High-Stakes Testing

Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, high-stakes testing has dominated the educational field. States are now required to set challenging academic content standards for schools and students and regularly test students to measure their ability to meet these standards. These assessments are called high-stakes testing because of the severe consequences schools face if their students' test scores meet state standards. To prepare students to succeed on these tests, schools and teachers can incorporate a variety of test prep content into curriculum and daily lessons. Specially targeted strategies can be taught to English language learner students and students with disabilities, who may also be eligible to for test accommodations. Education professionals continue to debate the merits of high-stakes testing and stress the need to supplement it with other forms of assessment.

Keywords English Language Learners; High-Stakes Testing; High School Exit Exams; Individualized Education Program; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); Learning Styles; No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); Remediation; Sanctions; Short Answer Questions; Standardized Testing; Students with Disabilities; Writing Prompts

Testing & Evaluation > High-Stakes Testing

Overview

High-stakes tests are assessments which students, instructors, schools, districts, and states use to account for student performance (Loschert, 2000, as cited in Coltrane, 2002). High-stakes tests are used to determine grade retention, school curriculum, and whether or not students will receive a high school diploma. They also determine adequate progress of public schools; failure to achieve progress can result in loss of funding to districts. These tests are usually standardized assessments, although some states have designed their own testing instruments. With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the use of high-stakes tests is more widespread than ever before (Coltrane, 2002).

Requirements of No Child Left Behind

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires students to be assessed in mathematics and reading/English language arts in grades three through eight as well as in one high school grade by the 2005-2006 school year. By the 2007-2008 school year, states will be required to also assess their students in science - at least once in grades three through five, once in grades six through nine, and once in grades ten through twelve. The act also mandates states to set challenging academic content standards and align assessments with the state content standards. The act, however, does not define content standards, set the performance standards for each state, or detail the type of assessments or cutoff scores that should be used. These determinations are instead left to each individual state. Each state is also allowed to set the minimum number of students needed for reporting subgroups' results to determine whether a school or district has made adequate yearly progress. NCLB also describes how states are to set their annual measurable objectives, which are based on the percentage of students performing at or above proficiency. These standards are used to determine if schools, districts, and states make annual yearly progress. The progress targets must be set so all students will be at the proficient level or above by 2014; if the percentage of students passing state tests is insufficient, schools have not made adequate yearly progress. Sanctions are imposed on schools not meeting their annual yearly progress two years in a row. Sanctions become increasingly severe for schools missing targets for a third, fourth, and fifth years in a row. Students may be transferred to other schools, staff may be replaced, the state may take over the school, and, ultimately, federal funding may be withdrawn (Linn, 2005).

Further Insights

Preparing Students for High-Stakes Tests

With the enactment of No Child Left Behind, every state-mandated testing program has become a high-stakes testing program for students, schools, and districts. In such a high-stakes learning environment, instructors must do everything they can to prepare their students to successfully demonstrate their knowledge and skills on these tests.

Test Preparation

Researchers have found a significant relationship between test preparation and academic performance (Norton & Park, 1996, as cited in Gulek, 2003) indicating that adequate test preparation can significantly improve students' attitudes toward test taking and actual test performance (Chittooran & Miles, 2001, as cited in Gulek, 2003). To prepare students for high-stakes testing, instructors should teach the content domain, test strategies, and time management skills; use a variety of assessment approaches and formats; teach time; foster student motivation; and show students how they can allay test anxiety (Miyasaka, 2000, as cited in Gulek, 2003).

Teaching to the Test

High-stakes testing puts a great deal of pressure on instructors, and may tempt them to simply teach to the test and discount teaching students other skills and competencies. While this sort teaching may raise students' scores, it can hurt them later on. Appropriate test preparation presents materials that are outside the scope of the test. Instructors should expose students to all curriculum objectives targeted to their grade level to give them the chance to demonstrate what they have learned and what they can do. By doing so, test scores will still show student competency and students will be able to correctly handle any unexpected test material (Gulek, 2003).

Multiple-choice question are still the preferred format for many high-stakes tests because they can be straightforwardly and inexpensively scored, and because they can efficiently cover a variety of topics. However, open ended questions like short answer questions and writing prompts are also used (Chudowsky et al., 2002).

When preparing student for testing, instructors should use a variety of assessment approaches and formats as part of the test preparation process. Exposing students to different approaches is a good practice because they can learn to apply their knowledge and skills to multiple learning situations. Student have different learning styles, and using a variety of approaches allows instructors additional opportunities to see what their students know and can do, determine which types of questions they best to, and adjust their instruction accordingly (Gulek, 2003). Students should also be taught test taking strategies like eliminating answers, underlining important passages or information, and skipping questions as well as the basics preparations like getting a good night's sleep the night before a test and eating a good breakfast the morning of the test.

Time Management

A lack of time management skills can also hinder student performance on high-stakes tests. These skills are especially vital to students with disabilities. Studies have shown that when teachers spend time on time management skills, all students, including those with disabilities, demonstrated proficiency on exams (Jakupcak & Rushton, 1992, as cited in Gulek, 2003). One of the simplest ways to help students with time management is to give assessments with time limits throughout the year so they can become accustomed to taking tests under time constraints (Clovis, 1999, as cited in Gulek, 2003). Three ways of reviewing material for high-stakes tests that can be used. The first one is to incorporate daily reviews by having students conduct short reviews of lecture notes before and after class. The second way is to have weekly reviews by suggesting to students that they dedicate one hour per subject per week reviewing assigned reading and lecture notes. The last method is to conduct major reviews by, starting the week before a major test, having students study their most difficult subjects when they are most alert. For some students, this will be in the morning; for others; it can be the afternoon or evening. Students should be encouraged to study anywhere between two to five hours with sufficient breaks interspersed throughout (Loulou, 1997, as cited in Gulek, 2003).

Test Anxiety

A student's attitude toward testing can play a significant role in student performance, especially at the lower grades. Studies have shown that there is a consistent relationship between having a positive attitude and higher levels of reading achievement in grades one through eight (White, 1989, as cited in Gulek, 2003). Students with high levels of effort have also been shown to generally make better-than-average learning gains (Roderick & Engel, 2001, as cited in Gulek, 2003). Therefore, encouraging students to have a positive outlook about taking high-stakes tests can be crucial for student success, and instructors should stress the importance of properly preparing for these tests (Gulek, 2003).

With the do-or-die climate surrounding high-stakes testing, test anxiety has become quite prevalent among students in public schools, which can detrimentally affect student performance. Research has shown that the higher the anxiety level, the lower student performance tends to be (Berliner & Casanova, 1988; Hancock, 2001; Smith, Arnkoff & Wright, 1990, as cited in Gulek, 2003). Test anxiety and study habits also have a negative relationship.

Since test anxiety can have such an adverse effect on student success, it is important that instructors address it in class. Instructors should also acknowledge to their class that everyone has some stress when faced with a test and then teach them how to deal with the stress. Teaching students test-taking strategies and problem-solving skills is an effective way to help students overcome their anxieties and go into testing situations with the confidence that they will be successful (Gulek, 2003). Using positive reinforcement can also increase students' confidence. And teaching students relaxation techniques that they can use before, during, and after the test can help reduce tension (Protheroe & Perkins-Gough, 2000, as cited in Gulek, 2003).

English Language Learners

Federal laws require English language learners and students with disabilities to have access to the general curriculum whenever appropriate and to be included in state assessments to ensure that their needs are being addressed. Since the No Child Left Behind Act allows each state to set the minimum number of students needed for reporting subgroups results to determine whether a school or district has made adequate yearly progress, English language learners and students with disabilities may make up a large enough group to be counted. Therefore, states need to develop fair and effective procedures for testing students with disabilities and English language learner students. For some students that fall into either of these two categories, a traditional standardized test may not be a valid measure of what they know and can do. Therefore, states need to provide appropriate test accommodations to make it possible for these students to participate in a fair testing environment. An accommodation is any change to the standard test format. Accommodations can include one-on-one or small group testing situations; providing extended testing time; allowing the use of magnifying equipment, readers, signers, or transcribers; and allowing students to dictate their responses to a scribe (Chudowsky, Kober, Gayler & Hamilton, 2002).

English language learners represent an increasing percentage of students enrolled in the nation's public schools (Kindler, 2002, as cited in Coltrane, 2002). This makes it even more important to make high-stakes testing fair, valid, and reasonably accommodating to English language learners. The vast majority of high-stakes tests are written and administered only in English, putting many English language learners at an extreme disadvantage. This may skew a school's adequate yearly progress report, since the test may not be actually measuring an English language learner's ability in mathematics or science but rather his or her ability to read and understand English. With school funding, grade promotion, and graduation potentially at stake, including English language learners in adequate yearly progress reports can be detrimental for everyone involved if appropriate accommodations are not made. While No Child Left Behind mandates that English language learners be included in high-stakes tests, most states have historically exempted them if they have been in the United States or in an English as a second language program for less than three years or if they have not attained a certain level of English proficiency (Holmes, Hedlund & Nickerson, 2000, as cited in Coltrane, 2002).

One challenge this group of students poses is toward the validity and reliability of the tests. States need to determine what is actually being assessed by the test- if it is actually measuring English language learners' academic knowledge and skills, or if it is measuring their language skills regardless of the subject ostensibly assessed. Research has shown that when English language learners take standardized tests the results tend to reflect their English language proficiency, rather than their content knowledge or skills (Menken, 2000, as cited in Coltrane, 2002), which affects test validity. In some cases, it is better to test English language learners in their native language-with the exception of the English/language arts subtests-especially for English language learners who are enrolled in bilingual education classes and receive some of their instruction in their native language. These students may be able to demonstrate their knowledge more effectively in their native language. Although all states using high school exit exams require English language learners to pass the same tests as other students, by 2008 at least 18 states will offer English language learners accommodations. And five of these states will translate the exit exam-with the exception of the English/language arts subtests-into other languages (Chudowsky et al., 2002). For other high-stakes testing, tests in languages other than English are rarely provided, and testing accommodations that involve translation of a test into a student's native language are frequently prohibited by states (Rivera, Stansfield, Scialdone & Sharkey, 2000, as cited in Coltrane, 2002). However, this may change, since it is in the best interest of the schools to have their students do their best on assessments.

Test bias is another challenge high-stakes tests can pose to English language learners who may not have the cultural familiarity or knowledge assumed by some test items. Since English language learner students may have not been exposed to a test reference in his or her native culture, and these references are often assumed in United States culture rather than explicitly, these students may not be able to answer the test item correctly.

To overcome these challenges, accommodations offered to English language learners can include allowing additional time to take the test; administering the test to English language learners in a small group or alternate location that is familiar to them; allowing the test administrator to repeat or explain test items and directions; translating the test; allowing students to respond in their native language; and using a scribe to write down their answers (Coltrane, 2002).

Students with Disabilities

The amendments of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997) mandate that all students must be included in state and district-wide assessments. High-stakes testing, therefore, makes it doubly important for special education instructors to know about testing accommodations, test preparation, and test administration for disabled students. Although allowable accommodations will vary, they tend to fall into four categories:

• Presentation,

• Response,

• Setting, and

• Timing and scheduling.

Presentation accommodations can allow instructors to read test direction aloud to students, further describe the directions or answers any questions, read the test aloud, and allow the test to be displayed in larger-than-normal print. Response accommodations can supply a scribe to write down a student's answers. Setting accommodations can test students in small-group settings, test them individually, or place students in study carrels to provide additional privacy and deflect distractions. Timing and scheduling accommodations may allow students additional time to complete the test, provide them with additional or longer breaks, or spread the testing over a larger number of days (Accommodations, 2002, as cited in Washburn-Moses, 2003).

The purpose of providing appropriate accommodations is to achieve valid, not optimal, scores. Accommodations should help disabled students, but also maintain the purpose of the test. This means instructors can and should read aloud math or science sections, but not sections assessing reading skills (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1999; Thurlow, Elliott & Ysseldyke, 1998, as cited in Washburn-Moses, 2003). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities are intended to give all students the same advantages and opportunities. Therefore, students' testing accommodations should parallel the accommodations noted on their Individualized Education Program (IEP) that they normally receive in the classroom (Pitoniak & Royer, 2001; Thurlow et al., 1998, as cited in Washburn-Moses, 2003).

Special education instructors can help their students prepare for high-stakes tests with the same strategies used in regular classrooms. They can incorporate test preparation into their daily instruction, familiarize them the frequently occurring directions, review test material, and teach test taking strategies (Washburn-Moses, 2003). However, even with the best instruction, coaching, appropriate accommodations, and genuine effort on their part, many mild to moderately disabled students will still give up and just mark answers at random during prolonged testing, which is something that is impossible to take into consideration when trying to meet No Child Left Behind standards (Meek, 2006).

As more students with disabilities are included in high-stakes testing, special education instructors are often required to administer the tests. Since formats, accommodations, and accountability procedures may vary by state - or, because of how policies are interpreted, even by the district and school - it is important that instructors take advantage of any training opportunities available in test administration. They may be required to administer a standardized test in an environment that is decidedly not standard (Washburn-Moses, 2003).

Viewpoints

There are positive aspects to high-stakes testing as well as negative aspects. While the intentions of high-stakes testing are good-to assure that all students are getting an appropriate education and will be able to succeed in college and compete in the global workforce after graduating from high school-there are also some unintended consequences related to high-stakes testing. Generally speaking, most people do want a high school diploma to mean something. However, if a student does not receive a diploma because the school did not align its curriculum to the state's standards and teach its students what they were expected to know to pass the state's exit exam, it is certainly not the student's fault that he or she did not pass the exam.

High-stakes testing can raise student achievement and make schools more accountable. Those who oppose high-stakes testing argue that these tests lead to higher dropout rates, reduce classroom instruction to only test materials, narrow the curriculum by removing classes that are not being tested to make time to prepare students for these tests, and discriminate against minorities and poor students because they tend to have low scores. Many resist the idea of using a single high-stakes testing instrument decide if a student will move on to the next grade or graduate, if an instructor will keep his or her job, or if a school will be taken over by the state. The tests can also be unexpected financial burdens. To improve test outcomes, schools may have to offer free remediation over the summer, offer tutoring after regular classroom hours, or have special classes during regular hours with smaller groups of students - all which require additional funding (Ashford, 2003).

Some critics even contend that high-stakes testing decreases student motivation, raises dropout rates, and adversely affects the breadth and depth of student learning (Amrein & Berliner, 2003). Additionally, high-stakes testing can lead schools to retain struggling students, which is proven to significantly increase the likelihood of their dropping out (Goldschmidt & Wang, 1999, as cited in Amrein & Berliner, 2003). Schools may retain students to give them more time to gain the knowledge necessary to perform well on the tests the next year, as well as keep the low-performing students' test scores out of the composite test performance, thereby superficially improving their adequate yearly progress. Some schools have been accused of cheating by over identifying language-minority and special educations students to keep them from taking the tests. Schools have also allegedly encouraged those least likely to pass the tests to drop out (Amrein & Berliner, 2003).

Scores from high-stakes tests can be useful, but to provide a balanced picture they should be used in conjunction with other information. Practically every education and testing professional agrees that nothing should be determined by a single score from a particular point in time. Students can perform poorly on a test for a number of reasons besides a simple lack of knowledge. For starters, a test score is an estimate of what students know and can do and not an exact number. When test developers design a test, they include a small sample of questions from all possible questions that could be asked in a particular area. Therefore, depending on which questions are included on a particular version of a test, students may do better or worse. This is why testing instruments have margins of error. Tests may also contain poorly written questions, questions with no correct answer, or questions with more than one correct answer. Outside factors can also affect students' scores. They may have not been taught all the competencies covered, been distracted during the test, or been ill during a test (Gulek, 2003).

With high-stakes testing here for at least the foreseeable future, states, districts, schools, instructors, and students need to learn how to be successful in a high-stakes testing environment. School administrators need to make sure their curriculum is aligned with state standards and that the assessments used are valid instruments to assess those skills. Instructors need to make sure they properly prepare their students to take high-stakes tests and teach them the skills they need to know in order to succeed. Students also need to do their part by taking the assessments seriously, studying, and trying their best. However, with all the possible variables that can affect a student's test score, including a test's own margin of error, there should be some other factors, such as formative assessments and portfolios, taken into consideration before making high-stakes decisions such as denying a diploma, declaring a school failing, or holding back a student.

Terms & Concepts

High School Exit Exams: High school exit exams are tests that students must pass in order to graduate from high school and receive a diploma.

High-Stakes Testing: High-stakes testing is the use of test scores to make decisions that have important consequences for individuals, schools, school districts, and/or states and can include high school graduation, promotion to the next grade, resource allocation, and instructor retention.

Individualized Education Program (IEP): An Individualized Education Program is a detailed description of the educational goals, assessment methods, behavioral management plan, and educational performance of a student requiring special education services.

Learning Styles: Learning styles are the different ways students learn. Most students are visual learners (learn through seeing), auditory learners (learn through listening), tactile learners (learn through doing/touching), or a combination.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is the latest reauthorization and a major overhaul of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the major federal law regarding K-12 education.

Remediation: Remediation is the act or process of correcting an academic deficiency by providing additional instruction, tutoring, or other support service.

Short-Answer Questions: Short answer questions may require students to fill in a blank, complete a chart or graph, record the approach they used to solve a problem, or write a few sentences explaining a concept instead of just choosing a correct answer.

Standardized Testing: Standardized testing is the use of a test that is administered and scored in a uniform manner, and the tests are designed in such a way that the questions and interpretations are consistent.

Writing Prompts: Writing prompts are open-ended test items and require students to write a particular type of essay, such as persuasive, informational, or narrative.

Bibliography

Abrams, L. & Madaus, G. (2003). The lessons of high-stakes testing. Educational Leadership, 61 , 31-35. Retrieved August 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11863689&site=ehost-live

Amrein, A. & Berliner, D. (2003). The effects of high-stakes testing on student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60 , 32. Retrieved August 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9029501&site=ehost-live

Ashford, E. (2003). Re-thinking high school exit exams. Education Digest, 69 , 51-55. Retrieved August 16, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11143673&site=ehost-live

Chudowsky, N., Kober, N., Gayler, K. & Hamilton, M. (2002). State high school exit exams: A baseline report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED472055).

Coltrane, B. (2002). English language learners and high-stakes tests: An overview of the issue. (Report EDO-FL-02-07). Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED470981).

Examining high-stakes testing. (2014). Education Next, 14, 70-77. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92675915&site=ehost-live

Gulek, C. (2003). Preparing for high-stakes testing. Theory Into Practice, 42 , 42. Retrieved August 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9611432&site=ehost-live

Herman, J. L. (2013). Assessing the new Common Core tests. Harvard Education Letter, 29, 8-7. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88790969&site=ehost-live

Kern, D. (2013). Zombie ideas in education: High-stakes testing and graduation policies. New England Reading Association Journal, 49, 96-99. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90419843&site=ehost-live

Linn, R. (2005). Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 104 , 79-98. Retrieved May 2, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=17238819&site=ehost-live

Meek, C. (2006). From the inside out: A look at testing special education students. Phi Delta Kappan, 88 , 293-297. Retrieved August 19, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23398042&site=ehost-live

Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2012). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Updated analyses with NAEP data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20, 1-30. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=84357343&site=ehost-live

Ruecker, T. (2013). High-stakes testing and Latina/o students: Creating a hierarchy of college readiness. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 12, 303-320.Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90262633&site=ehost-live

Washburn-Moses, L. (2003). What every special educator should know about high-stakes testing. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35 , 12. Retrieved August 19, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9201815&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Elmore, R., Carnoy, M. & Siskin, L. (2003). The new accountability: High Schools and high-stakes testing. New York, NY: Routledge-Falmer.

Hamilton, L. & Klein, S. (2002). Making sense of test-based accountability in education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Harvard Education Letter (2003). Spotlight on high-stakes testing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Jones, M., Jones, B. & Hargrove, T. (2003). The unintended consequences of high- stakes testing. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

National Research Council (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.