Re: your March 28 article, “40 percent of the county’s schools hit state target”:

While I appreciate The Star reporting School Academic Performance Index scores, I feel it has done a disservice to some schools by not providing full data. The full-page dissection of the scores displays columns for the 2006 API scores, the statewide ranking, the "similar school" ranking and the target score for next year. This is a fine snapshot.

The problem lies in the fact these test scores are not meant to provide a snapshot of the current year, but rather an evolving panoramic picture of growth over the course of many years. The table fails to provide historical context for the data by leaving off two very important columns: the 2005 API score and this year’s target.

For example, Richard Bard School in the Hueneme School District, if your table is to be taken at face value, would appear to be doing only a good job: API above district average, but with only a 6 in the statewide ranking and a 7 in the similar school ranking.

However, if you take into account the two missing columns, the story changes dramatically: Bard's 2005 API score was 735, and its 2006 growth target was 3. So this year's API score of 758 shows tremendous improvement; Bard shattered its growth target by improving 23 points. Suddenly, Bard looks like the outstanding school it is.

I fully understand space and layout constraints, but by leaving out these two columns, The Star gives a false and relatively negative impression of how our schools are doing. The panoramic picture, while tougher to print, provides the full story with all its context and paints a portrait of successful achievement by the students, teachers, parents and staffs at our local schools.

— Bill Walthall, Port Hueneme