Senate panel kills effort to track English learner funding

A cup of pencils sit on top of a classroom desk in Virginia (Photo by Nathaniel Cline/Virginia Mercury)
A push to examine how Virginia funds English language learners (ELLs) in public schools was shut down Monday, as the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee rejected a proposal for data collection on the issue.
The effort stemmed from a 2023 report by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC), which found that Virginia has been underfunding schools under the Standards of Quality (SOQ) — the state's funding formula for public education. Lawmakers had requested the report to identify gaps in school funding and determine whether ELL students were receiving adequate resources.
The funding gap is stark. A 2022 study from EdTrust, an education advocacy group, showed that Virginia school districts serving the highest number of ELL students receive 48% less revenue per student than districts with fewer ELL students, VPM first reported.
'I think it's important for us, as a commonwealth, to provide funding for the requirements that we set forth, so that local appropriations are not needed to close that gap,' Del. Atoosa Reaser, D-Loudoun, the legislation's sponsor, said Monday.
'That's money that belongs to the taxpayer; and the state should be, in my opinion, funding its fair share, which the House budget works toward.'
Reaser's House Bill 2032 would have directed the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) to collect data on expenditures and proficiency levels for ELL students. The measure also called for the identification of additional support strategies and a status report to lawmakers later this year. However, the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget found no expected fiscal impact, as data on proficiency is already collected.
Reaser's proposal cleared the House on Jan. 28, but not without changes. Lawmakers stripped out a provision that would have allocated additional state funding for ELL students, instead folding that language into HB 1954, sponsored by House Education Committee Chair Sam Rasoul, D-Roanoke. That bill also failed but could resurface during budget negotiations in the coming days.
Last year, the legislature created the Joint Subcommittee on Elementary and Secondary Education to review JLARC's recommendations with the goal of replacing the outdated formula. Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton, the committee chair, on Monday urged the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee to shelve the English learner funding bill, arguing that the panel's work isn't finished.
'It's important we do this in a manner that we are looking at all of the JLARC recommendations,' Locke said, adding that some of the commission's proposals have already been addressed in the state budget.
The bill also coincides with recent changes from the Virginia Board of Education, which now require more English learner test scores to be included in school accountability calculations — a shift that could have significant consequences for schools that serve large ELL populations.
However, some Democrats are pushing to delay the rollout of the new accountability system, citing concerns about fairness and accuracy in measuring student performance. For now, the debate over English learner funding remains tied to the larger fight over how Virginia funds its schools.
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

Chicago Tribune

an hour ago

• Chicago Tribune

How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill

WASHINGTON — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.

Business Insider

an hour ago

• Business Insider

I couldn't build a future on my Nigerian teaching salary, now I earn triple in the U.S.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with a successful teen coach and counselor based in Atlanta, U.S. Business Insider Africa has verified his professional background. The author shares his journey from teaching in Nigeria to becoming a successful teen coach and counselor in the U.S. He highlights the improved financial opportunities and infrastructure available in the U.S. that motivated his decision to stay. He emphasizes the importance of strategic planning for those considering emigration, particularly in fields like healthcare, tech, and education. When I first considered leaving Nigeria for the United States, I knew it wouldn't be a straightforward journey, especially with a degree from a Nigerian university. The shift into counseling stemmed from a passion for supporting immigrant and Black youth. Teaching in the US offered better financial opportunities and professional growth compared to Nigeria. While returning to Africa is considered, systemic challenges with credential recognition and mental health infrastructure remain. I studied Education and English at the University of Uyo, and while I was proud of my training and my years of teaching in Akwa Ibom, I also knew that the global job market wouldn't automatically see my degree the way I did. The first hurdle was evaluation. I had to get my transcript assessed by a credential evaluation agency here in the U.S., and even though it was eventually recognized as equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, the process was both expensive and frustrating. Between gathering documents from my alma mater (with the usual delays), paying the evaluation fees, and navigating visa requirements, I can say that the emotional stress was as real as the financial cost. Coming to the U.S., what helped me was the discipline and patience I'd built over the years back in Nigeria. Classroom management is a universal language, and whether you're in Ikot Ekpene or Atlanta, children need structure, attention, and a sense of safety. Financial breakthrough Financially, the difference was almost like night and day. As a teacher in Nigeria, even with over a decade of experience, my salary could barely sustain a modest lifestyle. In the U.S., once I got certified, the starting salary was almost triple what I earned back home. Of course, the cost of living is higher, and bills pile up quickly here, but even with that, the opportunity to save, invest, and build credit made the move worthwhile. The salary was definitely a major factor in my decision to stay—it gave me the breathing room to support my family back home and plan long-term for my own children's future. Transitioning from teaching to counseling Transitioning into counseling came naturally. As a teacher, I always gravitated toward the emotional and psychological well-being of my students. I saw the need, especially among immigrant children and Black youth. I went back to school and acquired more training in counselling, which gave me greater leverage in advancing my career. Would I consider returning to Africa to work in a similar capacity? Yes, and no. Yes, because the need is great, especially in terms of mental health awareness and support systems for young people. But I know the reality—most African systems don't yet recognize U.S. counseling credentials without jumping through hoops. I'd likely need to do a local conversion program or pass certain licensure exams. Also, infrastructure and funding for such roles back home are still catching up. So, while I may consult or volunteer from time to time, I haven't fully committed to returning just yet. What intending migrants should know When it comes to African emigration, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I believe it's a viable and often necessary route for personal and professional growth—especially when systems at home don't provide fair reward for talent or effort. But I also worry about brain drain and the slow decay of essential services in our countries when the best minds leave. My advice to those considering emigration is simple: come with a plan. Don't come on vibes. Evaluate your credentials, research your field, and have both short-term survival goals and long-term career goals. It's not easy, and it's not always rosy, but it can be worth it if you approach it with intention and discipline. In terms of qualifications that travel well, healthcare remains number one—nurses, doctors, physical therapists, and lab scientists are always in demand. Tech, of course, is booming—whether it's data science, cybersecurity, or software development. Education is also valuable, especially special education and STEM teaching roles. Looking back, I'd say it was definitely easier to move when I did. The immigration climate has become more restrictive, and visa approval is more uncertain now.

CNBC

2 hours ago

• CNBC

GOP's food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It's the latest setback for Trump's big bill

In another blow to the Republicans' tax and spending cut bill, the Senate parliamentarian has advised that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states — a centerpiece of GOP savings efforts — would violate the chamber's rules. While the parliamentarian's rulings are advisory, they are rarely, if ever, ignored. The Republican leadership scrambled on Saturday, days before voting is expected to begin on President Donald Trump's package that he wants to be passed into law by the Fourth of July. The loss is expected to be costly to Republicans. They have been counting on some tens of billions of potential savings from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, to help offset the costs of the $4.5 trillion tax breaks plan. The parliamentarian let stand for now a provision that would impose new work requirements for older Americans, up to age 65, to receive food stamp aid. "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which handles the SNAP program. "The Parliamentarian has made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts," she said. The parliamentarian's ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as staff works through the weekend, often toward midnight, to assess the 1,000-page proposal. It all points to serious trouble ahead for the bill, which was approved by the House on a party-line vote last month over unified opposition from Democrats and is now undergoing revisions in the Senate. At its core, the goal of the multitrillion-dollar package is to extend tax cuts from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire if Congress fails to act. It also adds new ones, including no taxes on tips and or overtime pay. To help offset the costs of lost tax revenue, the Republicans are proposing cutbacks to federal Medicaid, health care and food programs — some $1 trillion. Additionally, the package boosts national security spending by about $350 billion, including to pay for Trump's mass deportations, which are running into protests nationwide. Trump has implored Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to deliver on his top domestic priority, but the details of the package, with its hodge-podge of priorities, are drawing deeper scrutiny. All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package, as approved by the House, would add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation's red ink over the decade and leave 10.9 million more people without health care coverage. Additionally, it would reduce or eliminate food stamps for more than 3 million people. The parliamentarian's office is tasked with scrutinizing the bill to ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, which is named after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and bars many policy matters in the budget reconciliation process now being used. Late Friday, the parliamentarian issued its latest findings. It determined that Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's proposal to have the states pick up more of the tab for covering food stamps — what Republicans call a new cost-sharing arrangement — would violate the Byrd Rule. Many lawmakers said the states would not be able to absorb the new requirement on food aid, which the federal government has long provided. They warned many would lose access to SNAP benefits used by more than 40 million people. Initially, the CBO estimated savings of about $128 billion under the House's proposal to shift SNAP food aid costs to the states. Cost estimates for the Senate's version, which made changes to the House approach, have not been publicly available. The parliamentarian's office rulings leave GOP leaders with several options. They can revise the proposals to try to comply with Senate rules or strip them from the package altogether. They can also risk a challenge during floor voting, which would require the 60-vote threshold to overcome. That would be unlikely in the split chamber with Democrats opposing the overall package. The parliamentarian's latest advice also said the committee's provision to make certain immigrants ineligible for food stamps would violate the rule. It found several provisions from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be in violation. They include one to provide $250 million to Coast Guard stations damaged by fire in 2025, namely one on South Padre Island in Texas. Some of the most critical rulings from parliamentarians are still to come. One will assess the GOP's approach that relies on "current policy" rather than "current law" as the baseline for determining whether the bill will add to the nation's deficits. Already, the parliamentarian delivered a serious setback Thursday, finding that the GOP plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was a core proposal coming from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, would violate the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian has also advised of violations over provisions from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would roll back Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards on certain vehicles and from the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the Defense secretary to provide a plan on how the Pentagon intends to spend the tens of billions of new funds. The new work requirements in the package would require many of those receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits to work 80 hours a month or engage in other community or educational services.