The cost of high stakes testing for high-ability students

Abstract

No accessFULL TEXTAustralasian Journal of Gifted EducationOther Journal Article01 June 2015The cost of high stakes testing for high-ability students Authors: Jennifer L Jolly Authors: Jennifer L Jolly University of New South Wales, email: [email protected], tel: +61 2 9385 1977 Google Scholar More articles by this author SectionsAboutView PDFExport CitationsAdd to FavouriteAdd to FavouriteCreate a New ListNameCancelCreate ToolsTrack CitationsCreate Clip ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedIn COPY LINK Abstract Working from an agenda of school improvement, Australia's implementation of National Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) in 2008 and the MySchool website in 2010 appears strongly influenced by the mechanisms that have driven the reform/ accountability movement in the United States and the United Kingdom (Lingard, 2010; Polsel, Dulfer and Turnbull, 2012). While high-stakes tests such as NAPLAN are often executed under the pretence of creating greater equity and raising standards in schools, their unintended consequences often have the potential to impact negatively on students of all abilities, socioeconomic strata, and cultural backgrounds. A group of students often overlooked in this discourse are those with gifts and talents and of high-ability. The United States' 30-year history with high-stakes testing has had a deleterious impact on these students, particularly under the federal legislation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) enacted in 2002. As Australian researcher Lingard has cautioned against such wholesale "policy borrowing" from countries such as the United States and advised that along with policy borrowing, Australian educational policy makers should also heed "policy learning" (Lingard, 2010). This article introduces the difficult lessons learned regarding high stakes testing and gifted learners in the U.S., emerging research regarding NAPLAN, and the implications for gifted learners in the Australian context such a shifting resources away from existing gifted programs, placing arbitrary ceilings on student performance, and the narrowing of curriculum. Full Text DOI Previous article Next article RelatedDetails View PUBLICATION DETAILSJournal:Australasian Journal of Gifted EducationISSN:1323-9686Page Range:30-36First Page:30Last Page:36Source:Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, Vol. 24, No. 1, Jun 2015: 30-36Date of Publication:June 2015Date Last Modified:05 September 2019 12:02Date Last Revised:08 January 2019Volume:24Issue:1SubjectNo Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (United States)Educational tests and measurementsAcademic achievementEducation and stateGeographic LocationAustralia METRICS Downloaded 9 times Copyright© Australian Association for the Education of the Gifted and Talented, 2015Download PDFLoading ...