Kansas committee weighs bill to remove ACT-specific language from statute, sparking debate over STEM measurement and procurement

A legislative panel heard competing views Thursday on House Bill 24-82, which would remove statutory references to the ACT and instead require state-provided assessments to be “a nationally recognized college readiness assessment” or an aligned pre-college test.

Revisor Meyer, who described the bill to the Committee on K-12 Education Budget, said the change would amend KSA provisions that currently name ACT products and replace those references with neutral language. He said the bill ‘‘would change that to remove those ACT references, and instead require those reports to include achievement information from a nationally recognized college readiness assessment, or associated preparatory assessment.’’ The bill, if enacted as written, would take effect on July 1, 2026, according to the revisor’s summary.

Supporters argued the change preserves state flexibility. Allison Smith of College Board, testifying as a proponent, told the committee the bill “strengthens Kansas assessment statute by replacing vendor specific language with neutral terminology that better serve students and the state of Kansas,” and that vendor-neutral language avoids the appearance the state endorses a single provider and allows competitive procurement, potential cost savings and adaptability as assessments evolve.

KSDE, speaking neutrally through Dr. Harwood, urged caution on timing and implementation. Harwood asked the committee to delay any effective date until the 2027-28 school year ‘‘if this bill is enacted, that it doesn't go into effect until the 27-28 school year’’ to allow time for an RFP and contract transition if the State Board opts to change providers. Harwood also warned that a change in vendor could limit comparability in the state’s longitudinal data and suggested tightening RFP specifications if the committee adopts vendor-neutral language.

ACT’s Kansas director, John I do, opposed the bill as drafted. I do said the measure ‘‘eliminates the distinction between college and career readiness’’ and argued it would weaken Kansas’s ability to measure STEM readiness because some college-entrance assessments lack a separate science section. He warned that ‘‘allowing 1 exam to stand in for both…lowers the bar for workforce readiness and changes what Kansas has historically meant by being career ready.’’ He asked that the committee reject the bill or adopt amendments preserving existing readiness standards.

Committee members focused questions on who would decide which assessment is provided at state expense. Repeatedly, witnesses said the State Board of Education would retain discretion under current bill language; whether students would be able to choose between SAT and ACT or whether the state would fund multiple vendors depends on how the State Board and KSDE implement procurement and contract terms. Dr. Harwood and others noted administrative burden and potential fiscal impacts if the state were to pay for more than one vendor or allow student choice under the state-funded option.

Members also raised technical and policy concerns. Several legislators sought clarity about a clause that could be read to require ‘‘a single exam that measures both college and career readiness,’’ which witnesses said may conflict with current practice that uses separate tools (preACT/ACT and ACT WorkKeys). Committee members and KSDE staff discussed options to preserve longitudinal comparability, require alignment with state standards and limit fiscal exposure if more than one vendor is considered.

The committee did not take a vote. The hearing record includes offers from College Board and ACT to provide concordance data and additional cost or participation figures after the hearing. Dr. Harwood said KSDE will provide the committee a list of the reports and additional requested data and recommended specific clarifying amendments if the committee moves forward.

Next steps: the committee said it will circulate the revisor’s and agency materials, consider clarifying amendments (for example, language preserving a separate science measure or requiring alignment with state standards), and revisit the bill in subsequent meetings before any formal vote.