Holding the Virginia 
State Board of Education Accountable

The one thing we all share in common is that we have gone to school and had the experience of taking tests, and receiving scores such as 45 of 50, 82% or 1200. Therefore, when the Virginia Board of Education reports cut scores "proficiency" and "advanced," this method of reporting a student’s academic achievement level doesn’t conflict with our own personal experiences.

However, each one of us must stop for a moment and consider our goals for our children and the quality of education we expect them to receive. In doing so, we must also think about our beliefs and theories about schooling that reflect our experiences with teachers, schools, and administrators; and, recall the grades, percentages and points we achieved on tests and in courses. We then must determine if we remember if those scores accurately or specifically addressed what we did and did not know – or, did they assess just what we memorized for the test? Did the scores appropriately reflect what we could or could not do; or, if we were receiving an excellent education; or, if we really understood, remembered, or could use the information or concept over time; or, if the test questions were understandable or relative to what we had learned?

In a more recent context, we could consider if our current employment has specific standards, by which we are measured on a yearly basis. For example, does someone determine your performance assessment outside your office or employment? Could taking a multiple-choice assessment indisputably and appropriately assess the quality of your work or expertise? How would you feel if the performance questions were poorly stated, didn’t appropriately measure your skills or the quality of your work; and yet, the security of your employment potentially rests on this type of assessment? What if you were interested in improving your work performance, would it be useful to quickly memorize lots of facts and concepts and then have your abilities (your strengths and weaknesses) stated in a final report by combining and reporting the results in: percentages, grades or points?

If you are wondering how all of these questions are related to the title " Holding the School Board Accountable," the answer is, we chose this format of questioning to assist you in questioning how you view assessments; and, more importantly, to bring your attention to some crave concerns that are shared by members of the FCCPTA Education Committee – which may be of interest to you.

In providing this information, we are also requesting your assistance in holding our State Board of Education accountable for appropriately contributing to education reforms across the Commonwealth. In doing so, we believe we can achieve our goal of assisting each one of our children in receiving an excellent, high quality, meaningful education.

Background

SOLs assessments were given last spring, two-thirds of the way through the academic year, to students in grades third, fifth, eighth, and high school. THESE TESTS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE WRITING TEST, FOLLOWED THE MULTIPLE-CHOICE FORMAT. Passing six (6) tests will be required to receive course credits and is a graduation requirement, starting in 2004. As an added incentive, some school divisions may elect to assign the score, achieved on a SOL assessment, as a final grade. Out of school, remedial programs which target the specific needs of students, related to the SOL, are now required, and the state, school division and the student’s parents will share the costs. Schools that don’t meet the 70 percent mark will lose their accreditation by 2006-07.

On Saturday, January 8^th, 1999, the Virginia Board of Education reported that 97 percent of Schools in Virginia failed the new exams.

FCCPTA’s Positions and What We Would Want The Public to Know

1. We believe the primary focus of the Board of Education must be towards adapting quality state-of-the-art assessment and reporting methodologies, which are directly linked to: increasing the relevance and breath of each SOL assessment to Virginia’s curriculum, improving learning environments, and preparing our children for work and competition in the 21^st Century.
   

2. We believe accountability must be across the spectrum.
   

3. We believe the assessment methods must be appropriately developed in ways which motivate and encourage quality instructions; and, accurately and fairly assess learning achievements of all children, regardless of background, disability, race, ethnicity, language, learning tendencies, and time of year.
   

4. We believe the goal of the Board of Education must be to reduce the differences in academic achievement between groups of students, while increasing excellence for all.
   

5. We believe students with special needs, can successfully achieve the high academic standards we have set for them; if, the State Board of Education’s SOL assessments, follow the intent of special education laws; and, focuses on accurately assessing each student’s academic achievements – not highlight their disability.
   

6. We would support a rigorous multifaceted assessment program, if it were designed by the educational professionals who were members of the eight Standard Setting Committees.

History of Standard Setting Committees
According to the Report to the Virginia Board of Education, "In June of 1998, the Virginia board of Education appointed a Standard Setting Advisory Committee (SSAC). The SSAC was charged with the "authority to review all the procedures and operations of the eight committees in the course of the standard setting recommendations. The SSAC was composed of 32 members, representing many of the constituencies interested in public education. William C. Bosher, Jr., Superintendent of Schools in Chesterfield County, chaired this oversight committee.

The Board of Education’s standard setting process was designed to bring together a diverse group of Virginia educators in eight committees to provide guidance to the state Board in setting performance scores for the State Standards of Learning (SOL) tests. These SOL tests were first administered to Virginia students in the spring of 1998. The Board of Education appointed professional educators to eight Standard Setting Committees; parents and the business community were also represented. Members of the eight committees, individually and using accepted procedures, focused clearly on what students should know and be able to demonstrate against the Sols, rather than upon what students may know at this time or on average. They then provided their input regarding the scores that would be required for student to pass the SOL tests and demonstrate advanced attainment of the SOLS.

However, it is important to note, the State board of Education operates autonomously and has sole responsibility for setting the scores whereby students will demonstrate passing and advanced achievement on the Standards of Learning Tests. Members on the eight Standard Setting Committees (SSC) provided the state Board of Education with their input on these performance scores, using approved procedures. Guidance to the state Board was therefore a range of scores, representing these individual judges, for any particular SOL test.

1. It is the consensus of the SSAC that the standard setting procedures used by the eight Standard Setting Committees are sound and accepted professional. (The eight Standard Setting Committees used the modified Angoff procedure, with the exception writing. The Bookmark approach was used for writing.)
   

2. It is the consensus of the SSAC that the members of the eight Standard Setting Committees possessed considerable experience in the content of the SOLs and in teaching the students of the Commonwealth, including those with special needs.
   

3. Further, it is the consensus of the SSAC that the eight Standard Setting Committees were diverse and constituted appropriately. Members of the eight committees were selected from a pool of over 900 nominations solicited from local school divisions, professional education organizations, and other constituent organizations. The composition of each of the eight Standard Setting Committees followed this criteria:

1.) Geographic distribution, 2.) ethnic and racial balance, 3.) knowledge of the content being assessed, 4.) teaching experience, 5.) experience with students with disabilities, and 6.) experience with students with limited proficiency in English. (The SSAC commended the Department of Education and the local school divisions for the strong nomination pool available.)


4. It is the consensus of the SSAC that the procedures (modified-Angoff and Bookmark) were followed by the eight committees as prescribed.

 Observations, Issues, and Central Concerns Surrounding SOL Testing

1. Most of the eight Standard Setting Committees (SSC) highlighted the following in their reports to the State Board of Education, "When setting performance scores for Virginia’s students, the BOE should focus more closely on those scores falling in the middle of the range (median) than those further out."

• SOL tests were given two-thirds of the way through the school year; thus, some SOL questions assessed un-taught materials.

• This recommendation was eventually ignored by the Board of Education, as they set

the final cut scores defining "proficiency" and "advanced." In fact, of the highest scores recommended by individual members within each of the eight Standard Setting Committees, only 9% of those scores were in fact mirrored by the scores chosen by the State Board of Education for assigning cut scores for passing or "proficiency."  

• Many individuals we have spoken to, who were members of the eight Standard Setting Committees, had numerous questions during the June Standard Setting Committee meetings concerning the quality and appropriateness of certain test questions. In response to these inquiries, the SCC members were told to address their concerns through the scores they assigned to each questions. Therefore, as of the education professionals worked through the standard setting process, their final cut scores represented both their individual opinions regarding what a student should know and be able to do; and, they also addressed the quality or appropriateness of the questions.

• If the SSAC truly respected the educational and professional expertise and diverse backgrounds of the members of the 8 Standard Setting Committees; then, why did the State Board of Education so intentionally ignore 91% of their recommendations?

• A reliable source said back in November of 1998, "The BOE will set the SOL scores unusually high."

2. According to Esmeralda Barnes’ November 3rd article in the Fairfax Journal, Charles Finley said, "These tests are not your typical classroom tests. The level of difficulty is much higher than a teacher-made test, so you can’t look at them in the same way you would look at tests given at a school."

• 3^rd graders, who are polishing their reading, writing, and math skills, are also required to take comprehensive Social Science and History SOL tests.

• The voiceless teachers and administrators, realizing there is so much material to cover, have become fearful. They are becoming fearful because as they watch our children’s enthusiasm for learning and involvement in the process and in discussions, the teachers realize they can’t wait for these activities (or re-teach), because there is so much material to cover before the "test."

• Voiceless teachers who teach students with special needs are realizing they will have to teach only that which is essential to passing the test, while robbing students of more meaningful, and relevant learning experiences.

• Algebra I teachers reported observing high students with reading disabilities, failing the Algebra SOL test, because the students could not read the text, necessary to work the SOL algorithms.

• Community schools, schools on military posts and bases, and special education centers with large numbers of transient students, students with disabilities, and non-English-speaking students will need additional accommodations next spring. (Additional accommodations will be considered for non-English speaking students and their schools.)

3. From Washington Post reporter Victoria Benning, we now have learned, "More than half of Virginia’s public high school students flunked in at least one basic subject on new state exams given in the spring and would have fallen short of the requirement of a diploma if penalties had been in effect."
   
   

4. From this same article, the following statement was made, "The figures confirmed what state and local educators had suspected when the state Board of Education set passing scores last week on each of the 27 Standards of Learning exams."
   
   

5. A recent letter to Division Superintendents from Paul D. Stapleton, Superintendent of Public Instruction stated. "Please remember that there were two forms of each SOL test administered in the spring of 1998. The Board of Education established the passing scores on the predominant form (standard setting form). The Department of Education will now engage in equating the second form to the Board’s established passing standard. Since different test forms may be slightly easier or slightly harder than the standard setting form it is possible that the passing score on the second form of the test will vary slightly from that of the standard setting form.
   

As you may have determined, there are many issues yet to be considered or resolved by the Board of Education. If we are to achieve our goal, of giving our children a first class education; then, each one of us must recognize the issues and communicate to members of the Board of Education. The Board of Education must be held publicly accountable. Write letters to be published in our local newspapers. Write to Governor Gilmore, your legislative representative, and members of the Board of Education and let them know how you feel. Encourage the Board to establish public trust, by taking time and creating an education and accountability system worthy of the Fairfax Public schools’ proud past and promising future.

Last Updated 01/27/2005 20:22:31