Using test scores as the sole indicator of students' and teachers' knowledge and skills is harming students and driving the best teachers from the profession, Ms. Droege fears. WHEN YOU go for a walk with my sister, she has a way of making you interested in rocks. She points out things in the environment that you might otherwise walk right past without ever noticing. And she can explain to you how and why they got there and in what geological era they formed; you can understand her, and suddenly you want to know more. She is very smart. She has a bachelor's degree in geology from Duke University and a master's degree in environmental science from the University of Montana. She will complete a master's degree in education at Loyola College this year. My sister is well educated, and her enjoyment of learning is infectious. For the last three years, she has been a teacher in a California public elementary school. When she first started teaching elementary school, the parents of her students laughed because their children kept coming home with rocks in their lunch boxes. This spring my sister accepted a new teaching position in a private school in another state, where she will have the freedom and support to teach according to a curriculum and philosophy that inspire her. Recently I read an article in Education Week by Patrick Bassett, the current president of the National Association of Independent Schools. In it, he referred to research by the Abell Foundation indicating that clear links could be found between teachers' verbal and cognitive abilities and the achievement of their students. Further, it indicated that verbal ability, the selectivity of the college attended, and the college achievement of the teacher were good predictors of teaching quality. The research has been challenged, but isn't the conclusion sensible? Intelligent, articulate, well-educated individuals make better teachers. Who would have guessed? Over and over, in teacher recruitment statements, ad campaigns, and union materials, we hear that all it really takes is heart. must love children. must be caring, compassionate, tolerant, and patient. But never You must be smart. must be well educated. must be insightful and observant, with a breadth of knowledge. Primarily, we don't make these statements because, on Monday morning when the school doors open, we have to fill the slots. Whether we like to think of it that way or not, our system demands that a certain number of teachers be present every school day, and if we set our criteria too high, the slots won't fill. Certainly, filling spaces became the priority in California in 1996 with the decision to implement class-size reduction. Almost overnight, schools and districts had to fill teaching positions from an already-depleted pool of applicants. With a college degree -- in almost any major, from any accredited college, and with a mediocre grade-point average -- most applicants could obtain an emergency credential and a job as a teacher. The decision to implement class-size reduction was made for political reasons, not educational ones. Unfortunately, political reasoning guides most educational choices, and many of these decisions will continue to exacerbate the problem of recruiting and retaining high- quality teachers. Oddly enough, politicians are hanging these choices on the hook of accountability. We will hold all teachers accountable for the success of their students, even though we have hired many teachers who were once mediocre students, who have never experienced very good teaching themselves, and who have little knowledge of how to teach. Accountability will take the form of test scores, even though we know that intelligence and learning are much broader and more complex concepts. There will be more federal money for school districts that implement curriculum packages that are proven -- proven to raise test scores. …