Richmond officials warn new Virginia accountability rules push many schools into "needs intensive support" despite local gains

Richmond Public Schools leaders told the school board on April 7 that Virginia’s merged state and federal accountability system and impending changes to cut scores will lower many local school ratings even when local student performance improves.

The administration framed the shift as a technical change with large local consequences: the state combined its old accreditation system and federal ESSA requirements into a single framework this school year, but the new rules and a “red box” that forces a state rating to mirror federal identification mean some schools that previously were “on track” will be labeled as needing intensive help.

District data managers and the superintendent said the changes hinge on participation rates, cohort measures and a new “ready for life” indicator for high school graduation outcomes that the state weighs heavily. "This is critical because ... the lowest points a student can receive on the mastery index is 0.75 — however, if they do not test, it is 0," said John Groff, Director of Data Analytics, explaining why participation rates of 95% or higher are essential for stable school scores. Valenta Wade, RPS manager of testing and data systems, outlined the three distinct elementary/middle/high frameworks and said the high‑school readiness indicator (the “3 E’s” — enrollment, enlistment, employment) now accounts for a quarter of a high school’s total score.

The board heard examples of how the new rules change ratings. Superintendent Jason Kamras summarized the practical effect: "I welcome a high bar, period, full stop. I also welcome the support to meet the high bar, and I think if we're going to have labels like needs intensive supports, then it is incumbent upon the state to provide the resources for those intensive supports — and to be quite frank, I've yet to see that." He and other speakers warned that schools already recognized as federally identified (CSI/TSI) will automatically move to lower state categories under the new rule, even when measured indicators otherwise show improvement.

Administrators described steps the division is taking to respond: pushing participation rates for SOL testing, aggregating college‑and‑career indicators (AP, IB, CLEP, dual enrollment) into central trackers for schools, and directing targeted coaching and additional supports into comprehensive school improvement (CSI) schools. John Groff said the district is using an internal tracker to show principals where their schools stand on the new indicators and to model how improvements in the 3 E’s or participation will change overall ratings. "We compiled all of this data together so that schools don't have to do that manual work of locating all that data," Groff said.

Board members pressed for practical details and for public messaging. Several members said the shift is confusing for families and could feel demoralizing to teachers and students: "It feels like it isn't intuitive," said Board Member Dr. Harris‑Mohammed, calling for simple outreach materials for families. Other members asked whether the state will supply additional funding tied to the new labels. Kamras and staff said the state has not committed resources at the level the district believes will be necessary; the administration noted the city’s proposed budget adds operating dollars but still leaves a gap in local funding needs.

The presentation also flagged two technical changes with immediate data impact: (1) English learners are now excluded from some calculations after fewer than three semesters (changed from 11 semesters previously), and (2) subgroup size thresholds dropped from 30 to 15 students for inclusion in accountability calculations — both will change how some groups are reported.

The board asked for follow‑up materials. Administration committed to: (a) preparing plain‑language handouts and talking points for families and neighborhood groups; (b) supplying school‑level, question‑by‑question student detail after SOL cut‑score changes so teachers and principals can target instruction; and (c) convening one‑on‑one briefings for board members who want deeper review of participation and 3 E modeling. Kamras said the division will continue advocating at the state level for funding tied to any intensified support expectations.

Votes at a glance: the work session recorded a routine adoption of the meeting agenda earlier in the evening (moved by Mr. Hedgepeth, seconded by Ms. Burke; roll call recorded unanimous “Yes”), and later in the meeting the board voted to convene a closed session (moved by Mr. Jafari, seconded by Ms. Burke; roll call recorded unanimous “Yes”). Those procedural votes were unrelated to the accountability discussion but were documented in the meeting minutes.

Next steps: the administration will return with published school‑level accountability projections once spring SOL participation and any state cut‑score changes are finalized, plus public messaging materials and scheduled briefings for board members. The board and administration stressed they will continue to press the state for investment tied to any higher bar or intensified federal/state labels.

"The goal is laudable — high standards — but without matching support and funding, labels alone will not help schools," Kamras said.

Ending: The district said it will hold community briefings and provide the board with the detailed, school‑by‑school data models before final scores are posted so families and local stakeholders see how the new rules affect local schools and what the district plans to do next.