From the National Center for Fair and Open Testing - Click Here
The report states:
"Evidence continues to mount demonstrating that
high-stakes testing
undermines, rather than enhances, efforts to improve education for all
children.
The picture that emerges from several studies is of a nation severely
hurting its educational system while failing to provide help to schools
that need it, thereby harming the nation’s children – all in the name of
“accountability.”
High-stakes testing puts narrow, flawed instruments
at the center of education and leads to intensive teaching to the exams,
which does not result in real learning gains. At the same time, many
children are less motivated, are denied a high-quality educational
experience, and become more likely to leave school before graduating.
While state-mandated exams have been the major culprit, the federal
government’s imposition of high stakes on schools and districts will
compound the problem (see stories on NCLB, pp 23- 28).
Amrein and Berliner
Last year, Professors Audrey Amrein and David Berliner of Arizona State
University reported that gains states report on their own high-stakes
tests do not correlate with results from other exams, such as the
National Assessment of Educational Progress or SAT and ACT college
entrance tests (see Examiner, Spring 2002). In states with graduation
tests, scores on these other exams often declined or grew less quickly
relative to the nation as a whole. Their students were apparently less
well prepared and less likely to go to college than their peers in
non-high-stakes states.
In a second report, Amrein and Berliner examined dropout and graduation
rates in the 16 states that used high school exit exams in the 1990s.
They found that the graduation rate decreased in 10 states after high
school exit exams were implemented and increased in only five states.
Similarly, dropout rates increased in 8 states and decreased in 5. They
also found that General Equivalency Diploma (GED) enrollments tended to
increase and the age of GED examinees decreased, indicating that more
students had left school before graduating.
The authors also examined news clips from 26 states with high stakes for
students or schools, to consider other consequences. This evidence is
suggestive, not systematic. The authors found tendencies toward greater
grade retention (a policy that fails to improve student learning while
harming children);
more students being expelled, in some cases
apparently to drive out low scorers; and increased exemptions of
students with disabilities or limited English proficiency.
Amrein and Berliner also reviewed other published research that found
high stakes cause increased teaching to the tests and
narrowing
curriculum to fit them, with
particular harm to low-income students.
Boston College Study
The National Board on Testing and Public Policy at Boston College
reported that three-quarters of surveyed teachers said state testing
programs were not worth the time and money. A substantial majority said
the testing caused them to teach in ways that contradicted their views
of sound instruction.
The board released two studies of teachers’ views of the effects of
state-mandated testing on teaching and learning, one from a national
survey of 4,200 teachers, the other from in-depth interviews with
teachers. The studies compared the effects in low-, medium- and
high-stakes states.
In both studies, teachers said
higher stakes created more pressure to
teach to the test. About 40 percent of survey respondents said students
could raise their test scores without improving their real knowledge. As
stakes increased, teachers were more likely to narrow classroom
curriculum to focus more on tested areas and to engage in more test
preparation, including use of items similar to what is on the exams.
The teacher interviews were conducted in Kansas (low stakes), Michigan
(medium) and Massachusetts (high). As stakes increased, so did teachers’
reports of test-related effects on their classrooms. Some findings:
-Only one in ten urban Michigan teachers thought the state’s test-based
scholarship awards motivated their students, compared to one-third of
suburban and rural teachers.
-In Massachusetts, more than half the high school teachers thought that
testing demoralized their students. Two-thirds of all teachers thought
the tests were unduly stressful and unfair to special populations. Four
out of five thought the exam should not be used as a sole hurdle for
graduation.
In addition to the over-arching findings, the Board reports detail many
of the complex and subtle ways tests with different stakes impact
teaching and learning in elementary, middle, and high school levels.
Tests Demotivate
A thorough summary of research on education and motivation by a British
team found that constant testing motivates only some students and
increases the achievement gap between higher and lower achieving
students.
The results of the study, titled
“A Systematic Review of the Impact of
Summative Assessment and Tests on Students’ Motivation for Learning,”
rebut the claim that standardized testing motivates low achievers to
reap the reward of high scores and avoid the punishment of failure. In
fact, researchers Wynne Harlen and Dr. Ruth Deakin-Crick of Bristol
University found that the two categories of students particularly
discouraged by constant testing are girls and low achievers.
These findings call into question the claims of U.S. high-stakes testing
proponents that they have found the key to closing the race-based
achievement gap, since
the study results suggest that groups such as
low-income and many minority students, who traditionally score low on
standardized tests, are likely to be among those who are demotivated by
consistently poor test results.
The study also found that constant testing encourages even successful
students to see the goals of education in terms of passing tests rather
than developing an understanding of what they are learning, supporting
previous research done in the United States (see Examiner, Winter 1997).
The researchers found firm evidence that achievement of literacy is
linked to students’ interest in learning, the degree to which their
learning strategies link to existing knowledge rather than just
memorizing, and the degree to which they feel in control of their
learning. The authors concluded that policymakers must recognize that
high-stakes testing is providing information about students’ attainment
while reducing their motivation to learn.
A pamphlet summarizing the study, “Testing, Motivation and Learning,” is available from The Assessment Reform Group,
http://arg.educ.cam.ac.uk/. See also http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWeb/home.aspx?page=/reel/review_groups/assessment/review_one_abstract.htm.
Counterproductive
John Diamond and James Spillane of Northwestern University found that
the response to high stakes accountability in low-performing schools may
be counterproductive. They closely examined four Chicago schools—two
performing fairly well on mandated tests, two doing poorly. All the
schools did considerable test preparation,
but the lower-performing
schools tended to test more, focus attention on those close to passing,
and engage in other activities not likely to help most of their
students. Since low-income and minority-group students are concentrated
in the lower-performing schools, and those schools use unhelpful methods
while schools serving wealthier students use more effective methods to
raise scores, the results of high-stakes accountability testing could be
to widen test-score gaps.
Dropouts
Using data from the federal government’s National Educational
Longitudinal Survey, Sean Reardon and Claudia Galindo of Pennsylvania
State found that
“the presence of an eighth grade promotion test
requirement is strongly associated with an increased probability of
dropping out prior to tenth grade.” This particularly affects
low-income, lower-achieving students.
• Both Amrein and Berliner studies are at
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/epru_Research_Writing.htm
• The Board reports are at
http://www.bc.edu/research/nbetpp/reports.html
• Diamond & Spillane at
http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2002/WP-02-22.pdf
• Reardon & Galindo at
http://www.pop.psu.edu/general/pubs/working_papers/psu-pri/wp0301.pdf"
