|
David
Blount, Editor
While much of the legislative action affecting Standards of
Quality (SOQ) funding has occurred through the state budget,
there have been some legislative changes and unsuccessful
proposed changes affecting the SOQ that are worthy of note.
In 1994,
HB 828 and
SB 460 revised the SOQ to include existing budget
language for reducing class sizes in schools with high and
moderate concentrations of at-risk students. School boards
could establish ratios below the prescribed levels and
receive additional state funding.
The 1995 General Assembly rejected a bid made in
HB 2030 to revise the SOQ to direct the Board of Education (BOE)
to promulgate the Standards of Learning (SOL) objectives as
regulations, pursuant to the Administrative Process Act. The
legislature did approve
HB 2542, the Omnibus Educational Act of 1995, to establish
various uncodified programs in law that had been funded in the
appropriations act. While this bill did not amend the SOQ, it
did address educational technology, class size reduction and
at-risk four-year-old initiatives that later would be cited as
areas where state funding should be enhanced. In the fall of
that year, the BOE instituted revised SOL that drove subsequent
approval of revised Regulations Establishing Standards for
Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia, know as the Standards of
Accreditation (SOA) and a new testing program. Education
policymakers and the legislature would focus a great deal of
attention on these developments over the next several years.
In 1998, several unsuccessful legislative attempts were made to
incorporate into the SOQ some of the features of the SOA that
drive both local and state funding. These included requirements
for elementary school guidance counselors and various increased
staffing levels.
HB 303 and
SB 205 were approved to require elementary guidance
counselors at certain ratios, but were vetoed by the governor.
The following year, the legislature amended 22.1-253.13:3
through
HB 2122 to incorporate in the Code the administrative and
support staffing ratios set forth in the SOA. While these
regulatory standards already were recognized by the state
funding formula, the legislature, rather than the BOE, now would
control these provisions. Also in 1999, lawmakers approved
HB 235 and
HB 1975, which clarified in the SOQ that school boards must
include art, music and physical education in the K-12
instructional program. HB 1975 also directed school boards to
strive to employ licensed instructional personnel qualified in
the relevant subject areas. Finally,
HB 1673 amended 22.1-253.13:1 to lower the division wide
pupil/teacher ratios from 25:1 to 24:1 in kindergarten (with a
maximum class size of 29) and grades two and three (with a
maximum class size of 30). The same ratio already existed for
grade one. There was minimal fiscal impact associated with this
measure and it widely was viewed as legislative recognition of
local school division practice.
The most significant legislation in the 2000 session related to
SOQ funding was
SJR 232, which directed a study of state funding of the SOQ
and local educational programs and services that exceed the
state’s minimum requirements. Though not approved, the study was
undertaken as a two-year project by the Joint Legislative Audit
and Review Commission (JLARC). At the 2001 General Assembly,
legislators failed to agree on amendments to the two-year
budget, foreshadowing the state revenue and budget crisis of the
next several years. The few SOQ-related bills introduced in 2001
would have greatly increased state education costs.
In conjunction with the late 2001 release of the JLARC findings
(and publishing of the report weeks later), the 2002 General
Assembly endorsed several measures designed to better coordinate
review of the SOQ requirements by the BOE and funding of those
requirements by the legislature. Specifically, lawmakers
approved
HB 884 and
SB 350 to direct the BOE to include, in its annual fall
report on public education needs and schools failing to meet the
SOQ, a complete listing of the current SOQ, justification for
each standard, how long each standard has been in its current
form, and whether the BOE recommends any changes. Also,
SB 201 required the BOE to prescribe the SOQ by reviewing
them in odd-numbered years and recommending changes, if any. The
bill further requires that budget estimates recognize any
proposed changes. After several unsuccessful attempts, the
legislature approved
HB 1136 to amend the SOQ to require guidance counselors in
elementary schools. Finally,
SJ 120 requested the BOE to revise the standards to
ensure they are realistic. Other measures of note were
introduced in 2002, namely to seek codification in the SOQ and
funding for items identified in the JLARC report. These included
bills that would provide the basis for state funding for
elementary resource teachers in art, music and physical
education and for additional principals and assistant
principals.
In 2003,
HB 2151 codified and broadened existing budget language
directing the DOE to ensure, through twice-a-year calculations,
that the level of locally appropriated school funding satisfied
state-required levels of local school expenditures.
HB 2442 amended the SOQ to conform to present state funding
for instruction of limited English proficient students. Other
unsuccessful bills sought to increase SOQ funding in various
ways and to change the funding allocation formula.
As noted in the Funding of the Standards of Quality issue
briefing, 2004 saw extensive action by the General Assembly to
appropriate additional state dollars for SOQ costs. Likewise,
the additional initiatives funded were codified in
HB 1014 and
SB 479. Amendments included provisions for additional
principals in elementary schools; additional assistant
principals; elementary resource positions for art, music and
physical education; lower middle and high school pupil-teacher
ratios to ensure scheduled teacher planning time; lower
speech-language pathologist caseloads; full-time reading
specialists and technology support positions. The measure
included language that any new standards included would not
become effective unless an appropriation for the standard was
included in the approved budget. As a result of the
legislature’s action, numerous other funding-related bills were
unsuccessful, many of which proposed to increase funding or
change the allocation formula. These also included
HJ 92, which proposed a one-year legislative study of the
feasibility of implementing the JLARC recommendations on
elementary and secondary school funding.
Some legislators will continue to advocate strongly to fund
additional initiatives proposed by the BOE in 2003. The
approved budget for 2004-2006 appropriated about $1.5
billion over the FY04 amount in state funding to public
education; approximately $326 million of this amount was
earmarked to fund various BOE recommendations (as discussed
above). However, no action was taken to provide dollars for
additional elementary principals and full-time assistant
principals, to reduce speech-language pathologist caseload
standards and to fund school reading specialist positions.
Several continuing studies also could impact discussions and
future decisions about state SOQ funding. The Joint
Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) is required
to annually review and report on overall state spending as
well as state dollars provided to localities for public
education. The 2004 state spending report noted that the
largest spending growth over the last decade (FY1994-FY2004)
occurred in Medicaid, followed by SOQ funding ($931
million). Total SOQ state spending in FY2004 was $3.66
billion. Of this amount, $1.6 billion was sent to 10 school
divisions that educate nearly half of the state’s 1.2
million public school students.
HJR 105 (2004) created a joint subcommittee to study state
assistance to localities for school infrastructure needs.
The two-year panel is charged with examining, among other
things, local school infrastructure needs, the availability
of local funding to meet those needs, the priority of each
of those needs and the level of appropriate state commitment
to supplement local efforts in meeting those needs. This is
the first real look at the state’s role in funding for
school construction since the late 1990’s, when the School
Construction Grants program was established and a portion of
lottery proceeds were directed to be spent on nonrecurring
expenses.
Teacher salary and other education funding increases
provided the past several years by local governments (when
state funding lagged) already are drawing legislative
scrutiny. This is because the additional local dollars (as
well as the influx of additional state education money for
the 2004-2006 biennium) will drive higher state costs in
future years when the SOQ is rebenchmarked. Some legislators
have expressed frustration that the state, in later years,
ends up paying a share of education costs that are driven by
locally provided increases.
1994 —
HB 828 and SB 460, HB 947 and SB 340 (educational
opportunities)
1995 —
HB 2030, HB 2542
1996 —
HB 1465 (calculation of special education ratios)
1997 —
HB 1852 (calculation of special education ratios)
1998 —
HB 303, HB 416 (staffing ratios), HB 427 (staffing
ratios), HB 685 (increase number of teachers), HB 686
(staffing ratios), SB 205
1999 —
HB 235, HB 1673, HB 1975, HB 2122
2000 —
HB 131 (instructional staffing ratios), HB 231
(instructional staffing ratios), HB 1358 (55% funding of all
SOQ costs), SB 164 (elementary school guidance counselors),
SJ 232
2001 —
HB 1977 and HB 2151 (instructional personnel
salaries), HB 2741 (55% funding of all SOQ costs)
2002 —
HB 758 (55% funding of all SOQ costs), HB 884; HB
1038, HB 1047 and SB 216 (resource teachers), HB 1136, HB
1171 (resource teachers and principals), SB 201, SB 350, SB
366 (teacher salaries), SJ 120
2003 —
HB 1760 and HB 2435 (state share of education costs),
HB 2151; HB 2243, HB 2389 and SB 755 (changes SOQ allocation
formula), HB
2442; HB 2627 (teacher salary calculation), HJ 562 (study of
SOQ funding allocations), HJ 598 (55% funding of all SOQ
costs/Constitutional amendment), HJ 700 and SJ 416 (SOQ
revisions/Constitutional amendment)
2004 —
HB 193, HB 365, HB 392, HB 561 and HJ 200 (various
measures to increase state SOQ funding); HB 393, HB 394, HB
796, SB 300 and HJ 148 (proposals to revise funding
allocation), HJ 92
As noted in the Funding of the Standards of Quality issue
briefing, changes to states’ education funding systems have
been realized largely as a result of court rulings against
the school finance system. Those states and the decisions
can be found at www.coe.ilstu.edu/boxscore.html.
JLARC Review of Elementary and Secondary
School Funding, February 2002
JLARC Staff Briefing, Review of Spending in State
Government, November 2004
JLARC Staff Briefing, State SOQ Spending in
FY2004, November 2004
Regulations Establishing Standards for
Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia
Click here for a policy issue briefing on “Funding
of the Standards of Quality.”
Click cepi@vcu.edu to provide
comments or additional information. Please indicate in an
e-mail the copyright source and contact information for new
inclusions. Back to Top
Copyright © CEPI 2000
CEPI grants permission to reproduce this paper for noncommercial purposes if
CEPI is credited.
|
