001We Sorry for the technical difficulties. I understand we are back online. So, >> [clears throat] >> I am going to turn it over to Dr. Bridges to restate what you said for public. >> Thank you. I was uh trying to that the slide we're looking at now, that items two, three, four, and five were predominantly from the JLARC report recommendations. And I understand that number three is a VDOE recommendation, and and items two, four five are from J Lark and I was asking my colleagues or just welcoming more conversation about those because um I'm I'm assuming large support from the board on those items but I don't want to make I don't want to falsely assume. >> And then number five is different. As number five says main thing focus on teaching and learning not
002testing. But we had a significant >> I'm I'm asking about that as part of the J Lark recommendation and then it is So so then we get to provision one here which is the increasing expectations for proficiency and I was clarifying that when we're looking at what the um board approved in December, we are talking about a five-year phased-in model and and those tables that would be probably be helpful for the public to be able to see. Um so we are still talking about a phased-in approach um with this category of approaching that gets created for three years and then goes away. Those were my clarifying questions as that >> Yes and hopefully we can uh do a quick turnaround and get something that really lays this out as clearly as possible for you all
003but I think that that is an accurate description. It was a four-year phased-in plan. I would say four-year not five because um the real sort of 25 26 there was some conversation about what to do and the conversation that the board was to not make any changes starting in the 25 26 school year to not make any changes that would impact >> seniors that in 2026 exactly. So the four-year plan that was voted on in December was sort of starting in the 26 27 school year. There would be this new approaching proficiency category. What it would take to be approaching is different for every subject and every grade level. So, it varies by test. Um and students who were scored at the approaching level would be considered as passing for purposes of accountability and things
004like that. So, even though it's a new label, they would still be considered passing. Um so, you would have that approaching level would be in place for 26-27. It would be in place for the 27-28 school year. And it would be in place for the 28-29 school year. What it would take to be approaching is not only different for every test and by math or reading, it is also different in each and every year. So, those So, that's I think partly why maybe in the boilerplate and things from December, they just gave examples because it would have taken maybe pages and pages to show >> [laughter] >> all of that. Yeah. Um but we we will provide that level of detail for you. So, you can see how full transparency into it. And then on
005again on that December plan, in the 29-30 school year, that is when the approaching level is no more. It is sunset. So, in 29-30, you would just have go back to having the four levels with proficiency being the scores that the board voted on in September. So, the what those 29-30 scores were ultimately going to be to be proficient on every assessment, that was voted on in September. That sort of four-year phasing plan was voted on in December. If you're trying to figure out which look fluid cuz it came back it came up multiple times. But the plan that we have shown here today varies on the 26-27 school year in that that approaching category would not exist. It varies in the 27-28 school year in that approaching category would not exist. Instead of having
006the approaching category, we would be showing to parents and showing to divisions what their scores would have been as if the full implementation was in effect. So, so that would be the 2029-30 scores under the existing plan the board voted on. That's what would be shown to the to families and to our divisions and our schools. >> Yeah, so that's Yeah, we just need a presentation because it's your issue issue your show. >> Thank you. So, I I appreciate Thank you for that answer. No, that's okay cuz I I hope the third So, what we're really talk They're both the the proposal today and the and the the previous board votes, there's always been a phased-in multi-year approach. Because I I do think when we talk about things like a sense of urgency, I have
007been getting a really favorable sense that everyone shares those values. So, I want to get really clear about um what the differences are in that one area. And then if I could, the fi- the final question that I had was about number three, the timely data to calculate mastery in high school. Would that help us with the high school issue because you know, I even though I wasn't on this board, I watched all that that the board did and I'm so pleased to be able to build on that foundation with y'all now. But when when y'all talked about honesty gap and I read that J-Lar report on what we're doing in terms of labeling high schools right now is like we're not being honest if we keep that this way. So, will that provision with
008timely data and calculating mastery help us with that what I think is a kind of a false positive of so many high schools getting labeled to be category when they still have lots of improvement to make? >> So, it may help somewhat, but it's not the major thing that I think is going to affect that. The two things that are probably going to most help get our high school data to be a little bit more consistent with how we're treating elementary and middle schools, are looking at the JLER recommendations related to the 3E readiness indicator, and then the second is their second policy recommendation about the thresholds to for each performance category. Because right now we use the same scores. So, it's 90 points to be distinguished for elementary, middle, and high school, even though
009the underlying data we use is quite different for those grade spans. You know, high schools have graduation rates. Elementary and middle schools do not. Our graduation rates, thankfully in Virginia, are pretty high. You know, um, elementary and middle schools have growth. High schools right now do not have growth. So, there's underlying differences in the data, but we still are using the same it's 90 points for all of them. And that it So, I think until we come back at a future time and consider that recommendation as well, that is really it's both 3E and sort of what are the cut points between each uh, performance category that is really going to be the juice from the squeeze. >> That is my second encouragement to my colleagues is I'd love to hear more from y'all about
010how you feel about the recommendations two through five here. And do we want to think about accelerating the JLER recommendations given that sense of urgency, um, point that I think is quite compelling. Beyond, you know, recommendations beyond what, uh, what is currently being So, thank you all for clarification. >> Yep. >> Can I ask a question? >> Thank you, Dr. Bridges. Dr. Wilson. >> Thank you very much for all of the conversation, the clarification. I want to amplify a few things that I'm hearing, uh, and agree with this idea of urgency. Um, I I agree, uh, Dr. Bridges that we all, I think, share a sense of urgency, and we don't want to flutter step. We don't want to create confusion, which would then cause some pause at the local level. Um and at the
011same time thinking about um clearly practically what is possible, doable, etc. to Dr. Northert Northern's um comment about getting just just getting on with it, right? Can we just get on with it? So, I have several questions um that may or may not be answerable right now. So, uh I know on slide 21, I believe it is, um the proposed transition timeline, there's a phrase there that uh says without the lift of preparing for multiple significant changes every year. Whose lift are we talking about, right? Um I think that gets to a question that you already So, so what is the barrier to that? Um I second point, and I'll just get them all out at one time and you answer in whatever way you feel appropriate. Um second point is uh agreeing with a
012comparison of timeline. If we know that our end goal is X and it demonstrates urgency, how do the two plans or three plans, if there are such, right? Because I hear the one that was adopted or talked about in September, adopt there was one adopted in December, and now we're talking about this one in whatever month this is right now. Um so, so how do those three plans or paths differ in getting us to the same end point and whatever the end goal or date may be. Seeing that visually would be really helpful. The slide on 21's uh slide 21, I understand has some of that information as we're talking about the in June, but it's busy, right? And so, it's it's not necessarily easy to discern. And then uh just a point of clarification,
013um as we're thinking about a 4-year versus 5-year implementation plan, I wonder to what extent any of the preparation work that would be necessary, so if this board were to say, "We want to maintain the the cadence that was prescribed in December." Can practically at this point, can that really be done? Has the groundwork been laid sufficiently from a an agency perspective to be able to deliver? Um and then the last piece is I think it's important for us not to lose sight of for whom in this work is most important and who will use the information. Yes, certainly our schools, our local uh the local divisions, local school divisions need the information to be able to serve our students. There's also though some expectation, I believe, from the public and our parents. And so
014thinking about what does any change or what does any plan or change in plan demonstrate, suggest to the end users multiple. And how do we then reconcile all of those things in a way that is going to practically allow us to serve the students that we are here to serve. Thank you. >> So several questions, do you want to >> Yeah, I will I will do my best to remember the multi-parter. >> And if you don't remember them all, that's okay. >> Yes, no, I mean I think wholeheartedly I think one of the biggest takeaways from this conversation is there is a lack of transparency about what the current proficiency implementation plan is and I think we can definitely commit to bring that back. Um you know, as soon as tomorrow and I work tonight
015to get that so that it does become clearer kind of what are the key differences between this road map and sort of what was pri- previously voted on. Um is the old path feasible? I think one of the hardest parts of that is that because there is a lack of transparency right now, that plan does have some things that would be taking effect this school year and it hasn't been seen. So just as y'all are sort of kind of remember, what do we what is it? What do you know, our divisions, our family families, our parents have also not seen those details. I will be frank. And that I think is a question about feasibility especially for next year about that question of you know, one of our these guiding principles here was no surprises.
016Um so I think that is just something to to bear in mind. I think what it has been made clear and what has been shared very publicly is the 29-30 version of the current plan, the full implementation, the true north of where we going for each and every subject. You know, we're going from 400 to 446 here. We're going from 400 to 453 on this that test. That is clear. What has not been clear enough in my opinion and I think in the opinion of what this conversation here is, those interim years. What it looks like in between and so that is a key to that question. I think that is a piece that we would need to address to be sure that we are not surprising anyone, whether that's our leaders or our divisions.
017>> Before you go to that next point, so have those incremental scores been identified and calculated? >> Um so we have an internal document that has not been shared. What was shared publicly was sort of I think as I can't remember, it may have been you Ms. Burgess was saying oh in this item there were some examples but it wasn't sort of the full we have so many assessments as we know so it wasn't every end of course assessment it wasn't every grade. Um so there's just some examples of that and and sometimes that was even shown as a range for what the scores would be across three years so it didn't distinguish 26-27 from 27-28 and from 28-29. So we need to provide the I think that is a key level of transparency that
018is missing right now. Um and talking about sort of the lift here I do want to be I think there is a lift at both agency and local. Um I I want to be clear that one of the things we will need to do some of these the the J Lark recommendations in particular have different degrees of difficulty you might say. Um and some of those things are I think maybe we have a pretty clear option but we might have to go through the regulatory process that takes time. >> [snorts] >> That you know take can take a year just to go from the proposed through final even if the change is relatively simple it's just the process of going out for public comment addressing those public comments and and walking through that. So we
019that is something that I think on this albeit complicated slide 21 part of the reason why we have begin regulatory updates happening this year. Because we have to begin that this year. >> We have a statement which of the J Lark recommendations do you believe are not within the purview of the board to do without regulatory change? >> I think yes. >> Absolutely one or two that have to be a regulatory >> Yes we can make that >> the options that I'm not immediately identifying ones that absolutely require that we go in for regulation. >> We can bring that back tomorrow. >> agency would would take a position telling this board what they believe in writing. Required regulatory change. I think that would be a bust. And two, >> [clears throat] >> when we go
020back and we look at what we implemented I'd also like to be clear about what we said we would tell the public and the school each of those years. What we talked about. We would publish the results. Superintendents would get it. The parents would get it. The parents would have it on their on their parent report cards and they were going to be able to talk to the students in the home about it. They were going to be able to send back their feedback for the scores that they released every year. All of that information is That's what we took into consideration when we decided to phase in. The parents were going to know what the new scores were as the results of the test came have the opportunity to communicate back to the board.
021And I realize it may be a having this the agency but at the end of the day, everybody said we were prepared to do it. We've been going out talking to superintendents about this whole process, talking to the teachers and all of the input came back and it was pretty good. We looked at the number of comments that we had. There weren't that many that were in opposition after we finally rolled it out, which is why now I'm trying to understand why is there so much opposition to the way we were going to do it before because we went out to the public and we talked about it at all these different meetings and we had buy-in everybody. >> [laughter] >> And we looked We looked at The staff looked at if we issued this
022test and these questions and the public voted on the questions and where the cut scores would where the cut scores should be based upon all of these community that we put together, all the focus groups that we put together. We came up with the scores after all of that. >> Uh let me let me pop in on the sort of the the with with with the lift question and and to that very point, Ms. McPherson. So, if you go back, right, sort of to the the biggest lift here is around thousands and thousands of educators being clear on what proficiency looks like and how that is different from the past. And just to kind of go back to work that has been done, you you you first have to revise and strengthen your standards, right?
023You have to be very clear about what students know and be able to do. And as you many of you know, particularly those of you educators, it's many, many pages of content, right? And then as as you all are familiar, and if you go to the website and look at the August and September content from last year, uh in you know, in in in sort of under the oversight and with support from our TAC, right, which is as Dr. Northern noted, kind of the the group that supports doing this in a fair and consistent way, they did exactly that, right? They took our standards, this group, which involved more than 250 folks, um which represented educators, subject matter experts, as well as community members for the first time, then went through and they looked at
024the rigor of those questions, which are now more rigorous because of the standard. As Deputy Highslap noted, I think there's an open question around the transparency around when standards are adopted versus when they fully appear in tests, right? Because of you need to field test and do that. So, this even sort of whether or not we've been clear there, but the math test for last year fully reflect the revised standards and the higher rigor point. They are still, because we field tested last year, ELA will not fully reflect that until this year. Um and those cut scores that you then voted on, I believe it was first review in August, final review in September, reflect what that difference looks like. They reflect the entirety of that difference, right? Between where we are today and the
025true north. They don't necessarily reflect the incremental. So, if your true north, your previous, you know, passing is 400 and your true north is 445, like it sort of reflects the difference there, not the 415, the 425, the 435, right? With the the confusing. Our concern on the from the lift perspective in and and why we are proposing the shift in terms of the multiple significant changes is that to really equip system, the thousands of different educators across the system and those that support those educators, that, you know, there is not a precise understanding and to get everybody to understand how you would need to move towards that. Now, uh still the most important thing is the true north. What does the 445 look like in terms of what specific kids, whether that's reading um
026as a fifth grader that's algebra one as a seventh or eighth grader, um and that, you know, that is, to me, the biggest lift, right? So, that you are actually making sure that you sort of from evaluating where your kids are at the beginning of the year, understanding where they're strong, where their deficits, where their gaps, excuse me, and how to sort of organize that day-to-day to get those kids across that finish line. I think part of the premise of having higher cut scores and why I think there is so much urgency, to echo Mr. Hanson's point, is that you have to know exactly what that looks like and how much a kid needs to know and be able to do. That is the biggest lift and I think we know we're we know prepared
027to support that conversation this year. I I don't know that we're prepared to be able to describe the difference between a 415 and a 425 just to be totally candid, but I think we're prepared to describe that difference this year. Prepared as you all know to say here are the literacy high quality instructional materials, here are the math high quality instructional materials to support and to get there. Um but that that to me is is is the biggest lift. I think what we're proposing CEO is is twofold and again this body might not ultimately agree with that is that there's a lot of noise and the kind of difference across these interim steps versus saying here's what that difference looks like in terms of what students need to be a need to know and be
028able to do, but we move up then a year to kind of to get there. Um and that is a much bigger lift than some of the things you've heard this morning around um accountability. There there will be things that are not lifts, but will be hard to deal with. So if you think about what Dr. Bridges notes, I don't know this is a lift, but I think we're going to get some pushback. If you have 65% of high schools are distinguished today and you're going to ultimately reset that threshold, which again we get numbers, we have two years of results, we look at 3E, we fix 3E in a year, we bring modeling to you next spring. There's not a lift per se for school divisions. There will be some changes in what they
029do because of 3E, but there will be you know some pushback as you go to a more normalized distribution that will not say that 65% of high schools are doing that. So there's sort of the real lift related to the most important thing, which is raising these cut scores and setting the expectation, and then there's the other pieces related to JLARC, some of which will require some shifts in behavior. Whatever we say is different for 3E that will require some changes for high schools, um and some of it will be around It's a fairly easy change for the department to make, but it will still uh you take some time for school divisions to understand and be able to communicate to their >> I really do. I'll get off my bill wagon just a minute.
030I'mma have to go to something Fairfax. I don't understand why somebody we put in a classroom that we say is capable of teaching fourth grade reading and fourth grade math and they have a set of materials that they can't get those students to perform. We got here because I think we just we got caught in a lot of mush. This is about teaching. A teacher, materials, a student. You got them for like 6 hours. The more layers we put on top of that, I think the more it becomes a heavy lift. But that's unfortunate. These parents place these kids in the care of the school system for a certain amount hours, and the goal is materials teach you got it. Surely there's going to be some that are falling [clears throat] behind, but that's once
031we figure out where those problems are, that's where I say we put the resources, and we figure out is it a teacher, was it a student, was it the parent? We I think we have to stop and just say we got to get about the business of teaching. We got too many layers on top of basic education. And students are falling further and further behind. And I I really appreciate the difficulty it is at this point and where you are and what you have inherited. I think what this board is saying is that the chips are going to have to fall where they got to fall. We got to figure it out. We're just done with waiting. Implement it. Let's see what happens. And let's put the resources where they need to be. That's my
032bottom line. Because here's the here's the opposite of that. If we take this new system and we go to 2029 and we're not absolutely sure where the problems are, we just wasted another 4 years. And we're going to be right back here talking about, "Oh, now we need another system cuz that didn't work." The sooner we figure out where the problem is, no matter how difficult this is, the better off we're going to be. >> I appreciate your passion and commitment to that. And I think one of the things that I want to just clarify to you a little bit, I think again the absolutely the scores that this board voted on in September would be a huge monumental improvement for raising expectations for Virginia students. I want to spend the next year focused on
033that. Not focused on approaching this like ephemeral thing that is changing each and every year. I want to be sharing with our educators to prepare them for the the change that is coming to actually get there. And I think by in some ways by having this approaching level that is it's confusing. It's an approaching level that is counts as passing. Like what is it's approaching proficiency but yet it is counted as proficient. That's confusing. And that's not the point where we want to get teachers and and our kids. We want to get them to what this board voted on in 2029-30. That is what I want to focus on and I think that by having in 2026-27 and 2027-28 those those prepare and preview years, that's what we would be doing. We wouldn't be sharing,
034so here's how your student did and here's what approaching means and it's going to be different next year. It would be here's how your student did and here's what it's going to look like when we raise the bar. Period. It's just those things. >> I understand I understand your passion, too. >> Yeah, maybe. >> But I'm saying and that's why they never track off track cuz you're either on the track or you're off the track. You see you see what I'm saying? >> Yep. >> You get it? >> Yep. >> Okay. I'm going to call on Mr. Robinson in the afternoon. >> Good morning. >> Thank you. Um well, first off on the recommendations two through five before going back to one, I want to um I commend the urgency to get uh fixed as
035quickly as possible those changes that will make the system better uh the already strong system that this board got in place better uh without going through the regulatory process and I want to double down on the recommendation to come back to us with where do the other recommendations fall cuz I think some of them like the high school recommendation number five on three is just going to make the system so tremendously better. Uh even just signaling to the field sooner that we're getting the regulatory process going even if we can't get it in place um because of technical reasons yet. Uh I think would bring a lot of value to the field and then the ones that are more in the middle uh maybe just go and name, hey, we don't know yet uh because
036the because then on those ones maybe we can signal, okay, well, how can the board help? You know, or how can a committee of practitioners and the board help you figure out solutions over the next couple of years on on those, but just that that would just be great signaling to the field. Um, question before my comment on number one, if in 2026-27, this year, we were to move to what the board already recommended or already voted and passed, um, if we were to do that, uh, would there still be are there any blind spots we have on standard setting or having the right data in place or anything that would prevent you from getting to your recommendation to have full implementation by 2029? If we were to at least do this board's recommendation for
037going ahead and raising having urgency with raising the standards this year, standard I mean the cut scores this year. >> I think from a technical standpoint, nothing. It's mostly just on the communication side cuz again, we really have either found I think discovered in this conversation the lack of understanding about what exactly 2026-27 looks like for each and every assessment. >> Okay. Um, thank you. Well, my my thought is that the, um, you we are already changing a lot of things in 2026-27. We're moving on with urgency on these SPS F changes that we can get done. We are streamlining assessments per the legislature's push. We are implementing for the first time the higher standards in ELA per prior recommendations. Your team per your push is moving on getting out the result assessment results sooner
038and moving it to a zero and 100 scale. So, all that to say I there's just a ton of changes happening in 2026-27. So, this idea that we're not making any shifts like one big shift in 2028-29, I don't fully I don't buy that one because I we're already making a lot of shifts in 2026-27. And I think we're just valuing the other shifts over the cut scores. And I I would promote having urgent as least as much urgency on the cut scores as the other changes. Um one of the things I loved about this presentation was your focus on these values that can guide our conversation the next couple years. I I love the values that proposed. And I think we're just valuing focus and simplification over high expectations, opportunity for every student, and
039actionable improvement. And I I I'd like to see us consider um you particularly given where we are in the nation with a 8% of our black students uh proficient and other metrics named to have urgency to signal to the field uh that we're not going to do the Charlie Brown thing. We we are going to uh there's no chance that we're going to change our minds two or three years from now. We are moving to higher cut scores with urgency. Um uh and if there were um you know, I do hear and value the concern about this approaching piece being confusing and the communication piece being hard. Um and so uh you just as a consideration, I I I wonder if there's a um compromise possibilities out there um to move with urgency on doing
040exactly what the board has already stated for 2026-2027. You're moving with greater urgency in this proposal to move towards full implementation a year earlier. Um so so are there, you know, with discussion and a lot of people's ideas other than my own, um ways to urgently go ahead and raise the cut scores, whether it's to the 2027-2028 level or to the 2026-2027 level like this year. Um to uh and if we don't like this approaching, if we think that's too confusing for the field, there's got to be ways to still move to higher cut scores this year and not have to do that category. Cuz I I do understand the desire not to have four shifts four years in a row. Um but I guess my broader point is we can move to two shifts
041instead of four shifts and have a lot more urgency towards um higher expectations. Uh sorry, the final point there is that the other value that we said is >> instructional coherence. >> I think right now there's a lot of instructional incoherence, you know, as we happening and just moving to higher cut scores will help the field understand those incoherencies and misalignments with greater specificity and experience. And I I do want to have an urgency towards the field experiencing um cut scores that are no longer the lowest in the nation to help us experience uh what's going to take to move towards those richer student experiences our Virginians deserve. >> So, I'm appreciating very much Mr. Robinson's observation about compromise. I mean, that's resonating with me as an opportunity to explore. Um I also in that
042vein I'm thinking about So, if our uh the the the ultim- one of the ultimate goals of having scores to begin with is to be able to identify those students who need the most resources, the schools and the students who need the most resources. So, as we're thinking about introducing cut scores at whatever cadence it may be, for me a question is if that cadence is whether it's annually that we introduce um new cut scores or increasing incrementally increasing cut scores or we wait until whatever period of time, what are the mechanisms that we can have in place to ensure that even throughout the process as we're moving incrementally, perhaps, to ensure that those resources are going to the students who need them the most. So, because I hear that as as maybe the the
043the fear or the concern that we're not getting to our students the resources that they need to be able to move them forward in their learning journey. >> I appreciate that. And um I think that is an important point to to make as well here is that regardless of any modifications to this road map, we are continuing the accountability system in each and every year. So, we will have SBSF. We are giving school ratings. A lot of times when states do this type of work, they pause things. They they they say, "Let's put things like let's not do that." So, every year, um so this fall we'll be identifying new targeted support and improvement schools. Those are our schools that have struggling individual groups of students, whether that's English learners, black students, economically disadvantaged students.
044That's happening this fall. That will happen next fall as well. It will happen the fall after that. It's every year we do that. So, whether the cut scores go up or don't, we will be identifying those schools, which I think gets to the especially our students furthest from opportunity. We'll also say that all schools that are federally identified, so if you're in targeted support, if you're in additional targeted support, if you're in comprehensive support, and we already have a number of those schools right now. They are all eligible for additional funding through the federal um grant for school improvement. So, we as an agency set aside a portion of our Title I funds, and only divisions and with those schools are even eligible for the funds. So, those resources will also, assuming congressional appropriations continue
045for title one, those resources will be available each and every year and is something that our team will be directing to the schools that have those identified schools. In addition, I think as part of this new charge we have from the legislature from JLARC to have agency-wide school improvement, I think when we're thinking about how are we implementing HQIM, we want to be sure that HQIM implementation is strongest and like effective in those schools that are federally identified. When we're thinking about in the special education office, how are we working with school divisions? Are we Are we prioritizing our divisions that have identified schools? That work is underway now. We are have a new senior advisor for school improvement that's helping us think through that. >> [clears throat] >> And so I think that is
046a piece of this work of regardless of timeline on That is happening and that is happening starting this year. And will continue forward. >> Wait. >> Chair takes prerogative to jump in if that's okay. Um so uh I've as I've been listening in, I think it is uh important we use the word uh true north and I think the question is true north for who? Um and I am sitting here as both the parent and as a school leader and you know, all I'm looking at is if I have a kid and this is where the conversation happened uh last year, was really the impact on high school kids. And if you I I actually have two kids who are going into ninth >> Whoa. >> [laughter] >> You're right. >> You and Miss >>
047Are we connected? >> I have two I do have two uh students who are going into ninth grade and I'm thinking for my ninth grader when two ninth graders when they the stakes are so incredibly high in terms of preparing them for college and career. What is the standard? And that's really where the conversation started and that's where we said we have to make it very clear where it was both support and clarity for parents, for administrators, and for kids. What gives us confidence at the end of fourth year, we are putting our kids out in the world and they are ready to be competitive in college and career and their life pursuits. So, this feels very personal to me having ninth graders going into high school. Um that being said, what I'm thinking as
048as a principal of a school, honestly I'm thinking about what is proficient. Like that's where my true north is right now and I'm trying to figure out what I need to do today in the summer time when everyone else is at the beach, how am I preparing my teachers, my staff when they come back in the fall to get to proficiency. And what I appreciate about what we've done and we have done tremendous work over 3 years and so I do not want that to be taken away. High quality instructional materials, high quality standards. We have we have done major major work and so for the field to have high quality instruction materials, have high standards going into this year, we we are going to get the feedback that we need to decide to determine
049whether or not Virginia's kids are on track to be competitive not just in Virginia and not just in the country, but in the world. That's I think what we're looking for. And when I Oh gosh. Um somebody's touching the lights. It's the first. Yeah, okay. We're still here. Um I think what >> So that's called >> It is really a sign. >> [laughter] >> Get out your guitar. >> AI Um So I I am uh I think I want us to as a body to be very clear uh that this is a work session, that we are collecting information so that we can be as informed as possible as we go into tomorrow and and future uh conversations. The point that we are having I think the most um questions about is around the proficiency
050cut scores and making sure that we as the current State Board of Education are incredibly clear about the the decision we're making, the clarity to the field, to the parents, to everyone around how are we going to make Virginia the best in the country? Like that to me is that's where we are um trying to get some clarity around. And I I want to just really um echo a point that Dr. Northern made. There's intent and there's impact. The intent is we want high standard. The impact is there's there there's some work that needed to happen from September to November to December that now the the team has tried to do and so I want to applaud the team for trying to make sense and you know, listen and to take into in to account
051JLARC. Um so but we are trying to do three different things from my perspective. We're trying to get clarity around proficiency cut scores and a timeline for implementation. We're trying to uh take the advice for JLARC and make sure that it makes sense in the timeline that has been um outlined. And we are trying to manage feedback from everywhere. Feedback from stakeholders, um a new composition of the board, and I I I go back to what I said earlier is we can do hard things. Um and this is not easy. It is It is hard, but I think all of our students deserve us to do the hard work to make sure that they're set up for success. And we don't have time to delay. Um we we do have to act with urgency. So,
052what I I I want us to make sure we are clear on what we are talking about. I also want to be clear on what actions are we taking or not taking, um but also clear uh feedback to uh Superintendent um Conway is that right now we do need some more information and clarity to make sure that this whole body is clear about what has already been approved because it lives our values of urgency, accountability, of support. Um I feel incredibly encouraged that the SPSF is in place and schools are going to get the feedback that they need to make the best decision. Parents are going to get the feedback they need to make the best decisions. So, that is is progress. Um and I think when I see the one through five, you know,
053it's like three of them are uh covered in the J Lark conversation presentation we made and I think there was clear support or uh consensus around one, and then the high school just got kind of thrown in there. And so, I think what one, I want to make sure that we are clear on exactly what we are uh debating, deciding, voting on, but right now, when it the the the the point of um confusion right now is around the proficiency >> Yes. >> implementation, the timeline. And my sense is at least based on the information we have right here, we don't have it clearly laid out for this body to in order to really thoughtfully make sure that we are sending the right signal to our key stakeholders. And so I want to you know,
054see where you feel about that, Superintendent Conway. But then I I do have some questions about um and this is something Dr. Bridges raised earlier about what first and final review. So I'm going to actually ask Deb to help me out in a minute, but uh when you hear that the kind of like what are we what are we talking about? What are we deciding? Where is there consensus? How is that um I'm going to say landed on you, Superintendent Conway. >> Oh, yeah. I mean so uh Uh thank you, uh Board President Ashton. And I appreciate um the the summary there. Um I will note that this was uh intended initially to be just a preview. There's actually a little bit of content on each of these five items for tomorrow. Um so this
055is feedback for us on the the danger of a little information. Um uh but in all in all seriousness, um uh it what this conversation has made very clear is um you know, is absolutely the need to be um very specific around each of the recommendations for which there is some underlying content in your in your packets. I would say the other piece of of of of of useful feedback here is just a recognition of um how we can do a better job of pulling particularly in a place where we have a different mix of when folks were here and when folks were not. Like all although much of this content is available on the Board of Education website, just we can do a better job of pulling that sort of the relevant content cuz
056I know there's a lot of information so that as as Dr. Bridges note we sort of say, "Okay, all the meetings last year, here's what you all agreed to in August after the process that Ms. McPherson described around laying out what the true north is in terms of these cut scores, and then here's what you decided in December." And just so that there is a thinking in how we reach more into the past and don't just make the assumption because it's on the website that everybody's on the on the same place. I think that's that's that's another key way in which we we can improve the um other uh just piece that I will note and appreciate everybody's both strong sort of strong moral commitment to kind of to urgency. I also just want to
057acknowledge even though it was complicated, we did feel an obligation to kind of bring a bigger picture. I think we maybe needed to break this down into more discrete pieces, but the reality is is that this deal result these came out and like there are very big operational implement implications in terms of where you draw those thresholds, right? That that will affect schools. Uh there are very big implications around the assessment RFP and it's just more than an RFP. It is a requirement that as per the law or for the General Assembly that we have to be have you this current contract no later than July January 1st of 2028. And so it is in law. That's not just a nice to have or recommendation that we have to do that. And you know, and
058I don't want us, you know, and that we had a very complicated many many page assessment bill that was passed. And so I don't want there to be any interpretation that that presenting some of these other factors which are more systematic in nature you know, is somehow a distraction from the very very important work of the cut scores. But these are legal obligations that as an agency and as an agency had that we are accountable for. And so I just I want just to sort of pre-state that. And I'm not saying that anybody is accusing that you know, at this at its core this work is absolutely about kids, but it's also about making sure [snorts] that we are implementing the laws, right? And and this is the one job I've had in which I've
059had many many bosses, but I have a governor as a boss, I have a secretary of education, I have this board, and I have 40 senators and 100 delegates all of which through various formats, not to mention, you know, kind of our our partners who ultimately make this happen in our 131 school divisions. So this has been very helpful. I think we can be more clear, but just wanting to note that part of why we wanted to do this work session bring these pieces together was that this is what ultimately what we have to execute on. What I think we will definitely do before sending it back to you or president is is to just get really clear on what changes and what doesn't related to the slide on the proficiency scores so that you
060understand here's what you approved or didn't approve in December. Again, no change on what those final expectations are, right? And we can put those let's get those in writing in in whatever document we share with you tomorrow and then here's what we'll be different. Um you know we'll have different perspectives on it. I I And And again, understanding as Dr. Northern noted the difference between intention and impact. I I I would say, you know, personally having spent as much time as I have in Virginia where the governor changes every year, I think getting to the full true north in 2029, I thought that there might be a little bit more excitement about today than was received. Okay, message received. Feedback is a gift in whatever format it comes in, but the idea of sort of
061getting to that number that this group voted on a year earlier, uh you know, it's like when the cat brings the dead mouse and you're not really that excited about it. Um but would be so that we could, you know, in some ways, you know, be there to support that, not have that be an election year, and have some of what the noise of the last few months is also related to it. >> transition. And I've been through multiple governors and multiple states, and no matter who you are and how long you've been there, you know, with those transitions comes, you know, a little bit of inherent noise and chaos. So, um again, you know, that was our way of showing respect for urgency. Um it didn't land in the way that we exactly thought
062it would, um but let us sort of get these two things on a piece of paper, a couple piece of papers for tomorrow, and then to note, um let's figure out what you need to find out on kind of first versus a final review as we go into tomorrow. Um thank you for those comments, and I do want to thank y'all for the um the theory of change and really sort of pulling back and trying to make sure folks understand how all these pieces fit together, um because I think sometimes we talk so much about one particular area and we don't think about all the things that have to get into place in order to move the needle of accountability. Um so I do greatly appreciate that. Um I wanted to um comment on something
063that that you said um Dr. Conway and now I've lost it in the in the thoughts. Oh, um I think where I would like clarity from our from the discussion of the board is to your point, you brought forth a plan that accelerated and kept the same final year for cut scores as the board voted on. And so I think we're just talking about those two middle columns and the specificity of when to when to start bumping things up. And so I would really value hearing from folks what the implications of that is. It's kind of like our lunchtime conversation. I hear about 98% agreement on this board and I think we're really just talking about some very technical updates um that I would appreciate hearing from board members about what it what does this
064mean if we do or don't shift the base thing, create the cat- the temporary category. That's not crystal clear to me. All the rest of it I'm I'm fully on board with it. And so I would I would appreciate hearing from uh folks as well as the experts in our department um about what those implications are. >> Absolutely. I think I think that that's a good um summary all around. You know, the comments that you made as Bridget as well as President Ashton and Superintendent Conway. And I will also say, I mean, that maybe this is getting to your question for for Deb there at the corner is um part of why we wanted to bring this for our for first review as well is um we want to also hear from the field about
065this idea cuz they have not also been asked that question directly of do you like for for 26-27, 27-28, is this approaching proficiency level? Would you rather This is really a question about I actually think there's a great deal of agreement around wanting to give school divisions and parents a preview or a a look on like what higher standards look like in those years. And it's a question of how. And I think we should be This is a question that our board should debate rigorously. Feedback is a gift, as Superintendent Conway says, but also that we need to hear from our educators, our parents, our division and school leaders, um you know, our state senators and our state delegates. Like we want to hear from everybody. Um so that we can then come back in
066August with um a revised, if needed, proposal that reflects all that feedback. Or at least say, "Here's what we heard, good, bad, and in between." >> So, if you look at the US Department of Education in 2022, mapped out our cut scores compared to everybody else. Virginia here, way at the bottom, we're at 218. Okay. Proficient is 249. So, that's the delta. Okay. About 31 points. Personally, the reason I wanted, personally, a phase-in of multiple years is because I don't think that you can make that big of a jump that suddenly. I think that it's fair to say, like, "This year, we're going to bump it up five. We're going to bump it up another five." You know what I mean? Trying to get from there to there is going to demoralize, I think, a
067lot of our educators. See that we expected that much in one year. Um I feel like if we delay cut scores, it weakens momentum. Like we've got momentum. I feel like it takes away some of the incentive to adjust to adjust instruction. That's another big one for me. Um but, back to this point, the biggest thing I think is just the delta, because we're the lowest. We have so much ground to make up compared to the rest of the country that we need multiple years to get there. Like I feel I just feel like we can't make that big of a jump, and we know we're now tied to make proficient. And again, you know, you can go to the department, you can see like how much we've got to how much we've got to
068make up. So, that's to me is um you know, and I get it like to me, I'd rather give the field another year, and I know it's hard hard for me to say this, but I'd rather give them another year and give them more time than than wait on the cut scores. Like, I I I think we're all saying that the cut scores are important for us to signal that we're serious about this, to signal that we're starting this process of raising them Um and that uh yeah, we're figuring it out to this point of like communications with you guys. Like, it is so important. And if there's not a mechanism for the department to be um communicating like every week with districts and principals because like they need that, right? So, that communication part
069is so important. So, um I agree that that's um something we need to work on. >> Any questions, Cherry? >> Yeah, the question about the vote was if we vote about implementation, let's talk about implementation cuz you talk about fast approaching, but we did talk about a sim thing in 12th grade students, but we talked about implementing scores. And I was just looking at some information about So, if the student's unable to perform at the national level, okay, as Nate had identified, what do you think the likelihood is that they can pass an SAT or an ACT? What do you think the research shows? If they're not at that level, their ability to pass a college entrance exam is almost nil. So, that's why I'm concerned about the leg because if we don't tell people
070where they are now and move that needle 4 years from now those kids don't stand a chance. So, let's just talk about what we said about we were exempting the 12th graders, but when we were going to really implement when people were going to be told exactly where they were. That's my concern. >> And I I appreciate that as someone who's done a a lot of work on high school graduation assessment requirements in the past. And I do want to be clear to you that the road map we're bringing forward makes no change to the vote that this board made around the class of 2026. I don't think the board fully got to discussing the class of 2027 and the class of 2028 because we know a lot of students take our assessments very early
071in their high school career. And they may retake them, but you know, they they start taking some of these SOLs for verified credit in ninth grade. So, we we can't just sort of think about our 12th grade students. We have to back it up a few years as well to think about our freshmen and our sophomores in high school. Yeah. >> what the impact was going to be and when it was finally going to hit where it would impact the complete fail rate for graduation. So, we phased all of that in. So, if >> Yeah, I think the the specific piece here is the question I think that maybe was not specifically addressed was sort of for say 2027 when you were going to have that approaching and the proficient level. What is the standard
072for verified credit for graduation? Is it proficient, which is our you know, the true north innate proficient? Is it approaching? Is it something else? Is it something more like the current 400? That is a I'm not sure that that question was specifically addressed um to the extent that um sort of we would need to to prevent provide that clarity to our students so that they and our teachers they knew exactly what was needed for graduation purposes. >> May I just say um the intent was there was no direct impact on kids on high schoolers. That was the intent and so >> That was the intention. >> Well, it may not have been you know >> explicitly stated. >> the the intent was that while we were >> It would remain 400 essentially for >> they
073would have the you know, we wouldn't say oh, the cut scores got raised and now you have to retake it or you're not eligible for verified credit. But you know, again just want to over communicate. The intent was to >> was no. Yes. >> The specifics may we may not have fully fleshed out. But Mr. Henson >> Just a process question for tomorrow just again thank you both super very on my end just your your team it's been very very helpful and um and maybe just some counsel with the the jailer recommendations is and I think there was a legislative mission by August 1st if I remember correctly and I'm just throwing this out. I don't know if it's a good idea or bad idea but just maybe for our consideration tomorrow is to maybe
074bifurcate because I do sense a good deal of um unity and uh re-session on but uh recommendations that they had in there I know and I think if those are put out there for first review seems like that could be on a a glide path report to the legislature on April 1 and then for August you know, the second and final review and then other issues um where I think board may need to have deeper considerations and again I'm not maybe we need to have a sense of urgency tomorrow and get it all done. But um just it's maybe as everybody's doing their midnight work and pulling stuff together it might just be a way of at least making sure we get what we need to get done with the legislative report tomorrow but just
075an idea. >> No, I think that's that's helpful and to clarify we wanted to bring this together as a unified package in particular because we've already gotten questions from divisions of what are the cut scores this year? What are they? Tell us what they are for grades for every test every grade like we don't know. We need to get that information out and so in order to bring this forward now you know we wanted to be sure we would have that vote in August on that issue so that we can be crystal clear with our divisions what the expectations are this year. The report that is going to be sent to the General Assembly is only talking about the JLARC pieces. That is what the legislation mandated us to do. So the the legislation itself
076has already told us that that is just how are we think how is it how is the VDOE how is the board thinking about sequencing and timing the consideration of the JLARC recommendations. >> We will adjust the report that they gave us to be what's >> Yeah, so I think the part of the reason for for bringing all of this together was again just that we know going back to that theory of change you know these things are they're related and we are getting questions now from our from our divisions from families from from the field that just needs to know what's happening in 26-27 for assessment and for accountability. So we're trying to meet their requests while also recognizing too we have this additional requirement of what we provide to the General Assembly in
077August related specifically just to JLARC. >> All right, I'm going to be first of all I think you're in uh one >> I think yeah week six, I think. >> And all the thought that went into the proposal and your construction of the SBSF we're seeing I'm seeing across the state Commonwealth already schools amplifying attention to special needs students, black students, multilingual language superintendents putting out statements about how we're going to have a laser-like focus on these issues in a way that I haven't seen with an urgency. And I know that's a direct result of your this board's Superintendent Conway and others work and and I think on that issue the board ultimately did what had us doing at North Star. And as we're thinking about I'm ultimately fully on board with yes, this is
078very complicated and we need feedback from the field in the how. I think it could be construed this proposal as getting feedback from the field on whether. And that may not be I don't think that that's the intent and I think it's risky of us as a board to send a signal that we're asking whether to raise cut scores and so I already stated where I stand in terms of wanting cut scores raised this year at least doing two as opposed to only one shift but in general I just wanted to name that that same North Star that uh yourself Superintendent and the team made possible with the framework Uh, as we think about what to bring to the field. I hope it's not just do we do what the board voted on December or
079do we do this? It's it's something that's more into what's it going to take for this to be successful cuz then that could connect to JLARC's older report on school funding. And what it's going to take for us to truly uh, support schools in achieving this. >> [laughter] >> I did. Um, first of all, my children when they were little got me a t-shirt for Mother's Day that said it was a Life is Good shirt and it said glass half full, you seen those. Cuz I tend to look at things glass half full and it's not a necessarily bad trait. As I have sat here and listened to all my colleagues, you know, I don't care what anybody says when they're watching this as we're meeting together, every single person who's here in the audience
080or on the stage or behind the scenes cares so deeply for our students in Virginia. That's what matters most and at the end of the day, that's all that really matters. And if I if this if this had been a church service, I would have sit been saying amen to every uh, one of my colleagues. Everybody had great things to share and we are all pretty much on the same page. We're not that different in what we want in the outcome that we want. And there are there's been some very valid concerns, you know, pro and con as to what what we do from here forward. Um, one thing I would I would want to echo like with once one thing that Amber said that I was practically shaking my head about as a former
081teacher, I do wonder if we do prolong implementing changes as Amber pointed out, that to me sounds more challenging for a classroom teacher and administrator to go from one score and jump, you know, and ultimately to the higher scores. That sounds more challenging to me if I was back in the classroom than if we did it like we had voted on in December. So, I'm open. I'm open. There's pros and cons to everything. I don't think um I think we've had some healthy discussions today and I'm very proud to have been part of that even though I was over here pretty much just listening and shaking my head, but um we have some more to do, but I think we can get there. And thank all of you for your hard work. I know you've
082put many hours into it. So, thank you. >> session. That ends this work today and we'll be back tomorrow if we're here. Okay. We'll entertain a motion to this special meeting. >> [laughter] >> Second. >> Sorry. We are going to that ends our work session. Uh thank you uh uh Superintendent Conway, staff for your presentations today. May I entertain a motion to adjourn? Is there a second? Okay. I don't think I Okay, thank you. Adjourned. >> Hey.