|
Cut scores reset: Alignment or lowering the bar?
At its August meeting, the Kansas State Board of Education voted (7-3) to adopt new cut scores for state assessments. Officials say this is a routine step initiated when a new assessment is approved, but also an opportunity to correct a longstanding misalignment between test results and student outcomes.
Cut scores are how states differentiate student performance on state assessments, meaning they are the minimum score a student must obtain to be classified at a performance level (i.e., limited, basic, proficient, advanced).
Historically, cut scores have been defined by a student’s proficiency level, tied to what degree the student was “college and career ready.” Previous cut scores labeled only about one in four Kansas students as “proficient,” even though more than half of students went on to succeed in college or career pathways, according to KSDE.
In addition, KSDE says that the prior benchmarks were set much higher than other states. According to a National Center for Education Statistics report, Kansas has long had some of the highest benchmarks for proficiency in both reading and math relative to other states.
A more recent analysis shows that Kansas used higher benchmarks than most states in fourth grade math and eighth grade reading and math.
Overall, KSDE argues the new cut scores are:
-
Fairer to students.
-
Aligned with national benchmarks.
-
Evidence-based, using ACT, AP, and other data to inform the new benchmarks.
Criticism of the new scores
Opponents of this move argue it amounts to lowering the bar and masking achievement struggles in schools. They point to the sharp year-over-year increases in reported proficiency as evidence that the new benchmarks inflate success rather than reflect real improvement.
Some warn that adjusting cut scores disrupts the ability to track progress over time, making it harder for parents and policymakers to know whether interventions are working. Others worry the shift could weaken accountability by suggesting student outcomes have improved when underlying performance has not.
The change has produced dramatic differences in results. For example, the share of 8th graders deemed proficient in reading nearly doubled, rising from 22% in 2024 to 46% under the new system.
A few critics have gone further, suggesting that the Legislature should step in and require the state to adopt an independent exam to ensure consistency and comparability across years. For instance, NAEP allows us to compare results over time and shows that student achievement has flatlined and slightly decreased since 2019.
Overall, the debate is about how the state defines and reports student proficiency, not what Kansas students are learning or how they are learning.
-
Supporters of the move say the new scores give families and policymakers a more accurate picture of readiness tied to outcomes of previous students.
-
Critics worry that sudden jumps in proficiency undermine trust and weaken accountability of public education.
For policymakers, the central challenge remains: balancing rigor, fairness, and transparency when reporting student achievement.
Lawmakers review familiar issues in school finance
The Kansas Education Funding Task Force devoted its August meetings to special education funding, a familiar topic that has surfaced repeatedly in recent months.
Members heard from the Kansas Department of Education, the Legislative Research Department, and the Revisor’s Office who outlined the mechanics of the current reimbursement system and its longstanding shortcomings. Although the review provided helpful reminders, the sessions offered few fresh insights as to what a revised formula may look like.
Much of the discussion circled back to well-worn issues.
-
Legislators again noted the gap between the statutory requirement to cover 92 percent of excess special education expenditures and the state’s actual funding levels.
-
Presenters highlight the heavy reliance on paraprofessionals in special education, the difficulty of retaining staff (especially in rural areas), and the administrative burden districts face in documenting compliance.
The task force also debated whether Kansas should consider a student-based approach to distributing special education aid — an idea Aligned explored in a recent webinar — but no consensus emerged.
The two days underscored many of the same themes raised in earlier meetings: a mismatch between promises and reality of special education aid, uncertainty about new funding models, and political sensitivities about how potential changes might affect public schools.
With lawmakers set to enact a new school funding formula in 2027, the need for actionable recommendations is growing more urgent. The legislature will face difficult choices about how to ensure funding is adequate, fair, and sustainable.
Other states have approached this challenge by simulating potential changes to see how different policies would affect districts.
The task force has spent valuable time reviewing issues with the current system. The next step is to begin modeling options. Doing so would shift the conversation from abstract concerns to the practical tradeoffs that define policymaking.
In other news
| 
