Panel recommends 233 cut score for Pearson Foundations of Reading test; board told standard-setting aligns with science of reading

At a work session of the Alabama State Board of Education, department staff presented results from a December standard-setting study and recommended that the state adopt a passing score of 233 for the Pearson Foundations of Reading (Form 190) exam.

The recommendation comes after a one-day standard-setting panel held Dec. 13 that included classroom teachers, district administrators and higher-education faculty, the department said. Denise Peacock, who led the presentation, said the panel recommended 233 on the test’s 100–300 scale and explained what that score represents: "That 233 equals 55 out of a possible 85 on the multiple choice questions ... and 8 out of 16 possible on the open ended response," she said.

Board members were told the change is tied to Alabama’s move to align teacher preparation and licensure with the science of reading. Peacock said the Pearson test is a newer version of a Massachusetts assessment other states use and that panelists believed it mapped more closely to foundational reading skills than the Praxis test the state previously used.

The presentation outlined how other states are handling the Pearson benchmark. Peacock noted that several states—Arkansas, Connecticut, Mississippi and North Carolina—have adopted 233, while Massachusetts and some states use a 240 benchmark, and some states (including Utah) have temporarily delayed a higher benchmark because of COVID-related adjustments.

Board members asked operational questions about the test’s delivery and reporting. Peacock said candidates may retake the test and that institutions will have access to diagnostic reports; the department plans to make implementation details available to higher-education partners. She also said the state’s requirement tied to the literacy act remains in place: early-childhood, elementary and certain special-education candidates must meet a foundations-of-reading requirement.

The department staff told the board it will present recommended rule language and an implementation timeline at upcoming meetings; staff discussed using the administrative rule process together with an emergency rule if the board wants changes to apply to the coming academic year.

Ending: The board did not vote at the work session. Staff said they expect to bring rule language and a formal adoption timeline to a future board meeting so the board can consider the recommendation through the agency’s rulemaking process.