Many Skeptical of School Ratings : Education: Comparing such items as test scores is inadequate for judging overall quality, critics say.

The recently released California High School Performance Report, which rates the combined academic performance of students, has prompted both pride and skepticism among local school officials and parents.

San Marino High received the highest scores of the 42 high schools evaluated in the San Gabriel Valley, and Arrow High, a small continuation school in Glendora, received the lowest.

Critics cite deficiencies in the report, and even proponents say the figures, used alone, are not a good indicator of how good a school is.

“By itself, the report is typically misused,” said Pat McCabe, a research evaluator for the state Department of Education. She supports the report but said it is often misinterpreted.

“The schools with the high scores are praised and the low-scoring schools are beat up. Parents need to look at overall state ranking, how well they compare against other schools, and are they growing and improving?” McCabe said.

The report is also missing information on the percentage of students who go on to community colleges and vocational schools, she said. Others condemn the report for its use of data from 1992-93, saying enrollment and test scores change every year.

“These are useless and empty figures,” said William Bibbiani, senior research analyst for the Pasadena Unified School District, where the average performance score was a relatively low 40.0 out of 100.

“It’s just the rehashing of old numbers by state department statisticians. Sure the figures are correct, but the numbers are meaningless,” Bibbiani said.

The California Department of Education created the annual performance report in 1982 to help show schools their strengths and weaknesses and to show comparisons with a group of 100 schools with similar demographics.

The report was also designed to give the public a glimpse inside local schools and can be helpful to parents in deciding where to move. Under a state law set to take effect in May, the report would also be used to assist students wanting to change school districts. McCabe said the data is best used in conjunction with a local school report.

Each school in the state was given a rating based on test scores from the Scholastic Assessment Test, Advanced Placement test, American College Test and the California Learning Assessment System, a statewide exam.

Administrators whose schools scored highly were pleased but were quick to note that the scores are not the only indicators of good education.

“We’re proud, but we aren’t elitist about it. There are a lot of good schools who didn’t score as high,” said Thomas Godley, superintendent of the San Marino Unified School District. “We have good students and support from parents, which is a major factor in successful schools these days.”

Ninety percent of San Marino district parents join the PTA and help with everything from reviewing textbooks to volunteering in the classroom, said Christine Rogers, president of the San Marino PTA Council.

Godley said the high school’s small size is another reason.

“We have 1,000 students and know every kid by name, so it’s very hard for a kid to get lost in the big critical mass,” Godley said.

Officials at Arrow High, for students who are behind on course credits, were not alarmed at receiving the lowest marks in the region.

“None of us here think the report means anything,” Principal Jon McNeil said. “When you look at raw data, you need to look at all the data. The performance scores are just not an accurate indication of what we do here every day.”

Arrow High has an enrollment of 103 students, many of whom come from troubled families and have disciplinary problems.

“We think we are one of the finer alternative schools,” McNeil said. “We see a lot of kids who were once good students but fell off the edge due to some family crisis. Our job is to put them back together again.”

The report itself does a disservice to some cities, critics such as Bibbiani say, because it implies that students can’t get a good education in urban districts.

“This report rewards the affluent suburbs and smites the rest of us,” Bibbiani said. “Poor kids drop out because they need jobs, which has no bearing on the quality of the school.”