To amend sections 3310.034, 3310.51, and 3310.52 of the Revised Code to permit students to concurrently receive an Educational Choice scholarship or Pilot Project scholarship and either an Autism or Jon Peterson Special Needs scholarship and to make an appropriation.
SB44 would change Ohio’s school scholarship laws to allow certain students to receive two forms of aid in the same school year. Specifically, a student eligible for an Educational Choice scholarship, an expanded Educational Choice scholarship, or a Pilot Project scholarship could also receive either an Autism scholarship or a Jon Peterson Special Needs scholarship, if the student qualifies for those programs. The bill also clarifies how those combined awards may be used, including a restriction that the total amount received cannot exceed the cost of the services or tuition and fees provided, and that Jon Peterson funds may be used only for special education program fees, not tuition, when paired with a state scholarship.
The bill further makes students who age out of special education services eligible for the Educational Choice scholarship even if they are not enrolled in the specific types of school buildings otherwise required by law. It also allows those students to continue receiving the scholarship through grade 12 if they remain eligible under the applicable program rules. In addition to the policy changes, SB44 includes an appropriation of $42 million from the General Revenue Fund in each of fiscal years 2026 and 2027 for foundation funding related to all students.
In terms of impact on state law, SB44 amends sections 3310.034, 3310.51, and 3310.52 of the Revised Code and repeals the existing versions of those sections. The practical effect would be to expand scholarship stacking for students with disabilities and to broaden access to the Educational Choice program for students who no longer need special education services. It would also affect the Department of Education and Workforce, scholarship administrators, school districts, private providers, and families using autism, Jon Peterson, and EdChoice-type scholarships.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill’s sponsorship and structure appears supportive of expanding educational options for students with disabilities and their families. The bill was introduced with multiple cosponsors, suggesting some legislative backing, and its language is framed as a permissive expansion rather than a restriction. No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded debate or formal vote outcome to indicate broader legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s sponsorship.
The main point of contention likely concerns the interaction between multiple scholarship programs and the fiscal and administrative effects of allowing concurrent awards. Potential questions include whether the combined funding could increase state costs, how to prevent duplicate payment for the same services, and whether the new eligibility rules could broaden access beyond the original intent of the programs. Another possible issue is the distinction between tuition and special education fees under the Jon Peterson scholarship when paired with an Educational Choice scholarship, which may require careful implementation by providers and the state.
SB44 would amend Ohio scholarship statutes governing the Educational Choice, Pilot Project, Autism, and Jon Peterson Special Needs programs. It would permit eligible students to receive a state scholarship and a special-needs scholarship in the same school year, subject to limits on total payment and use of funds, and it would expand Educational Choice eligibility for students who no longer need special education services. The bill also appropriates $42 million from the General Revenue Fund in each of fiscal years 2026 and 2027 for foundation funding, affecting state education spending and administration by the Department of Education and Workforce.
The bill appears generally favorable toward expanding school choice and special education access. Its sponsor and cosponsors support allowing families to combine scholarships and maintain access to educational options as students’ needs change. Because no committee testimony or votes are included, there is no direct record here of opposition or formal legislative debate, but the policy direction is clearly expansionary and student-focused.
Likely areas of contention include the fiscal impact of allowing scholarship stacking, the risk of overlapping payments for the same student, and the administrative complexity of coordinating multiple programs. Critics may question whether the bill could increase state costs or blur the intended boundaries between general school choice scholarships and special education scholarships. Supporters are likely to emphasize flexibility for families, continuity of services, and broader access to private or alternative educational placements for students with disabilities.