Before we get to the lowdown on GA action today, I
dedicate this posting to three champions of public education who have recently
passed: Gary Waldo (former UniServ
Director in Roanoke, former Senator Madison Mayre, and former VRTA Lobbyist
Charlie Todd. May they rest in peace?
The docket was full in the Senate Education and Health
Committee this morning. Senator Steve
Newman is the most efficient committee chairman I have ever seen. He knows how to move an agenda, and he is
fair to all. He should train committee
chairs.
First two pieces of good news –
VEA initiated SB564 gained final passage on the House
floor on a 93-Y 3-N vote. This bill
shield teacher licensure applications from Freedom of Information Acts (FOIA) requests. Thanks, Senator Norment!
VEA initiated HB524 reported unanimously and is headed to
the Senate floor where it will be on the uncontested calendar. This bill shields teacher performance data from FOIA requests. Thanks Delegate
LeMunyon!
Now two pieces of bad news, HB389, Delegate LaRock’s parental choice savings
account bill reported from the committee on a straight party-line vote.
Also, HB8, Delegate Dickie Bell’s virtual school bill was
reported re-referred to SFC on a 10-Y 5-N vote.
And finally, here is an updated overview of HB389, which is heading to the Senate Finance Committee:
VEA
Urges Opposition to HB389
VEA urges your opposition to House Bill 389. This bill creates a new government
entitlement at a time when the Commonwealth is unable to properly fund existing
core services. For example, when
inflation is considered, funding for our public schools is 14 percent below
2009 levels.
The new entitlement involves siphoning off funds now
received by public schools to create Parental Choice Education Savings Accounts
that can be used to pay for education-related expenses.
Although this bill has been amended to include only
students having a disability, from what we have seen in the states of Arizona
and Florida, the ultimate aim of advocates of Parental Choice Education Savings
Accounts will be to broaden eligibility.
Indeed, the introduced HB389 embraced all students. In Arizona, one year after implementation,
the scope was expanded to include students in low-performing schools, students
with parents on active military duty, and students adopted or pending adoption
from the state foster care system.
Beyond the fact that there is legal doubt as to whether
the public school division can be relieved from the responsibility of
implementing an Individualized Education Program (IEP), it is important to note
that private schools are not bound by Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) or by the terms of a child’s IEP.
They are not compelled to avail the child of the least restrictive
environment. Further, this bill requires
no review of student progress, as is required by IDEA, and there are no
due-process provisions for parents if progress is not being made, as is
required by IDEA. The Florida plan
requires an annual review of student performance with termination provisions if
progress is not being achieved. There
are no such provisions in this bill.
IDEA has provisions for impartial due process if discipline is not being
administered in an appropriate manner – this bill contains no such
provisions. This should give pause to
any of you who voted last year in favor of great regulation of seclusion and
restraint in our public schools and to those cognizant of the Constitutional
provisions requiring an “educational program of high quality.”
What if the parent and student are not satisfied with the
educational options chosen? The
provisions of the bill (lines 56-57) bar them from returning to the public school: “Not enroll the qualified student in a school
division in the school year in which the parent receives the Savings Account or
the immediately succeeding school year.”
The student is stranded and the local school division is left
responsible the student’s education despite the absence of state funding.
The accounts are available without income limits, which
raises the question, “Should this funding be available to those who can easily
fund the education of their children?“
“Students whose family's annual household income is not in excess of 300
percent,” is a criterion used elsewhere in the code. As written, funds from low-income Virginians
could be handed over to the wealthy for their “Savings Accounts.”
The inclusion of sectarian schools (line 30) raises a
serious constitutional question. TAG
grants are used to argue that the bill is constitutional, but the courts have
drawn a line between higher education and elementary and secondary education in
this regard.
In accordance with the passage of HB321 in
2012,”Virginia’s “Education Improvement Scholarships,” are now operational but
under-utilized. Shouldn’t we evaluate
how well this option is serving Virginia’s students before adopting another
“choice” option?
According
to multiple studies analyzing assessment data from voucher programs, students
offered vouchers do not perform better than their public school peers. Indeed, public school students have actually
been found to outperform private school students when test scores are weighted
to reflect socioeconomic level, race, and disability.