Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the College Admissions Testing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor asks Ohio to add Classic Learning Test as college‑admissions option; senators press for research
Summary
Representative Ritter told the Senate Education Committee House Bill 326 would add the Classic Learning Test (CLT) to Ohio's approved admissions assessments to expand choice and fairness; senators asked for peer‑reviewed comparisons with the ACT and SAT and for data on institutional acceptance.
Representative Ritter told the committee that amended House Bill 326 would amend the Ohio Revised Code to include the Classic Learning Test (CLT) as an approved nationally standardized college‑admissions assessment.
"I support this bill for 3 primary reasons," Ritter said: it expands educational choice, promotes academic freedom and upholds fairness in college admissions. He described the CLT as aligned with classical‑education values and said it offers an alternative for students educated in classical and liberal‑arts traditions as well as traditional public‑school students.
Committee members pressed for specifics. Senator Smith asked how many colleges and universities exist nationally and how many actually accept the CLT; Ritter replied he did not have a precise national total but said institutions in 43 states accept the CLT and that it has a roughly ten‑year history. Senator Smith and others asked whether peer‑reviewed research demonstrates that CLT scores correspond to ACT or SAT predictive validity; Ritter said studies exist and that ACT and SAT organizations have worked with CLT on correspondence models but he did not have the research at hand and offered to provide materials.
Ritter described the bill's effects on higher‑education admissions: if a college requires standardized test scores and accepts ACT or SAT, the bill would require it to also accept CLT. He emphasized the bill does not compel students or K‑12 districts to use CLT as an assessment option and said he would work with senators on a possible study or modifications.
The committee concluded the first hearing on the amended bill after questioning and invited follow‑up documentation from the sponsor.
