High Stakes Testing or Portfolios - Is One More Effective than the Other?

Assessments. Tests. Exams. Quizzes. Regardless of which name is used, students probably stress about it. As educators, it is essential to realize the importance of assessments. It helps us to "check up/in" on our students, to see where we need to improve our instruction, and to compare where are students are and "where they should be." There are a multitude of forms that we can use to assess our students, but is one better than the others?

After reading Chapter 4 of Content Area Reading this past week, I realized that the challenge of choosing which assessments and assessment methods to use is a daunting task. The chapter discussed two major types: high-stakes testing and portfolios.

High-stakes testing tend to be state or federally mandated standardized tests that have a number of consequences attached to poor results. The No Child Left Behind Act was instated to attempt to raise the overall achievement of American students. The level of progress would be measured yearly and that meant that each year, the test scores needed to progress. There was no falling behind without serious consequences that can include school closure, the lack of funding, or restaffing. Under such extreme amounts of pressure, schools began to change the curriculum to fit the requirements of the test. Some people question what happens to the knowledge base that just didn't make the cut? Is it just lost to the textbooks and the teachers' brains forever? We hope not. In that light, standardized testing seems far from favorable. Yet, they do yield important information. Standardized tests provide an accurate (if the correct test is used) ranking of where students stand in comparison to one another and to students across the United States. They also can be useful tools to assess whether students are ready to pass on to the next grade. However, standardized tests are not the only way to assess students.

Another effective method of assessing students can be through portfolios. Portfolios are vehicles for ongoing assessment. They are different from "tests" because they are done over time and are a collaboration between student and teacher instead of the students working alone to prove they have learned what has been presented in the classroom. Portfolios intend to encourage the students to take ownership for their achievements and to emphasize their academic progress throughout the year. The compilation of portfolios is much more flexible and less stressful than standardized tests, yet they cannot provide the same comparison that high-stakes assessments do. Portfolios tend to be graded through rubrics that the teacher creates, not by the code of bubble answers that can be read by a computer. However, does that make them a better form of assessment?

So, which one is better!? The evidence provided by this text implies that standardized testing creates many problems in the education world today. I cannot help but agree. Portfolios seem to offer a promising way to assess students in a way that significantly lessens stress levels and encourages student involvement. It seems to me that both types of assessments are valid, useful, and necessary. In fact, I think it is a brilliant idea to use many types of assessments to ensure that every student's learning style is addressed. There is no one "best" way. Our challenge lies in ensuring that our students take in the knowledge we present to them and that it sinks into their brain, not that it simply is skimmed off the top after we assess them. What an excellent challenge!