Critical Reflection - Bower

Since beginning my career as a high school English teacher in the South Bronx, a number of educational issues have arisen that effect how I teach and as well what my students learn, but one issue in particular that has had the greatest effect on how and what I teach relates to the Regents Exam, New York State’s version of a standardized, statewide exit exam. This is a pressing issue that teachers face all across America, and an issue, that in my opinion, will continue to be hotly debated as long as statewide, high-stakes tests exist.

In my own experience thus far, I have found that my school administration does emphasize the importance of preparing students for the Regents Exam, but my administration does not overemphasize the test. The importance of this high-stakes exit exam is made clear, yet the pressure that I feel at certain times to “teach to the test” is self-induced. Having taught mostly seniors this past year, many of who were still trying to pass the Regents in June, I was made acutely aware of the necessity for students to pass the Regents in order to move on from high school. I had students with strong grade point averages that could have moved on to some form of higher education, yet they were in jeopardy of doing so because they had yet to pass an exit exam. It was students in these types of circumstances that made me feel that, one, standardized exit exams harm more than help students, and two, that I conversely needed to teach to the test in order to help these and other students advance in their education, and for that matter, life. I have seen students suffer from lack of success on the Regents exam, but not directly prosper from success on this exam. This is not to say that passing the Regents equates to graduation, but is an exam such as the Regents as a measure of students’ intelligence or rather a measure of their ability to take a certain type of test using specific test taking strategies?

The use of high-stakes assessments, such as the Regents Exam, are a product of the No Child Left Behind Act which exists in part to ensure that all students, including those with disabilities, have access to general education curriculum that meet certain standards (Salend, 2006). Some proponents of high-stakes testing argue the importance of these tests based on the idea that they document students’ academic achievement and identify general programmatic strengths and needs, and yet at the same time, opponents argue that the pressure to judge student learning and teacher effectiveness based on the results of standardized tests can result in educators teaching to the test at the expense of curriculum (Salend, 2006). The use of statewide standardized testing brings into question what it is that we, as teachers, are trying to accomplish in our classrooms; are we trying to teach concepts and ideas related to our subject matters that will help students prosper intellectually and personally, or are we providing students with test taking skill sets that will help them pass a specific standardized test?

The range in the debate of the merit of statewide, standardized high-stakes testing is vast, and I, as a teacher, can relate to both sides of the argument, but ultimately, I do not think that these types of tests are necessary, and in fact do more harm than good. To that point, research has shown that in states with difficult exit exams, students are 5.5 percent more likely to drop out than their counterparts in states with no exams (Glenn, 2006). This kind of evidence raises the question: What good is the use of an exam that increases dropout rates among high school students? It is my belief that as a teacher, that my curriculum should not be geared towards helping students passes a test, yet at the same time, I cannot avoid the fact in the state of New York, students must take and pass the Regents in order to graduate.

Beginning this fall, I will be responsible for teaching English to the entire 11th grade at my high school. As this is the school year when most students take the English Regents, I feel a tremendous duty to ensure that my students are as prepared as they can be in order to succeed on this high-stakes test. I am conflicted about the best way to approach my curriculum and day-to-day lesson planning. As a teacher more comfortable and inclined to teach for meaning, I fear that my approach to instruction for the impending year may not be the right fit. Having the responsibility of teaching the eleventh grade, I cannot avoid the Regents, or more subtly imbed it in my curriculum, and therefore I feel an obligation to be more overt and direct with my instruction related to the Regents. It has been argued, however, that students can benefit from instruction geared toward teaching for meaning, and McTighe et al. (2004) have contended that “teachers can raise test scores over the long haul by teaching the key ideas and processes contained in the content standards in rich and engaging ways; by collecting evidence of student understanding of that content through robust local assessments rather than one-shot standardized testing; and by using engaging and effective instructional strategies that help students explore core concepts through inquiry and problem solving” This is an encouraging argument, and one that I will take into mind as I begin instruction this fall because it allows for teaching more for meaning and less to the test. Yet, I do feel that at the same time I will also be compelled to teach more directly to the test, which in turn makes me wonder what this says about the effects of having standardized statewide testing. Are my students, as a result of having to pass a standardized exit exam, receiving a better, more fulfilling education?

It is my belief as an educator to help prepare my students for success after high school, and with that in mind, I reluctantly accept my duty to prepare my students for high-stakes testing. I have no control over whether or not my students will take the Regents, because they all will, but I do have control over how I will go about teaching and preparing my students for this exam, and my goal is to prepare my students for this test without compromising my curriculum or intellectual, emotional and personal development of my students.

References

Glenn, D. (2006). High school exit exams linked to higher dropout rates, researchers find.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(45), A14-A17.

McTighe, J., Seif, E., Wiggins, G. (2004). You can teach for meaning. Educational
Leadership, 11/2004, (26-30).

Salend, S. (2007). Creating Inclusive Classrooms (6th Edition). New York: Pearson.