Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Standard Setting Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board takes first review of new standard-setting plan; members debate timing and whether to align cut scores with NAEP
Summary
The Board received for first review a proposed standard-setting process that recommends switching to the item-matching (ID) method and using this spring's test administration data; members debated timing, data availability and the policy implications of aligning cut scores with NAEP proficiency.
The Virginia Board of Education received for first review a proposed change to the standard-setting process for summative assessments, including a recommendation to move from an Angoff-style method to an item-matching (ID) approach and to use spring 2025 test-administration data in the process.
Department staff and outside technical advisers presented a high-level plan that includes committee selection and training in spring, convenings in late spring, and board review in June and July. The board did not take a final vote; members requested more granular timelines and data analyses before a final decision.
Miss Holton, a board member, raised concerns about timing and teacher availability. She asked why convenings were proposed in late May when, she said, some large divisions do not finish testing until later in the spring. “Why are we doing these reviews in late May when the full operational assessments are not yet done?” she asked, urging the department to ensure the convening timeline would not rely on partial or incomplete data.
Doctor Domilevski (technical adviser) and department staff said the intent is to use this year’s spring operational test administration — not field-test or partial data — and that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and national experts would refine the timeline. “This will be done under advisement of the TAC,” staff said, noting the department plans to present more detailed scheduling and analytic work for final review in March.
Several board members used the discussion to debate the policy implications of changing cut scores. Mister Hansen and Doctor Northern argued for aligning Virginia’s proficiency cut scores more closely with NAEP proficiency, citing Massachusetts as an example of a state that did so and later invested in supports to help schools meet higher standards. “Setting high bars is great, but unless we invest in supports — high-quality curriculum, extra time, and resources for the neediest schools — simply changing cut scores will not improve learning by itself,” one board member said.
Miss McPherson emphasized the need to track related issues — absenteeism, staffing shortages, and special-education supports — so the board can assess how a higher cut score would affect different regions and student groups. Members asked the department to return in March with analyses showing how raising cut scores to NAEP-aligned levels would affect school accountability classifications under the current system.
The board accepted the item for first review and scheduled further discussion in March. No final action was taken; the department will work with TAC and consultants to provide a more detailed timeline, data assumptions and impact simulations prior to any final vote.
