Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Accountability Virtual Charter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews virtual and charter school performance; lawmakers consider virtual at‑home testing and other bills
Summary
State staff reviewed performance grades for virtual and charter schools, described a task force to reassess A‑F weights and indicators, and flagged pending legislation including a bill to allow virtual students to test at home and a property‑tax cap bill with potential local impact.
State Department staff reviewed accountability results and policy issues affecting virtual and charter schools, and department leaders briefed the board on a planned task force to reassess report‑card indicators and weights.
Miss Washington presented letter‑grade summaries for virtual schools (15 schools) and charter schools (18 schools). For the virtual cohort she reported one A, two B’s, six C’s, four D’s, one F and one ID (insufficient data). She said school sizes vary widely — for example she cited Baldwin County Virtual School with about 289 students and one statewide provider listed with about 3,570 students — and four virtual schools accept statewide enrollment. For charter schools the department listed no A’s, two B’s, three C’s, four D’s, seven F’s and one ID. Several charter and virtual operators have small or growing grade spans that affect how the state computes graduation‑rate and other indicators, Washington said.
Department and board members discussed two legislative matters that could change practice: HB 95 (a recently passed House bill under consideration in the Senate at the time of the meeting) would allow virtual students to take standardized assessments at home; Superintendent Mackey said he opposed moving testing parameters into statute and expressed concern about security and federal accountability risks. “My biggest concern and the reason I will oppose the bill even if they amended to put everything in that I want is that the legislature should not be setting the parameters for standardized testing. Period,” he said in discussion recorded in the transcript.
Staff also described a new task force charged with reviewing the A‑F report‑card components and weights, including whether the ACT remains the appropriate high‑school accountability assessment. The department said it will convene superintendents and association representatives to review the system and that any recommendations would return to the board for consideration; staff anticipated a multi‑month process and signaled that changes would not affect the report card already being prepared for release in the current cycle.
Other legislative items discussed included a property‑tax proposal (HB 73) that would cap local property‑tax reappraisals and has prompted broad state and local stakeholder engagement; and a proposal described as a statewide career‑roadmap course under consideration in the Senate (SB 176) that department leaders said raises governance questions if it were required and administered by the community college system. Department leaders told the board they are engaged with sponsors on those measures.
The transcript records discussion and questions from board members and department staff; no formal board votes on the discussed bills are recorded in the excerpt provided.
