The communicative emphasis prevalent in most beginningand intermediate-level German language classrooms today is slowly beginning to affect the way in which teachers assess the language skills of their students. The growing interest in oral abilities is also mirrored in an ever-increasing body of research on different aspects of the development and evaluation of speaking in a second language. I As Nic Underhill writes in his very practical volume Testing Spoken Language, There is a lot of interest now in oral testing, partly because teaching is more than ever directed towards the speaking and listening skills, particularly in the early stages. Naturally, this should be reflected in the testing (3). While the official evaluation of speaking skills is sometimes relegated to an often nebulous class participation grade, today many language programs include additional, formal assessments of speaking ability. Since the publication of the Proficiency Guidelines of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) in 1982, many language teachers have begun to integrate an oral interview of one sort or another into their programs. These interviews, many of which are proficiency-oriented and conducted by non-ACTFL-certified interviewers, are for some programs the only official assessment of students' speaking skills in the syllabus. Although language programs often claim to have a communicative approach and to emphasize all four language skills (reading, listening, writing and speaking), the tests and quizzes in most German language programs remain predominantly focused on written language production.2 For those who have adopted a communicative approach to language learning and who would like to see the acquisition of oral communication skills emphasized in their language programs, a series of varied oral tests or quizzes can prove invaluable. The integration of multiple oral assessments into the curriculum (as opposed to just one or two) has two major advantages. First, a series of oral quizzes is fairer to the language students. Because instructors are interested in an accurate picture of students' speaking skills, multiple oral assessments with a variety of tasks and formats can provide a more well-rounded and accurate picture of student abilities than a single oral interview. Given the variety of learner types among students,3 a varied series of oral evaluations can also allow more students to find a type of oral assessment in which they can excel. Furthermore, multiple assessments lessen the harm done if a student performs uncharacteristically poorly on one assessment. A second important advantage of a series of oral tasks is the message that this attention to speaking assessment sends to the students. The students not only gain valuable, concrete feedback on their speaking development throughout the year, a series of grades for oral work also implies that this element of students' development in the target language is on a par with other regularly-assessed skills, such as writing or reading comprehension. Also, students for whom the grades form the primary motivation, will be encouraged to devote serious attention to their speaking when those skills and abilities are regularly checked and given grades. Finally, integrating multiple oral tests into a language program keeps the profession honest. If we wish to claim that speaking is important and that our courses are communicative in nature, then our grading and assessment program should mirror those goals.