HB1375 creates a new student teaching stipend program administered by the Illinois Board of Higher Education, subject to appropriation. The program is intended to reduce the financial burden of student teaching, encourage more students to enter teaching careers, and help address the state’s teacher shortage. It authorizes stipends of up to $10,000 per semester for eligible student teachers for up to two consecutive semesters, and up to $2,000 per semester for eligible cooperating teachers who supervise them. The bill also requires the State Board of Education to develop training for cooperating teachers and allows stipend recipients to earn professional development hours for completing that training.
The bill sets out how funds are to be distributed through educator preparation programs and school districts or early childhood education providers, including rules for prioritizing students with demonstrated financial need when funding is insufficient and increasing awards proportionally if there is a surplus. It also requires reporting on the program’s effects on enrollment, completion, hiring, and retention once the program has been funded at a specified level for three consecutive fiscal years. The Board of Higher Education is directed to adopt rules, and emergency rules may be used if funding begins before permanent rules are in place.
HB1375 also amends the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act to allow the Board of Higher Education to adopt emergency rules to implement the student teaching stipend program quickly. In addition, it amends the Illinois Pension Code to exclude stipends paid to eligible cooperating teachers under the new program from certain pension contribution calculations, and it adds student teaching under Section 9.45 of the Board of Higher Education Act to the list of service credits in the Teachers’ Retirement System provisions. The bill further updates pension contribution language to reflect the new stipend program and related salary exclusions.
The general sentiment around the bill appears favorable, based on its strong House passage on third reading, 78-23. The bill’s stated purpose is workforce development for education and financial relief for student teachers, which likely contributed to support. There is no committee transcript available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote suggests broad support with a meaningful minority opposed.
The main points of contention are likely fiscal and administrative rather than conceptual. Because the stipend program is subject to appropriation, lawmakers may have concerns about ongoing state costs, funding adequacy, and how awards will be prioritized if demand exceeds available money. The pension-related provisions may also draw scrutiny because they alter how certain stipends are treated under retirement law, and the bill’s reliance on emergency rulemaking could raise concerns about implementation speed versus oversight.
HB1375 adds a new Section 9.45 to the Board of Higher Education Act establishing a state-run student teaching stipend program and amends the Administrative Procedure Act to permit emergency rules for rapid implementation. It also amends the Teachers’ Retirement System provisions in the Illinois Pension Code to account for the new program, including excluding cooperating-teacher stipends from certain pension calculations and recognizing student teaching under the new section as a form of service credit. The bill affects the Board of Higher Education, the State Board of Education, educator preparation programs, school districts, early childhood education providers, student teachers, cooperating teachers, and the Teachers’ Retirement System.
The bill appears to have received generally positive support in the House, passing third reading 78-23 on April 7, 2025. The policy goal of reducing the cost barrier to student teaching and helping address teacher shortages likely resonated with many members. At the same time, the size and funding structure of the new stipend program suggest that some members remained skeptical or concerned about cost, implementation, or pension implications, as reflected in the notable number of nays.
The most likely areas of contention are funding, administration, and pension treatment. Because the stipend program is subject to appropriation, opponents may question whether the state can sustain the program at the proposed levels or whether awards will be too limited when funding is short. The bill’s use of emergency rulemaking may also concern members who prefer a slower, more deliberative regulatory process. Finally, the pension-code changes and the treatment of cooperating-teacher stipends may raise questions among those focused on retirement-system costs and benefit calculations.