High -
stakes tests generally have consequences for schools as well as for the students themselves — for example, monetary support may be withdrawn from schools that fail to raise scores.
Not exact matches
Adding digital technology is
generally disruptive to what schools and teachers do, and the pressure of high -
stakes testing only exacerbates this problem.
Rather, it is states which have historically
tested least and are less likely to attach high -
stakes to their
tests that
generally score highest on NAEP [see Neill, Civil Rights], have lower dropout rates [Clark], and send more students on to college [see article on evaluation of state college systems, Education Week 1/6/00].
When critics warn of the danger that teachers will «teach to the
test,» proponents of high -
stakes will
generally reply that, well, if the
test is designed to assess whether students have mastered important skills and bodies of knowledge, that's not obviously a bad thing.
Re the 12 - week window, several factors are that item - tryout studies are not strongly sensitive to time - of - instructional year like operational programs where you want all students taking the
test within a relatively small window for comparisons across students or groups of students, nor are you
generally concerned about
test security since it is a low
stakes research data collection.
She wrote that «since teachers face pressure to improve scores and since poverty - stricken students
generally underperform on high -
stakes tests, schools serving low - income students are more likely to implement a style of teaching based on drilling and memorization that leads to little learning.»