Why High Stakes Testing Does Not Work

High stakes testing is a concept of using assessments to make major decisions about students and to hold schools accountable. In the U.S. high stakes testing is part of a standardization process that sees students being assessed to evaluate progress; the tests not only impact whether a student will advance but also whether the school will receive incentives from the government. Because incentives are tied to achievement and the high stakes tests are used to evaluate achievement, schools teach to the tests and spend much time ensuring that students do well on them. This raises questions about the type of education students are getting.
Critics of high stakes testing believe that the method results in teaching to the test and that this—rather than real learning improvement—is the reason for test score increases. The research indicates that critics are right: Au (2007) has shown that “the primary effect of high-stakes testing is that curricular content is narrowed to tested subjects, subject area knowledge is fragmented into test-related pieces, and teachers increase the use of teacher-centered pedagogies” (p. 258). Amrein and Berliner (2002) showed in their study of high stakes testing in 18 states that test score manipulation could easily be done to affect test outcomes. Jacob (2005) showed that while scores increased in high stakes testing for, scores did not improve on low stakes exams following the implementation of No Child Left Behind. Jacob (2005) also found that teachers were focusing their attention on the high stakes tests because of the accountability factors attached to these tests. In other words, the research shows that the critics are correct in their assessment of high stakes testing.
Arguments for why the use of high stakes tests to measure learning are effective are not absent. Proponents say that these tests ensure that a standard across the board is being reached and that students are being held to the same standards no matter what part of the country or state they are in. They say that this helps guarantee that educational goals are being met. Others say that high stakes tests promote accountability: schools are held accountable for student achievement. Since it is the job of the schools to educate, these tests measure not only student performance but also serve as a signal of how well schools are performing at their job. A third argument for high stakes testing is that it improves the level of education that students are obtaining. It provides a focused assessment that has been developed by scholars and professionals to indicate what areas should be focused on in education.
Arguments against the use of high stakes testing to measure learning are also present of course, as the research has shown. One of the main arguments is that teachers bend the curricula to match the assessments—i.e., they teach to the tests. Instead of receiving a broad or comprehensive education, students receive an education that is entirely based on performing well on the high stakes test. Criteria that are not on the test are avoided. Another argument is that manipulation of test schools is easy to do—and the tendency of schools to do this so as to enhance their standing with the government is apparent. A third argument is that this type of testing actually puts emphasis on the wrong things, obliging schools and teachers to focus on subjects and concepts that do not meet the needs of their students. This argument supposes that assessment developers are detached from the actual needs of students at the local level and have no way of knowing what students require at the local level. In other words, teachers should have more authority when it comes to making a determination about what students should be given in terms of educational attention.
The argument of the critics of high stakes testing that teachers are not being given enough authority to devise their own teaching approaches and curricula is a convincing argument. Teachers are in the best position to assess the needs of students and see where they are on the learning curve. Standardization is helpful for ensuring that everyone is being taught to achieve a specific goal—but the problem with standardization is that all students are different, with different skill levels, different needs, different talents, and different ambitions and backgrounds. Standardization supposes that everyone can be homogenized whereas the reality in the U.S. is that individualism is still very much a part of the culture and recognized as a positive. High stakes testing and the standardization process do not mesh well with this aspect of the American culture.
Instead, teachers should be allowed and encouraged to identify the needs of students in a general way. They should be given a general idea of the level at which students should be with respect to basic skills, such as reading, writing and arithmetic. Teachers should then be allowed to assess the achievement of students based on their own assessment methods. Multiple assessments (such as direct observation, formal assessment, portfolio assessment, self-assessment) all contribute to obtaining an effective measure of performance. By letting teachers do what they have been trained to do and trusting to the process, the educational system and all stakeholders can best be served. High stakes testing makes too many assumptions about control and evaluation methods that really do a disservice to the actual process of education and what it means to be a teacher.
References
Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-stakes testing & student
learning. Education policy analysis archives, 10, 18.
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative
metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.
Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes
testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5), 761-796.