Recently, you ran a superintendent's column in which the author seemed to oppose "school testing" as he questioned, "While we can clearly see how youngsters are adversely affected by high-stakes testing, where is the evidence that it actually leads to better teaching and learning?"

In the business world, efficiency is a necessity. The market is the judge, even to the extreme. A public school system cannot just disappear. It is publicity that makes the system accountable. That's the real genius of the mandate on testing. It forces each school district to look at itself and compare its operations to others. That's the brutal, terrifying position they are in. It does causes internal finger pointing, complaints and criticism; but what does happen is that all children are better taught and that means that all learn more.

The term "delivery of instruction" is a catch-all phrase, which describes how a teacher is doing his or her job. Each year, teachers should deliver the curriculum and I repeat the entire curriculum, to all of the children. They should not have a choice as to which topics and chapters they don't have to deliver. It does not matter what field trips, sick days they use, or what events, be they horrible or not, that occur during the year.

Teachers are paid to deliver curriculum each year from "a to z." Teachers spiral their instructional delivery to enhance the "a to z" of last year. That's what teachers do. Right? How does the system know if teachers are doing their job? By imposing a curriculum guide and pacing charts, a district can ensure delivery from "a to z," to all students. Then, by observing, through formal class visits and monthly planbook reviews, administrators can measure that the guides are being followed in a timely manner. Each year of instructional delivery can be verified. If a district has alignment of the written and taught curriculum to the tested curriculum all students will benefit.

For the moment, the high stake state tests have caused some panic. It is causing the system to ask itself what it has to do. And, this is happening all over the state. It is working. And the best schools have to look at themselves too. What do you think is happening to the "ones," our lowest performing students? Every school has them. Not everyone has had a rich cultural experience to boost the school experience, nor tutors to support poor delivery. Are the students who scored "one" two years ago still "ones"? Will they pass the English and Math Regents to graduate? What annual assessments for all students are in place to verify annual growth?

If a district's curriculums are aligned with what is being delivered and assessed no one has to fear State Assessments. High stake tests will adversely affect youngsters whose parents, teachers and administrators believe it to be bad. Let's focus on teaching all children.

Michael Kosinski