The Washington state Senate is gearing up to pass a bill that would mean teachers and principals would be evaluated based on student state test score results.

Though our Legislature believes this will effectively analyze our teachers and according to some will “weed out less talented teachers,” test scores are not a completely accurate way to measure the growth of individual students. While I concede that student growth should be taken into account when evaluating teachers, less emphasis should be placed on how their students perform on state tests. Instead, this evaluation should be individualized to the student’s and progress achieved in the class they are teaching.

Some would argue that using test scores as an indicator of how a teacher is doing has some merit but needs careful consideration. Unfortunately, using these state tests often does not allow for this. The fact of the matter is that every student, classroom environment and even teacher is different and each have different needs. A test given in class can show a teacher what needs to be worked on again so they can adjust to the specific learning environment to accommodate prior to state testing. This measure allows the teacher to learn more about how they teach based on how the students are learning and growing.

As a measure for all classrooms, The state of Washington defines student growth as how a student improved in relation to their peers who tend to score the same on tests. Though state test scores can be an indicator of how effective the teacher is, there are many variables that can affect the accuracy of the evaluation. Language barriers in English Language Learners (or ELL) classes and other outside influences such as the student’s ability or inability to study at home or anxiety when testing can dictate what a student will score on a test. Taking only these scores into account can make a teacher look successful one year and underperforming the next.

Former middle school teacher and now principal Rachel Dorsey of Chehalis described in an interview that it was sometimes a struggle to get the percentage of passing students over 70 precent in an ELL class though they made impressive improvements throughout the year. However, in a reading class for students whose first language is English, the percentage of passing students often exceeded 90 percent. How can a teacher be evaluated based solely on these two drastically different results? Judging her as a teacher purely based on the 70 percent class success rate does not show how effective she is as a teacher overall, nor does it reflect how much her students have improved and learned.

In an environment where passing a state test is more important than student advancement, there is an incredible strain on teachers. Dorsey said, “Many quality, veteran teachers are adding even more time into their work day … no extra pay given. To then fire teachers solely on test scores would discourage some veteran teachers who are doing an exceptional job, but can’t handle the additional pressure.” So while some less talented teachers would be weeded out, the exceptional teachers who love and contend for their students success would often be close behind.

Though the policy proposed might help Washington state better define their guidelines for teacher evaluation, the plan will end in more teachers “teaching to the test” and less emphasis on real learning. At the core of the bill proposal is a desire to place more emphasis on true learning and holding teachers up to a standard that promotes this.

While this emphasis has good intentions I think it misses a vital part of this measurement. State test scores only show a small part of what has been learned. Action must be taken toward developing a system that recognizes teachers for their hard work while simultaneously challenging them to new and different ways to guide their students to success.

Crista Dorsey is a Lake Stevens resident and a student at Everett Community College.