Committee advances bill to require comprehensive school counseling plans
Loading...
Summary
The education committee approved House Bill 22 18 to establish a School Counseling Services Act requiring each school entity to implement a comprehensive school counseling plan; supporters cited student mental-health needs while some members raised concerns about counselor shortages and implementation without added funding.
House Bill 22 18, sponsored on the floor by Representative Steele, would establish a School Counseling Services Act that requires each school entity to implement a comprehensive school counseling plan intended to keep counselors focused on counseling duties rather than covering classroom supervision.
"School counselors play an essential role in students' lives," Representative Steele said, arguing counselors are frequently pulled from core responsibilities to cover other duties and that the bill would ensure counselors are available to students in their counseling capacity. Steele framed the measure as part of a broader effort to support students' mental health and academic pathways.
Representative Anderson and other members questioned the practical effects of the mandate in districts facing substitute-teacher shortages. "So let's say, a daily situation, there's not enough subs ... and you have administrators covering classes and the only professionals left are counselors," Anderson said, pressing on how schools should respond on days when staff are short.
Chair Cutler said he supported the goal but pushed for committing budget resources rather than imposing new unfunded mandates. "My main concern is recognizing the shortage of counselors, coupled with the underlying budget discussions," Cutler said, asking for targeted funding to recruit and retain counselors rather than only requiring new duties.
Supporters noted recent state investments in education funding and teacher pipeline programs, saying the bill complements existing efforts to expand counseling capacity. After debate the committee took a roll call; the ayes were 14 and the nays 12 and the motion to advance the bill passed.
The committee did not attach a finance mechanism in the bill text during the session; members indicated further budget discussions would follow in the budget process.
The committee is expected to move the bill to the floor; no enactment date was specified in the hearing record.
