Shenandoah County briefed on new Virginia school accountability model and proposed higher SOL cut scores

Monica Heingartner, Shenandoah County Public Schools director of instruction, told the school board on Sept. 11 that Virginia is shifting from the previous accreditation system to a new School Performance and Support Framework that scores schools on mastery, growth and readiness and assigns each school a summative category: Distinguished, On Track, Off Track or Needs Intensive Support.

Heingartner said mastery reflects SOL achievement, growth measures year-to-year progress and readiness captures engagement and post‑high‑school indicators such as enrollment, employment or enlistment at the high‑school level. She said the framework is intended to provide a “holistic view of school quality that connects results to support.”

The presentation focused on how the change will be calculated for Shenandoah County schools and the potential impact of a separate state proposal to raise cut scores on the SOL tests. Heingartner said the state Board of Education is considering higher cut scores that, if adopted, would take effect for spring administrations and could lower many current pass rates.

“We did put all of our data in to figure out if those were our cut scores for this past year, what our pass rates would look like,” Heingartner said. She gave an example showing Ashby Lee Elementary’s current pass rate of 60.51% would drop to about 29.3% under the recommended cuts. Heingartner described that calculation as illustrative of the achievement piece only and said growth remains a separate component of the summative label.

Board members pressed for clarity about timing and effects. Heingartner said the state indicated fall SOL tests will be scored on the current (older) cut scores while the spring administration will use the new, higher cut scores; she said the Virginia Board of Education was discussing the proposal and that statewide guidance could arrive in October. She told the board that official growth figures from the state were still pending and that several local school scores shown in the presentation were preliminary without growth data.

Several board members said they welcomed the more comprehensive model but expressed concern for teachers and students if cut scores change mid‑year. One board member said the mixed timeline — fall using old cut scores and spring using new ones — could produce “apples and oranges” comparisons between years and add stress to teachers. Heingartner said the division plans to emphasize student-level goal setting and growth measures so teachers and students can track progress even if relative proficiency thresholds change.

Heingartner also described division-level supports intended to drive improvement: teacher collaborative planning, quarterly principal data meetings, school leadership team follow‑up and an instructional mentoring program. She said those structures aim to focus practices that influence student outcomes and to build capacity at the elementary level where foundational gains are most critical.

The board discussed how the state’s proposed cut scores could affect accountability labels and federal identification; Heingartner warned the board that higher cut scores could make the “achievement” component look worse even where growth remains steady. She recommended continued transparency with staff and families and that the division prepare administrators and teachers for implementation if the Virginia Board of Education adopts the change.

Board members asked about comparative data from other districts; Heingartner said the division received cohort benchmarking through its data partnership and that any division participating in that cohort got similar modeling. She also noted the state was still finalizing how growth and other inputs would combine with the new achievement thresholds.

Why it matters: the state’s accountability framework and any change to SOL cut scores determine public school labels, federal identification and eligibility for targeted supports. A mid‑year change in cut scores could alter reported proficiency rates, affect perceptions of progress and change the workload and goal-setting expectations for teachers and principals.

Provenance: Transcript excerpts for this article begin with the presentation by Monica Heingartner and end with board discussion and closing remarks for that item.