Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed

School funding formula benefits Northern Virginia but not other areas

Rosalind Helderman

Here's a corner of the budget that's likely to get a good hard look next year, when lawmakers do revisions on the second year of their two-year spending plan: In the budget approved Sunday, General Assembly agreed to "hold harmless" localities that lose out from updating the formula that determines state funding for local schools next year, but only 50 percent harmless in the following year.

This won't have a big impact on Northern Virginia, but it will affect much of the rest of the state and it can't be long before we start hearing from local officials in those areas that will lose out from the decision.

We'll explain.

When Gov. Tim Kaine proposed a budget back in December, one item got local leaders across Northern Virginia fired up--Kaine suggested freezing the every-two-year adjustment of the school funding formula that determines how much money each district receives from the state to run its schools.

Northern Virginians have complained for years that the so-called "local composite index" shortchanges the region's schools. But adjusting the formula this year would have, for once, helped the region and so there was a lot of protest when Kaine suggested the freeze.

So much protest, in fact, that Gov. Bob McDonnell announced in February that he favored doing the normal update to the formula after all. That would have meant restoring school funding for Northern Virginia but, in turn, offering less funding to 96 other school districts, most of them less affluent than NoVa. We're talking pretty much all of the state's urban districts and most of its rural areas.

To try to satisfy everyone in these difficult economic times, the General Assembly came up with a fix. They would allow the formula to update, benefiting NoVa--a decision that would cost the state $29.5 million over the two-year budget. But then they would also spend money to hold harmless districts that would lose out from the update. So they would also get more money.

But, here's the rub. In the final budget approved Sunday, legislators agreed to hold those districts fully harmless in the first year of the budget, at a cost of $116.5 million, but only half harmless in the second year, at a cost of $57.6 million.

Think that won't come up next year? We'll take that bet and see you in January 2011.

By Rosalind Helderman  |  March 15, 2010; 3:46 PM ET
Categories:  General Assembly 2010 , House of Delegates , Robert F. McDonnell , Rosalind Helderman , State Senate , Thomas M. Davis III  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Va. assembly increases fees to close budget hole but skips most controversial items
Next: Cuccinelli denies he is a 'birther,' says audio blog post is 'hypothetical'


Dear customers, thank you for your support of our company.
Here, there's good news to tell you: The company recently
launched a number of new fashion items! ! Fashionable
and welcome everyone to come buy. If necessary, please

===== ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $16

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25


====== ====

Posted by: llitkonlyyous | March 15, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

with all the concern about the budget cuts the 5% tax hike on all public employees who participate in the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) has gone un-noticed.

while not officially a tax hike (we know the flat earthers don't do tax increases, just fees, charges, enhancements, add-ons, tariffs, allowances, etc like the 100 million in this year's budget) HB 1189 allows local government to pull the 5% they now contribute to retirement of public servants (those who work for 15-20% less then they could get in the private sector but have opted for job satisfaction, and public service - and a pension) as an exercise in balancing the local budgets due to state underfunding.

now i can understand if the R's wanted to ping these groups that don't support them in elections, BUT HB 1189 was co sponsored by Bob Brink. the companion senate bill passed 39-1 with on D-Edwards voting against. and in the house the list of people normally thought of supporting working families took a huge dive. 19 voted against

NAYS--Abbott, Armstrong, Bulova, Carr, Carrico, Ebbin, Englin, Herring, Hope, James, Johnson, Keam, Kory, Plum, Sickles, Surovell, Torian, Tyler, Ward--19.

notice any names missing from this list?????

the dem response to our state fire fighters was won't it be wonderful to get several million more in your local budgets? total BS. where will the money come from? the pockets of the public servants.

this is disappointing to say the least. one thing's for sure, the people who voted for this can take me off their call lists.


Posted by: bruce_roemmelt | March 16, 2010 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Government employees should pay more for their pensions. Government employees are allowed to retire at age 50. Taxpayers can no longer afford that.

Posted by: win_harrington | March 16, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

IF a government employee retires at 50 they get a considerably reduced benefit.

for the entire 30 years i was a fire fighter i payed taxes too.

fire fighters for example do retire at younger ages on average, but then their bodies are used up and they (like me) have the back,neck, knee, heart, lung issues.


Posted by: bruce_roemmelt | March 16, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company