Understanding the Re-Setting of Cut Scores in Mississippi’s Accountability System, Part 3
By Rachel Canter
This post is the last in our three-part series on cut scores. Read Part 1 (A-F system) and Part 2 (Setting Cut Scores) before this if you need more background knowledge to understand this post.
Proposals for Changing the Cut Scores
There have been three proposals for how to change cut scores: MDE’s original recommendation, the Commission on School Accreditation’s recommendation, and MDE’s final proposal, which was adopted by the State Board of Education on August 17, 2017. This post will briefly discuss all three. Because final data is not yet available for 2016-2017, MDE is using percentiles to set cut scores, just like last year, so all the recommendations will be presented as percentiles. This post also focuses on district percentiles to make the explanation easier.
First, let’s review the 2015-2016 cut scores, adopted in October 2016. This post will refer to these cut scores as the “2016 status quo.” The State Board adopted the 2016 status quo cut scores after first adopting percentiles for how many schools and districts would earn each grade in the 2015-2016 school year. The resulting numerical cut scores were intended to remain the same for several years.
| Grade | Numerical Cut Scores | Percentiles |
| A | 738 or above | 90% or above |
| B | 626 or above but below 738 | 63% or above but below 90% |
| C | 552 or above but below 626 | 38% or above but below 63% |
| D | 470 or above but below 552 | 14% or above but below 38% |
| F | Below 470 | Below 14% |
MDE’s Original Recommendation
After MDE decided it needed to change the cut scores, they constructed a recommendation that was very similar to the 2016 status quo’s percentiles.
| Grade | 2016 Status Quo | 2017 Original MDE Recommendation |
| A | 90% or above | 90.3% or above |
| B | 63% or above but below 90% | 63.7% or above but below 90.3% |
| C | 38% or above but below 63% | 38.5% or above but below 63.7% |
| D | 14% or above but below 38% | 14.7% or above but below 38.5% |
| F | Below 14% | Below 14.7% |
The first thing to notice about MDE’s 2017 original recommendation is that each of the percentiles is nearly identical to the 2016 status quo percentiles, although the 2017 percentiles are slightly higher than the 2016 status quo. However, these differences are so small that the greatest of them only equals a 2-district difference as seen below.
| Grade | 2016 Number of Districts | 2017 Number of Districts |
| A | 14 | 14 |
| B | 39 | 38 |
| C | 36 | 36 |
| D | 35 | 34 |
| F | 19 | 21 |
While there are 2 more “F” districts using the 2017 percentiles, the numbers are very, very close. Seems fair to mostly preserve the status quo when moving to new cut scores, right? That may be what MDE was thinking.
Unfortunately, this recommendation did not actually preserve the status quo because some districts, especially those rated “F,” have improved relative to the numerical cut scores, which is how they thought they would be judged, even if their percentile has not changed that much.
Using the 2016 status quo numerical cut scores instead of the percentiles, the 2017 chart looks like this:
| Grade | Number of Districts Using Status Quo | Number of Districts Using 2017 MDE Recommendation |
| A | 7 | 14 |
| B | 42 | 38 |
| C | 40 | 36 |
| D | 42 | 34 |
| F | 12 | 21 |
There are 9 fewer “F” districts if MDE keeps the status quo rather than moving to their recommendation! The flip side, though, is that there are 7 fewer “A” districts and at least 1 fewer “B” district if MDE keeps the status quo. Their recommendation was to allow a greater number of “F” districts but exempt “F” districts who would have become “D” districts from sanctions.
The Commission on School Accreditation’s Recommendation
The Commission on School Accreditation did not like MDE’s original recommendation. They felt the unfairness of changing the goalposts after the game had already been played, even if those “F” districts that had improved were not given sanctions. After intense debate, they decided to agree to move the cut scores, but they wanted MDE to use the exact same percentiles as the 2016 status quo, not the new, slightly higher percentiles. The Commission’s recommendation appeared to be a compromise, but the overall impact would have been very similar to MDE’s original recommendation since MDE’s recommendation was so close to the status quo percentiles anyway.
| Grade | Commission’s Recommendation | Estimated Number of Districts | 2017 Original MDE Recommendation | Number of Districts |
| A | 90% or above | 14 | 90.3% or above | 14 |
| B | 63% or above but below 90% | 39 | 63.7% or above but below 90.3% | 38 |
| C | 38% or above but below 63% | 36 | 38.5% or above but below 63.7% | 36 |
| D | 14% or above but below 38% | 35 | 14.7% or above but below 38.5% | 34 |
| F | Below 14% | 19 | Below 14.7% | 21 |
The Commission’s recommendation would have given the benefit of the doubt to “A” and “B” districts while only really helping 2 “F” districts. The remaining 7 “F” districts that would have been a “D” would have been exempt from sanctions but would have had to live with the “F” label for another year.
In other words, keeping the 2016 status quo numerical cut scores would benefit “D” and “F” districts more while either MDE’s original recommendation or the Commission’s recommendation would help “A” and “B” districts more. This is why the public outcry continued after the Commission’s recommendation.
Adopted Cut Scores
The State Board gets the final say on what percentiles/cut scores MDE must use to assign grades. They could choose to take the Commission’s recommendation or any separate recommendation made by MDE. MDE decided to present a new, true compromise at the Board meeting after listening to stakeholders who expressed concerns about of the proposals.
Under MDE’s new proposal, schools and districts would receive two grades—one using the 2016 status quo numerical cut scores and one using cut scores based on MDE’s 2017 percentiles. The school or district could adopt the higher of the two grades as their “official” grade, although both would be reported. Grades for 2017-2018 would be solely based on the new 2017 numerical cut scores.
This is the only proposal that allows both “A” and “B” districts and “D” and “F” districts to win. This is what the cut scores now look like:
| Grade | Commission’s Recommendation | Estimated Number of Districts | 2017 Original MDE Recommendation | Number of Districts |
| A | 90% or above | 14 | 90.3% or above | 14 |
| B | 63% or above but below 90% | 39 | 63.7% or above but below 90.3% | 38 |
| C | 38% or above but below 63% | 36 | 38.5% or above but below 63.7% | 36 |
| D | 14% or above but below 38% | 35 | 14.7% or above but below 38.5% | 34 |
| F | Below 14% | 19 | Below 14.7% | 21 |
Schools and districts currently rated “D” or “F” will likely use the 2016 cut scores while most districts currently rated “A” or “B” will use the new 2017 cut scores. Nearly all districts should see their grades stay the same or improve this year as a result. Next year, though, everyone will be striving for the same standard—the 2017 cut scores.
Related Posts
By Grace Breazeale | Director of Research and K-12 Policy This week, the National Center for Education Statistics released 2024 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) assessment results, commonly referred to as the “Nation’s Report Card.” The assessment is administered across the nation every two years in grades 4 and 8. Unlike state-specific standardized tests, the NAEP […]
Editor’s Note: This is the second part of a two-part series on third grade literacy achievement. You can find the first part here. *** By Grace Breazeale | Director of Research and K-12 Policy In the first part of this series, we explored the effectiveness of the Literacy-Based Promotion Act (LBPA) across Mississippi school districts, as well […]
Editor’s Note: This is the first part of a two-part series on the Literacy-Based Promotion Act. *** By Grace Breazeale | Director of Research and K-12 Policy Between 2013 and 2019, fourth grade reading scores on the nationwide NAEP test increased by ten points in Mississippi–a larger increase than in any other state during this time […]
By Toren Ballard For the second year in a row, results from the Mississippi Academic Assessment Program (MAAP) exams suggest that Mississippi is continuing to defy nationwide trends in educational achievement: proficiency levels across all subjects were at all-time highs in 2023, and Mississippi is now one of just two states nationwide to have exceeded its pre-pandemic proficiency […]
Editor’s Note: This blog post is in response to a column appearing in the LA Times titled “How Mississippi gamed its national reading test scores to produce ‘miracle gains.‘” We’re not going to link to it because we don’t believe it is worth your clicks; however, feel free to Google. *** This morning, I was […]
Editor’s Note: This blog post is part of an ongoing series of posts dedicated to K-12 education policy in Mississippi. *** By Grace Breazeale | Director of Research and K-12 Policy Mississippi’s high school graduation rate has steadily risen over the past five years, which would typically be a cause for celebration. But in this case, […]
Editor’s Note: This blog post is part of an ongoing series of posts dedicated to K-12 education policy in Mississippi. *** By Grace Breazeale | Director of Research and K-12 Policy In early 2021, the Mississippi Department of Education released its first-ever social-emotional learning (SEL) standards. The release of these standards was a positive step towards increasing […]
By Toren Ballard This fall, Mississippians received two widely divergent narratives about the state of public education post-COVID: On September 29, the Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) released school and district accountability grades for the 2021-2022 school year, showing unprecedented improvement: 87% of districts were rated “C” or higher, up from 70% in 2019, the last time MDE […]
By Rachel Canter | Executive Director When I was a first year teacher, I asked my students a basic question about American history—“Why do we celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday every year?”—as a way of introducing Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Without exception, the answer I got from every class was that […]
Today, we released a statement on American history from our Executive Director, Rachel Canter. In partnership with that statement, Mississippi First has developed the following principles for assessing curriculum-related legislation. These principles are based on our organizational values. We believe these principles are commonsense. In a recent nationwide poll of parents, large majorities of both Republicans and Democrats agreed […]
By Rachel Canter Yesterday, we did a thread to explain school grades. Here’s some additional information about growth because it is the hardest part to understand. Usually, when schoolwide proficiency goes up, growth will go up as well, BUT it is possible to have higher proficiency scores schoolwide from one year to the next and still have a […]
By Rachel Canter School grades came out unofficially yesterday, and we’re already seeing (sometimes uninformed) chatter about what they mean. Here are a few pointers: Our state accountability system is based mostly on how well kids do on their end-of-year tests. The end-of-year tests are given in reading and math to all kids in grades 3-8, […]