To amend sections 3365.05 and 3365.07 and to enact section 3365.072 of the Revised Code regarding the College Credit Plus Program.
HB62 revises Ohio’s College Credit Plus program, which allows eligible secondary school students to earn college credit while still enrolled in high school. The bill adds a detailed set of requirements for participating colleges, including how they must evaluate student readiness, prioritize enrollment, notify students and schools, provide program information online, hold informational sessions, assign college advisors, support and observe high school teachers who teach CCP courses, collect and report data, and require student orientation. It also applies most of these requirements to eligible out-of-state colleges participating in the program.
The bill also changes how state funds are paid to colleges for CCP participants. It sets payment rules by student type and course delivery method, preserves the ability of schools and colleges to negotiate alternative payment agreements, and limits what students may be charged. In addition, HB62 creates a new section requiring colleges to try to use open-source textbooks for CCP courses and, when purchase-only textbooks are used, to split or shift textbook costs depending on whether open-source alternatives exist. The bill would repeal the existing versions of the amended sections and replace them with the new framework.
HB62 would amend Revised Code sections 3365.05 and 3365.07 and enact new section 3365.072, substantially expanding statutory requirements for colleges participating in College Credit Plus. It would affect public colleges, participating private colleges, eligible out-of-state colleges, secondary schools, students, and the Department of Education and Workforce, while also involving the Chancellor of Higher Education in rulemaking and oversight. The bill changes program administration, funding formulas, textbook-cost responsibilities, and student-charge limits, and it would require colleges and schools to adjust enrollment, advising, reporting, and course-support practices.
The bill is introduced and was referred to the House Education Committee, with no recorded votes or committee testimony available in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears aimed at strengthening oversight, transparency, and affordability in College Credit Plus, suggesting a generally program-supportive but more regulatory approach. Because there is no transcript or vote history, no clear public sentiment can be inferred beyond the bill’s apparent policy intent.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the added compliance obligations on colleges, including mandatory advising, informational sessions, classroom observations, reporting, and textbook-cost rules. The funding provisions may also be disputed, especially the limits on payments, the ability to negotiate alternative agreements, and the restrictions on charging students, including the special protections for economically disadvantaged and low-income scholarship students. Colleges and school districts may differ over who should bear textbook and fee costs, and whether the new requirements improve quality and access or create administrative and financial burdens.