An Act amending the act of March 10, 1949 (P.L.30, No.14), known as the Public School Code of 1949, in terms and courses of study, providing for learning loss plans.
Summary
HB 666 would amend Pennsylvania’s Public School Code to require the Department of Education to create and distribute model guidelines and best practices for “learning loss plans” by July 1, 2026. These guidelines would apply when a school entity experiences a “learning loss triggering event,” defined as an anomalous event that materially disrupts the educational environment and forces closure or remote instruction for five or more instructional days. The bill specifically contemplates events such as pandemics, natural disasters, and employee strikes.
Once the new framework takes effect for the 2026-2027 school year, affected school entities would have to submit a remediation plan to the department. That plan must provide enhanced instruction for a number of days equal to the number of days lost because of the triggering event, or until the end of the school year, whichever comes first. The department’s model guidance must include in-person instruction rather than remote or asynchronous instruction, and may include tutoring, extended instructional days, additional instructional days, and other remedial measures the department deems necessary.
Impact
The bill would add a new section to the Public School Code of 1949 requiring statewide planning for instructional recovery after major disruptions. It would impose new duties on the Department of Education to issue model guidance and on school entities to prepare and submit remediation plans when qualifying closures occur. The practical effect would be to standardize how districts, charter schools, intermediate units, and career and technical schools respond to extended closures and to prioritize in-person make-up instruction and other remediation over remote-only approaches.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to reflect a policy preference for structured academic recovery after major disruptions and for minimizing learning loss through direct instruction. The measure is framed in a remedial, student-focused way rather than as a partisan or fiscal overhaul.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the mandate for in-person remediation, the requirement that school entities submit plans tied to the number of days lost, and the inclusion of employee strikes alongside pandemics and natural disasters as triggering events. School districts and charter schools may view the requirements as administratively burdensome or difficult to implement, especially if staffing, facilities, or funding are limited. Others may support the bill as a way to ensure students receive compensatory instruction after prolonged disruptions and to reduce disparities in learning recovery.