SB 195 amends Oklahoma’s Apprenticeships, Internships and Mentorships (AIM) Act to update and clarify the rules governing school-based apprenticeship, internship, and mentorship programs. The bill continues to authorize public, private, magnet, public charter, and public virtual charter schools to partner with public or private organizations to create these opportunities for high school sophomores age 16 or older, juniors, and seniors, and it allows the programs to count as elective credit when a student’s schedule permits. It also preserves the rule that these programs cannot replace other required state curriculum requirements, except as otherwise allowed by law.
A central change in SB 195 is shifting responsibility for obtaining liability insurance coverage for participating students to the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES). The bill directs OMES to secure coverage from an authorized insurer, limits the coverage to what is reasonably necessary, and prohibits OMES from directly or indirectly charging students, parents or guardians, or schools for the cost of that insurance. It also states that failure to obtain coverage, or to obtain a specific amount of coverage, does not create legal liability for the student, parent or guardian, or school. The State Board of Education is authorized to adopt rules to determine whether these programs may count toward graduation requirements.
The bill’s impact on state law is to revise statutory language in 70 O.S. 2021, Section 1210.528-1, while preserving and expanding the administrative framework for AIM programs. It adds a specific state agency role in insurance procurement, clarifies cost responsibility, and reinforces that participation in these programs is optional and subject to school policies. It also maintains the possibility of academic credit and ties the programs more explicitly to graduation-rule determinations by the State Board of Education.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the general sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call history. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears broadly supportive of work-based learning and student safety, with an emphasis on making participation more workable for schools and families by addressing insurance coverage. The emergency clause and immediate-effective-date language suggest the sponsor viewed the changes as time-sensitive.
The main point of potential contention is the insurance mandate and who must administer and pay for it. The bill removes any direct or indirect charge to students, parents, guardians, or schools, which may raise questions about administrative responsibility and funding for OMES. Another possible issue is the extent of State Board discretion in deciding when these programs qualify for academic credit, since that could affect how widely the programs are used toward graduation requirements.
SB 195 amends the AIM Act provisions in Oklahoma education law, specifically 70 O.S. 2021, Section 1210.528-1. It changes the administration of liability insurance for apprenticeship, internship, and mentorship participants by assigning OMES the duty to obtain coverage and barring cost-shifting to students, parents, guardians, or schools. The bill also preserves school authority to create these programs, allows them to count as elective credit, and authorizes the State Board of Education to set rules for academic-credit eligibility toward graduation requirements.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll call. From the bill text, the measure appears generally favorable toward career-connected learning and student participation, with a practical focus on reducing barriers by clarifying insurance coverage and cost responsibility. The emergency clause indicates the sponsor considered the bill important enough to take effect immediately upon passage and approval.
The most notable potential contention is the new requirement that OMES obtain insurance coverage for participating students, along with the prohibition on charging schools or families for that coverage. That raises administrative and fiscal questions about how the coverage will be funded and managed. A second possible area of concern is the State Board of Education’s rulemaking authority over whether these programs count for academic credit, since that discretion could affect implementation and graduation pathways. No specific opposition or support was recorded in the provided materials.