The cliché is that perception is realty.

In a way that’s true. But sometimes it is not.

Something you learn in journalism is to take a hard look at facts, statistics and opinions; then try to make sense of it all. Usually easier said than done.

Such is the case with the recent Patron Insight survey of the Kearney R-1 School District. When presented with some of the opinions and ratings, they make sense. When presented with the actual data, there is some discrepancy. And then there’s always the “variable” in data. That’s right, I still remember some stuff from my high school science classes.

Among the comments on the survey — taken by 1,568 presumably “stakeholders” in the school district — was this: “Students who graduate from Kearney are not ready for college.”

There are too many variables in the lab data to verify whether that theory is true or bunk. But there is some data that suggests it is not likely valid across the board.

Superintendent Dr. Bill Nicely recently presented some data he gathered from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. You, too, can find this data at www.dese.mo.gov/schooldata by clicking on the report card.

That data states that Kearney’s average ACT score is 22.9, second in the region only to Park Hill School District. Liberty’s average score is 22.6, and Smithville’s is 22.3. Excelsior Springs’ is 21.6. The state average is 21.9.

Kearney also has a high graduation rate at 89.3 compared to the state average of 85. Kearney is also ahead of the state average on college-bound students with 48.7 percent of students enrolling in a four-year college within 180 days of graduating high school. The state average is 37.1 percent.

Whether this means students are “prepared” academically for college is up for debate, but the data suggests Kearney may be giving students more tools to get to college than others.

Another interesting comment: “Not enough money is spent on the arts program.”

Athletics is 1.2 percent of the school district’s budget and band/vocal music is 1.2 percent of the budget, according to Nicely.

Another comment, which you probably saw more about on the front page this week, is about technology. There are vague definitions here, but something that stuck out to me was the 3.84 rating — on a five-point scale — of “quality of technology available to students.” That was followed by comments such as, “The district’s technology is out of date.”

First we have to define “technology.” Are we talking just computers? And if so, do we mean just number of computers, age of computers or a combination? Are those patrons counting other “technology” like SMART Boards?

By just the numbers, there are more or less 1,100 computers for 3,600 students in the district. The quality of those machines and access to them are completely different questions. Nearly every elementary classroom has a SMART Board. And some math classes at the middle school have a “click in” system.

At the high school, there are nine computer labs with about 24 computers per lab for 831 students. Whether that is a good ratio is also up for debate.

I’m not saying any of the ratings or comments are invalid. Things like college preparation and technology are very important issues for schools in today’s society. The survey results definitely give the school board patrons’ priorities.

I just don’t think all of it is as bad as people think.

And to conclude, let me point out the irony in this comment on the survey (taken by less than 20 percent of the school district population): “Need to listen more to patrons.”

So is that lab error?