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

11 Participating in Michael Bello, the Massachusetts Patrick Costello, Comprehensive and Suzanne Recane Assessment System The national lexicon of education has changed in recent years. Assessment-driven instruction, on-demand testing, accountability, high-stakes testing, testing accommodations , alternate testing, authentic assessment tools, and competency determination are now terms that dominate our school discussions. The federal education laws, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1990 and its various reauthorized forms mandate that every student be educated using the “general curriculum,” be instructed in a standards-based, research-proven instructional pedagogy, and participate in annual assessments. The world of education has changed, and Massachusetts has been in the forefront of the current trend. In 1993, Massachusetts passed educational reform legislation that provided large funding increases for public schools. In return for the funding increases, the legislation mandated school accountability as proven through a comprehensive testing program. As a result, a standards-based set of curriculum guidelines, The Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks (http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/current .html) were developed in all content areas, and a comprehensive system of assessment aligned with the curriculum frameworks, the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System [MCAS] (http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/about1.html) was implemented with high-stakes criteria for high school graduation. Only publicly funded students are tested, and every student is held accountable. Starting with the class of 2003, all graduates have been required to demonstrate competency in English language arts and in mathematics to graduate. All students, including special education students, are included in the testing program. Starting in 2010, a passing score in science and technology/engineering will be required for graduation , and in 2012, a passing score in history and social science, focusing on U.S. history, will be required. Initially, those of us involved in the education of deaf students resisted the changes. We argued that the testing program would not be fair. We contended, as did many other educators, that one test could not be used for all children to determine competency and that, like all previously developed written tests, this one would not allow deaf students to validly demonstrate their knowledge. How1 8 1 ever, it became apparent early in the change process that nothing, including legal challenge, was going to stop the testing movement, and it also became apparent to those of us at The Learning Center for Deaf Children (TLC) that we did not have enough time to resist the changes and to simultaneously prepare our school and students for the new requirements. If we wanted our students to graduate, we needed to be “on board” with the changes, and we had lots of work to do. TLC decided that it would work cooperatively within the newly established MCAS assessment system. We decided that the new requirements would provide a significant opportunity to educate the decision makers at the state Department of Education level about the issues involved in fair and equitable assessment for deaf individuals. After several years of experience, we have seen many beneficial aspects of the higher standards and the strict accountability system for our students . Expectations have been raised, and deaf students have benefited; however, the issue of how deaf students can validly demonstrate their actual knowledge and achievement continues to be a problem. At the onset of the new legislation, TLC began the process of aligning the school’s curriculum with the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks. By 1999, when the first testing began, the school’s curriculum was fully aligned in all content areas. From the beginning, it became apparent to our teachers and administrators that adhering to a rigorous, grade-appropriate curriculum for every student was the best way to “raise the achievement bar.” Students participated in the appropriate grade curriculum standards regardless of their achievement level. Even though we had always prided ourselves on providing a challenging level of education, it was apparent that in some instances we were not. The accountability system did, indeed, expedite improvements in our schoolwide curriculum. However, our efforts to explain the assessment needs of deaf students were just beginning. From the start, we arranged to have faculty participate in statewide MCAS implementation committees and working groups. Our faculty was represented in content institutes, assessment development committees, test scoring workshops, alternate assessment committees, bias review consultations, and state special education advisory committees. Our goal was to have TLC representation on all state committees open to our participation. This goal proved to be a valuable strategy in...

Share