EDITORIAL DON'T KILL MESSENGER BAD EXIT EXAM SCORES AREN'T THE FAULT OF THE TOOL THAT MEASURES THEM.

THE initial results of the state's first spate of exit exams weren't good news for some school districts.

For example, the Los Angeles Unified School District showed that nearly one-third of the Class of 2006 - the first class subject to the state's new graduation requirement - had yet to learn the basic skills required for success as a graduate.

Those results reflected a sad state of education, the very reason, indeed, that the test was implemented.

But some want to blame the California High School Exit Exam itself for the bad news. Assemblywoman Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, has introduced a bill currently working its way through the usual channels in Sacramento, that would essentially kill the effectiveness of the test by letting schools use other tools to gauge graduation readiness, such as grades and projects accomplished, for kids who flunk the test.

In other words, to go back to the way things were before.

The reason that the state created an exit exam was because the grades system used to measure student proficiency wasn't working. Too many high school students were leaving public school with a diploma but without basic reading and math skills. Allowing them to graduate was a huge disservice to them and the community and masked the system's failing.

The causes for this are myriad, from lowered expectations in the classroom to the physical conditions of schools. A University of California, Los Angeles, study released Tuesday confirmed that poor students in overcrowded schools and without enough resources are more likely to fail the test than others.

But these are the failings of the educational system, not a test that objectively measures skills.

And really, the standards are not all that high. The exams test for skills that students should know by the ninth grade - three years before graduation.

When this bill comes before them, state legislators need to show they have enough sense enough to kill it, and not the messenger. We ought to give the test a chance to succeed before monkeying with ``alternatives,'' as Bass characterizes them.

Students - and educators - need higher expectations, not lower. And they need good information on who's failing so they can identify the reasons, and fix them. This isn't about politics, it's about the future of actual children.