High-Stakes Testing and Its Negative Effects on Learning

Introduction: High-Stakes Testing and the No Child Left Behind Act

Most teachers and administrators agree that it is important to measure student learning within schools. Performing tests, obtaining results, and analyzing those results can help schools make decisions about curriculum, faculty, and environment, among other variables. Obtaining test results can help schools better serve their students, producing more capable learners. But what is the best way to obtain these results?

The No Child Left Behind Act mandates high-stakes testing as the primary assessment method through which student learning is evaluated. High-stakes testing has even been called the "backbone" of No Child Left Behind (Nichols, n.d., para. 4). High-stakes tests can be defined as assessments used to make influential decisions about students' lives, such as whether they will advance to the next grade or graduate. Beckette and Brown argue that most teachers do not support high-stakes testing (cited in "Pros and Cons," 2006, para. 3). In fact, there are many arguments against high-stakes testing, though some argue that carefully designed high-stakes testing can be beneficial in shaping "school curriculum and reform" ("Pros and Cons," 2006, para. 5).

This essay argues that high-stakes testing has a negative effect on student learning. This argument is developed through three claims: first, that high-stakes testing encourages teachers to teach to the test rather than teaching the skills students need to obtain genuine competency in a field; second, that high-stakes testing encourages students to view the test — rather than learning itself — as the ultimate goal of education; and third, that high-stakes testing disadvantages students with learning disabilities.

Teaching to the Test Instead of Teaching for Competency

Because teachers are assessed based on the performance of their students on high-stakes tests, they have an incentive to teach material they know will appear on those tests, rather than material that will most impact students' academic, professional, and personal lives. Those who favor high-stakes testing suggest that "teachers need high-stakes tests to know what is important to teach" and that teachers need the tests to "motivate them" (Amrein & Berliner, 2002). Although some teachers fit this description, the vast majority do not.

Teachers — especially experienced ones — learn through trial and error, through prior teaching experiences, through working with students one-on-one, and through the practices of their peers. Every classroom is different, and the pace, structure of assignments, and approach to students must be based, in part, on those students themselves. Teachers who are motivated only to teach what they know will be on the test do a disservice to students: they do not encourage students to practice the critical thinking skills and reasoning necessary for their futures. Instead, such teachers encourage the memorization of testable content so that both students and teacher will perform satisfactorily on the assessment — regardless of whether deeper learning has occurred.

Conclusion: Rethinking High-Stakes Assessment

High-stakes testing is a practice adopted by many schools and enforced by the No Child Left Behind Act. High-stakes tests are those that determine whether a student will advance to another grade level, graduate, or achieve some other significant milestone. Although some people favor high-stakes testing — even calling it "an extremely valuable part of educational assessment" ("Appropriate Use," 2002, para. 16) — many educators and researchers do not believe it is the best way to assess students.

This essay has proposed that high-stakes testing is actually harmful to student learning. Students subjected to high-stakes tests will encounter teachers who teach to that test rather than imparting the broader knowledge students need — including the development of reasoning and critical thinking skills and curriculum responsive to the actual dynamics of the classroom. Students who are tested using high-stakes methods, overwhelmed by stress and fear of failure, come to see the test as the end result of schooling rather than genuine learning or education as the true prize. Finally, high-stakes testing prevents capable students with learning disabilities from succeeding because they are not provided with the tools necessary to demonstrate their abilities.

While further research must be done to determine the full academic, psychological, and other effects of standardized high-stakes testing, continuing to rely on these assessments as they are currently designed poses real dangers for both students and teachers.

References

Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002, March 28). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved February 22, 2009, from

Appropriate use of high-stakes testing in our nation's schools. (2001, May). Retrieved February 22, 2009, from the American Psychological Association.

Cortiella, C. (2004, June). Implications of high-stakes testing for students with learning disabilities. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from Great Schools. http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/showarticle/2846

Heubert, J. P. (2002). High-stakes testing: Opportunities and risks for students of color, English-language learners, and students with disabilities. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from

Nichols, S. (n.d.). Motivation for high-stakes testing. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from

Pros and cons of NCLB: What research says. (2006). Retrieved February 22, 2009, from the Educational Research Newsletter.