A BILL to amend and reenact § 22.1-253.13:2, as it is currently effective and as it shall become effective, of the Code of Virginia, relating to public elementary and secondary schools; personnel; high school career coach required.
HB138 would revise Virginia’s Standards of Quality staffing requirements for public elementary and secondary schools, with the central new mandate that each local school board employ at least one career coach in every public high school. The bill defines the career coach’s role as helping students secure internships, externships, credentialing opportunities, apprenticeship information, and other career connections tied to the Profile of a Virginia Graduate, while making clear that the position is supplemental to, and not a replacement for, school counselors or other support staff.
Beyond the career coach requirement, the bill restates and reorganizes a broad set of staffing standards for teachers, reading specialists, counselors, librarians, specialized student support staff, clerical staff, and other support services. It also adds or reinforces related requirements such as a special education parent/family liaison in each division and a high-quality instructional materials liaison. The bill preserves existing class-size ratios, reporting obligations, and flexibility provisions for school divisions, including limited use of provisional licenses, contracted services, and reassignment of staff to areas of greatest need.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to amend § 22.1-253.13:2 of the Code of Virginia, which governs instructional, administrative, and support personnel standards for public schools. If enacted, it would create a new statewide staffing obligation for high school career coaches and formally incorporate that position into the minimum staffing framework used to determine local school division compliance and state funding expectations under the appropriation act. It would also continue to shape how school divisions count and deploy personnel for reading intervention, English learner services, special education support, counseling, and school operations.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of expanded student services and college-and-career readiness supports, with an emphasis on ensuring that staffing levels are not met by substituting one type of support for another. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or bipartisan support/opposition in the available record. The bill’s placement in Appropriations and its final status of being left in committee suggest it did not advance, but the record does not show the reasons.
The main point of contention likely centers on cost and staffing feasibility. Requiring at least one career coach in every high school would impose a new personnel mandate on local school divisions, and the bill also layers on additional liaison and staffing expectations in an already detailed staffing statute. Potential concerns would include whether divisions can recruit qualified staff, how the new positions would be funded, and whether the mandate duplicates or overlaps with existing counselor and student support roles.
HB138 would amend Virginia Code § 22.1-253.13:2, the statute establishing minimum staffing and personnel standards for public schools. Its most significant legal change is the creation of a statewide requirement that each public high school employ at least one career coach, while also adding a special education parent/family liaison and a high-quality instructional materials liaison to division staffing responsibilities. The bill would affect local school boards, school divisions, and state funding calculations tied to the Standards of Quality and appropriation act, while leaving existing class-size, counselor, reading specialist, and support-services frameworks largely intact.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of floor or committee debate. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a student-support and career-readiness expansion rather than a controversial policy shift, with the sponsor seeking to strengthen school-to-career pathways and family support structures. Its final status of being left in the Appropriations Committee suggests the bill did not move forward, likely reflecting fiscal or implementation concerns rather than a recorded policy rejection.
The most likely areas of contention are funding, staffing, and role overlap. Local school divisions may object to the cost of mandating a new position in every high school, especially alongside existing requirements for counselors, specialized student support staff, and other personnel. Another possible concern is whether career coaches duplicate duties already performed by school counselors or college-and-career readiness staff, although the bill expressly states the position is supplemental. The added liaison requirements may also raise questions about administrative burden and whether the staffing mandates are too prescriptive for local control.