In previous years, assessments were arguably created to measure the cognitive skills, growth, performance, and redirection of instruction. According to Madaus and Russel (2009) in “Paradoxes of High-Stakes Testing,” the term, assessments or tests, have generated this sense of fear, anxiety, and lack of easement in many learners rather than staying true to its purpose. Its core intent was initially a form of technology to align curriculum and objective relations and measure students’ achievements (Madaus & Russell, 2009). As stated in our readings by Kubiszyn and Borich (2011), “It is from the results of tests and assessments that we attempt to measure learning or to quantify some attribute or characteristic” (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2011, p. 21). The concept of high-stake testing is to effectively provide diagnostic information about a student’s progression within his grade level and content along with the effectiveness of a student and/or district’s instruction. The system of high-stake testing is to help provide immediate feedback to educators along with provide intended focus instruction with the expectation of student achievement. Although some critics may argue the notion that high-stake testing results in teaching to the test, one can agree that the concepts of high-stake testing are to ensure effective diagnostic information about a learner’s progression within his content and grade level, help provide immediate feedback to educators, and ensure the future of tailoring instruction.
The concepts of high-stake testing is to ensure effective diagnostic information about a learner’s progression within his content and grade level. These high-stake tests are based on over thirty-years of continued research that supports growth in all grade levels and content areas. It is up to the educator, district, and administration that play a role in the instructional plan in implementing these concepts that promote content progression. Because I teach all four secondary grade levels, many times I get to follow my students to their senior year of high school. I noticed that students grow when the classroom environment welcomes growth. Providing students with the essential skills to attack any assessment eliminates the skill of teaching-to-the test. According to Au (2008), “Testing is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. . . [it] is—a technology with deep roots in our education system” (Au, 2008). Education is continuously changing, and without the qualitative and quantitative data, there is no concrete plan in assuring a learner’s progression within his content and grade level.
In addition, although some researchers disagree that high-stake testing results in teaching to the test, these high-stake testing tools influence educational quality. As written in Madaus and Russell’s (2009) article, “a key strategy for improving educational quality is [through] high-stake testing” (Madaus & Russell, 2009). The concepts of the test have nothing to do with the instructional plan that is implemented day-to-day. The decision is considered by the districts, administrations, facilitators, and teachers. Some believe that if a concept or learning objective is on these high-stake tests, that is considered knowledge. However, knowledge is gathered information through experience, research, environment, and education. When the meaning of knowledge is altered, the results are what influence instruction being based on teaching to a test rather than teaching to build knowledge and identity (Au, 2008, p. 640). High-stake testing is gathered concepts in a form of questionnaires that provide diagnostic information about a learner’s progression. When the main objective of this concept is discoursed through socio-economic power, recontextualizing rules and expectations within districts, governments, schools, and the classroom must be implemented (Au, 2008, p. 645). However, the cause for these results are not direct effects of high-stake testing. The test is measuring if a student has progressed in the content and his grade level or has become stagnant. It is a technology that is beneficial in placement.
One can, also, argue that the concepts of high-stake testing does not result in teaching-to-the test due to immediate feedback to educators. Immediate feedback results in providing educators adequate data to continue or adjust their instructional plan that ultimately influences the learners. According to Gallavan and Kottler (2009) in “Constructing Rubrics and Assessing Progress Collaboratively with Social Studies Students,” “[a]ssessments must be visualized clearly before any teaching occurs” (Gallavan & Kottler, 2009). As a secondary English educator and coordinator, we base our weekly professional learning community meetings around gathered data from assessments. Assessments that are typically aligned to high-stake tests. In the first week of each semester, we give our students released high-stake tests from the state to accurately plan out each unit, catering to the needs, content-readiness, and grade level of our learners. Due to the assessments already being released, it allows for us to receive immediate feedback about the direction of our semesters. Without these high-stake tests, there is no accurate measurement of the direction we should be teaching our students. High-stake testing is considered beneficial rather than a teach-to-the-test discourse, because through immediate feedback, “what is most appropriate for the particular topic, unit of learning, and community of learners” is the center-focus (Gallavan & Kottler, 2009). Teaching-to-the test is a method with the core being memory. However, that is not the intent of these tests. The core of these tests is progression and content and career-readiness.
Lastly, the concepts of high-stake testing is to ensure the future of tailoring instruction. Through the qualitative and quantitative data of these high-stake tests, my professional learning community have identified what works and what does not work for our students. The district provides educators an outline; the professional learning communities alter these outlines based on the needs of their students’ previous high-stake tests scores. However, many of our students’ origins are similar which influence their performance levels. As stated in Furuta (2021) and others’ article, “Sociologists of education have long recognized the importance of exams as central features of national educational systems that play a significant role in shaping outcomes” (Furuta et. al, 2021). Instructional planning is not just for our current students, but future students to come. With that in mind, the concepts of these high-stake tests’ data help in tailoring the future of instruction being a helpful tool or not. Teaching-to-the test leads to future students ill-prepared due to memory focus lessons rather than concept and skill-focused lessons. These tests prevent such action from happening, because it is the main artifact that illustrates past and present data to mold future instruction. Furuta (2021) adds that “In the early twentieth century, most assumed that few people would pursue higher levels of schooling” (Furuta et. al, 2021). It is due to the concepts and skills taught from the outlines of these tests that has molded increased enrollments in higher levels of schooling present-day.
Although most can agree the concepts of high-stake testing is beneficial rather than an enforced resource that influences the teaching-to-test method, some disagree with this notion. One reason critics are opposed to high-stake testing not leading to teaching-to-the test is due to research stating certain schools or districts benefiting from the access to tools that increase or alter the concepts of these tests. For instance, certain districts and schools lack the funding and/or resources due to the environment socio-economic class of the students (Au, 2008, p. 642). These high-stake tests are to support equality, but without the equitable accessibility to resources, it shifts the purpose of the test to teaching-to-the test. It is expected that these students from all classes to take the same tests, and without proper equitable resources, educators are forced to teach-to-the test rather than teach based on the readiness of their students.
In addition, critics argue that high-stake testing is leading to teaching-to-the test method, because it is influencing segregation within schools. In addition, Furuta (2021) and others note that “School systems often use high-stakes exams to sort students into sharply differentiated school ‘tracks,’ in which comparative research has shown to substantially increase educational inequalities” (Furuta et. al, 2021). Although some classroom settings may influence real instructional learning rather than what is going to be on the test, these students typically are the more advanced learners. This method results in the rest of the students learning based on memory and cheat codes rather than building true skills—teaching-to-the-test. Lastly, the purpose of high-stake tests are to promote growth. However, Furuta (2021) and others’ research contradicted this notion, stating that “[c]ountires with high-stake exams do not appear very different from those without exams in the early years of our study; enrollment were low everywhere” (Furuta, et. al, 2021). This is considered earlier on and has changed recently, but it does not negate the idea that there is results that show that high-stake exams are not necessary and lead to teaching-to-the test instruction.
All in all, one can argue that the effectiveness of high-stake testing helps with alignment of objectives, effective diagnostic information, and tailing information to be conducive for all learners more than it does influencing teaching-to-the test methods. These concepts are essential in allowing an educator to fully adapt growth and content-readiness rather than adapting harmful teaching tactics. Although some critics may argue the notion that high-stake testing results in teaching-to-the test, most can agree that the concepts of high-stake testing is to ensure effective diagnostic information about a learner’s progression within his content and grade level, help provide immediate feedback to educators, and ensure the future of tailoring instruction. It does not lead to nor influence teaching-to-the test. The influencers that take part in the instructional planning and teaching negates what happens in the classroom.
References
Au, W. W. (2008). Devising Inequality: A Bernsteinian analysis of High-Stake Testing and Social Reproduction in Education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(6), 639-651. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40375388
Furuta, J., Schofer, E., & Wick, S. (2021). The Effects of High Stakes Educational Testing on Enrollments in an Era of Hyper-Expansion: Cross-National Evidence, 1960–2010. Social Forces 99(4), 1631-1657. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/801077.
Gallavan, N. P., & Kottler, E. (2009). Constructing Rubrics and Assessing Progress Collaboratively with Social Studies Students. Social Studies, 100(4), 154–159. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.3200/TSSS.100.4.154-159
Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G. D. (2015). Educational Testing and Measurement (11th Edition). Wiley Global Education US. https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9781119228097
Madaus, G., & Russell, M. (2009). Paradoxes of High-Stakes Testing. The Journal of Education, 190(1/2), 21-30. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42744178.