A BILL to amend and reenact § 22.1-253.13:3, as it shall become effective, of the Code of Virginia, relating to certain student assessment requirements; exception for certain students with disabilities.
HB1410 revises Virginia’s school accreditation and student assessment framework, with a particular focus on how Standards of Learning (SOL) testing is administered in grades 3 through 12. The bill would require the Board of Education to use through-year growth assessments in reading and mathematics for grades 3-8, with at least beginning-, mid-, and end-of-year testing, and would cap the total testing time at 150 percent of a single end-of-year assessment. It also expands the use of local alternative assessments, including performance-based, AP, IB, Cambridge, and other college-readiness measures, and allows school boards more flexibility in choosing assessments that are not required for federal accountability or state graduation purposes.
The bill also creates or strengthens several reporting, remediation, and accountability requirements. It directs the Board and local school divisions to provide score reports more quickly, publicly release assessment data sooner, and use assessment results to identify students needing remediation. It also requires targeted mathematics remediation for certain middle school students, sets limits on how often assessments may be administered, and waives SOL requirements for certain students in Brown v. Board of Education Scholarship Program preparation or adult education programs. In addition, it preserves and clarifies the Board’s authority over accreditation reviews, corrective action plans, division-level academic reviews, and waivers from certain state regulations and staffing requirements.
If enacted, HB1410 would amend § 22.1-253.13:3 of the Code of Virginia and substantially reshape state assessment policy, especially for elementary and middle school reading and math and for local school divisions seeking alternatives to statewide testing. It would affect the Board of Education, the Department of Education, local school boards, students in grades 3-12, students with disabilities eligible for alternative assessment methods, and students in remediation or adult education pathways. The bill also changes how assessment results are used in accreditation, school performance reporting, and final course grades.
The available legislative context suggests limited recorded debate, but the bill was continued to the next session in the House Education Committee by voice vote, which indicates that it did not advance immediately and may have needed further review. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded roll-call votes, there is no documented split in the available materials. The overall sentiment appears procedural and cautious rather than clearly supportive or opposed, with the continuation suggesting unresolved questions about implementation, testing burden, local flexibility, and accountability standards.
The main points of contention likely center on the balance between reducing standardized testing and preserving statewide accountability. Supporters would likely emphasize flexibility, reduced testing burden, more meaningful growth measures, and greater use of performance-based or college-readiness assessments. Potential critics may be concerned about local variation, comparability across divisions, the complexity of through-year testing, and whether alternative assessments could weaken uniform state standards or complicate federal accountability compliance.
HB1410 would amend Virginia’s school accreditation and assessment statutes, especially § 22.1-253.13:3, by changing how SOL assessments are administered, scored, reported, and used in accreditation and student grading. It would require new through-year growth assessments in grades 3-8 for reading and math, expand local alternative assessments, impose limits on testing frequency, and add reporting and remediation obligations for schools and divisions. It also preserves Board authority over accreditation reviews, corrective action plans, waivers, and test-security enforcement, while creating specific exceptions for certain students with disabilities and certain adult or scholarship-related programs.
The available record shows no formal vote tally or committee testimony, but the bill was continued to the next session in the House Education Committee by voice vote. That procedural outcome suggests the measure was not ready for final committee action and may have prompted further study. Overall sentiment appears mixed or unsettled: the bill’s testing-reform and flexibility provisions may appeal to some members, while its implementation details and accountability implications likely raised concerns.
The likely points of contention are the tradeoff between flexibility and uniformity, the shift from one-time SOL testing to through-year growth assessments, and the expanded role of local alternative assessments such as AP, IB, Cambridge, and performance-based measures. Supporters would likely favor reduced testing burden and more individualized growth measurement, while opponents may worry about inconsistent standards across divisions, comparability of results, and whether local alternatives satisfy federal and state accountability requirements. Additional concern may arise from the bill’s detailed operational changes, including scoring, reporting timelines, remediation requirements, and limits on assessment frequency.