High Stakes Testing

High stakes testing has gotten a really bad reputation because of what it has become. High stakes tests are standardized tests given to students whose scores can reap rewards and punishments for them, their teachers, and their schools (for example the ISATs in Idaho). Those rewards can be federal funding and graduating high school. Those punishments can be loss of federal funding, not graduatnig from high school, restaffing, or complete shutdown of a school. Because of all this, many opponents of high stakes testing think it should be completely gotten rid of. I disagree.

I learned today, that Washington's version of a high stakes test, originally came from an Asian country. However, we made some crucial changes to the test that actully changed it for the worse. Japan did not use the test to make important decisions like federal funding, or the potential graduation of individual students. They used it to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the schools in general. If we were to use these tests for that purpose, we could greatly improve our schools. If a particular school is doing well in one section, an investigation into how they teach can help all other schools improve how well they teach. If used as a general tool, rather than an individualized, reward/punishment system, high stakes testing can be changed back to its original name of standardized testing and used for actual improvement.

So my stand is not to get rid of high stakes testing altogether, but to change it to make improvements that are beneficial for everybody.