Lawmakers propose residency requirement for Ohio scholarship
The scholarships give $5,000 per school year to students in the top 5% of their class who agree to attend schools in the Buckeye State. Senators continued funding for the Governor's Merit Scholarship in their state budget draft, but proposed revoking the funds if students move out of state in the three years after graduating.
'Because of this scholarship, this year, an additional 1,700 of our top students have decided to go to college in Ohio and not go to college out of state,' Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine said.
South-Western City Schools teachers, board clash over contract
The scholarship began in 2023 as a way to incentivize high-achieving Ohio high school graduates to stay in state for college, and DeWine said 87% of students offered the scholarship this year accepted it. DeWine said before the scholarship, between 35-40% of Ohio's top high school graduates attended college in another state. He said keeping students in the state is even more pertinent because two-thirds of American students work in the state they graduate from.
Now, senators want to ensure students are part of Ohio's workforce. Beginning in 2027, first-time scholarship recipients would have to commit to living in Ohio for the three years after graduation. Under the Senate's proposal, students would have to sign a promissory note that would require them to pay back the scholarships if they don't stay in Ohio.
The Senate budget changes would also adjust student eligibility. In the 2025-2026 school year, Senators proposed giving the scholarship to just the top 2% of students at each high school.
'While no final language has been approved, our office appreciates the Ohio General Assembly's support of the Governor's Merit Scholarships,' a governor's office spokesperson said. 'We will continue to work with the General Assembly through the budget process.'
Students from public schools, homeschooled, recovery dropout programs or chartered nonpublic high schools are eligible for the scholarship, which does not require an application. Instead, schools are given a specific number of scholarships to award to the top 5% of the graduating class by Nov. 1 of their graduating year. Students must actively accept the scholarships by March 1.
Senate Bill 1 cosponsor calls Ohio State's Juneteenth guidelines an 'intentional overreaction'
In the 2023-2024 school year, Ohio's most recently available data, there were just under 1.6 million students enrolled in eligible high schools. Although class sizes and circumstances vary, that would mean around 400,000 students graduate annually.
In 2026, the top 5% of students would amount to 20,000 possible scholarship awardees. By switching to the top 2% of students, just 8,000 students would qualify in fiscal year 2027.
The Senate budget allocates $47 million for fiscal year 2026 and $56,410,000 for 2027. This would allow 9,400 students to receive the full scholarship amount in 2026 and allow 11,282 students to receive the full amount in 2027. The scholarship gives 'up to $5,000' in case more students are eligible and nominated, which would lead to a prorated award.
The Senate did not keep a change to the scholarship program included in the House budget draft that would let private, for-profit universities accept Governor's Merit Scholars if they signed a commitment to comply with Senate Bill 1. S.B. 1 is a sweeping anti-DEI higher education bill that goes into effect for public colleges at the end of June, but the Senate removed this provision.
What potential fallout awaits when Ohio State sexual abuse documentary debuts
Both the Senate and the House included provisions requiring all state institutions to accept students who graduated in the top 10% of their class, and any student in the top 5% of their class must be accepted to the main campus.
Both the House and Senate followed a DeWine recommendation to guarantee high-performing high schoolers admission to state schools. The Senate budget requires all public universities to accept Ohio residents who graduated in the top 10% of their class. If students are in the top 5%, they must be accepted to the university's main campus.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump is undermining his own law that prevents mass atrocities
The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, which overwhelmingly passed across party lines in the House and Senate, institutionalizes atrocity prevention in the U.S. government. This includes legally mandating an interagency atrocity prevention coordination body, requiring training for foreign service officers on the prevention of atrocities, requiring an atrocity prevention strategy and, critically, annual reporting to Congress on the government's efforts. But this law is being ignored, to America's detriment. Democratic and Republican administrations have agreed for almost two decades that preventing mass atrocities around the world is a central foreign policy interest of the United States. In 2011, President Obama declared mass atrocities prevention a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. In 2019, the Trump administration stated that it 'has made a steadfast commitment to prevent, mitigate and respond to mass atrocities, and has set up a whole-of-government interagency structure to support this commitment.' In 2021, President Biden said, 'I recommit to the simple truth that preventing future genocides remains both our moral duty and a matter of national and global importance.' Preventing genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing is so central to America's own values, interests and security that in 2018, Trump signed the Elie Wiesel Act with strong bipartisan support. This law was groundbreaking, making the U.S. the first country in the world to enshrine the objective of presenting mass atrocities globally into national law. Yet today, this law and the work it advanced are under dire threat. What will Congress do about it? Mass atrocities are an anathema to American interests. Large scale, deliberate attacks on civilians shock the conscience. They undermine U.S moral, diplomatic, development and security interests. Preventing mass atrocities not only advances American interests, but it also strengthens our international cooperation and global leadership while advancing a peaceful and more just world. Most importantly, America should help prevent mass atrocities because it can. It has the tools and capabilities to help protect civilians and prevent the worst forms of human rights violations. It cannot do this alone, as there are many reasons why atrocities take place, but it can have an impact. And in today's world, this work is more important than ever. While the nation's atrocity prevention systems aren't perfect and there are certainly failures to point to, there has also been important progress and successes that risk being erased, making it even less likely that the U.S. will succeed at its commitment to protect civilians and prevent atrocities. The Trump administration should have submitted its Elie Wiesel Act annual report to Congress by July 15 — this didn't happen. The report is a critical tool for communicating to Congress and the American people what the U.S. is doing to advance this work. It is a mile marker for what has been done and what the needs are. It creates an opportunity for experts outside of government to weigh in. And it allows Congress to conduct oversight over the implementation of its law. But not only was the report not submitted by the normal deadline, nearly all of the U.S. government's atrocity experts have been subjected to reductions in force, forced to accept reassignment or retirement or placed on administrative leave. Key offices in USAID, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community and more have been eliminated or hollowed out. Without these experts and the offices that employed them, the U.S. lacks the expertise and systems to, at a minimum, fulfill its legal mandate under the law, let alone to effectively prevent, respond to and help countries recover from mass atrocities. In response to this glaring violation of U.S. law, a group of former civil servants who served as the experts on atrocity prevention in the U.S. interagency wrote a shadow Elie Wiesel Act report, which was presented to congressional staff in a briefing last month. These are the people who served in the Atrocity Prevention Task Force and who, under normal circumstances, would have written the annual Elie Wiesel Act Report. Civil society also would have made key contributions, both during the writing and roll-out of the report. None of that is possible now. But the work and imperative to prevent atrocities is still critical. When it enacted the Elie Wiesel Act, Congress knew that 'never again' doesn't happen simply because good people serve in government. True atrocity prevention requires institutionalization and incentivization in our governance system in order to compete with other, very legitimate foreign policy objectives. So why isn't Congress acting when this administration has completely destroyed the ability to address these core national security issues? We hope lawmakers will read this shadow report and critically engage with the questions that it raises. Why has the U.S. government's ability to prevent mass atrocities been attacked? How does this breakdown affect U.S. interests? What does this mean for countries around the world? What can be done to protect what's left and rebuild? And what is Congress willing to do about it, in defense of the law it passed and in line with its oversight duties? To do any less is to abdicate the promise of 'never again.' The world deserves better. And so do the American people. Kim Hart was the global Human Rights team lead at USAID and part of USAID's Atrocity Prevention Core Team. D. Wes Rist was an Atrocity Prevention policy advisor in the Department of State's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. Both were government employees until April and served in both the Trump and Biden administrations.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
'They're trying to rig the system': Sen. Padilla says Dems should fight fire with fire
California's Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla said his party should be willing to fight fire with fire, in light of Texas' potential, controversial gerrymandering plans. "If Republicans were confident on their policy agenda, they'd be eager to defend it with the people and to defend it at the ballot box next November," Padilla said in an Aug. 3 interview on NBC's "Meet the Press." "But they know they're in trouble," he continued. "And so they're trying to rig the system to hold on to power." The California senator was referencing Texas Republicans' proposed new map of their state's congressional districts, following President Donald Trump's urging that the GOP find a way to flip as many as five seats in next year's midterm elections. "Just a very simple redrawing, we pick up five seats," Trump told reporters on July 15. Padilla likened Trump's ask of Texas Republicans to his request during his first term in office that a top Georgia official "find 11,780 votes" to put him over the top in the Electoral College for the 2020 election. Redistricting in the middle of the decade, rather than every ten years after new census data is collected, is rare. And the pushback from Democrats across the country has been widespread. Blue state leaders have threatened tit-for-tat responses, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has suggested redrawing his state's map to counteract Texas' efforts. (Newsom faces the challenge of a bipartisan redistricting commission, which oversees California's maps, unlike Texas, where lawmakers dictate the boundaries.) Some California Democrats are wary, warning that a redistricting arms race could spiral and erode trust with voters. In response to those concerns, Padilla told NBC he believes it's appropriate for the Democrat-controlled state to evaluate its options. "The ideal scenario," he said, "is for Texas to stand down. They don't have to do this; they shouldn't do this. But if they were to go forward and deliver Trump his five additional Republicans ... the stakes are simply too high" for Democrats not to respond. Padilla also addressed recent comments from his fellow Democrats about the state of politics and American democracy, including Sen. Cory Booker's call for his party to "have a backbone." "It's time for us to fight. It's time for us to draw lines," Booker said from the Senate floor on July 29. Asked whether Booker's defiant approach was the appropriate stance for Democrats under the Trump administration, Padilla said, "Look, I think the extreme way in which this administration is conducting itself calls for higher and higher profile ways of pushing back." After announcing that she would not be running for California governor in 2026, former Vice President Kamala Harris appeared on CBS's "The Late Show" with Stephen Colbert. In her interview on July 31, Harris told Colbert, "Recently, I made the decision that, for now, I don't want to go back into the system. I think it's broken." Padilla agreed, in part, with Harris' take, saying, "I think the system is under duress." "Democrats are doing our part to try to stand up and push back," he added.
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Senate heads into recess as Trump tells Schumer to 'go to hell'
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, speaks at a press conference calling on the administration to release the Epstein files in the U.S. Capitol building last week. File Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo Aug. 3 (UPI) -- The U.S. Senate began its month‑long recess Saturday night amid negotiations to advance the nomination of dozens of Donald Trump's pending nominees, as the president told Sen. Chuck Schumer to "go to hell" when the talks collapsed. Trump, in a post to his Truth Social platform on Saturday, had wanted the Senate to stay in session but accused Schumer of "political extortion" for allegedly demanding a billion dollars in funding in order to approve dozens of his remaining "highly qualified nominees" for appointment to the administration. A source familiar with Schumer's alleged demands told Axios that Schumer wants the White House to release withheld federal funding in exchange for passing a small batch of the nominees. "Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!" Trump said in his post. "Do not accept the offer, go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our country." Schumer later shared Trump's post and quipped, "The Art of the Deal." He later added that Trump had "attempted to steamroll" the Senate into approving his "historically unqualified nominees." But the standoff has led Senate Republicans to express support for the possibility that Trump use recess appointments, a controversial constitutional mechanism that allows the president to "temporarily" fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess. "The Senate should immediately adjourn and let President Trump use recess appointments to enact the agenda 77M Americans voted for," Sen. Roger Marshall posted on Saturday. Senate Republicans also indicated they might pursue a change to Senate rules after they return from recess to make it easier to pass through confirmations. Sen. Markwayne Mullin told Fox News that lawmakers would be moving forward with a rule change in September.
