A BILL to require the State Council of Higher Education to develop and establish a Virginia-specific postsecondary transition counselor certificate program.
HB85 requires the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) to work with the Council for Exceptional Children, its Division on Career Development and Transition, and Virginia public colleges and universities with educator preparation programs to develop and establish a Virginia-specific postsecondary transition counselor certificate program. The program must be equivalent in rigor and quality to the National Certification in Transition Services offered by DCDT, with the goal of enabling Virginia institutions to create certificate programs that can receive DCDT program approval.
In practical terms, the bill is aimed at building a state-recognized pathway for training professionals who help students with disabilities and other transition needs move from secondary education into postsecondary education, employment, and independent living. It does not itself create a licensing regime, but it directs SCHEV and higher education institutions to design the framework for a specialized certificate aligned with national standards.
HB85 would affect SCHEV and public institutions of higher education that operate educator preparation programs by requiring them to collaborate on a new Virginia-specific certificate model. It would also indirectly affect students, transition specialists, special education programs, and institutions seeking DCDT-aligned approval for postsecondary transition counselor training. The bill would not amend existing licensing statutes directly, but it would create a state-directed higher education program development mandate and could expand credentialing options in special education and transition services.
The available legislative history suggests generally neutral to favorable treatment of the bill, but not enough information is available to identify strong support or opposition. The bill was continued to the next session in the Education Committee by voice vote, which indicates it received consideration but was not advanced to final passage during the current session. No committee transcript or recorded roll-call vote is provided, so the broader debate is not documented in the available materials.
The main potential point of contention is whether the state should require SCHEV and public institutions to develop a new certificate program that mirrors an existing national credential, rather than leaving such training to institutions or professional organizations voluntarily. Another possible issue is the administrative and implementation burden on higher education institutions, including the need to align curricula with DCDT approval standards. Because no transcripts are available, specific objections or supporters cannot be identified from the record provided.