Millions of dollars are being spent on Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium testing, or Common Core testing, as school districts respond to new federal requirements.

In this frenzied era of reform, I’m puzzled: Why is so much attention being paid to testing and so little to teaching? Why can’t we use this “adaptive” technology to aid teachers in reaching these goals? As it stands now, secondary teachers are often left to gather, write and patch together curriculum in order to meet the needs of 150 diverse learners. Combine this with all the other tasks that make up the job, and even a 112-hour work week won’t get it all done.

By the time students get to high school, they are all over the map in skill level. Because we are organic beings, we are not “input-output” machines who can be fed the same information and experience and develop the same knowledge and skills, at the same pace, as a result. There are too many variables: motivation, nutrition, sleep, home life, relationships, stress. We can, however, learn — in our own way, driven in part by our own motivations. The testing culture threatens to take what should be an intrinsically motivating experience — learning — and turns it into a chore. Instead of learning because it’s natural that they would want to, students too often merely feel coerced and pressured to pass tests, not to become independent thinkers of the kind who might question the validity and appropriateness of the very test that poses as the guardian of their futures.

We need to rethink our whole system. Rather than pour all of our money and technological expertise into the test, why not create a different frenzy in which adaptive software is provided in all schools everywhere as a teaching aid, not just a testing hammer?

We’re spending the money anyway, why not spend it on ensuring students learn, rather than just closing the gate on their futures? What if, in language arts class, rather than the teacher writing on 59 of the 150 different papers, “run-on sentence” (Teaching the whole class doesn’t work for 59 of ‘em), a computer program could analyze the work, then lead the writer through a differentiated mini-lesson on the skill(s) they lack? Meanwhile, the teacher would be freed up to work with meaningful ideas, facilitating small groups centered on inquiry learning and real-world scenarios rather than spending questionably productive time on skill rehearsal. What if, in math class, students could use responsive software to fill in the “holes” they have? (If we did this all along, would they have fewer holes?) What if, then, math class became real-world problem solving using mathematical principles and, instead of hearing, “We’ll never use this,” we hear, “Which principles/formulas could we apply in this situation?”

What if teaching began again to be recognized as the art form it is, rather than reduced to a mechanistic process governed by tyrannical laws? What if technology were used to support learning of the kind of skills demanded, freeing teachers to focus on the human side? Could you envision teachers working with students to produce empathetic and innovative world citizens, critical thinkers and problem solvers? Could you envision students working together on meaty problems like those faced by NASA scientists or peace-treaty negotiators? Could you envision a shift in focus from demanding compliance to empowering future leaders, from getting the “right” answers to formulating new questions?

I, for one, would rather live in a culture where human values like creativity, innovation, leadership, teamwork, empathy, kindness and inspiration were held in higher regard than the data from the latest round of testing.

Melanie Kreiger is a resident of Marysville.