Kansas Senate Bill SB458

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/26
• Refer: 2/4/26
• Refer: 2/19/26
• Refer: 2/24/26

Caption

Requiring state assessments performance levels and cut scores to be based on the 2024 performance levels and cut scores.

Summary

SB 458 would direct the Kansas State Board of Education to keep statewide assessment performance levels and cut scores tied to the 2024 settings. In practical terms, the bill says the board may not substantially revise or update the English language arts or mathematics standards in a way that would require new statewide assessments until the state’s long-term goal in its federal consolidated state plan is met: 75% of students scoring in performance levels 3 and 4 combined on ELA and math assessments by 2030. The bill also preserves district authority over local curriculum, while maintaining the state board’s role in setting curriculum standards, administering statewide assessments, and overseeing accreditation. The bill continues existing reporting and accountability requirements for school districts and the State Board, including annual accreditation reports, public posting of corrective action plans for districts that are not fully accredited, and legislative testimony by superintendents of nonaccredited districts. It also requires annual reporting on statewide assessment participation and, for grade 10 students, a later report on postsecondary education outcomes by assessment achievement level, with those reporting provisions expiring July 1, 2029. The bill further reinforces school site councils and their advisory role in evaluating performance goals, budgets, and resource use. The bill’s main legal effect is to amend K.S.A. 2025 Supp. 72-5170 and repeal the existing version of that section, thereby locking in the 2024 assessment performance framework and limiting near-term changes to state testing policy. It would affect the Kansas State Board of Education, school districts, school site councils, and districts subject to accreditation or corrective action. It also interacts with state accountability and reporting statutes governing school performance, assessment data, and public transparency. Overall sentiment appears to be cautious and stability-oriented, based on the bill’s structure and caption. The measure is framed as preserving current assessment benchmarks rather than overhauling them, which suggests support for predictability in testing and accountability systems. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available materials. The most likely point of contention is whether freezing performance levels and cut scores at the 2024 level could limit the State Board’s ability to adjust assessments to reflect changing standards or student performance trends. Another possible concern is the bill’s delay on revising English language arts and mathematics standards until a 2030 target is reached, which could be viewed either as protecting schools from frequent test changes or as constraining academic policy flexibility. Districts and education officials may also differ on whether the reporting and accreditation requirements create helpful accountability or added administrative burden.

Impact

SB 458 would amend Kansas’s school accreditation and assessment statute, K.S.A. 72-5170, to require statewide assessment performance levels and cut scores to remain based on the 2024 settings. It would also limit substantial revisions to English language arts and mathematics standards that would require new statewide assessments until the state reaches its 2030 student performance goal. The bill preserves local curriculum authority while maintaining state oversight of accreditation, assessment reporting, corrective action plans, and school site councils, and it adds a temporary reporting requirement on assessment participation and postsecondary outcomes.

Sentiment

The available record suggests a generally neutral-to-supportive, stability-focused sentiment. The bill appears designed to preserve existing assessment benchmarks and avoid frequent changes to testing and standards, which may appeal to those seeking predictability in school accountability. No committee testimony or vote history is provided, so there is no direct evidence of organized support or opposition in the materials supplied.

Contention

The main likely point of contention is the bill’s restriction on changing assessment performance levels, cut scores, and related ELA/math standards, which could be seen as either protecting schools from shifting benchmarks or limiting the State Board’s flexibility to modernize assessments. Another possible issue is the delay on revising standards until the 2030 performance target is met, which may draw concern from those who want faster academic updates. Education administrators may also question whether the bill’s reporting and accreditation requirements add administrative burden, while supporters may view them as necessary accountability measures.