Technical advisory panel urges delay in using reading scores for retention; offers provisional cut-score options

The Alabama State Board of Education’s technical advisory committee on assessment recommended delaying use of the new reading sufficiency score for third-grade retention and offered three provisional cut scores that produce widely different impacts on the state’s third-graders.

The recommendation came during a work session presentation by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and outside testing consultants, who told the board the state needs more post-pandemic, in-person instructional data before treating a single summative score as a high-stakes indicator for retention.

The panel’s argument centers on the technical and practical limits of using a large-scale summative test for an individual-student retention decision. A representative from the Center for Assessments said assessment scores are only defensible for retention if there is confidence students had a comparable “opportunity to learn” the tested material. She told the board: “The unfortunate loss of spring 20 results because of the closures ... means that we are missing an initial year of baseline.”

Why it matters: Under the Alabama Literacy Act, students who do not meet the board’s reading sufficiency cut score at the end of the school year may be assigned to summer reading programs and further review (including a portfolio and possible retention). Board members, vendors and the TAC discussed how setting a cut score now could classify many more children as needing intervention than a later, validated standard would.

What the panel presented: TAC members and consultants gave the board three provisional cut-score options for the reading subtest and the immediate statewide impact each would have if applied to spring results from the most recent test cycle. Using the test vendor’s mapping, the three options and statewide shares below reflect how many third-graders would fall below each cut on last year’s data:

- Score 435 → about 15% of third-graders would fall below the cut and enter the intervention/portfolio pathway. - Score 452 → about 23% would fall below the cut (TAC’s recommended provisional option, described as “recommended for coherence” in the presentation but explicitly conditioned on additional data). - Score 469 → about 33% would fall below the cut.

TAC members emphasized that these percentages are the upper-bound impact if no students pass corrective assessments or exemptions in the summer and that local promotion decisions, portfolio evidence and good-cause exemptions will alter final outcomes.

On timing and validation: TAC members urged the board to allow an “on-ramp” before retention becomes an enforced consequence. One presenter said, “the delay of the implementation of the retention portion of the act is very important,” and Dr. Scott Snyder added bluntly, “The TACC unequivocally believes that the implementation of retention should be delayed.” Panel members recommended using at least one additional full year of post-pandemic data — and suggested two years would provide stronger longitudinal validation — before treating the reading cut score as a high-stakes retention trigger.

Statistical safeguards discussed: Presenters explained the role of standard error of measurement (SEM) in setting defensible cut scores and described the TAC’s use of a conservative, SEM-based adjustment to reduce misclassification risk. The recommended cut-score approach incorporated a minus-two-SEM buffer to increase confidence that students placed below the cut truly lack the targeted proficiency.

Legal and operational context: Board staff reminded members that statute requires the board to set a cut score and that districts must be able to run a report of students who would fall below any adopted score; the presentation said districts normally run the report and the department compiles results for the legislature by Dec. 1. Several legislators were observing the meeting and the superintendent said the governor and lawmakers would seek the board’s input before any state-level delay of the retention requirement.

What the board faces next: The TAC presented a technical recommendation (cut score 452 with the SEM caveat) but framed it as provisional, subject to validation with additional years of data and demonstration of consistent instructional opportunity across districts. Board members were told the department can run district-level reports on any selected cut score to estimate local impacts, but that a formal decision to delay the retention requirement would require action by the governor or legislature.

Ending: The TAC asked the board to weigh technical risk against statutory deadlines and to use the next year of data and monitoring to finalize any cut-score decision. The department staff said they would provide draft language that would make clear any board action is provisional and subject to reassessment as more data become available.