Research Finds High-Stakes Testing Doesn't Hurt Other Subjects

Research published this month in Economics of Education Review asked the question of whether high-stakes testing in some subjects may hurt student learning in other subjects.

"We found the answer is not necessarily," said Jay Greene, a University of Arkansas professor of education reform who is one of the article's three authors. "We believe that the measures a school takes to prepare its students in subjects with high-stakes testing can also provide benefits both for the individual student and for the school in other subjects."

The research cited in the journal article, which examined education data from the state of Florida, said that more than half of the states had already implemented some form of high-stakes test before the federal No Child Left Behind Act made it universal in 2002. Some critics have said policies that reward or sanction schools based on students' performance on standardized tests give schools an incentive to focus more time and resources on those subjects that are part of the accountability system.

However, when a school improves its professional development for teachers, its coordination of instruction or other structural systems with the aim of raising math and reading scores, these changes can lead to improvement in other subjects, too, Greene said, and a student whose math and reading skills improve does better in science because that subject requires the use of math and reading.

"There are spillover benefits," he said.

He pointed out that little research has been done on the topic and it's still plausible that other subjects, such as art, are harmed by the focus on subjects in which high-stakes tests are taken.