Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
KSDE proposes new assessment scale: 400–700 range; key cuts at 510 and 540, top cut to float
Summary
KSDE staff explained proposed performance level scale for statewide assessments: a 400–700 scale with the cut between Level 1 and Level 2 fixed at 510 and the cut between non‑proficient and proficient set at 540; the cut between Level 3 and Level 4 must float. Board members asked for follow‑up validation work and comparison options.
Beth Folkes, director of Career Standards and Assessment Services at KSDE, briefed the board on proposed performance level scale mechanics and the planned cut scores for the statewide summative assessments.
Key technical points: Folkes explained the new reporting scale will run from 400 (lowest) to 700 (highest). The proposed cut between Level 1 (limited ability) and Level 2 (basic ability) is fixed at 510. The cut between “proficient” and “non‑proficient” (Level 2/3 boundary) is proposed at 540. The cut between Level 3 (proficient) and Level 4 (advanced) must float because it depends on item distribution and the test’s upper‑end information. Staff emphasized the scale is not a percent‑proficient metric and that the summative test has 40 items mapped to the scale; scale points do not equal raw item counts.
Why the change: Folkes said the assessment blueprint and items were redesigned to align to updated standards (notably reading/structured literacy changes) and to produce a scale that better reflects teachers’ expectations. The board was reminded that standards changes prompted reassessment of cut scores. Folkes said the state’s technical advisory committee recommended fixing the lower cut (1/2) to provide stability while allowing the top cut to vary with item characteristics.
Board response and follow up: Several board members asked for validation analyses and clearer comparison tools to show historic trends and to avoid misinterpretation when presenting changes in proficiency percentages. Folkes said KSDE will consider validation studies and provide interpretation guides and longitudinal comparison options for reporting. The board did not vote on cut scores at the meeting; staff said they plan to present the formal proposal and impact tables at the August meeting.
Ending: Folkes invited board members to ask department staff for more detailed technical briefings and to attend assessment sessions at the upcoming annual conference.
