In preliminary provisions, providing for Keystone Exam alternative feasibility study.
HB1752 directs the Pennsylvania Secretary of Education to commission an independent feasibility study on whether alternative assessments could be used in place of the current Keystone Exams in literature, Algebra I, and biology for high school students. The bill focuses on three potential substitutes: the ACT, the SAT, and Smarter Balanced Assessments. The study must examine whether these tests align with Pennsylvania academic standards and whether they could serve as valid, reliable, and technically sound replacements while still meeting federal assessment requirements.
The required report is broad and detailed. It must address accommodations for students with disabilities and English learners, effects on school accountability, cost to the Commonwealth, transition timelines and costs, testing procedures, language availability, research on correlations with Keystone performance, and how results would be used in educator evaluation, the Future Ready Index, and identification of low-performing schools. The bill also requires recommendations for any statutory or regulatory changes needed if Pennsylvania were to move away from Keystone Exams. The report must be delivered within one year to the Governor, legislative education committee leaders, and the State Board of Education, and the act takes effect immediately.
The bill does not itself replace the Keystone Exams or change graduation requirements; instead, it amends the Public School Code of 1949 to create a formal state study process that could support future changes to statewide assessments. Its immediate legal effect is to require the Department of Education to contract for an independent analysis and to report findings and recommendations, including possible amendments to state law and regulations. If the study ultimately supports a transition, it could influence future changes affecting statewide testing, accountability systems, educator evaluation, and school performance reporting.
The voting history suggests broad support for the bill’s study approach, especially in committee and on final passage, with unanimous committee votes and a large bipartisan House final-passage vote. That pattern indicates general agreement that Pennsylvania should examine alternatives to Keystone Exams before making any policy change. The bill’s focus on feasibility rather than immediate replacement likely helped it attract support from members with different views on testing policy.
The main point of contention is the underlying question of whether ACT, SAT, or Smarter Balanced Assessments are appropriate substitutes for Keystone Exams, particularly for accountability, comparability across students and schools, and compliance with federal law. The bill’s detailed study requirements reflect concerns about accommodations, technical quality, cost, and whether alternative tests can fairly measure achievement across student subgroups. The floor vote history also shows that while the bill ultimately passed overwhelmingly, there was at least some opposition at one stage, suggesting disagreement over the merits of moving away from Keystone Exams or over the broader testing policy direction.