To amend sections 3317.14, 4117.10, 5126.24, and 5705.412; to enact new section 3317.13; and to repeal section 3317.13 of the Revised Code to require that all school district and educational service center teachers be paid a salary of at least $50,000.
HB191 would establish a statewide minimum base salary of $50,000 for teachers employed by city, local, exempted village, and joint vocational school districts, as well as educational service centers. It creates a new Revised Code section requiring those employers to pay no less than that amount and revises the state’s school-district salary schedule law so that teachers must receive at least the statutory minimum while still allowing districts to set their own salary schedules based on training and years of service. The bill also requires that teachers receive credit for at least five years of actual teaching and military experience when placed on the salary schedule.
The bill extends similar minimum-pay protections to county boards of developmental disabilities for licensed teaching staff, requiring their salary schedules to provide at least the same minimum compensation that would apply if the teacher were employed by a school district. It also amends the public-sector collective bargaining statute so that, for agreements entered into on or after the bill’s effective date, a collective bargaining agreement cannot provide wages or compensation below the new statutory minimum. In addition, the bill amends school-district fiscal certification rules to exempt salary increases needed to comply with the new teacher minimum from certain certificate requirements, and it repeals the existing version of the teacher salary statute to replace it with the new minimum-pay framework.
Overall, the bill’s effect would be to raise the floor for teacher compensation across affected public education employers and to make that floor controlling over conflicting local salary schedules and future collective bargaining agreements. It would also affect county boards of developmental disabilities by tying teacher pay there to the same minimum standard. The bill would not eliminate local salary schedules or seniority/training-based increments, but it would require those systems to operate above the new minimum.
The available context shows no committee testimony or recorded votes, and the bill is only at the introduced stage. As a result, there is no documented formal support or opposition in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s purpose and sponsors, the measure appears aimed at improving teacher pay and recruitment/retention, with the main policy debate likely centered on the fiscal impact to school districts and other public employers.
The most notable point of contention is likely cost: districts would need to raise salaries for any teachers currently below $50,000, and the bill also limits the ability of collective bargaining agreements to set lower compensation. Another possible issue is the interaction with local bargaining and budget authority, since the bill gives the new minimum priority over conflicting labor agreements and modifies school-district financial certification rules to accommodate the mandated pay increase.
HB191 would amend the Revised Code to create a mandatory minimum base salary of $50,000 for covered teachers, superseding lower local salary schedules and limiting contrary collective bargaining terms. It would also require county boards of developmental disabilities to maintain teacher salary schedules that meet at least the same minimum standard, and it would exempt salary increases necessary to comply with the new minimum from certain school-district fiscal certification restrictions under section 5705.412. Existing sections 3317.13, 3317.14, 4117.10, 5126.24, and 5705.412 would be repealed and replaced or revised to conform to the new pay floor.
The bill appears generally supportive of teachers and public education compensation, with sponsors and cosponsors signaling an intent to raise teacher pay statewide. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes in the provided record, there is no direct evidence of organized opposition or support from hearings. The likely overall sentiment is favorable toward increasing teacher salaries, while recognizing that implementation could be controversial for fiscal reasons.
The main likely point of contention is the fiscal burden on school districts, educational service centers, and county boards of developmental disabilities that currently pay some teachers below $50,000. A second issue is labor-relations impact: the bill expressly makes the new minimum controlling over lower compensation terms in collective bargaining agreements entered into after the effective date, which could be viewed as limiting bargaining flexibility. A third issue is administrative and budget compliance, since the bill adjusts school-district certification rules to allow the mandated raises but still requires districts to manage their finances within existing state law.