In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

9 Implications and Michael Jones Complications of Including Deaf Students In Statewide Assessments in Illinois The Illinois School for the Deaf (ISD) began its involvement in statewide assessment issues in 1992 when the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) created a task force of 30 stakeholders to determine how all students in special education and bilingual programs could participate in the newly created Illinois Goal Assessment Program (IGAP). Largely because of my position as director of the Evaluation Center at ISD, I was selected to participate on the task force to represent the views of educators in the state who worked with deaf students. A PERIOD OF DOUBTS AND CONCERNS After attending several task force meetings, it became clear to me that discussions were generally based on the presumption that all students with disabilities should be required to take the IGAP. At that time, this concept was new to me, and I was frankly surprised that such a requirement was being proposed. I, along with two members serving on behalf of bilingual programs, presented the minority view that the state tests might not be appropriate for some students. The topics of IGAP, assessment, and participation were all talked about in general, vague, and philosophical terms. I suggested that the committee might want to do something concrete such as actually look at the IGAP tests to determine appropriateness for our student populations. Because my recommendation was not supported, I met with the manager of the Student Assessment Section at ISBE early in 1993 and reviewed the tests under his supervision. We discussed normative data for deaf students taking the Stanford Achievement Test as analyzed by the Gallaudet Research Institute on reading comprehension and math computation (Allen, 1986), and we talked about the Illinois tests and the effects a profound hearing loss can have on the acquisition of English. When the manager realized that 17-year-old deaf students had a mean reading comprehension at the third-grade level, he readily understood that deaf students would be unfairly penalized on the IGAP because of their limited fluency in English. He had a background in linguistics and was well-aware of the problems encountered when assessing student knowledge in a language the students did not know well. It took him only a few minutes to conclude that the IGAP was not appropriate for students who were deaf. 1 4 9 When I returned to my office at ISD, I decided to put some of our discussion on paper, with additional supporting data. I wanted to document the issues so the information could be shared with the task force at large. The letter is as follows: Dear Dr. B: The information that follows was taken from the first two student files on my desk after I returned from our meeting last Friday. I have written brief summaries about the students and have included written language samples of their work. These will demonstrate the effects a congenital, profound hearing loss can have on the acquisition of English and the related skills of reading and writing. File Number 1: This uncorrected language sample was written by a profoundly deaf, young man who is 15.5 years of age. He is a serious student who has scored in the superior range, up to 133 Performance IQ (WISC-R), on each of his last four reevaluations. On the WISC-R Verbal Scale, he scores in the mild deficit range—IQ of 70—due to the English-based test. As an 8th grader he took the Stanford Advanced II level in math and scored above grade level on Math Computation. However, the reading test he took was at the Intermediate I level and he earned a grade equivalent of 3.2. His teachers report he works well independently and grasps academic material easily. He is fluent in American Sign Language and understands abstract discussions. Written Language Sample: If I could make a new school rule, I want 30 minutes each class and not counting flex. I want period time 8:00 to 8:30, 8:30 to 9:00, 9:00 to 9:30, 9:30 to 10:00, 10:00 to10:30, 10:30 to 11:00 and end of period. I want to each 4 person is each class. If you not finished, can subtract 10 points 1 not 59%. If you are late, you took tardy slip, add 10 minutes after school. If you are trouble, you can go to after school, add 30 minutes I...

Share