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; calculation of final course grade; repeal.
HB189 revises Virginia’s Standards of Accreditation provisions governing student testing, school accreditation, and related reporting. The bill would replace the current one-time end-of-year reading and mathematics tests in grades 3 through 8 with a through-year growth assessment system that includes beginning-, mid-, and end-of-year testing, while keeping the total testing time capped. It also expands the use of local alternative assessments, including performance assessments and college-readiness exams such as Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and Cambridge assessments, and it allows school boards to use permissive local alternatives in place of certain statewide end-of-course tests when federal accountability rules do not require the state test.
The bill also changes how assessment results affect grades and accountability. For students in grades 7 through 12, an end-of-course assessment or approved local alternative assessment would count for at least 10 percent of the final course grade, and retake scores generally would not replace the original score for grade-calculation purposes. The measure requires more frequent and more detailed reporting of assessment results, including individualized score reports for students and parents, public release of statewide results, and disaggregated school performance data on the School Performance Report Card. It also adds provisions for recovery credit, targeted remediation, and waiver of SOL requirements for certain Brown v. Board of Education Scholarship Program participants in adult education or equivalency programs.
If enacted, HB189 would significantly affect the Department of Education, the State Board of Education, local school boards, students in grades 3-12, and teachers who score assessments. It would alter the state’s assessment framework by shifting toward growth-based testing, increasing the role of local assessments, and tightening reporting and remediation requirements. The bill also preserves and expands Board authority over accreditation reviews, corrective action plans, memoranda of understanding with school divisions, and test-security enforcement.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s committee outcome appears supportive but cautious: it was continued to the next session in the Education and Health committee on a unanimous 15-0 vote, suggesting broad agreement to keep the proposal alive but not immediate enactment. Because there were no recorded committee transcripts or floor debates provided, there is no direct evidence of detailed public discussion in the materials supplied.
The main points of contention likely concern testing burden, local control, and accountability. Supporters would likely favor the shift to through-year growth assessments, more flexible local alternatives, and reduced reliance on a single end-of-year test, while critics may worry about implementation complexity, comparability across divisions, and whether local alternatives could weaken statewide standards. Another likely issue is the bill’s effect on final grades and retake rules, which could be viewed as either improving rigor or adding pressure on students and teachers.
HB189 would amend § 22.1-253.13:3 of the Code of Virginia, changing the state’s accreditation and assessment rules for public schools. It would require the Board of Education to adopt a through-year growth assessment system for grades 3-8 reading and mathematics, expand mandatory and permissive local alternative assessments, set new scoring and reporting requirements, and revise how assessment results are used in final course grades and accountability calculations. The bill would also affect school division reporting, remediation obligations, corrective action planning, and the Board’s authority to grant waivers and enforce test security.
The available voting history suggests the bill had at least some bipartisan or cross-member support in committee, since it was continued by a unanimous 15-0 vote rather than rejected. That outcome indicates the proposal was taken seriously and was not divisive enough at that stage to produce opposition votes, but it also shows the committee was not ready to advance it immediately. No committee transcript was provided, so the record does not show detailed arguments for or against the measure.
The likely areas of contention are the balance between statewide standardization and local flexibility, the amount and timing of testing, and the effect of assessment scores on student grades. Supporters may argue that through-year assessments better measure growth and reduce the pressure of a single high-stakes test, while opponents may worry about increased administrative complexity, uneven implementation across school divisions, and reduced comparability of results. The bill’s requirement that assessment scores count for at least 10 percent of final grades, along with restrictions on retake score replacement, may also draw concern from educators and parents who see those provisions as increasing stakes for students.