To amend sections 3314.03, 3326.11, and 3328.24 and to enact section 3319.2214 of the Revised Code regarding implicit bias training for licensed educators and to make an appropriation.
HB165 would require school districts and chartered nonpublic schools to reimburse licensed employees, beginning July 1, 2025, for the full cost of approved graduate-level implicit bias training or the equivalent continuing education units. The State Board of Education and the Chancellor of Higher Education would be required to define the reimbursable amount of training, set minimum content standards, and ensure the training includes a definition of implicit bias, examples, methods for identifying susceptibility to bias, and evidence-based mitigation strategies. Local professional development committees would be able to count qualifying training toward teacher licensure renewal requirements.
The bill also makes conforming changes to community school, STEM school, and college-preparatory boarding school statutes by adding section 3319.2214 to the list of laws those schools must follow as if they were school districts. It includes a $750,000 General Revenue Fund appropriation in each of fiscal years 2026 and 2027 to reimburse districts and schools for these costs through the Department of Education and Workforce. In effect, the measure creates a statewide reimbursement framework for implicit bias training and ties it into existing educator professional development and licensure systems.
HB165 would amend Ohio’s Revised Code to create a new reimbursement mandate for implicit bias training and to require state-level standards for what qualifies as reimbursable training. It would affect school districts, chartered nonpublic schools, licensed educators, and the Department of Education and Workforce, while also extending compliance with the new section to community schools, STEM schools, and college-preparatory boarding schools through cross-references in their governing statutes. The appropriation would provide state funding to offset local reimbursement costs, but the bill would still impose a new administrative and fiscal obligation on participating schools and the state education system.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available context suggests the measure was introduced as a policy proposal rather than a contested or advanced bill. The sponsor list indicates support from a sizable group of House members, which suggests at least some interest in educator training and professional development. However, because there are no committee transcripts or vote records provided, there is no documented public debate in the available materials to show broader support or opposition.
The main likely point of contention is the requirement that districts and chartered nonpublic schools reimburse employees for implicit bias training, which creates a new spending obligation and may raise concerns about cost, mandate, and administrative burden. Another potential issue is the content of the training itself, since implicit bias training can be politically sensitive and may draw disagreement over whether it is appropriate, effective, or sufficiently defined by the state standards. The bill’s supporters appear to be the named sponsors and cosponsors, while any opposition would likely come from stakeholders concerned about local control, school funding, or the policy substance of implicit bias instruction.