Editorial

Editorial Testing......3,2,1 Recently I read some material about the conflicting and confusing results of national and international testing efforts in general education. There seem to be two possible ways of interpreting the data: One, the United States is among world leaders in developing reading, math, and science skills in our school children; or Two, we are doing an abysmal job, and our children lack basic, reading, math, and science skills. Because of this, our children will be doomed to careers of weed pulling, broom pushing, and hamburger flipping, punctuated by unemployment and poverty. There is, of course, a third possibility: Perhaps all countries somehow are producing mindless troglodytes , unlike we highly educated and intelligent adults. I hope the (adult) readers of this editorial will not take the third possibility seriously, but I do want to address the first two issues and then try to relate them to testing of deaf children. The question of valid and reliable testing is assuming greater importance in the United States. At the time of preparation of this editorial, it appears that congress will mandate annual testing of children from grades three to eight, and possibly more. There will probably be compromises between state control of testing and federal requirements , so that there will continue to be some variation within a general trend toward uniformity in testing. From my limited observations, several states already have developed reliable and valid procedures, and several have not. I would expect this to continue, but with some overall improvement . At present there are literally thousands of tests being employed . The assumptions behind the tests and the goals vary, with a predictable variation in results. To a great extent, the results reported represent different orientations of norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests. For example, tests that compare children from different countries , states, cities or schools do not necessarily provide information about content or about excellence. It is within this context that so much confusion exists. The above-mentioned relatively high reading achievement scores for American children come from the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. The math and science results come from the Third International Math and Science Study. The results, per se, tell us nothing about achievement. The poor results come from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which sets four levels in its testing for different grades: advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. The tests are supervised by the congressionally appointed National Assessment Governing Board. For one year, almost 40% of American fourth graders were rated below basic level in reading, 36% in math, and 33% in science. The results appear grim. Which sets of tests are more valid? It is difficult to say. Certainly they are different. The international math, science , and reading fourth grade tests ask children to perform basic tasks, for example addition, subtraction, multiplication and division in math. The NAEP adds word problems. On the surface, it might appear that the competency -based NAEP tests are preferable. However, there is no consensus on this. Some critics argue that the NAEP grading scale is unrealistically strict and underestimates achievement. Supporters of the NAEP tests say these are hard and stiffly graded, but that this is positive because the high standards will help schools improve. Volume 146, No. 3, 2001 American Annals of the Deaf Editorial The arguments for different approaches to testing are complex and will not be resolved in the near future. Our immediate concern is that deaf children will participate in the various testing programs, and we have little or no understanding of the implications of this testing. If there continues to be variation across states, the possibility exists that deaf children will "fall between the cracks." Many may be denied promotion or graduation because of inappropriate testing. We have had no nationwide achievement data on deaf school-age children for five years now, and prospects for the future are uncertain. Improved testing could provide an opportunity to develop approaches to benefit deaf children that could be incorporated into individual academic education plans, but this will happen only with a major national effort that transcends states boundaries. It would seem that this would be a logical area...