“The Tail Wagging the Dog”: High-Stakes Testing as a Mediating Context in Secondary Literacy-Related
Abstract
Background/Context: High-stakes testing (HST) weaves through the fabric of school life, stretching beyond the test day. Results have consequences for a school's reputation and autonomy, as well as teachers’ evaluations and students’ graduation and morale. Prior research demonstrates the constraining and inequitable effects assessments can have on students’ learning. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: Recently, scholars have called for more research on students’ and teachers’ perspectives on HST. Responding to this call, we conducted a yearlong study in a high school designated as “persistently struggling” by the state. We examined adolescents’ and educators’ perceptions, reactions, and resistance to HST. We traced participants’ interactions with and about testing over the course of a school year as they prepared for, discussed, and eventually participated in test day. Research Design: We conducted a yearlong qualitative study in which participants were 15 focal 11th graders and 9 teachers. We conducted 425 hours of observations and 52 interviews, as well as collected assessment data and classroom artifacts. For this article, we used quantitative survey data as a secondary source and analyzed the responses of 425 11th graders. Conclusions/Recommendations: Analysis showed that HST served as a dominant context for literacy-related teaching across disciplines. Participants negotiated tension between their beliefs about education and their efforts to boost test scores. Teachers reported that assessments and their accompanying prescriptive curriculum hindered literacy and content area teaching and learning. Students, although they had diverse opinions about HST's usefulness, reported it created emotional distress, which compromised test performance. Testing contributed to a high-pressure environment in which literacy and content instruction were made reductive. Participants’ perspectives, and ways in which they resisted, provide insights into HST effects, as well as suggest promising, alternative routes toward equitable assessment that supports meaningful learning.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When paired with high-stakes testing, skill-development purposes of literacy education lead students to emotional distress and lead teachers to worry about the formulaic nature of their students' writing.
“When paired with high-stakes testing, these purposes of literacy education lead students to emotional distress and lead teachers to worry about the formulaic nature of their students' writing (Learned et al. 2020).”
From Generative Artificial Intelligence, Formative Epistemic Injustice, and Educators’ Solutions (2026) · cites this paper as Learned et al. 2020
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 71 · Cited by 10
- Authors
- Learned, J. E., Dacus, L. C., Morgan, M. J., Schiller, K. S., & Gorgun, G.
- Affiliations
- University at Albany, State University of New York (US)
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Venue
- Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-11
- Volume
- 122
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1-47
- ISSN
- 0040-0475 (ISSN-L)
- 0161-4681
- 1467-9620
- OpenAlex
- W3095528190
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Assessments
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Keywords
- high-stakes testing, exam preparation, curriculum narrowing, equitable assessment, struggling schools, adolescents, content area instruction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review