SSB 5193
In CommitteeSenate
Remote testing
Supporting remote testing options for students enrolled in online school programs.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill allows Washington school districts to let students in online school programs take state assessments remotely, instead of traveling to in-person testing sites. It requires the state education office to create new rules and policies to ensure remote testing is secure, fair, and accessible.
- Starting in the 2026–27 school year, school districts with online programs may offer remote testing for state assessments.
- OSPI must develop or update assessment administration and security policies for remote testing by April 1, 2026, covering proctor qualifications, student-to-proctor ratios, device and network requirements, and parental consent forms.
- Policies must ensure security and fairness, including rules for monitoring students, limiting access to devices or people during testing, and verifying student identity.
- OSPI must adopt formal rules to implement the law, and is encouraged to use a streamlined rulemaking process.
- The bill defines ‘device’ broadly to include computers, tablets, and smartphones used for testing.
Who is affected
- Students in online school programs — Students in online school programs will gain the option to take state assessments from home or other approved remote locations, reducing travel time, costs, and family disruption.
- Families and guardians of online students — Families and guardians of online students may avoid taking time off work, long trips, and out-of-pocket costs (e.g., for gas, lodging, or meals) to attend in-person testing sites.
- School districts with online programs — School districts offering online programs will be authorized to provide remote testing, and must follow new state guidance on administration and security.
- Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) — Will develop and update policies and rules for remote testing, including staffing, device requirements, and security protocols.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Students in online programs—many of whom are low-income, rural, or have disabilities or health conditions—will no longer need to travel to distant testing centers, increasing equitable access to assessments and reducing absenteeism that currently skews school performance data.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (Findings) & Sec. 2(1)Families (especially single-parent or low-wage households) avoid lost wages, transportation, lodging, and meal expenses tied to in-person testing, reducing financial strain and improving work-family balance.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (Findings)By enabling broader participation in state assessments, the bill improves data quality for evaluating online program effectiveness—benefiting educators, policymakers, and advocates working to improve equitable access to quality remote learning.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (Findings) & Sec. 2(1)The broad definition of “device” (including smartphones) and OSPI’s flexibility in setting device/network standards may encourage innovation and lower-tech solutions that support accessibility for students with disabilities or limited tech access.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)(iv) and (4)OSPI’s requirement to periodically review and revise policies—and to consider streamlined rulemaking—creates opportunity for adaptive, evidence-based improvements, though success depends on stakeholder engagement and funding.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b) and (3)
Potential Concerns (5)
Remote testing increases risk of academic dishonesty (e.g., unauthorized assistance, internet access, or impersonation), potentially undermining assessment validity and fairness—especially if proctoring standards are not rigorous or consistently enforced across districts.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)(iii)Districts and families may face new out-of-pocket costs for reliable devices, high-speed internet, and technical support—especially problematic for low-income households or districts with limited IT infrastructure—though the bill does not allocate funding to offset these expenses.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)(iv) and (4)Without standardized, enforceable proctoring protocols and student-to-proctor ratios, inconsistent implementation across districts could exacerbate inequities—e.g., wealthier districts may deploy AI proctoring or trained staff, while under-resourced districts may rely on underqualified volunteers.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)(ii) and (iii)OSPI must develop and maintain new rules and policies, requiring staff time and administrative resources—though no dedicated funding is provided, potentially diverting resources from other priorities.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(3)Mandatory parental consent and agreement forms for remote testing may create administrative barriers that disproportionately affect families with unstable housing, limited digital literacy, or non-traditional guardianship arrangements—potentially reducing participation despite the intent to increase access.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)(v)
Who Is Most Affected
Students in online programs—particularly those in rural areas, low-income households, or with health/disability needs—gain significant convenience and reduced barriers to assessment participation, improving data inclusion and equity.
Families save time, transportation, and lodging costs, but may face new expenses for devices or internet if not already available—net benefit is positive for most, but not universal.
School districts gain flexibility to serve their online students, but must absorb costs for proctoring, technology, and compliance—smaller or under-resourced districts may struggle without state support.
OSPI gains authority to set standards but faces added administrative burden and accountability for ensuring security and equity—success depends on adequate funding and technical capacity.
Ed-tech vendors and internet providers may see increased demand for assessment-related services, but the bill does not specify procurement preferences—impact is likely modest and indirect.