Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Cut Scores topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alabama education board raises lowest reading cut score after brief, split debate
Summary
On Oct. 10, 2024, the Alabama State Board of Education approved a resolution to raise the lowest-level reading cut score for the Alabama Comprehensive Assessment Program, setting a -1.5 standard-error level for two years with a plan to move to -1.0 thereafter; the vote carried despite some members expressing opposition.
Get email alerts on the Assessment Cut Scores topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Alabama State Board of Education voted Oct. 10 to raise the lowest reading-level cut score for the Alabama Comprehensive Assessment Program, approving a resolution that sets the level at minus 1.5 (standard error of measurement) for two years and specifies a move to minus 1.0 thereafter.
Board members debated the measure before the vote, with at least two members explicitly saying they would oppose the proposal but the motion nevertheless carried. One board member said the decision was difficult, noting outreach from "constituents and teachers" and announcing they would "have to vote no against this particular cut score." Another board member said they would back the phased approach — keeping a higher threshold for two years to give school districts time to adjust — and described the approach as a pathway to the board’s longer-term goal of a -1.0 standard-error level.
State Superintendent Dr. Mackey was referenced by members as a leader on the recommendation. In his report later in the meeting, Dr. Mackey highlighted state investments in reading and intervention training, saying that seven years ago certified academic language therapists were essentially absent from Alabama schools and that the state now anticipates 22 people completing a specialist training program this year.
Board members who supported the motion cited constituent and educator feedback and said the two-year transition period was intended to give districts time to implement reading interventions and supports. Members expressing concern said they feared the increase did not go far enough for students in the most-challenged classrooms and that promotion practices merited caution.
The transcript of the meeting does not include a roll-call tally in the minutes read aloud; the clerk reported only that the "vote carries." The board’s action follows prior work-session discussion among members about cut scores and assessment standards.
Votes at a glance - Approve Oct. 10 agenda — motion passed (reported unanimous). - Approve minutes from Sept. 12, 2024 — motion passed (reported unanimous). - FY2026 foundation program appropriation request — motion passed (reported unanimous). - Resolution to establish the lowest-level reading cut score (Alabama Comprehensive Assessment Program) — motion adopted (clerk: "Vote carries"); several members stated opposition in discussion. - Announce intent to adopt amended Alabama Administrative Code rule 290-3-1-.02 (public school regulations) — motion passed (reported unanimous). - Adopt amended Alabama Administrative Code rule 290-2-1-.01 (annual apportionment of foundation program funds) — motion passed (reported unanimous). - Name Alabama's 2024 Science of Reading Spotlight Schools — motion passed (reported unanimous). - Appointments to Alabama School of Fine Arts Board of Trustees (Jervaisia Harris Bowser; William Webb Robertson) — motion passed (reported unanimous). - Multiple recognition resolutions and proclamations (principals, teachers, counseling programs, Dyslexia Awareness Month, Manufacturing Month, parent engagement month, School Bus Safety Week) — motions passed (reported unanimous).
What happened next The board heard a report from State Superintendent Dr. Mackey highlighting growth in counseling programs and intervention training, scheduled photo recognitions, and logistics for an upcoming work session. The board set its next meeting for Nov. 14, 2024, at 10 a.m. and adjourned.
Notes on sourcing and limits Quotes and characterizations in this article come directly from the meeting transcript. The transcript records individual board members voicing both support and opposition, but does not include a written roll-call with names tied to each 'yes' or 'no' for the cut-score vote; the clerk reported only that the vote "carries." Where the transcript does not provide a precise numeric vote tally or complete attribution, this article notes that information as not specified in the record.

