Coraggio Consulting
Loudoun County Public Schools, Curriculum & Instruction Committee Meeting, Monday, February 9, 2026

Date: Monday, February 9, 2026
Place: LCPS Administration Building / School Board Room, Ashburn, Virginia
Length: 49m (video)
Official meeting video (Vimeo / LCPS-TV): https://player.vimeo.com/video/1162314860?rel=0

Machine transcript (speech-to-text) produced by Coraggio Consulting. Not an official county record. Names and numbers may be misspelled; check the video at the timestamp before quoting.
Speech-to-text: whisper.cpp, model large-v3-turbo. Produced 2026-10-12. Timestamps are [HH:MM:SS] into the meeting video.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[00:00:21] All right. Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to call this February 9th meeting of the Curriculum and Instruction Committee to order. My name is Dr. Rasheed, and I'm the chair of this committee. We appreciate your presence here today, especially on our first CNI meeting of the year, of the academic year.

[00:00:37] So the purpose of today's meeting is to, I guess we have to approve the minutes, do an action item for 5140, which is advanced or accelerated mathematics. And then we have two information items, which is about policy 5030, assessment and grading update. And then for the 25-26 year, we have the WIDA access update.

[00:00:59] But before we proceed, we value public input. I don't know if we had any public comment that was signed up for today. We do not have public comment. Thank you, Mr. Slevin. So we'll go ahead and move on. We need to approve the minutes from our last meeting. Has everyone had a chance to review the minutes from our meeting of December 3rd?

[00:01:15] I know that, Ross, you're new on board. But, Ms. Chernoff, if you had any corrections or additions, and if there's no objections or corrections, I entertain a motion to approve those minutes from December 3rd. So moved. It has been properly moved, and I guess I second.

[00:01:33] All those in favor of approving the minutes, say aye. Aye. Okay, awesome. Okay, so then we will move on. The minutes have been approved. Okay, so let's go ahead and begin by reviewing our first agenda item, which is 4.1 4.01 new policy 5140 advanced or accelerated mathematics and I'll turn it over to mr. seven to present thanks thank you dr. Rashid we're happy to be here tonight returning with policy 5140 advanced or accelerated mathematics this policy has come to this the night committee twice as an information item since we last met the policy has gone out for feedback from the community and staff is here tonight with some adjustments to the policy

[00:02:13] based on that public feedback for the committee's consideration so I'm going I turn it over to Mr. Roundsley and Ms. Kenny. Good afternoon. Ms. Kenny, our math supervisor, and I are excited to be here tonight to talk about our latest revision to this policy and to walk through some of the steps that have been taken to make sure that we are inclusive of public feedback and have made some changes.

[00:02:36] So this is not the first time that you have seen our policy 5140 in response to House Bill 2686. As Mr. Slevin mentioned, we have brought this before, CNI before. we also shared this as part of our math updates at the cni committee or sorry at a school board work session in november um and we both posted this for public and miss kenny and i have been out on a world tour to different community groups to get their feedback on this so we have shared this with seac with msac and then later this afternoon with leaf as well to get their feedback on some of the their experiences with math acceleration and also for the policy as it's

[00:03:12] been written and then we are here tonight as hopefully an action item with the CNI as well so as a reminder the House Bill 2686 has a few requirements for our policy the first one is automatic enrollment so for students who score in the upper quartile of a standards of learning test that they be automatically accelerated one grade level that is covered in section B lines 23 through 27 parental opt-out a parent may choose not to accelerate their child in math even if they qualify for this acceleration under the House bill so that has also been added in our policy that we have opportunities for multiple

[00:03:50] pathways not just based on SOL scores but also that we are looking at a variety of factors other standardized testing grades teacher recommendations family input that's also spelled out in our policy on lines 29 through 34 and finally that this is part of an annual notification that we share with parents in grades five through eight to make sure they understand the criteria how the middle school math progression really does lead to different places in high school and also the impact on the math course sequences that students would have if they choose to accelerate so on the next slide

[00:04:28] miss kenny and i are going to go through some of the feedback we've received and share with you some of the revisions we've made to the policy piece of feedback that was given the question really was looking for a more adaptable statement as it comes to stating where the law came from and we did feel that it was important to continue referencing where the law came from came from and so initially what you see on here it says that there is a reference to house bill 2686 under legal references however it has now become a part of the code of virginia and so what you'll see both in the legal references and also in the opening paragraph is a reference to the code of

[00:05:06] Virginia. The next piece of feedback we received was about the ways in which we're going to support both students and teachers and families for students who have been accelerated. How do we provide that curriculum support for them? And this is something that our office is working really hard on with our teachers. So a couple of the different things that we're outlining here for you. An example is we have our math summer boost program that we're working on that will provide some students with some summer support. We also have a lot of student center supports available in our math curriculum unit guides for our teachers we do have some additional course

[00:05:42] options for additional support so for example if a student does struggle after being accelerated into a course like algebra 1 they do have an option as they enter into high school to take a functions and data analysis class that provides a little bit of a bridge between algebra 1 before they get to algebra 2 so it can be taken before or after geometry we do also have mtss interventions that we work very closely with the MTSS office on to provide support for students in need of tier two and tier three support.

[00:06:11] And then another question as part of this public feedback had to do with ways in which we inform families to be able to make some informed decisions. And so we've done a lot of work in updating our secondary math course selection information to provide more transparency and clarity on the process, on what the math courses actually are.

[00:06:29] And that's also something that we've been sharing for feedback as we've been making our world tour and going around to the different community groups. The next point of feedback was really seeking more clarity around what we mean when we say advanced or accelerated math.

[00:06:46] And in the case of this policy, we wanted to stay very close to what the state law requires, which is one year of acceleration for a student who is in a grade-level math class to accelerate one year. So we did add a point to clarify that for purposes of this policy, advanced or accelerated mathematics is defined as a course one year beyond the students current grade level we also recognize that there are students in specific cases that do require more acceleration and so there are separate practices and they're all outlined on this document that's available to parents around the course selection information for students who require two years of acceleration so an example of

[00:07:25] that might be we currently have students in fifth grade who qualify for the pre-algebra readiness assessment and so those students would be able to skip right to pre-algebra which is considered eighth grade math or two years of acceleration the middle school pathway already allows a lot of flexibility and teacher recommendations so if a student is in grade six math and the teacher has seen a lot of readiness to progress or sorry grade seven math and seen a lot of readiness to progress they might recommend that that student skip pre-algebra and move right into algebra one So that flexibility already exists, and for more than that, we have, through a collaboration with our gifted office, single-subject acceleration.

[00:08:04] That might be for a student who's requiring more than that acceleration. So there are specific cases where we do allow more, but for most students, the vast majority of students, we're talking about a one-year acceleration, which is what this policy is really focused on. The next point of feedback is really calling for a much more specific list of assessments that are considered when making acceleration decisions.

[00:08:28] And in talking about this, one of the strengths that we see in our current practices, I think we talked about this in November, is that LCPS has a very long history of accelerating students in mathematics. We have a very clear procedure now without a policy to do that. And one of the strengths of that policy is that we do allow a lot of flexibility.

[00:08:47] We don't want any single data point to determine where a student ends up. And so we do leave it open to say that multiple assessments are considered. So our belief in talking this over was that by spelling these out, we really are limiting some of the flexibility that schools and parents and families might have in making decisions around acceleration.

[00:09:05] And we wanted to leave this open for schools to make decisions around where they think students are best served. For the next piece of feedback, this was asking about if there's an opportunity for families to be able to opt into advanced or accelerated programs, even if they do not reach that automatic enrollment criteria.

[00:09:28] And so what we have in our response, that course selection information, which is also linked in that policy, that does outline multiple data points that families can consider when selecting math courses. So it's not limited to just that cut score. There are other data points that we always want to look at and other reasons that a student might want in an accelerated course.

[00:09:48] Section C of that policy also defines that, and it addresses that there are other criteria that may be considered when enrolling in advanced or accelerated math courses. And then the next piece of feedback was about the use of the word available when it comes to some of the advanced or accelerated math courses and the availability of these courses at the middle school level.

[00:10:08] And so what we did is we ended up deleting the word available because all of our LCPS middle schools do have the accelerated or advanced math courses that are covered through this policy. And then the last piece of feedback that we received asked to make some clarifications about accommodations that are available in the LCPS classes.

[00:10:31] So we did believe that it was an important statement to add to make sure that all these accommodations are followed. So we did add a line that says accommodations provided in any LCPS classes are also available in these courses just to ensure that And I believe those are all of the pieces of feedback and the adjustments We've made and we're happy to take any questions or clarify any any information you might have great Thank you so much very comprehensive and I know we have exhausted this policy from before It goes without saying that feel that information of how I feel about it, but it's

[00:11:07] Yeah, it just it just goes without saying that this it's time to vote on this but before we do Board members any questions comments before we vote on this item. Yes, Mr. Thank you chair Rashid I Am first of all, I'm so grateful for the way you laid this out with the feedback I think that that is something that we could share with others because it was really responsive I sat down to do the work of cross-referencing the feedback myself, and then I opened the presentation I was like, oh, they did it for me So really appreciate that work that you did to really dissect all those different concerns and then to further address them I think that that is really responsive to the public.

[00:11:47] I think it shows the transparency. I know just in my own community and some of the world tour that we have done with this policy, we have had some people that have been a little bit confused about what this means in terms of what accelerated and advanced means. So I really appreciate that you've taken the time to do that.

[00:12:05] One of the things I wanted to ask about was, is there going to be a regulation with this, or is the document that is cross-referenced here on LCPS secondary math course selection information sort of serve as that regulation? I'm pretty much fine with either.

[00:12:22] I don't really have skin in that game. I just wanted to clarify for the public. We don't at the moment have plans for a regulation for this. We do have, it's a very extensive document, the course selection document. It's one that we think the public is familiar with.

[00:12:38] It's something that's shared openly at course selection nights and things like that. So we are hopeful that that document would serve kind of as the guide for some of this, what this looks like in action. But we're open to that feedback if a regulation is required. I think it's fine.

[00:12:54] I mean, I was going to say that I think the cross-reference here is good, and I know you've been working hard to fan that out, especially in light of all the changes that were happening very rapidly this summer with BDOE. And to that end, I just have a curiosity question. I know we're talking a lot about SOL cut scores, and I don't know what the current administration is going to do about the cut scores, but some of those cut scores for math actually failed you, but you were advanced or accelerated in math at the same time simultaneously.

[00:13:25] So have any more discussions happened around that that we should be aware of, or is that still just kind of hanging out? We have very similar concerns. And the last thing that I heard from BDOE is that this year there's no changes that are going to happen with the cut scores.

[00:13:43] It's kind of like a year zero where that's not going to impact anything, and I believe they're working on a rollout plan to be able to roll that out because that is an accurate observation. Can I just add? Yes. So we appreciate that question, and part of why we have such extensive guidance is how serious our middle school counselors and principals and teachers take this process to make sure students have access to the courses that they want to take.

[00:14:09] So I say all that to say it is a very human process. There's not just one data point. When you look at the number of students that were identified above where we were, we were very close to the BARC. And so this process will remain one that's between the school and the families, and we're here to help that conversation as best we can.

[00:14:27] Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. I just always like to go on the record with all things VDOE and make sure that they know that we understand that that is very confusing for our family. So thank you. Yes, Mr. Spencer.

[00:14:50] Awesome. Thank you, board members. And just, maybe I'm not reading this right, in the red line copy in section A4, Is that like a run-on or a grammatical error there?

[00:15:09] Maybe I'm just not reading it right. It's like two sentences in the red line copy. So it's A and in the item number four, the mathematics courses available within LCPS, accommodations provided in any LCPS classes are also available in these courses.

[00:15:24] Is that on purpose? Is that just saying that accommodations will be provided? Or are we like setting a tone of having just like we're just putting a statement in there? I think that's a continuation if you start with a sentence in A. The parents of each student in grades 5 through 8 are notified and they're the following with a colon.

[00:15:44] The mathematics course is available within Loudoun County Public Schools. Okay. Thanks for the clarification. But I see that point. Yeah, just wanted to make sure. Thank you so much. All right, then. Yes, yes. Is there a motion on the floor? Thank you. Yes, I move that policy 5410 accelerated mathematics move to the full board.

[00:16:05] Is it 5140? My bad. I hear a second yes seconded by mr. Svensson all those in favor I guess say aye aye all right so then that action item has been approved to move on to the main board okay so we're now move on to 5.01 information item for policy 5030 assessment and grading update I will I don't have it in front of me but I will turn it over to mr. Slevin for any type of information he wants to share thanks

[00:16:37] I'll take it thank you chair so while dr. single and dr. Blakelock are making their way to their microphones I will start on the next slide so thank you for having us this evening we are here to give you an overview of the revision process for the assessment and grading policy because it has been a minute since we've talked about it we're going to highlight some of the key updates to the policy that schools have been navigating this semester this during the

[00:17:12] first semester and then we have some data regarding grade distribution from the first semester and we also conducted a thought exchange to get feedback from staff and then I also believe that dr. Rashid has some feedback that she has gathered as well and so we'll obviously be interested in what if anything you want to share about that so I'll turn it over to dr. single to walk us through a review thank you dr. Ellis as you can see this process of reviewing the The Policy 50/30 started in August of 2024.

[00:17:50] At that time, lots of focus groups and feedback was sought from the community around implementation, some challenges and hopes and wishes really from the community around the policy. Once the policy was approved on April 8th, 2025, we convened a work group that was charged with translating policy into practice.

[00:18:10] So they developed a handbook and resources for administrators and schools to use. We also developed several, and I'll show this in the next slide, several resources for families and students. And so the work group consisted of middle school and high school administrators, teachers, instructional coaches, and instructional technology facilitators.

[00:18:32] And we really wanted a broad group to work on translating policy into practice. and so the policy was implemented in august with us seeking feedback from staff as dr alice mentioned in february in january sorry of 2026. we go on to the next slide when we met with teachers and administrators they requested several resources to help them and so not only did we conduct training we also like i said created the assessment and grading handbook we had

[00:19:09] turnkey presentation ready to for principals to implement with teachers when they return to work we have a click app that monitors compliance with the policy and then as you can see several other resources were developed for students and families on our website we go to the next slide i'll turn it over to dr blakelock to go over some of the changes to the policy thank you dr single um just a quick overview of some of the changes that we made in policy 50 30 as part of the revision process We added some definitions specifically for homework and reasonable effort with reassessments.

[00:19:46] We indicated that students must demonstrate reasonable effort on all assignments prior to the initial assessed summative major summative in order to qualify for it the highest grade a student could earn on a major summative assessment was going to be 70 percent and for high school courses the floor of 50 was dropped for all courses the highs we dropped the floor 50 for individual assignments and just made it for the overall quarter for the floor of 50 so we talked about the form of assessments can count up to 10% of a student's grade we added language that it could be

[00:20:26] differentiated across grade levels and we also required deadlines for late work basically the idea being that at the point that the major summative has been administered work for that particular unit or content is no longer going to be accepted by the teacher.

[00:20:42] So if we can go to the next slide. So we did some analysis of the grade distribution of the first quarter over the last three years. As you can see here there's not a ton of variance particularly on the lower end of the spectrum. We do see a little bit of a dip in A's from last year to this year and the previous year with those distributions being made up in B's and C's.

[00:21:04] We did this to drill and this is in middle school courses and high school courses. We see a very similar trend. we actually did the drill down across honors across AP and then regular really didn't see a ton of variance in the grades there so really one or two percentage points the school level maybe three or four at most so not a huge change in the year to year comparison of the grade distribution so on to the next slide we're going to talk about how do teachers feel about the implementation what we did was we administered thought exchange which Dr. Ellis mentioned. Thought Exchange is ultimately a platform where individuals see a question

[00:21:43] and then they are able to write a single sentence comment, and then other people will rate it and add one additional as well. So it's a little bit of a Reddit almost, where people are voting things up, voting things down. We sent it out to all secondary teachers. As you can see, we had 468 people participate, 477 thoughts, and you can see the ratings and ratings per thought there as well so how do teachers feel about the implementation in terms of the positive feedback they liked the 70% retake ceiling and they felt it reinforced the study habits and made students more accountable for the grades they also

[00:22:20] like the idea of the deadline it helps the students stay current in the course material as they are moving through and then incorporating the form of assessments in the overall grade helped increase student effort as well and helped prepare them more better for the actual summative assessments and I'm going to turn it to dr. Ellis to talk through the opportunities for improvement so in terms of opportunities for improvement and things we're thinking about moving forward we did get some feedback on the transition from total points in a grade book to weighted grades that has been a little tricky for some teachers and we are working through making that more consistent moving forward into next year

[00:22:57] we did get feedback that similarly that weighted grades should be uniform across the division and we agree and which is connected to the third point that additional training and clear guidelines for implementing the revised policy should be should be included and so we've we've taken that feedback that's honestly the the most significant specific negative if you can call it negative feedback that we've received and so we are looking at our training we'll be providing the second semester into the summer as we launch the second

[00:23:34] year of the revised policy so overall I think the feedback has been positive I think the changes are impacting instruction and assessment in ways that the committee had anticipated and so we look forward to providing even more clarity and training to make sure we're working toward consistency across all schools and with that we will turn it back over to you share Rashid okay thank you so much I don't know if this feedback was incorporated in the PowerPoints I wasn't sure I know I sent it late but I wasn't sure if it was

[00:24:13] incorporated in the PowerPoints so it is not in our staff presentation and we did include it in board doc so it is posted in board docs okay on the item okay great thank you thank you and if we can pull up just the table for if I'm not mistaken for the high school they're kind of parallel they're kind of similar in data but if we can pull up the high school and middle school courses just right there so just for interpretations are you saying that there's not much of a difference when we went from and this was implemented in the end of 2024 or the beginning of 2025 beginning of 2025 so that that very last column on the

[00:24:53] right is the new policy the previous two columns are the revised policy okay I'm sorry, the old policy. Okay. Yeah, I'm just trying to see any improvements in terms of more motivation for the student on their part to get better grades in that sense.

[00:25:13] I guess that's just a way how I'm seeing it. And I was hopeful that, you know, maybe this will really push the students. I understand the little, the slight dip. I don't know if that's insignificant, the 2% from 59 to 57, I don't know. But just anecdotally, just how we, the reason, for the reason why we did it in the first place, well, part of the reason why we did it in the first place was to kind of help motivate the students.

[00:25:36] But I question, on the same, on the same perspective, if we should have done it. Like, I don't want this to be a band-aid to something that is ongoing underneath, like a problem underneath. I feel like the problem is a little bit more deeper than just that.

[00:25:54] But I understand baby steps along the way. I wanted to turn it over to my colleagues if they have any questions or comments. Do you? Okay, go for it. Thank you. Oh, yes. Please, please. Yes, please.

[00:26:10] Something else. Sorry about that. So a couple of things are floating around my head in response to your comments. First, I think your question about motivation is an interesting one. And I know we had a lot of conversation around grades not being connected to motivation.

[00:26:29] want grades to measure student mastery of content and I wonder if we were to look at attendance we've been talking internally about attendance data I do wonder if there is a difference in attendance rates connected to the policy some of the negative feedback that we got about the previous policy was that students were essentially gaming the system for lack of a better way of saying it missing class during assessment days because they know they knew they could take a retake etc and so I do wonder and this is data I'm looking at dr. Tyler

[00:27:05] over there I think we could probably pull to compare to compare attendance at middle and high school for the past three years so that's one thought and then I don't know I guess I would need a little more clarification on what you mean when you say underlying problem because I feel like the the conversations that that I heard from committee and the feedback that we got from teachers was that the policy the previous policy was being inconsistently implemented there

[00:27:41] were challenges with retakes and the the retake policy was being abused and so those were the types of problems that I think we we did address in the policy and so just curious what if anything we may have missed or I don't understand yeah I actually don't know the underlying problem which is why I pointed it out I was like is this something maybe that we're just not picking up on that I do see a disbursement in the data like I said it's just not two percent up there but it's two percent I don't know what's going on my microphone but not two percent up in the upper level but it seems to be dispersed and there seems to be a slight

[00:28:18] shift and hopefully like I said before hopefully this is insignificant and I'm hoping that it It doesn't increase with time, but I'm going to turn it over to board members if they have any questions. And I think Ms. Chernoff, you did. Thank you, Chair.

[00:28:33] I viewed the data a little bit differently, I think. I see that, first of all, I'm hearing the same things. And I looked through your feedback, Dr. Rasheed, and I was curious about some of the things that maybe you're hearing from your community.

[00:28:48] The last email I got was the November 4th email that's in the chart. That was the last email I got. I met with that parent, and we were able to kind of work towards some supports and solutions. And sort of when I've heard some things from principals and different things, that seems to be supported in the policy, that there are ways to sort of work around the parameters in terms of involving counselors and English language learner teachers and certainly honoring IEP goals and 504s to make sure that those supports are in place.

[00:29:19] I feel like we gave just enough flexibility for schools to be able to meet the needs of the students in front of them and I am hearing largely from teachers support actually I had a teacher reach out to me today and was like 50/30 is on the agenda again why and I was like we're just looking at feedback and adjusting she's like it will tell them that we're happy and I'm like I will but it's one person so and when I see this data with the small what I would call a small variance and it's been two quarters correct so one quarter that's marking period one that's just one marking period. Okay, so we'll get more data. First quarter, we'll continue down this analysis

[00:29:57] path as well. Okay, that'd be great. Because what I'm hearing is that kids are rising up, that they are, that it was a little bit, the change was hard. It felt rapid in the beginning of the year, but that the resources have been supportive and that kids are changing their work habits. And that although that wasn't maybe motivation, the original intent, I think that that is a positive outcome. We want high expectations for our students. That was certainly the motivation and bringing it forward and working through the process so when I see that there isn't much variance I'm thinking kids are rallying and they're they're doing the work and they're meeting these new high expectations so I am anxious to see how it continues to play out this year but just from a

[00:30:37] personal standpoint since November and certainly as the second quarter has wrapped I have not had any further feedback from any of my constituents so Thank you. Ms. Chernoff. Mr. Svensson.

[00:31:05] I'll start and then I may ask Dr. Single to jump in as she was working with different school teams. But I think the weighted distribution, the challenge comes from some schools were already doing this.

[00:31:33] And for others, it was a significant shift from how they set up their grade books. So we provided, based on the conversations with the work group, we provided specific examples of how to set up your grade book. What we learned is we maybe provided too many examples, and we should have just said, "Set up your grade book this way."

[00:31:53] Because the ones who set up their grade book that way have not had any issues at all. And so, tightening up the guidance, I think, and we did want to start with flexibility, and in hindsight, the ones who did it clearly moving to weighted grades.

[00:32:08] not really having that trouble now that being said there are there are teachers and teacher teams that that is a significant change and they're working through that and so I think with any change just providing support monitoring and guidance and dr. single I don't know if you got anything else I'll just add that the feedback was received initially for the policy from teachers was they didn't like the use of an external calculator to tell them the number of assignments when they use total points and also the need for transparency I think parents students and teachers really kind of shared that with a point

[00:32:47] system you can't really see where majority of the grid is coming from an 874 out of a thousand points means nothing right and so that's why we made the shift with recommendation from our work group to implement the weight of categories and so it has been a learning curve for some teachers but once they kind of understand the math behind it they seem to be fine I think in we're bringing the work group together two times in May to help us revise the handbook based on the feedback that we have received I think providing additional guidance behind the math of weighted categories because not everyone is a math person I think would help clear that up and providing the reasoning

[00:33:24] behind why weighted categories make more sense for example Fairfax says you know 70% for summative 30% for formative they tell their teachers exactly what to use we wanted to provide more options and even with option D teachers could select their own category weights but I think we need to kind of scale that back a little bit and provide them with how do you calculate it to help them understand the math behind it thank you mr. Svensson yes mission off thank you I just this just came to my mind is that gonna be addressed through parent view because I think one of the things that's confusing for parents is

[00:34:04] we just see a list of scores we see what the you know they scored out of and some some of the teachers put like not graded or you know formative not graded or graded but it's hard to tell what those weighted categories are and I think that might be translating to a possible misconception. I think a one pager for parents would be helpful in terms of when they go into parent view my understanding is that there is a view where it shows you the percentage or how much each student scored for each of the categories so maybe providing them with screenshots of where they can find that information might be helpful but that's that's good feedback for from your perspective all right yes mr.

[00:34:43] Svensson sorry initially the work group did take a look at neighboring school

[00:35:35] divisions to see what they're doing I think most comparable and the most transparent policy that is available on the website is for Fairfax so they do allow their grade books to be set up for standards based grading which is one through like point system one through four based on mastery with that system there's no retakes because that takes away the kind of between the zero the 60 there's the middle is the middle unlike the zero to 100 grade book Prince William is a little bit more open-ended but I think we have gotten to be more

[00:36:09] consistent with the other school divisions or me I think the what comes to mind is a big difference is the retake cap for us it has shifted from 80 to 70%. In Fairfax, I believe that it's 100%. I'm not sure what Prince William is doing, but I think some of the other school divisions don't have a cap of, their caps differ just based on philosophies of different school divisions. Okay, thank you so much. And just with all the feedback that we've been receiving, like the ones I received here, and also for additional ones we

[00:36:46] received during the course of the year, how does that get incorporated when we're considering a policy a possible policy shift by the end of the year when we are no longer updating so at this point we are not recommending a policy shift based on the feedback that we have received we will take this feedback and incorporate it in the discussion that the workgroup has in May and in our guidance that we provide to schools over the summer obviously if the board or committee would like to entertain a policy change that that would be the will of the committee and

[00:37:23] staff would would support you but we are not recommending any policy changes at this point we feel really good about how it's gone so far and also recognize that we're also only one semester into a new policy so is it safe to say that depending on what feedback we get hopefully it's positive but depending on what feedback we get it could that also could we you're saying we could revisit this policy afterwards if we choose to do so if it's the world will the board you can revisit any policy you want all right so any other questions on this item and we'll move on

[00:38:00] all right let's go to 5.02 um like so many windows i have up here all right 5.02 with the wida access update and i will turn it over to mr sloven i'll go ahead and take this over dr rashid thank you thank you so much for having me absolutely uh i really want to thank you for the opportunity to provide updates to our 2526 WIDA access assessment its importance and the impact of this school performance and support framework but let's first take a moment to review what WIDA is

[00:38:39] WIDA stands for world-class instructional design and assessment it's a national consortium that now includes 42 states including Virginia the consortium supports states and serving serving identified English learners by providing research-based English language development standards, high quality assessments, and professional learning. In Virginia, we use two primary WIDA assessments. The first is the WIDA Screener, which helps us to determine a student's eligibility for English learner services, and the WIDA Access, which measures proficiency across

[00:39:16] listening, speaking, reading, and writing. And Access is only administered once a year and right now we are currently in the testing window of this school year. These results with along with additional sources of data help us make informed decisions about students academic English needs and plan for their language development for the next school year. Because WIDA is the foundation of how Virginia identifies and monitors English learners access plays a central role in our accountability system and any redesign would have major implications statewide the Virginia Department of Education

[00:39:55] measures progress in English language proficiency as part of the school performance and support framework 10% of the school's overall ratings comes from how well English learners grow on the WIDA access assessment growth is determined by comparing a student's overall composite score over two consecutive years the table outlines how much growth is required based on a a student's starting proficiency level and their grade band.

[00:40:25] So, for example, students in grades K through 2 at the lowest proficiency levels are expected to grow by one full point, while students in higher grades or higher proficiency levels have smaller growth targets. This ensures expectations are developmentally appropriate and align to realistic progress in academic English.

[00:40:45] The next slide outlines the Virginia Department of Education's long-term goals and interim progress measures for English learners. The baseline was set in the 2016-2017 assessment year, and each year after that includes incremental targets for how many EL students should meet their annual growth expectations.

[00:41:08] On the bottom row, you can see that the targets gradually increased from 44% as a baseline to 56 by year 6. The far right column shows in the year 7 long-term goal 58%, which Virginia expects districts to meet for the 26-27 accountability year.

[00:41:26] And that is going to be based on the scores of the students who are currently taking the 25-26 WIDA Access Assessment. These targets help ensure consistent progress statewide and provide clear benchmarks for school accountability.

[00:41:41] Now as we look at the 25-26 WIDA Access Assessment, the WIDA has announced several updates. This slide helps us to separate what's staying consistent from what will change. On the left, you'll see that the elements that remain the same are test administration procedures that will continue to follow the current structure, so the logistics, scheduling, and overall testing experience for schools stays the same.

[00:42:06] The score report released schedule is also unchanged, so we can expect results to become available in the same general timeframe we're used to, and that's about May. And finally, training for teachers stay the same. So our teachers continue to have access to familiar resources and supports as they prepare to administer the assessment.

[00:42:25] Now on the right side are the new components we need to be made aware of. First, WIDA Access has undergone a slight name change. It was formerly known WIDA Access for Else. So we just need to know that, that we now call it the WIDA Access. WIDA is also incorporating social and instructional language directly into the assessment, which reflects a shift toward a more authentic, integrated language use.

[00:42:49] And the rubrics for speaking and writing will be updated, which means we may see some shifts in how student performance is evaluated in these domains. And finally, WIDA will be implementing a change to scoring. So this is an area we want to monitor closely as more details become available.

[00:43:07] But overall, these updates are intended to refine and strengthen the assessment while maintaining familiar structures to schools and teachers. Now this slide highlights the key impacts that we can expect from the upcoming changes to the WIDA Access Assessment.

[00:43:25] First, because this is considered a new assessment, it will establish a new baseline for student performance. That means previous growth trends can't be compared directly and will essentially be resetting our starting point for measuring progress.

[00:43:42] Second, we may see shifts in access proficiency levels. Since updates to rubrics and scoring can influence students language abilities are categorized this also affects our accountability measures knowing that currently 10 percent of schools accountability and measurement is calculated using el progress these changes will have implications for state reporting and overall performance ratings finally these changes will influence class and course placements for the 26-27 school year because access results guide el services and scheduling decisions any shift in scoring or proficiency

[00:44:18] levels will directly impact how students are placed and supported moving forward so what can we expect moving forward first we will conduct a standard setting in summer of 2026 so this summer this means that they'll establish the cut scores that define each proficiency level under the updated assessment those cut scores will drive how students are classified and how we interpret their results we'll also receive ongoing updates as videoe releases new guidance especially around accountability, growth measures, and implementation timelines. Because these

[00:44:53] changes may influence how schools are evaluated, there can be shifts in the SPSF indicators, particularly around English learner progress. And throughout this process, LCPS has and will continue to seek guidance at the state level to ensure these changes reflect the needs of our students and our schools. And finally, once our guidance has been received, we'll be sure to develop clear communication materials to families and staff understand the new assessment the new proficiency levels and what the changes mean for student placement and services and with that said dr. Tyler and I are here to answer any questions you

[00:45:29] might have to these changes thank you so much miss Rosario very well thought out like the data I like how it was incrementally that table up there like how it incrementally was growing it really justifies a lot I know we have a long way to go and this looks exciting I know we're pressed for time but I'll turn it over to my colleagues for any questions or comments just be mindful of the time frame thank you yes mr. not thank you madam chair I just have two quick questions one is once we kind of know the new scores will there be a way for us to sort of get that apples to apples comparison Dr. Tyler work your

[00:46:06] magic so that we kind of know where we're headed with that I'm sure there'll be some kind of calibration I'll let you answer in a sec I'll do my follow-up the The other one is, when we have all this information, will the full board get an update as we do the accreditation update? Is that going to be something that we get when we have more specifics, or would you envision that that would come here first?

[00:46:25] I just think, given all the shifts and commitments that we're making to EL, I think this would be something that probably the full board is pretty interested in hearing. That's why I'm asking. We can certainly do that. You're up. Good afternoon.

[00:46:42] Ms. Rosario had pointed out that the vendor is going to do its standard setting this upcoming summer, and they will be the one to determine whether they will be able to do an apples-to-apples comparison. Some of the initial feedback, and Ms. Mazzara can confirm this, is that the vendor has expressed that that will be very difficult if it's all possible to actually do that comparison.

[00:47:06] We would not be able to actually do that on our own. They would have to validate it. So the short answer is that the vendor is going to do the standard setting and determine it, And that initially at one of the previous Virginia Board of Ed meetings, the vendor is stating that might be difficult, if not impossible.

[00:47:25] Any other questions? Yes, Mr. Spencer.

[00:47:53] I'll speak for Mr. Zara. I'll let Dr. Ellis speak. We would present any time we're invited to the Performance Monitor Committee about our L students. Okay. Thank you so much. All right. So we've concluded that item, and now we're moving on to any new business.

[00:48:12] Okay. So our next meeting is scheduled for March 5th. Uh, and if there's no further business, I entertain, I entertain a motion to adjourn. Anybody have a second? Second. Awesome. So it's been properly moved and seconded to adjourn. All right. See you guys later.

[00:48:28] Thank you. Have a great night. Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coraggio Consulting · aguyonx.com