Who knew that history educators could be put in the unenviable position to fighting to keep a standardized multiple choice test that is inflicted on third graders here in Virginia? For as long as the test’m till they drop mentality has been governing history instruction at the K-12 level, history teachers have been complaining about having to “teach to the test.” The primary complaint, of course, has been that the tests privilege a particular type of history, namely the version that is all about memorizing names and dates.
Three years ago I had some very critical things to say about the Florida legislature’s desire to impose the Sgt. Joe Friday approach to history on the schools in Florida (one of my favorite posts of all time in case you’re keeping track).
Now, though, it seems the worm has turned…Today’s Washington Post reports that some history teachers and/or social studies administrators in Virginia are opposed to the state’s proposal to drop the third grade history test administered state-wide (a “standard of learning” test or, ironically, an SOL). A couple of those quoted in the article worry that if there is no history test for third graders then history will be devalued as a subject in the schools.
As the parent to two school-age children (one of whom took his fourth grade SOL in history this morning), I want to make it very clear that I’m with whoever it is who wants to drop the third grade test. I spend a lot of time working with history teachers at all grade levels in the public schools and my impression is that the vast, vast majority are very committed to the idea that history has a central place in the school curriculum at all grade levels, so I’m not worried that teachers are going to suddenly drop history like a stone just because there isn’t a state wide test.
And I’m equally sure that no school district anywhere in the United States could get away with cutting much more history from the curriculum than has already been cut in the past 20 or 30 years. To do so strikes me as a political third rail.
So I say let the Florida legislators try to transform their state into Belarus. Here in Virginia I say we can live without a history test or two.
As an elementary school teacher I agree and disagree with you here. I’m not willing to fight to keep this test. I completely agree that we can live without a test (any test) or two.
I will admit, however, that I think it will lead to history having less of a focus. I have watched fourth grade teachers teach next to no science because of a complete focus on history due to the test in that grade. Then the fifth grade teachers teach next to no history because of a complete focus on science to prepare for the test. I don’t like it. I don’t agree with it. But I am concerned that it’s a fact of life in elementary schools.
I do have to say that I’m not convinced that the history being taught is always truly worthwhile, unfortunately. Our state standards are far from fabulous and result in some iffy instruction. (I say this as the wife of an historian.)
I think it would be fascinating to get you and Dan Cohen talking about this at a theoretical level. He created H-Bot to excel at answering these kinds of questions on standardized tests. So should we consider it inhumane to require students to answer the kinds of questions that computers can already answer? Should we set a new bar in standardized history tests, one that requires us to develop multiple choice questions that are sufficiently complex (not in terms of difficulty, but in terms of requiring critical thinking) that a computer cannot answer them? Can we design these complex kinds of questions so that they test students’ understanding of concepts rather than their memorization of information? I have started working on multiple-choice questions that test students’ understanding of historical thinking skills. It would be interesting to see what others have developed and think about these issues.
We face this issue a lot with the Teaching American History program. Every TAH grant proposal I write makes note of the fact that history is being devalued and marginalized because of high-stakes NCLB testing. If history were tested it would be taught.
However–who writes the test? The test has to be based on a curriculum, and state wide history curriculums will become political lightning rods in way that math curriculums do not. The entire imaginary history of the U.S. peddled in some quarters, with born-again Founding Fathers and a Civil War caused by state’s rights, will have powerful advocates. Welcome back to the culture wars! And to teaching to the new test.