The Pros And Cons Of High-Stakes Testing

High-stakes testing dates back to around one hundred years ago. They were first created as a means to sort people into groups to where each student could be placed where they could receive the most appropriate level of instruction based on their test scores. These tests were also used for determining what type of vocations the test takers were most suited for. Students began being tested nationwide for reading achievement in the 1960’s, starting with National Assessment of Educational Progress. This assessment was given every four years to students in 4th, 8th, and 12th grade. High-stakes testing began to increase significantly after “A Nation at Risk” was published in 1983 by the National Commission on Excellence in Education. This publication caused a state of panic through its portrayal of the U.S. education system as being significantly inept in preparing students for success in

and out of school. This led to many politicians to put into policy an increase in of individual high-stakes testing in order to increase teacher, student, and school accountability. This was perhaps the beginning of the assumption that good schools and good students are determined by good test scores.
High-stakes testing continue to be in large use today. One reason for their continued use and general support from non-educators is the fact that most high-stakes are standardized and are therefore interpreted as treating all students fairly. High-stakes testing have also played a large role in scientific studies centered reading achievement. Some these studies have been based solely on test scores. Since high-stakes testing has now been around for generations, they carry with them a familiarity, where most adults have experienced some level of high-stakes testing themselves.
Most high-stakes tests designed to measure reading achievement consist of a series of short reading passages, each followed by a group of multiple-choice questions. Because of the diverse population of students that these tests are administered to, these passages are designed to be very general focused on topics. These topics either do not require a lot of background knowledge for understanding, or they are topics that most students do generally have background knowledge in. High-stakes tests are standardized, where there is a standard amount of questions, time, and directions for each student taking the test. Most high-stakes tests are also norm-referenced, which means they are designed so the scores can be related to a sample population of students. This allows for comparison of scores between students across populations and within each population.
High-stakes testing has led to many consequences both positive and negative.

The same can be anticipated with the continuance of high-stakes testing. Positively speaking, high-stakes testing can give understanding to teachers and administrators about the reading performance of specific subgroups of students based on gender, ethnic group, or geographic region. Afferbach argues that this can be considered a positive aspect because of how the information can be used in educational decision making such as funding. High-stakes testing also serve well in measuring growth and progress, as they are administered at the end of every year. This allows for data on individual students, schools’ and districts’ growth from year to year in the tested areas. Another positive consequence of high-stakes tests is the common vocabulary they create. When students move into new schools or new districts, their tests scores travel with them, allowing for the new teachers and administrators to have a background for the student. This creates a smoother transition both for teacher and

student.
However there are several negative outcomes that can be anticipated as well. For instance, high-stakes tests can have a severe effect on many students. Because of their format, high-stakes tests can measure students’ test taking ability just as much as it does their reading ability. Afflerbach points out some students always do well on tests while some students always do poorly. This can to what the author describes as a “routine of failure” (page 142). Norm-referenced tests can often end up labeling these students as below average. Sometimes this can lead to providing students with extra motivation to improve, however there are many students that give up due to a sense of hopelessness derived from their consistent poor test scores. Another negative outcome that has stemmed from high-stakes testing has come from the pressure to improve test scores. This pressure has led to schools and districts to select curriculum based on how the content and form relates to the high-stakes tests. This problem is often described as “teaching to the test.” As a result reading curriculum’s depth are often limited, and less engaging for students. Students are often less likely to become engaged when reading curriculum is centered on testing, rather than building comprehension and a love of reading.
Teachers can also be subject to negative consequences stemmed from high-stakes testing. Educators are very aware of the negative toll testing is causing for many of their students and their learning. However, teachers are still faced with having to take time to prepare their students for the tests. Teacher’s often faced with the dilemma of choosing between engaging reading instruction and teaching to a test. Teaching to test is less engaging to teachers just as it is to students.
Despite the foreseen negative consequences from high-stakes testing, there is still much usefulness that comes from them as well. The main function of high-stakes tests have been teacher, student, and school accountability. A portion of taxpayer’s money goes to funding schools, and taxpayers naturally disserve to see their money is being put to good use. The primary means for holding schools and teachers accountable in the U.S. is high-stakes testing.
High-stakes testing are also useful in making comparisons across schools, districts, states and even counties. These comparisons have proven useful for governmental agencies in providing funding to districts in need or in providing punitive action. Finally, high-stakes testing is also useful in the decision making process for placing students in remedial or gifted and talented reading programs.
High-stakes testing provides various responsibilities and roles, fo educators. Afflerbach presents the first responsibility as becoming knowledgeable of the ins and outs of high-stakes testing. “Knowledge about high-stakes tests us determine our stance towards such tests: how we regard them, how we use them, and how they figure in the life of the classroom” (page 145). For educators, knowledge about high-stakes testing influences their instruction and classroom. High-stakes testing brings with them a various amount of intellectual and emotional challenges and the more knowledge teachers have about these challenges, the more adequately they can prepare themselves and their students.
Afflerbach offers that teachers also have a responsibility to educate others about high-stakes testing. This includes obviously their students, but also the students’ parents as well. While most parents will have knowledge from their own experience in high-stakes testing, educators can give them perspective on how high-stakes testing has since evolved. Educators can also help parents understand that high-stakes testing is not the only measure of their children’s reading achievement.
Finally, educators have a responsibility to prepare their students for the high-stakes testing and discerning how much time should be devoted to such preparation. As Afflerbach points out, regardless of teacher’s personal position towards high-stakes testing, their students have to take them. Teachers are responsible for giving their students the tools to succeed, including success in taking their test.