The Unintended Consequences Of Standardized Testing

The Unintended Consequences of High Stakes Testing

Since the beginning of the 20th century some form of high stakes standardized testing has existed in the United States. Test use has ranged from determining acceptance or rejection of an immigrant to enter the U.S. to declaring a citizen competent to enter the military. So, for nearly a century, high stakes testing has had significant rewards and consequences associated with it. Standardized testing of student comprehension and competency has long been involved with K-12 education, but has lacked the association with high stakes. In 1983, the National Commission on Education released "A Nation At Risk", "which called for an end to the minimum competency testing movement and beginning of high stakes testing movement that would raise the nation's standards of achievement drastically". Within the last decade many policymakers have adopted legislatures in their own states requiring the use of high stakes testing to help determine accountability in their school systems. Many times these high stakes tests determine whether a student advances to the next grade level or even graduates high school. The American Psychological Association (APA) states that the potential problem with current increased emphasis on high stakes testing is not necessarily the test per se, but the instances when tests have unintended and potentially negative consequences for individual students, groups of students, or the educational systems more broadly. Currently many school systems use the single test score of a student to determine whether they advance to the next level of education. I believe that when tests are used properly, they can be very effective in identifying a student's strengths and weaknesses. Although high stakes testing has good intentions, a single test provides only a glimpse of a student's academic performance, and therefore should not be the single determining factor whether a student passes or fails.

Furthermore, high stakes testing relies upon a multitude of ever changing variables that can lead to inaccurate and undesirable results. Test developers, administrators, teachers, parents and students all play an integral role in a sensitive balance.

"Fairness in testing begins when tests are being developed". With the greatest of intentions, test developers attempt to accurately design a test based upon specific knowledge for a student's grade level. But what happens when test developers design a test that is not in sync with class curriculum or doesn't properly reflect student comprehension? Gaps between testing and educational realities occur. These gaps are apparent in these two cases taken from the Berkeley Parents Network:

(1) My 6th grade daughter got her report card and Star Parent Report in the same envelope last week. Her report card was terrific, A's and a B. Her Achievement Test results were dismal, 37% in Total Reading and 35% in Total Math.

(2) My son received straight D's and F's in 7th grade (Albany), but got an average of 98% on the STAR testing stuff. I'm not sure what that says except grades obviously doesn't show what a kid knows and testing definitely doesn't.

Inadvertently, teachers may be forced to adjust their curriculum as to better prepare students for high stakes testing. Although this sounds good in theory, teachers may begin to "teach the test" and in doing so may avoid deep student comprehension and understanding of the material. Teachers and administrators have a lot riding on their student's performances and can be the difference between a having a job or not. As well, to motivate teachers and administrators to improve test scores, many states have adopted bonus programs that reward for high or improved tests scores. In a recent publication, "High Stakes, Uncertainty, and Student Learning", Professor Audrey Amrein and David Berliner determine that over twenty states offer incentives for high or improved test scores in schools. More specifically, in Oakland, California, city administrators and teachers may receive a 9% increase in pay for good performance with a potential for 3% increase (1% per increase in reading, math, and language arts). With large sums of money up for grabs you can bet teachers