I must say I was extremely disappointed with this San Jose Mercury News editorial. I think the cluelessness of the editorial board is unfortunate and even worse it is all too common in our state because of our confusing excuse for an accountability system.

How do you inspire students to take week-long standardized tests that don't affect their grades or their future?

That's the enigma confronting teachers and administrators this month as they administer the annual Standardized Testing and Reporting, or STAR, tests. As Mercury News writer Sharon Noguchi reported last week, there's a motivation gap between younger and older students.

Elementary schools use pizza parties, school rallies and goofy stunts to prime youngsters for five days of multiple-choice exams that determine their school's reputation and academic standing. But those tactics are less successful with high school students worried about SATs and the exit exam, not about a test with no bearing on their future. The dilemma keeps principals up at nights.

STAR test results largely determine whether schools meet targets under the federal No Child Left Behind law. They're the overwhelming factor in determining a school's API score, the three-digit number that Realtors, parents and journalists fixate on. A few dozen students who tune out or sabotage the test can bring on state and federal sanctions.

Hmmmm... where to start. First, the STAR test results do not determine whether high schools meet targets under No Child Left Behind (NCLB). For high schools, those determinations are based solely on the 10th grade California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) results. The STAR results do not impact whether a high school made the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals under NCLB at all.

Second, while STAR results are a part of the API calculation, for high schools, no single test has a weight greater than 29%. So, to really have a big impact, those "few dozen students" would probably need to focus their efforts on more than a single test.

Third, testing companies look for invalid tests where students answer "A" for every question or follow patterns or spell out things using the bubbles, so those tests aren't counted against the schools anyway.

Students take STAR tests in second through 11th grades. The lower grades are tested mainly in math and reading which creates another problem: Schools spend weeks drilling on those subjects at the expense of others, teaching to the test instead of to state standards.

This is just a reiteration of the same 'ol "NCLB is narrowing the curriculum" argument. That argument is ridiculous when you have 60% of students statewide who are below grade-level in those two basic subjects. If students aren't at grade-level in reading, writing and math, then we should be narrowing their instruction to solve that problem. The skills of reading, writing and math are essential to success in other subjects such as science or history. Students are tested in science in grades 5 and 8, as well as through their high school years. History/Social Science tests are also given in grades 8, 10 and 11.

Other measures would give a broader perspective on a school's academic performance and could be factored into the API score. They include the graduation rate, the percentage of students who need remediation at community colleges and state universities, the proportion who complete a career-technical education program or courses required for admission to a four-year state college, and the number of students taking advanced placement courses.

The lack of a statewide data system has prevented including some of these factors in the API. But within a few years, a system should be up and running.

I'm not necessarily against looking at other measures to include in the API, but there are some problems here. By adding these other measures, it reduces the incentives for schools to focus on raising student academic achievement. They will start focusing efforts on these other factors. Since student achievement is clearly the most important goal, it sure seems like the standardized test should be the majority component of an accountability system.

The lack of a longitudinal student data system is also a significant problem, but the reality is that it didn't need prevent the state from collecting appropriate data for these other areas of interest. CDE already collects tons of data from school districts. All the longitudinal data system is going to do is allow them utilize that data more effectively. They're still going to need to collect it. I'm not holding my breath for the completion of CALPADS/CALTIDES.

Actually, beyond the article, I have real problems with the API as you've probably seen before if you read my blog. Even if I could accept the API, then the other glaring flaw is that there is actually no accountability associated with it. Schools can fail to meet their API goals year after year with absolutely no consequences. NCLB is supposed to impose consequences for failure, but the California Department of Education sees to it that those never actually occur by allowing failing schools to select the "other" option instead of research-based reform strategies.