Random events during high-stakes exams can affect not only test scores, but also long-term educational attainment and earnings, new research shows.
A study revealing the negative impact of ambient pollution on exam scores reveals the flaws of relying on critical exams as a primary method of testing students, according to researchers from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), University of Warwick and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Researchers analysed Israeli matriculation results from exams taken over a period of days from 2000-2002, including when pollution levels from forest fires and sandstorms were high.
In the first study of its kind, they examined how variations in pollution levels on exam days affected test scores and also students’ earnings 8-10 years on.
Dr Sefi Roth, Assistant Professor of Environmental Economics at the LSE, says students exposed to high pollution during exams experienced “lasting damage to post-secondary educational attainment and earnings later in life”.
The results show that an exposure to as little as additional 10 units of PM2.5 (AQI*) during the matriculation exams was associated with a 2.1% decline in monthly earnings at adulthood, controlling for other factors. Taking an exam on a polluted day was associated with a 3.8% decline in a student’s test scores, with boys and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds affected more.
Dr Roth says: “The link between pollution exposure and cognitive performance suggests the use of high-stakes exams as a primary method of testing students may be unfair.”
“When the stakes are high, there can be permanent consequences for the individual and for society. Students can have a bad test result due to random factors outside their control.”
Researchers also found those students who sat exams on high pollution days had a greater chance of failing and not obtaining a place at university compared to their counterparts.
“Students who took their matriculation exams on high pollution days have significantly worse academic and economic outcomes even a decade after the exam,” Dr Roth adds.
The paper also raises the issue of fairness. “The parts of cities that are most exposed to pollution are generally the poorest areas of cities, which are near factories and other dis-amenities. Underprivileged students are most likely to be affected. Therefore, to ignore the potential impact of pollution on test-takers is to open up the possibility of stacking the deck further against students from more modest backgrounds,” Dr Roth explains.
The authors argue that governments need to ensure that high stakes exams, like A levels, should be held in controlled environments, with all possible attention paid to making these settings consistent and fair for all students, so that the best students can be chosen.
The findings have been published by the Social Market Foundation and the Centre for Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE) at the University of Warwick.
For more information
Dr Sefi Roth, Assistant Professor of Environmental Economics, +44 (0)207 955 6850, mobile 07767 630 442, email s.j.roth@lse.ac.uk or Candy Gibson, LSE media relations office, 020 7955 7440 or c.gibson@lse.ac.uk
Notes to editors
“The long term economic consequences of having a bad day: How high-stakes exams mismeasure potential” was authored by Victor Lavy from the University of Warwick, Avraham Ebenstein from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Sefi Roth from the London School of Economics and Political Science.
* PM2.5 is particulate matter 2.5 micrometres or less in diameter. AQI is the EPA acronym for Air Quality Index.
Tuesday 23 August 2016