To amend sections 5705.03, 5705.215, and 5705.31 and to enact sections 3314.31, 5705.316, and 5748.11 of the Revised Code to establish a small district magnet community school pilot program.
HB375 would create a small district magnet community school pilot program administered by the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce. A school district with fewer than 1,000 students could apply to participate for three to five school years if it has open enrollment for students from all other districts, operates a competency-based education pilot with differentiated instruction and career preparation, and has a shared services agreement with an educational service center. If approved, the district’s schools would operate as community schools for purposes of the pilot, with the district board acting as the governing authority and the department serving as sponsor to the extent needed.
The bill gives participating districts significant operational flexibility. The department would issue guidelines allowing multi-grade classrooms, cohort-based staffing, more flexibility in early literacy and numeracy standards, integrated instruction in higher grades, and a minimum school year of 920 hours rather than the standard district requirement. It also allows districts to transfer certain buildings, buses, or other assets to the educational service center during participation, with the center able to hold those assets until the district can afford to maintain them again. State funding for participating schools would be provided in the same manner as community schools, and the schools would be subject to community school funding requirements.
HB375 also changes local tax administration for participating districts. It bars the district board from adopting certain property tax resolutions under section 5705.03 while in the pilot, and it requires reductions to current expense school district income taxes under sections 5705.316 and 5748.11 to zero during participation. In addition, it adds a new purpose for educational service center levies under section 5705.215 to cover increased expenses caused by a district’s participation in the pilot program. The bill therefore affects school finance, county budget commission procedures, and the authority of participating districts to levy income taxes and some property tax measures.
Because the bill was only introduced and has no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no documented legislative debate to gauge broad support or opposition. The text itself suggests the bill is designed to help very small districts gain flexibility, cost savings, and a community-school-style operating model, which indicates a reform-oriented and pilot-focused approach. The absence of transcripts means any sentiment assessment is limited to the bill’s structure and stated policy goals rather than expressed stakeholder views.
The main points of potential contention are the shift away from traditional district governance and funding rules, the department’s role as a sponsor, and the requirement that participating districts give up or suspend certain taxing powers. Questions may also arise about whether the pilot’s flexibility, asset transfers, and zeroing out of income taxes could create fiscal or accountability concerns for districts, educational service centers, and taxpayers. Supporters would likely emphasize flexibility and efficiency for small rural districts, while critics may focus on reduced local control and the unusual blending of district and community school structures.
HB375 would add a new pilot-program section to the community school law and create related tax provisions that apply only to participating small school districts. It would amend existing tax-certification and school-finance statutes to prevent participating districts from adopting certain property tax resolutions, suspend current expense school district income taxes during participation, and authorize educational service center levies for added costs tied to the pilot. The bill would also require the Department of Education and Workforce to issue operating guidelines and would shift participating schools into a community-school-style funding and governance framework for the duration of the pilot.
The available record shows no committee testimony and no votes, so there is no direct evidence of legislative or public sentiment from the provided materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears generally supportive of innovation and flexibility for small districts, with a reform-minded tone aimed at cost savings, staffing flexibility, and career-oriented instruction. At the same time, the proposal would significantly alter normal school-district finance and governance rules, which suggests that any eventual debate would likely be mixed rather than uniformly favorable.
The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s reduction of local taxing authority, the temporary elimination of current expense school district income taxes for participating districts, and the department’s authority to act as sponsor for district schools. Another likely issue is the transfer of district assets to an educational service center without monetary compensation, which could raise concerns about local control and asset protection. Supporters would likely argue that these changes are necessary to make the pilot workable for very small districts, while opponents may view them as too disruptive or as weakening traditional school-district governance.