The data are beginning to accumulate on the results of the various statewide testing programs mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act. Whether we prefer to see the glass as half full or half empty, it seems to me that there is some indication of improvement in educational outcomes in general, but that that large gaps in measured achievement continue to exist across identifiable segments of our school aged population. This applies specifically to children in one or more of the categories of poor (receiving free or reduced lunches), minority, limited-English-speaking, or disabled. Even the most optimistic projections do not envision all children from all groups achieving 100% proficiency by the target year 2014. Perhaps some politicians, but I would hope very few educators, believed that the imposition of rigorous testing would lead to revolutionary changes in our schools and eventuate into some magical improvement in school outcomes. Rather, more legislators apparently thought that legislating accountability by setting high standards, improving the preparation of teachers and other professionals, mandating scientifically proven instruction (e.g., a phonics to reading), and identifying and placing contingencies on schools and districts not making adequate yearly progress (AYP), THEN we would achieve magical results by 2014. I agree in general with all of these ideas. We do need higher expectations, better trained professionals, improved curriculum, scientifically based instruction, and accountability. I must admit that a reading of articles in this journal over the past several years suggests that the jury is out on the efficacy of a phonics-based approach to reading for children and that the procedures for identifying, working with, and even taking over schools and districts in need of improvement seem harsh and, to a large extent, counterproductive, in that the emphasis seems to be on negative reinforcement and punishment rather than on positive reinforcement and reward. I have accessed information on the results for and hard of hearing children in some states and the data consistently report that the percentages of children scoring at the proficient level fall below those of the general school age population. It is clear that we will not achieve the goals for 2014. For two of the states I have seen reports that suggest part of the problem may be related to American Sign Language (ASL). The rationale was given that because ASL is a separate language it is not fair to test children in English. The implication was that children can either learn ASL or English, but not both-an incorrect and dangerous implication. This led me to think about how we have been searching for a magic solution over the centuries in the form of prevention or a cure for deafness or through some simple application of an instructional system or mode of communication. A decade ago, ASL was being advertised by some professionals as the solution to all of the educational problems of children, an unrealistic and naive position. Most professionals I know who have actually taught children actively support the use of ASL, but know we have far to go whatever mode of communication or language is used. Attempts to prevent or cure deafness have a long history. More than a century ago, A. G. Bell was advocating restricting the marriages of people in order to prevent the development of a deaf variety of the human race. The eugenics movement was carried to its final extremes by Nazi Germany with its policy of sterilizing individuals or assigning them to labor camps to work them to death under inhuman conditions. Today, we have developments in human genetics with the possibility of genetic manipulation in the near future. Cures for deafness involving highly advanced digital hearing aids and implants are becoming increasingly common. …
Read full abstract