[{"_1":2,"_108":-5,"_109":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,87,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6309499,"mediaKeyId","2412156-a19cfd79a00fa091937ec4e08711b524","parentId",2412156,"title","Senate approves two education measures: a teacher‑pipeline pilot and statewide math screening; senators debate implementation burdens and timeline","audioSeconds",4891,"startMs",4891000,"endMs",-1,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2412156-a19cfd79a00fa091937ec4e08711b524&start=4891&end=0","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2412156-a19cfd79a00fa091937ec4e08711b524/thumbnail_4891000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6309499/Oklahoma/Senate-approves-two-education-measures-a-teacherpipeline-pilot-and-statewide-math-screening-senators-debate-implementation-burdens-and-timeline","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6309499-3b1807c96424d019d1ae65612778a90e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771094541&Signature=SmrUQ~xovDsmjk3DZEa20TV7IZUh-BEs5u3jmhJzb99ULtPMi0C0mCWWnGUR7mQ9y6fz2c7WjL8vmlcfgKMNPMtVlizG5KjnsDaK2BanYUlPNPBcd69e1cubSDR-BaCPcNza~D9rwo14pClHNN6WuQL~S70542nGcg0UW93OgLtEL8Jz05ocWA4h3dDxf0E3Wl5G2CLMOKKUkW-XNyjOinVtwU3Un1MB1h7N~VYJgPCK7hoFsZGFvv0-~c-5i380PwBPREuw2Yo63REF1G5oi-tq-ZOBvbLRx4xPndfkyJ0koFo7kKNgvQg6q6Lt4CdlGmu~~0P9ft14nXH0g7FkGw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","OK State Legislature","date","2025-02-26T00:00:00Z","article","Two education bills advanced from the Appropriations Committee with detailed debate over implementation, local control and funding. Senators approved a two‑year pilot to audit and seed teacher‑pipeline innovations (Senate Bill 212) and a framework for statewide math screening and supports (Senate Bill 215).

Senate Bill 212: teacher‑pipeline pilot

Senator Seifried presented SB 212 as a two‑year, one‑time pilot intended to let colleges of education commission technical‑assistance audits and then apply for implementation grants. Under the bill as discussed, an institution that completes a technical assistance audit (estimated at about $100,000) could compete for up to $500,000 to implement the audit’s recommendations. Seifried said the goal is to encourage innovation in grow‑your‑own programs, apprenticeships and other local solutions to increase the teacher workforce without recurring budget requests. The committee voted to advance SB 212 (22 ayes, 0 nays).

Senate Bill 215: statewide math screener and interventions

Senator Seifried also presented SB 215, stating the bill mirrors the structure used in a prior reading initiative but applies to math. The bill would require the State Board of Education to approve no fewer than three screening instruments beginning in the 2026–27 school year and calls for screening at the beginning, middle and end of each year; students who screen below benchmarks would receive additional supports, while students who exceed benchmarks could access advanced opportunities.

Nut graf: SB 215 prompted sustained questioning from several senators about whether the policy would create additional paperwork or digital testing burdens for classroom teachers, how screeners align to local curriculum, and whether districts would have enough time and funding to implement the screens and supports if the bill becomes law.

Key questions and responses

Teacher burden and screeners: Senator Kurt and Senator Sakieri asked whether the bill would “pile on” assessments and paperwork for teachers. Seifried said the intent is not to add burdens and that she had discussed the idea with teachers who expressed support for clear, consistent screening; she also said the bill language allows SDE to try to alleviate burdens where possible. On the technical question of screeners versus tests, Seifried said screeners are “quick assessments” — pulse checks aligned to standards rather than longer diagnostic tests.

Timeline and implementation: Senators asked whether the State Board’s approval schedule would leave districts enough time to implement the screens; Seifried said the bill intends screening to begin in 2026–27 and acknowledged she would follow up with staff to ensure realistic timing. Senator Kurt asked whether the funding model would follow students; Seifried said proposed funding would flow through the public school activities fund and be divided by the number of students who test below benchmarks so dollars “follow the students.”

Votes and next steps

SB 212 was advanced on a voice/roll call recorded as 22 ayes, 0 nays. SB 215 passed the committee 21 ayes, 1 nay after extended debate; senators directed staff to monitor implementation timing and encouraged follow‑up to reduce teacher burden.

Ending: Both education measures will move forward for consideration by the full Appropriations Committee and the Senate; authors signaled willingness to work with educators and fiscal staff on timelines, screening instruments and funding distribution.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Appropriations Feb 26, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Appropriations Committee advanced a two‑year teacher‑pipeline pilot and a statewide math screening framework, while senators pressed for clarity on teacher workload, screener types and rollout timelines.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature OK, Oklahoma","taxId",78380,"location","Oklahoma","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":46,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6309509,"Senate appropriations subcommittees advance recommendations for transportation, general government and OMES; tax commission trims $1M",2939,2939000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2412156-a19cfd79a00fa091937ec4e08711b524&start=2939&end=0","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2412156-a19cfd79a00fa091937ec4e08711b524/thumbnail_2939000.jpg","/articles/6309509/Oklahoma/Senate-appropriations-subcommittees-advance-recommendations-for-transportation-general-government-and-OMES-tax-commission-trims-1M","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6309509-5216bd7271ef4092daa6e9bdfc091481/orig.mp4?Expires=1771094541&Signature=A~NZ93YEdVgxSkc~AtB3CCgB~Pp~cPwj2-wzdGVGtUU0-24LGmoagz1G9wdaA8Mzvsr2XW8w8e4oaMuQDnn2RnI-kyl0nBkJUajaKDmD~cNp3LI7-sD1LsQd2oK1o9Uc8JkT4U7BllWsNZccpT06GEKHuuzYB28INxLpBZfs7sfkHBkcO5z8mkW7BIF5xqje4iuNuE-SKNwJxF6i1zo8Q93jHryXXIucFKMWcbIHdmlcc~ZbdpkXylmKrUtETBm-gs9u1L0LYToHt1klDoJyi4WuWhHav7oAv6Qk2Q3lVvRnbsn7qNwwjOIUpfGxTXpNLxhoAerQ7AxPt9u0VUHgKg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday received subcommittee recommendations for general government and transportation appropriations, advancing multiple agency budgets and sending them to the full committee for final action.

The recommendations included a $21,300,000 increase for the Department of Transportation, bringing that subcommittee’s recommendation to a total appropriation of $813,243,711. The panel also moved a $1,000,000 reduction in the Oklahoma Tax Commission’s base recurring appropriation from the agency request, and recommended flat or adjusted budgets for several other state entities including Service Oklahoma, the state senate, the governor’s office and the Oklahoma Military Department.

The subcommittee presentation began with Senator Ryan Woods’s overview of the Department of Transportation recommendation. Senator Woods: “the subcommittee come together this morning and the subcommittee recommended, to full appropriation today, an increase of 21,300,000 for a total appropriation of $813,243,711,” he said.

Nut graf: The hearing combined routine subcommittee moves with brief policy questions from senators about agency operations and longer budget items for OMES (the Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services). The Tax Commission drew particular scrutiny after telling the committee it had brought work in‑house and reduced requested recurring dollars by $1,000,000 while projecting recurring savings compared with its prior third‑party contract.

Agency details and key discussion

Oklahoma Tax Commission: Jessica Grokos, deputy executive director for the Oklahoma Tax Commission, told senators the reduction reflects ongoing efficiency and the transition away from a third‑party contractor. Grokos said the commission did not renew a one‑year contract with renewal options and moved much of the work in‑house. “We chose not to renew that contract at the end of the first year, bring it in house,” Grokos said, adding that the first‑year cost to stand up the program was roughly $3,900,000 but that moving forward the agency expects the recurring cost to be about $2,000,000 annually. Senators asked whether that reduced budget would still allow the commission to pursue recapture and fraud‑related work tied to tax credits; Grokos described the statutory reconciliation process and said the commission was working through recapture as required by existing law.

Service Oklahoma and other flat budgets: Senator Woods presented flat budgets recommended for Service Oklahoma ($52,848,000), the state House budget ($22,786,198), the Oklahoma Military Department ($22,106,110), the state senate and several smaller offices. Those presentations proceeded with little or no follow‑up questioning.

OMES: Senator Greene presented the subcommittee’s recommendation for the Office of Management and Enterprise Services, which included a $7,276,050 increase for FY25 and a $22,812,022 increase for FY26, yielding a proposed total appropriation of $173,760,564 for OMES. Senators asked whether the recommended budget included funding for deferred maintenance of capital assets; Senator Kurt asked directly, “Are there is there funding here or somewhere else for deferred maintenance for capital, assets?” The response from the presenter was “there’s none in this budget.” Senators expressed concern that routine capital and lease obligations would go unaddressed if maintenance funding was not set aside.

What’s next

The committee chair reminded members that these subcommittee recommendations are one step in a multi‑stop budget process: agency requests were heard in public budget hearings, subcommittees reviewed them publicly, and the full committee will review and adopt a Senate position in the weeks ahead.

Ending: The Appropriations Chair moved the subcommittee recommendations to the full committee; most items advanced without lengthy debate. Several follow‑up questions remain open, notably about deferred maintenance funding for OMES and the exact sufficiency of Tax Commission funding as the agency transitions from a vendor model to an in‑house approach.","The Senate Appropriations subcommittees advanced recommended budgets for the Department of Transportation and multiple general government agencies and forwarded those recommendations to the full Appropriations Committee.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6309494,"Votes at a glance: bills advanced by the Senate Appropriations Committee",0,3264000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2412156-a19cfd79a00fa091937ec4e08711b524&start=3264&end=3264","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2412156-a19cfd79a00fa091937ec4e08711b524/thumbnail_3264000.jpg","/articles/6309494/Oklahoma/Votes-at-a-glance-bills-advanced-by-the-Senate-Appropriations-Committee","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6309494-f71369ebcae34bfdaa495080f5a6a0e1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771094541&Signature=CvNyl9yzCqWfRtI86uy2VnP19UxE5hXn4cfqRD3qsPYa46p7x8kaZ5GLdcRHEskLXt98wrNAhvclgYEoTQfdTh5ZicxwaIsXWiaXcqFMyovVj6lZJ1mUeLMtp431ywLqM425QO5ErDj8NG0O2bPh8gQnres4G-0GJBB-90~xexVwS1nDHz9TCa9GyHTk6FjlhTn2sov3ICB3HUkLV05ZrMOXkDRj8XtZHjaijM3QHyoyjnVEdx4f4r6saHns68tr9x5pjYRApapBFZiiNzk~1FucBsmNe7ncFn~wP7yy8T7q1HHQjgO3ZEnCL8DIVYxAIqYJaUjOquRTyw3MgKDWoA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Appropriations Committee advanced a series of bills during the hearing. Below are the bill identifiers, short descriptions as presented to the committee, and the committee vote recorded on the transcript.

Votes at a glance

- SB 49 — Sales tax exemption for a nonprofit that provides child‑abuse prevention and family support services; advanced (22 ayes, 0 nays).
- SB 652 — Reduces available election dates to five fixed months (February, April, June, August, November); passed (23 ayes, 0 nays).
- SB 50 — Sales tax exemption / safe or other firearms safety device (author presented as Senator Dawson); advanced (19 ayes, 3 nays).
- SB 122 — Funding mechanism for weigh‑station upgrades and software modernization (ODOT); advanced (committee recorded advancement; members requested refined fiscal analysis).
- SB 212 — Teacher‑pipeline pilot (two‑year technical assistance audits and implementation awards); passed (22 ayes, 0 nays).
- SB 215 — Statewide math screener and intervention framework; passed (21 ayes, 1 nay).
- SB 248 — Transfers proceeds of sale or lease of certain property to Tourism and Recreation revolving fund; passed (20 ayes, 0 nays).
- SB 265 — Creates the Oklahoma Water Infrastructure Loan program and a revolving fund in the Treasurer’s office; passed (19 ayes, 2 nays).
- SB 574 — Modifies opioid abatement board rules, adds public colleges as eligible entities and allows up to 10% of funds for certain statewide projects; passed (21 ayes, 1 nay).
- SB 831 — Raises per diem for State Election Board personnel; passed (22 ayes, 0 nays).

Nut graf: This roster reflects the committee record as reported on the transcript. Multiple bills advanced unanimously or with wide margins; several drew technical or policy questions that the committee asked staff or agencies to address before final Senate action.

Ending: For each advanced bill, the Appropriations Committee either adopted a do‑pass motion or moved the subcommittee recommendation forward. Members asked for follow‑up where fiscal details or implementation timing were unresolved.","The committee recorded votes on multiple bills during the session. This roundup lists each bill advanced, a short description (as stated in committee), and the committee roll call where recorded.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":90,"_43":101,"_45":101,"_47":102,"_49":103,"_51":104,"_53":105,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":106,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":107,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6309504,"Senate advances bill to address weigh‑station funding after debate on scope, recurring costs and software needs",4073000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2412156-a19cfd79a00fa091937ec4e08711b524&start=4073&end=4073","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2412156-a19cfd79a00fa091937ec4e08711b524/thumbnail_4073000.jpg","/articles/6309504/Oklahoma/Senate-advances-bill-to-address-weighstation-funding-after-debate-on-scope-recurring-costs-and-software-needs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6309504-af0b24eafd1b2e11ff1d8bd32383dc43/orig.mp4?Expires=1771094541&Signature=msl1lzzt7W8ZZHdedlKP6KQufMV~3TgZMFZ-IgG0Imi526Ipeb0KBXB02ApYFu6IB9EMUSVde2WqG2AgiOv9Q2wChd6Vf16DqXxZgfz~N8eculgFADvx4ZFqvPNIo4Ndy60E5kNz306ULpg5MdQgiEZAAbc7bhpNHPcf93tIhcH0riQ398LxK4z3OgL6yQNL~n~V6JPHLstYGJ7Cgl1zvd1NX5qWa-qByQdO~jrKvld0ZK8PRPNmWiioJNGZ5XXVT-yDlmL499uMcxKr-pVAtl5fNIkr8CSQ793vws76VlrbEeJEwKO~KQQNpKkEcXR1D1qflznBt0RvFc3XV~nxBg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 122, a measure to address funding shortfalls for the state’s weigh stations and permitting software, was advanced by the Appropriations Committee following detailed questions from senators about recurring operating needs, deferred maintenance and the scale of potential capital projects.

Senator Hayes, presenting the bill, said the Department of Transportation’s annual cost to manage weigh stations is roughly $4,700,000 and noted the permitting software OKIEPROS requires an estimated $3,000,000 update. He said the total cost to update a list of priority stations could reach about $164,000,000 depending on the package chosen.

Nut graf: The bill prompted a sequence of technical questions from senators about how weigh‑station fees are currently apportioned, whether a recurring $5 million or $10 million appropriation is appropriate, and how long renovated stations might last. Director Tim Gatz of ODOT said ports of entry are structures that require routine maintenance and that a well‑built new facility could deliver roughly a decade before major reinvestment.

Key details from testimony and Q&A

Recurring costs and cash on hand: Director Tim Gatz told the committee ODOT’s “all in cost on the weigh stations and the software systems of permitting office is about 4,700,000.0.” Senators noted the department’s revolving fund receipts have been volatile and that available cash on hand for weigh‑station work was substantially less than the identified annual need.

Software and capital costs: Senator Hayes and DOT staff identified OKIEPROS software modernization as a $3,000,000 item and listed several stations that surfaced as priorities for upgrade: Davis (southbound), El Reno (eastbound and westbound), Boise City, Tonkawa (or Tonopah per transcript), Guthrie (I‑35 northbound), an I‑40 eastbound site (Tiger Mountain referenced), and potential new ports at Hugo southbound and Cotton County southbound. The presentational estimate for several upgrades and new stations combined reached approximately $164,000,000.

Questions about policy and funding mechanism: Senators asked whether the bill should use an appropriation rather than an apportionment from existing fees so the department could reliably budget. Senator Hicks asked why the committee would consider $10,000,000 recurring when the department’s stated recurring need is about $4,700,000; Senator Hayes said the proposal remained under discussion and that the language could change to an appropriation to allow annual review.

Senate action and next steps

A do‑pass motion was recorded and the bill was advanced by the committee. The committee asked ODOT and fiscal staff to refine the fiscal proposal, including whether funds should come from apportionment or an annual appropriation and how much recurring funding is appropriate to cover routine operations versus catch‑up capital work.

Ending: The committee moved SB 122 forward and asked for more detailed fiscal modeling to return to appropriations staff before final Senate consideration.","Senate Bill 122, which would provide funds for weigh‑station upgrades and related software, advanced after senators questioned the scope of work, recurring annual needs (~$4.7M) and one‑time capital estimates that could reach $164M. DOT director said ports of entry average a decade of service before major work.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate approves two education measures: a teacher‑pipeline pilot and statewide math screening; senators debate implementation burdens and timeline

Senate appropriations subcommittees advance recommendations for transportation, general government and OMES; tax commission trims $1M

Votes at a glance: bills advanced by the Senate Appropriations Committee

Senate advances bill to address weigh‑station funding after debate on scope, recurring costs and software needs