That's the new law that creates a statewide test in math, science and reading for Nebraska students. Such a test is a boon to those interested in assigning a number to a district and then ranking it along with every other district in the state. Up to now districts have generally assessed their own students using their own tests.

LB1157 gives us a single test for everybody.

It's simple. It's plain. It's a number.

But let's not kid ourselves about its educational value.

If you're a regular reader of this space, you know I'm a skeptic when it comes to a single test measuring the worth of a school or school district. Not that test scores don't provide information; they do and, if used properly, standardized test results can help teachers tie lessons to assessment.

It's limited and limiting however. My nickel says the new ""one test, one state" version will be no different.

Obviously, measuring progress in math, science and reading is imperative, so much so that I imagine schools would continue to do it without a statewide test. We have to throw in writing, too, since Nebraska students already take the same test.

When educational accountability became a political cause clbre many years ago, taxpayers asked good, tough questions of districts. Nothing wrong with that.

Of course, once politicians began asking the questions, the need for simplicity devolved into a test score.

It's simple. It's plain. It's a number.

Already know

Throw in rankings and we have the crux of LB1157.

I do not doubt for a moment that people will pore over a list of school district test scores ranked from best to bottom. But what's the value to Grand Island Northwest to know it sits four spots ahead of Gretna in reading but three spots behind Scottsbluff in math? Explain the true benefits for Grand Island's students they are the point aren't they? to know that Bellevue is better than them in science but they are ranked higher in reading.

I can't either.

Nor do I believe that rankings will be neutral. Once you start a first to worst list, can a consequence real or implied be far behind?

Granted, if districts' academic prowess are compared, and some of that happens now, a single test should be used. But every district is distinct in its makeup. A rank order from a single test will not square those differences.

We already know some things. For example, plenty of research has shown the affect of poverty on test scores is real and undeniable. Consider a Florida State University study, which, without looking at any test scores, was able to predict with 80 percent accuracy how a school district would perform by simply looking at poverty rates. Conversely, Utah, a state with low poverty rates, has wondered why students, who already score high, don't score higher.

If the new test and its aftermath does nothing more than restate the obvious, who benefits?

New job

Of critical concern, too, is the what will surely be a common response from some districts: Narrowing the curriculum to address a ranking they consider too low. Who could blame them?

All of which makes me wonder as a parent and as an adjunct faculty member of a public high school, what the heck are we doing? How do we measure then rank a school without gauging its ability to produce leaders who are willing to take a principled stand, problem solvers who mine solutions using higher order thinking skills, thespians who understand and respect the value and dynamics of an ensemble, musicians who understand the difference between proficiency and excellence or students whose character is unquestioned.

No one should be surprised a statewide test has arrived. We have been moving in the direction of a single score for some time. We might even want to listen for the drumbeat of a national test. You know, one test, one nation.

Meanwhile, our sons and daughters better keep those number twos at the ready. That's becoming their job.

Ours is to keep a statewide test in perspective.

George Ayoub is senior writer at The Independent.