Amanda Binder

EDUC 570
26 March 2013
Issue #4: High Stakes Testing
Summary:
The Education Policy Analysis Archives (2012) was a study that had the purpose to seek
to discover if high stakes testing improved student achievement in 25 states. This study is a
follow up for the study performed in 2000. A series of correlation analyses was conducted to
explore relationships between high-stakes testing accountability pressure and student
achievement as by the National Assessment for Education Progress (NAEP) in reading and
math (Nichols et al., 2012). The study used descriptive statistics to evaluate fourth and eighth
grade levels in the subjects of math and reading.
First they gathered state portfolios that included: legislative documents, state generated
accountability reports, and news paper articles that capture test-based accountability practices.
Then they hired 300 graduate students to make judgments using a scale to determine which state
exerted more pressure and by how much. Lastly, they rated the values and concluded that who
had the highest test-based accountability pressure (APR=4.78).
To date there is no consistent and therefore no convincing evidence that high-stakes
testing works to increase student achievement, except weakly in certain areas of the math
curriculum (Nichols et al., 2012). From this study it appears that research fails to support the
claims (Raymond & Hanushek, 2003) that high stakes testing has the benefit of increasing
student learning.
The results concluded that fourth and eighth grade math average scores rose more

dramatically from 2000 to 2003 (pre-NCLB) than from 2003 to 2009 (post-NCLB),
the white/black and white/Hispanic achievement gaps dropped relatively more steeply in the
period 2000-2003, while leveling off, but still declining slowly from 2003 to 2009, in eighth
grade, NAEP reading performance for all subgroups of students (except low SES) dropped
steadily in the period 2002-2005 following by a steady rise in the period 2005-2009 (Nichols et.
Al, 2012).

Reaction:
This study is very interesting and the statistics are outstanding. The comparison to the
reading and math score from before NCLB are moderate and over all the results after NCLB
seem to decrease and slowly drop. It is also very interesting the comparison of different
ethnicities and poverty indexes. The research of this study concluded that state poverty rates and
racial composition has a large influence to the value of high stakes testing. For those who have
more affluent student populations they do better than those with higher poverty rates as well as
large population of students who are African American. If this is known to the public then why is
high stakes testing required when results have not been significantly positive to students
achievement. When achievement is measured and testing pressure is diminishing students gain in
achievement then obviously this practice is not working. Those who feel the pressure the most
are not given the resources and training to achieve the high stakes test because of their states
poverty level, but even those privileged are not showing significant achievement results in the
area of reading and math when it comes to high stakes testing. It is unfair to require teachers and
students to meet these standards that are not causing any positive effect, instead more grief.


Citation:
Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V, Berliner, D.C. (2012) High-stakes testing and student
achievement: Updated analyses with NAEP data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20
(20) Retrieved 8 March 2013, from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1048