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.

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 of Pedagogy

The Journal of University of Trnava

Journal Information

CiteScore 2017: 0.43

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.164
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.437

Cited By


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1655 1655 239
PDF Downloads 1133 1133 154