Virginia Releases School Quality Profiles
The debates over what the new scoring system actually means have just begun.
By Martin Davis
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Email Martin
The much-anticipated School Quality Profiles were released by the Virginia Department of Education — two months late — at 2 p.m. Tuesday afternoon.
Stafford County Public Schools held a meeting with media to explain the new system and how it has affected Stafford schools. Spotsylvania County Schools will be releasing its press release later this evening, with additional explanatory information coming on Wednesday.
Fredericksburg City Public Schools sent a notice to district families saying it is “reviewing the state’s new school ratings system to understand what it means for reporting complicated information.” It continues, “We are also preparing to explain this information to families in clear, easy-to-understand language. The data has not yet been fully interpreted. Because of that, we do not want to speculate about its impact on student achievement in Fredericksburg City Public Schools.”
What Makes the New System Complicated?
The new system splits reporting into two broad categories: Accreditation and Performance Level.
Accreditation is based on a checklist of requirements each district must complete. All schools in Caroline, Fredericksburg, King George, and Stafford are listed as “Fully Accredited.” All schools in Spotsylvania are Fully Accredited or “Accredited with Conditions.”
Performance Level is based on a highly complex set of calculations that rate individual schools as “Distinguished,” “On Track,” “Off Track,” or “Needs Intensive Support.”
Matt Hurt, who is the director of the Comprehensive Instructional Program—a consortium of public school divisions in Virginia working collaboratively to improve student achievement as measured by Virginia’s Standards of Learning assessments*—said that the new accreditation system has some positives, but there are several issues that will prove confusing to parents and educators alike.
The system, he told the Advance via email, is “overly complex.” He notes that the system is “weighted” and that the weighting “changes based on a number of factors.”
This is troubling because “the public release of the data was delayed for two months while VDOE worked through errors in the calculations and data submissions,” Hurt told the Advance.
He also noted that “The rules to calculate the results have not been published in a document. Training has occurred, but there is no document to which we can refer to that we can see how this is tabulated.”
Adding more confusion to the results, Hurt says, is that “this system uses a proprietary calculation of growth [to calculate growth in the elementary and middle schoolss for the 2025 year only] that is not made available to educators. Therefore, they cannot ‘check the math,’ which negatively impacts faith in that system.”
Consequently, he continued, “this system is not viewed as transparent by many Virginia educators.”
What Does It All Mean?
The Advance is working through the data and will have more reporting on the results, and the meaning of these results, soon.
*This story was updated on December 10 to correct Matt Hurt’s title and provide more information about Virginia’s Comprehensive Instructional Program.
Local Obituaries
To view local obituaries or to send a note to family and loved ones, please visit the link that follows.
Support Award-winning, Locally Focused Journalism
The FXBG Advance cuts through the talking points to deliver both incisive and informative news about the issues, people, and organizations that daily affect your life. And we do it in a multi-partisan format that has no equal in this region. Over the past year, our reporting was:
First to break the story of Stafford Board of Supervisors dismissing a citizen library board member for “misconduct,” without informing the citizen or explaining what the person allegedly did wrong.
First to explain falling water levels in the Rappahannock Canal.
First to detail controversial traffic numbers submitted by Stafford staff on the Buc-ee’s project
Our media group also offers the most-extensive election coverage in the region and regular columnists like:
And our newsroom is led by the most-experienced and most-awarded journalists in the region — Adele Uphaus (Managing Editor and multiple VPA award-winner) and Martin Davis (Editor-in-Chief, 2022 Opinion Writer of the Year in Virginia and more than 25 years reporting from around the country and the world).
For just $8 a month, you can help support top-flight journalism that puts people over policies.
Your contributions 100% support our journalists.
Help us as we continue to grow!
This article is published under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND. It can be distributed for noncommercial purposes and must include the following: “Published with permission by FXBG Advance.”
Had to look up Matt Hurt. since it was confusing if he was in charge of 'Curriculum' for a Planning District 16 school district? but says on Linked In, he is - Director at the 'Comprehensive' Instructional Program.
The Comprehensive Instructional Program is a consortium of public school divisions in Virginia. Working collaboratively to help improve outcomes for students. Based out of Wise, VA.
Not sure if that program is affiliated with UVA-Wise?
So are the PD16 Performance Levels available? That's the calculations that rate individual schools as “Distinguished,” “On Track,” “Off Track,” or “Needs Intensive Support.”
Interested in seeing the Fred City PS performance levels and if there is a breakout for ELL/English Language Learners; SWD/Students with Disabilities.
What we're hearing from parents/teachers is It seems that FCPS may be running its special ed program as a 'one size fits all' in its 'interpretation' to try RTI/ Response to Intervention before proceeding with the stronger rights of IDEA/Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
So are students with behavior/social interaction issues/complex needs being pushed into gen ed rooms in the name of 'inclusion' and RTI? and what is that data on individual student progress and their school's performance level showing?
Some students may have the 1:1 staff support, likely due to IDEA, when they are in the gen ed classroom. but the student may not be engaged by the staff, usually a para in the instruction, rather than a licensed special educator who can't be all places, for every student.
In contrast, some classrooms/teachers do not have any students with these moderate-significant needs in them. This is just one reason why parents have removed their children from FCPS.
They see the disparity in student to classroom assignments, the skill level of staff in being able to support and integrate students in the gen ed instruction or not.
If staff have limited skills to support a student with instruction in the inclusion model, this results in frequent interruptions to all children's instruction.
FCPS had Mr/Mrs Ryder back in the early 1980s, pointing out the disparity in FCPS literacy instruction in which students with reduced skills were separated out from those who are high achievers.
'Homogeneous' instruction v. 'heterogeneous' instruction, which needed outside intervention to correct to the fairness of 'heterogeneous' class assignments.
Decades ago, surrounding school systems moved out of their assignment model in which teachers' children and 'squeaky wheel' parents got the high achiever, quiet rooms.
Summer staff now spend hours looking at each student's strengths and needs, used to be with post-it notes, including those with IEPs, to spread out students in 'heterogeneous' classroom mixes rather than have a few classrooms of high achiever rooms.
So there's concern among parents that there is once again a separate form of education for the high achievers. and that it is difficult to break into this 'grouping' assignment because that's the preferred rooms.
Of course, school systems have courses that are 'advanced' levels, beginning in middle school. so there are guidance counselors assigning students to those classrooms/teachers. However, these school buildings also offer a wide array of supports for students with disabilities.
If FCPS is using Response to Intervention/Multi-Tiered Systems of Support - RTI/MTSS), RTI remains relevant as a framework for tailoring help from general ed to intensive interventions, promoting inclusion, but its effectiveness hinges on quality implementation, adequate funding, training, including FERPA/Family Educational Rights Privacy Act, ensuring smooth transitions, and most importantly, data collection on each student's progress, as research shows varied success and potential for gaps between tiers.
Adding to these gaps between MTSS tiers within the gen ed classrooms, the reports from parents/staff who have left the FCPS for private/parochial/paid tuition to county systems, or homeschooling, show that there is a disturbing issue in FCPS with 'clique gossip' among e.g., parents, in talking about students in the buildings, which only adds to concern that there is no systemic response, as other schools have done, such as having volunteers/staff in the buildings and school board sign statements that they will not engage in this demeaning behavior that breaks confidentiality/privacy FERPA law, with zero tolerance enforcement.
RTI's focus is Inclusion. It aims to keep students in general education as much as possible, aligning with the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) mandate of IDEA. But it is not a substitute for actually providing a IEP/Individualized Education Program for students under IDEA.
Parents who know about the substantial procedural safeguards and due process rights under IDEA (not RTI) can advocate for an appropriate, individualized program for their child.
Yes, RtI with MTSS provides Tiered Support: The levels of support are Tier 1: universal; Tier 2: targeted; Tier 3: intensive to meet diverse needs. But at some point, parents working in partnership with the school need to question if progress data is even being regularly collected on RTI/MTSS to make sure it is working.
RTI offers a flexible structure to individualize instruction and interventions. If there is no data to support the progress, then parents need to advocate 'in writing with the date of the request' that they want a Child Study meeting, which kicks off a Federal IDEA timeline to consider the student's need for an individual evaluation, determination of 'eligibility' as a SWD/Student with a Disability, and need for an IEP, which has much stronger 'rules' for implementation than RTI.
The current reality of RTI has challenges:
RTI has varying effectiveness: Success depends heavily on school context, funding, TEACHER TRAINING, and policy.
RTI has implementation gaps: Differences between tiers (e.g., is the only tier offered, the universal one?) can be less distinct in practice, leading to overlap and inconsistent support.
RTI has challenges implementing seamless transitions: Moving students between tiers isn't always smooth, potentially disrupting learning for the student with the IEP and other learners in the classroom.
Resource Allocation may be piecemeal: Sometimes prioritized for cost-saving rather than quality, the 'squeaky wheel' parent/staff getting the grease, and not having to put up with mainstream settings lacking adequate resources and skilled personnel for complex needs.
The original conceptual model of 'Deno's cascade system of support' for students with an IEP itself isn't obsolete: Full- or a variety of part-time self-contained or resource classrooms, broken out in K-2, 3-5 grade levels, must be available in the school system.
But school systems that are trying to do practical application through RTI, and parents/teachers/staff in them are realizing that RTI is not always the answer for students with complex disabilities who require supports under IDEA.
Often, no data is collected on RTI/MTSS so how does anyone know if it is really working?
Parents of children with a suspected disability need to advocate now in writing for IDEA consideration, which is often delayed by RTI/MTSS in accessing an appropriate public education.