High school exit exams are affecting a growing majority of high school students. Although exit testing polices were enacted with the goal of improving student achievement as well as postsecondary outcomes, they also have the potential for negative effects. To better understand the effects of exit testing policies, in this article the authors systematically review 46 unique studies that pertain to four domains of expected influence: student achievement, graduation, postsecondary outcomes, and school response. The evidence reviewed indicates that exit tests have produced few of the expected benefits and have been associated with costs for the most disadvantaged students. This review suggests policy modifications that may attenuate some of the negative effects.
American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33–40.
2.
AmreinA. L.BerlinerD. C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18
3.
Amrein-BeardsleyA. A.BerlinerD. C. (2003). Re-analysis of NAEP math and reading scores in states with and without high-stakes tests: Response to Rosenshine. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(25). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n25/
4.
BishopJ. H. (1998). The effect of curriculum-based external exit exam systems on student achievement. Journal of Economic Education, 29, 171–182.
5.
BishopJ. H.ManeF. (2001a). The impacts of minimum competency exam graduation requirements on college attendance and early labor market success of disadvantaged students. In OrfieldG.KornhaberM. L. (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education (pp. 51–83). New York, NY: Century Foundation Press.
6.
BishopJ. H.ManeF. (2001b). The impacts of minimum competency exam graduation requirements on high school graduation, college attendance and early labor market success. Labour Economics, 8, 203–222.
7.
BishopJ. H.ManeF.BishopM.MoriartyJ. (2000). The role of end-of-course exams and minimum competency exams in standards-based reforms (CAHRS Working Paper 00-09). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies.
8.
BishopJ. H.ManeF.BishopM.MoriartyJ. (2001). The role of end-of-course exams and minimum competency exams in standards-based reforms. In RavitchD. (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy (pp. 267–345). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
9.
BishopJ. H.MoriartyJ. Y.ManeF. (2000). Diplomas for learning, not seat time: The impacts of New York Regents examinations. Economics of Education Review, 19, 333–349.
10.
BraunH. (2004). Re-considering the impact of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n1/
11.
BurrisC. C.WelnerK. G. (2005). Closing the achievement gap by detracking. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 594–598.
12.
California Department of Education. (2006, May30). Schools chief Jack O’Connell visits Central Valley schools to discuss options for students yet to pass exit exam[Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr06/yr06rel60.asp
13.
CarnoyM.LoebS.SmithT. (2001). Do higher state test scores in Texas make for better high school outcomes? (CPRE Research Report RR-047). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
14.
CatterallJ. S. (1989). Standards and school dropouts: A national study of tests required for high school graduation. American Journal of Education, 98(1), 1–34.
15.
Center on Education Policy. (2008, August). State high school exit exams: A move toward end-of-course exams. Washington, DC: Author.
16.
Center on Education Policy. (2009, November). State high school exit exams: Trends in test programs, alternate pathways, and pass rates. Washington, DC: Author.
17.
ChalmersI.HedgesL.CooperH. (2002). A brief history of the research synthesis. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 25(1), 12–37.
18.
ClarkM.RothsteinJ.SchanzenbachD. W. (2009). Selection bias in college admissions test scores. Economics of Education Review, 28, 295–307.
19.
CornellD. G.KrosnickJ. A.ChangL. (2006). Student reactions to being wrongly informed of failing a high-stakes test: The case of the Minnesota Basic Standards Test. Educational Policy, 20, 718–751.
20.
D’AgostinoJ. V.BonnerS. M. (2009). High school exit exam scores and university performance. Educational Assessment, 14, 25–37.
21.
DeBrayE. (2005). A comprehensive high school and a shift in New York State policy: A study of early implementation. High School Journal, 89(1), 18–45.
22.
DeeT. S. (2003). The “first wave” of accountability in No Child Left Behind? In PetersonP. E.WestM. R. (Eds.), No Child Left Behind? The politics and practice of school accountability (pp. 215–241). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
23.
DeeT. S.JacobB. A. (2006, April). Do high school exit exams influence educational attainment or labor market performance? (Working Paper 12199). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w12199
24.
GreeneJ. P.WintersM. A. (2004). Pushed out or pulled up? Exit exams and dropout rates in public high schools (Education Working Paper 5). New York, NY: Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute.
25.
GrodskyE. S.WarrenJ. R.KalogridesD. (2009). State high school exit examinations and NAEP long-term trends in reading and mathematics, 1971–2004. Educational Policy, 23, 589–614.
26.
GuarinoC. M.SantibanezL.DaleyG. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 173–208.
27.
HamiltonL. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Review of Research in Education, 27, 25–68.
HeubertJ. P.HauserR. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30.
HolmeJ. J. (2008). High stakes diplomas: Organizational responses of California’s high schools to the state’s exit examination requirement. Research in the Sociology of Education, 14, 157–188.
31.
HuangM. (2009). Do public exams raise student performance? A cross-national difference-in-differences analysis. Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy, 21(1), 1–21.
32.
JacobB. (2001). Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 99–121.
33.
JurgesH.SchneiderK.SenkbeilM.CarstensenC. H. (2009). Assessment drives learning: The effect of central exams on curricular knowledge and mathematical literacy (CESifo Working Paper 2666). Munich, Germany: Ifo Institute for Economic Research.
34.
LinnR. L.MadausG. F.PedullaJ. J. (1982). Minimum competency testing: Cautions on the state of the art. American Journal of Education, 91(1), 1–35.
35.
MalenB.CroningerR.MunceyD.Redmond-JonesD. (2002). Reconstituting schools: “Testing” the “theory of action.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 113–132.
36.
MarchantG. J.PaulsonS. E. (2005). The relationship of high school graduation exams to graduation rates and SAT scores. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(6). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n6/
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983, April). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author.
39.
OuD. (2009). To leave or not to leave? A regression discontinuity analysis of the impact of failing the high school exit exam (CEP Discussion Paper 907). London, England: Center for Economic Performance.
40.
PapayJ. P.MurnaneR. J.WillettJ. B. (2010). The consequences of high school exit examinations for low-performing urban students: Evidence from Massachusetts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32, 5–23.
41.
PhelpsR. P. (2000). Trends in large-scale testing outside the United States. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(5), 11–21.
42.
PiphoC. (1978, May). Minimum competency testing in 1978: A look at state standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 59, 585–588.
43.
PiphoC. (1983, January3). Student minimum competency testing. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
44.
ReardonS. F.ArshanN.AtteberryA.KurlaenderM. (2008, October). High stakes, no effects: Effects of failing the California High School Exit Exam (Working Paper 2008-10). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice.
45.
ReardonS. F.AtteberryA.ArshanN.KurlaenderM. (2009, April21). Effects of the California High School Exit Exam on student persistence, achievement, and graduation (Working Paper 2009-12). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice.
46.
ResnickD. P. (1980). Minimum competency testing historically considered. Review of Research in Education, 8, 3–29.
47.
RichmanC. L.BrownK.ClarkM. (1987). Personality changes as a function of minimum competency test success or failure. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 7–16.
48.
RosenshineB. (2003). High-stakes testing: Another analysis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(24). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/25
49.
SassenS. (1990). Economic restructuring and the American city. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 465–490.
50.
SassenS. (2000). Cities in a world economy. In FainsteinS. S.CampbellS. (Eds.), Readings in urban theory (2nd ed., pp. 32–38). Walden, MA: Blackwell.
51.
SerowR. C.DaviesJ. J. (1982). Resources and outcomes of minimum competency testing as measures of equality of educational opportunity. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 529–539.
52.
SippleJ. W.KilleenK.MonkD. M. (2004). Adoption and adaptation: School district responses to state imposed high school graduation requirements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 143–168.
53.
SteeleC. (2007). Stereotype threat and African American student achievement. In GruskyD. B.SzelenyiS. (Eds.), The Inequality Reader: Contemporary and Foundational Readings in Race, Class and Gender (pp. 252–257). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
54.
SupelT. M. (1978, Winter). The U.S. economy in 1977 and 1978 (Minneapolis Federal Reserve quarterly review). Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Federal Reserve.
55.
SuriH.ClarkeD. (2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79, 395–439.
56.
ToenjesL. A.DworkinA. G. (2002). Are increasing test scores in Texas really a myth, or is Haney’s myth a myth?Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(17). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n17/
57.
Vasquez HeiligJ.Darling-HammondL. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 75–110.
58.
VoglerK. E. (2006). Impact of a high school graduation examination on Tennessee science teachers’ instructional practices. American Secondary Education, 35(1), 33–57.
59.
VoglerK. E. (2008). Comparing the impact of accountability examinations on Mississippi and Tennessee social studies teachers’ instructional practices. Educational Assessment, 13, 1–32.
60.
WarrenJ. R.EdwardsM. R. (2005). High school exit examinations and high school completion: Evidence from the early 1990s. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 53–74.
61.
WarrenJ. R.GrodskyE. S.LeeJ. C. (2008). State high school exit examinations and post-secondary labor market outcomes. Sociology of Education, 81, 77–107.
62.
WarrenJ. R.JenkinsK. N. (2005). High school exit examinations and high school dropout in Texas and Florida, 1971–2000. Sociology of Education, 78, 122–143.
63.
WarrenJ. R.JenkinsK. N.KulickR. (2006). High school exit examinations and state-Level completion and GED rates, 1975–2002. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 131–152.
64.
WinfieldL. F. (1990). School competency testing reforms and student achievement: Exploring a national perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 157–173.
65.
WoessmannL. (2003). Central exit exams and student achievement: International evidence. In PetersonP. E.WestM. R. (Eds.), No Child Left Behind? The politics and practice of school accountability (pp. 292–323). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
66.
WoessmannL. (2004). The effect heterogeneity of central exams: Evidence from TIMSS, TIMSS-Repeat and PISA (CESifo Working Paper Series 1330). Munich, Germany: Ifo Institute for Economic Research.
67.
WoessmannL.LudemannE.SchutzG.WestM. R. (2007). School accountability, autonomy, choice, and the level of student achievement: International evidence from PISA 2003 (OECD Education Working Paper 13). Munich, Germany: Ifo Institute for Economic Research.
