Dr. Judith Mounty opened the meeting, distributed an agenda, and asked attendees to introduce themselves.

Robert C. Johnson of the Gallaudet Research Institute (GRI) provided an overview and highlights of the High Stakes Testing Conference that took place in November 2002 under the direction of Dr. Michael Karchmer and Dr. Judith Mounty. Mr. Johnson recognized those Task Force members who had been involved in the conference planning and/or had made presentations, including: Robert Weinstock, Dr. Carol Traxler (Task Force Co-chair), Dr. Carolyn Massad, Dr. Ruth Loew, and others. He then reviewed the complex issues addressed during the conference.

1) The No Child Left Behind Act emerged from the perception that schools are failing children. Every state is required to develop standards in reading and mathematics, and to use tests to measure schools. progress. States have 12 years (until 2015), after which all students must be able to pass the tests.

2) Annual progress

a) Effect on personnel (teachers and administrators): States have different rules. If students do not pass high stakes tests after two years, action resulting in the establishment of teacher training programs to improve test scores will likely occur. If schools do not improve their scores after four years, reorganization and/or restructuring may occur, resulting in teacher and administrative changes.

b) Effect on students: Students who do not pass high stakes tests will be held back. Students also may not receive diplomas. Currently, most states are phasing out other types of diplomas (for example, certificates of completion). It will be become an all-or-nothing proposition: .You succeed in school or that.s it.. Students not passing their state.s exit examination will not receive diplomas. This is expected to take effect within the next two years.

c) Effect on employment opportunities: Many companies require at least a high school diploma. Deaf and hard of hearing individuals without diplomas have very few prospects for employment.

Johnson then summarized key presentations.

1) Betsy Case (Harcourt Educational Measurement): In 1982, the average achievement scores for 18-year old deaf students were at a first and second grade reading level. Since then, scores have improved. Most recently, scores have risen to reach fourth and fifth grade reading levels. On average, deaf people score six grades below their peers in reading tests.

2) Jon Levy (University High School, Irvine, CA): In comments before the California Department of Education, said that .85% of deaf children in California would fail these tests.. Response from the Department of Education: .Educators have low expectations for their students. This is the reason why students are failing..

3) Michael Bello (The Learning Center for Deaf Children, Framingham, MA): Suggests taking advantage of the tests. .Use the tests to assess what children don.t get and then address that in the classroom..

4) Patrick Costello (The Learning Center for Deaf Children, Framingham, MA): In regard to accommodations, what are schools doing? In some cases, reading passages are signed to students. This is not feasible for every school (i.e., public schools).

5) Suzanne Recane (The Learning Center for Deaf Children, Framingham, MA): Many schools sign the entire test. There is concern mounting that accommodations may cause a decrease in the level of standards. Signing portions of a test may inadvertently present students with the answers to the questions posed.

What should happen next? Remarks included:

1) Planning another conference addressing this issue

2) Addressing the legal aspects of high stakes testing

3) Negotiating with the state departments of education for alternative tests. (Texas and some other states are already receptive to this idea.)

4) Urging states to modify tests to be more deaf-friendly and to include universal design

Open discussion

Carolyn Emrick Massad (Harcourt Educational Measurement): Standards are different across states and across tests that each state uses. A national test should be developed and administered to provide access to all.

Judith Mounty (Gallaudet University): There is a false assumption that signing a test will alleviate problems. The content or difficulty level may be different from the source to the target language (e.g., items that are easy in English may become difficult in American Sign Language and vice versa.)

Robert Weinstock (Gallaudet University): Instruction vs. testing situation. May not be able to test children with the same accommodations used in the classroom (i.e., English skills/reading comprehension cannot be accurately assessed if the test is signed).

Rebecca Walk (Measured Progress): States are concerned about losing their IDEA Title I federal funding. Alternative assessment and test accommodations are needed, but their use is inconsistent across states. Two types of alternative assessment which may be used are portfolios and data folios. With respect to international assessment, a translation project is underway. It is expected to be completed in five years. Translations and back-translations will be used to ensure that questions are the same across languages. This may have applications in testing deaf and hard of hearing students.

Paul Singletary (Gallaudet University): Issues related to Title 2 include the pressure placed upon universities, pass rates of students on state licensure exams, and the fact that certain pass rates label universities as low functioning. NCATE is pushing for an 80 percent pass rate; eventually, institutions will need to meet this pass rate. As a likely consequence, many universities will not accept individuals into academic programs unless they have passed the requisite test.

Comments and common themes addressing test development First, develop content and determine how best to measure it. Educators should be involved in this process.

Access principles: Use basic principles of access for test development. Access must be addressed when structuring test questions. Phrasing of tests questions is important. Will individuals understand test questions and be able to respond?

Test translation: Assess whether the content can be translated. Develop questions in the target language; do not translate questions. Decide what the test is going to evaluate, and then decide whether or not a test should be signed.

Attendees (listed alphabetically by last name)

Judith Mounty (co-chair, Gallaudet University)
Carol Traxler (co-chair, Gallaudet University)

Jeffrey Beatty (graduate student, Gallaudet University)
Jessteene Clifford (graduate student, Gallaudet University)
Kate Corolus (graduate student, American University)
Rosaline Crawford (National Association of the Deaf Law Center)
Jennifer Fuller (graduate student, Gallaudet University)
Jerry Jatho (doctoral student, Gallaudet University)
Nicole Jepperson (graduate student, Gallaudet University)
Robert C. Johnson (Gallaudet University)
Sue Livingston (LaGuardia Community College, City University of New York)
Ruth Loew (Educational Testing Service)
Amanda Maisels (United States Department of Justice)
Carolyn Emrick Massad (Harcourt Educational Measurement)
Chhaya Rao (GED Testing Service)
Lyn Schaefer (GED Testing Service)
Paul Singletary (Gallaudet University)
Sera Stanis (graduate student, Gallaudet University)
Rebecca Walk (Measured Progress)
Robert Weinstock (Gallaudet University)