Metaphors and analogies are how we process the world, which makes the Sisyphus in Sisyphean High of particular interest when it comes to high-stakes tests. I don’t know that all of public education is Sisyphean, but I know that very little about high-stakes testing has changed since 2011:
The references to Sisyphus borrow from the laborious futility of the original myth and the absurd heroism of Camus’ essay. That 2011 instructional essay is concerned more with the cynicism and futility of high-stakes testing, which seems (to me) to be primarily responsible for the Sisyphean aspect of public education. Students and teachers push themselves through test prep, arrive at the performative plateau of the actual test, and then start all over again. The scores mean everything and nothing. That’s absurd in a deeply existential way.
What I’m inviting us to consider, however, is that Sisyphus and that essay from 2011 are just one possible approach to testing and test prep. Another has us weaponize our collective cynicism by treating all high-stakes tests as tests of gamesmanship, which lets us focus on real skills and traits:
Note that this second essay is in pretty serious need of an update. The grade-abated assessment process it references has been revised several times, and our overall approach to learning has become more student-driven and ameliorative. The logic is the same, though: In English, at least, there’s a chance to treat these high-stakes tests as more than just a peculiar and torturous apparatus.
(If we’re going to talk about metaphors, by the way, let’s read “In the Penal Colony” — the link at the end of the last paragraph — and figure out how it fits this discussion. Who is the Officer? Who is the Condemned? Should I maybe refrain from calling test prep “The Harrow,” considering what it references?)
Regents Examination in English Language Arts (Common Core)
All juniors in our school take the Common Core Regents in English. It’s officially called a “comprehensive” exam, so students, of course, take it 75% of the way through their English studies. Another absurdity: All you would need, if you were theoretically looking to pass this test, is a web browser, some free time, and the ability to teach yourself:
Clicking on that screenshot will take you to the Office of State Assessment’s collection of Regents Examinations in English Language Arts (Common Core). The link will take you there, too. You could — again, theoretically speaking — use only that page to reverse-engineer a complete understanding of what the test requires, how it is scored, and your own strengths and weaknesses. The state has provided everything: full exams, answer keys, rubrics, annotated student essays, and scoring guides.
The non-theoretical work, of course, requires a classroom and formal assignments and the kind of exasperated sighs that only test prep elicits. You need help, because there is no serious motivation outside of the test score to learn what the Regents requires.
Student Work: Profile as an ELA Regents Test-Taker
Since this test is designed to harrow every student in the same way, it’s difficult to individualize the process. As always, we prioritize the how of learning, leaning again on the Postman/Dewey idea on the front page of this site. We focus on metacognition and artifact analysis. We write a lot.
High-stakes tests are hands-on things — No. 2 pencils, Scantrons, backs hunched over in silent, cemetery rows — so we will use a folder to organize our work. The digital artifacts (e.g., typed revisions of essays) are there as an archive and backup; most of the production will be by hand, either through annotation or handwritten responses. Metacognitive and reflective work, of course, should be done initially in whatever form is most effective.
The goal is to fill each student’s folder with evidence of “the student as a test-taker” — strengths, weaknesses, sense of self-efficacy, study plans, etc. Then we can treat the taking of the test as a problem-solving exercise. To do that, the folder should contain the following artifacts:
- Full exam with multiple-choice answers for Part 1 circled
- Handwritten essay for Part 2, entered in the official response booklet
- Handwritten response for Part 3, entered in the official response booklet
- Printed copy of reflection/metacognition for Part 1
- Printed copy of typed Part 2 essay
- Printed copy of typed Part 3 essay
- Handwritten, exact copy of Anchor Paper – Part 2 – Level 6 – A
- Handwritten, exact copy of Anchor Paper – Part 3 – Level 4 – A
- Printed copy of metacognitive analysis of Part 2
- Printed copy of metacognitive analysis of Part 3
- SWOT analysis for the exam
It seems like more than it is. There are ten steps that focus on finishing or deconstructing the exam, plus a final step that invites some final preparation. Some steps could certainly be combined or revised, which would give the process more individuality; in most cases, however, the efficacy of all the steps will work in concert. The goal is more simply understood as making your thinking visible.
Note that Steps 7-8 require you to copy a state-sanctioned model essay by hand, exactly as it is presented in the scoring guide. This is probably the first time you have been asked to copy another student’s writing verbatim, or word-for-word; like it did for Hunter S. Thompson, this rote copying should give us some insight into what the writer accomplished.
What follows is a guide to each step. It will be printed and given to you as a checklist. It uses the most recent exam available for study, which is the one from January, 2017.
① Full exam with multiple-choice answers for Part 1 circled
Part 1 requires you to read three passages and answer 24 multiple-choice questions. Note the approximate time required for each passage. Make notes on the texts, questions, and answer choices, and circle each answer in the test booklet.
Click here to download Part 1 of the exam for January 2017:
② Handwritten essay for Part 2, entered in the official response booklet
Part 2 requires you to read sources and synthesize them as part of an argument essay. Take notes on the sources, outline your essay in the space provided, and then write your response in the provided test booklet.
Click here to download Part 2 of the exam for January 2017:
③ Handwritten response for Part 3, entered in the official response booklet
Part 3 requires you to analyze authorial choice in a passage. Annotate the passage, outline your response in the space provided, and then write your response in the provided test booklet.
Click here to download Part 3 of the exam for January 2017:
④ Printed copy of reflection/metacognition for Part 1
Get the answers for Step #1 from your teacher or the provided scoring guide. Determine your score, and then write a detailed reflection and metacognition on your performance. Focus on how you approached each passage, the type of questions you missed, and where your strengths seem to be. Print a copy of this reflective/metacognitive response.
⑤ Printed copy of typed Part 2 essay
Type up your handwritten response for Part 2. You can make any edits or revisions you want, because those changes will be part of the metacognition you do in a later step. Print a copy of this response.
⑥ Printed copy of typed Part 3 essay
Type up your handwritten response for Part 3. You can make any edits or revisions you want, because those changes will be part of the metacognition you do in a later step. Print a copy of this response.
⑦ Handwritten, exact copy of Anchor Paper – Part 2 – Level 6 – A
Look over the rubric for Part 2, and then make a handwritten copy of Anchor Paper – Part 2 – Level 6 – A. Copy it exactly as it appears in the scoring guide. Click here to download Anchor Paper – Part 2 – Level 6 – A with the rubric attached:
⑧ Handwritten, exact copy of Anchor Paper – Part 3 – Level 4 – A
Look over the rubric for Part 3, and then make a handwritten copy of Anchor Paper – Part 3 – Level 4 – A. Copy it exactly as it appears in the scoring guide. Click here to download Anchor Paper – Part 3 – Level 4 – A with the rubric attached:
⑨ Printed copy of metacognitive analysis of Part 2
Reflect on Part 2 of the exam, offering metacognitive analysis of the choices you made in writing your essay. Compare and contrast your work with the state’s exemplar to identify your strengths and weaknesses. Print a copy of this response when finished. Use the categories of the rubric for Part 2 to focus the analysis. Click here to download the rubric:
⑩ Printed copy of metacognitive analysis of Part 3
Reflect on Part 3 of the exam, offering metacognitive analysis of the choices you made in writing your essay. Compare and contrast your work with the state’s exemplar to identify your strengths and weaknesses. Print a copy of this response when finished. Use the categories of the rubric for Part 3 to focus the analysis. Click here to download the rubric:
⑪ SWOT analysis for the exam
Use the artifacts and analysis from Steps 1-10 as the starting point for a SWOT analysis of yourself. Your task is to specify which elements of the exam you can predict, which skills you can practice, what knowledge you possess, and how best to proceed in preparing for the exam.
If you need a reminder of how we used SWOT analysis earlier in the year, revisit that lesson: