Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Virginia board presses Education Department for clearer timeline on phased rise of proficiency cut scores
Summary
At a work session, State Board members pressed the Department of Education for clearer interim timelines, communication to districts and families, and which JLARC recommendations will require regulatory change as it considers a phased plan to raise proficiency cut scores beginning in 2026-27.
The Virginia State Board of Education spent a work session pressing the Department of Education for clearer details about a proposed phased plan to raise student proficiency cut scores, with board members split between urging urgency and demanding better public communication about interim years.
Dr. Bridges opened the discussion by noting that "items two, three, four, and five were predominantly from the JLARC report recommendations," and asked staff to confirm which recommendations were agency proposals and which came from JLARC. Board members repeatedly asked staff to produce tables and year-by-year examples that parents and school divisions can easily understand.
Department staff said the plan the board approved in December is a phased implementation and described a four-year phase-in that would avoid immediate changes for current seniors. The department explained it plans a temporary “approaching” proficiency category for the 2026-27 through 2028-29 school years that would count as passing for accountability purposes and then sunset in 2029-30 when the board’s final cut scores take effect.
"We will provide that level of detail for you," an agency official said, acknowledging that internal documents with incremental scores exist but have not been shared publicly. Multiple board members said the lack of transparent, easily accessible interim scoring guidance is a central problem that must be fixed before the field can implement changes without confusion.
Dr. Wilson echoed support for urgency but warned about burden on local educators and asked, "Whose lift are we talking about?" She pressed for a visual comparison of the September, December and the current proposals so the board can weigh feasibility and impact on divisions.
Several board members urged moving with urgency on higher cut scores so divisions and teachers can plan. Mr. Robinson said raising the bar sooner would signal seriousness to the field, while other members cautioned that too-rapid changes could demoralize educators if supports are not clearly in place.
Superintendent Conway described the session as a preview and committed to returning written materials that spell out "what changes and what doesn't related to the slide on the proficiency scores so that you understand here's what you approved or didn't approve in December." He also reminded the board of legal and operational constraints, including an assessment contract deadline driven by state law.
Board members pressed staff to identify which JLARC recommendations are outside the board's authority and therefore require formal regulatory changes, a process staff said can take a year because of public comment and finalization. The department said it has begun regulatory updates where appropriate.
On high school labels, staff said that timely mastery data could help but that the larger technical fixes are revising the 3E readiness indicator and changing thresholds between performance categories so high school results align more closely with elementary and middle school measures. The department emphasized that the road map does not change the board’s previous vote for the class of 2026 and that the intent was to avoid immediate adverse effects on current seniors.
Staff also described ongoing supports: identification of federally targeted schools, use of Title I school improvement funds, and work to prioritize high-quality instructional materials and school-improvement supports in divisions with the greatest need.
The board directed staff to return with clearer, publicly shareable documentation, including year-by-year tables and a clear explanation of which JLARC items require regulation and which can be implemented administratively. No formal votes were taken during the session; members agreed to reconvene the following day to complete first- and final-review items as needed.
The work session adjourned with board members reiterating shared commitment to students and a desire to balance urgency with clear communications and supports for districts.
