Measuring History

[George Sheridan <learn@jps.net>]

This book review is freely available this week at Teachers College Record, 
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=12588

According to the reviewer, these case studies make clear that tests differ 
dramatically in their content: In some states, students answer 
multiple-choice questions on a litany of factual information, but in others 
they are asked to construct historical arguments, analyze primary sources, 
or answer comprehension questions on readings unrelated to curricular 
content. Some state tests have high stakes for individual students?they may 
not graduate without a passing score?but in other places there are no 
consequences for students. The stakes there may be for schools, districts 
or teachers. This volume, according to the review, will not support broad 
generalizations about the positive or negative impact of state history 
tests. Instead it will "complicate our understanding of the 
teaching-testing relationship through its description and analysis of 
teachers? discussion of this topic in a variety of contexts."

*

Measuring History: Cases of State-Level Testing Across the United States

reviewed by Keith C. Barton ? July 11, 2006

Title: Measuring History: Cases of State-Level Testing Across the United States
Author(s): S. G. Grant (Ed.)
Publisher: Information Age Publishing, Greenwich
ISBN: 1593114796, Pages: 338, Year: 2006



This important collection includes nine empirical studies on the impact of 
state-level history tests, along with several chapters summarizing research 
and policy issues in the area. The volume opens with three useful 
overviews?a description of the origins and current status of state history 
standards and their accompanying tests, an analysis of research on the 
impact of high-stakes tests, and a consideration of technical aspects of 
testing as applied to history. These introductory chapters are followed by 
eight qualitative case studies, and one quantitative survey, regarding the 
impact of testing on teachers in Kentucky, Michigan, New York, Virginia, 
Texas, Florida, and Mississippi. Most focus on teachers? perceptions of the 
role of testing in their professional decision-making. The book ends with 
two further overviews?a synthesis of the findings presented throughout the 
book, and speculation on possible scenarios for the future of high-stakes 
history testing.

By now most educators are familiar with arguments for and against 
high-stakes testing. Both sides are eager to cite research suggesting that 
either the accountability of testing leads to improvements approaching the 
miraculous, or that test pressures result in teacher-centered instruction 
and a narrowing of content. For over a decade, though, Grant?s research has 
shown that although testing does influence teachers, the relationship 
between state-level testing and classroom practice is far from simple or 
direct. The studies reported here further caution us against making 
simplistic generalizations?positive or negative?about the impact of 
high-stakes tests on the process of teaching and learning. These studies 
consistently demonstrate that a variety of factors interact to influence 
teachers? practices.

One of the most obvious mediating factors?and yet one that is often 
overlooked?is the nature of the tests themselves. Many scholars generalize 
from their own states? tests to all state-level tests. As these case 
studies make clear, however, tests differ dramatically in their content: In 
some states, students answer multiple-choice questions on a litany of 
factual information, but in others they are asked to construct historical 
arguments, analyze primary sources, or answer comprehension questions on 
readings unrelated to curricular content (or some combination of these). 
Preparing students for such fundamentally different tasks requires very 
different strategies, as the chapters in this volume illustrate.

A second mediating factor is the specific nature of the pressures that 
teachers face?the stakes of high-stakes testing?because this too varies 
dramatically from one state to the next. Some state tests have high stakes 
for individual students?they may not graduate without a passing score?but 
in other places there are no consequences for students. The stakes there 
may be for schools or districts (which can lose funding or be taken over by 
the state), or for teachers (who may receive monetary rewards for their 
students? high scores). And in some states, or at some grade levels, 
results on history exams have no direct consequences. The pressures that 
result from these differing contexts are critical in teachers? 
decision-making; teachers may be more likely to emphasize test preparation 
if students? graduation rates depend on it. In contrast, teachers might 
take a more laissez-faire approach if the only sanction is the distant 
threat of state intervention in their district.

Finally, a variety of individual and local contextual factors influence 
teachers? reaction to state-level testing programs. Some teachers work in 
cohesive departmental settings in which colleagues meet to work out 
thoughtful, collective responses to tests, while others must address such 
challenges on their own. In addition, many of the teachers in this 
collection clearly have extensive backgrounds in history and have their own 
ideas about educational priorities in the subject, but other 
teachers?particularly at the elementary level?may have little preparation 
in history and little experience teaching the subject. Notably, teachers? 
prior experiences (or lack thereof) are a critical element in any analysis 
of the effect of testing, because as the origins of state-level tests 
recede into the past, more teachers will see these as simply another 
element of their job, as some in this collection do already. Many teachers 
today have never taught in a context that did not include state tests, and 
thus discussions of ?changes? in their practice are rapidly becoming dated.

Given the variety of mediating variables, is it possible to develop any 
generalizations about the effect of state-level history tests? In his 
concluding chapter, Grant argues that tests have little consistent impact 
on either teachers? instructional practices or their assessment strategies. 
The principal influence of state tests, he argues, is on the content that 
teachers choose to emphasize: They are likely to include topics they feel 
confident will appear on the tests, although here too, tests are simply one 
factor among many. But if tests are such a weak influence on teachers? 
practice, why do they inspire so much discussion and such passionate 
responses (mainly, but not exclusively, negative) on the part of teachers?

In his chapter on Michigan teachers, Avner Segall argues that the chief 
impact of tests lies not in their influence on classroom practice (which 
seemed minimal, despite teachers? assertions) but rather in how they change 
the teachers? impression of themselves. The tests, he argues, have led to 
lower levels of commitment and a decreased sense of professionalism. Yet an 
underlying theme of most chapters in this volume is that teachers continue 
to make decisions based on their educational priorities; despite complaints 
about the tests, there is little evidence that instructional decisions have 
been taken out of their hands (although that certainly may be the case in 
settings other than those examined here).

Perhaps state history tests have had their greatest influence at an even 
more abstract level?not on practice, not on professionalism, but on the way 
teachers talk about their professional practice. In most of the studies 
reported here, teachers? discussions of state tests reveal their own 
priorities, and thus complaints about tests (and occasionally, praise) 
become a way of asserting their ideas about the proper nature of history 
education. In making such assertions, it should be pointed out, teachers do 
not always cast themselves in the best light. Although some note that tests 
do not measure the complicated and abstract historical understandings they 
believe to be at the core of the subject, others complain because their 
states? tests require critical thinking (p. 237), cover recent history (pp. 
115, 186), include content covered in previous grade levels (p. 184), or do 
not include enough basic factual information (pp. 118-119).

This can hardly be surprising because there is no evidence that history 
classrooms were exciting venues for thoughtful discussion of enduring 
historical themes even before the advent of state tests. History classrooms 
have traditionally emphasized brief retention of isolated factual 
information about the distant past, although some teachers have always 
broken with this tradition. The teachers in these studies demonstrate the 
same range of ideas that one might have found 10 or even 100 years ago, and 
thus this collection will offer little comfort for those who seek 
confirmation of either the pernicious influence of testing or its benefits. 
What this volume does, instead, is complicate our understanding of the 
teaching-testing relationship through its description and analysis of 
teachers? discussion of this topic in a variety of contexts. In an area too 
often plagued by overgeneralizations, this is an important accomplishment.



Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record, Date Published: July 11, 2006
http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 12588, Date Accessed: 8/8/2006 6:57:38 PM

*

George Sheridan