THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF STANDARDIZED

HIGH-STAKES ASSESSMENT

By: Danyil Repenko & Jackson Lindmark

ID — 1819855 & 1625896

Submitted to Dr. D. Ripley

EDU 100 Section 800

Fall Session 2023

October 18, 2023

 1

[Section 1]: Introduction: Why this is an issue; my philosophical stance.

High-stakes assessment is a type of standardized assessment with significant

consequences for students and teachers alike in North America. This evaluation method has

shaped the very way in which students learn, or believe how they must learn, and how teachers

teach, or believe they must. With all the experience of high-stakes assessment and newfound

knowledge in the field of education, many arguments, both inside the field and in the popular

discourse, arise on how to either improve, change, or abolish said estimation system. As the

high-stakes assessment has become the backbone of modern education, any change to it is, in

effect, a change to the whole system.

In this paper, Danyil Repenko and Jackson Lindmark are going to try to define what, as

we believe, are the advantages and disadvantages of high-stakes assessment - for a better

understanding of both proponents and opponents -, the current struggles the system needs to

overcome and if, indeed, it must. We approach this topic as individuals grounded in the beliefs of

essentialism and progressivism. According to Martin & Loomis (2014), the former emphasizes

the existence of some essential knowledge, skills, and frameworks of mind that are defined by

the needs of society, which in turn, enable students to function effectively in the world at large.

The latter foregrounds highly student-centered instruction, hands-on learning, encouraged

self-expression, and the fluidity of certain knowledge.

[Section 2]: Demonstrate Critical Reflection and ANSWER for the reader: How might this
philosophical stance and your own experiences impact your interpretation of the
topic/issue? Why is this topic important to you?

Having been put through different systems with standardized tests, we can both say with

confidence that to a student, tests are school. School is a test. And while this is true to a certain

extent, the stigma of unit test after unit test in preparation for a diploma has severely manipulated
 2

what education looks like to a student. To most, it has removed the act of growth and learning

and has replaced it with an endless stream of impersonal assessment. It is then no wonder why

most students dream of finishing high school and never looking back. We wish to change that

outlook by taking steps that might one day result in more students appreciating their education

rather than resenting it. Thus a need to understand the good and evil of high-stakes assessment.

The essentialists within us can accept that there are lessons and outcomes that must be

learned and achieved in order for success, both within the classroom and without. Thus, to some

extent, a standardized test to measure those outcomes is welcomed. But not at risk of losing

progressivist values by increasing the disparity of different and specific ethnic groups or social

classes, limiting learning to only what the government deems necessary, and forgetting that

behind every test grade lies a human being. A human being that must be tended to and cared for,

and government-set quotas do not do that; that, we believe, is achieved by professional teachers

who want to help build their community. This is where our essentialist progressivism wishes to

bridge that gap, and why the issue is so important to us.

[Section 3]: Summary of arguments that favor or provide benefits.

Let us begin with examining the argued benefits of the existent high-stakes examination.

Firstly, it removes the impact of subjective judgment of teachers (Phelps, 2008). Researches,

from as early as the beginning of the 19th century, support the observation that grades for the

same tasks fluctuate from one teacher to another. In the 1910s, for example, researchers Starch &

Elliott (1912; as cited in Phelps, 2008) produced copies of two actual English examination

papers and sent them to teachers to grade and return. The marks ranged from 50 to 98 percent.

Later, Lincoln & Workman (1936, 7; as cited in Phelps, 2008), considering similar results of

similar experiments, concluded that “there is abundant evidence that teachers’ marks are a very

unreliable means of measurement”. Teachers, it is believed, can narrow the curriculum

 3

themselves, or simply get outsmarted by witty students. Plus, other non-subject matters are

included in evaluation, such as behavior, class participation etc. One American study of teacher

grading practices discovered that 66 percent of teachers “felt that their perception of a student’s

ability should be taken into consideration in awarding the final grade” (Frary, Cross, & Weber

1993; as cited in Phelps, 2008, p. 2). For some subjects, supporters say, this can be detrimental.

Arguably the biggest positive outcome of removed subjectivity is said to be the improved

equality of opportunity and recognition for people with different social standing, like minorities

(Phelps, 2008), because the judgment is based on actual performance over equivalent content.

Consequently, the resulting empirical data is believed to be utilizable in aiding diverse

purposes. For one: accountability. Students don’t always learn what they are taught. It is

impossible to predict what they will pick up. Considering that every child starts from a unique

base of knowledge and draws distinctive understandings due to individual experience, only

assessment can reach the conclusion that intended learning occurred (Dylan, 2013, p. 28).

Educators and school administrations can be brought accountable for their results in front of

parents, students and other stakeholders. Decision-making, then, would be grounded in facts,

providing an effective foundation to seek understanding and facilitate remediation, to support

classroom planning duties, to improve teaching and learning situations, to identify eligible for

further education students and to decide on kinds of education students should receive (Agrey,

2004; Dylan, 2013).

With such high-profile usage of exam results, teachers and especially pupils, proponents

claim, will feel more compelled to put in an effort to take education seriously, so as not to face

consequences (Agrey, 2004).

 4

Unfortunately for supporters of the current high-stakes assessment system, all and every

benefit comes with ambiguity or severe repercussions.

[Section 4]: Summary of arguments dealing with the challenges / negatives.

Despite the benefits of standardized and high-stakes testing, there is overwhelming

critique from educators having to deal with the repercussions of the institution. In 1995, Marvin

F. Wideen, Thomas O'Shea, Ivy Pye, and George Ivany conducted a two-year study in B.C.,

focusing on the effects of standardized assessments in the classroom. Sixteen of the eighteen

grade 12 teachers that participated “ranged from mild ambivalence to strong dislike in their

views of the government examinations.” (Wideen et. al. 1997). Concerns were raised over the

narrowing of the curriculum to fit the test, which in turn caused psychological pressures for both

students and teachers, greatly restricted the creativity within the classroom and thus student

engagement, and forced teachers to omit difficult but important lessons (Wideen et. al. 1997).

While the effects are different in every classroom, there appeared to be a near consensus that a)

high-stakes assessments have impacted the classroom at least moderately, and b) this impact has

been mostly negative for both teachers and students (Wideen et. al. 1997). They concluded that

when “teachers [are] being circumscribed and controlled by examinations, and students […] only

focus on what will be tested, the conversation is limited to only testable aspects of the

discipline”, and that arguably the most crucial aspect of education; “enquiry into ourselves and

[surroundings], is not part of that conversation”(Wideen et. al. 1997). This is supported by Ken

Jones, who claims that the continuous disempowerment of teachers within their classrooms has

contributed to the growing teacher shortage, given the disillusionment it can cause (Jones, 2004).

Loren Agrey has compiled the insights of many educators who often battled against

standardized testing. Agrey relies on Alfie Kohn and his experience in the field, who posits that

“the variance in test scores has a higher correlation to non-­instructional factors”, wholly
 5

unrelated to tests or teachers “such as the number of parents living at home, parental educational

background, type of community and poverty rate, than to instructional performance” (Agrey

2004). Dylan (2013) mentions an example: “only 11 per cent of the variation in students’ science

scores in PISA in 2006 was attributable to the school”.

To buttress these concerns, Sepideh Massoodi argues that new inequalities have come

from high-stakes assessments that target ESL students, as other minorities, disproportionately.

Massodi claims “the cultural content of the standardized tests might not be suitable for ESL

students coming from diverse cultural backgrounds, [which stems] from the fact that the tests

were designed to target mainstream education students” (Masoodi 2014). Students appear to

suffer on these tests if they are not familiar with the nuance of certain words (“‘figurative

language,’ ‘sayings,’ ‘proverbs’ and ‘analogies’” (Masoodi 2014)) that would only be natural for

native English speakers, and if they lack the cultural influences purported by mainstream content

often focusing on English (and some French) Post-Confederation Canada. Given that the 2006

census states around 22% of Canadians are allophones, this is a subject that needs to be

addressed.

[Section 5]: Your final position on the issue, based on your research.

After reading the research and reflecting on our philosophical stance and our experiences,

we believe that the current high-stakes exam system is problematic to say the least. Even rigged

and flawed, the essentialists in us agree, it provides important educational, political, and

communal functions. Thus, it should stay, but with many reworks, as progressivists in us cannot

possibly look behind the bouquet of shortcomings. If it stays with no changes, it won’t suffice.

Fortunately, the people in the field already have suggestions (Dylan, 2013; Jones, 2004;

Masoodi, 2014).
 6

This project opened our eyes to the perceived benefits of the high-stakes exam and those

which were achieved in theory. Though it’s the implementation, not theory, that counts. The

broader specter of repercussions, drawn out, clearly shows the extent to which standardized tests

failed in their purposes and brought upon more negative effects than was anticipated. The

findings only reinforced our initial position.

[Section 6]: Conclusion: provide a concluding paragraph that synthesizes the main points
of your research and your final position.

Standardized high-stakes assessment has had both positive and negative effects on the

world of education, especially in Canada, which should not be underestimated. While it has

brought more objectivity, assessment equality, and faster (and cheaper) general evaluation, it has

also created new inequalities, and greatly increased stress, with moral dilemmas, distorted

standards, and missed opportunities for both students and teachers alike. For us, standardized

assessments have provided a framework through which a more objective lens can be cast on the

mass testing of learning outcomes on a nationwide level, but in its current form, they cause as

much harm to students as they help to organize them. This has been a hotly debated and

researched issue within education for many years, and it will undoubtedly continue to be one,

likely even after we’ve retired from the field, but that does not mean improvements cannot be

made. Such necessary and helpful components of the institution, some highlighted by Richard

Phelps, should remain, while other areas of inequality and unnecessary meddling in the

classroom, as given by Loren Agrey and a host of others, must be altered for a more

student-oriented approach in order for future students to develop, grow, and learn as best they

can. For that is the purpose of education, not meeting government quotas, and therein lies the

difference we, as future educators, wish to achieve.

 7

References

Agrey, L. (2004). The pressure cooker in education: Standardized assessment and high stakes.
Canadian Social Studies, 38(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1073917 - Peer
reviewed-scholarly

Dylan, W. (2013). Assessment: The bridge between teaching and learning. Voices from the
Middle, 21(2), 15-20.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1464750635/fulltextPDF/95BBD977A6774EB5PQ/1
?accountid=14474 - Peer reviewed-scholarly

Jones, K. (2004). A balanced school accountability model: An alternative to high-stakes Testing.

Phi Delta Kappan, 85(8), 584-590. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170408500805

Masoodi, S (2014). Using high-stakes standardized examinations for ESL Students: Challenges >
and implications. European Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(2), 96-113.
https://doi.org/10.19044/ejes.v1no2a8 - Peer reviewed-scholarly

Phelps, R. P. (2008). The role and importance of standardized testing in the world of teaching
and training: Paper presented at the 15th congress of the world association for
educational research. Nonpartisan and Education Review / Essays, 4(3).
https://nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Essays/v4n3.pdf

Wideen, M.F., O’Shea T., Pye, F., & Ivany, G. (1997). High-Stakes testing and the teaching of
science. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 22(4),
428-444. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1585793 - Peer reviewed-scholarly
 8

Rubric

CONTENT_________________/10
Excellent(10) ● States the Inquiry Question
● Exceptionally clear and succinct introduction and conclusion.
● Evidence from article is accurately and insightfully summarized providing
context for the reader (W5 – who, what, where, when, why)
● Overall purpose of the paper is clearly and articulately stated.
● Demonstrates clear understanding of the complexity of the issue
● Philosophical stance is reflected upon within the context of the issue

Very Good ● States the Inquiry Question

(8-9) ● Clear and succinct introduction and conclusion.
● Evidence from articles is accurately summarized providing context for the
reader (W5 - who, what, where, when, why)
● Overall purpose of the paper is articulately stated.
● Demonstrates a general understanding of the complexity of the issue/topic
● Philosophical stance is reflected upon

Good (6-7) ● States the Inquiry Question

● Paper contains a basic introduction and conclusion.
● Evidence from articles is summarized but summaries may lack insight,
detail and/or lack clarity.
● A basic overall purpose of the paper is stated.
● Demonstrates a general understanding of the issue/topic

Satisfactory ● States the Inquiry Question

(5) ● Paper contains an introduction and conclusion.
● Evidence from articles is summarized but summaries may lack insight,
detail and/or lack clarity
● A basic purpose of the paper is evident but not clearly stated
● Demonstrates a basic understanding of the issue/topic

Unsatisfactory ● Doesn’t state the inquiry question

(0-4) ● Paper may be lacking an introduction and conclusion.
● Evidence from articles is not adequately summarized. Summaries may be
unclear, and/or lacking.
● The basic overall purpose of the paper is lacking.
● Demonstrates minimal exploration of the issue/topic

QUALITY OF RESEARCH & SUPPORT _________/10

Excellent(10) ● Four or more, relevant (current, mainly Canadian) articles were critically
chosen.
● Articles clearly represent diverse perspectives and styles (e.g. at least
two peer reviewed-scholarly articles and two trade-popular articles). Peer
 9

reviewed-scholarly sources are labeled as such.

● Highly relevant sources have been included
● Critical discussion is always supported by relevant sources and research.

Very Good (8-9) ● Four or more, relevant (current, mainly Canadian) articles were critically
chosen.
● Articles clearly represent diverse perspectives and styles (e.g. at least
two peer reviewed-scholarly articles and two trade-popular articles). Peer
reviewed-scholarly sources are labeled as such.
● Highly relevant sources have been included
● Critical discussion is most often supported by relevant sources and
research.

Good (6-7) ● Four relevant (current, mainly Canadian) articles were chosen.
● Articles represent diverse perspectives and styles (e.g. two peer
reviewed-scholarly and two trade-popular articles). Peer
reviewed-scholarly sources are labeled as such.
● Discussion is usually supported by research.

Satisfactory (5) ● Four articles were chosen.

● Articles are similar in perspective and styles (e.g. two peer
reviewed-scholarly and trade-popular articles) and/or some articles lack
relevance.
● Discussion is somewhat supported by research

Unsatisfactory ● Less than four articles were chosen; and/or

(0-4) ● Articles are inappropriate, or irrelevant for the chosen topic.
● Discussion lacks support by research; over-generalizing is common

WRITING MECHANICS, STYLE, APA FORMAT _____ /5

Excellent(5) ● Ideas are articulated utilizing clear, coherent and fully developed
paragraphs with smooth and effective transitions.
● Writing is free of GUSP* and/or APA style errors.
● All assignment criteria are effectively met, including a proper title page
& rubric

Good (4) ● Ideas are generally articulated utilizing clear, coherent and fully
developed paragraphs with smooth and effective transitions.
● Writing has few GUSP* and/or APA style errors.
● Meets most assignment criteria including a proper title page & rubric
attached

Satisfactory (3) ● Ideas communicated utilizing organized sentences / paragraphs.

● Writing has some GUSP* and/or APA style errors.
● Pertinent assignment criteria are lacking, such as section headings.
 10

Unsatisfactory ● Ideas incoherent and unclear; sentences / paragraphs are confusing.

(0-2) ● Writing has numerous GUSP* and/or APA style errors.
● Citations missing or inaccurate; little attempt to meet APA citation
guidelines.
● Assignment criteria has not been met to an acceptable standard.
1819855 & 1625896
*GUSP = grammar; usage of words; spelling; punctuation.

Instructor assigned mark: _____ /25

Self-Assessment

[Section 1]: Introduction: Why this is an issue; my philosophical stance.

● CONTENT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 8/10

● QUALITY OF RESEARCH & SUPPORT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 8/10

● WRITING MECHANICS, STYLE, APA FORMAT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 4/5

● SELF-ASSESSMENT: 20/25

[Section 2]: Demonstrate Critical Reflection and ANSWER for the reader: How might this
philosophical stance and your own experiences impact your interpretation of the
topic/issue? Why is this topic important to you?

● CONTENT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 8/10

● QUALITY OF RESEARCH & SUPPORT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 7/10

● WRITING MECHANICS, STYLE, APA FORMAT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 4/5

● SELF-ASSESSMENT: 19/25

[Section 3]: Summary of arguments that favor or provide benefits.

● CONTENT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 7/10

● QUALITY OF RESEARCH & SUPPORT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 7/10

● WRITING MECHANICS, STYLE, APA FORMAT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 4/5

 11

● SELF-ASSESSMENT: 18/25

[Section 4]: Summary of arguments dealing with the challenges / negatives.

● CONTENT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 9/10

● QUALITY OF RESEARCH & SUPPORT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 8/10

● WRITING MECHANICS, STYLE, APA FORMAT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 4/5

● SELF-ASSESSMENT: 21/25

[Section 5]: Your final position on the issue, based on your research.

● CONTENT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 8/10

● QUALITY OF RESEARCH & SUPPORT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 7/10

● WRITING MECHANICS, STYLE, APA FORMAT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 4/5

● SELF-ASSESSMENT: 19/25

[Section 6]: Conclusion: provide a concluding paragraph that synthesizes the main points
of your research and your final position.

● CONTENT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 8/10

● QUALITY OF RESEARCH & SUPPORT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 8/10

● WRITING MECHANICS, STYLE, APA FORMAT SELF-ASSESSMENT: 4/5

● SELF-ASSESSMENT: 20/25