McDonnell stretches his veto legs
By Brian Kirwin | Friday, March 25th, 2011 | PolicyCommon whispers in Richmond was that Governor McDonnell was going to veto something this year. He picked an interesting, if odd and safe, vehicle to do so.
SB 966, Sen. Ralph Northam’s bill, required 150 minutes of physical education per week in public schools. McDonnell’s rational was that it was an unfunded mandate (like the SOLs?) and we wouldn’t want to add costs to local government.
The teachers’ union, Virginia Education Association, urged McDonnell to veto the bill. They complained that the bill would force localities to hire more teachers…..and they oppose that. Told you it was odd.
The bill flew through the Senate, but barely passed the House, and only with a lot of Republican support that is likely going to have an epiphany the first week of April. This bill is dead.
The fact that it was Freshman Senator Ralph Northam’s bill is a bit telling, too. Northam isn’t exactly the Senate Democrats’ favorite son, since the drama of former RPV Chair Jeff Frederick’s mistweet about a powershift in the Senate two years ago with Northam teaming with the GOP.
Plus the fact that Northam’s district has to grow substantially in redistricting, and adding Democrats would look like a difficult task.
Not that it was that liberal a district to begin with. McDonnell carried it with 58%, but Kaine won it 4 years earlier. It’s a bell weather district, and the wind has got a pretty rightward tilt right now.
So McDonnell’s veto was a nod to the Unions that will be upheld by the General Assembly and embarrasses a Democrat who has trouble with Democrats and represents a district he is very likely to lose.
Now, if the intent was to woo Northam to cross party lines officially, a veto ain’t the way to encourage that.
One has to wonder if this is the only veto we’ll see this session. Word is that the Governor is reading e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g with amendments aplenty on the way. More vetoes?
My guess is McDonnell doesn’t want to be the King of Vetoes. It’s not really his style. But let’s face it – Phys Ed in schools isn’t exactly the most pressing issue facing the commonwealth.
McDonnell’s playing small ball here. That’s fine for a while, but we’re just about done with 2 out of 4 General Assembly sessions McDonnell gets. Does he really want his legacy to be trying to sell ABC stores and battling over kids in gym class?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
9 Responses to "McDonnell stretches his veto legs"
Frankly, if he had signed the bill, and outlawed soda machines in public schools, he would have increased the health of our children and could have been known at the health and fitness governor.
I’d don’t think it’s a great veto. On the other hand, if the legislature really wants school divisions to do this, they should have funded it.
Mike, that comment makes you the official “Charlie Sheen” of this blog.
My one e-mail this session was in support of SB 966. Having fought weight problems all my life, I don’t want kids to face what I am at middle age.
As for Mike’s soda machine quip, I adamantly disagree. If a kid is tired in school, a bottle of Diet Mountain Dew is the lesser evil than slumbering through class.
Henry, your comment is so wrong on so many levels I’ll just let it hang out there.
I had to take gym when I went to school. I’m glad we had it and it wasn’t any great burden. However … given the massive shortfall for schools failing to meet their bloated budgets, if a school has to choose between educating students in math or paying for kids playing in gym class, then gym class is the wiser choice to defund.
If schools desire to have gym they still can, but if they can’t afford it then they don’t have the General Assembly in Richmond forcing them to pay for gym class.
Local school boards are still free to decide if they want to fund gym or not, as are local city governments. This veto doesn’t prohibit schools from funding gym – it enables schools to decide what they can afford to teach, given the constraints of their local taxbase.
There’s like one gym in a school. Maybe 4 gym teachers. You want to send every single kid in a school into a gym class for 50 minutes a day, 3 days a week? (assuming the 150 gets to include the shower time and dress-time).
It’s not that we have to hire a bunch more teachers — it’s that we have to hire phys ed teachers, and fire other teachers to make room.
Of course, both my kids took online phys-ed in high school, so what do I know?
Is it really the job of the public schools to reduce childhood obesity? Why is the mandate on the schools and not the parents?
Headed off to the gym for a good workout!
… so please pardon the fast cut and paste:
“It is a known fact that physical activity improves overall health. Not only does it improve circulation, increase blood flow to the brain, and raise endorphin levels, which all help to reduce stress, improve mood and attitude, and calm children, physically active students may also achieve more academically. Physically fit students are less likely to miss school, partake in risky behaviors, get pregnant, or attempt suicide, which are all associated with better outcomes in school (Taras, 2005).
Many studies have demonstrated the positive effects of physical education and physical activity on school performance. Several studies have stated that providing increased time for physical activity can lead to better concentration, reduced disruptive behaviors and higher test scores in reading, math and writing (Satcher, 2005).
One specific study that addressed this issue was done by Sallis et al. (1999) where they implemented a program called Project SPARK in which provides physical activity during class by including health-fitness activities like jump rope and aerobic dance as well as sport-fitness activities like soccer and Frisbee games and focuses on training teachers to implement the curriculum. The program also promotes physical activity outside of school and rewards children for engaging in physical activity with their families. Results of the study show that when teachers were trained to use Project SPARK there were significant differences between the experimental and control groups in language, reading, and basic battery. This study shows that organized physical education programs can impact student performance even in short term experiments.
It has also been proven that when students are involved in a physical activity program, there is an “improved rate of academic learning per unit of class time” (Taras, 2005) and that increased time spent in physical education does not negatively effect student scores. A study done in France increased its physical education time to 8 hours per week, reducing time devoted to academic subjects. The students in this experiment were physically and psychologically healthier and had increased academic performance when compared to the control group (Sallis, 1999).
Despite the wealth of knowledge concerning the benefits of physical education and physical activity, only 8% of elementary schools, 6.4% of middle schools, and 5.8% of high schools provide daily physical education to all of its students (SHPPS, 2000). In addition, 20 percent of all elementary schools in the U.S. have abolished recess in favor of increased classroom time under pressure to improve student achievement (Satcher, 2005). Less than 25% of children are engaged in 30 minutes of any type of daily physical activity (Satcher, 2005). Even when physical education programs are in place, most students are not engaged in vigorous physical activity for the majority of their class time (Fairclough and Stratton, 2005). It is estimated that boys only spend about 18 minutes engaged in moderate and vigorous activity and girls spend about 16 minutes (Fairclough and Stratton, 2005). These statistics are disappointing and are resulting in negative outcomes in health and school performance for America’s children. Many parents and educators are probably wondering: Why are we neglecting the health needs of our children?
Barriers to implementing comprehensive health education programs including physical education are abundant. Gaining administrative and government support for health programs is difficult considering the pressure that local leaders face to improve academic skills (Symons, 1997). Physical education programs are not often seen as a primary concern to these administrators since many believe that student health is not of concern to schools but should be an issue that parents address. There has not been any mandates for schools to improve physical education despite the recommendations of over 40 health, educational, and social service organizations that student health and education are mutually dependent (Symons, 1997). Additionally, budget constraints are frequently cited as reasons for cut backs on health and physical education, especially in low-income areas (Symons, 1997).
The research on physical education and student performance is also not very consistent. There are quite a few studies that show no significant relationship or a very weak relationship between student academic performance with increased physical activity levels (Taras, 2005). Taras (2005) suggests that this may be due to the short-term nature of the studies and asserts that increases in exercise over a long period of time are more likely to enhance cognitive abilities. Also, Taras states that it is possible that the positive effects of physical education and increased physical activity only exist in certain sub-populations of students such as those students who are low-achieving or who have lower levels of physical fitness.
The National Association for Sport and Physical Education recommend that children be engaged in at least 60 minutes of age-appropriate physical activity on all or most days of the week. “School physical education programs provide a context for regular and structured physical activity (Fairclough and Stratton, 2005)” and serve as a means for the government to intervene and improve the health of America’s children. Implementing various opportunities for physical activity in school, most importantly required daily physical education classes, promotes the idea of healthy living for children which can be bring about long term changes in activity levels into adulthood as well as improve academic achievement.
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.speregen/physical_education_and_school_performance
Leave your response