By Dale Chu
Mississippi’s omnibus education bill (HB 2), which passed the House before stalling in the Senate, has drawn attention largely for its school choice provisions. But tucked inside is a directive that deserves closer scrutiny: the bill instructs the state education agency to apply for a federal waiver to eliminate all statewide assessments in grades 3–8.[1] While the provision does not itself cancel testing—it only requires the state to file the waiver—it puts some officials squarely on record as seeking to opt out of a tool that is not just a federal requirement, but also essential for tracking student learning, enabling transparency around student outcomes, and supporting the development of a future-ready workforce.
What’s more, the waiver request, if submitted, would include not only the elimination of assessments, but also the consolidation of federal dollars. The bill directs the agency to block grant multiple funding streams into a single “Unified Allocation Plan.” That consolidation would blur distinctions between targeted programs such as Title I, Part A (for students in high-poverty schools) and Title III, Part A (for English Learners). Federal officials previously forced Iowa to walk back a similar attempt to extend funding flexibility beyond legal limits.
Although the effort appears stalled for now, the idea of requiring state education agencies to submit waiver requests could inspire copycat efforts in other states. For testing skeptics, such provisions offer plausible deniability—it doesn’t cancel assessments outright; it’s merely a directive to apply for a waiver—while signaling that statewide testing is optional rather than essential. In Mississippi, this posture undermines the state’s A–F accountability system, which relies heavily on standardized exams to measure proficiency and growth. Without testing, letter grades may remain, but they would provide far less meaningful information about student achievement.
Meanwhile, other states demonstrate how testing data can be leveraged to support both education and economic goals. Some have partnered with business leaders to create systems that track student skills, identify gaps, and align outcomes with workforce needs. These examples illustrate that state tests, when used thoughtfully, and not mere compliance tools. They are critical to developing a skilled, capable workforce and ensuring that students are prepared for postsecondary success.
Supporters might argue that federal approval is not guaranteed, making this a harmless gesture. Yet that is exactly why such provisions gain traction: lawmakers can appear to act decisively while shifting responsibility to federal authorities. The danger is less about the immediate cancellation of testing and more about eroding a culture of transparency, particularly if similar language reappears in future legislation.
[1] We’re tracking all state waiver requests as part of Waiver HQ.