Joint resolution; approving certain proposed permanent rules of certain state agencies.
Summary
SJR22 is a joint resolution that approves most of the proposed permanent rules submitted by several education-related state agencies for consideration in the 2025 session. The resolution covers rules from the State Department of Education, the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, the Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education, the Statewide Charter School Board, the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability, and the Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation.
The resolution also specifically disapproves six proposed rule changes and directs that the prior language be restored for those provisions. The disapproved rules are identified by administrative code citations in Title 210, affecting areas within the State Department of Education’s regulatory framework. The Secretary of State is directed to distribute copies of the resolution to the Governor, the State Department of Education, and The Oklahoma Register.
Impact
Because this is a joint resolution approving or rejecting agency rules, it does not itself create new substantive education policy, but it determines which proposed permanent rules will take effect and which will not. Its practical impact is to maintain the existing rule language for the six disapproved provisions while allowing the remainder of the submitted education-related rules to proceed. The affected parties are the listed education agencies, schools and districts subject to their rules, and other stakeholders regulated by those administrative provisions.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment around SJR22 appears strongly favorable and routine, with broad bipartisan support in both chambers. It passed the Senate committee 6-1, then the full Senate 43-0, the House committee 13-0, and the full House 90-0. The unanimous floor votes suggest little controversy over the resolution as a whole, even though it contains targeted disapprovals of specific rule changes.
Contention
The main points of contention are limited to the six specific proposed rule amendments that the Legislature chose to reject. Those disapprovals indicate concern with particular language in the State Department of Education rules, but the available record does not include debate transcripts explaining the objections. The rest of the rule package was approved, suggesting disagreement was narrow and technical rather than a broader dispute over education rulemaking authority.