Virginia Board hears mixed public comment as it prepares to phase in new SOL proficiency cut scores

The Virginia Board of Education on Thursday heard extensive public comment and staff presentations as it moves toward implementing higher Standards of Learning (SOL) proficiency cut scores.

Scott Brabrand, executive director of the Virginia Association of School Superintendents, told the board he and his members "strongly support a designation of the 25–26 school year as a planning year with no proficiency changes," saying divisions need time to align communications, professional learning and funding to support a phased approach. "Schools need division-ready communication tools," he said, urging the department to provide materials for local use before the changes take effect.

The substance of the meeting focused on how and when to raise cut scores that define proficiency on SOL exams. Board staff and multiple stakeholder groups outlined trade-offs: higher cut scores can sharpen expectations and better signal students’ readiness for college and careers, but raising benchmarks will expand the number of students needing intensive intervention and require new staffing and resources.

Krista Arnold, executive director of the Virginia Association of Elementary School Principals, told the board principals were concerned about timing and advance notice, noting many had not yet received growth scores and warning that upward moves could make midyear planning harder for leaders already short on tutors and trained staff. "Principals were also concerned that the performance and support framework implemented this past year still needs refinement and clarity," she said.

By contrast, parent Todd Truitt urged the board not to pause any cut-score increases, saying Virginia has among "the lowest cut scores in the country" and arguing that modest increases now would merely restore levels seen earlier in the decade.

Department staff told the board they plan continued stakeholder engagement, more listening sessions and a public comment window; the superintendent and assistant staff said the department will return to the board with modeling, recommended timelines and communication plans. Board members signaled they expect further data at the November meeting and a possible final action in December. President Creasy also reminded the public that the department has opened a portal for comments and will accept additional feedback through November 6.

What’s next: Staff and the board will continue stakeholder sessions and present modeling and communications plans at the board’s next meetings. The department identified December 11 as a target for stakeholder-ready materials and earlier board review, and the board scheduled additional review on November 13.