Back to: VEA Home  /  News & Advocacy

• Subscribe
• Email
• Print

January 26, 2008 – Planning Time and Tuition Tax Credits  referred to Appropriations

It looks like both Planning Time and Tuition Tax Credits are both heading in the wrong direction.  The good news is that we now have recorded subcommittee votes.  This year they can’t kill planning time in the dark of night.

HB2474, Delegate Hugo’s elementary planning time bill, in what is a disappointing development, was referred by the House Education Committee to the House Appropriations Committee this morning.  It appeared that the bill was on its way to passage until Delegate Putney, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, sent a last-minute letter requesting that the bill come to his committee.  VEA had contended that the bill did not need to go to Appropriations, as JLARC says the bill “will not increase the State’s Standards of Quality (SOQ) costs.”

Delegate Saxman’s Tuition Tax Credit Bill, HB1965, was reported and re-referred to House Appropriations today by the Finance Committee.  Interestingly, this bill was heard in neither subcommittee nor committee before a straight party-line (10-9) vote.

These bills should now go to the Education Subcommittee of House Appropriations.  Delegates on this committee are Tata (Chairman), Hamilton, Sherwood, Cox, Hogan, Scott, J.M., Joannou, BaCote.  If one of these Delegates is your delegate, please call or email urging support of HB2474 and opposition to HB1965.  Note:  Joannou is the only delegate who does not have an email address.

If you do not know who your delegate or senator is, please go to this site for help:

http://conview.state.va.us/whosmy.nsf/main?openform

Support for the Governor’s proposed permanent cuts to K-12 funding is eroding.  Education Committee Chairman Bob Tata, rose in the morning hour in the House to assert that cuts to education should be a small as possible and should not be permanent.  He compared education to the fabled “Golden Goose.”

There is much discussion regarding the use of the words permanent to describe the Governor’s proposal.  He and others deride the use of the word, saying that the next General Assembly can do whatever it wants.  The way to make non-permanent cuts is to say to localities, “The state cannot meet its commitment because of the recession.  Mr. Superintendent, you have this much less than we should give you.  Do your best with what you have.

Permanent cuts, on the other hand, are the imposition of new ratios and formulae in the budget or other bills to reduce the state’s obligation.  These cuts will roll forward into the future, reducing state support in the long run.

Next year is a budget year, and the costs of elementary and secondary education will be rebenchmarked.  The Governor’s proposal will reduce the base line by $400 million.