Governor's Amendments to the Budget

The Governor has sent the General Assembly 86 amendments to the State budget.  Of particular interest to school boards is an amendment he did not submit.  Many educational groups had requested the Governor to remove the language adopted during the 2011 session that provided that the $87 Million in new funding for K-12 education was one time only money that could not be considered during the rebenchmarking process.  Unfortunately, the Governor did not propose deleting this provision from the budget.  There is one amendment that will be of interest to some school boards.  It allows school boards and local governments to require current employees hired before July 1, 2010, to pay all or a portion of the 5% employee VRS premium.  The amendment does not require school boards to provide the employees with a raise to offset the employee premium.   Here is the language of the recommended amendment:

Notwithstanding the provisions of § 51.1-144.F., each county, city, town, local public school board, or other local employer who has elected to pay an equivalent amount in lieu of the member contributions required of an employee who is not a person who becomes a member on or after July 1, 2010, may require such employee to pay member contributions on a salary reduction basis in accordance with § 414(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, in whole percentages, up to five percent of the creditable compensation otherwise required of such employee, provided that the employer pays the same percentage of creditable compensation for all such employees. Any portion of the five percent of creditable compensation required that is not paid by such

employee shall be paid by the county, city, town, local public school board, or other local employer. Such employer may pay all or a portion of the member contributions required of an employee who is not described in this paragraph, as provided in § 51.1-144.F.2., which portion may be different than that paid by the employer for an employee who is described in this paragraph.”

Explanation:

(This language allows a local employer who is currently paying all member contributions for certain employees to elect to have those employees pay member contributions up to a fixed percent of compensation.)

More on PE Bill Veto

Click here to view the Governor's statement regarding the PE bill.  Among other things, the Governor stated "In my Inaugural Address I stated very clearly that Washington does not always know better than Richmond, and, equally, that Richmond does not always know better than Fairfax or Galax. I have long opposed significant unfunded mandates passed from one level of government to another. Thus, I cannot in good conscience sign this legislation."

The bill will now go back to the General Assembly for reconsideration during the reconvened session on April 6.  The General Assembly can override the Governor's veto with a 2/3 vote in each chamber.  We are very pleased with the Governor's decision to veto this bill and we will continue to lobby against this bill as the reconvened session approaches.   

PE Bill to be Vetoed by Governor McDonnell

We just received word from the Governor's office that a statement will be released very shortly from his office that the Governor will veto SB 966.  This bill would have required school boards to provide 150 minutes of physical education per week to all students in grades K through 8.  Last Friday, VSBA along with VASS, VEA, VML, and VACO sent a joint letter to the Governor requesting that he veto the bill because it is, among other things, an unfunded mandate. 

VSBA, VASS, VEA, VML, and VACO Jointly Request Veto of PE Bill

Today, VSBA along with VASS, VEA, VML and VACO sent the following letter to Governor McDonnell requesting that he veto SB 966:

Virginia Association of Counties

Virginia Association of School Superintendents

Virginia Education Association

Virginia Municipal League

Virginia School Boards Association

March 18, 2011

The Honorable Robert McDonnell, Governor

Commonwealth of Virginia

Richmond, Virginia

Dear Governor McDonnell:

We are writing on behalf of the Virginia School Boards Association, the Virginia Association of School Superintendents, the Virginia Education Association, the Virginia Municipal League, and the Virginia Association of Counties to request that you veto SB 966, a bill that would mandate that public schools provide a minimum of 150 minutes of physical education per week in grades kindergarten through eight. We recognize that the bill’s intent of fighting childhood obesity is a laudable goal. We ask, however, that you exercise your discretion to veto this bill because of two major concerns: (1) the bill imposes a substantial unfunded mandate on school divisions and localities and (2) due to time constraints and other requirements imposed on the public schools, the bill’s implementation will pose very significant instructional and practical problems.

The projected personnel costs alone are substantial. In order to provide 150 minutes of physical education per week, many school divisions will have to hire additional physical education teachers, a cost which will be borne solely by the localities. For example, Fairfax County Public Schools has estimated that the personnel costs associated with SB 966 will be $18 to $24 million per year; Chesterfield County estimates that the bill would require an additional 102 elementary teachers and an additional 35 middle school teachers at a cost of $6.9 million; Pittsylvania County estimates that the bill will require an additional 10 elementary teachers and 4 middle school teachers at a cost of $800,000; and Louisa County estimates that the bill will require 16 elementary teachers at a cost of $720,000.

In addition to the personnel costs, this bill will have significant capital costs for many school divisions. While physical education can certainly be conducted outdoors during certain times of the year, the legislation has no inclement weather provision and schools simply were not built with this physical education requirement in mind. Many elementary schools throughout the Commonwealth do not have gymnasiums or other facilities sufficient to meet the requirements of this bill. Supporters of the bill have argued that physical education can take place in the classrooms or the hallways. Anyone who has spent any time in an elementary school – or even around elementary school-aged children – knows this is not a feasible solution. Classrooms are too small and too crowded for physical activity of the type contemplated by SB 966.

This bill also poses an untenable time constraint on the school day. The Standards of Accreditation require an instructional day of 330-minutes, 75% of which (248 minutes) must be spent on core academic subjects. The Virginia Code also requires that elementary teachers have at least 30 minutes per day of unencumbered planning time. If 30 minutes per day are added for physical education, then only 22 minutes per day are left for any other subjects, such as art and music (which elementary schools are also required to teach), foreign languages and computer instruction (which elementary schools are encouraged to teach), or for remediation (which many students need in order to pass the SOLs).

Proponents of this legislation have argued that it will not require the hiring of additional personnel because classroom teachers can provide the physical education instruction. This argument ignores the planning time requirement. Most teachers have their planning time while their students are receiving resource instruction, such as art, music, or physical education. If classroom teachers are to provide the physical education instruction, many school divisions will have to hire additional personnel to relieve the classroom teachers for their planning time. Extending the school day may relieve these time constraints, but only at a very significant additional cost which, again, would be borne entirely by the localities.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that you veto SB 966.