GOVERNOR'S VETO

Pursuant to Article V, Section 6 of the Constitution of Virginia, I veto Senate Bill No. 168.

I note that at least 42 members of the House of Delegates share my view that Senate Bill No. 168 either duplicates programs already in place, distracts from Virginia's drive to excellence in core academic subjects, or is too vague for effective implementation.

The bill sets forth nine criteria which the Board of Education "shall" prioritize:

"curriculum revisions integrating theory and application" - The Board of Education and the Department of Education already are integrating theory and application with core academic knowledge by focusing on the basics of English, math, science and history, and by testing application and theory in the Standards of Learning tests.

"accelerated academic program for all students" - Neither the bill's express language or context provide a clear meaning for what this means, providing little guidance for the Board of Education. If the language is intended to imply academic rigor for all students, then Virginia's new Standards of Learning are the answer.

"heightened sensitivity to student potential" - This is vague, at best. Again, if the bill seeks academic rigor, the Standards of Learning are the answer. If the bill seeks something other than academic rigor, then I am afraid it may distract us from faithful implementation of the new Standards of Learning and focus on the basics.

"interdisciplinary cooperation among teachers in planning and instruction" - Quite frankly, that has always been possible and, I would think, has been occurring for many years. Teachers from different disciplines cooperate with each other often.

"family involvement" - I believe that family involvement in schools is very important and should be encouraged. Usually this requires a caring teacher and a receptive administrator who communicate with a student's family with phone calls, notes and personal meetings.

"additional assistance for students to meet curriculum standards" - Indeed, it is tautological that schools exist to provide as much assistance as students need to meet curriculum standards. But this provision of the bill is too broad to provide the Board of Education any constructive guidance. As we devote public resources to education, I believe we can best provide "additional assistance for students to meet curriculum standards" by lowering class sizes, hiring additional remedial teachers, and focusing students and teachers on the core academic subjects of English, math, science and history.

"identification of business needs" - I fundamentally believe that our primary responsibility in public education should be to focus on students' needs first. Anything else is a distraction and a breach of our responsibility to the children of Virginia.

"new ideas for preparing skilled employees" - If we teach children to read, write, do math, and understand the basics of science and history, we lay a solid foundation for their future employability and a lifetime of learning. The primary goal of education is to teach children these core academic basics so that they can learn job skills as they get older. Vocational education has a place in high school and community college, but our focus in K-12 should always be the academic basics adopted in the Standards of Learning.

"creative ways to use existing resources" - While I have no particular objection to schools that use their existing resources "creatively," I would prefer that they use their resources efficiently. I question whether we would be sending the wrong message, however, by establishing a financial grant program to encourage efficient use of existing resources.

Moreover, this bill would duplicate existing programs currently administered by the Department of Education and the Virginia Business-Education Partnership, such as High Schools That Work and School-to-Work. If there is substantial merit to the High Schools That Work and School-to-Work programs, then it would be a more efficient use of resources to augment the existing programs rather than creating a new program. At a time when we should be streamlining educational and workforce training programs, this bill would add yet another disconnected grant program to be coordinated and administered by some division of the Department of Education. I have the same concern regarding the bill's disconnect to the Standards of Learning. At a time when we should be focusing on raising each student's achievement in the core academic subjects, this bill appears to seek to distract our efforts to serve "business needs" and "preparing skilled employees."

Finally, I note that this bill has not been funded by House and Senate budget conferees. Thus, this veto will not reduce appropriations for education.

For all of these reasons, I disapprove of this bill and am returning it without my signature.