An Act to amend and reenact § 22.1-253.13:3, as it is currently effective and as it shall become effective, of the Code of Virginia, relating to Standards of Quality; state accountability; Standards of Learning assessment expedited retake scores.
HB1243 amends Virginia’s Standards of Quality statute governing state accountability, school accreditation, and Standards of Learning (SOL) testing. The bill makes extensive changes to how the Board of Education must design, administer, and report assessments, with a central focus on replacing 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. It also requires the Board to use student growth measures in accreditation, to expand the use of alternative assessments, to provide more timely score reporting, and to include expedited retake scores in state accountability calculations when students pass on retest.
The bill also revises the framework for school and division accountability. It preserves annual accreditation review, but allows multiyear accreditation for fully accredited schools and requires corrective action plans, memoranda of understanding, and division-level academic reviews when schools or divisions fail to meet standards. Local school boards must continue to report accreditation status publicly, provide remediation and intervention, and certify that required instruction and alternative assessments have been administered. The measure further authorizes waivers from certain state regulations and staffing requirements, subject to Board approval, and clarifies definitions for local alternative assessments, performance assessments, and permissive alternative assessments.
HB1243’s impact on state law is broad because it rewrites the state’s assessment and accountability rules in § 22.1-253.13:3. It changes the timing, structure, and reporting of SOL assessments; requires public release of assessment data and individualized score reports; directs the Department to support teacher training on growth data; and allows the Board to use vendors for computerized and adaptive testing systems. It also affects how student performance is counted for accreditation and state accountability, especially by excluding students whose parents opt them out of testing and by counting passing expedited retake scores instead of initial failing scores.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly favorable and largely noncontroversial. The bill moved through subcommittee, full committee, the House, and the Senate with unanimous or near-unanimous support, and there is no recorded opposition in the provided votes. That pattern suggests broad bipartisan agreement on the bill’s goals of improving assessment flexibility, transparency, and accountability while reducing reliance on a single end-of-year test.
The main points of contention, based on the bill text rather than recorded debate, are likely to concern the shift away from traditional testing, the administrative burden of through-year assessments and local alternative assessments, and the Board’s expanded authority over accreditation remedies and waivers. Other potentially sensitive issues include the treatment of opt-out students in accountability calculations, the use of computer-adaptive testing, and the requirement that expedited retake scores replace initial scores for state accountability purposes. However, no specific objections are reflected in the available committee or floor records.
The bill substantially amends Virginia Code § 22.1-253.13:3, the state’s core accreditation and assessment statute. It changes SOL testing requirements for grades 3-8, adds through-year growth assessments for reading and mathematics, expands alternative assessment options, requires faster reporting of results, and directs how retake scores are counted in state accountability. It also strengthens school and division intervention procedures, authorizes certain waivers from state regulations and staffing rules, and updates definitions tied to local alternative assessments and performance assessments.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support throughout the legislative process. It passed subcommittee, committee, the House, and the Senate with unanimous or near-unanimous votes, indicating a generally positive view of the measure’s goals. The available record does not show organized opposition or divided votes, suggesting that lawmakers largely agreed on the need to modernize assessment and accountability rules.
No formal controversy is reflected in the vote record or committee materials provided, but the bill’s substantive changes touch several areas that could draw concern. Potential points of contention include replacing a single annual test with through-year growth assessments, expanding local alternative assessments, giving the Board authority to impose corrective action plans and division-level reviews, and changing accountability calculations to exclude opt-out students and count expedited retake scores. School divisions may also view the new reporting, training, and data requirements as administratively demanding, while supporters would likely see them as improving flexibility and accuracy.