum and (b) advocacy (Erwin, Soodak, Winton, & Turn- a task force in each state; together, these will bull, in press). That is a major issue—the re- stimulate, carry out, and monitor systems sponsibility to initiate inclusion falls on par- change. To an extent, they duplicate the role ents, or so many believe. Are the parents of the Federal Interagency Coordinating right? Council; to an extent, however, they also ex- U.S.DepartmentofEducation(1985,1999) pand the Council’s role, best described as en- data indicate that 60% of children ages 3–5 were served in regular classes in 1981–82, suring ‘‘an integrated,seamlesssystemofser- whereas 51% were served in that same envi- vice and supports that is family-centered, ronment in 1997–98. Are these dataaccurate? community-based, and culturally competent’’ Our interpretation of these cold reality data and that meets the ‘‘physical, mental, health, is that inclusion progress has not been as re- developmental, and learning needs’’ of chil- markable as we would like to believe. They dren, ages birth to 8, who have or are at risk also cause us to ponder long and hard about for having disabilities so that they may reach our own individual and collective account- ‘‘their full potential.’’ ability.Inspiteofthemillionsandmillionsof Inherent in Guralnick’s proposals and in dollars invested in the inclusion agenda, why this vision statement are faith in a top-down has the progress not been more substantial? approach to systems changeand identification Turnbull & Turnbull 231 Downloaded from http://jei.sagepub.com by M Peterson on May 28, 2008 © 2000 Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. of various actors who will be responsible(ac- is a peer-accountability approach. Comple- countable?) for achieving system change. Is menting these councils are community-based the faith well placed? Are all the individuals teamsconsistingof‘‘preschoolstaff...,pub- identified? And (most of all), is there a clear lic school kindergarten teachers from the outcome that all the actors will achieve? neighborhood elementary school, an early in- Although there can be no doubt that a top- tervention team, parents, and faculty and tra- down approach to changing human service ditional students from both 2-year and 4-year systems contributes toaccountability,conven- colleges ... ’’ (p. 88). (We ourselves think tional wisdom (the ‘‘new federalism’’) and Winton would agree to a modest addition: re- empirical data related to school reform searchers.) These councils and teams jointly (changing a human service system at its ele- develop a community-wide professional de- mentary and secondary levels) suggest that a velopment plan and participate in quarterly bottom-up approach is also necessary for ac- workshops to implement that plan. countability. Both top-down and bottom-up The centerpiece of the vision is a well-paid, are necessary; neither alone is sufficient. well-educated, early childhood workforce sit- Whichever strategy is used or if both are uatedin‘‘learningcommunities’’wherebypar- used together (our preference), the questions ents, practitioners, administrators, consultants, of accountability are always these: If not you, and university and community college faculty are mutually accountable for creating quality who? If not now, when? For what? Where? early environments for all children. Personnel Why? How? So what? To ask those questions preparation is an ongoing part of the fabricof isoftentoprovokeaclassic‘‘finger-pointing’’ daily work. The driving force behind thecon- response, best exemplified by the following tent and specific educational activities is the lesson, entitled ‘‘Whose Job Is It?’’ basic question, ‘‘What do we need to know anddotoimprovetheoutcomesforallyoung This is a story about four people named Ev- children?’’ (p. 87) erybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody. There was an important job to be done and Winton has begun the ‘‘accountability’’ task Everybodywasaskedtodoit.Anybodycould of putting roles to the names of Everybody, havedoneit,butNobodydidit.Somebodygot Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody. angry about that, because it was Everybody’s More than that, she puts the accountability job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t role at the grassroots level, advocating for a do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed bottom-up approach that nicely complements Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody Guralnick’s top-down approach. Let us com- could have done. bine Guralnick’s National Leadership Forum Admittedly,thatisaresultthatneitherGur- approach (top-down) and Winton’s bottom-up alnick nor anyone else wants. So, who should use of locally referenced, ecologically valid beaccountableforavoidingthatresultinearly strategies that local learning communities and childhood inclusion, and how should that Accountability Councils discover, implement, ‘‘who’’ act? Winton, an early childhood lead- and refine. And then let us ensure that the lo- er, has a persuasive answer (Winton, 2000). cal wisdom be synthesized and disseminated Looking 30 years ahead, she envisions early so the national, state, and local stakeholders childhoodprogramsthatincludestudentswith can benefit from it. In other words, combine and withoutdisabilities,thataremulticultural, the two sources of wisdom. that use state-of-the-art technology, and that rely on family-professional partnerships, ac- Accountability for Research tion research, personnel development, and Let us extend their proposals by addressing a community linkages. (We urge you to read specific audience, the research community, Winton’s article—it’s a must.) In each early and by raising a few concerns aboutresearch- childhoodprogram,staffandparentscreatean ers (among whom we count ourselves) and ‘‘Accountability Council’’ that engages in their accountability. Our first concern is relat- self-studyofhowtoimprovetheprogram;this edtothesiteandparticipants.Ifresearchwere 232 JEI, 2000, 23:4 Downloaded from http://jei.sagepub.com by M Peterson on May 28, 2008 © 2000 Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. carried out, as Winton (2000) suggests, in ity for ensuring that research is used in such learning communities, and if the participants a way that children with disabilities, their were not just the researchers themselves but families, the professional community, and the all of the constituents, again as Winton sug- tax-paying community all benefit. gests, then the yield of that fertilized and har- Far too often we have heard our colleagues vestedeffortwouldbeabundantindeed.Thus, in the research communities complain that how the work is done and the process for do- funding agencies and peer-reviewers (ofgrant ing it—participatory action research—is crit- applications and of prospective publications) ically important to advancing Guralnick’sand place little value on dissemination and utili- Winton’s visions. By promoting participatory zation. No doubt, the reward system most of- researchteamswhocarryoutecologicallyval- ten values elegance in research, lessoftenrel- id research in their respective locales, it is evance, and least often dissemination and uti- more likely that research will focus on and lization. improve such different service provider and Can it really be the case that there is a pro- culturalenvironmentsasrural,innercity,sub- fessional stigma associated with the ‘‘so urban,migrantcommunities,NativeAmerican what’’question:Oncetheresearchcommunity reservations, and university-based programs. or individual researchers and their teams Our second concern is related to the topics know something and have published that under investigation. Guralnick primarily em- knowledgeinpeer-reviewedjournals,so,what phasizes a research agenda of socialinclusion differencedoesthatknowledgemakeandhow (agenda items #17, 18, and 19), but we also can that difference be achieved through dis- want to emphasize the importance of investi- semination and utilization? gating developmental outcomes. One of the We can make the case that there is such a mostexcitingdevelopmentsinthefieldofdis- stigma, and, in making that case, we confront ability is universal design of curriculum and the question of accountability. It seems that its delivery. (We encourage you to visit accountability for research dissemination and www.cast.org/.) Surely, research on the best utilization lies somewhere between Every- practices of universal design to enhance de- body, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody. That velopmental outcomes is warranted. We also never-never land—or that stigmatized land— endorse Guralnick’s emphasis on inquiring is a terrain that both Guralnick and Winton intoorganizationalandfiscalstructuresandon (2000)knowwellandthattheyaremostright- the benefits and barriers to inclusion in edu- ly concerned to change. cationalandothercommunityactivities.With- That is why we are confident that they and out explicitly doing so, GuralnickandWinton other like-minded leaders will join us in ask- (2000) make a point about research that we ing this simple question: What will it take for make explicitly: A multi-modal approach is researchers who are part of national and local necessary,onethatreflectsthesciencesofhu- learning communities to be accountable for man development, public administration, cul- ensuring that their publicly funded research tural studies (anthropology and sociology), actually benefits the intended beneficiaries— and legal and policy studies. children with disabilities and their families, Our third concern is related to accountabil- professionals, and tax-payers? ity, especially the accountability of the re- Will funding agencies, promotion and ten- search community and individual researchers ure committees, and journal editors adopt a and their teams. It is right but also not suffi- criterion for their respective reward systems cienttovestresponsibilityinaNationalLead- that researchers must demonstrate how they ership Forum to synthesize and disseminate will ensure the use of their data? Will the research. It is also right and necessary to as- agencies, committees, and editors also exam- sert that the research community and its in- ine researchers’ track records for dissemina- dividual and team members have an ethical tion and utilization when they evaluate pro- duty to individual and collective accountabil- spective grants, appointments, and publica- Turnbull & Turnbull 233 Downloaded from http://jei.sagepub.com by M Peterson on May 28, 2008 © 2000 Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. tions? In a word, will they provide incentives fessionals to hold themselves and have others to researchers to use research results as the hold them to the standard of being helpful? means to the end of being accountable to— For us, the bottom line in an agenda for that is, ensuring positive outcomes for—chil- change for inclusion is that every single per- dren with disabilities, their families, profes- sonintheearlychildhoodfield—regardlessof sionals, and tax-payers?Andwilltheresearch particularrole—holdshimselforherselftothe leaders themselves prod the agencies, com- standard of being helpful in advancing posi- mittees, and editors to do so? Will each of us tive inclusion outcomes for young children be part of the solution? andtheirfamilies.Bysodoing,wereplacethe Specifically and in order to advance Gur- names of Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody with our own names as members alnick’s and Winton’s (2000) visions and our of anational fieldandasmembersoflearning petition for accountability, we call on re- communities at the ground level in our lo- searchers and various research centers and cales. theirfundingagencies(e.g.,researchinstitutes When we engage in those interlineations, funded by the Office of Special Education we will find the clear answer to the account- Programs, research and training centers fund- ability question: Whose job is it? It is mine. ed by the National Institute for Disability and It is ours—each and everyone of us. And Rehabilitation Research, University Affiliated when does that job begin? It begins now. If Programs,programprojectsfundedbytheNa- not myself, if not all of us, then who? If not tional Institute for Child Health and Devel- now, then when? opment, and Mental Retardation Research Centers) to synthesize their own findings, REFERENCES make them accessible through the Internet, Erwin, E., Soodak, L., Winton, P., & Turnbull, A. and publish them in both peer-reviewed and (in press). I wish it wouldn’t all depend upon consumer-friendlyproducts.Thatwouldgreat- me: Research on families and early childhood lysimplifytheroleoftheNationalLeadership inclusion.InM.J.Guralnick(Ed.),Earlychild- hood inclusion: Focus on change. Baltimore: Forum,giventhattheirtaskwouldbetocom- Paul H. Brookes. plete a ‘‘macro’’ synthesis without having to U.S. Department of Education (1985). To assure start at the ‘‘micro’’ level of individual stud- the free appropriate public education of all ies. And it would set an example for—and handicapped children: Seventh annual report begin to change the culture of—the research to Congress on the implementation of The Ed- ucation of the Handicapped Act. Washington, community and the expectations of the con- D.C.: U.S. Departmentof Education. sumer constituents. U.S. Department of Education (1999). To assure We are reminded of a recent experience in the free appropriate public education of all trying to obtain resources for our elderly par- children with disabilities: The 21st annual re- ent who is experiencing pain from pressure porttoCongressontheimplementationofThe Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. sores. An occupational therapist recommend- Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Educa- ed that he buy a specially designed cushion. tion. The cost? $450. After a couple of weeks, we Winton, P. J. (2000). Early childhood intervention realized that the cushion made our family personnel preparation: Backward mapping for membermoreuncomfortableratherthancom- future planning. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(2), 87–94. fortable.Whenwetalkedwiththeoccupation- al therapist about this, he quickly replied, ‘‘I Address correspondence to Ann Turnbull, The certainly cannot be held to the standard that Beach Center, 3111 Haworth Hall, University of the cushion would be helpful.’’ We hope you Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045. E-mail: willponderthisreply.Isitreasonableforpro- [email protected] 234 JEI, 2000, 23:4 Downloaded from http://jei.sagepub.com by M Peterson on May 28, 2008 © 2000 Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.