Substitute teachers press for state office, benefits and training as committee hears two bills

Substitute teachers, education associations and local officials told the Oregon Senate Education Committee on Feb. 24 that substitute teaching has grown into a large, often precarious workforce and urged the committee to pass two related bills to improve training, benefits and transparency.

Senate Bill 3 22 would create an Office of Substitute Teachers within the Oregon Department of Education, require an online professional‑development contract for substitutes, establish substitute teacher licenses and permit a pathway from restricted to regular substitute licensure, create a process for substitutes who work half time or more to enroll in health‑care plans, and declare an emergency effective July 1, 2025. The bill includes multiple sections the substitute teachers’ task force recommended, witnesses said.

Debbie Ferry, representing the Oregon Substitute Teachers Association, said SB 3 22 is “about fiscal accountability and transparency” and argued the provisions are interdependent. “These 5 proposals were voted for in favor by a quorum of task force members,” Ferry said, urging funding for an office to coordinate handbooks, training and due process so substitutes are not terminated for procedural missteps.

Leslie Paulson, president of the Oregon Substitute Teachers Association, told the committee that students need stability in the classroom. “Students deserve better,” she said, citing classroom management challenges and the “9‑day boogie” of restricted license substitutes rotating through the same long‑term jobs.

Ross Swartzendruber, a substitute teacher in Salem‑Keizer, described the gig‑economy aspect of current substitute staffing systems and said districts rely on algorithms and third‑party apps to fill assignments. “We are part of the gig economy now,” he said, and asked the committee to elevate substitutes’ status by creating a state office where substitutes can go for support.

Steve Frank, appearing remotely for the Oregon Substitute Teachers Association (ASTA), and other witnesses supported SB 3 22 and stressed the need for training, health‑plan access and a path to regular substitute licensure that does not require a traditional teacher‑preparation program.

School district and association representatives voiced mixed views on Senate Bill 3 23, which would require school districts and education service districts to conduct and post a cost analysis of contracts for substitute teacher services before entering, renewing or extending those contracts, and would require submission of the contract and analysis to ODE. The bill would also require public discussion at a regular board meeting and an annual ODE report on implementation.

Stacy Michaelson of the Oregon School Boards Association and Morgan Allen of COSA said much of the activity SB 3 23 would require is already covered by public contracting law and local board processes; they urged caution about adding duplicate reporting requirements. Michaelson said existing statutes and recorded board meetings already provide public access to contract discussions.

But witnesses who oppose third‑party outsourcing argued districts lack clear, comparable cost data. Debbie Ferry and other witnesses said staffing‑agency models can cost districts more than in‑house substitutes because the district pays a staffing fee on the entire substitute pool while retirement and benefits attach to a small share who meet hours thresholds. Ferry summarized: “The staffing agency gets paid on every substitute teacher based on gross payroll. 24 to 26% goes to the staffing fee… Only 8 to 10% of the pool work the hours enough to get retirement and other benefits.”

The committee’s members asked questions about cost, scope and implementation. Senator Osterholm, co‑chair of the Joint Committee on Ways and Means for Education, said she was concerned about the unknown fiscal impact and told witnesses she would need more detailed cost estimates as the bills move forward. Chair Frederick and other committee members encouraged witnesses to provide documentation for OLIS to expedite review.

No formal votes were taken on SB 3 22 or SB 3 23 during the Feb. 24 hearings; both were closed for testimony and may return for work sessions later in the session.

The committee’s record and the witnesses’ written testimony are posted to OLIS.