High Stakes Testing Pros And Cons

1. I think that high-stakes testing is changing teaching in a number of negative ways. It forces teachers and administrators to align the curriculum to these standards instead of the standards being aligned to realistic, appropriate learning needs for every level. At the same time, the standards should fit what key stakeholders agree as the means and ends of education. Otherwise, high-stakes testing becomes an authoritarian means of shaping schooling according to a one-test-fits-all thinking. Instead of being inclusive and participatory, our education system becomes restrictive and static.

High-stakes testing also has negative effects on learning because it tells students what education means- which appears to be something too complex and difficult to understand and relate to. These tests, being too long and beyond their level of cognitive development, would unnecessarily eat away their confidence, and perhaps even their motivation to learn. In addition, if assessments become too geared toward these tests, affective assessments would take a backseat. Affective assessments, however, are essential to understanding what our students know and prefer and their attitudes

If, after high-stakes testing, we have higher drop-out rates, particularly among minority groups, and lower or the same academic performance in our public schools, then the former does not result to equity. Instead, it is becoming an obstacle because it is making teaching and learning more difficult for teachers and students, respectively. I have nothing against standards and tests that help make teachers become more accountable for the academic performance of their students, but I think that we need to apply these, not in a punitive way, but in ways that support other means of performance-boosting