Part I: Within the Context of High-Stakes Testing
In my introduction, I attempted to describe the tension with which I have been engaged throughout this year of student teaching. To reiterate, this tension stemmed from a disconnect I felt between the pedagogical methods being taught in my courses and those I was most often seeing in my field placement. Before looking more closely at how this impacted my planning and instruction during the year, however, I believe it is necessary to provide a broader context for this situation. As personal as this portfolio is meant to be, I cannot ignore the fact that public education is sensitive to social and political trends. Teachers in these settings must adapt to these trends, especially when they are actually codified as policy. Thus, teachers are accountable not only to their students, but to administrators, districts, state departments of education and, increasingly, the federal government (Valli, Croninger, & Walters, 2007). Perhaps no trend in education policy has a greater direct impact on teachers right now than high-stakes standardized testing.
So while this portfolio is ultimately about negotiating a balance between what I read for my courses and what I saw in the field, I want to position this analysis within the context of high-stakes testing for two reasons. First, if I leave out this context then I run the risk of characterizing my Classroom Mentor as a teacher stuck, for whatever reason, in outdated ways of thinking about planning and instruction. To the contrary, she possesses considerable knowledge about the strategies and theories taught in my methods courses (personal correspondence, 2012; see Appendix, Artifact A).
She is in a position, however, in which she faces considerable pressure to show student growth on the PSSA. Like many (if not most) teachers, my Classroom Mentor is critical of the new testing regime (for one survey of teacher perception of high-stakes testing, see Jones & Egley, 2004). As early as October, still six months away from the test, she lamented the way that the high stakes of the PSSA had changed her teaching. She told me about some of the projects she used to do with her students when she taught in Milwaukee Public Schools, prior to the authorization of No Child Left Behind. “I can’t do that anymore, though,” she said. “But it is what it is, so you have to do what you can” to have your students perform as well as possible on the PSSA. She pointed out that she had not given up all of her old ways, however. “Some of it, I just think, is too important – if not for the students then for me [laughs]” (personal correspondence, 2012; see Appendix, Artifact A).
So while this portfolio is ultimately about negotiating a balance between what I read for my courses and what I saw in the field, I want to position this analysis within the context of high-stakes testing for two reasons. First, if I leave out this context then I run the risk of characterizing my Classroom Mentor as a teacher stuck, for whatever reason, in outdated ways of thinking about planning and instruction. To the contrary, she possesses considerable knowledge about the strategies and theories taught in my methods courses (personal correspondence, 2012; see Appendix, Artifact A).
She is in a position, however, in which she faces considerable pressure to show student growth on the PSSA. Like many (if not most) teachers, my Classroom Mentor is critical of the new testing regime (for one survey of teacher perception of high-stakes testing, see Jones & Egley, 2004). As early as October, still six months away from the test, she lamented the way that the high stakes of the PSSA had changed her teaching. She told me about some of the projects she used to do with her students when she taught in Milwaukee Public Schools, prior to the authorization of No Child Left Behind. “I can’t do that anymore, though,” she said. “But it is what it is, so you have to do what you can” to have your students perform as well as possible on the PSSA. She pointed out that she had not given up all of her old ways, however. “Some of it, I just think, is too important – if not for the students then for me [laughs]” (personal correspondence, 2012; see Appendix, Artifact A).
Placards outside main office
This spring, as the test drew closer, the pressure on my Classroom Mentor became more evident. In personal conversations, she confided that she felt nervous when she thought about the test, to the point where “her heart beat fast” (journal entry, 2013; see Artifact B above). The pressure appeared to be greater this particular year, too. On more than one occasion, our principal expressed how she “needed” our sixth grade class to perform. Furthermore, the general school culture is closely tied to success on the PSSA, evidenced by the AYP placards hung prominently by the main office (see photo, right), not to mention the observations made by Sara Braun (2011) during her own student teaching experience at the school.
I conclude, then, that it was an adjustment to the reality of an educational climate influenced by high-stakes testing that determined what I was seeing in the field. I believe my Classroom Mentor so often emphasized “instrumental understanding” over “relational understanding” because of this reality, not because of an unwillingness to incorporate more progressive pedagogy (Skemp, 1976).
I do not believe this is a unique phenomenon. Teachers and scholars have, for some time now, been pointing to the ways that high-stakes testing can shape planning and teaching these days, characterized by an increased emphasis on procedural knowledge, isolated skills, and teacher-led instruction (see, e.g., Au, 2007; Riede, 2013). With that said, the second reason I feel it is necessary to provide this context for my inquiry is that I will find myself adjusting to this high-stakes testing as a teacher for the foreseeable future. This year was only the first taste, so to speak, of attempting to reconcile my pedagogical goals of building relational understanding and critical thinking with the need to prep my students for the test. To read about this reconciliation, please proceed to Part II: Impact on Math Planning and Instruction.
(References are cited here.)
I conclude, then, that it was an adjustment to the reality of an educational climate influenced by high-stakes testing that determined what I was seeing in the field. I believe my Classroom Mentor so often emphasized “instrumental understanding” over “relational understanding” because of this reality, not because of an unwillingness to incorporate more progressive pedagogy (Skemp, 1976).
I do not believe this is a unique phenomenon. Teachers and scholars have, for some time now, been pointing to the ways that high-stakes testing can shape planning and teaching these days, characterized by an increased emphasis on procedural knowledge, isolated skills, and teacher-led instruction (see, e.g., Au, 2007; Riede, 2013). With that said, the second reason I feel it is necessary to provide this context for my inquiry is that I will find myself adjusting to this high-stakes testing as a teacher for the foreseeable future. This year was only the first taste, so to speak, of attempting to reconcile my pedagogical goals of building relational understanding and critical thinking with the need to prep my students for the test. To read about this reconciliation, please proceed to Part II: Impact on Math Planning and Instruction.
(References are cited here.)