An Act to amend and reenact §§ 9.1-914, 15.2-914, 15.2-2292, 18.2-371.1, 19.2-389, as it is currently effective and as it shall become effective, 20-124.6, 22.1-289.02, 22.1-289.04, 22.1-289.05:1 through 22.1-289.08, 22.1-289.010, 22.1-289.011, 22.1-289.012, 22.1-289.014 through 22.1-289.019, 22.1-289.021 through 22.1-289.028, 22.1-289.030, 22.1-289.035 through 22.1-289.038, 22.1-289.040 through 22.1-289.046, 22.1-289.049, 22.1-289.050, 22.1-289.055, 22.1-289.056, 22.1-289.059, 22.1-296.3, 32.1-46, 63.2-603, 63.2-1506, 63.2-1515, and 63.2-1527 of the Code of Virginia, relating to early childhood care and education; terminology.
HB258 is a broad technical and conforming bill focused on early childhood care and education terminology across the Code of Virginia. It amends a large number of statutes to update references and definitions related to child care, preschool, child day centers, family day homes, and related programs and facilities. The bill also touches several unrelated code sections that reference these terms, indicating that its main purpose is to standardize language across the code rather than create a new program or funding stream.
A notable portion of the bill revises § 9.1-914, which governs automatic notification from the State Police about offender registration. Under this section, schools, child-care providers, assisted living facilities, foster homes, nursing homes, common interest communities, institutions of higher education, and individual requestors may receive electronic or written notice when an offender registers, reregisters, or verifies registration information. The bill preserves the existing notification framework while updating terminology and cross-references to align with current child-care and education law.
Because the bill amends many sections in the education and human services titles, its legal impact is primarily to harmonize statutory language used by agencies, schools, child-care providers, and courts. It affects provisions involving child welfare, custody, criminal records access, zoning or local regulation of child-care facilities, and the state’s early childhood education system. The bill does not appear to materially change eligibility or benefits so much as to modernize terminology and ensure consistency across related statutes.
The general sentiment around the bill appears favorable and noncontroversial, consistent with a housekeeping measure that updates terminology and cross-references. No committee transcript or recorded votes were provided, and the bill was enacted as Chapter 917, suggesting it moved through the process without notable opposition. Any discussion likely centered on clarity, consistency, and administrative alignment rather than policy disagreement.
The main points of contention, if any, would likely have involved the scope of the conforming changes and whether the terminology updates could have downstream effects on agency practice or local regulation. However, the available record does not show active dispute, amendments, or divided votes. Overall, the bill reads as a technical cleanup measure supporting Virginia’s early childhood care and education framework.
HB258 amends numerous provisions of the Code of Virginia to update and harmonize terminology related to early childhood care and education, child-care facilities, and related regulatory references. Its legal effect is largely conforming: it revises definitions, cross-references, and statutory language across education, social services, criminal records, zoning, and child welfare provisions, while preserving existing substantive rules such as offender-notification procedures for schools and child-care entities.
The available record suggests the bill was broadly supported and noncontroversial. It was enacted as Chapter 917, and there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes indicating opposition. The bill appears to have been treated as a technical and administrative update to align terminology across multiple statutes.
No specific contention is documented in the provided materials. If any concerns existed, they would most likely have involved the breadth of the conforming amendments or whether terminology changes could affect agency implementation, local regulation, or notification practices. The record provided does not show organized opposition, divided votes, or substantive debate.