Dilemmas Posed by Statewide Educational Testing Programs When Professionals Serve Visually Impaired Learners

by Joan B. Chase, Ed.D., Licensed Psychologist, Dunedin, Florida

Many states in the U.S. are passing legislation that requires public schools to administer statewide achievement tests at various grade levels. The findings may determine whether students proceed to the next grade level and, in the case of high school standards, whether they graduate. Florida is one of many states with such a mandate. This article is based on a talk I gave at the California State School for the Blind as California "tools up" for statewide testing. Feelings of conflict exist in professionals working with students who are visually impaired. Do we believe that standardized tests are meaningful benchmarks for students we educate? Do they enhance our work to foster students' optimal level of independence?

Whenever we quantify human dimensions we run the risk of reducing people to "scores" or "profiles." Standardized testing, used as sole measures of behavioral dimensions, can be faulted as shallow or even disrespectful. On the other hand, without clear methods of assessing baselines, progress and outcomes, individual prejudices of those in power (administrators, teachers, etc.) can hold sway, and students may be harmed by a lack of standard findings. A major dilemma!

Most people in our culture face another dilemma: adaptation versus uniqueness. To what extent are we willing to squelch our individuality in order to conform to social expectations? To what extent do we want to express our individual eccentricities and unique qualities, even if we risk social isolation? This basic dilemma affects students with visual impairment and the professionals who serve them in many facets of life and learning. For more than six decades, integration in local schools has meant that those with visual impairment often must adapt to the learning environment. In contrast, many states provide specialized schools and classes that tailor education to unique needs. Duality and social discussion are reflected in many aspects in education of students with visual impairments.

EDUCATIONAL DILEMMAS

As a former itinerant teacher and as a psychologist who serves people with visual impairment, I am frequently ambivalent about student placement. For example, I have been a strong adherent to the principle of integration (now called inclusion) whereby students with disabilities are educated alongside the community children at local schools. However, I often question my own adherence to that principle when a particular student is not receiving an education designed to foster those skills urgently needed to assure ultimate independence, such as Braille instruction or mobility training.

Placement dilemmas arise for students who appear to need more than the local school is able or willing to provide. Schools for blind and visually impaired students are often an ideal choice, even for a short period of time, so that necessary skills and understanding can be learned. A spectrum of choice is not always possible.

The concept of normalization provides another dilemma. Humanity has struggled for centuries with definitions and descriptions of "normal" behavior and function. We have no meaningful standards by which such issues are judged. Each of us has so many ingredients it is near impossible to identify our own "normal" state, much less that of others. Parents and educators hope our students will move on to live "normal" lives, if that implies meaningfulness and self-actualization. However, suppose a person is blind and learning disabled; what does "normal" mean for that individual? Is it the role of public schools is to "normalize" young people?

Teacher certification raises another dilemma. While I love the idea that all teachers will be trained to identify, teach and mentor all students in their communities, I shudder to think about a symphony orchestra, playhouse, hospital or courtroom in which all participants are generalists. I believe that specialists perform extremely important functions in our culture. Students with visual impairments deserve teachers who have highly sophisticated training and skills to meet their unique needs.

STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENT DILEMMAS

I am aware that taxpayers deserve a sense of accountability for their support of education. For too long, public school instruction has been permitted to reflect the judgment of local administrators and school boards. The current movement to have statewide or national standards is well intentioned. The other side of the dilemma arises when we consider how standards are set, and how they are assessed. Evaluation without clear statements of purpose and criteria will have administrators and politicians making empty or meaningless claims about findings.

For professionals who must apply the standards to students with disabilities, the dilemma becomes one of adaptations. When individual psychological or educational tests are administered, it is possible to judge the extent, clinically, that the disability affects the responses. For example, many psychologists who evaluate students individually make minor substitutions for items that require sight (color, smoke, etc.) and note the changes in a report. Widely applied standardized tests restrict the level of change permitted, often disallowing?any deviation from the printed words. When a measure is transcribed into Braille, visual stimuli may be described or otherwise adapted for blind students if the local teacher or psychologist is involved. Such practices are not available when broad-brush testing is applied. Even time limit changes that allow longer reading time for youngsters with low vision have come under scrutiny and attack by the testing establishment.

The applicability of test norms raises another dilemma. Students with visual impairment are rarely included in most sampling procedures. Can norms then be meaningfully applied to the results when such students are tested? Integration into public education may require that students adhere to generally accepted subject achievement. On the other hand, a visual disability frequently means that some subjects must be modified if the student is to learn the concepts, not just the vocabulary and facts by rote.

PROCEDURAL DILEMMAS

Ambivalence and conflict can be prods. Dilemmas bring issues into sharp focus. Dr. Carol Allman, of the Florida Department of Education, suggests that professionals concerned about the impact of statewide tests on students with visual impairment serve on the committees and panels that plan and prepare the testing program. She has, through such participation, been able to sensitize responsible officials as to specialized needs. She describes procedures followed as testing programs are developed, and choices faced when test administrations are planned. She has prepared excellent guidelines for Braille transcription that you may request (her e-mail address is: allmanc@mail.doe.state.fl.us ).

Test security can be the source of a difficult dilemma. Test developers are hesitant to let anyone see their products prior to the administration date, fearful that items will become known in advance. The obvious conflict with Braille preparation or print enlargement may create scenarios in which all good intentions can serve to exclude our students. In one case, high school graduation was jeopardized.

Time limit extension has already been mentioned. This adaptation may result in segregated administration or feelings of being "slow" as others taking the test leave as the student in question continues to work at answers. If the administration is oral, subtle cues may result, or a reader's intonation may change the question's intent. Extensions or readers are justified, however, when students cannot read in a medium (print, large print, Braille) with enough speed to demonstrate what they know.

Issuance of waivers is sometimes possible in situations where educational expectations differ, as for students so severely delayed that they are ineligible for "regular" diplomas. If requests for waivers are made for those students who are good learners but have visual impairment, the inclusion premise is undermined. Questions may arise for those students who have mild but complicating additional disabilities, for which a waiver may have the opposite effect of that envisioned in IDEA legislation. As a result, such student may not be able to proceed to an academic curriculum.

Scoring dilemmas become equally challenging. For example, in a statewide test there may be a writing sample that is scored according to certain criteria. The person scoring a particular paragraph may not know the student has a visual impairment, so that a particular missed visual cue is counted as a failure. Or, in mathematics examinations, a naive (to Braille or other format) grader might misunderstand a graphic representation. Unless all adaptations are clearly described for the scorers, errors of omission or commission may occur. While print formats must be followed as closely as possible, changes may occur when transcriptions are prepared with clarity in mind.

Ways of reporting scores and adaptations have received considerable attention in recent press releases. The Educational Testing Service makes it a practice to notify schools and colleges when special testing provisions have been applied. Recently, students have charged that this practice changes their chances at college admission and other educational opportunities. The U.S. Supreme Court under the Americans with Disabilities Act will soon discuss this dilemma. The decision will impact our students and others for who test scores may comprise a "gate" to the future.

SUGGESTED PRACTICES

Addressing and resolving some of the dilemmas created by today's educational climate are essential if we are to meet the goals intended by federal legislation. We must be aware that, as with most situations of conflict, we cannot have it "both ways." If we strive for total inclusion and integration, we must accept the loss of old forms of special privilege. Therefore, standardized testing is to be viewed as it is for other students; a chore and a bother, but a "necessary evil" to demonstrate progress. Studies show that statewide programs serve broad purposes such as highlighting schools and programs that may require greater attention and additional resources.

In order to develop helpful responses at the state and local levels, I recommend that professionals perform certain tasks designed to enhance the experience of achievement testing as applied to learners with visual impairment. At the political level, it would be wise to maintain a strong presence when statewide testing programs are being prepared, educating the administrators and the public as to the reading medium and other needs of the population with visual impairment.

Content preparation can mean the difference between success and problems. Not only does the test content need to be accessible in format; we must be vigilant to assure our students that their curriculum is consistent in content with that of all other students and that the material is well learned. There is no better way to do well on any achievement examination than mastery of the content. The dilemma faced by a teacher who feels forced to "teach to the tests" is open for wide discussion!

Process preparation may be neglected in programs that teach students with visual impairment. If students have been taught on a more individualized basis (a wonderful practice in our field) the need for extensive practice with a variety of assessment modalities may have been overlooked. Students can learn how to take multiple choice, matching, short essay and other examinations by having the process available to them throughout the grades. I was recently heartened to see a second grade Braille student using his stylus to follow workbook tasks along with his classmates. That is the best type of process preparation for the hurdles to be faced in higher grades. Practice and more practice is needed in each subject and grade.

Taking standardized tests is a skill, and skills respond to acquisition training. There are many materials on the market about best strategies for standardized test completion. Professionals in the field can use these materials to assist our students as they gradually become more proficient in reading items, making choices, knowing which ones to skip and complete later, knowing how to mark answer sheets properly, etc. Teachers of students with visual impairments can provide such training.

The final, and probably most important practice, is outcome analysis. After the program has been applied for a year, it is essential that all involved review the formats, adaptations, approaches and ultimate outcome of the program as it affects students with visual impairments. By carefully studying all aspects of the program, including those for whom waivers were requested, students in proceeding years can benefit by necessary changes and improvements. That way, when professionals in our field support or appeal the use or findings of the measures applied, there will be real data behind their claims. And, after all, only real data can help us resolve our many dilemmas.

Volume 6, No. 2, April 2000 Contents

Agency Contact Information | Texas State Homepage | Texas State Wide Search

Please complete the comment form or send comments and suggestions to: Jim Allan (Webmaster-Jim Allan)