It’s been encouraging to see generally positive responses from school officials over the newly released school rating system and scores by the state education department.

The state’s School Performance Profiles include a variety of inputs including standardized test scores, attendance, drop-out and graduation rates as well as progress in closing academic achievement gaps. About 15 percent of the grade comes from teacher evaluations. Principal evaluations will be factored in for the 2014-15 school year. The new school grading system is intended to help parents, school officials the public monitor student achievment.

The performance scores replace the AYP, or Annual Yearly Progress reports, which was part of the federal No Child Left Behind law. Pennsylvania, like many other states, was granted a waiver from AYP reports and was allowed to implement the new school rating system as a replacement. The new system is based on a 100-point scale and state officials have set 70 as the threshhold for a passing grade.

Any new system of this scope can be expected to have bugs, and the state’s school rating system is no exception. A few schools complained that some student test data was missing or inaccurate and this resulted in poor scores, which were unwarranted. Those problems have been acknowledged by state officials and will be corrected.

When Butler School District officials looked at the scores for their schools, which ranged from highs in the lower 90s for Center Township and Connoquenessing elementary schools to a low of 66.4 for Broad Street elementary, the attitude from the administration was welcome. Superintendent Michael Strutt said, “I like the fact that they’re looking at multiple factors rather than just how they scored on the school assessments.”

Most people would agree with Strutt; a school evaluation system should take in a broad mix of measurable factors rather than just results from one or two standardized tests. The standardized test component of the new system is the Keystone Exams, which are reportedly tougher than the tests they replaced. It might take some time for teachers and students to adjust to the new tests.

Another plus about the new system is that instead of testing only English and math skills, the new tests include science and writing. Again, a broader scope should produce more meaningful results.

Strutt’s positive comments about the new program and his statement that even his district’s buildings that scored in the 90s can still improve is a stark contrast to generally negative comments heard, mostly from teachers’ unions, about past attempts to mesasure school or teacher performance using standardized tests.

Administrators from other districts, including South Butler and Karns City, had similarly encouraging comments about the new scoring system providing useful feedback, even if there are some kinks to work out.

The state’s largest teachers union, the Pennsylvania State Education Association, objected to 40 percent of a school’s score being tied to standardized tests. It’s a predictable response, and suggests the union would prefer that a school’s score have nothing to do with student test results.

But without some way to measure performance, it would be difficult to for schools to improve or for the public to know which schools were doing well and which were lagging. And every school, no matter its score, can improve.

State officials don’t dispute complaints that some test information is missing or inaccurate, which distorted some schools’ scores. A revised rating report will be issued early next year, which should represent a more accurate picture of how all schools in the state are doing.

Overall, the rollout of the new school rating system has been positive. The response from school administrators, to note the positive changes from AYP, is encouraging. The new system should become a useful tool to help schools improve — to the benefit of students, parents, taxpayers and school officials.