State releases unverified assessment numbers showing declines; department outlines reporting timeline and supports

State Superintendent Dr. Mackey told the Alabama State Board of Education that the department would present state-level assessment numbers that have not yet been verified by districts and urged patience while local systems complete checks.

"You're about to see real numbers that are unverified," Dr. Mackey said, adding that the department had already informed the public the overall state scores had fallen and that COVID-19 disruptions were a major contributing factor. "These numbers, they give us a 30,000-foot view, and we need that view." He also noted, "we did get 93% participation, statewide," while warning participation rates vary widely by district.

Why it matters: The presentation covered the new ACAP/ELA, math and science assessments, the ACT suite used for college- and career-readiness measures and the ACAP alternate assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The board heard that state-level results should be treated as preliminary: districts are verifying student-level matches and participation; district- and school-level data are embargoed until verification is complete.

Angela Martin, an assessment official who led the slide presentation, told the board the district verification deadline is Sept. 21 and that district- and school-level public reporting is expected to begin on or about Sept. 27. "The deadline for that verification is September 21," Martin said. She and other department staff emphasized that local differences in remote or in-person instruction and in participation rates—some districts reported near 100% participation while others were as low as 52%—must be considered when comparing local results.

Key figures cited during the briefing included: a state composite ACT score of 17.2 for the latest year compared with about 18.2 the prior year; the statewide participation rate summarized at 93%; and examples of subgroup and grade-level proficiency proportions discussed in the slides (second-grade ELA proficiency shown at about 34% for levels 3 and 4 combined on the ELA summative). Department staff stressed that those percentages refer to the state ELA test and will not necessarily match the reading-only subscore that the vendor will provide later.

The presenters explained cut scores and proficiency bands (levels 1–4), and warned the first year of a new test and pandemic conditions make some interpretations uncertain. The department’s vendor, Data Recognition Corporation, is producing both ELA and a separate reading subscore. DRC psychometricians attended the meeting to answer technical questions about standard-setting and item quality.

Reporting and user tools: The department demonstrated sample student and parent reports, and a district dashboard that will allow educators and parents to drill down by subgroup, standard, and objective. Staff said the platform will include item-level reports and a question bank where retired items may be used by teachers for local formative checks. The department also said it will continue rolling out training and reports to regional in-service centers and districts.

Supports and next steps: Board members and staff discussed supports aligned to results, including targeted professional development, reading and math coaches, expanded early-literacy efforts and summer reading camps. The department said federal ESSER funds are underwriting much of the short-term recovery work (summer learning, ARI literacy actions), but that some efforts will require state funding when federal relief expires. Officials described plans to prioritize in-person instruction, increase access to reading coaches for K–3, expand middle-school targeted supports and to use analytics to identify students for intervention or enrichment.

On NAEP and participation: The department confirmed NAEP (the National Assessment of Educational Progress) participation planning is underway for the selected schools and that NAEP reporting and long-term trend items will be handled separately.

What the board will get next: Staff said they will publish verified district and school level results after the Sept. 21 verification window, provide the public dashboard on Sept. 27, continue technical briefings for the board in October with vendor and technical-advisory participation, and follow with further discussions about the literacy act’s reading subcomponents and implications for third-grade decisions.

Ending: Board members asked for continued communication materials for parents and local leaders, screenshots of the reporting dashboards, and a written timeline of verification and public release steps. Department staff agreed to provide sample student reports, parent-facing materials, and follow-up briefings at the board’s next work session.