Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Private School Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee debates removing 180‑day requirement and some testing rules for nonpublic schools
Summary
Lawmakers in a Senate committee discussed a bill to exempt nonpublic schools from a 180‑day minimum school year, county approval rules and a state requirement to administer a nationally normed standardized achievement test; sponsors agreed to lay the bill over for amendment after extended debate about accountability and parental information.
At a West Virginia Senate Education Committee meeting, lawmakers debated a bill that would remove several statutory requirements for nonpublic schools, including the 180‑day minimum instructional term and a mandate to administer a nationally normed standardized achievement test.
The bill’s counsel told the committee the measure “removes the requirement for a non public school to observe a minimum instructional term of a hundred and 80 days with an average of 5 hours of instruction per day,” exempts nonpublic schools from approval requirements in West Virginia Code §18‑8‑1(b), and “removes provisions relating to requiring a non public school to administer a nationally normed standardized achievement test.”
Committee members pressed the sponsor, identified in the transcript as the Senator from Raleigh, about the practical effects. Concerns centered on whether removing the 180‑day floor would allow extremely short school years and how parents would compare private, charter and public schools without a common test. The Senator from Randolph noted that public schools have multiple waiver options (snow days, nontraditional instructional days) that private schools do not, and asked whether the bill would leave private schools with “no leeway.”
Several senators urged focusing on outcome measures rather than time in seats. The junior senator from the eighth said: “The proof is in the product,” arguing for measures that allow apples‑to‑apples comparison of student outcomes across sectors. Several senators proposed alternatives: a limited minimum (for example, 160 days), shared waiver rules with public schools, or use of benchmark (growth) assessments rather than end‑of‑year standardized tests.
The sponsor acknowledged the concern about accountability tied to taxpayer‑funded scholarships, noting private schools accept Hope Scholarship funds and therefore stakeholders expect some public reporting. The sponsor also said that private schools often provide detailed national test printouts for each child and that a benchmark‑growth approach may not work the same way in all private settings.
A specific statutory consequence discussed: under current law cited in the bill, if a private school’s composite standardized scores fall below the 40th percentile, the school must initiate a remedial program; after two consecutive years below that threshold the school “no longer meets compulsory attendance” (a provision discussed as effectively requiring closure). Senators said that requirement is stricter than consequences for public schools and several called for removing or modifying it.
After extended debate and several senators offering potential amendment concepts — including limiting required tests to the grades in which public schools test (third, fifth, eighth and eleventh) or using benchmark growth reporting — the sponsor moved to lay the bill over to a later meeting to allow time for drafting amendments. The motion to lay the bill over carried.
The committee did not vote to advance the bill; members asked staff to return with amendment language that would address waiver parity, parental reporting of results, and options for growth‑based assessments.
