Winchester Public Schools staff told the school board on Sept. 8 that a state proposal to raise Standards of Learning (SOL) cut scores could dramatically reduce locally reported proficiency rates and affect future graduation and school accountability measures.

The presentation, led in the meeting by a district presenter identified in the transcript as Dr. Vandeavon (presenter, district staff), outlined proposed new cut scores the state superintendent plans to recommend to the State Board of Education in October. "Anything you see in yellow has been changed by the state superintendent," the presenter said, summarizing the committee and superintendent recommendations.

The district gave context for the proposal: the state superintendent and advocacy groups frame the change as closing an "honesty gap" between state proficiency rates and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The presenter said Virginia currently outperforms national NAEP scores but that the state plan would nevertheless raise cut scores into the mid‑400s on SOL scaled scoring. The proposal would raise the score needed for "proficient" in several subject tests to levels that, when applied to last year’s Winchester results, would reduce many school proficiency rates into the 20s, 30s and 40s.

Why it matters: the district said raising cut scores could reduce the number of students who earn verified credits — state‑verified SOL pass results required for graduation — and could place all seven Winchester schools into an "off track" or "needs improvement" category under the state’s new performance matrix. "If we raise the EOC [end‑of‑course] to 479, our reading pass rate goes from in the mid‑70s down into the 30s," the presenter said.

District commentary and dissent
District staff and board members questioned the rationale and timing. The presenter noted the committee recommended a lower threshold than the superintendent’s proposal and flagged the state’s plan to make new cut scores effective immediately if the board approves them in October. "I am concerned," the presenter said, adding that superintendents across the state share that concern and have begun public comments and outreach.

Board members framed the change as political and warned about public misunderstanding. One board member said the proposal appeared to be "a thinly veiled attempt to systematically dismantle public education by fostering public outcry at teachers and administrators." Another board member urged more public communication about what the change would mean locally.

District data presented at the meeting showed recent performance trends: math proficiency rose by nine percentage points over three years (to 67 percent overall), and the district highlighted strengths in career‑and‑college indicators and chronic absenteeism improvements. The presenter attributed a recent year‑to‑year drop in eighth‑grade science in part to a state rule change that removed an accelerated eighth‑grade science pathway, which reduced the number of students who took that SOL.

What the district plans: staff said they have contacted legislative and state officials and will keep the board and public updated. The presenter said the district ran the district’s prior year results through the proposed cut scores to illustrate potential local effects and warned that those effects would be felt statewide.

The session closed with board members urging public outreach and noting that, if approved, the change would affect many districts at once. The presentation did not include a board vote; the item was informational.

Ending: The district said it will continue to track the state board process, provide updates to the board, and participate in state and public comment on the proposed cut‑score changes.