Don't overestimate value of preliminary test scores

At first glance, unofficial results from this school year's batch of Ohio proficiency tests portend guarded optimism for the Mahoning Valley's three most academically challenged districts. On closer inspection, however, it would be irresponsible to read too much into them just yet.
Preliminary scores released last week showed substantial improvements for pupils in Youngstown, Warren and East Liverpool in some content areas. Each of the three urban districts is ranked under "academic watch," which means they fall just above the basement level of "academic emergency" from which each was elevated last year.
Among the fourth-grade scores, Youngstown and East Liverpool pupils scored better than their peers of one year ago in all five of the subject areas measured -- reading, writing, math, science and citizenship. In Warren, fourth-graders performed better in four of the five areas. At the sixth-grade level, East Liverpool pupils improved in four of the five disciplines while Youngstown and Warren showed slight gains in some areas.
Urban district challenges
In attempting to interpret the results, one must first keep in mind that the numbers are relative. Each of the urban districts faces Herculean tasks in raising scores in some categories to a level where a simple majority of test takers are deemed proficient.
Even though the tentative results indicate progress, clearly each of the districts has a long way to go to reach parity with other more affluent districts in the region.
Urban school districts throughout the state and nation typically perform worse than their suburban and rural counterparts. Critics argue that the tests do not weigh adverse socioeconomic factors that tend to pull down overall achievement and proficiency test scores of city pupils. They add that the tests tell such districts what most already know: Disadvantaged pupils need more time and more resources to develop and fine-tune the most basic academic skills.
Findings are preliminary
Another reason for caution when analyzing this year's results is that the figures are preliminary. School districts and the state have not reviewed them closely for potential errors and trouble spots. Some of the areas in which improvement was minimal could in fact change minimally in the opposite direction. Pupils, parents and school district officials must await the complete and official results, compiled on school district report cards, that are scheduled for release in August.
Finally, proficiency tests cannot be used as the sole barometer to gauge scholastic achievement of pupils or the academic quality of a school district. Other factors including performance on regular classroom work must be taken into account. Some pupils are poor test takers. Some districts in which teachers are proficient in teaching for the test may produce artificially inflated scores.
Critics continue to call the tests everything from invalid to immoral.
Nonetheless, there are no signals from our bloated federal and state education bureaucracies that the big business of standardized testing will be downsized anytime soon -- at least not until there is a proven alternative.
But as one of several yardsticks to gauge scholastic success, the results can be used by school officials to target weaknesses in their programs and to tailor appropriate remedial responses.
And although it looks as if slightly less remedial work will be necessary with the apparent rise in this year's scores, we'll withhold any hurrahs until the release of the more complete and more valid results two months from now.