High-stakes tests, despite their extensive usage for determination of academic and non-academic proficiency, are subject to criticism for various reasons. Example concerns include the following: • '''The test does not correctly measure the individual's knowledge or skills.''' For example, a test might purport to be a general reading-skills test, but it might actually determine whether or not the examinee has read a specific book. In the context of computer-based high-stakes tests, low-income test takers and others without ready access to computers may be disadvantaged, if the test is supposed to measure reading skills but in practice measures the test takers' typing skills or their familiarity with answering questions on a computer. •
The test may not measure what the critic wants measured. For example, a test might accurately measure whether a
law student has acquired fundamental knowledge of the legal system, but the critic might want these would-be lawyers to be tested on
legal ethics instead of legal knowledge. •
High-stakes testing may encourage teachers to omit material that is not tested. "
Teaching to the test" can result in a narrow curriculum and lower skills. For example, if a driving exam does not test
parallel parking skills, then driving instructors might stop teaching that skill to a driving student, in favor of focusing instruction time on the material that will be tested, such as determining which vehicle has the
right of way at a
four-way stop. The result is that the student will be able to pass the test, but may be unable to park a car safely in some places. According to
Campbell's law, the higher the stakes are (for the test taker or for the school), the more likely this is to happen. •
Testing causes stress for some people. Critics suggest that since some people perform poorly under the pressure associated with tests, any test is likely to be less representative of their actual standard of achievement than a non-test alternative. This is called
test anxiety or
performance anxiety. •
High-stakes tests are often given as a single long exam. Some critics prefer
continuous assessment instead of one larger test. For example, the
American Psychological Association (APA) opposes using a one-time
high school exit examination as the single determinant of whether a student should graduate from high school, saying, "Any decision about a student's continued education, such as retention, tracking, or graduation, should not be based on the results of a single test, but should include other relevant and valid information." Since the stakes are related to consequences, not method, however, short tests can also be high-stakes. •
High-stakes testing creates more incentive for cheating. Because
cheating on a single critical exam may be easier than either learning the required material or earning credit through attendance, diligence, or many smaller tests, more examinees that do not actually have the necessary knowledge or skills, but who are effective cheaters, may pass. Also, some people who would otherwise pass the test but are not confident enough of themselves might decide to additionally secure the outcome by cheating, get caught and often face even worse consequences than just failing. Additionally, if the test results are used to determine the teachers' pay or continued employment, or to evaluate the school, then school personnel may fraudulently alter student test papers to artificially inflate performance. Others may want a high school diploma to represent primarily a
certificate of attendance, so that a person who faithfully attended class but cannot read or write will still get the social benefits of graduation. This use of tests—to deny a high school diploma, and thereby access to most jobs and higher education for a lifetime—is controversial even when the test itself accurately identifies students that do not have the necessary skills. Criticism is usually framed as over-reliance on a single measurement or in terms of
social justice, if the absence of skill is not entirely the test taker's fault, as in the case of a student who cannot read because of unqualified teachers, or a person with advanced
dementia that can no longer pass a driving exam due to loss of cognitive function. •
Tests can penalize test takers that do not have the necessary skills through no fault of their own. An absence of skill may not be the test taker's fault, but high-stakes test measure only skill proficiency, regardless of whether the test takers had an equal opportunity to learn the material. Additionally, wealthy test takers may use private
tutoring or
test preparation programs to improve their scores. Some affluent parents pay thousands of dollars to prepare their children for university admissions tests. Critics see this as being unfair to families who cannot afford to pay for additional educational services. •
High-stakes tests reveal that some examinees do not know the required material, or do not have the necessary skills. While failing these people may have many public benefits, the consequences of repeated failure can be very high for the individual. For example, a person who fails a practical driving exam will not be able to drive a car legally, which means they cannot drive to work and may lose their job if alternative transportation options are not available. The person may suffer social embarrassment when his acquaintances discover that his lack of skill resulted in loss of his driver's license. In the context of high school exit exams, poorly performing school districts have formally opposed high-stakes testing after low test results, which accurately and publicly exposed the districts' failures, proved to be politically embarrassing, and criticized high-stakes tests for correctly identifying students who lack the required knowledge. •
Sometimes high-stakes testing is used on young children. Testing often starts as early as
third grade, when children may be unable to properly allocate mental resources needed to succeed. If they fail, they may be assigned additional schooling, which can be internalized as a punishment. •
Low test scores can often be synonymous with good tests. There can be a bias to assume that for a high stake test to be valid, test results must be poor. Alternatively, tests on which students generally perform well can often be disregarded as being too easy even if they are well aligned to standards. Additionally, this bias can encourage the creation of assessments in which the metric for how good the assessment is becomes the failure rate of students rather than alignment to standards. ==Advantages==