A BILL to establish a timeline and process for increasing the average teacher salary in the Commonwealth.
HB279 would require Virginia’s Governor, in the 2027 and 2028 budget proposals, to include funding for compensation supplement incentives for Standards of Quality-funded instructional and support positions sufficient to raise the Commonwealth’s average teacher salary to at least the national average by the end of fiscal year 2029. The bill sets out a phased approach: the 2027 budget would provide one-half of the needed increase for fiscal year 2028, and the 2028 budget would provide the remaining half for fiscal year 2029.
To calculate the required funding, the bill directs use of the most recent national and Virginia teacher salary figures from the source used in JLARC’s Virginia Compared to the Other States report, with adjustments based on CPI-U and assumed prior state compensation increases. The bill is framed as a budget directive rather than a standalone salary schedule, tying the salary goal to future appropriations and the general appropriation act.
HB279 would affect state budgeting and education finance by creating a statutory target for teacher pay and a timeline for state funding commitments. It would not directly set individual teacher salaries, but it would require the Governor’s introduced budgets and the general appropriation act to include sufficient state support to raise average teacher compensation to the national average, with implications for Standards of Quality funding, local school divisions, and state-local cost sharing for instructional and support staff.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate to gauge detailed sentiment. The bill’s introduction and referral to Appropriations suggest it was treated as a fiscal policy measure centered on teacher compensation and budget planning. Its stated purpose indicates support for improving teacher pay, but the absence of recorded votes or discussion means the level of support or opposition cannot be determined from the provided materials.
The main likely point of contention is fiscal cost and the mandate it places on future budgets, since the bill requires the Governor to propose funding and the General Assembly to provide it through appropriations. Another possible issue is the bill’s reliance on projections and assumptions—such as CPI-U adjustments and assumed full local matching of SOQ pay increases—which could be disputed by lawmakers concerned about accuracy, affordability, or state-local funding responsibilities. Because the bill was left in the Appropriations Committee, budget impact and feasibility appear to be the central concerns.