Kudos to those leaders of performance assessment and progressive public schools in New York City, Ann Cook and Phyllis Tashlik, who wrote an excellent letter to the editor published today in the New York Times critiquing the recent call for more history testing. Supporters of the idea to implement national standardized history tests (including Senators Kennedy [D-MA] and Alexander [R-TN]) claim that it would raise recognition for this subject, which has seen less prominence in schools since the NCLB law required testing in math and science. (See my blog post on this issue).
As Cook and Tashlik rightfully ask, “Are multiple-choice tests what we want for the teaching of history? Shouldn’t we clamor instead for policies that support in-depth inquiry, use of multiple sources and rigorous analysis of historical evidence?”
I do wonder, though, what “policies that support in-depth inquiry” would look like and how they would effect education. While standardized multiple-choice testing has indeed turned kids off to learning, greatly reduced critical thinking, and brought a callous business-style approach to education, I am skeptical that the solution ought to be policies supporting what is clearly better (in-depth inquiry, critical thinking, etc.) Couldn’t such policies result in rigid, sterile, dumbed down inquiry, just as the essays on SATs have led to the teaching of simplified standard 5 paragraph form essays?
Instead of new proscriptive policies, let’s call for the reduction and elimination of high-stakes testing along with a nation-wide dialogue about powerful approaches such as critical inquiry, performance assessment, and self-directed learning.