A version of the commentary appeared in the Columbia Missourian.
The Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) has become an easy target. In a recent Senate hearing, one senator described the MAP as a “useless autopsy” while another questioned whether any meaningful incentives could be tied to such a “flawed tool.” Others suggested replacing it entirely with benchmark tests given throughout the year so that teachers can see how their students are performing during the year and adjust instruction accordingly.
All of the criticism made me wonder whether Missouri should bother with the MAP at all.
One reason to bother with the MAP, although not a very satisfying one, is the federal requirement that students take an annual state assessment. Ignoring the legal requirement, why should students take the MAP test?
Students should take the MAP test because it is a consistent, statewide measure that allows us to see how schools and districts perform over time.
I think that is where some misunderstanding comes in. The results of the MAP are not meant to inform a teacher’s next lesson plan. The results help policymakers to understand how different schools and districts are performing relative to others and to past performance. Altering or replacing a uniform measure like the MAP test makes it harder to understand school performance and ultimately promote educational improvement.
Different benchmark tests could be helpful for some school districts, but they would serve a fundamentally different purpose. The MAP measures learning for all students at the same time with the same test. This allows us to identify both high-performing schools and struggling schools that need additional support.
A great example of how testing can help us identify high-performing schools is the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), one of our nation’s best assessments. The NAEP illuminated what is now known as the “Mississippi Miracle.” After implementing reforms to promote early literacy, Mississippi climbed rapidly in national test rankings. The NAEP showed gains that were clear, credible, and impossible to ignore. As a result, other states began copying successful methods from Mississippi and saw similar improvements. Without a stable, comparable measure like NAEP, Mississippi’s success may have gone unnoticed.
Some argued in the Senate hearing that districts should take multiple assessments throughout the year instead of the MAP test, so teachers could know how their students are doing.
My immediate pushback: What, then, is the purpose of homework, quizzes, and exams? If our teachers cannot understand what their students know without a standardized test, then we have more serious problems. There are already tools to help form effective instruction, and the MAP is not meant to duplicate them. The MAP serves a different purpose.
Districts may benefit from giving benchmark tests during the school year, and many districts are already doing so. These tests could perhaps supplement instruction and help administrators better understand how different teachers are helping their students develop essential skills. However, there is no reason for these tests to replace the MAP.
