Brockmeier, l., leech, d., pate, j., & Gibson, n. (april 2011).  (Page 2/10)

Airasian (1988) suggested that in the 1970s concern grew about the quality of schools and students. High stakes testing was most likely unavoidable due to poor decision making or the perception of poor decision making by educators in the 1970s (Cizek, 2001). The assignment of higher grades to increase student achievement and to enhance student self-esteem did not have the desired effect that educators thought that it would have on students. Business leaders and industrial leaders continued to complain that high school graduates could not read or write. In 1978, Popham implied that the use of minimum competency testing was halting the devaluation of the high school diploma. The criterion-referenced testing movement was an attempt to transfer some important decisions from individual teachers to increase uniformity or standardization (Burton, 1978). State mandates had the desired effect to ensure that all students received at least the same minimum knowledge and skills in identified content areas and that there was greater awareness between curriculum, instruction, and assessment (Camilli, Cizek,&Lugg, 2001).

Fremer (2005) stated that arguing against good testing at a conceptual level means that one has to dismiss the idea that relevant information can lead to better evaluation. Similarly Linn, Miller, and Gronlund (2005) stated that to argue that better educational decisions would be made without test scores is to argue that better decisions can be made with less information. Holland (2001) declared that standardized tests were indispensible. Grade point averages and course grades were just too unreliable to be used as outcome measures (Phelps, 2003). Afflerbach (2005) presented three reasons for high stakes testing’s popularity; fairness, scientific due to the tests undergoing examination for validity and reliability, and the fact that tests are very commonplace. One of the most obvious benefits of high stakes testing is the ability to provide a numerical score that can be indexed to every school and student (Baines&Stanley, 2004).

Wahlberg (2003) stated that although there has been resistance in education circles towards high stakes standardized testing, the general public, state legislatures, and federal legislators are increasingly demanding better performance of our schools. The results of high stakes testing can demonstrate to taxpayers that their investment is being used effectively to yield quality outcomes (Lederman&Burnstein, 2006).

Stone (2003) indicated that most of the information written about standardized testing is negative and that this gives the impression that these tests have few advantages. For most of the 20 ^th century, teachers and schools routinely used standardized tests for documentation of student, teacher, and school performance. Everything was fine with the testing as long as the information control was at the local level. For instance, Phelps (2005) reported that teachers were very supportive of high stakes standardized testing in the 1970s and 1980s when the stakes were only for students. It wasn’t until policymakers held schools accountable for test results that the limitations became fatal flaws (Stone, 2003). Policymakers began to realize that schools needed external accountability just like most other organizations.