Editorial

Editorial High Stakes Testing: Are the Stakes Too High? On balance, it appears to me that the impact of federal legislation and mandates on the education of deaf children has been positive. In addition to general education mandates for accountability and improved academic achievement , this includes legislation specific to our field such as the Education of the Deaf Act and special education legislation from the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) of 1977. In fact, as this editorial is being prepared, it appears likely that Congress will "fully fund" up to 40% of the excess cost of educating a disabled child, a commitment that was made in 1975 but never honored. Perhaps the greatest potential benefit is exemplified by the IDEA stipulation that all children should have access to the general, or regular, curriculum. I am convinced that more deaf children from residential schools to neighborhood programs are exposed to a regular curriculum than ever before and that access to more rigorous standards has improved academic achievement. Of course, no new development is either completely positive or negative. We have had problems, for example, with a too enthusiastic embrace in some quarters of the mainstreaming/inclusion/zero reject/integration model(s) of school placement, and too many deaf children have suffered in isolation as a result of a misapplication of the least restrictive environment principle. However, my concern in this editorial is not with issues of placement but with the possibly deleterious effects on education of deaf children of the interaction of three seemingly very positive trends: access to the general education curriculum, upgrading the general education curriculum, and accountability. Until recently, I thought the issues were relatively simple. On the surface they are, but we are facing a potential mine field. I would like to discuss a few of these issues briefly. Most readers are aware that the federal government for years has been advocating improving the academic achievement of American children in the content areas of science, mathematics, social science, and literacy and has encouraged establishment of more rigorous curricula. Comparisons have been made internationally and among the states, and the federal government has issued reports that may be considered "report cards" identifying the highest achieving states and states showing the most improvement in various categories. The emphasis is on improvement and accountability. At first glance, the situation seems to be relatively straightforward . However, as all American educators know, we do not have a system of federal education, and the relationships between the federal government and the states are quite complex. In essence, all states are committed to improving academic achievement and to accountability. "Accountability" can mean different things to different people. High stakes testing has become a catch phrase in recent years, especially as it relates to accountability. In many states, a child must pass a statewide test in order to move from one grade to another or to graduate from high school. Although many educators and test developers decry tying one measure to such important decisions, the practice is common. The unit of analysis may be a teacher (class), principal (school), school superintendent (school district), or state director of education (state). High stakes testing can impact each of these areas. The scores of his or her students may heavily influence teacher evaluation and pay. Principals may get bonuses contingent upon schoolwide improvement on the tests. Schools may lose their accreditation if their students do less well than expected . There are cases of school superintendents promising to raise school district scores or leave. There is competition across states. The stakes are very high for everyone concerned. The tests themselves can vary from state to state. Even when the same tests are used, the cutoff standards may be different . The use of different tests can lead to differences in classroom instruction. For example, the two adjacent states of Virginia and Maryland have different approaches to testing. The Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) program tests of core areas of math, English, science, and social studies from elementary to high school are all multiple choice. The Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP) Volume 145, No. 3, 2000 American Annals of the...