Not that anyone plans to do anything with them.

State Superintendent Joy Hofmeister has flatly said the results aren’t valid, the hangover of a poorly designed evaluation system she inherited from Superintendent Janet Barresi.

In the past, academic experts, school superintendents and teachers from around the state have said the method of figuring the A-F grades doesn’t result in anything that anyone should use to make any judgments.

Tulsa Superintendent Deborah Gist said it again this week: “I don’t use our A-F information; it is not useful,” she said. “I see it as a necessary bureaucratic exercise.”

Hofmeister said essentially the same thing.

“We don’t put a lot of stock in the grades,” Hofmeister said earlier this week. “We have to do this; it’s required. We are meeting our obligation and are looking forward to a time when we have a better system, but it will require a legislative change.”

Members of the state Board of Education, seemingly convinced that the results weren’t legitimate, questioned even complying with the law’s mandate.

“So we are compelled to report these even though we are apologizing for them?” said board member Lee Baxter.

Here are some things we know about Hofmeister, Gist and Baxter: They all recognize that Oklahoma schools can, must and will do better, and they aren’t afraid of accountability.

But accountability is only possible with measures that are recognized as valid by decision makers.

The A-F system is expensive but of little value if it doesn’t have the confidence of policy makers. We look forward to the day when it is replaced with something more useful.