The National Task Force on Equity in Testing Deaf and Hard of
Hearing Individuals
Meetings in 2001
The meetings of the National Task Force on Equity in Testing
Deaf
and Hard of Hearing Individuals in 2001 were held at Gallaudet University.
In May 2001 the Task Force meeting ended with a celebration in honor of retiring Task
Force Chair Dr. David S. Martin. The celebration was captured
in photographs.
The September 21, 2001 Meeting Minutes follow.
Comments may be sent via email to Dr. Judith
Mounty and Dr. Carol Traxler. If you would like to be put on a mailing list to
receive advance notice of
Task Force
meetings via email, please send an email message with your name, email address, mailing
address, and
affiliation to
Dr. Carol Traxler.
Meeting Minutes
Friday, September 21, 2001
The meeting called to order by Chair Judith Mounty at approximately 1:07 p.m.
The participants were invited to introduce themselves.
Robert Weinstock of Gallaudet and ETS presented a summary of research being
conducted by ETS,
for which ETS had requested Gallaudet's participation. The research is part
of a larger effort that is examining the accessibility of computer-based
tests for individuals who are blind, deaf, deaf-blind, or have low vision or
learning disabilities. The focus has been on identifying strengths and
weaknesses of several prototype test delivery systems. One system used a
simple Web page for test items. Another system used a more structured,
visually-oriented layout that used HTML "frames." Since late spring of this
year, six individuals at Gallaudet have been involved. All participants are
deaf, yet vary with respect to language background, additional sensory
characteristics (blindness, low vision), and experience with access
technologies (computer, refreshable Braille display, and screen
magnification software). Researchers hope that this research will lead to
practical solutions that will be both widely accessible and valid for their
intended assessment purposes. Ruth Loew of ETS on a speakerphone had no
additions to his report.
Report from Ruth Loew on other testing issues at ETS. Dr. Loew reported no new
developments with ETS.
She responded to a question on the topic of "flags" for ETS test takers who
request special provisions for testing. Earlier, tests could be "flagged" for
changes in testing administration to provide accommodations for disabilities.
Most people given accommodations were given additional time to complete the
test.
The new decision to remove the "flag" for students given only additional time
will start in October 2001. That leaves the question of whether or not to
"flag" when test conditions are altered in other ways, which may alter the
construct measured by the test. Theoretically, tests can still be "flagged" if
the test conditions are altered.
The College Board, the body who oversees some of the tests produced by ETS,
still has the policy of flagging all accommodated tests, even if the only
change is extended time. We will see less flagging for extended time changes,
but still can see for other test administration changes that may change the
construct tested.
There was a question from the audience for clarification of the College Board
tests and flagging. Dr. Loew reiterated that there is a Blue Ribbon panel for
College Board programs that is examining their position, but they have not yet
taken a position and are continuing to flag tests until such time that the Blue
Ribbon panel presents its recommendations.
There was a question from the chair regarding future plans to examine deaf and
hard of hearing test results on the Praxis Education of Deaf and Hard of
Hearing Students (EDHH) Test. Dr. Loew responded by thanking the chair for the
reminder to search for a summer intern for 2002 to analyze the data regarding
deaf and hard of hearing test takers.
There was an inquiry from the chair asking if ETS had received any complaints
from deaf test takers on the Praxis EDHH Test, stating that this Task Force has
not received any complaints. (Clarification: ETS makes the tests that are
used to certify teachers. There is a general test and specialty tests, one of
which is deaf education. Language on the testing has been a problem for many
test takers, not only the multiple-choice format that many people believe to
be a problem for deaf test takers. Multiple choice questions can be developed
that consider language structures that cause problems for deaf test takers.
EDHH is one of about 150 Praxis test titles. Deaf test-takers could take the
EDHH or any of the other Praxis titles their state may require for licensure.
The most common requirements are the core Special Education tests and the
Elementary Education tests, but there are many others. EDHH was engineered
expressly with sensitivity to the language issues that many tests present to
D/HOH test-takers; most others were not.) The Chair asked Dr. Loew to stay in
touch regarding the analysis. Dr. Loew responded by agreeing that the nature
of multiple choice questions can make it easy to start to play with words in a
fashion that makes it difficult for deaf test takers to understand the
idiosyncrasies, even though test developers try to steer away from those type
of language concerns. (Dr. Loew requested a copy of minutes and Co-chair Carol
Traxler stated she will send them out.)
There was a discussion on who has test result data and on numbers of deaf or
hard of hearing candidates who have taken the test.
There was a discussion on requirements of DC for general and deaf education.
Everyone must pass basic skills requirements of reading, writing and math, but
specialization depends on the state. Previously a required Praxis has been
like a roadblock to many deaf prospective teachers.
Recently ETS has decided to sell special education tests as a package, where
earlier the tests were sold individually with the result that not all states
used all tests. It is believed that the package deal will result in greater
variety in the tests being taken, and may help increase the volume of users for
the Teaching Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students test.
Chair closes the topic due to time restraints. There was a brief break in the
meeting for refreshments and individual discussions.
After the break there were introductions of new people who joined late and an
announcement of changes in the agenda due to time limitations.
Paul Singletary of Gallaudet University reported on Title II of the Higher
Education Act. He stated that universities are required to report on how well
their teacher preparation program completers fare on standardized tests that
are required for state teacher licenses. Some states use Praxis and some
states use other tests, while some states do not test at all. Universities that
use Praxis tests published by ETS are required to submit the names of all
program completers to ETS. ETS matches these names with those from that
institution who in that particular report year have taken the Praxis tests
required for licensure in the state where the institution is located. For
example, Gallaudet provides a list of all who complete its teacher preparation
program, and ETS finds from that list the names and scores of all who that year
took the tests required by the District of Columbia for state licensure. ETS
uses the District of Columbia requirements because Gallaudet is located in DC,
and therefore must submit its Title II report to the District of Columbia
government. ETS then calculates an institutional pass rate, which is included
in a Title II report the institution must submit to its state education agency.
In April, Gallaudet submitted its scores and pass rate as determined by ETS.
ETS will gather the reports from various universities and create a state
report. That report will rank, by quartile, the results from all the higher
education institutions in that state's jurisdiction that have teacher
preparation programs.
Universities are also required to report to the public the pass rates.
Gallaudet is required to develop and write inserts for public dissemination of
the information. When asked if he is concerned about the reporting, Mr.
Singletary responded that he is concerned how the numbers
might reflect on Gallaudet. He is concerned that the quality of the
educational opportunities will be judged on one test, without proper assessment
of the program as a whole. A concern is that the public will not understand
the variables which may appear to be reflected by lower scores.
The chair asked what events Mr. Singletary recommends need to happen in order
for Gallaudet to express its concerns and what risks may be present to the
education department. Mr. Singletary responded that he is concerned that DC
not label Gallaudet as a result of low test scores. Mr.
Singletary agreed to work with Jay Innis to investigate, determine, and report
to the co-chairs the appropriate persons or entities to invite to the January
meeting in order for the Task Force to be able to express concerns.
A copy of the standards for the accreditation of schools was distributed. The
chair will set aside time at the next meeting to discuss the standards
Jana Lollis presented on her dissertation research at Gallaudet University, a
project related to high stakes testing. She reported that many deaf students
are not able to pass the exit exam in a specified state. A handout of the
basic overview of the dissertation was distributed. The dissertation should be
completed within 6 months. The Chair requested that information on the
dissertation be passed out and anyone with questions can submit them to either
co-chair who will forward them to Ms. Lollis. Then all questions and answers
will be shared.
High Stakes Testing. Robert Johnson of the Gallaudet Research Institute
discussed his article in the last Research at Gallaudet newsletter
(Spring/Summer 2001):
http://gri.gallaudet.edu/Publications/newsletter.html.
The article states that historically deaf students perform on average at less
than a 4th grade reading comprehension level on the Stanford Achievement Test
and that these results suggest that most deaf students will not be able to
pass state tests, many of which require an 8th or 10th grade reading level.
Mr. Johnson received many emails in response to the article. One writer [John
Levy in California] anticipates as many as 85% of the deaf students won't get a
diploma, which will affect educational opportunities, work opportunities, and
the opportunity to come to Gallaudet University. There is an issue as to
Gallaudet's position of whether or not to accept students without a high school
diploma. Mr. Johnson gave the floor to Ross Mitchell of the Gallaudet Research
Institute, who discussed some of the legal ramifications of withholding
diplomas for deaf students. Dr. Mitchell commented that very few government
jobs will allow for an applicant who does not have a diploma. He passed out a
handout on salient legal cases. One area that should be looked into is whether
accepting students without a high school diploma will affect accreditation.
There was a discussion on the need for having a conference on high stakes
testing hosted by Gallaudet University. There is currently no budget to
establish such a conference. Someone might investigate about cost sharing the
conference. Anyone interested in organizing the conference should contact
either co-chair. Chairing the conference might be too much for one person and
could be shared. There was a question as to whether an outside group could
co-sponsor, and the chair stated that it would be considered.
The date for the next meeting was established as January 25, 2002. The
location will be announced, as the Task Force has grown too big for its current
location. The time will be 11:00 a.m. The GRI has offered to pay for lunch.
Items that people want on the agenda should be brought to the attention of the
co-chairs.
Charlene Sorensen of Gallaudet University discussed the first year of Health
Careers Opportunity Program (HCOP). The focus was on high school through
graduate students wanting to enter the health fields. Many students came into
the program with less than 3rd or 4th grade reading levels. Some students
improved by more than 2 years in the HCOP instruction. Improvements of 6
months to 2 years were seen in English. Improvements of more than 6 months
were seen in math. Many students explained that they had been waived from
requirements of standardized testing. HCOP provided exposure to the GRE and
English scores were improved by 100 points, math scores nearly tripled. This
was accomplished through exposure and teaching strategies. Many of the
students talked about being scared of standardized tests. HCOP will finish with
the summarized results in about one month. HCOP has a website
http://hcop.gallaudet.edu/home/home.htm
Co-chair Carol Traxler discussed a request for help in re-scoring a test taken
by a deaf woman who did not pass a professional licensing test, but was allowed
to continue to work for two years. She is now requesting a waiver, but her
state is more inclined to have the test evaluated and her previous responses
re-scored. Dr. Mounty suggested that a panel of three would be preferred for
the reevaluation. Tammy Wiener will give names of licensed psychologists to
Dr. Traxler today.
Co-chair Carol Traxler asked that people review the website and let her know
what might be missing or make suggestions as to what can be added:
http://gri.gallaudet.edu/TestEquity/.
Meeting closed approximately 3:05 p.m.
| 
