Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Career Coaching And Workforce Readiness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel narrows requirements and approves changes to career coaching, sends bill forward 9‑4
Summary
The committee amended Senate Bill 365 to clarify data collection and broaden acceptable career coaching tools, removed a more restrictive certification proposal for career coaches after stakeholder concerns, and passed the bill on a 9‑4 vote.
The House Education Committee passed Senate Bill 365, as amended, by a 9‑4 roll call after sponsors narrowed some requirements and removed a proposed certification step that several members feared would limit available providers.
Representative Tim Teschka, who offered a late amendment to refine data reporting, said the bill seeks to centralize return‑on‑investment and workforce outcomes data: “We’re already collecting a lot of this data. Let’s put it in one spot so that we can effectively compare some of these programs,” he said.
The bill originally included language that some members worried would impose a narrow certification or training requirement that could reduce the pool of eligible career coaches. Representative Path filed an amendment to add minimum qualifications — including a high‑school diploma and a suggested minimum age of 23 — but withdrew it after discussion and a commitment from Path and other members to work with sponsors on acceptable language.
Representative Testa, the sponsor, described two chief changes adopted by the committee: clearer expectations for the state agencies to publish career‑outcomes data in a single place, and more flexible definitions of career coaching that allow multiple validated assessment tools (for example, ASVAB or Indiana Career Explorer) and virtual sessions in addition to in‑person coaching.
“Making the career coaching sessions more flexible and broadening allowed aptitude tools helps ensure grants go to actual coaching services rather than other after‑school activities,” Testa said.
Committee members expressed concern about overlap with school counselors and with the availability of providers; sponsors said the program is focused on intensive, grant‑funded career coaching rather than replacing counselors. The bill was approved by the committee on a recorded vote of 9 in favor and 4 opposed.
The committee did not adopt the more restrictive certification amendment on the floor, and sponsors agreed to continue working with stakeholders to identify an appropriate minimum standard that would not unduly limit provider capacity.
