In fact, despite the constant criticisms
leveled at state tests, local assessment is
arguably the far weaker link in the
whole chain of would-be reform. Many
of us have seen firsthand how invalid
and low-level many local tests are. And
studies have shown for years that in
terms of Bloom’s taxonomy, most
teacher questions only hit the first two
levels (knowledge and comprehension)
instead of the higher levels (application,
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation).
1 In
one high-income suburban New Jersey
district that some colleagues and I
studied, we found no test question that
required any higher-level thinking in all
the marking-period tests. Even more
surprising, there was no difference
across honors and regular-track versions
of the same courses.
A close look at state test results shows
me that both test-prep “teaching” and
test bashing get it wrong. The test items
that our students do most poorly on
demand interpretation and transfer, not
rote learning and recall. Better teaching
and (especially) better local testing
would raise state test scores. Teaching
for greater understanding would
improve results, not threaten them—
Both test-prep
“teaching” and
test bashing
get it wrong.
as both common sense and the research
indicate.
Lesson Two: Greater
Transparency Is Essential
If the goal is to better understand and
prepare for standards-based assessments
in math and literacy, I highly recom-
mend that educators use the (free!)
resources provided by the states
discussed here to demystify testing and
focus on what the feedback reveals,
even if you don’t teach in one of these
three states. But the long-term solution
should be less jerry-rigged. On the
policy front, therefore, it is high time for
all states to follow the lead of Massachu-
setts ( www.doe.mass.edu/mcas), Florida
( http://fcat.fldoe.org), and Ohio
(http://ohio3-8.success-ode-state-oh-
us.info): Release all or most of the tests
with item-by-item and school-by-school
analyses—and include the percentage of
answers chosen for all questions, not
just the correct answer.
1See, for example, Archibald, D. A.,
& Grant, T. J. (1999). What’s on the test?
An analytical framework and findings from
an examination of teachers’ math tests.
Educational Assessment, 6( 4), 250.
Grant Wiggins is the coauthor with Jay
Mc Tighe of Understanding by Design
(2005, ASCD) and Schooling by Design:
Mission, Action, and Achievement (2007,
ASCD) and President of Authentic Education in Hopewell, New Jersey;
grant@authenticeducation.org.
