High-stakes Testing - Criticism

Criticism

High-stakes tests are often criticized for the following reasons:

• The test does not correctly measure the individual's knowledge or skills. For example, a test might purport to be a general reading-skills test, but it might actually determine whether or not the examinee has read a specific book.
• The test may not measure what the critic wants measured. For example, a test might accurately measure whether a law student has acquired fundamental knowledge of the legal system, but the critic might want students to be tested on legal ethics instead of legal knowledge.
• Testing causes stress for some students. Critics suggest that since some people perform poorly under the pressure associated with tests, any test is likely to be less representative of their actual standard of achievement than a non-test alternative. This is called test anxiety or performance anxiety.
• High-stakes tests are often given as a single long exam. Some critics prefer continuous assessment instead of one larger test. For example, the American Psychological Association (APA) opposes high school exit examinations, saying, "Any decision about a student's continued education, such as retention, tracking, or graduation, should not be based on the results of a single test, but should include other relevant and valid information." Since the stakes are related to consequences, not method, however, short tests can also be high-stakes.
• High-stakes testing creates more incentive for cheating. Because cheating on a single critical exam may be easier than either learning the required material or earning credit through attendance, diligence, or many smaller tests, more examinees that do not actually have the necessary knowledge or skills, but who are effective cheaters, may pass. Also, some people who would otherwise pass the test but are not confident enough of themselves might decide to additionally secure the outcome by cheating, get caught and often face even worse consequences than just failing. Additionally, if the test results are used to determine the teachers' pay or continued employment, or to evaluate the school, then school personnel may fraudulently alter student test papers to artificially inflate student performance.
• Sometimes a high-stakes test is tied to a controversial reward. For example, some people may want a high-school diploma to represent the verified acquisition of specific skills or knowledge, and therefore use a high-stakes assessment to deny a diploma to anyone who cannot perform the necessary skills. Others may want a high school diploma to represent primarily a certificate of attendance, so that a student who faithfully attended school but cannot read or write will still get the social benefits of graduation. This use of tests — to deny a high school diploma, and thereby access to most jobs and higher education for a lifetime — is controversial even when the test itself accurately identifies students that do not have the necessary skills. Criticism is usually framed as over-reliance on a single measurement or in terms of social justice, if the absence of skill is not entirely the test taker's fault, as in the case of a student who cannot read because of unqualified teachers, or an elderly person with advanced dementia that can no longer pass a driving exam due to loss of cognitive function.
• Tests can penalize test takers that do not have the necessary skills through no fault of their own. An absence of skill may not be the test taker's fault, but high-stakes test measure only skill proficiency, regardless of whether the test takers had an equal opportunity to learn the material. Additionally, wealthy students may use private tutoring or test preparation programs to improve their scores. Some affluent parents pay thousands of dollars to prepare their children for tests. Critics see this as being unfair to students who cannot afford additional educational services.
• High-stakes tests reveal that some examinees do not know the required material, or do not have the necessary skills. While failing these people may have many public benefits, the consequences of repeated failure can be very high for the individual. For example, a person who fails a practical driving exam will not be able to drive a car legally, which means they cannot drive to work and may lose their job if alternative transportation options are not available. The person may suffer social embarrassment when his acquaintances discover that his lack of skill resulted in loss of his driver's license. In the context of high school exit exams, poorly performing school districts have formally opposed high-stakes testing after low test results, which accurately and publicly exposed the districts' failures, proved to be politically embarrassing, and criticized high-stakes tests for identifying students who lack the required knowledge.