<p class=ldtitle>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.</p>
HB1410 would revise Virginia’s Standards of Accreditation provisions governing student assessment, school accountability, and related reporting. The bill keeps the Board of Education responsible for setting assessment and accreditation rules, but it adds or clarifies requirements for through-year growth testing in grades 3-8, limits on how often assessments may be administered, public release timelines for results, and the use of local alternative assessments when statewide tests are not available or not required. It also preserves and expands provisions for alternative assessment methods for students with disabilities and waives SOL requirements for certain students in Brown v. Board of Education Scholarship Program preparation or adult education programs.
The bill also changes how schools and divisions are monitored and supported when they do not meet accreditation standards. It requires corrective action plans, possible memoranda of understanding with the Board, and division-level academic reviews when problems appear to stem from division-level failures. It further emphasizes reporting to parents, teachers, and the public, including individualized score reports, school performance report cards, and disaggregated assessment data. The bill would affect the Virginia Board of Education, local school boards, school divisions, students in grades 3-12, and students with disabilities or in alternative education pathways.
HB1410 would amend § 22.1-253.13:3 of the Code of Virginia, which is a core part of the state’s school accreditation and assessment framework. If enacted, it would formalize through-year growth assessments in reading and mathematics for grades 3-8, set limits on assessment frequency, require more detailed and timely reporting of results, and expand the role of local alternative assessments and performance-based assessments. It would also strengthen the Board’s authority to require corrective action plans, memoranda of understanding, and division-level reviews for schools or divisions that fail to meet accreditation standards, while preserving existing waiver and release mechanisms for certain local school board requests.
The bill appears to have been treated as a significant education-policy measure, but the available record shows limited public debate in the provided materials. Its continuation to the next session in the House Education Committee by voice vote suggests the committee did not take final action and that the bill remained under consideration rather than advancing or failing outright. Overall, the bill’s structure indicates an intent to refine testing and accountability rules rather than eliminate them, with a strong emphasis on student growth, transparency, and remediation.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the bill’s expanded assessment framework and the balance between state oversight and local flexibility. Supporters would likely favor the through-year growth model, clearer reporting, and stronger intervention tools for struggling schools, while critics may object to the administrative burden, the continued reliance on standardized testing, or the added complexity of local alternative assessments and corrective action plans. The disability-related alternative assessment provisions and the waiver of SOL requirements for certain adult and scholarship-program students are also likely to be important issues for stakeholders concerned with equity, testing accommodations, and graduation pathways.