Talk:High-stakes testing

Silly
I admit that this:


 * Tests reveal that some examinees do not know the material. While failing these people may have many public benefits, the consequences of repeated failure can be very high for the individual.  For example, a person who fails a practical driving exam will not be able to drive a car legally, which means they cannot drive to work and may lose their job if alternative transportation options are not available.

sounds a bit silly at first glance, but at bottom this is one common "civil rights" argument against high school graduation exams. There are actually people who think it's better to give a high school diploma to a kid who is functionally illiterate because the "stupid piece of paper" is necessary to get many jobs these days. Some of these people oppose high-stakes testing specifically because kids who cannot read will actually be identified as not being able to read. I'm open to a better example, but the general idea that a test can identify people with inadequate knowledge is important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This nonsense should be deleted
This "article" is nothing but a dictionary definition of the compound "high-stakes" and "exam". "High stakes testing" is not a topic. --Gronky (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ??? That comment is nonsense. It is a distinct type of assessment, of extreme importance in public policy, with many books and journal articles written about it, and even a organization devoted solely to its opposition.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could we get some references to that group and its criticisms? 173.45.201.98 (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
This article has been rewritten by someone with an obviosly strong POV to make those who oppose High-Stakes testing look ridiculous.

Specific Examples:

"instead of being able to obtain the goal with greater certainty through apparent effort, good attendance records, favoritism, the reputation of the educational institution, or other means that are either less related to the individual's actual skill or that are more open to manipulation of the examiner."

"Sometimes a high-stakes test is tied to a controversial reward. For example, some people may want a high-school diploma to represent the verified acquisition of specific skills or knowledge, and therefore use a high-stakes assessment to deny a diploma to anyone who cannot perform the necessary skills.[7] Others may want a high school diploma to represent primarily a certificate of attendance, so that a student who faithfully attended school but cannot read or write will still get the social benefits of graduation.[8]"

"High-stakes testing creates more incentive for cheating. Because cheating one's way through one critical exam may be easier than earning credit through attendance, diligence, or many smaller tests, more examinees that do not actually have the necessary knowledge or skills will pass. Also, some people who would otherwise pass the test but are not confident enough of themselves might decide to additionally secure the outcome by cheating, get caught and often face even worse consequences than just failing. This assumes that the high-stakes test is used in place of other assessments, rather than in conjunction as is often done."

This whole article needs a re-write, as it takes every opportunity to present those opposed to high-stakes testing as ridiculous. I think it's obvious that this POV has political aims.

173.45.201.98 (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe because they are ridiculous. Everything in those quotes is true.  "Alternative" methods are indeed less reliable because they are far more susceptible to construct-irrelevant variance, which is why they are used in conjunction with test scores.  Moreover, some of that language was written by the opponents you are supposedly trying to defend.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "because they are ridiculous". This is a POV, and still innapropriate for a wikipedia article. I will also point out that I do not intrinsically oppose high-stakes testing or have any interest in 'defending' those who oppose it. In many cases HST is fully appropriate. Regardless, this article needs a rewrite. I do not have immediate access to recent literature, but I've decided to give a rewrite a try. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to see the article improved, but removing accurate information because you don't like the tone is not the best solution. I'm going to restore most of the information you've deleted.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt the information is accurate, and so am requesting citations on those entries. First, some are clearly POV reinterpretations (quite liberal interpretations, at that) of what is said. For example: The times editorial does /not/ say that those who simply attend school should be passed, therefore, I am marking these with requests for additional citations as well. Some things are not actually references anymore, so I am requesting citations on these. Finally, this paragraph:


 * The phrase "high stakes" is derived directly from a gambling term and is meant to imply that implementing such a system introduces uncertainty and potential losses for test takers, who must pass the exam to "win," instead of being able to obtain the goal with greater certainty through apparent effort, good attendance records, favoritism, the reputation of the educational institution, or other means that are either less related to the individual's actual skill or that are more open to manipulation of the test-giver or the test-taker.


 * Needs three citations. Someone needs to show where a linguist or etymologist has determined the gambling term relationship, someone needs to show that the term is meant to imply what it is claimed to imply, and someone needs to show that the "instead of by..." portion, which presently claims that opponents of High-Stakes testing would prefer the listed methods, is correct, because the last time I checked, nobody went around claiming they wanted people to pass based on those negative factors. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out, from the page on NPOV disputes:
 * There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:
 * While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.
 * The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.
 * A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives.
 * The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.
 * Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms.
 * Also:
 * The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and — this party is mistaken (see second example below) — that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral.
 * I would like it if we could avoid running this up to the point of needing mediation. EDITED: 173.45.201.98 (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

By request on the NPOV noticeboard I had a go at NPOV'ing some statements. The statement below is problematic:

A high-stakes system may benefit people other than the test-taker. For professional certification and licensure examinations, the purpose of the test is to protect the general public from incompetent practitioners. The individual stakes of the medical student and the medical school must be balanced against the social stakes of possibly allowing an incompetent doctor to practice medicine.

I removed it. While it is true that TESTING may benefit society, there is no specific indication that HIGH-STAKES testing is a benefit. The statement above assumes so. Or it may be saying, unclearly, that professional competency tests are in-effect, high stakes tests for the future of society. In either case, fix it, or remove it.--Nemonoman (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have also removed the sections below:


 * Tests reveal that some examinees do not know the required material, or do not have the necessary skills. While failing these people may have many public benefits, the consequences of repeated failure can be very high for the individual.  For example, a person who fails a practical driving exam will not be able to drive a car legally, which means they cannot drive to work and may lose their job if alternative transportation options are not available.

Without citations, this statement (or at least the example) seems like a straw man designed simply to make the criticism look foolish. Are there actually critics saying driver's license exams are undesirable?


 * Some high-stakes tests are tied to a controversial reward. For example, some people may want a high-school diploma to represent the verified acquisition of specific skills or knowledge, and therefore use a high-stakes assessment to deny a diploma to anyone who cannot perform the necessary skills.  Others may want a high school diploma to represent primarily a certificate of attendance, so that a student who faithfully attended school but cannot read or write will still get the social benefits of graduation.

In the case of the statements above, the citations do NOT reflect the editor's assertions. Without proper citations, the assertions are again suggest a strawman designed to make critics look foolish.

Find appropriate citations for the statements, or remove them. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheating
A famous example of cheating for high-stakes exams is the Chicago scandal profiled in Freakonomics. The school district said they would fire any teacher whose students performed extremely badly on the end-of-year standardized tests. Some of the (worst) teachers "corrected" student test papers to prevent the school from discovering their ineptitude and firing them. I don't have a copy of the book, but it shouldn't be too hard to find information about it, if everyone agrees that this would make a good example for the cheating item under ==Criticism==.

?
This says:"Similarly, testing under the U.S.'s NCLB law has almost no negative consequences for failing students, but potentially serious consequences for their schools. The stakes are therefore high for the school, but low for the individual students."

The U.S's NCLB law is not only for elementary and middle school students but is also for high school students as well. See No_Child_Left_Behind_Act. It does have negative consequences for high school students. If they do not pass the standardized tests, they will not receive the high school diploma. However, the stakes are generally high for the school, but low for the individual students is associated with elementary and middle schools. Legihatp (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is simply not true. NCLB test results do not harm any student.  What you're talking about is the school choosing to use the same test to comply with two entirely unrelated laws (the federal law to test the school's effectiveness, and the state law to test student achievement).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? NCLB test results in low-income school districts do have an impact. The district won't receive funding and that will affect the kids. The dropout rate there would be higher. The number of special education students in a low-income school district generally is much lower than in an affluent school district. NCLB test results wouldn't matter for affluent school districts that have many high-achieving kids. Legihatp (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not what happens: Schools only lose money if they insist on keeping kids in underperforming schools.  If they close bad schools and replace them with good schools, or if they let the kids transfer to a good school, or if they add extra services to improve student achievement in the tested areas, then they still get the money -- and the students directly benefit by being in better schools.
 * No individual student is ever punished for a bad score, or rewarded for a good score, with respect to NCLB. NCLB does not require the school to do anything about individual students; it only cares about schoolwide numbers.  For example:  if you did well on the NCLB test, but everyone else did poorly, you would be treated exactly like everyone else -- getting an opportunity for a new school, or finding that the entire faculty had been fired and replaced.  (As for a source, you'll find it repeatedly explained at http:/ed.gov  A remarkable number of parents think that their young child will have to repeat an entire year of school if they don't perform well on the NCLB test, and it's simply not true.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That is true. Many parents think that kids would have to repeat if they don't perform well on the NCLB test. It's a rather shame that parents don't know how to advocate for their kids. Legihatp (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact remains that these are High-Stakes tests that can prevent a person from graduating if failed. It's simply not the NCLB act that causes this. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that these students aren't taking high-stakes tests; I'm saying that NCLB has nothing to do with the high-stakes nature of the test for students. The New York Regents exam predates NCLB by about a hundred years.  Even if NCLB did not exist, students flunking the regents exam would still not be able to graduate.  NCLB tests schools, not students.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing POV tag
I reviewed this article based on a request at the NPOV noticeboard. It was indeed highly POV, and CONTINUES TO BE SO.

I have removed the POV tag, however, because what is CAUSING the POV is that the editors involved are making assertions that have not been sourced to references.

If the many tags can be replaced with actual sources that confirm these assertions, then the article would probably get a low pass on a high-stakes NPOV review.

Please note that simply citing a source is NOT sufficient. The citations in the "high-school diploma" examples removed (see above), for example, did NOT confirm the editor(s)'s assertions of fact. Thus the assertions are both POV and dubious. Please play fair.

Editors should source the article, or FEEL ENTIRELY FREE TO REMOVE uncited statements after allowing a reasonable time for the statements to be cited. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. I think it's pretty clear, as well, that this is a pretty controversial topic, so I figured for future reference, I'd add the controversial tag. It's just here on the talk page though. Hopefully it can help defuse any future problems. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So is there any particular reason why citation-needed tags were added immediately after existing citations? I've removed them, on the assumption that these were careless errors.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did this in cases where the cited source either did not support what they were being cited for, or the citation went to pages that appear to no longer exist. I noted this above. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, thank you for helping me format some of those refs, I'm not used to the citation format here on Wiki. (What I wouldn't give for a BiBTeX like system...)173.45.201.98 (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in Failed verification. Note that the mere fact that a webpage is no longer accessible is not considered an acceptable reason to declare something to be uncited.  If there was ever a valid citation (and we assume in good faith that editors supplying citations in years past got things right, unless we can prove them wrong), then the material is sufficiently supported for purposes of complying with the verifiability policy.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that tag would have been far more useful than the citation needed one. Also, please forgive me for the mistake on accessibility; I'm used to strict rules about any source needing to be available, and I had just kind of assumed that it was commonly done that way.173.45.201.98 (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Length of test
"Since the stakes are related to consequences, not method, however, short tests can also be high-stakes." has been marked as "citation needed", a statement that indicates that an editor somehow believes that a short test, e.g., the fifteen-minute written portion of a driver's license test, cannot possibly be high-stakes.

This seems beyond odd to me, but if this is a serious point of dispute, as opposed to a misuse of this tag (which is not to be used for information whose factual accuracy is undisputed), then please enlighten me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think, but I don't have a source to back it up, that many feel that a number of shorter tests and sections, where only a portion would have to be redone if something is failed, is less high-stakes (and also less high-pressure). For example: If the DL test is written and either pass or fail and you must retake the entirety if it is failed (paying the full amount for the whole thing), then it is undesirably high-stakes. But if instead there are, say, eight sections and only a failed section must be retaken (meaning you only have to pay for a portion), then it would be more desirable.  I think that's what the criticism is.173.45.201.98 (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * High-stakes and high-pressure are unrelated concepts. The sourced definition excludes your gut feeling.  In fact, one of my major goals for this article is to clarify the difference between what this term actually means, and how a small number of under-educated people misuse it.  This is a good example of one of those misuses.  High-stakes is about what's at stake.
 * In case you're not familiar with it: the written portion of the driver's license exams in most of the US is 20 to 25 short, simple, multiple choice questions.  It's graded pass/fail.  Taking the test is free (that is, no more the actual driver's license fee would be if you passed, and no fee for re-taking it as many times as necessary to pass, although most states only allow you to take the test once a week).  If you pass (both written and practical), you are allowed to drive.  If you flunk, you are not.  It's clearly a high-stakes exam, despite being short.
 * Similarly, the nurse's practical venipuncture exam, listed in the article, is also very brief: a skilled nurse can be done with that in three minutes.  You can flunk a theater audition in less time than that.  There is absolutely no reason to think that the length of the exam is related to what's at stake.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This doesn't change the fact that the controversial HST's (generally high-school graduation exams in the US, but also those nasty college entrance exams in Japan), are usually quite long. Ultimately, I think nemonoman added that citation needed, and it's not like finding a citation can hurt the article. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, side note, don't forget that any article on a morpheme or word should describe what it means, not what the editor feels it should mean. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I made some slight changes, it's so easy to write prescriptivly about language that I had forgotten to write descriptively. I find it ironic that I ended up here during a discussion on linguistics and had forgotten that. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material, #1
"A high-stakes system may benefit people other than the test-taker. For professional certification and licensure examinations, the purpose of the test is to protect the general public from incompetent practitioners. The individual stakes of the medical student and the medical school must be balanced against the social stakes of possibly allowing an incompetent doctor to practice medicine. "

was deleted. It's sourced, it's accurate, and it's relevant, because it establishes why a thoughtful society might choose to have some high-stakes tests. Why was this deleted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nemonoman's statement: "I removed it. While it is true that TESTING may benefit society, there is no specific indication that HIGH-STAKES testing is a benefit. The statement above assumes so. Or it may be saying, unclearly, that professional competency tests are in-effect, high stakes tests for the future of society. In either case, fix it, or remove it." I actually didn't think that particular line was wrong. I would say put it back in, but lets try and find a more available source. I'm going to reword it a little better and put it back in.173.45.201.98 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this response. How can you have a test that (1) determines whether or not you are allowed to practice medicine as a physician and (2) is not a high-stakes test?  You either pass or fail these tests (there are several of them, both written and practical).  You either become a physician, or you don't, on the basis of these exams.
 * There's something (big) at stake, and a clear line between winners and losers at every step along the way. Why don't you think that this is an example of a high-stakes test?
 * Can you give an example of a low-stakes test that determines whether or not a person is a physician? Do you think that becoming a physician is unimportant to the test takers (that is, not very much at stake, so it's no big deal whether you pass or not)?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do belive it's an HST, and I readded the information. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material, #2

 * Sometimes a high-stakes test is tied to a controversial reward. For example, some people may want a high-school diploma to represent the verified acquisition of specific skills or knowledge, and therefore use a high-stakes assessment to deny a diploma to anyone who cannot perform the necessary skills. Others may want a high school diploma to represent primarily a certificate of attendance, so that a student who faithfully attended school but cannot read or write will still get the social benefits of graduation.

It's sourced -- to the National Science Foundation, no less -- it's accurate, and it's relevant. This is the most common criticism of high-stakes tests, and in the US, this criticism is always leveled against high school exit exams, which makes them the perfect example. Deleting this material unbalances the article. Why was this deleted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Only part of the claim has been supported. The second portion. "Others may want a high school diploma to represent primarily a certificate of attendance, so that a student who faithfully attended school but cannot read or write will still get the social benefits of graduation." is totally unsupported by the link, and is intended to strongly suggest bad-faith on the part of opponents to HST. The cited article simply states that those who have otherwise good records, of which attendance is only a part, would not pass if they failed the current HST. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So it sounds like a candidate for being re-written, not deleted. Why did you delete it instead of fixing it?  Are you prepared to restore it and fix it?
 * Not telling readers that the perceived validity of "what's at stake" is a very common issue in debates about HSTs is a policy violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The concerns are discussed in other criticism points. The summery of the criticism here "Sometimes a high-stakes test is tied to a controversial reward." doesn't make sense, and the item really just states what HST's are supposed to be and that some oppose it. It's not ignoring an issue to remove this element. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So your complaint is that you wanted to copyedit the first sentence, but instead decided to delete it.
 * However, I disagree entirely with your description of this item. This item does not "stat[e] what HST's are supposed to be".  It says that in some people's opinions, HSTs are misused.
 * Here's a hypothetical example that should clarify what needs to be addressed in this point. Imagine that you want to be a physician.  We have a high-stakes test that every physician will be required to pass.  The test in our screwed-up world is:  Get in your car and drive to the local hospital.  If you can find the local hospital in less than 20 minutes, then you get a license to be a physician.  If it takes you longer than that, or if you never get there, or if you don't have a car, then you don't pass and you can't be a physician.
 * Is this a good test for identifying who would be a good physician? No.  It would be an extremely stupid test.  It would still be a high-stakes test.  And awarding physician's licenses on the basis of this idiotic test would be "controversial" (at best).
 * Some people feel the same way about some (real) high-stakes tests. The test is technically sound (tests what it was designed to test for), but is stupidly, or controversially, applied -- for example, by denying high school diplomas to students that can't read and write in English, even if this lack of skill is through no fault of the student's (e.g., because of a severe intellectual disability, or because they recently immigrated).
 * If you have a better way of describing this concept, please propose it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The poor application of test results, as well as badly formed tests, is covered under "The test does not correctly measure the individual's knowledge or skills". Your physician example would go under that. There's no need for this extra line, it exists solely to allow for "Others may want a high school diploma to represent primarily a certificate of attendance, so that a student who faithfully attended school but cannot read or write will still get the social benefits of graduation." And this line doesn't need to be here, especially if not cited.173.45.201.98 (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the absurd test accurately determines whether or not the candidate is able to drive to the hospital within 20 minutes. This test is an appropriate, technically sound, and accurate measure of that skill.  It's just that the skill being measured is not appropriate for licensing physicians.  (It might be a reasonable test for licensing an ambulance driver:  the test itself is irrelevant to being a physician, not wrongly conceived.)
 * That's the point: sometimes you have a perfectly good test that accurately determines some skill or knowledge, but you use that test to determine something that's unrelated, or at least not perfectly related.  High school exit exams are ideal examples:  the tests aren't bad tests.  But some people (notably parents of special-needs students) think that they're testing for things that are irrelevant, or at least too narrow.  If your child is a gifted visual artist has good creative writing skills, and a merit-based college scholarship lined up for a noted arts insitution, but is struggling with math that ten year olds master -- and the state test requires basic algebra skills -- you're likely to be very unhappy that dyscalcula is going to prevent your child from getting a high school diploma and therefore going on to college, even though your child excels in other areas.  It will seem unfair and inappropriate to you.  On the other side of that debate will be someone that says, "When I hire a high school graduate, I need to be able to assume that they can all do basic math."
 * That's what this item needs to communicate: even when the test is technically sound, not everyone will agree that the test is an appropriate way to determine who gets the reward.  If you can think of a better way to explain that, then feel free.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * addresses this (in part) -- specifically, using a "small" test (e.g., high school exit exam) to make a "big" decision (access to most jobs and most universities for the rest of your life). It may be an interesting source of sources as well.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * addresses this issue, again somewhat indirectly: "A strong vocal minority, however, cautioned against the use of testing to make placement, promotion, and diploma decisions. They feared that students who are educated in poorly financed school systems would be unduly penalized, and that minorities would be disproportionately affected by high-stakes testing and suffer unfair consequences for their poor performance on such tests. Consequently, the high-stakes movement has created considerable controversy."  The critics admit that the students have "poor performance" (e.g., can't read well enough), but don't want them to suffer the consequences for this poor performance (typically on the grounds that the poor performance is not [entirely] the student's fault).  In short, everyone agrees that these students do not have the required skills, but some people still want them to get the benefit reserved for those that have the skills.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(Just stepping back on indentation.) And no, the information isn't new, the article already discusses concerns from "The test does not correctly measure the individual's knowledge or skills." If the test is misinterpreted, then this is the criticism. There is still no need for an additional entry here. Moreover, the cited sources do not claim what you say they do. It's just not verifiable. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you've missed the point. There's nothing wrong with the test.  The individual really, truly, absolutely, without any doubt whatsoever does not have the skill.  The test is indisputably accurate on that point.
 * But Great-grandma wants to drive her car anyway, even though (1) she might kill someone, (2) she had moderately advanced Alzheimers, so she got lost very easily, and (3) she drove 30+ miles to town, apparently at forty miles an hour, in second gear. It's "not her fault" that she has Alzheimer's, after all.  It's "not her fault" that her vision was fading.
 * How do you get from this situation to "The test does not correctly measure her (lack of) skill"? This is not the same situation.
 * (That was the last time she drove anywhere: after fixing the car and moving it back to the farm, Grandpa pocketed some small but critical engine component, so she couldn't start it.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of accurate material

 * Tests reveal that some examinees do not know the required material, or do not have the necessary skills. While failing these people may have many public benefits, the consequences of repeated failure can be very high for the individual. For example, a person who fails a practical driving exam will not be able to drive a car legally, which means they cannot drive to work and may lose their job if alternative transportation options are not available.

This information is obviously accurate. The specific sentence that a citation is demanded for strikes me as particularly absurd, because everybody knows that if you flunk the driving exam, you can't drive a car legally, and that this can have negative consequences for someone that is dependent on driving. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires citations for (1) direct quotations and (2) information whose accuracy is (likely to be) challenged -- not citations for the sake of footnoting what everyone already knows.

One of the major complaints about high-stakes exams is that some people who, honestly, on their own merits, really do deserve to fail, will in fact fail, and that this can have undesirable consequences. For example: Students with limited English proficiency tend to flunk high school exit exams at a greater-than-average rate, and then they don't get a real high school diploma. Is it really fair for a teenager who was forced to immigrate to a country that speaks another language to be penalized his entire life because he wasn't fluent in the local language by the time he turned 17 or 18? Several lawsuits in California have claimed that it's not fair.

In terms of due weight for the criticisms, this is important for establishing that criticisms of high-stake tests are not solely restricted to poorly conceived assessments. There is no possible way to tweak an exam written in Russian that will cause me (a non-Russian reader) to be able to pass it.

So why was this deleted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording on it is awful, for one. The wording is clearly meant to imply that one criticism of tests is that they reveal people don't know the material. The article's information does not present "Is it really fair for a teenager who was forced to immigrate to a country that speaks another language to be penalized his entire life because he wasn't fluent in the local language by the time he turned 17 or 18? Several lawsuits in California have claimed that it's not fair." It simply implies that opponents of High-Stakes testing don't like that the tests reveal problems, not that the timing of the tests or the nature of testing people on the given topic is unfair. This is related, as well, to ongoing debates in applied linguistics about how long acquiring a language can take. If reworded to something along the lines of "Tests sometimes require mastery of a material that the testee cannot be expected to have mastered yet, but carry penalties that are too extreme and long-term to justify the examination.", then I think it would represent that position better. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't object to your somewhat weaselly description of that subset of problems, but it's simply not comprehensive enough. Some people are actually horrified at discovering their incompetence.  Some people think it would be very nice to sweep the failings of an incompetent school under the carpet, and nobody would find out, if only the students didn't have to pass this high school exit exam.  These people oppose testing because they prefer to pretend that everyone is above average.
 * The particular example is especially non-inflammatory: Who hasn't seen a person that is driving and really shouldn't be?  Senior citizens have their driver's licenses revoked everyday because they demonstrated in practical driving exams that they really can't drive safely any longer.  Many of them are extremely angry (and frequently very frightened) when they are told that 'the test revealed that you do not have the skill' to drive a car.  Some of them think these tests should be illegal unless you've already gotten into a serious car wreck.
 * Your description doesn't cover this: senior citizens can be widely expected to have mastered driving skills decades ago, the penalty is not even slightly too extreme, and it is not too long-term (as the revocation is only for as long as the deficit exists:  they can re-test whenever they like).
 * The statements being made are true and highly relevant. Wanting a less direct description is not an acceptable excuse for deleting it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Some people are actually horrified at discovering their incompetence." Yes, but this isn't a major criticism of HST. It's already discussed that tests cause stress (for the obvious reason, people don't like to fail them.) Claiming that people want to sweep problems under the rug is inflammatory regardless of truth, and that means that it needs serious citations backing up the accusation before it can be put in an encyclopaedic article. Otherwise the claim is simply a violation of NPOV, 'fact' or non. Before this information can be considered even remotely appropriate, citations showing "some people think it would be very nice to sweep the failings of an incompetent school under the carpet, and nobody would find out, if only the students didn't have to pass this high school exit exam." are needed. It's ridiculous to claim that people actually want problems ignored, rather than preferring other methods of locating and dealing with them. (Caveat: There are some who feel that there should be segregated schools, and that the problems at the non-white ones should be ignored, but that way of thinking is a strong minority and attention paid to it in this article wholly WP:UNDUE) 173.45.201.98 (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not proposing that racism in the body politic be addressed, just the fact that some high-stakes tests are criticized for accurately identifying people that don't have required skills. People lose jobs, lose driving privileges, have to repeat years of school, and so forth and even if this is in their, and society's, best interest, they don't usually appreciate it.
 * Do you honestly think that these criticisms are not made? Do you think that no parent of a failing student has ever argued for social promotion despite the student really, truly not having the skills required for the next year's school work?  Do you think that anyone rejoices when they're told that they flunked a driving exam?
 * This is not about the stress: this is about "I want my driver's license even if I know that I can't drive safely."  If the "stake" is big enough, there will be people that want the reward even if they don't qualify for it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that people have wanted the benefits even though they failed, but if it is to be presented as a major criticism, it needs to be sourced. Major sources that say "Every child should be promoted, even if they lack the skills." need to be shown. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's all that you want, then go to any pro-social promotion blog, book, or article, as the entire social promotion movement is based on that precise assertion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Find a few that make that assertion, the only ones I find are educational psychologists debating a wholly different issue, namely, that students should be kept in their age group and that retention shows no benefits. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Social promotion is "the practice of moving students to the next grade regardless of whether they have acquired the minimal skills covered in the previous grade." (IMO, they're right that retention (without additional services) produces no (long-term) benefits compared to promotion (without additional services) (in the long-term) (for chronically low-achieving students, as opposed to those with a single year's disruption, like a serious illness or temporarily horrific family situation), when you compare retained students with promoted students of the same age.)
 * I don't understand how you can get from "regardless of skills", and multiple sources that claim age is the sole important factor for promotion, to rejecting "even if they lack the skills". If you only consider the child's age, then how are you accounting for the child's skill?
 * But it's a bit of a tangent, since education practices aren't even mentioned in this item. You have agreed that some people want benefits that they don't deserve.  I'm sure you are aware that there are thousands of unlicensed and unlicense-able drivers currently on the road. Given that you agree with the specific statements being made, why do you oppose including it in the article?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This responds to other comments of yours as well, because it all comes down to these.
 * First, some people is not a citation. Second, verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it. Third, even if it is true, you still must prove it. Before the material can be included, wikipedia needs verfiable, non-self-published sources that clearly prove the claim, and the claim must be written neutrally. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Some people" isn't anywhere in the proposed text, so charges of weasel words are inappropriate.
 * I'm glad that you have agreed to restore the sourced statement discussed in the section above.
 * Do you really want me to produce a source that says that it's illegal to drive without a driver's license? (That's the sentence you've tagged above.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement is un-sourced, and your only sources are things that aren't actually sources. The driver's licence is a red herring. Let me put it as directly as I can think to state it. (Capitalizations for emphasis, not shouting.)
 * WHO SAYS that a problem with HST's is "Tests reveal that some examinees do not know the required material, or do not have the necessary skills. While failing these people may have many public benefits, the consequences of repeated failure can be very high for the individual. For example, a person who fails a practical driving exam will not be able to drive a car legally, which means they cannot drive to work and may lose their job if alternative transportation options are not available." It MUST BE PROVEN that this is not a fringe criticism. And finally, this statement MUST BE NEUTRALLY WRITTEN. As it is written now, it is intentionally straw-man so as to make critics of HST look ridiculous. When these things are meant, the information will start to look more appropriate.
 * The same problems apply to "Sometimes a high-stakes test is tied to a controversial reward. For example, some people may want a high-school diploma to represent the verified acquisition of specific skills or knowledge, and therefore use a high-stakes assessment to deny a diploma to anyone who cannot perform the necessary skills.[2] Others may want a high school diploma to represent primarily a certificate of attendance, so that a student who faithfully attended school but cannot read or write will still get the social benefits of graduation." WHO SAYS it (all of it, the Times article is badly misquoted.)? It MUST BE PROVEN that this is not a fringe criticism. The statement needs to be REWRITTEN NEUTRALLY. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

break

 * "A judge in California is set to strike down that state's high school exit exam. Why? Because it's working. It's telling students they need to learn more. We call that useful information. To the plaintiffs who are suing to stop the use of the test as a graduation requirement, it's something else: Evidence of unequal treatment....the exit exam was deemed unfair because too many students who failed the test had too few credentialed teachers.  Well, maybe they did, but granting them a diploma when they lack the required knowledge only compounds the injustice by leaving them with a worthless piece of paper."
 * "The blame belongs to 'high-stakes tests' like the Stanford 9 and California's High School Exit Exam. Reliance on such tests, the board grumbles, 'unfairly penalizes students that have not been provided with the academic tools to perform to their highest potential on these tests'."
 * 79% of students flunked a high school exit exam, and the district almost quit testing because the test accurately indicated the schools' failure to teach the students. In the end, they stuck by the test and improved their teaching.
 * The state of Wisconsin drops the cutoff score so that students who cannot do the skills required will be rewarded, and is surprised that parents and employers are more unhappy about the lifelong unfairness of a lousy education than about the "unfairness" of flunking a test that the students genuinely did not have the skills to pass.
 * "Why blame the tests for exposing unequal experiences and opportunities?"
 * "One common complaint from failed test-takers is that they weren’t taught the tested material in school. Here, inadequate schooling, not the test, is at fault. Blaming the test for one’s failure is like blaming the service station for a failed smog check; it ignores the underlying problems within the 'schooling vehicle.'"
 * "Equating impact with bias is, in effect, blaming the test for real environmental differences"

I can't come up with fair summary of these sources that does not indicate that people sometimes criticize high-stakes tests because of accurate results. "Tests reveal that some examinees do not know the required material, or do not have the necessary skills" strikes me as a more polite and neutral way of saying "Schools blame the tests for their own ineffectiveness."

Shall I produce more such sources? It's not hard, just tedious -- especially for a fact that you have already agreed is obviously true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The neutral way to say this would be to say, not "Tests reveal that some examinees do not know the required material, or do not have the necessary skills", but "Tests can penalize students who have not been given a chance to master the material." This section, additionally, should discuss criticisms, not how these criticisms are often perceived by proponents, which is what some of your sources are. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And that phrasing covers "a senior citizen that can no longer drive a car safely" exactly how? Great-grandma was an excellent driver for fifty years before her Alzheimer's caught up with her.  "Not given a chance to master driving a car" is so wrong as to be laughable.
 * I could agree to creating a separate criticism about penalizing people that have suffered from unequal opportunities, but your comment here is simply unresponsive to the actual text proposed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You repeatedly bring up the grandma situation, but that hypothetical is not a source. When I ask for citations, because I don't believe anyone seriously goes around saying "I didn't like that test pointing out that I failed. Let's do away with tests!", you only bring up what proponents of HST are saying the critics are saying, but cannot find a critic actually saying this. This makes the information unverifiable. You have also brought up an unrelated criticism when students are measured using an improper yardstick, which is not the same thing.
 * Honestly, I think the mediation cabal should be consulted, the two of us are the only ones here debating this and we're at an impasse. Would you be willing to work with a mediator? Irbisgreif (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that mediation is slow because the tiny group of mediators is overloaded.
 * Would you be satisfied with a source like a school district saying, "These high-stakes tests are bad because they publicly show that we did not adequately educate our students"? What about a source that says, "High-stakes tests are bad because they hurt students that we failed to educate because we failed to educate them"?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm suspicious about the first one, but the second wording, in fact, seems much more neutral. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't about what we write. You have requested a reliable source that says people object to high-stakes tests even when the test accurately shows the absence of skills -- e.g., that people with advanced Alzheimer's shouldn't drive any longer.  You have demanded that this criticism of high-stakes tests be presented by an actual critic of high-stakes tests, and not by someone that is responding to the critics.  (If your requirements have changed, do let me know.)
 * So this is my question: if I give you a source that says things like "High-stakes tests should be banned because they make public schools look bad" or "We admit that we didn't educate these students, but the test should be dropped because it's not the students' fault that we left them ignorant", then will those sources be adequate in your mind to support a statement that high-stakes tests are criticized for "revealing that some examinees do not know the required material, or do not have the necessary skills.''  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I still want a reliable source that supports it, yes. I /am/ suspicious of it actually saying what it is claimed to say. If you could show me a serious, reliable, verifiable source or two that honestly says "I don't like tests because they can be failed." and not "We are failing some students by both not setting the bar appropriately and not teaching what needs to be taught.", then I think we'll have a point for a neutral jump-off on this discussion. If you would link these sources, we can discuss their appliciability more specifically, but with only a single quote, I can't know if they would support the assertion or not. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to know exactly and precisely what "it" is. I feel like I provide you exactly what you request, and then you change the requirements because you don't like the fact that this is a real criticism.  I'm done with that problem, so you're going to be extremely specific and entirely committed, so that even a little child could tell whether or not the source matches your requirements.
 * Now: Will you accept a source that says something like "High-stakes tests should be banned because they make public schools look bad" or "We (the school district) admit that we didn't educate these students, but the test should be dropped and the students should suffer no consequences because it's not the students' fault that we left them ignorant", in your opinion, be sufficient to justify the claim that some critics oppose high-stakes tests precisely because they accurately identify the absence of required knowledge and skills?  Or do you think that statements like these do not, in fact, support a statement that these critics oppose high-stakes tests because they accurately identify failure?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a side point: The reason that I think the driver's test is an important one here is because it's an "authentic assessment" (a hands-on practical test) that clearly illustrattes the specific issue without any tangents (e.g., whether or not a written test is culturally biased or whether it's so long that fatigue is an issue) and because the article is better balanced if we don't use formal education for every example in this section.    WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is, the drivers test example only shows that a hypothetical grandma opposes a HST because it kept her from driving because she wouldn't drive safely. That lone grandma, even though there might be a handful of them, holds a fringe view. The example doesn't show that serious, non-fringe critics oppose HST because it reveals people don't know the material. By lumping this fringe view in with serious views, it discredits the other criticisms, and I'm pretty sure it's intended to. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. I don't suppose that you've had to take a practical driving exam after driving for years?  Many experienced drivers fail on re-test (typically for rolling a stop).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, I don't drive. So, could you provide those sources that say "High-stakes tests should be banned because they make public schools look bad"? Irbisgreif (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can (although I'm not sure that you'll be able to find them online) -- but I don't see the point, if you won't agree that a direct and plain statement to that effect is sufficient support for the proposed text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What are the sources, then? They can't be verified or discussed unless there's an actual source for me to look at. Now, if it's not easily available on-line, I might be a bit delayed in looking them up. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for being picky here, but "What are the sources, then" is not "Yes, if a source actually said that, I'd agree that it was sufficient for our purposes." It could just as easily mean "No, if you've actually got sources that say that, then my plan is to move the goalposts again."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it means produce the sources so they can be looked at. I can't just agree to a quote until seeing where it's from. Is it a reliable source? Is it actually saying the quote? I can't form an opinion on any of these things until I have a source to look at. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for an agreement in principle, not an irrevocable commitment. I'm confident that my sources cannot be attacked on any reasonable grounds, and that I have paraphrased them accurately in this discussion.
 * On the other hand, I'm not the least bit confident that you will accept the existence of plain statements like "We think Congress should ban these high-stakes tests because the poor results are embarrassing to public schools" or "These students are ignorant and low-skill -- but we think you should ignore the proof of this situation, because if we, the school district, had done our job correctly, at least some of them might be perfectly capable of passing these tests, but we didn't, so they can't" in high-quality sources as proof that these arguments really are made, by actual critics of high-stakes tests, and that these critics views deserve representation in this article even though you think their complaint is stupid.
 * So: pretend you've been given stellar sources.  Pretend I'm not lying about their contents.  Will there be any further objections?  Will I need to provide a dozen of each to prove that these are not isolated incidents?  Are you going to try to pigeonhole these statements into much smaller points, perhaps as "Tests reveal unequal opportunities in public school systems" (a fact that is true, but has nothing to do with high-stakes testing in general, as it applies only to high-stakes testing in public schools in the United States), or "Bad test results are embarrassing"?
 * Or would you accept such statements, from good sources, as supporting criticism of high-stakes testing for very publicly showing that some test-takers do not have the required skills? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I don't deal in hypotheticals. I want to see the sources before making a decision. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to add that I think I'm going to step back for a while, perhaps we can agree to no edits for a day or two? It's worth it to keep our heads cool. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, then, we're at an impasse, because if you refuse to commit to whether or not any statement could be sufficient (assuming proper sources), then I refuse to bother with providing them. I'm not interested in wasting more time on your efforts to exclude accurate information that doesn't agree with your personal opinion by constantly moving the goalposts on sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some statements are sufficient, but it depends on the source and needs to be presented concretely, not hypothetically. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So will you go back to the second source in the bulleted list above, and tell me what's wrong with that one? It contains a direct quotation from a formal resolution passed by the Los Angeles United School District that roundly condemns high-stakes tests, and when you translate the "Mistakes were made -- the passive voice was used -- responsibility was shirked" language in plain, direct English, it says "These test takers failed because they do not have the required skills." (The rest of the resolution goes on to blame LAUSD's failure to teach the students on the district's reliance on underqualified teachers, inadequate tax revenues, and a list of social and cultural problems beyond the district's control.)

This statement is (1) in a reliable source, (2) in a secondary source, (3) made by a strong critic of high-stakes tests, (4) that is being directly penalized [loss of money, damage to reputation, and a high likelihood of the politicians being voted out of office] (4.1) because the tests showed, in an indisputable, non-fudge-able manner, that (4.2) the test takers do not have the required skills.

I'm not sure why, exactly, you rejected this originally. Perhaps you overlooked it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

possible balancing improvement
It seems to make sense to me, actually, that perhaps we should rewrite the criticisms section into two sections, one with criticisms, and the other with common arguments for HSTs. If done right, we could include both the common criticisms, the common support arguments, and each side's views of the other. This would describe the debate quite handily without pushing a particular POV. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dueling sections are a common way to screw up the balance of an article, so I'm skeptical of this proposal, but if you think it can be done, then I'm willing to reserve judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's an ugly solution, but you seem convinced that HST-proponents' stereotypes on what the criticisms are (that critics want to ignore problems and pass poor students) be listed somewhere in the article. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Why would the introduction of a "Proponents" section change the existing critics' section?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

SATs
This source:

is fine, as far as I'm concerned, but it simply does not say that the SAT is a high-stakes test. We can't infer from "some college entrance exams" to "the SAT in particular". There are zero "high-quality" universities in the US that absolutely require a certain score on that test. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As the material I had pointed out, the 'precise' definition given is not the common one in use in most places. The more common definition, as given at http://www.ed.sc.edu/caw/definition.html - "Significant consequences for an individual or an organization", http://www.harborhouselaw.com/articles/highstakes.togut.htm#1 - "A test is a high-stakes test if the results have perceived or real consequence for staff, students, or schools.", and http://www.eplc.org/mpearlman.html itself - "Use of test scores to make decisions that have important consequences for individuals:"
 * Therefore, it is quite clear that the SAT (as well as the ACT), since it has a very real effect on college admissions, was one of the 'college entrance exams' intended in http://www.eplc.org/mpearlman.html. Therefore, the information is verified and accurate.
 * While http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.lvIXIiN0JwE/b.5056891/apps/s/content.asp?ct=6857851 gives a more precise definition that would exclude the SAT, the more common definition, used by the three linked sources and most other sources on high-stakes testing, includes the SAT. I've restored the information. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to the inclusion of the less formal/more general definition: you may have noticed that this general definition forms the very first sentence of the article.  IMO repeating it in the second paragraph is unnecessary (we assume our readers' attention span exceeds ten seconds), not "wrong".
 * However, making the leap from college entrance exams in general (what the source specifically says) to the SATs in particular is not supported by that particular source. Additionally, there are clearly people that oppose your opinion, e.g.,
 * "Gaston Caperton, president of the College Board, which publishes the SAT, counters that the SAT I is “not a high-stakes test”"
 * "The stakes are low for the subject-specific SAT-II achievement tests"
 * "The ACT and SAT are not the highest stakes tests. Indeed, they may more accurately be categorized as medium stakes tests.  One can do poorly on either test, and one will still get into college somewhere.  By contrast, a couple dozen states, and most other countries, require passage of a test in order to graduate.  That's high stakes."
 * If you want to include this, why don't you find a source that claims that the SAT-I in particular is a high-stakes test? Then we don't have to add up several sources to arrive at a conclusion that is not present in any of them.
 * Furthermore, the imprecision of the language introduces confusion. You've written "However, this does fit the more common definition," and the reader is left guessing whether "this" is one or more of the SATs or "this" is any high-pressure situation.  It would be preferable to write something like, "However, because the SAT-I can have a significant effect on college admissions in the United States, other people say it is a high-stakes exam." -- with a source that specifically names that test as a high-stakes exam.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2008/04/30/admissions-officials-shrug-at-sat-writing-test.html considers it an HST, in the "On the SAT writing test:" section.
 * I wasn't trying to make the material confusing, but I was trying to make clear that the article holds to the more common definition. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've located another source that considers the SAT a HST. http://www.ncld.org/at-school/general-topics/test-taking/the-trouble-with-high-stakes-testing
 * While the creator of the SAT might feel that the SAT isn't high-stakes, that certainly isn't common consensus. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Anent SATs -- they do not meet the defintion provided in the article -- they generally determine the tier of school to which the student should apply, not whether the able student gets into any college at all. Thus hugely different from a driving test for sure (the comparison would be to a driving test which would let you drive a sports car if you pass, or just an ordinary sedan otherwise).  Collect (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to admit, I have a problem with that definition as well, it's inclusion is undue. We're discussing that below. However, welcome to the article, we could use more than two opinions. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sock puppeting
I'm the IP user who has been debating stuff here, I've made a username and I don't want anyone to misunderstand my intents. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for deleting sourced material (definition)
I can't imagine a good reason for deleting a properly sourced scholarly definition of a high-stakes test, but if you've got one, please let me know.

Also, whenever you delete a named ref, you need to check the rest of the article to make sure that it wasn't being re-used. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Breaking the ref was unintentional, but removing the CPE definition was. While it was a precise, and interesting definition, it seemed to be used only by CPE. The other definitions, including everything found on the first page of http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS333US333&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=definition+of+a+high-stakes+test, strongly suggests that CPE's definition is a fringe view. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a fringe view, and in fact there are other, more restrictive definitions. (I ran across a seven- or eight-part definition the other day, but can't place my hands on it right now).  In general, I think you'll find that formal definitions by scholars are more precise than the definitions put forward by politicians and dictionaries.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes they are, but there's also the fact that the the only people using CPE's definition is CPE. I'm leaving the article alone for now, I think there's still issues, but I'll let other editors handle them. I don't have the patience. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you know that CPE's definition is not used outside of CPE? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Citation
01:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)I (Richard at Nonpartisan Education) appreciate how this page has turned out thus far. The definition of high stakes is far closer to what most would assume for it than one finds in some education establishment publications, where it can be very fungible, floating this way and that in order to serve different arguments.

However, there is a reference embedded in the page that I would like to have either deleted or changed. Here it is: "Phelps' critique of Cannell paper: Misunderstandings". Independent Education Review. ISSN 1557-2870. "The ACT and SAT are not the highest stakes tests. Indeed, they may more accurately be categorized as medium stakes tests. One can do poorly on either test, and one will still get into college somewhere. By contrast, a couple dozen states, and most other countries, require passage of a test in order to graduate. That's high stakes."

Ostensibly, this reference is borrowed from a Duke University Gifted & Talented Education website. But, you will not find it there now -- it's a dead end. The link does take one to a web site that has not posted a new article in ten years, is mostly devoted to my personal character assassination, and posts a review that I wrote with the understanding that it would be a blind journal review of a submitted manuscript. Read it for yourselves; it is obvious that it was meant to be a blind review. In that blind review, I referred to actions that I had been told were true and believed, at the time, to be true, but were not true. In short I trusted someone who turned out to be untrustworthy, and he has now for ten years posted what I wrote erroneously because I trusted what he told me.

There are two reasonable reactions. Either one would be perfectly OK with me. One, simply delete reference 8. Two, update reference 8 to include a relevant reference to my writings that is written for public consumption:

"Phelps' Further Comment on Lake Wobegon, Twenty Years Later, http://nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Essays/v2n3.htm. ISSN 2150-6477. "The ACT and SAT are not the highest stakes tests. Indeed, they may more accurately be categorized as medium stakes tests. One can do poorly on either test, and one will still get into college somewhere. By contrast, a couple dozen states, and most other countries, require passage of a test in order to graduate. That's high stakes."

RP (Richard at Nonpartisan Education)

P.S. An editor by the moniker, Thomas.W, argues that what I am doing is "inappropriate". After I updated the reference to something I had actually written for public consumption, he changed everything back to the dead link, to a personally defaming website, but historically consistent, linkage. His actions, he claims are justified thusly:

"Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to High-stakes testing. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Caution for reference spamming (changing an existing reference link to a link leading to a company you're obviously associated with). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"A) You would have been warned for reference spamming for that edit (replacing an existing reference with your own with no valid reason for it) even if you had had another username, and B) what you write above is a matter that has to be settled off Wikipedia, between you and him, not a valid reason for replacing the other reference with your own. Especially since we can't take your word for it, since this is the Internet where anyone can claim anything. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)"

Thomas.W seems very sure of himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard at Nonpartisan Education (talk • contribs) 01:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on High-stakes testing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090111075836/http://www.ed.sc.edu/caw/definition.html to http://www.ed.sc.edu/caw/definition.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725152125/http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.lvIXIiN0JwE/b.5056891/apps/s/content.asp?ct=6857851 to http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.lvIXIiN0JwE/b.5056891/apps/s/content.asp?ct=6857851
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091014211209/http://www.dukegiftedletter.com/articles/the_debate_about_using_the_sat.html to http://www.dukegiftedletter.com/articles/the_debate_about_using_the_sat.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726174336/http://independenteducationreview.org/Review/Articles/vol2/v2n1-phelpscritique.html to http://independenteducationreview.org/Review/Articles/vol2/v2n1-phelpscritique.html
 * Added tag to http://answers.ed.gov/cgi-bin/education.cfg/php/enduser/popup_adp.php?p_sid=yzP1VeDj&p_lva=&p_li=&p_faqid=121&p_created=1118758585
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207055113/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c1/fig01-10.htm to http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c1/fig01-10.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727074218/http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/policybriefs/5993pi_pbhighstakestesting.pdf to http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/policybriefs/5993pi_pbhighstakestesting.pdf
 * Added tag to http://old.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=155734&secure=3598

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... I wonder if the Imperial Examinations count...
Hmm... I wonder if the Imperial examinations count... If they do, they should be mentioned?

SomeDude! (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A Third Opinion was requested. However, there does not seem to have been discussion on this talk page. There was a lengthy request at the Third Opinion board, but the Third Opinion request should follow discussion on the article talk page. I cleaned up the request at the Third Opinion board, and, it seems, in the process, deleted the substance of the request. That is, there wasn't a question here, only at the Third Opinion board. Please state the question here. In the meantime, the request will be deleted from the Third Opinion board. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Third Opinion requested
From: Richard at Nonpartisan Education

Seems Kafka-esque. So, the long request I wrote on the Third Opinion page has been cleaned up (i.e., deleted). Wikipedia has its own rules, culture, and software, and I am new to it and still trying to learn. I will try to reproduce the cleaned-up text here and this time I will save a copy.

Thomas W. insists that a reference I object to--a reference that is, only ostensibly, to something I wrote--must be maintained. I assert that the reference should either be deleted or replaced. Some of the discussion over this matter can be found above. Thomas W. has accused me of "spamming" and of directing citations to my "company" (the Nonpartisan Education Review is a nonprofit online journal run by volunteers that loses thousands of dollars every year, if anyone chose to count).

I deleted a reference and replaced it with one equally as relevant to the topical point but that leads to a publication that I actually intended to be published. I would be just as happy if the reference were deleted, or if the reference were to some publication I wrote containing the same topical point, but that is not associated with my "company". The reference Thomas W. insists must be maintained leads to a gifted education newsletter at Duke University. Years ago, I saw it there, requested that the reference be deleted and the newsletter editors agreed with me that it should be deleted. You cannot find it there today. Thomas W. has to employ an archiving service to resurrect it.

The document to which Thomas W. insists people be directed is located at an online journal I and a few dozen colleagues were associated with a decade ago. We all quit due to unethical practices. As retaliation, the person responsible for that journal, which hasn't published anything new since 2006, posts text intended to defame my reputation. One such is the document Thomas W. insists must be referenced on this Wikipedia page. Its base is a review I wrote of a manuscript submitted for review to the journal. Submitted reviews are supposed to be "blind", anonymous. Because he is pissed off, he has posted my "blind" review and is free to add to it and subtract from it. I have requested multiple times that anything to do with me be removed from that "journal". He has refused. Sure, I could sue him, but it would cost me, at the most conservative estimate, more than $20 thousand.

Thomas W. insists that I must "work this out" with him. But, the person in question happens to be a separate human being, one that I do not control. It happens that he can behave as he wishes.

Anyone can know my identity; I have made it obvious. One has no idea who Thomas W. is. By Wikipedia rules, as I understand them, I cannot add any references to my own publications because I might be biased. I happen to have conducted, over the course of 12 years, the largest meta-analysis on the effects of testing--including high stake testing--ever. But, I cannot add it.

So, because I happen to know a lot about the subject at hand, I cannot add information to this web page. But, also, if Thomas W. is correct, I cannot delete my name from it either when the reference to me is defamatory. So, because I know a lot about this topic, my only possible fate is to be demonized? That is my working hypothesis. If I am wrong, you are welcome to explain how.

P.S. I would argue that the references Thomas W. has just added are very one-sided on the issue in general. But, I must be biased, and he must not be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard at Nonpartisan Education (talk • contribs) 22:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)