Senate subcommittee fails to advance bill requiring an SRO at every Virginia high school
Summary
A Senate education subcommittee considered S.B. 695, which would require one school resource officer at each high school. Sponsors said a budget amendment exists; school officials and teachers’ groups warned of an unfunded mandate and lack of evidence. The motion to report failed 2–3.
Senate subcommittee members on Thursday debated S.B. 695, a bill that would require one school resource officer (SRO) at every Virginia high school, and declined to advance it by voice vote.
Senator Jordan, the bill’s patron, told the panel the substitute removes earlier VRS-related language and “the substance of the bill is to make sure we are strengthening school safety.” He said a budget amendment had been filed and that finance committee negotiations could address funding.
Supporters at the table included Vernon Peters of the Virginia Professional Educators, who said his organization supports the measure. Several witnesses and committee members, however, urged caution.
Tom Smith of the Superintendents Association said his group is “not opposed necessarily to the bill” but expressed concern about cost and funding; he said many SROs are currently paid with local dollars or through time-limited grants, and asked whether the state would pay if the mandate becomes law.
Meg Gruber of the Virginia Education Association opposed the bill, arguing it “narrows local options by requiring every school board … to have [an SRO],” diverts scarce dollars from classrooms, and “there is no clear data showing SROs improve student safety.” She urged the committee to consider non–law-enforcement approaches such as mental-health supports and restorative practices.
Committee members questioned whether the grant fund sponsor referenced would cover every locality if the requirement became law, and several members said they were uncomfortable creating a statutory duty without established state funding. The sponsor said he had filed a budget amendment to fund the change; other senators said it would be a matter for the Senate Finance Committee.
After discussion, a motion to recommend reporting S.B. 695 failed on a 2–3 vote, halting the bill in subcommittee for now. The committee did not record named roll-call votes in the hearing transcript.
