Officials said using an average of 1999 and 2000 scores would be more accurate than just using one year because it would take into account twice as many test-takers. That's where they made a mistake, Kendall said. If 40 students from a school took the test in 1999 and 50 took it in 2000, for example, the second year should have more weight when computing the average, simply because more students took it that year. But Ronald Hambleton, a University of Massachusetts at Amherst professor who specializes in testing techniques, said what's important is how the school improved from year to year, not individual students, so it was understandable the state didn't count all the test-takers. Still, Hambleton said the state's method is less accurate, particularly in smaller schools where numbers might change a lot from year to year.
Larger schools tend to have less fluctuation.
The ratings are points of pride for the schools, but ultimately they'll also determine more important actions such as which schools the state has to help, which schools parents choose for their children, and even which towns people decide to live in. The report's focus on whether schools improved enough to meet expectations drew angry responses from some, particularly in schools that scored well but did not improve enough to meet expectations. Fifty-six percent of 1,539 schools in the report scored worse than goals the state had set for them. This year's 10th graders are the first who have to pass the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System test in order to graduate. If you have any questions, comments or feedback, please send us e-mail .