High Stakes Testing and Teaching to the Test

  • Gary Natriello
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 21)

Perhaps no single educational policy change over the past fifty years has had as great an impact on the work lives of teachers in public schools in the United States and other developed nations as the movement to impose high stakes testing requirements. High stakes testing refers to the use of standardized student achievement tests as a primary mechanism to evaluate the performance of students, their teachers, and their schools. High stakes testing policies have long existed for special purposes such as admission to elite educational institutions, but such policies have spread in recent years to encompass greater proportions of the student population.

In the United States the spread of high stakes testing to encompass more students was part of the school reform movement designed to improve the quality of education by raising standards for student performance (Darling-Hammond, 2004; McNeil, 2000; Orfield & Kornhaber, 2001). High stakes testing policies began at the state level with a majority of states implementing some type of high stakes testing program. The spread of high stakes testing has been most recently spurred by federal legislation that requires all students, with few exceptions, to be tested as evidence of their accomplishments and those of their teachers and schools (Goertz & Duffy, 2003). Other developed nations appear to be moving in the same direction as testing programs increasingly involve more students and drive more important decisions regarding their educational careers.


School District Educational System Student Achievement Student Performance High Stake 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amrein, A., & Berliner, D. (2002a). An analysis of some unintended and negative consequences of high-stakes testing. East Lansing, MI: The Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.Google Scholar
  2. Amrein, A., & Berliner, D. (2002b, March 28). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Available at:
  3. Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Berliner, D. (2003, August 4). Re-analysis of NAEP math and reading scores in states with and without high-stakes tests: Response to Rosenshine. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(25). Available at: .
  4. Avanesov, V. (2006). Consequences of the EGE in Russia. Kedi Journal of Educational Policy, 3(1), 89–99.Google Scholar
  5. Barksdale-Ladd, M., & Thomas, K. (2000). What's at stake in high-stakes testing? Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 384–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beatty, A., Neisser, U., Trent, W., & Heubert, J. (Eds.). (2001). Effects of high-stakes testing and standards. In Understanding dropouts: Statistics, strategies, and high-stakes testing (pp. 38–49). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Braman, S. (2006). Change of state: Information, policy, and power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Broadfoot, P. (1996). Education, assessment and society: A sociological analysis. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bushweller, K. (1997). Teaching to the test: Increasingly, schools are finding it just makes sense to align curriculum and assessment. American School Board Journal, 84(9), 20–25.Google Scholar
  11. Carr, P., Dogan, E., Tirre, W., & Walton, E. (2007). Large-scale indicator assessments: What every educational policymaker should know. Evidence and Decision Making. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuhrman, S., & Elmore, R. (Eds.) (2004). Redesigning accountability systems for education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  14. Goertz, M., & Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing and accountability programs. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodnough, A. (2001, June 14). Strains of fourth-grade tests drives off veteran teachers. New York Times. Available from Scholar
  16. Grant, A. (2001). Cheaters. Scholastic Choices, 16(4), 6.Google Scholar
  17. Hansen, F. A. (1994). Testing, testing: Social consequences of the examined life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.) (1999). High takes testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hill, C. (2004). Failing to meet the standards: The English language arts test for fourth graders in New York State. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1086–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacob, B. (2001). Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacob, B., & Levitt, S. (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 843–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim, K. (2005). Learning from each other: Creativity in East Asian and American education. Creativity Research Journal, 17(4), 337–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ladd, H. (Ed.) (1996). Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lang, S. C., Kumke, P., Ray, C., Cowell, E., Elliott, S., Kratochwill, T., et al. (2005). Consequences of using testing accommodations: Student, teacher, and parent perceptions of and reactions to testing accommodations. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31(1), 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Madaus, G. (1988). The distortion of teaching and testing: High-stakes testing and instruction. Peabody Journal of Education, 65(3), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marshak, D. (2004). No Child Left Behind: A foolish race into the past. Phi Delta Kappan. Available at: Scholar
  27. McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Moss, P., & Piety, P. (2007). Introduction. Evidence and Decision Making. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Natriello, G., & Pallas, A. (2001). The development and impact of high stakes testing. In G. Orfield & M. Kornhaber (Eds.), Raising standards and raising barriers: Inequality and high stakes testing in public education (pp. 19–38). New York: The Century Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  31. Orfield, G., & Kornhaber, M. L. (Eds.) (2001). Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education. New York: Century Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  32. Raymond, M., & Hanushek, E. (2003). High-stakes research. Education Next, 3, 48–55.Google Scholar
  33. Romanowski, M. (2006). A changing nation: Issues facing Chinese teachers. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(2), 76–81.Google Scholar
  34. Roderick, M., Jacob, B., & Bryk, A. (2002). The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago on student achievement in promotional gate grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenshine, B. (2003, August 4). High-stakes testing: Another analysis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(24). Available at Scholar
  36. Runte, R. (1998). The impact of centralized examinations on teacher professionalism. Canadian Journal of Education, 23(2), 166–181.Google Scholar
  37. Saito, Y. (2006). Consequences of high-stakes testing on the family and schools in Japan. Kedi Journal of Educational Policy, 3(1), 101–102.Google Scholar
  38. Shohamy, E. (2001). Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language Testing, 18(4), 373–391.Google Scholar
  39. Starrett, R. (2003). Opportunity to learn and the accountability agenda. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(4), 298–303.Google Scholar
  40. Suen, H. K., & Yu, L. (2006). Chronic consequences of high-stakes testing? Lessons from the Chinese civil service exam. Comparative Education Review, 50(1), 46–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sunderman, G., & Kim, J. (2007). The expansion of federal power and the politics of implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Teachers College Record, 109(5), 1057–1085.Google Scholar
  42. Thompson, P., Blackmore, J., Sachs, J., & Tregenza, K. (2003). High stakes principalship — Sleepless nights, heart attacks and sudden death accountabilities: Reading media representations of the United States principal shortage. Australian Journal of Education, 47(2), 118–132.Google Scholar
  43. Tollefson, J. (1995). Power and inequality in language education. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Valencia, R., & Villareal, B. (2003). Improving students' reading performance via standards-based school reform: A critique. Reading Teacher, 56(7), 612–621.Google Scholar
  45. Wenning, R., Herdman, P., Smith, N., McMahon, N., & Washington, K. (2003, August). No Child Left Behind: Testing, reporting, and accountability. ERIC Digest, ED480994.Google Scholar
  46. Wong, K., & Shen, F. (2003). Big city mayors and school governance reform: The case of school district takeover. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(1), 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zwick, R. (2002). Fair game?: The use of standardized admissions tests in higher education. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary Natriello
    • 1
  1. 1.Teachers CollegeColumbia University10027

Personalised recommendations