May 19, 2026 · Education Committee · 7,910 words · 12 speakers · 192 segments
Good afternoon. I call this meeting of the House Education Committee to order, and we will begin with an invocation. The chair requests Representative Newman to offer the opening prayer. Please bow with me for prayer.
Lord God, we bow before you acknowledging that there is one true, mighty God. we humble ourselves before you God acknowledging every good gift is from you everything we enjoy in this world beauty laughter family successes comforts they are all from you so father we look to you now for all things we give you praise we acknowledge you and we ask you for your direction and wisdom in all things and all these things we give you praise in the name of Jesus amen
Thank you. Would Representative Robinson please lead the Pledge of Allegiance?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you. Would the clerk please call the roll? Chair Fowler-Arthur?
Here.
Vice-Chair Odeoso?
Here.
Ranking Member Brennan?
Here.
Representative Byrd?
Here.
Representative Click? Here. Representative Dean? Representative Manning?
Here.
Representative Miller?
Present.
Representative Newman?
Here.
Representative Pickler-Antonio?
Here.
Representative Ritter?
Here.
Representative Robinson?
Present.
Representative Thomas?
Here.
We have a quorum present and will proceed as a full committee. Would members take a moment to review the committee minutes from May 12th, please? Do we have any objections to the minutes? Seeing none, the minutes are approved. Just as a reminder to our guests in the gallery, please make sure that you fill out a photo form prior to taking any pictures or recordings. These must be signed by the chair. That's me. In accordance with House and Committee rules, and we appreciate you doing that in advance. Thank you very much. There are additional forms up by the witness stand. I would like to call up Senate Bill 156 for its fourth hearing, and I recognize Ranking Member Brennan for a motion.
Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to amend.
State the amendment number, please.
It's amendment number 136 underscore 1318-1.
The amendment is in order. You may take a minute to explain the amendment.
Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to offer the amendment. I appreciate it very much. I'm just going to read the synopsis. This amendment requires the Department of Education workforce to solicit public comment about the success sequence standards and model curriculum. It removes the requirement that the curriculum established must include evidence describing the positive personal and societal outcomes associated with the success sequence. It requires the department to use research methods that are peer-reviewed and show a distinction of causation and not just correlation when developing the standards and model curriculum. It requires educators, including at least one career tech educator, school psychologists, school counselors, poverty research experts, and workforce development experts to be part of the department committee to review the success sequence standards and model curriculum Permits the department to propose revisions to the success sequence standards and model curriculum for review and comment by school psychologists and school counselors and states that review and comment of the department proposed revisions should include both proponents and opponents of the success sequence. The amendment strengthens the bill by ensuring that any curriculum developed is grounded in peer-reviewed research that distinguishes causation from simple correlation. It also broadens the voices at the table by including educators, counselors, psychologists, workforce experts, and both supporters and critics of the success sequence. The process is transparent, balanced, and focused in what truly benefits Ohio students. Thank you for allowing me to explain it.
Thank you very much. Are there any objections to the amendment?
Chair?
Are you objecting?
I'm objecting. I move to table the amendment 1318-1.
There's a motion to table. Will the clerk please call the roll? Chair Fowler-Arthur?
Yes.
Vice Chair Odioso?
Yes.
Ranking Member Brennan?
No.
Representative Byrd?
Yes.
Representative Click? Yes. Representative Manning?
Yes.
Representative Miller?
No.
Representative Newman?
Yes.
Representative Piccola-Antonio?
No.
Representative Ritter?
Yes.
Representative Robinson?
No.
Representative Thomas?
Yes.
With eight affirmative note votes and four negative votes, the amendment is laid upon the table. The chair recognizes ranking member Brennan for a motion.
Madam Chair, I'd like to defer to Representative Robinson on that one.
Representative, you may proceed.
All right, thank you, Madam Chair. Specifically speaking to amendment AM 1362035. May I have a motion first, please?
A motion to amend number AM 1362035. Thank you, the amendment is in order and you may proceed to explain the amendment.
Great, thank you Madam Chair, I'll just explain it very briefly. Requires the Department of Education and Workforce to include in its standards and model curriculum on the success sequence all the following concepts. There's six of them, I won't read through all of them, but just quick synopsis. The first point is around wage stagnation, rising student debt, unaffordable housing, and rising costs for childcare and healthcare make marriage and family formation increasingly difficult to achieve. It would also acknowledge that children raised in a stable, well-supported families tend to thrive, but there needs to be a focus on creating conditions for all families who have access to opportunity, security, and community support. Marriage alone does not guarantee economic stability, especially when factors including wage inequality, raising medical costs, et cetera. The workforce often punishes women for being caregivers and undervalues women's labor, which makes balancing work, marriage, and parenting a challenge. Many women delay or forgo having children due to the high cost of childcare, lack of affordable healthcare, insufficient parental support policies. And finally, women are redefining what it means to succeed, prioritizing financial independence, community connection, and personal fulfillment. Thank you for that explanation Are there any objections to the amendment Chair Arthur I move to table the amendment 1362035
Would the clerk please call the roll? Chair Fowler-Arthur? Yes.
Vice Chair Odioso? Yes.
Ranking Member Brennan? No.
Representative Byrd? Yes.
Representative Click? Yes.
Representative Manning? No.
Representative Miller? No.
Representative Newman? Yes.
Representative Piccolantonio? No.
Representative Ritter? Yes.
Representative Robinson? No.
Representative Thomas? Yes.
With seven affirmative votes and five negative votes, the amendment is laid upon the table. The chair now recognizes Vice Chair Odioso for a motion.
Thank you, Chair. I move to amend with Sub-Bill 1362984-2.
The amendment is in order. Would you explain the amendment?
This sub-bill removes the requirements for the Department of Education and Workforce to establish a committee to review the standards and model curriculum and to adopt rules to administer the curriculum.
Object.
Thank you, I will ask on what grounds for the objection?
The amendment was received after the designated time the rules that stated for us to receive it in the minority party, thank you.
Thank you, we did discuss this in advance with the ranking member and it was received within six minutes and the chair will override the objection. Please continue, Vice Chair.
The sub-bill permits the school districts to choose a curriculum that includes all the required topics and the success sequence combined or choose a different curriculum for each requirement.
Thank you. Are there any further objections or concerns regarding the amendment that is proposed? The sub-bill, excuse me. Hearing none. The sub-bill is adopted.
I'm sorry, are you asking for a vote? That would be why I objected.
Thank you, Chair. That would be great. Thank you. All right. I appreciate the clarification. If you're asking to object for the vote, I would just ask that in the future it be when we are actually calling the vote and not in the middle of the explanation. Would the clerk please call the roll? Chair Fowler-Arthur? Yes.
Vice Chair Odioso? Yes.
Ranking Member Brennan? Yes.
Representative Byrd? Excuse me.
Hold on one moment. Since we're all saying yes, May I ask our, can we, we will stand at ease for one moment please. The bill and a no vote is opposing the sub bill. And I would ask that you please recall the roll. Thank you. Chair Fowler-Arthur. Yes.
Vice Chair Odioso. Yes.
Ranking Member Brennan. Now I'm confused.
Yes Representative Byrd Yes Representative Click Yes Representative yes representative Byrd representative Click representative Dean
representative Manning
representative Miller no
representative Newman yes
representative Lintonio no
representative Ritter yes
representative Robinson no
representative Thomas yes
With 10 affirmative votes and 3 negative votes, the sub-bill now becomes the bill. We did not receive any in-person testimony on Senate Bill 156. We did receive written testimonies, which are on your tablet or device. and I would like to recognize Vice Chair Odioso for a motion. I apologize. We'll stand at ease one moment. The chair recognizes Vice Chair Odioso for a motion.
Chair, I move to favorably report SB 156 and recommend it for passage.
Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll? Chair Fowler-Arthur? Yes.
Vice Chair Odioso? Yes.
Ranking Member Brennan? No.
Representative Byrd? Yes.
Representative Click? Yes.
Representative Dean? Yes.
Representative Manning? Yes.
Representative Miller? No.
Representative Newman? Yes.
Representative Tickle Antonio? No.
Representative Ritter? Yes.
Representative Robinson? No.
Representative Thomas? Yes.
With nine affirmative votes and four negative votes, Senate Bill 156 is favorably reported. And this will conclude the fourth hearing, I believe, on this bill. All right, I'm now calling forward House Bill 523 for its fourth hearing, and I would like to recognize Vice Chair Odioso for a motion.
Thank you, Chair. I move to amend with Sub-Bill 1363-119-2.
The amendment is in order. Would the representative please explain the sub bill?
This sub bill permits student teachers to receive a student teaching stipend from the district or school they are serving in. The sub bill also requires JFS to create a list of in-demand teaching jobs and to publish the list on their website. Yes, on their website.
Thank you. Are there any objections to the sub bill? Hearing none, the sub-bill is approved. I'd now like to recognize Mr. Ivory Kennedy Jr. to provide proponent testimony. You will have five minutes and may begin when you're ready, sir.
Good afternoon, everyone. Chair Fowler-Arthur, Vice Chair Odioso, Ranking Member Brennan, and members of the Education Committee, thank you all for the opportunity to provide proponent testimony for HB 523, the Future Educator Support Act. I support this bill because becoming a teacher in Ohio should not be financially burdensome, especially during the student teaching experience. Financial assistance for student teachers would allow for future educators to spend more time developing their craft and less time worrying about how they're going to survive financially while doing so. As someone who has been personally through this process and oversees this process, I understand the strain that many future educators face. Student teachers are often balancing transportation expenses, testing fees and licensure costs, rising rent and grocery prices, and overall financial pressures of college in general, while simultaneously serving and preparing to serve future students in the profession. Another reason this investment matters is because financial support would allow future educators to learn from more diverse communities across Ohio in meaningful ways. If we invested more deeply into student teaching as a state, future educators could spend more time in all three rural, urban, and suburban districts to better understand people, cultures, values, and realities that shape student lives beyond political and societal divisions. Another reason I support this bill is because investing in student teachers could expand access to professional development and historical learning opportunities that many future educators otherwise could not afford. Financial support could allow future educators to attend conferences and educational workshops, visit museums, historical institutions, civil rights places, as well as going down to the south to strengthen their community and strengthen their classroom instruction and deepen in their understanding of the students and the communities that they will one day serve, broadening their perspectives. From what I have personally seen, student teachers need to be well-prepared educators who understand history, communities, and have the support necessary to fully commit themselves to the process of becoming a teacher in the profession and have fun learning and leading while doing so. The return on the investment would not only be beneficial for the teachers, but the schools, the families, and the communities in Ohio as its whole self. I believe HB 523 is a meaningful investment in the future of education in Ohio and I respectfully urge its full bipartisan support. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. We have a question from Representative Miller and you have one minute.
Thank you, hi, everybody. Good to see you. We had removed out of the bill that a student teacher may simultaneously receive both a paid wage by the district and a cost of living stipend paid by due with neither of those coming and public investment continuing to be reduced from the state share of instruction by the General Assembly. Do you believe that there's going to be any money for a program like this when we're riffing and firing teachers left and right due to the lack of funding from the state?
Well, I think the bigger issue is that the funding that seems to be being stripped from public institutions is under the guise of whatever this political swing is. The whole misnomer about diversity, equity, and inclusion has kind of infiltrated its way to take away resources from public schools. So to ask public schools to find ways to penny pinch while then asking them to also pay student teachers who don't get that much money anyway during the process is kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to say. So I believe if the state really does value education in this intellectual diversity and if the state truly does value what education does bring in terms of perspectives, then it would be an investment in education as a whole. I believe that the issue that we have is that people don't have a comprehensive education in the first place, and that is not a knock. I don't knowledge shame. Knowing that you don't know something means that you have an opportunity to learn something. Just studying history myself, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, all of them believe that the key to an educated citizenry was public education. education and to continue to draw back funds from that again under this under this misunderstanding of what progress looks like in the form of diversity equity and inclusion I think that is a bigger issue Point of order Please state the point of order This bill doesn have any funding component to it
I think we're not speaking to the bill. I think we're making generalized statements that are not efficient and cogent to the bill.
Thank you. That is accurate. The bill does not contain any funding provisions. If you please keep your remarks and the questioning and both germane to the bill, that would be appreciated. Thank you.
Is the, I guess I'm confused because the bill is going to have like the school districts pay for the stipend, correct?
No, the sub bill that we adopted allows them to offer a stipend, but does not require it.
So the funding is going to come from this. I just want to make sure I'm clear.
The funding is going to come from the state. Yes. Do you have a further question, Representative Miller?
No, thank you.
Do we have any further questions from the committee for the witness? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I would like to now recognize the vice chair for a motion.
what's the bill number chair I move to favorably favorably report house bill 5 2-3 and recommend it for passage thank you
would the clerk please call the roll chair Fowler Arthur yes
vice chair Odioso Yes.
Ranking Member Brennan. Yes.
Representative Byrd. Yes.
Representative Dean. Yes.
Representative Manning. Yes.
Representative Miller. Yes.
Representative Newman.
Representative Piccolo Antonio. Yes.
Representative Ritter. Yes.
Representative Robinson. Yes.
With 10 affirmative votes and no negative votes, the bill is passed and we will leave the roll open until 5 PM today so that any members that had to be in another committee have the opportunity to vote on it. This will conclude the fourth hearing on House bill 523. I now call up Senate bill 276 for its third hearing and I'm recognizing vice chair Odeoso for another motion.
Thank you, Chair. I move to amend with Sub-Bill 1362056-2.
Thank you. The amendment is in order. Would you please explain the amendment?
This sub-bill modifies the terms of the Interstate Massage Compact by specifying that the national examination required of massage therapists in member states includes the massage and body work licensure examination, the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Body Work, if taken prior to January 1, 2015, or an equivalent examination specified by the Interstate Massage Compact Commission. It permits active military members or their spouses to satisfy education requirements by graduating from an educational program that meets the requirements of their designated home state The sub bill also permits applicants for a multi license to have both graduated from an educational program approved in the house state, in the home state, and completed at least two years of continuous licensure with a single state license, or a substantial equivalent established by the commission as an alternative to completing the at least 625 clock hours, co-massage therapy education.
Thank you. Are there any objections to the sub-bill? Hearing none, the sub-bill will become part of the bill. We do have testimony, guests with us that wish to offer testimony. And so first I would like to recognize Mr. Shane Preston with the U.S. Department of War. Welcome to committee, sir. You will have five minutes to offer your remarks.
Good afternoon, Chair Fowler-Arthur and members of the committee. The Department of War is honored to express the support for the policies outlined in amended Senate Bill 276, an act to ratify the interstate compact for school psychologists. This legislation addresses critical licensing challenges faced by our service members, their families, and the broader public. The compact aims to facilitate the interstate practice of school psychology, reducing regulatory barriers, enhancing access to vital school psychological services in education settings. My name is Shane Preston. I serve as the Great Lakes Regional Liaison, the United States Department of War, operating under the direction of the Undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness. Our office collaborates with state officials, policymakers, and stakeholders through issues impacting service members and their families. Licensure portability for transitioning military members and their active duty spouses has been a longstanding priority for the department. The Interstate Compact for School Psychologists, developed in collaboration with the Council of State Governments and other professional organizations promotes the mobility of licensed school psychologists by creating reciprocity amongst participating states. Professional licensure poses significant challenges for military spouses who are often licensed in licensed occupations at higher rates than their civilian counterparts. Obtaining a new license in each state can be time-consuming, costly, unpredictable, and discourages military spouses from continuing their careers. The short duration of military assignments combined with lengthy relicensing processes can lead to career interruptions and even prompt families to leave military service. By streamlining the relicensing through the compact, this legislation supports military families' financial stability, facilitates their integration into new communities, and creates a valuable pool of skilled professionals to work as part of Ohio's workforce. This compact also enhances public access to school psychological services, directly addressing the workforce challenges in helping military school districts meet necessary staffing standards. The Department of War commends Ohio's ongoing commitment to supporting our Uniformed Service members and their families. We are grateful for the opportunity to support the policies reflected in this legislation and appreciate the leadership of Senator Rogner, who has led on so many of these licensed occupation compacts. On behalf of military families and all Ohioans or on behalf of military families we thank you for taking up this important legislation And in addition to this great compact dealing with school psychological licensing this would also amend and make a few adjustments to the massage therapy compact, which the department supports, that also helps military families. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and urge a yes vote today.
Mr. Preston, thank you for your testimony. and with the temporary absence of the chair, the vice chair, the JV has been installed. Are there any questions? That's true. I am sure that the ranking member has a question. I don't even have to look over there. Representative Brennan.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr. Preston, for coming in. You know, I'm sure I'm speaking on behalf of everybody. We support our vets and their families. Appreciate all their service and sacrifice to our state and our nation. Just did Honor Flight Cleveland two weeks ago, and a very emotional thing to do. My question to you is, I was surprised to learn that this was of great interest to the military, but it totally makes sense. Can you give us an idea of the numbers we're looking at and maybe some other areas where we might be able to assist with reciprocity to assist those that are serving and their loved ones?
Sure, that's a great question, Representative. So with any mobile population that comes in and out of the various states, occupational licensing is tied to state governments. And for each transitioning family member that is a part of the military, reducing those barriers for them to continue their career is truly a readiness issue for the department. And so keeping folks in the military once they're already enlisted in the military is of utmost importance. And so licensing issues have always been a core priority of the department. The development of compacts helps a lot. And as states adopt more and more compacts, it becomes easier for a highly mobile population to move around, and it reduces the barriers for military families as they transition in and among all 50 states.
Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chair.
Sure. Other questions in the room? Seeing none, thank you so much for your testimony. The next person on the list is David Cordonier. Mr. Cordonier present. Here he is. You did well with that. Welcome to committee, sir. You may begin.
Thank you. So Chair Fowler-Arthur, Vice Chair Odioso, Acting Chair Byrd, and Ranking Member Brennan and members of the House Education Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present proponent testimony on Senate Bill 276, entering Ohio into the interstate compact for school psychologists. I'm David Cordaigne with the Dayton Development Coalition. I'm our manager of engagement and handle a lot of our state and local government affairs. The Dayton Development Coalition is a regional economic development organization whose mission is to support job creation and opportunity for the citizens of the Dayton region. In addition, the Dayton Development Coalition works closely with aerospace and defense partners to promote Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and Springfield Air National Guard Base. We commend Senator Rogner for sponsoring this important piece of legislation, supporting occupational licensure, mobility, and military families. I'll go ahead and skip through that paragraph because I think Shane covered pretty well about what the compact is to save you time, but for you to understand the impact that it has on the military families in the Miami Valley. A 2022 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Commerce Foundation report with 4,100 military spouse respondents found that 88% of spouses agreed that military lifestyle impacts their ability to find jobs at their experience and or education level. With Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in our region, we proactively support military families and the roughly 4,000 military spouses and understand the difficulties of their frequent relocations. Any barrier to employment for a military spouse during their assignment can cause financial uncertainty, discourage spouses from growing in their career, and leave out a skilled workforce in Ohio. Additionally, the Defense State Liaison Office, which we work with closely, and the Council of State Governments track the compact progress for every state. Ohio is one of six states right now leading the nation with over 50 percent of the defense state liaison office priority compacts passed into state law. We're currently sitting exactly at 55 percent of those priorities passed in support of Senate Bill 276 would further illustrate Ohio's continued support for military families. Senate Bill 276 will streamline the licensure process, enhancing the experience of military spouses in Ohio, and adding crucial education professionals to our workforce. I do want to add one more note as to why this stuff is all important, because I think it gets to Representative Brennan's question a bit. The compact licensure, the public education policies that are being passed here every year, Those are things that the Air Force is looking at when they are deciding to add or subtract missions from Wright-Patterson or any of the guard bases around the state or modify missions or add more people. So these types of things may seem small, but they play a major role. And I can tell you we are doing a great job leading the nation, so we want to continue that strength. So with that, I'm happy to answer your questions.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Ranking Member Brennan.
Thanks, Madam Chair. Thank you for that. Appreciate you being here. What would be some areas where Ohio could still improve and maybe open up other compacts?
Well, through the chair to the representative, I would have to, I don't remember all the compacts off the top of my head, but happy to make sure that we get the DSLO office list to you. We have a number of other compacts currently in the process this year, one of which being the Athletic Trainers Compact that I know is having a hearing tomorrow. So there are a number of options in the compact space. The Department of War and the DSLO office do a great job of every year supplying some priority policies for states to look at and consider. so happy to make sure you get those and pass it through the chairs so you all understand what's out there. I will tell you the open enrollment legislation from last year in our region has been extremely popular, has been very well received, and so those types of things make a real difference. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Do we have any further questions for the witness? Seeing none, thank you for coming in today. Next, I would like to invite Jada Thompson to offer proponent testimony. Welcome to committee. You'll have five minutes in the beginning when you're ready.
Good afternoon Chair Fowler and the rest of the Education Committee On behalf of the American Massage Therapy Association we want to thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony of Senate Bill 276 and the revised massage therapy interstate compact language in the legislation. As the nation's largest professional association representing licensed massage therapists, AMTA advocates for fair and consistent licensure, standards of practice, public protections, and professional ethics, and greater access to safe, qualified care and massage therapy services. Representing more than 109,000 members nationwide, AMTA believes this revised compact reflects a thoughtful and responsible evolution of the original framework, one that expands professional mobility while preserving strong regulatory oversight and public safety protections. The revised compact language strengthens transparency and accountability by placing key eligibility pathways directly in statute, rather than leaving fundamental policy decisions solely to future rulemaking. At the same time, it preserves the flexibility the compact commission needs to address implementation and administrative matters as the compact evolves. This balanced approach improves clarity for regulators and licensees alike, while ensuring the compact remains adaptable and effective across participating states. Importantly, the revised language recognizes legacy examinations, supports reasonable alternative educational pathways for experienced practitioners, and includes provisions that better accommodate active duty military members and their spouses. These updates reduce unnecessary boundaries that the interstate practices while maintaining rigorous standards for education, examination, licensure, and background screening. Increased portability should never come at the expense of public protection, and the revised compact appropriately safeguards both of those priorities. As Ohio considers joining the compact, AMTA also strongly supports mandatory continuing education requirements for licensed massage therapists. Establishing a continued education along with Ohio with overwhelming majority of the states, strengthening ongoing professional competency and helping Ohio ensure licensees fully satisfy the compact eligibility expectations. This additional safeguard would further enhance public protection while positioning Ohio practitioners to benefit from the interstate practice opportunities. AMCA also wishes to clarify that there are not two competing versions of the compact. Rather, there is one single compact undergoing an appropriate legislative refinement, a standard and necessary part of the legislative process. Interstate compacts are statutory instruments and legislative reforms that retain full authority to amend and improve language before a professional practice acts are routinely updated to improve clarity, strengthening oversight and address unintended consequences. Concerns that the revised compact weakens public perfections are not supported by evidence. Likewise, no verifiable evidence shows that licensure portability for a massage therapist contributes to human trafficking or limits state's authority to investigate, discipline, or deny licensure where it's appropriate. The compact is designed to support qualified vetted professionals not to create regulatory loopholes, and participating licensees must continue to meet established education requirements, maintain a license in good standing, pass national recognized exams, and comply with applicable background screening requirements. Additionally national recognized examinations include historically administered by the NCBT appropriately recognizes the qualifications of experienced practitioners and corrects the admissions to earlier draft language This approach respects the profession's regulatory history while maintaining appropriate standards for entry into practice. Finally, it is important to emphasize that the interstate compact operates under legislative oversight Oversight. And no single organization exercises a unilateral control over governance, rulemaking, or the data systems. Ongoing stakeholder engagement and legislative involvement remains essential to ensuring the compact remains accountable, effective, and responsive to public and professional interests. And I'm open to any questions.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Do we have any questions from committee for this witness? Seeing none, thank you very much for your support of the bill and we appreciate all of you coming in today I would like to note there is at least one additional testimony that was submitted and is on the iPad and this will conclude the third hearing of Senate Bill 276 I would now like to call up Senate Bill 318 for its first hearing and invite Senator Katrona to provide sponsor testimony. Thank you very much for your flexibility on timing today. We appreciate it.
Thank you, Chairwoman. Members of the Education Committee, I want to thank you guys for the opportunity to hear about Senate Bill 318. In very short form, Senate Bill 318 permits a chartered non-public school to generally be able to engage in SRO services in the same manner that other school districts can under current law. And it expressly permits townships, specifically township police departments, to engage in those SRO services. Now, this is directly in relation and comes as a result of A.G. Yoss's opinion where he said that the legislature wasn't very clear as to whether or not these non-chartered public schools could engage in this type of MOU agreement. And so this is just to clean up the language. In short, we want to make sure that our children are safe, whether they're in private schools or public schools. The purpose is to allow for them to be safe and to be able to engage into a contract, to be able to have SRO services. Those are your school resource officers right there in the schools to keep everyone safe from harm, especially as we're engaged, if we're seeing an uptick in violence. Now, this is a direct response also to a private school in my district, in township, Poland, where they actually have a current SRO relationship and an MOU with that private school there. And so this would allow for them to continue to be able to do that and keep those kids safe. So this was supported locally, but also has the support of the whole host of Catholic dioceses, Catholic Conference of Ohio, and there are currently no opponents, and it passed out of my chamber unanimously. So I hope to have that same support here, but I open myself up to any questions you guys may have.
Thank you very much, Senator. It does look like we have a few questions.
Oh, great.
And first to ask was Representative Miller. So, Representative, you have one minute.
Thank you. Good to see you, Senator. Do I understand the bill language correctly and I may not that the requirements for training and preparation and licensure and everything that goes into getting an SRO in a public school will be in a private school as well and this just allows for all schools to have that access
through the chair to the representative. Absolutely. So listen, this is how it's always been. And this is only becoming a question of legalities because of an opinion that the AG came up with. And so we want to make sure that we can continue to allow these schools, these private schools to be able to engage in those basically contracts and contract with, in this case, a township police service. And so if you go across the state, every state's, you know, community is a little bit different on how they're set up. And in this particular case, It makes sense for a township police to be able to provide SRO services for that non-public school.
Thank you for bringing a bill I can get behind. I appreciate that.
Ranking Member Brennan is recognized for a question.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for bringing the bill, Senator. Good to see you. Always good to see you. Appreciate it.
So I was talking last year with Kyle Brooks from the Ohio Township Association,
And he explained to me that townships do not have the ability to put an issue on the ballot to put to the voters the ability to tax themselves to pay for an SRO. Because there are many townships that just don't have the human resources to provide that. So I just wanted to throw that out there. I'm not saying necessarily an amendment or anything, but maybe something we might have a conversation about or maybe talk to Kyle about and see if this might be the vehicle to maybe help with that. If you have any thoughts, that's great. If you don't, that's I understand.
Through the chair to the representative. First that I'm hearing of that, I think it sounds like it's something that we could definitely look into. I would hope, though, that just for the sake of to expedite this particular policy, because we are going to be going into another school year, and my hope, if it's the will of the committee, is to be able to get this thing moving fairly quickly, and there is some time constraints with it. But I'm always open to have the conversation with you, representative.
Yeah, just to clarify, every MOU that I'm familiar with, the school that's requesting the school resource officer does pay for that individual to be there. It's not an added burden on the township or the police department. Is that your understanding as well, Senator?
Thank you. Through the chair, yes. So just to be very clear, I know this raised some original concerns of people saying, hey, wait a second, we have to pay for these private schools, and what about – not at all. The private schools themselves are paying for these services. This is at no cost to our constituents or our pockets in any way, shape, or form, but rather this is just to allow for them to engage in that contract, to be engaged, to be able to say, hey, I want this township to provide services, SRO services, in this private school. There are no additional funds that come from the state to these schools. This is simply just a cleanup language, and frankly, it has always been this way. And the only reason this has come up is in September 2025, the opinion from Dave Yost put this into question. They just said the legislature wasn't clear. So I said, what? We'll be very clear. Here you go. So hopefully we can get that accomplished.
It makes sense to me. I think I also have a traditional public school in my district that contracts with the local police department for SROs, and so it is a very common practice. I appreciate the clarification.
Rep. Piccolo, Antonio, did I see your hand up earlier? You're recognized.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Senator. for bringing this legislation. I agree that the confusion should be easily cleared up by this legislation. The only question that I have is really related to the SRO requirements, like the training requirements. I guess I'm trying to wrap my head around why there's a part of this bill that it exempts, I think. So if the bill passes and becomes effective and then a township begins a new contract with an SRO, it exempts those SROs from the training requirements for all SROs for the next school year. I guess, do you have any explanation for why we would make that exception for that school year?
Through the chair to the representative, thank you. So my understanding is for the 2026 to 2027, it was to try to help make sure that there was enough time so that there's any additional training that needs to be accomplished to be able to meet that requirement. They had that opportunity to do that. So that's the reason that there was that particular date that was put in there. Ultimately, it's just to, once again, just simply allow them to continue doing the exact same types of services, but we just wanted to make sure there was enough lead way that if anybody needed any additional training that was already participating, that they had enough time to get the training necessary before the start of the next school year. So that was the only reason for that.
Follow-up? Thank you, Chair. I'm just trying to think through the timeline. So if a municipality had been contracting and then this AG's opinion came out, I'm not looking at the AG's opinion right now, so I don't know if it, when that opinion was issued, did those contracts that were ongoing at that time immediately cease, or were they allowed to continue through the duration of the contract? I don't know if you know the answer to that question.
Through the chair to the representative. Great question. I do have the opinion here, and I'll pass it to the chair. She gets distributed amongst the members. So to be clear, this is an opinion, right? So it's not of like, you know, this isn't law, but it creates that question of the legalities behind it. And so there's nothing that's today technically preventing. Nobody wants to be in litigation. As an attorney, most people try to avoid me, right? They don't want to have litigation. So this is, and this actually had to do with something totally unrelated, but under his review of it it popped up and said hey and by the way the legislature wasn clear about this and so these things can happen So it not that it made it null and void but what it does do is puts into question whether or not the school should be allowing them to provide these services They could be sued. Just to clean up the language and to allow that. As it stands today, My current township is still, I'm sorry, Holy Family. It's a K-8 non-public, it's a Catholic school, and they are still being suited up with SROs from Poland Township, and they're providing that service today. But once again, if we were lucky enough to have another hearing, they can come in and speak to that a little bit more. It's just to make sure that there's no issues with it, that they're following the law and just cleaning up the language. Really, this is a cleanup language bill to allow for what we've already been allowing. Thank you.
Seeing no further questions, thank you for making time to visit us twice today. We appreciate it.
Thank you.
And this will conclude the first hearing of Cinephill 318. Thank you. I will now call up House Bill 711 for its second hearing and recognize Bailey Culp with the Ohio Federation of Teachers. Welcome. You have five minutes and may begin when you're ready.
Chair Fowler-Arthur, Vice Chair Odioso, Ranking Member Brennan, and members of the House Education Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of House Bill 711. My name is Bailey Culp, and I serve as the Legislative Director of the Ohio Federation of Teachers. OFT represents active and retired teachers in traditional and charter schools, support staff, higher education faculty and staff, library employees, and social workers. OFT appreciates the bill sponsors effort to modernize Ohio's minimum teacher salary schedule and better recognize subject matter expertise and educator compensation We believe the bill takes an important step toward valuing the advanced degrees that educators pursue to advance their expertise and content knowledge We also appreciate that the legislation does not reduce minimum salaries for any current educators At a time when recruitment and retention challenges continue to affect districts across Ohio, maintaining existing salary protections is critical. While OFT fully supports the direction of the bill, we also believe that there may be meaningful additions that could be made to the bill that would address the educator workforce challenges facing our schools. First, the General Assembly should continue broader efforts to raise the overall minimum teacher salary schedule statewide. Even with the adjustments proposed to HB 711, many Ohio educators particularly those early in their teaching career continue to earn salaries that lag behind the rising costs of housing health care and student loan repayment Teacher pay remains a significant factor in recruitment and retention, both nationwide and here in Ohio. OFT would encourage lawmakers to consider other pieces of legislation that increase Ohio's base minimum teacher salary across all lanes and experience levels. We understand that separate legislation has already been introduced to raise the statewide minimum teacher salary, recognizing that educator compensation requires continued attention. Second, OFT would respectfully recommend that the committee amend HB 711 to include an inflation indexing mechanism for the minimum salary schedule. Without periodic adjustments tied to inflation, statutory salary schedules lose their purchasing power over time. Even well-intentioned reforms like HB 711 can quickly become outdated if the legislature must repeatedly revisit salary figures years after inflation has already eroded their value. An indexing mechanism tied to any recognized inflation metric would help ensure that educator compensation maintains its real-world value over time and would provide greater long-term stability for both educators and school districts. Ohio already periodically adjusts compensation structures in other areas of government employment to account for labor market realities and cost pressures. We believe that educators deserve similar consideration. Lastly, salary schedules established in state law should serve as a baseline for educator compensation rather than a ceiling. Local school districts and educators, through the collective bargaining process, must continue to retain the flexibility to negotiate compensation structures that reflect local needs, educator experience, specialized responsibilities, hard-to-fill positions, and professional accomplishments beyond categories identified in statute. I want to thank again the bill's sponsors for their work on this legislation. OFT believes HB 711 represents a positive step towards a more professionally respectful salary framework. Recognizing subject matter expertise is good policy and protecting existing salary floors is important, but Ohio must also confront the larger reality that educator pay overall remains insufficient to attract and retain the highly qualified professionals that our students deserve. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Representative Miller, do you have a question?
Yes, thank you. So what are your thoughts on the data that I'm going to provide you around teacher salary that have to do with the scale that not only they have provided here, but the extended scale that is not and that is right now currently the median bachelor degree is about 80 a little over 80 per year In our General Assembly in 2023, we went from a whopping 30,000 to 35,000 as your minimum wage for the same bachelor's level degree. And then with it moving to 35 even in 2023, what is your thoughts on the fact that we have, due to inflation, that $35,000 is actually $2,800 below and worth less because of inflation than what it should be, and that would be about $37,800. What do you think is a good starting point for a teacher with a bachelor's, zero years?
Through the chair, Representative Miller, I appreciate the question. We were intentionally vague on sort of the numbers aspect. We know that's a legislative decision that both caucuses would have to work out. If I was candidate, I'd say we should pay every teacher a million dollars, but don't live in that world. What I will say, the underlying point to your question is when we talk about workforce development in the context of education, I know, as everyone else in this room knows, that if we want to be competitive, not just within Ohio, but outside of Ohio, salaries are a big portion as to what makes us competitive and what makes us not competitive. I think when educators are looking at the opportunity of either continuing their career here in Ohio as a first, second, third-year educator, or going elsewhere, salaries are, wages are, benefits are one of the first things that they look at. I'll tell you candidly, and I think I can speak on behalf of OFT and the members we represent, the current schedules in code, that baseline that we talked about, is painfully low. As you mentioned, inflation every year. We recognize that the purchasing power of these salaries is less and less every year. Again, we think this is a step in the right direction. as being candid. I think it could be higher, but we think it's a good start. As for what that specific number is, I'm not going to pigeonhole anyone into putting me on the record for what that number should be, but definitely higher than what it is. Thank you.
Do we have any further questions from committee? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. This will conclude the second hearing of House Bill 7-11. Is there any further business before the committee? Seeing none, the committee is adjourned.