K-12 cap removal stumbles, but remains alive in budget

Virginia State Capitol on Jan. 8, 2025. Charlotte Rene Woods / Virginia Mercury
Lawmakers are trying to lift the decades-long cap on state-funded support positions for public schools through budget negotiations after legislation that would end the restriction failed earlier this week.
Senators have proposed spending $758.1 million for K-12 public education, which includes an additional $208.8 million over the state's current biennium budget. To remove the cap, senators recommended adding $222.9 million from the general fund. The proposed Senate budget also called for $52.8 million for special education.
'Our goal with these investments is to provide additional resources to support our schools so that teachers are able to spend more time on instruction and less time on other administrative responsibilities,' said Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton, during the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee's Feb. 2 meeting.
Last session, lawmakers formed a joint committee to overhaul the Standards of Quality (SOQ), the state's funding formula determining the financial needs of school divisions. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) found that Virginia's local governments are shouldering a disproportionate share of K-12 education costs compared to the state's contributions. The more affluent a locality, the more its share, while those with less revenue contribute less to schools.
In 1993, the General Assembly changed how much state and localities should pay, with the state's share at 55% and localities providing 45%, according to JLARC's 2023 report. The change was prompted after lawmakers asked localities to start paying for K-12 fringe benefits. The contributions had been split evenly since 1972.
But in 2009 during the Great Recession, lawmakers implemented a 'cap' or state-imposed limit on spending for support staff.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee killed House Bill 1954, introduced by House Education Committee Chair Sam Rasoul, D-Roanoke. The proposal would have provided additional support for students with special needs and created a program for at-risk, or low-income students and English language learners.
Democrats carried two bills to address removing the cap. Last month, the House version was incorporated into Rasoul's bill. Then on Feb. 5, the Senate version died in Senate Finance & Appropriations.
Senate Education and Health Committee Chair Ghazala Hashmi, D-Richmond, told her colleagues earlier in the session that Virginia schools have been shortchanged by the commonwealth by over $6.6 billion in recent years.
Gov. Glenn Youngkin's administration has opposed the legislation, instead calling for a broader funding formula overhaul.
While Youngkin and the General Assembly partially eased the cap last year by increasing the funding ratio from 21 support positions to 24 per 1,000 students, they agree more needs to be done after localities have had to pick up the shared cost. The state uses the local composite index (LCI) to determine each locality's ability to pay. It also determines the local and state split of funding.
The House budget bill redirected $50 million earmarked for the proposed Virginia Opportunity Scholarship Program to removing the cap. The change would boost the funding ratio from 24 support positions per 1,000 students to 27.89 per 1,000 students.
Opponents criticized the 'vouchers' program, which would have paid for students to attend private schools and other educational expenses.
Dean Lynch, executive director for the Virginia Association of Counties, wrote in a letter to the House and Senate money committees that the association appreciates the proposal in advancing 'critical investments' in K-12 education.
'The elimination of the 15-year-old support cap represents a transformative step forward, allowing school divisions to hire additional support staff and better meet the needs of students,' Lynch wrote. 'Additionally, the investments made in special education funding and compensation for instructional and support positions will further enhance educational outcomes across the commonwealth.'
The Senate and House budget bills are on track to pass and advance to the governor for review. Youngkin's proposed budget did not include any plan to remove the cap.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Boston Globe

26 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans

The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Advertisement Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a 'perfunctory notification' without any details, according to a spokesperson. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.' Advertisement House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' The quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill, which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Advertisement Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, also posted on X that 'This is not Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment.' 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. 'Enough.'

Politico

an hour ago

• Politico

Senate GOP slashes megabill's tax costs with new accounting method

Tax legislation recently unveiled by Senate Republicans only costs $441 billion when tallied using a novel accounting method requested by the GOP. The new estimate by the Joint Committee on Taxation, which was released late Saturday night, shows how Senate Republicans were able to slash the costs of sweeping tax legislation set to be included in the GOP's sweeping megabill by using a 'current policy baseline' — a never-before-used technique that wipes out the cost of extending existing tax cuts that are set to expire at year's end. The contrast with the traditional method of fiscal scoring, accounting for tax policy as currently enacted into law, is profound: Similar tax legislation that passed the House in May was estimated by JCT to cost $3.8 trillion under the old method. In defending the revised baseline, Republicans have argued that extending current tax law shouldn't be counted as adding to the deficit because the GOP is merely preventing huge tax increases on individuals and businesses around the country. But critics have derided the measure, asserting that it threatens to blow up long-standing budget rules and disguises the cost of the GOP's marquee legislation. 'Extending the Trump tax cuts prevents a $4 trillion tax increase — this is not a change in current tax policy or tax revenue,' said Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) in a statement on Sunday morning. 'This score more accurately reflects reality by measuring the effects of tax policy changes relative to the status quo.' Democrats have requested JCT release a score under the current-law approach. That will 'show the actual cost of the bill,' said Ryan Carey, a spokesperson for Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Finance Democrat. 'Republicans rigged this score with deceptive math designed to hide the true, multi-trillion dollar cost of their proposals, and they wouldn't need to do this at all if their bill actually paid for itself,' Carey said. The new estimate shows the softened math of large tax cuts from those affecting individuals and families to businesses and companies. Extending basic individual tax rates lowered by Trump's 2017 tax bill, for instance, was estimated by JCT to cost around $2.2 trillion in the House-passed bill. In the Senate bill, under the new baseline, a permanent extension and modification of those rates costs only $83 billion. Likewise, an expansion of the Child Tax Credit in the House-passed bill would cost around $800 billion. In the Senate bill, JCT estimates that Senate Republicans' version of expansions to the family credit would cost only $124 billion. In the House bill, a permanent extension of a key deduction for business would cost around $820 billion. Senate Republicans proposal to make the deduction permanent would cost just $6 billion. Senate Republicans also made deviations to the House Republican plan on a number of the proposed tax cuts. The Senate GOP, for instance, dialed back the cost of President Donald Trump's campaign promises to provide tax relief for tips and overtime work by tens of billions of dollars. The GOP accounting gambit is expected to face a challenge from Senate Democrats, who will argue that the novel baseline does not comply with budget rules governing the filibuster-skirting reconciliation process. Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is expected to weigh in on legality of the provisions in the GOP tax bill this week. But with Republicans intent on passing their megabill on party lines, they have been laying the groundwork to argue they don't need to heed advice from the parliamentarian on the current policy baseline issue and are preparing to potentially override Democrats' objection on the floor with a simple-majority vote. Fiscal hawks in the House will also likely be watching closely. Under a rule in the House budget set by Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.), the amount of tax cuts in the GOP's megabill needs to be offset by a corresponding amount of spending cuts. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has already committed to finding at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. But if the total cost of Senate Republicans' tax bill exceeds $4 trillion under current-law accounting, House Republicans will insist that any further tax cuts will need to be matched dollar-for-dollar by further spending cuts.

CBS News

an hour ago

• CBS News

Transcript: Sen. Tim Kaine on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 22, 2025

The following is the transcript of an interview with Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on June 22, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to the Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, who joins us from Richmond, Virginia. Good morning to you, Senator. SENATOR TIM KAINE: Good morning, Margaret. MARGARET BRENNAN: I know you sit on the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, but what we just heard from the Pentagon was that Congress was notified after the strike on Iran was concluded, after the US jets are back- in safety. Is this sufficient? SEN. KAINE: Margaret, no. Congress needs to authorize a war against Iran. This Trump war against Iran, we have not. Congress should be consulted with it. We were not. And, Congress needs to be notified, not after the fact, but in advance. We were not. That's why I filed a War Powers Resolution that will ripen and be brought to a vote on the floor of the Senate this week. Senator Schumer is working with Leader Thune to make that happen. The United States should not be in an offensive war against Iran without a vote of Congress. The Constitution is completely clear on it. And I am so disappointed that the President has acted so prematurely. The Foreign Minister of Israel said Friday night that its own bombing campaign had set the Iranian nuclear program back, "at least two or three years." There was no urgency that suggested, while diplomatic talks were underway, that the US should take this unilateral action by President Trump's orders yesterday. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the Vice President was on another network earlier this morning, and said, "We are not at war with Iran. We are at war with Iran's nuclear program." There seems to be a lot of legal parsing on the definition of the word war here. What do you make of that description? SEN. KAINE: I think it's, it's BS, and I think anybody hearing it would conclude the same thing. When- when you're bombing another nation, ask them if they think it's war. They do, would we think it was war if Iran bombed a US nuclear facility? Of course we would. And the US, you know, we've invaded two neighbors of Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq, to topple their regimes since 2000. Those were wars. This is the US jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump's urging, without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress. We should not be sending troops, and risking troops' lives in an offensive war without a debate in Congress. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, just on the facts, though, the President has not authorized ground forces. In fact, he said he really doesn't want to send in ground forces. When it came to what was just described to the public by the Pentagon, it was really characterized as limited in scope. It sounds like you believe those early hour descriptions are going to turn out to be false. SEN. KAINE: I do. The- the War Powers resolution says that a member of Congress can challenge the President, if the President initiates hostilities against a foreign nation. Doesn't use the- even though the title is War Powers resolution, the statute says if you initiate hostilities without congressional authorization, even a single member of the House or Senate can force a vote on the Senate floor. There is no doubt that the US sending this massive set of Tomahawk missiles and B-2 bombers and bunker busters on three Iranian nuclear sites is hostilities. Now, again, some in the Senate may say this is great and we want to vote for it. I happen to think that getting into a third offensive war in the Middle East in the last 25 years is absolutely reckless and foolish, and I'm going to be doing everything I can to convince my colleagues of that I may or may not succeed, but Congress should have the debate and vote on this before we escalate the risk to American troops, which this action has done. MARGARET BRENNAN: We know that prior to this action, Northern Command had already directed additional security measures on all U.S. military installations. You've got a lot of military installations in Virginia. What do you know about the threat to the homeland at this point? SEN. TIM KAINE: We're going to have a briefing Tuesday, Margaret, and I'll learn more then, but what I do know, I also have a lot of Virginians deployed in the Middle East. There are about 40,000 U.S. troops deployed all over the Middle East, sailors on Navy ships in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, folks in land bases in Syria and Iraq, and yes, this action dramatically raises the risk to them. And the question is, for what? If the Iranian nuclear program – Vice President Vance says it's a war against their nuclear program. Of course, we had curtailed that diplomatically a few years ago until Donald Trump tore up the diplomatic deal. That even if you needed to wage war, when the Israeli Foreign Minister is saying we've set the nuclear program back at least two or three years, why launch this strike escalating risk to Americans and American troops over the weekend with no real discussion with Congress? No real debate before the American public? I don't want to be lied into another war in the way we were with Iraq in 2002. MARGARET BRENNAN: Governor DeSantis of Florida was greeting passengers in his state who had boarded a Florida chartered flight from Israel to his state evacuating Americans. It was on Saturday that the U.S. ambassador first made public some of the details for Americans on how to get out of the country if they wanted to. The airspace is closed. What do you know in that foreign relations capacity about the security of our personnel in diplomatic posts, but also Americans who just want to get home and get back to safety? SEN. KAINE: We need to do everything we can, Margaret, to facilitate Americans wanting to return home from anywhere in the region. From Israel, where you know these these attacks from Iran pose serious risk to civilian lives, other countries in the region who feel at risk, we should do everything possible to bring them back. And I do suspect that the briefing that the entire Senate is going to get Tuesday is not only going to be about the military side of this, but how we are protecting our personnel in the region. President Trump started to voluntarily remove some U.S. personnel, State Department, USAID and other agencies from the region a couple of weeks ago. Not a mandatory evacuation, but the pace of voluntary departures was was picking up because we could see that President Trump was merging closer and closer and closer to violating what he told the American public and getting into another war in the Middle East. MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator Kaine, thank you for joining us this morning.