Committee extends study on educator high‑needs program; sponsor seeks local control over high‑need designations

3840737 · June 16, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A bill to move a sunset and give local school districts control over high‑need teacher categories was sent to study; the sponsor said the measure would preserve jobs of those already hired under the program and align with recent literacy and dyslexia requirements.

The committee voted to send House Bill 372 to study after the bill’s sponsor said the measure would extend the sunset for a teacher recruitment program created in a prior session and would give local school districts authority to set their own high‑need categories.

Sponsor remarks: The bill’s sponsor, Bethany Ballard, told the committee HB 372 would move out the program’s sunset established by House Bill 385 (2021–22) and would allow local public school systems to determine their highest‑need areas rather than rely solely on RESAs. Ballard said the bill would list eligible high‑need areas — including math, special education, reading, writing and English language arts — and would require a current dyslexia or reading endorsement where applicable to comply with recent literacy legislation.

Ballard said the proposal would not change existing high‑need designations for employees already hired under the program, so a change in a district’s high‑need category would not result in termination or nonrenewal of current beneficiaries. Claire Suggs, representing the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, spoke in support and said the association had submitted a letter backing the bill.

Formal action: Committee members moved and seconded that HB 372 be sent to study; the motion carried by voice vote. A committee member asked whether an actuarial or cost review would permit scaling back the sunset if a study returned higher costs; staff answered the committee could reduce scope but could not make the change more expensive than statutory limits.

The sponsor asked the committee to return the bill with any requested technical edits and cost information. The committee did not set a new sunset date in its discussion; the sponsor stated a date in the meeting transcript that was unclear in the recording, and the committee asked staff to provide the precise effective and sunset dates in the study materials.