The impact of high-stakes testing on student proficiency in low-stakes subjects: Evidence from Florida's elementary science exam

An important criticism of high-stakes testing policies – policies that reward or sanction schools based on their students’ performance on standardized tests – is that they provide schools with an incentive to focus on those subjects that play a role in the accountability system while decreasing atte...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Economics of education review 2010-02, Vol.29 (1), p.138-146
Main Authors: Winters, Marcus A., Trivitt, Julie R., Greene, Jay P.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic Achievement
Accountability
Achievement Gains
Educational economics
Educational economics Human capital Productivity High-stakes testing Accountability
Elementary School Science
Florida
High Stakes Tests
High-stakes testing
Human capital
Productivity
Regression (Statistics)
Sanctions
Science Tests
Standardized Tests
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:An important criticism of high-stakes testing policies – policies that reward or sanction schools based on their students’ performance on standardized tests – is that they provide schools with an incentive to focus on those subjects that play a role in the accountability system while decreasing attention to those subjects that are not part of the program. This paper utilizes a regression discontinuity design to evaluate the impact of Florida's high-stakes testing policy on student proficiency in the low-stakes subject of science. We confirm prior results that students in schools facing more immediate sanctions under the policy made substantial gains in the high-stakes subjects of math and reading. Contrary to the crowding-out hypothesis, we find that students in these schools made substantial achievement gains in the low-stakes subject of science as well.
ISSN:0272-7757
1873-7382
DOI:10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.07.004