Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment And Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Illinois State Board of Education resets K–8 proficiency cut scores; Woodland officials say statewide benchmarks will raise reported proficiency rates
Summary
The district briefed the board on ISBE's August change to Illinois Assessment of Readiness and Illinois Science Assessment proficiency cut scores and what that will mean for published proficiency percentages this year.
Woodland Community Consolidated School District 50 administrators told the board on Sept. 25 that the Illinois State Board of Education changed proficiency cut scores for grades 3–8 math and ELA and for grade 8 science, and that the change is likely to increase the reported percentage of students labeled "proficient."
Assistant Superintendent Dr. Schroed summarized ISBE's rationale: statewide review found prior ELA and math proficiency cut scores had been set higher than comparable states and that science cut scores were too low, producing inconsistent labeling across assessments. ISBE convened panels of educators and worked with technical assistance providers to realign cut scores and to produce rubrics describing what proficiency at grade level looks like.
Dr. Schroed said the state voted on new proficiency benchmarks in a public ISBE action on Aug. 14 and is not publishing direct year‑to‑year comparisons using the new bands. At the state level she said, applying the updated cut scores to last year's data would have raised statewide ELA proficiency from about 41% to roughly 53% and math from about 28% to roughly 38% — although ISBE has not published side‑by‑side comparisons.
District staff told the board the changes will affect the next set of IAR and ISA reports the district receives, and they offered to prepare internal comparisons of scores under old and new cut scores if the board requests that analysis. Administrators also noted that student growth measures — which track score movement over time — will remain available and are not directly replaced by the cut‑score change.
Board members asked clarifying questions about the timing and how evidence‑based funding tiers intersect with proficiency reporting; administrators explained that ISBE's timing puts new funding tiers into effect by fiscal cycles and that proficiency reporting and growth metrics are separate but related.
