Editorial

Editorial Topics of Importance: 1996 to 2000 Over the past several months, I have been working with two graduate students, Jerry Jatho and Beth Creech, on an analysis of the content of all peer-reviewed articles that have appeared in the Annals from January, 1996, to December , 2000. We plan to publish the results in the March 2001 issue, with a more in-depth analysis of the articles related to instruction, about 50% of the articles, schedules for the April reference issue. We have found the analysis both challenging and interesting as we have attempted to assign the articles to a limited number of discrete categories and examine their content . As might be expected, a large number of articles may be assigned to more than one category, so the discussions have been quite stimulating as we grapple with the process and develop ways to represent the findings. We have developed a healthy respect for the contributors and for the quality and quantity of their work. Although at the time of this writing our results are preliminary , there are some developments—and in some cases, lack of development—I would like to share with readers. The number of articles authored by professionals outside of the United States is quote large. This represents a decision about ten years ago to develop a global scope for the Annals. At present, about one-fourth of the manuscripts submitted and an equal portion of the articles published are from outside of the United States. The topics addressed are similar across countries. As might be expected, areas such as reading (but not writing ), communication modes, families, academic placement , and early intervention are heavily represented in the articles over the past five years. The positive impact of early intervention is documented, but there seems to be little or no documented evidence about the relative efficacy of various approached to literacy, placement, or communication . There is a gratifying range of topics for a journal that is designed to be a resource both for practitioners and researchers . For practitioners, there are articles of interest not only to teachers and administrators but also to psychologists , speech and hearing specialists, counselors, interpreters , and social workers, among others. The greatest vacuum is in curriculum, with the exception of the aforementioned concentration on reading. The historic lack of attention to the four basic content areas of science, mathematics, social studies/history, and literature is starkly revealed. Only three articles address mathematics . Science and social studies receive no attention at all in the more than 120 articles. Also, the concentration on reading is somewhat misleading because most of the material deals with development of reading skills, not with literature. It is commonly stated that for the first few years of school children learn to read and then they read to learn. Almost all of our concentration is on learning to read. Coupled with some evidence in other articles that teachers of the deaf may underestimate the capabilities and communication skills of deaf children, we may be facing a situation in which deaf children are not sufficiently challenged to learn academic material. The Council for Exceptional Children—Council on Education of the Deaf (CECCED ) Joint Knowledge and Skills Statement in the July 1996 Annals recommends 66 statements specific to education of deaf and hard of hearing students in addition to 107 Common Core Knowledge and Skills statements. The Statement was developed to provide standards for teacher preparation programs. Only one of the 66 additional statements , "knowledge of subject matter and practices used in general education across content areas," addressed academic content. No skills in applying general education content were listed. This is a subject worthy of discussion and will be one of the areas addressed in the March and April issues. Donald F. Moores Editor Volume 145, No. 5, 2000 American Annals of the Deaf ...