Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Instructional Hours topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor pitches adding instructional hours to reverse years-long reduction in Ohio schools
Summary
House Bill 145 would add 53 instructional hours to statewide school requirements, restoring some time lost when the state changed its requirement from days to hours; committee held first hearing and members asked about contracts, logistics and costs.
The House Education Committee heard sponsor testimony on House Bill 145, a proposal to increase the state-required instructional hours for Ohio public schools by 53 hours.
Representative Byrd, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure aims to “return lost instructional time” taken when the General Assembly changed the requirement from 180 days to hour-based requirements in 2014. Byrd told the committee that under current law districts must provide 1,001 hours for grades 7–12 and 910 hours for grades K–6 (as described in testimony) and that the bill would add 53 hours to reach 1,054 hours. Byrd cited comparative figures for other states and jurisdictions — Kentucky 1,062 hours, Michigan 1,098 hours, West Virginia 1,080 hours, Texas 1,260 hours — and international examples such as South Korea at roughly 1,300 hours. He said research and prior pilot programs indicate that additional instructional time is associated with achievement gains.
Committee members raised operational and contractual concerns. Representative Miller asked how schools could balance increased instructional time with existing professional-development and compliance obligations; Byrd said many districts have retained similar total contract days and converted some former instructional days into work days for staff, and he suggested the change could focus on restoring student-facing instructional time. Representative Robinson asked whether the timeline for enactment would give districts adequate time; Byrd said he would prefer a prompt process but was open to later implementation and to language addressing existing collective-bargaining agreements.
Members also discussed logistical issues including bus schedules, daily order (start/end times), lunch periods and the special needs of kindergarten teachers. Vice Chair Odioso and others asked whether the bill would force districts to alter daily orders; Byrd said the proposal adds hours but does not mandate a return to 180 days, leaving local scheduling flexibility.
Several members pressed the sponsor on compensation and labor impacts. Byrd said teachers’ time should be compensated and acknowledged the need to respect current contracts and bargaining timelines; he said he would consider amendments to avoid imposing sudden changes on districts.
The committee did not vote; sponsors said they expect robust debate and would work with members on amendments, implementation timelines and possible collective-bargaining language.
Ending: The hearing closed with multiple follow-up questions expected; no formal action was taken.
