Testing Increases Attention to History
Patrick Manning, Historian
The American Historical Association resolved in 2007 to support the addition of history to the fields of testing under NCLB. The resolution came to the AHA Council from the Teaching Division of the association, an elected body with representation from secondary, community college, and university levels, which I chaired at the time.
The Teaching Division discussed NCLB and the testing of history at both of its 2006 meetings. Members were divided and some firmly opposed high-stakes testing, but the division ultimately developed a clear position, which was ratified by the AHA Council in January, 2007.
The AHA adopted its position without any enthusiasm for high-stakes testing in general or any conviction that adequate testing instruments exist. Our main point was that if history is to be a high-priority subject in the public-school curriculum, then it must be tested and evaluated, as math and reading have been. While there has been no formal survey, anecdotal evidence convinced us that keeping history on the list of subjects to be tested increases attention to the subject and ultimately improves teaching in it. On the other hand, removing history from the list of subjects to be tested means fewer class hours spent on teaching history, along with lowered and irregular standards and expectations.
We readily agreed that the initial history tests that would be given under NCLB would probably be written by underqualified staff, but argued that subsequent debate of the test would improve its quality. We concluded that the experience of tests in the College Board’s AP courses, in various state history exams, and in the Teaching American History program suggested that professional historians will be able to achieve steady improvement in the exams.
My own experience in Massachusetts supported this reasoning. There, the establishment of a high-stakes testing program in 1997, including U.S. and world history, brought state funding of professional development in history and other fields. For three years, preparation for the first exam brought high attention especially to the new world history curriculum. When the state reversed itself and canceled testing in history in 2000, the history curriculum immediately shrank and lost its coherence.
The position adopted by the AHA, while parallel to those of NCHE and NCSS, is distinctive in emphasizing that testing should account for the wide scope of the field of history (U.S. and world history, elementary and secondary levels), and in emphasizing the need for improvement in the quality of history teaching. To this end, the Teaching Division began work on a statement on minimum standards for the preparation and professional development of history teachers.
