Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Teacher Certification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State board members and department staff flag ambiguity in Praxis pass-rate reporting
Summary
State Board members and Alabama State Department of Education staff discussed differences between a public ACE report on first-time Praxis pass rates and the department's higher-education report card, and outlined steps (ETS account cleanup, faculty outreach) to improve data alignment and clarity.
State Board of Education members and Alabama State Department of Education staff on Thursday debated why a recent public report showed lower first-time Praxis pass rates for some Alabama universities than the department's own data.
The board focused on differences between three common sources: the department's Higher Education Report Card (which records pass rates for candidates actually recommended for certification), Praxis/ETS score files (which include any test taker who has designated Alabama or a specific institution as a score recipient), and an ACE (public) summary that groups first-attempt results differently.
Why it matters: Board members said the ACE summary, which reported that only 6 of 14 public Alabama universities had a first-time pass rate above 50% for elementary subtests, could be misleading to parents, employers and lawmakers if readers do not understand the data sources behind the headline.
Department assessment staff described why the numbers diverge and what the department will ask institutions and ETS to do. Dr. Denise Bacop, the department's assessment administrator, said the department's higher-education report card intentionally measures a different population: students who completed a program and were recommended for certification. "The pass rate is going to show a 100% because it is those that have finished the program," she said, explaining that the department tracks whether a candidate passed on their first, second or later attempt after program completion.
Board members pressed staff on the public ACE summary's method. Department staff and board members said ACE's first-attempt grouping for the elementary bundle (which requires passing multiple subtests) counts a candidate as a first-time failure if they missed any subtest on the first try, producing a lower first-time pass-rate figure than disaggregated subtest reporting.
Board members asked whether institutions receive the raw ETS listing of every test taker who designated a university. Bacop said institutions can and should access a monthly ETS roster of test-taker designations and remove individuals who are not enrolled or not part of a program, which will make institution-level first-time statistics more accurate. "They can go in monthly, and they can look at the list of every person that designated their university," Bacop told the board. She said the department will share guidance with deans on that ETS process.
Department's next steps and board reaction: Board members asked staff to 1) provide clearer public context when the department shares pass-rate summaries, 2) coordinate with ETS and institutions so rosters reflect enrolled/program candidates, and 3) brief the board on progress. Several members urged the department to bring university deans into a continuing conversation about course alignment, admission standards and student support so that pass-rate patterns can be interpreted in context.
What was not decided: There were no new policy actions or votes recorded at the work session. Staff and board members described technical and communications fixes rather than proposing rule changes.
Ending: The department said it will circulate follow-up materials and suggested ETS account-cleanup procedures to institutions, and provide an updated briefing to the board after campuses review ETS rosters and the department compiles revised pass-rate views.
