Key lessons: High-stakes testing and effects on instruction

High-stakes testing—in which the results are the basis for major decisions about schools or students—has provoked a spate of articles and books defending and opposing the testing instruments and their effects on teaching and learning. Arguments on both sides are often passionate; they can even be described as polemical. But they beg the question: Where’s the evidence?

The literature is dominated by articles asserting that bad things are happening in classrooms in response to mandatory state tests. But for the most part, these articles are based on anecdotes and don’t tell us if the incidents are isolated or widespread. At the same time, more rigorous studies have emerged that identify characteristics of instruction that promotes student understanding of the subject matter and produces high test scores.

These articles and studies provide insights into the actions schools and districts should avoid as well as practices they should embrace in order to educate all students in a high-stakes environment.

How Does High-Stakes Testing Affect Classroom Instruction?

Little research exists to show how testing is affecting classroom instruction. A lot of articles relate stories about how high-stakes tests reduce learning to memorizing facts and consume valuable class time with test preparation rather than learning. But the evidence cited in these articles is mostly anecdotal, and not based on hard research. (Cizek 2001, Cimbricz 2002, Yeh 2005).
A majority of state and district officials report that NCLB testing requirements have led them to increase time for math and reading and reduce time for other subjects. Some view this as a negative while others see it as a positive move to help low-achieving students. (Center on Education Policy, 2006)
Teachers report contradictory effects of testing in their classrooms. While a large majority of teachers—79 percent—believe testing will have a negative impact on instruction, a similarly large majority—73 percent—said it has not affected their own teaching (Public Agenda, 2003). [View chart]
A majority of the public supports testing and accountability. A large majority — 71 percent — say they support annual mandatory testing as an indicator of how a school is performing (Public Agenda, 2003). A more recent poll reported that 57 percent of the general public thinks the amount of testing is currently about right or not enough (Phi Delta Kappan, 2005).
Even though the public supports testing in general, they worry that an emphasis on testing could go too far. Polls report that a major concern is reliance on a single test for making high-stakes decisions either about students or schools (Public Agenda, 2003, Phi Delta Kappan, 2005.
Researchers are divided about the effectiveness of high-stakes testing policies. A major, widely reported study concluded that high-stakes testing is "a failed policy initiative" because higher scores on state tests aren't transferring to other tests such as the SAT or National Assessment of Education Progress (Amrein & Berliner, 2001). But subsequent researchers are finding the opposite: that accountability measures linked to test scores improve student performance on state and other tests. They further find that low-income and minority students are making the most gains (Raymond & Hanuschek, 2003; Rosenshine, 2003; Bishop, 2001, Swanson, 2006).

How Does Instruction Affect The Results On High-Stakes Tests?

Teaching to the test can be good or bad: good if it means teaching a focused and aligned curriculum; bad if it reduces instruction to the memorization of test items (Popham, 2001; Baker, 2004).
New empirical studies show that given the right conditions, high-stakes testing can increase student learning. They indicate that teachers can both prepare students for tests and for deep understanding (Langer 2001, Greene, et al., 2003, Yeh, 2005, Williams, et al. 2005).
Aligning the curriculum to state standards combined with using test results to inform instruction will produce higher test scores than focusing on test-taking skills (Langer, 2001; Yeh, 2005; Williams, Kirst, & Haertel, 2005).

This document was prepared by Ruth Mitchell for the Center for Public Education. Mitchell, a consultant and writer, specializes in education research and practice.

Posted: Feb. 16, 2005
Updated: March 30, 2006
Copyright 2006 Center for Public Education