Psychology’s Role and Responsibilities in the High-Stakes Testing Agenda

In an insightful and informative review of High-Stakes Testing in Education: Science and Practice in K–12 Settings, Mark D. Shermis raises several important questions. Psychologists have been involved in the enterprise of high-stakes testing since its initiation in the United States. However, have we been diligent in assessing the consequences of our involvement? Should an assessment of the current place of such testing in our society be a part of psychology's research agenda?

Shermis addresses two points of particular note that I ask my colleagues to consider. He expresses concern for the "consequential validity" of tests, or what happens to students who fail to meet established criteria on tests. In addition, he notes that there are

questions regarding whether high-stakes testing may have narrowed the curriculum, whether there is even a match between instructional time allotted and the domains tested, and the degree to which the assumption of equity of instructional quality across classrooms is reasonable.

Given this state of affairs, aren't psychological disciplines such as school and educational psychology obligated to turn some portion of their attention to these issues?

Read the Review

Is Public Education Improved Through High-Stakes Testing? Can It Be?
By Mark D. Shermis
      PsycCRITIQUES, 2011 Vol 56(41)