Negative impacts of high-stakes testing

Open access

Negative impacts of high-stakes testing

High-stakes testing is not a new phenomenon in education. It has become part of the education system in many countries. These tests affect the school systems, teachers, students, politicians and parents, whether that is in a positive or negative sense. High-stakes testing is associated with concepts such as a school's accountability, funding and parental choice of school. The study aims to explain high-stakes testing, how it is created and developed in selected countries and look at the negative impacts of tests on various actors within this relationship.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Afflerbach P. (2005). National reading conference policy brief high stakes testing and reading assessment. Journal of Literacy Research 37 (2) 151-162.

  • Amrein A.L. & Berliner D.C. (2002). An analysis of some unintended and negative consequences of high-stakes testing. Retrieved June 20 2012 from

  • Baines L. A. & Stanley G. K. (2004). High - stakes hustle: Public schools and the new billion dollar accountability. The Educational Forum 69 (1) 8-15.

  • Barksdale-Ladd M. A. & Thomas K. F. (2000). What's at stake in high-stakes testing: teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education 51(5) 384-397.

  • Blazer Ch. (2011). Unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Research Services 1008.

  • Booher-Jennings J. (2008). Learning to label: socialisation gender and the hidden curriculum of high-stakes testing. British Journal of Sociology of Education 29(2) 149-160.

  • Caldwell B. J. (2011). Educational reform and change in Australia. Retrieved June 20 2012 from HKIEd website

  • Duncan B. A. & Stevens A. (2011). High - stakes standardized testing: Help or hindrance to public education. National Social Science Journal 36 (2) 35-43.

  • Educational Act. 1980. Retrieved June 20 2012 from Education in England website

  • Education Reform Act. 1988. Retrieved June 20 2012 from Education in England website

  • French D. (2003). A New vision of authentic assessment to overcome the flaws in high stakes testing. Middle School Journal 35(1) 1-15.

  • Graber D. (2011). The Problem with high stakes testing. Retrieved June 20 2012 from Manchester College website

  • Grant C. A. (2004). Oppression privilege and high - stakes testing. Multicultural Perspectives 6 (1) 3-11.

  • Heubert P. & Hauser R. M. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking promotion and graduation. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.

  • Jehlen A. (2007). Testing: How the sausage is made. Retrieved June 20 2012 from The National Education Association website:

  • Johnson E.G. (1992). The Design of the national assessment of educational progress. Journal of Educational Measurement 29 (2) 95-110.

  • Jones M. G. Jones B. D. Hardin B. Chapman L. Yarbrough T. & Davis M. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan 81 (3) 199-203.

  • Kaščák O. & Pupala B. (2011). Nový režim "kvality". In O. Kaščák & B. Pupala (Eds.). Školy v prúde reforiem (pp. 137-194). Bratislava: Renesans.

  • Kentli F. D. (2009). Comparison of hidden curriculum theories. European Journal of Educational Studies 1(2). Retrieved June 20 2012 from http://www.ozelacademy. com/EJES_v1n2_Kentli.pdf

  • Lobascher S. (2011). What are the potential impacts of high - stakes testing on literacy education in Australia? Australian Journal of Language & Literacy. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years 19(2) 9.

  • Madaus G. Russell M. (2010). Paradoxes of high - stakes testing. Journal of Education 190 (1/2) 21-30.

  • Marchant G. (2004). What is at stake with high stakes testing? A Discussion of issues and research. Ohio Journal of Science 104 (2) 2-7.

  • McMillan J. Myran S. & Workman D. (1999). The impact of mandated statewide testing on teachers' classroom assessment and instructional practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association Montreal Quebec Canada p. 10.

  • McNeil L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform. New York NY: Routledge

  • Moon T. R; Brighton C. M.; Jarvis J. M. & Hall C. J (2007). State standardized testing programs: Their effects on teachers and students. Retrieved June 20 2012 from National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented

  • National PTA. 2006. Recess is at risk new campaign comes to the rescue. Retrieved June 20 2012 from

  • Niculae M. & Doncu R. (2007). Romanian Educational System: European Conntext. Analele Universităii din Bucuresti. Retrieved July 10 2012 from

  • Nichols S. L. & Berliner D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high - stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Cambridge MA: Harvard Education Press.

  • Petrová Z. (2011). Dopady vzdelávacej reformy v Anglicku a vo Walese. In O. Kaščák & B. Pupala (Eds.). Školy v prúde reforiem (pp. 84-106). Bratislava: Renesans

  • Reddell S. (2010). High stakes testing: Our children at risk. Retrieved June. 20 2012 from

  • Sadker D. & Zittleman K. (2004). Test Anxiety: Are students failing tests or are tests failing students? Retrieved June 20 2012 from

  • Stecher B. M. (2002). Consequences of large-scale high stakes testing on school and classroom practice. L. S. Hamilton B. M. Stecher & S. P. Klein (Eds.). Making sense of test-based accountability in education (pp. 79-100). Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.

  • West A. & Pennell H. (2002). How new is new labour? The quasi-market and english schools 1997 to 2001. Retrieved June 20 2012 from

  • West A. (2010). High stakes testing accountability incentives and consequences in English schools. Policy & Politics 38(1) 23-39.

  • Westchester Institute for Human Services Research. (2003). High - stakes testing. The Balanced View 7(1). Retrieved June 20 2012 from

  • Wilkins A. (2012). School choice and the commodification of education: a visual approach to school brochures and websites. Critical Social Policy 32 (1) 69-86.

  • Woods P. A. Bagley C. & Glatter R. (1998). School choice and competition: Markets in the public interest? London: Routledge.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.34

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.126
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.266

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 4236 2897 97
PDF Downloads 2669 1728 93