HIGH STAKES 1
High Stakes
Name
School of Education, Liberty University
Author Note
Name
I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Name.
Email:
HIGH STAKES 2
High-stakes testing refers to standardized assessments that can carry significant
consequences for students, teachers, schools, or entire districts. The process and
implementation of high-stakes testing were substantial in the United States’ education policy
with the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act two decades ago. The policy required
annual testing in specific grade levels to demonstrate students' yearly progress toward achieving
the school's goal of 100 percent proficiency (Uzzell et al., 2024). While some states were unable
to accomplish this, they were granted waivers, and restrictions were eased in 2015 when the
federal government failed to provide sufficient funding to ensure schools were adequately
funded. The
No Child Left Behind Act was then replaced with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) under
President Obama, who lowered stipulations on state testing requirements. This high-stakes
testing has been debated yearly on the consequences that schools and teachers face when
utilizing these standardized tests. These include retaining teachers and support staff, as well as
funding for schools and programs. This not only affects the schools but also reflects on the
community when schools fail to meet specific achievement and academic standards for
potential new students and their applications and registration.
The results of high-stakes tests are often used to make critical decisions, such as
determining year-end grades, teachers’ evaluations, school funding, or even school closures.
However, the results of these tests are often used to make these essential decisions without
considering other factors relevant to today’s diverse population (Borich & Kubiszyn, 2024).
These critics of high-stakes testing have placed undue pressure on schools and teachers to focus
on teaching students to memorize information or master test-taking strategies rather than
encouraging them to think analytically or critically. (Amrein-Beardsley & Berliner, 2002) This
drives the education system to a lower standard, as students will not understand the breadth or
depth of what should be learned, but it also inflates test scores without producing any genuine
learning.
HIGH STAKES 3
These standardized tests do offer benefits by using standard metrics across states,
helping to focus efforts on low-performing schools, and providing resources to improve them
(Uzzell et al., 2024). When institutions are held accountable, administrators and teachers focus
their time and effort on producing measurable gains for student success. In providing resources
for test improvement and addressing low-performing schools, policymakers have also taken an
interest in helping the administration identify planning, content, and professional development
needs for teachers. Some downsides to using these high-stakes testing methods include
narrowing the focus of teachers by concentrating on the test rather than teaching. Findings from
high-stakes testing undermine education because they limit teachers' ability to connect with
students and provide the best learning experiences throughout their early education (Au, 2007).
Secondly, by using standardized metrics, some states have provided either rewards or sanctions
depending on how schools perform, resulting in less severe improvement plans for low-
performing schools and more severe sanctions aimed at closing them (Hamilton et al., 2002).
Lastly, the impacts of lowperforming or disabled students are affected, as policies are not
designed with their needs in mind, which causes teachers to focus on the test rather than the
material.
References
Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-Stakes Testing, Uncertainty, and Student
Learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives.
Au, W. (2007). High-Stakes Testing and Curricular Control: A Qualitative Metasynthesis.
Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07306523
(Original work published 2007)
Borich, T.K.G. D. (2024). Educational Testing and Measurement (12th ed.). Wiley Global
Education US. https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9781119931683
Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., & Klein, S. P. (Eds.). (n.d.). Making sense of test-based
accountability in Education. Making Sense of Test-Based Accountability in Education.
HIGH STAKES 4
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2002/MR1554.pdf
Uzzell, E. M., Ayscue, J. B., Fusarelli, L. D., & Jackson, M. M. (2024). “Fighting an uphill
battle”: The pursuit of equity through the Every Student Succeeds Act in North Carolina.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 60(5), 624–667.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X241281372
