7). Although "one would expect higher quality assessment instruments that produce better information to make education decisions given NCLB-imposed penalties for districts associated with poor performance on the test...many states struggle with budget deficits and funding restrictions. They cannot allocate the funds necessary to improve the testing programs. States are forced to rely on large-scale assessments with too few questions and a narrow focus on skills and knowledge that are easily measured....representatives from the NJDOE [New Jersey Department of Education] have admitted publicly that finances, not technical integrity, drive the state's assessment program... [Their] current philosophy is 'do the best with what we have'" and is based upon the assumption that some testing, of whatever kind, is better than not testing at all (Tienken & Wilson, 2007, p.16)

The irony is palpable -- the high-stakes nature of testing requires teachers, operating under finite limitations of time and money, to focus on teaching a test of questionable value, to preserve funding -- so that the teachers can continue to teach students how to perform well on standardized assessments. One of the most common frustrations expressed by both students and educators is that the emphasis on high-stakes testing changes the dynamic of the classroom and stifles teacher creativity. Students come to devalue learning and schooling, and shift their emphasis to, "Is this going to be on the test?" (Marchant 2004, p.3). "Time that previously was devoted to learning skills and knowledge in an appropriate sequential fashion, gets lost in the process of cramming for the tests" and those areas subject to standardized assessment such as the natural sciences, social studies, health, and open-ended writing questions, "are neglected in favor of reading and arithmetic skills that appear on the tests. High stakes testing also seems to encourage the use of instructional approaches and materials that resembles testing" like multiple choice (Marchant 2004, p.4).

Yet NCLB, as it is currently constructed, offers little incentive for improvement. Rather than embark upon quality-improvement projects, because states can set their own standards, states can merely set a new standard or norm, rather than improve instruction. Instead of placing the bar high and working to reach that goal over a number of years, states "fearing...

Given that low-performing districts may have their funding withdrawn, further impeding their ability to provide quality education; this is perhaps an understandable reaction.
Grade retention is another effect of high-stakes testing that is of dubious value. "More than a quarter of Baltimore's elementary and middle school students, over 20,000 students, were required to repeat a grade level in school after not meeting the requirements....The 300% increase in middle school dropout rates in five years in Boston has been attributed to high-stakes testing policies and rigid and indifferent responses to kids at-risk" many of whom are minority students (Marchant 2004, p.1).

Summary/Conclusions/Recommendations

Little evidence suggests that high-stakes testing improves educational quality, and much evidence exists to suggest that it harms teacher and student creativity. Tests have great repercussions but little evidence suggests that the current tests used to assess districts have high levels of reliability or accuracy in measuring student performance. At minimum, the repercussions inflicted upon schools and students who fail to meet state standards must be reassessed, so tests of questionable diagnostic validity do not unduly influence school funding or classroom pedagogy, much less grade promotion.

Works Cited

Lee, Jaekyung. (2008). Is test-driven external accountability effective? Synthesizing the evidence from cross-state causal-comparative and correlational studies. Review of Educational Research. 78(3). 608-644. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from Research

Library database. (Document ID: 1580752961).

Marchant, Gregory J. (2004, April). What is at stake with high stakes testing? A discussion of issues and research. The Ohio Journal of Science. Retrieved from FindArticles.com. February 24, 2009. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HQW/is_2_104/ai_n25092071

Tienken, Christopher H. & Michael J. Wilson. (2007, December 17). Technical characteristics of state assessments of skills and knowledge. Report retrieved February 24, 2009, from Fair

Test Articles Database http://www.fairtest.org/files/NJ%20Standardized%20Testing%20characteristics_0.pdf

High stakes testing