OUR POSITION

The VEA believes that:

• Small class size has a positive impact on student success.
• School divisions should compute and publish class sizes using classroom teachers only, not including resource personnel.
• Maximum teacher-pupil ratios (TPRs) should be set for PK-1^st grade at 1:15; 2^nd– 3^rd grade at 1:17; 4^th -12^th grade at 1:21; 1:18 for English classes in middle and high school, and no more than 105 students for departmentalized teachers (physical education and performing arts).
• Maximum TPRs should be set at 1:20 in laboratory science (with 45 square feet per student), studio arts, and practical arts classes.
• Weighted formulas should be used to determine teacher-pupil ratios in specialized classes including special education.

BACKGROUND

Twenty years have passed since the first large-scale experiment on small class size was conducted. That study, and the many that followed, confirmed substantial academic gains for K–3 students in smaller classes compared to students in larger classes. Even when instructional aides were present in the larger classes, the students did not perform as well as those in the smaller classes. The results were the same for boys and girls, but for Black students, the results were much more dramatic. Black students in the smaller classes outperformed Black students in larger classes at a rate two to three times higher than the white students did over their white counterparts. To date, there has been only one noteworthy research attempt to refute the research on small class size, but even that effort has been criticized for faulty methods, and it has not gained much ground in shaping the debate. Overall, the issue that has most hampered efforts to reduce class sizes is the concern over cost.

In Virginia, the Standards of Quality (SOQs) set the division-wide class sizes for many core-content classes, but most classes are not covered by any state requirement. Local school divisions and building-level leadership have tremendous flexibility to set individual class sizes based on their student population and teacher allocation so long as they remain under the state-mandated levels as a DIVISON for SOQ-mandated classes.

FOR MORE

• VEA Resolution D-19: Class Size
• Virginia Code: Standards of Quality http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/quality/soq_max_class_size.pdf 
• Contact: Government Relations and Research/Kathy Burcher, Director

OUR POSITION

• VEA believes that public funds should not be used in any form to support non-public elementary or secondary education. Programs and policies, such as ESAs and other voucher systems, are detrimental to public education as they deplete resources from our already under-funded public schools. VEA further believes that these programs are in direct conflict with the Virginia Constitution, which authorizes the use of public funds only for public and nonsectarian private schools.
• In requiring local school divisions to transfer the bulk of student’s state Standards of Quality (SOQ) funding to an outside “Education Savings Account,” these vouchers would deprive our public schools of critically-needed resources.
• The funds that would be withdrawn from the public school system bear no relationship to the cost of the private education to be provided. Since ESAs require only state funding to be transferred, the amount received by families would vary widely, depending on which locality a student is from.
• These programs lack accountability standards for participating schools and no requirement that these state funds be used to provide students a high-quality education.

BACKGROUND

Education Savings Accounts (ESA) are the latest trend in publicly-subsidized private school education. These programs pay parents the money the state would otherwise have spent to educate their children in exchange for an agreement to forego their right to a public education. In Virginia, since public money cannot be used to fund religious schools, the state funds are deposited into “savings accounts” from which the parents may draw. Parents may use these state funds for a wide variety of educational purposes, including tuition at a religious, private schools. This makes for a weak argument that ESAs are constitutional in Virginia.

FOR MORE

• VEA Resolution C-29: “Public Funds for Public Education”
• NEA Policy Brief: Education Savings Accounts
• VEA Government Relations and Research/Kathy Burcher, Director

OUR POSITION

• Education Support Professionals should be compensated at a level which provides no less than a living wage.
• Salaries should allow ESPs to live with dignity in the locality in which they work.

BACKGROUND

The Tompkins County Worker’s Center defines a living wage as “the minimum wage a single adult working full-time requires to meet his or her basic living expenses, including rent, food, transportation, health care, other necessities, taxes, and a modest allowance for recreation and savings.”

FOR MORE

• VEA Resolution B-22: Education Support ProfessionalsNational Education Association, “ESPs Deserve a Living Wage” http://www.nea.org/home/29173.htm
• Economic Policy Institute (EPI), Family Budget Calculator:  http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/
• EPI, “Why American Needs a $15 Minimum Wage”:  http://www.epi.org/publication/why-america-needs-a-15-minimum-wage/
• VEA Organizing and Field Support/Breanne Armbrust, Director

OUR POSITION

• VEA believes that a secure, guaranteed, adequate pension is essential for a healthy system of public schools. A strong pension system is directly related to student success, because students can thrive only if Virginia is able to recruit and retain the very best individuals in the profession.
• VEA opposes any effort to diminish retirement benefits for public school employees.

BACKGROUND

The foundation of a strong retirement plan for public school educators is a traditional “defined-benefit” (DB) pension plan that guarantees adequate monthly payments after retirement. DB plans provide a fixed, lifetime annuity to participants, with the benefits based on a formula that takes into account years of service and average final salary over a specified number of years. In contrast, “defined-contribution” retirement plans, such as a 401(k), provide for a benefit that is derived from the accumulated contributions and earnings in an individual participant’s account; typically, both employer and employee contributions are mandatory. DC plans are far riskier for employees, because the timing of the retirement and investment returns can significantly diminish funds available for a secure retirement.

Legislators across the U.S. have undermined the retirement security offered by traditional public pension plans in a number of ways: by underfunding the plans, by altering plans to lessen the income guaranteed to retirees, by curtailing cost-of-living increases, or by replacing the pensions altogether with less secure DC plans.

In Virginia:

• The funding status of the Virginia Retirement System slipped from 100 percent in 2001 to just under 70 percent by 2016, but the General Assembly is now committed to a schedule to fund actuarially recommended payments to increase the funding status.

The traditional DB plan offered to Virginia school employees prior to 2010 was amended with the creation of three different Plans: Plan 1, affecting employees hired after July 1, 2010; Plan 2, affecting employees hired after Jan. 1, 2013; and a “hybrid” plan, containing elements of a DB plan and a DC plan, instituted for those hired after Jan, 1, 2014. The benefits in all three plans are diminished compared to the pre-existing DB retirement plan.

FOR MORE

• VEA Resolution B-5: Retirement
• National Education Association “Pension Protection” Resources
  http://www.nea.org/home/31934.htm
• National Pension Protection Coalition
  http://protectpensions.org/
• National Institute on Retirement Security
  http://www.nirsonline.org/
• Virginia Retirement System
  http://www.varetire.org/
• VEA Government Relations and Research/Kathy Burcher, Director
• VEA Legal Services/Dena Rosenkrantz, Director

OUR POSITION

Throughout VEA Resolutions, the Association’s position is clear in insisting on safe school and work environments for both student and public education employees and for discipline policies that are developed, implemented and applied in a non-discriminatory manner.

• “The VEA believes that consistent discipline policies which respect and safeguard the physical and psychological rights of students and education employees should be established and followed in each school division in a non-discriminatory manner……..” (VEA Resolutions: E-30).
• “The VEA believes that all education staff, students, parents/guardians, communities, and community agencies must work cooperatively to establish safe and orderly schools. Students and staff must be safe from physical, verbal, psychological violence, and all forms of harassment………. “ (VEA Resolutions: D-30)
• “The VEA believes that a safe and orderly environment, in which students are treated with dignity, will provide a positive learning experience. Effective discipline enhances high expectations and quality instruction, promoting self-control and responsible behavior while ensuring the right of all students to due process and an orderly learning environment. It is incumbent upon school boards and administrators to support teachers in this pursuit…… “ (VEA Resolutions D-32);
• The VEA Legislative Committee has consistently opposed bills that would remove local school and school system discretion and control of discipline and bills that would seriously weaken protections and assurances of safe learning and working environments for students and school employees.

BACKGROUND

According to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of US DOE data in 2015, Virginia turned more students with disciplinary issues in school over to police than any other state. The rate of 16 referrals per 1000 children led the nation, and students of color and students with disabilities were referred to police at a disproportionately higher rate than the overall student population. The dilemma is twofold: 1) examining the high rate of referrals of students of color and students with disabilities while, 2) ensuring safe learning environments and school safety for students, teachers, and education support professionals.

The 2017 General Assembly saw the introduction of several bills opposed by the VEA Legislative Committee due to concerns about securing safe school environments for students and employees and the lack of autonomy, discretion, and local control that school systems might retain had the bills passed.

FOR MORE

• VEA Resolution D-30: Safe and Orderly Schools/Communities
• VEA Resolution D-32: Discipline
• VEA Resolution E-30: Discipline
• Student Conduct Policy Guidelines http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/guidance/safety/student_conduct.pdf
• Guidelines for the Development of Policies and Procedures for Managing Student Behaviors in Emergency Situations in Virginia Public Schools
• http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/student_conduct/guidelines_managing_behaviors_emergency.pdf
• VEA Teaching & Learning/Antoinette Rogers, Director
• VEA Government Relations and Research/Kathy Burcher, Director
• VEA Legal Advocacy/Dena Rosenkrantz, Director