..the recent national push for accountability,

Question

I could not fathom the meaning of the last part of the following sentence, which I highlighted.

Historically, many groups attempted to maintain their native languages even as they learned English, and for a time, some were able to do so with relatively little resistance until a wave of xenophobia swept the country during World War 1 (Kloss, 1977/1998). Other groups, Africans, and Native Americans encountered repressive politics much earlier. During the 1960s, a more tolerant policy climate emerged. However, for the past two decades there has been a steady undertow of resistance to bilingualism and bilingual education. This article provides historical background and analyzes contemporary trends in language-minority education within the context of the recent national push for accountability, which typically takes the form of high-stakes testing.

This article provides historical background and analyzes contemporary trends in language-minority education within the context of the recent national push for accountability, which typically takes the form of high-stakes testing.

Original text is here.

Answer 1

School districts are being held accountable by federal and state governments. They must document, objectively, the educational progress of their students. The documentation is in the form of results on standardized tests. Funding can be reduced if the school district fails to meet certain thresholds. That possibility makes the tests "high-stakes" — much depends on the testing results.

P.S. The noun accountability does not have this specific meaning; it is rather a convenient short-hand, a label applied to this undertaking to require school districts to produce tangible evidence that the funds they receive are being used prudently. The main criticism of the push is that it causes school districts to "teach to the test", that is, to structure classes so that students do well on the tests but at the expense of creativity and local autonomy.