Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment‑and‑accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears new Virginia accountability framework, division performance labels and midyear literacy/benchmark results
Summary
The board received presentations on the Virginia School Performance and Support framework approved by the Virginia Board of Education and on midyear VALS and benchmark results; preliminary category labels and targeted supports were discussed.
Dr. Woodford presented the Virginia School Performance and Support framework — the state’s new accountability and support model — and explained that the system separates accreditation (statutory/operational compliance) from performance accountability (mastery, growth and readiness).
"Schools will be accredited based on meeting the state's statutory obligations and operational compliance," Dr. Woodford said, adding that the School Performance and Support framework will be used beginning with the spring test and that the model uses weighted indicators that differ across elementary, middle and high school levels.
Woodford outlined the elementary and middle indicators — mastery (reading, math, science SOLs and VAP where applicable), growth (expected growth calculated in the state’s analytics tool) and readiness (chronic absenteeism plus a forthcoming 5‑C performance task). High school measures replace growth with graduation and add a "ready for life" index covering college enrollment/credit, CTE credentialing and enlistment measures.
Using preliminary state calculations on Bedford County scores from prior testing, Woodford said most division schools would be "distinguished" or "on track," with two schools near the "off‑track" threshold; chronic absenteeism appeared to be a principal contributor for schools scoring lower in the preliminary look.
Dr. Prosper reviewed midyear instructional data: fall and midyear VALS (Virginia Language and Literacy Screening) screening for K–3, which classifies students as low, moderate or high risk for reading difficulties; the division’s first VALS administration shows growth in the percentage of low‑risk students and declines in high‑risk students across grades K–3.
Prosper attributed early gains to adoption of new instructional materials, stronger implementation fidelity and intensified reading specialist support. He described the division’s supplemental intervention materials (Really Great Reading) and a district‑level partnership with CIP — the Comprehensive Instructional Program — that provides common benchmarks used for cross‑division percentile comparisons.
Prosper and Woodford described school‑level data tools (MasteryConnect item analyses, CIP percentile rankings and other reports) used to target supports, adjust instruction and craft 45‑day remediation plans. The instructional team said they will continue walkthroughs, collaborative planning, co‑teaching supports and monitoring, with another round of benchmarks before SOL testing.
Board members asked for further school‑by‑school comparisons, per‑school spending context and examples of practices that drove substantial gains (for example, a science 5 improvement cited by staff). Woodford and Prosper said staff will provide more granular comparisons and examples to CPO and the board.
Ending: Staff said they will return with more granular school‑level comparisons, budget‑to‑outcome information and specific examples of successful interventions.
