The Virginia Education Association has identified 43 legislators who, over the last two legislative sessions, have voted to cut funding for public primary and secondary education.
..
| Abbitt | Albo | Athey | Bell |
| Byron | Carrico | Cline | Cole |
| Cosgrove | Cox | Gear | Gilbert |
| Griffith | Hamilton | Iaquinto | Ingram |
| Janis | S.C. Jones | Kilgore | Landes |
| Lingamfelter | Lohr | Loupassi | D. W. Marshall |
| R. G. Marshall | Massie | May | Merricks |
| Morgan | Nixon | O’Bannon | Oder |
| Orrock | Peace | Pogge | Poindexter |
| Purkey | Saxman | E. T. Scott | Sherwood |
| R. L. Ware | Wright | Mr. Speaker | |
| Note: Delegates not seeking re-election were not listed. | |||
In 2008 these members of the House voted to cut Virginia’s support of public education by $175 million a year when they voted in favor of House Budget Item 140 #52h.
In 2009 these members cast a procedural vote to block consideration of amendments from Republican Delegate Nutter and Democratic Delegate Plum. The Nutter and Plum amendments would have rejected a permanent $340 million cut to public education funding.
Every candidate for elected office claims to be a solid supporter of public education. Many of them claim a dear relative who is a teacher. By exposing these two votes to public scrutiny, we hope to reveal who’s for kids and who’s just kidding. If you don’t see your delegate’s name – thank your delegate!
A recent statewide poll, Commonwealth Education Poll 2008-2009, found that “a majority of Virginians say funding for public schools is not enough to meet their needs. Fully 62% say current funding levels for schools is not enough to meet their needs …” Despite this strong public support for public schools, these delegates keep voting to permanently cut long-term K-12 funding. Sadly, most voters don’t know how their representatives vote on these complex issues. That’s why we are releasing the VEA School Funding/SOQ Hall of Shame. Voters should say, “Fool me once – shame on me. Fool me twice – shame on you.”
Please remember these two votes when you cast your vote in November!
Thank you for your research. Unfortunately Vivian, “funds for education” is painting with a broad brush. For what exactly were the funds “cut”? One cannot make a determination whether or not it is a correct vote unless one can assess what specifically is being forgone. Since, the source is the VEA, it can only be assumed that this is about salaries. The VEA doesn’t have any student members, so it can only be assumed this objection is solely for the benefit of paid professionals.
Posted by Wally Erb | Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 7:23 pmWally – the two instances are included above. The budget item referenced can be found in the budget documents. The second one – I will see if I can get a more specific reference.
Posted by vjp | Thursday, September 24, 2009, 8:16 amThe 2009 vote was a procedural vote to block consideration of amendments from Nutter and Plum to make the cuts (support cap – $340 million per
year) to education funding temporary. When leadership learned of the amendments, they called for a caucus. In caucus they developed a broader amendment from Putney to block consideration of the Nutter/Plum amendments.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?091+vot+HV2835+HB1600
Posted by vjp | Thursday, September 24, 2009, 9:47 amIf we think more money means better schools then we might as well just go home and shoot ourselves in the foot.
Posted by Max Shapiro | Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 9:46 pmA lot of “assmuptions” being made by the nay-sayers. The VEA does extensive research into bills into front of the General Assembly. Unlike the boo-birds posting here, who get inflamed over the very mention of VEA! These cuts were in fact, to education. And no, more money doesn’t mean better education, but then does less money mean better education? Just following your lead. Naturally the defenders of the status Quo will bellyache at the very thought that their republican bretheren be singled out for their votes, but the fact is, these people are very clearly anti-education, based on their votes.
You’re assumptions are wrong, but I doubt this will change your view!
Posted by T.W. Bonsac | Thursday, September 24, 2009, 7:33 amYour assumptions are wrong. My guy got endorsed by the VEA, thanks in great part to the policy research I did. Norfolk schools have a 51% avg. pass rate for freshman, more money has no fixed this problem, with less money the pass rates were higher; they have been declining for years. School budgets could be slashed if they would just get rid of textbooks for the most part. They are too expensive and unnecessary. I would teach all classes with real books, with real facts, not corporation BS.
Posted by Max Shapiro | Thursday, September 24, 2009, 11:00 am“extensive research”? Again what areas in education were being funded, what effect did it have to the quality of student education? Specifics please. Also, because I have an opinion that differs from yours is no reason to result to name calling.
Wally
Posted by Wally Erb | Thursday, September 24, 2009, 8:07 amSince you are raising these issues, then why don’t you provide the ‘research” to back up your negative opinion? Why do you think its everybody elses job to provide you with research to back up your uninformed opinion? Honestly, some people.
You are making the assertions, you provide the facts to back up your point of view. Otherwise you are just another bellyacher!
Posted by T.W. Bonsac | Thursday, September 24, 2009, 10:55 amExcuse me, I didn’t raise any issues. Clearly, NEA listed the hit listed with “extensive research” that those list are “anti-education”. I don’t think there is any one member in the GA, republican, democrat, or independent, that is “anti-education”. That is absurd. And this has nothing to do with “bellyaching”. This is my questioning the effective use of funds.
Again, if one going to rationalize a hit list, there needs to be specifics as to what qualitative and quantitative effects were foregone.
No sir, the burden of the rationalization does not rest with me, but upon the “extensive research” already offered by the Accuser (VEA). VEA needs to produce supporting documentation other than generalizations to suggest a credible hit list..
Posted by Wally Erb | Thursday, September 24, 2009, 11:54 amBut you did “raise issues” you are chalenging VEA’s research. Here in America, the burden of proof is upon the accuser. There clearly is no “rationalizing” with you, as you just want to cast aspersions, doubt and question the VEA’s method of research. If you have proof that the VEA didn’t do their research, then by all means, SHOW IT!
You’ve made the charge, you are the accuser, the burden of proof is upon you!
Posted by T.W. Bonsac | Friday, September 25, 2009, 9:15 amIt is obvious there are those who are willing to accept VEA’s undocumented and unpublished “extensive research” as justification for it’s hit list creation. Additionally, by one unconditionally accepting VEA’s approbation which only addresses a single aspect of Commonwealth’s management refuses to acknowledge the vast responsibilities of being a legislator. Whether or not to return or deny a legislature is incumbent upon overall performance.
This is my final post in this dialog, you have the hammer.
Wally
Posted by Wally Erb | Friday, September 25, 2009, 10:06 amWally – I posted the information above, under your first comment. Did you miss it?
Posted by vjp | Friday, September 25, 2009, 10:07 amNo, I didn’t. However, I was remiss in not replying. Thank you Vivian for response.
Wally
Posted by Wally Erb | Friday, September 25, 2009, 3:41 pmYeah, my worthless Delegate is listed. However, he has no opponent this year. Connie Brennan ran against Watkins Abbitt last time, and Abbitt won.
Can’t beat ‘em unless you run against them.
Posted by Mark Brooks | Thursday, September 24, 2009, 8:59 amThere was a study of the Ohio schools that showed a positive correlation between school funding and NCLB pass rates, but not between such funding and graduation rates.
Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Thursday, September 24, 2009, 9:58 amUnions……
What do we expect? Unions aren’t going to want more money?
Posted by Brian Kirwin | Thursday, September 24, 2009, 10:47 amUnions….
Damn them for representing working people anyway. Workers should just be happy to have jobs and shut their mouths and do what management tells them. And they damn sure shouldn’t have any imput into who gets elected. That’s for the power brokers. Vote GOP. The Party of the Bosses.
Posted by Steve Vaughan | Thursday, September 24, 2009, 3:47 pmSteve, I’m surprised you think that.
Posted by Brian Kirwin | Thursday, September 24, 2009, 4:47 pmUnions were cool 100 year ago, now they are part of the problem. Union leaders no longer represent the best interests of their workers and the American people as a whole.
Posted by Max Shapiro | Thursday, September 24, 2009, 7:58 pmI bet everyone reading this blog knows who their delegate is.
But just in case you don’t, you can visit Imagine Election (http://www.imagineelection.com), type in your zip code, and find out right away.
Posted by Summer N | Friday, September 25, 2009, 11:22 am