Search Results

Trump Administration Pushes Patriotic instead of Trustworthy American History If the Trump Administration gets their way, truthful American History curricula will be replaced with biased Patriotic Education in public schools. The Trump Administration is concerned that public schools are not producing students that are adequately “patriotic,” so their plan is to allow only the uplifting and ennobling parts of our history to be taught in K-12 public schools. Not only would the exclusion of a large part of American history be a change to the substance of school curricula, it would remove the responsibility for curriculum development from the States to one of heavy-handed censorship by the federal government.  “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” — George Orwell, 1984 Historically, states control the day-to-day school operations, including setting curriculum standards and educational policy. But the Trump administration wants a radical change. His Administration is mandating that schools teach Patriotism, meaning that the U.S. Department of Education (ED) will now interfere with state development of curricula. The intent is to force students to “ love America ” by downplaying truths that cast America’s founders and historical events in a dishonorable light. For example, American history includes terrible and inconvenient truths such as: Japanese forced internment during World War II, massacre of native peoples, Thomas Jefferson fathering six children with enslaved Sally Hemings , and the Tulsa massacre  that decimated the successful Black-owned Greenwood District in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1921 by a mob of white vigilantes and elected officials. Trump and his administration were inspired to make this change in anticipation of the upcoming 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Trump was concerned that Americans were not patriotic enough, particularly after the publication of the Pulitzer prizewinning 1619 Project , because it revealed details about the slave trade and enslavement in our country. Trump claimed that the 1619 Project was not only "inaccurate” it was “ toxic propaganda ” that would negatively influence patriotism  in the US.  Another factor influencing Trump’s desire for change was nationwide protests after George Floyd’s murder  in 2020. Trump used those protests to generate fear and racial discord, warning that protests over racial inequality were dangerous and that they threatened the foundations of our political system . In response to those events, and what the administration alleged was “decades of left-wing indoctrination  in our schools”, Trump established the 1776 Commission  in 2020 to restore “American education that would be grounded in the principles of our founding that is accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling.” Subsequently, Trump threatened to cut off funding  from schools that taught from the 1619 Project; however, two months later, he lost the election and President Biden discontinued that initiative.  After Trump was re-elected in 2024, he picked up where he left off by insisting on patriotic education. He signed a number of executive orders including “ Ending radical indoctrination in K-12 schooling ” where he claimed: “Parents have witnessed schools indoctrinate their children in radical, anti-American ideologies while deliberately blocking parental oversight;”  “Students are forced to accept these ideologies without question or critical examination;” and  This “erode[s] critical thinking but also sow[s] division, confusion, and distrust, which undermine[s] the very foundations of personal identity and family unity.”  He directed Secretary of ED Linda McMahon to develop programs to promote patriotic education, and to release a supplemental priority  on Patriotic Education that directed a funding priority to “be used in grant competitions across the Department to promote a civic education that teaches American history, values, and geography with [what she claimed was] an unbiased approach.”  The Hubris of American Exceptionalism American exceptionalism  is a main component of Patriotic Education. It is the belief that the United States is distinctive, unique, and exemplary compared to other nations. Trump’s plan  is to encourage students to love their country unconditionally by teaching only the uplifting parts and ignoring the darkest parts of our country’s past, including slavery, the disenfranchisement of women and African Americans, racial segregation, and crimes and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people. "American Exceptionalism Is a Dangerous Myth." — New York Magazine headline   History experts have objected to this. According to Sarah Weicksel , Executive Director of the American Historical Association, “Doing that flattens the past into a set of platitudes that are not rooted in the broader historical context, conflicts, contingencies and change over time that are central to historical thinking” and that view “has a narrow conception of patriotism and patriotic education”. Washington Post contributor Theodore Johnson goes further, suggesting  that this planned change in how history is taught “should not be considered patriotism but instead a means of curtailing oversight and constraints on the president.”  Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise,  suggested on pg. 319 that students are taught to be hostile to exceptionalism and that rather than teaching students “to hate their country” and feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of “actions committed in the past”, those topics should be avoided. Of course, this was said without evidence or scientific basis. Others have pointed out that true patriotism results from taking a critical look at how our nation has been imperfect, yet we can still respect it and the people who came before us. For example, a recent editorial by Theodore R. Johnson pointed out that knowing how the nation and its people improved over time can give us a true appreciation and feeling of loyalty to the laws, principles, and institutions of our country. One might say that this would be considered true patriotism, versus Trump’s blind , uncritical patriotism. Many Americans already understand that teaching the ‘dark’ parts of history in addition to the uplifting parts is not unpatriotic, but instead helps to accurately document how our country has evolved and improved. Also, it helps identify where we may still have work to do. By providing the whole truth to students, they develop their own sense of patriotism and appreciate the values central to our country. In contrast, the view of the Administration is a very narrow interpretation of what is patriotic education and their push for patriotic education appears to be a politically motivated power grab  rather than education.  Trump’s attempt to Eliminate African American History and America's Ugly History of Racism   The term “patriotic education” has become code  for teachings that omit or downplay important parts of history, such as slavery and segregation. Since the publication of the 1619 Project, both Trump administrations have called teachings about racism “left wing indoctrination” and “child abuse” . One of the current administration's earliest executive orders  threatened to withhold federal funding from schools that taught topics that Trump considered divisive, such as slavery and systemic racism, which they incorrectly labelled Critical Race Theory (CRT). In fact, those topics are not CRT because CRT is actually a legal framework to understand why racial disparities exist, not lessons on topics such as slavery and the civil rights movement.  The 1619 Project created by Nicole Hannah-Jones and the NYT Magazine Until recently, history textbooks barely mentioned  African American history causing some teachers to rebel against that whitewashing of textbooks . Much to the credit of the 1619 Project, the truth about early African American history became part of K-12 curricula in many school systems. President Trump’s executive order “ Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History ” has called for a return to whitewashing history of African Americans , seriously limiting what students may be taught and censoring much of the truth about African Americans history. Instead, the Administration used misinformation to justify censoring this part of history education, going so far as to allege that ‘White Privilege’ and ‘unconscious bias,’ actually promote racial discrimination and “undermine national unity.” Another example of the misinformation they share is that slavery should be portrayed positively  because it provided education and trades to the enslaved and gave them homes, food, and equal rights. This language is no different than much of the pro-slavery framing in the 19th century U.S. that argued for the "essential" nature of enslavement.   There is a vigorous effort underway to hide the truth about American History, and Trump released an executive order  prohibiting federal funding for exhibits or programs that “divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.” Trump ordered a review of all exhibits hosted by the Smithsonian Institution and the National Park Service, and as a result removal of multiple artifacts  that don’t support the patriotic whitewashing push have been removed from public view. The artifacts removed were exhibits that called attention to the brutality of slavery. Most recently an exhibit about George Washington’s slave ownership was removed from Philadelphia’s Independence Mall  but Philadelphia is pushing back with a suit  against the Trump administration.   The president has threatened to cut off funding from schools that continue to teach material that he considers propaganda, such as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). However, not all school systems are complying with that order. In 2025, there were court rulings that blocked schools  from enforcing the ‘CRT’ ban. However, other suits  have been filed against schools for teaching ‘CRT ‘and also against those who suggested ways to get around the ban. The outcome of these competing rulings and the future of African American history in K-12 is yet to be decided. Meanwhile the Administration has abandoned its appeal of a court order blocking Anti-DEI Guidance  that had required colleges to eradicate all race-based curriculum, financial aid and student services, or lose federal funding. The motion to dismiss was jointly approved  by both the American Federation of Teachers and the ED.  Also troubling is the Trump Administration’s order  to change the mission of the Civil Rights office  in the ED. At present, there is a large backlog of cases involving discrimination against African American and transgender students while the office is prioritizing investigation of discrimination claims from White and cisgender students.  Progressive Ideology and LGBTQ+ Youth Support and Protection The Trump Administration insists that K-12 schools end alleged indoctrination of students with progressive ideologies. On Pg 319 of Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise , a rationale is provided: “ The Department of Education is a convenient one-stop shop for the woke education cartel” which “is not particularly concerned with children’s education” and is responsive to “leftist advocates intent on indoctrination”. This statement illustrates the power of conservative intent to reform K-12 education. In addition, the ED has rescinded Biden era policies  on data collection methods by removing the “nonbinary” gender category from the Office of Civil Rights data collection authority, and the use of preferred pronouns. In one of the administration’s executive orders  they made the claim that “parents have witnessed schools indoctrinate their children …while deliberately blocking parental oversight.” and “students are forced to accept these ideologies without question or critical examination.” Support for LGBTQ+ people is one of the anti-American ideologies on which the Trump Administration is focusing. The executive order uses inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric to describe ways schools currently may be supporting LGBTQ+ students.  According to the order, gender identity is a “radical-anti-American ideology” that encourages students to “question whether to view their parents and their reality as enemies to be blamed.” Of course, schools are only trying to support LGBTQ+ and other marginalized students, as they would any student, but the Administration claims that merely addressing a student by their preferred name or gender can “undermine national unity”.  The intent  of that order is to disallow “gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology” by threatening to withhold federal funds from schools that show support for students with gender identities that do not match their gender at birth. Also, the order warns that teachers may be prosecuted if they encourage a student’s transition, and claims that support of transgender students is “anti-American, subversive, harmful” and “a false ideology.” The administration is using the opportunity to stoke fear and outrage, by claiming that teachers have been known to “steer” students toward gender changing surgery without parental consent or involvement, although there is no evidence to support that outrageous claim.  There are a wide range of laws and policies regarding the support of LGBTQ+ students in K-12 schools. “ Some states have laws on the books   that require K-12 instructional materials to include and represent LGBTQ+ people and identities.” Yet, other states and school systems within states have anti-LGBTQ+ policies.  Policies protecting LGBTQ+ students from anti-LGBTQ+ bullying and harassment also vary widely among states and school districts  The legal basis for supportive and unsupportive LGBTQ+ policies is far from settled because there are simply so many suits that are currently undecided. For example, the ED alleged that   Northern Virginia school districts  violated Title IX with supportive transgender policies related to the use of bathrooms and locker rooms. Currently, the ED is trying to withhold federal funds from those districts that won’t follow the federal order , and some of those districts are suing the ED for those funds .  Flagrantly Ignoring Separation of Church and State It is clear that Secretary McMahon  plans to instill Christian values in public school classrooms, ignoring the principle of separation of church and state  that is in the first amendment to the Constitution. Others in the administration are equally motivated, including Meg Kilgannon , currently the Director of Strategic Partnerships in the ED, who stated that “The most important thing we need to educate students about is God”. Certainly the intention and the anticipated success of the new school voucher tax credit program is to send students from public to Christian schools .  A tenet of the Republican agenda is the belief that America is a Christian nation  founded for its white Christian inhabitants and that our laws and policies must reflect this. Many agree with that belief: a recent survey  revealed that 60% of Americans believe the founders of our country intended for the U.S. to be a Christian nation, and 45% believe ours should be a Christian nation today. Christian Nationalists deny the separation of church and state that was promised by our Constitution , and also they oppose equality for people of color, women, LGBTQ+ people, religious minorities, and the nonreligious.  "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." — George Orwell, 1984 Many aspects of the Project 2025 document visualize how the US should operate based on ideology of Christian nationalism. For example, the chapter on the Department of Health and Human Services points to a reform that would promote stable and flourishing married Families (pg 452). They state that the “conservative promise” calls for ending the alleged focus on LGBTQ+ and equity. Also it calls for an end to subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. The solution offered is that we should instead support only policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families. It appears that the Christian nationalism ideology embraced by the Trump administration will become used in our schools if the planned changes are allowed. There is no question that if Christian nationalism and its beliefs permeate our public schools it should be considered   dangerous to our democra tic form of government  and it should be recognized that this would go against our Constitution.  Spreading Trump-Approved History to Public Schools   Secretary McMahon is visiting K-12 schools in all 50 states as part of the "History Rocks!" Tour.  The stated goal of this tour is to foster "informed patriotism" by teaching founding principles, American history, and civic duties, emphasizing a "unifying and uplifting portrayal" of the nation.  This tour is a kickoff of the “ America 250 Civics Education Coalition ”, a partnership of more than 40 conservative organizations including America First Policy Institute, Turning Point USA, the Heritage Foundation, Hillsdale College and other ultra conservative organizations. This group is chaired by the Fairfax GOP chair (and Moms for Liberty board member) Katie Gorka, which highlights the purely political nature of the coalition. They are working to create programming on patriotism to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. All  indications are that products from this collaboration will be used with recommendations from the 1776 commission to develop the Patriotic Education curricula ordered by the Trump administration.  The so-called “patriotism” that President Trump is attempting to force-feed the country, and particularly our children, would lead to a vastly more ignorant society because it would diminish the history, values, and culture of a large percentage of Americans. Patriotism is learned and appreciated through historical knowledge of morally right and wrong actions, including how society’s characteristic spirit, guiding beliefs and fundamental values change over time. Americans should be outraged that the Trump Administration is pushing a brand of biased patriotism that disregards historical truth and punishes true patriots. Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped.   — George Orwell, 1984

Back to School Night Shouldn't Be a Battlefield When Doris Evens volunteered to hand out flyers at Back to School Night in the Woodson High School pyramid on September 3, 2025, she never imagined that she would end up “going viral,” being ridiculed on WMAL, or having her entire personal life exposed by the Fairfax Times.  Unfortunately, Republican operatives and Fairfax GOP candidate Saundra Davis had a different plan. Thus, within 36 hours of an interaction with GOP candidate Davis at Olde Creeke Elementary School, Evens life was turned upside down as the GOP and MAGA declared open season on a beloved grandma who just so happened to be an incredible volunteer for Moms Demand and the local Fairfax Dems. On September 3rd at Back to School Night, Evens, a private citizen, handed out the Democratic Party flyer which contained a calendar and voting information. Across from her, GOP candidate Davis was handing out a primary-colored Republican Party flyer on “parents’ rights”. At the time, Evens had no idea that Davis was the Fairfax GOP candidate running to unseat incumbent democratic delegate Laura Jane Cohen  in the November 2025 election. Nor did Evens know that Davis had lost her 2023 campaign for Fairfax County School Board by a huge margin, or that Davis had appeared in a Youngkin campaign ad as a self-described “former democrat.”   Before handing out her GOP flyers, Davis had placed GOP candidate signs on Olde Creek ES property. All hell broke loose when Evens used a calm teacher voice  to patiently explain that regulations forbid politics signs on school property. In response, Davis emphatically asserted her rights to place signs on school property and began filming and threatening Evens. The interaction is documented in this viral video posted by Davis on Twitter, which has been annotated to explain what actually happened .  In the short, tense 60 seconds of the video , GOP candidate Davis berated volunteer Evens, and refused to answer basic questions, much less calmly discuss the rules and regulations of sign placement. Instead, she was evasive, verging on inarticulate, repeating that “every school across Fairfax County has political signs up” and that she had the right to have her signs there.  Of course, neither statement by Davis was true. The rules forbidding political signs are outlined in FCPS Regulation 4426  which states, “ nor shall campaign posters be displayed at or within the schools. ” Furthermore, FCPS Regulation 3240  provides that “ The principal shall determine the appropriate time, place, and manner for distribution and/or display of materials about controversial issues, including political literature. ”  Clearly, Evens was correct: campaign signs are forbidden on school property except on election day and/or at the discretion of the principal. Back to School night is not an election day, nor had Davis asked for permission from the principal of Olde Creek ES; therefore, she did not have the right to place political signs on school property.  In a normal world, Davis would have engaged in a good faith conversation, where she would have listened to Evens’s expertise, as a former school employee. Instead of engaging in calm, good faith conversation, the video shows that candidate Davis was belligerent and aggressive, and threatened Evens by saying, “I’m about to make you famous if you touch that sign.”  Unfortunately, Davis followed through on that threat. Within hours of this interaction, Davis turned to social media to whine about being told to follow school rules. Davis claimed that the interaction with Evens was an example of “what happens when the Left can’t win on ideas–they resort to intimidation”--an ironic statement considering the intimidation campaign Davis incited against a blameless volunteer who was merely following the rules.  Davis Makes Doris Famous Davis shared her version of the events and a video on Twitter  and multiple Facebook forums, including her official campaign page and the Fairfax County Parents Association (FCPA) Facebook forum (formerly, OpenFCPS a group which advocated to open schools without masks or vaccines; targeted parents and teachers; and facilitated failed recall efforts on school board members during COVID). Specifically, Davis announced that “a Democrat screamed at me and even tried to rip my campaign signs out of the ground,” all of which is so hyperbolic as to be factually questionable, when the video  shows that Evens spoke calmly and gently pulled the sign from the ground. All in all, Davis, whose vast reach and media allies, managed to present herself as a victim, meanwhile harming the actual  victim in the interaction. On these FB pages, Davis and friends marveled at the viral nature of the video, excitedly counting the number of Twitter views as they increased into the thousands. One even exclaimed, “[Doris Evens] got the fame she wanted”, as if anyone would want to be attacked or forced into fame in this way. In the FCPA FB group, parents made nasty comments, calling Evens “uneducated,” “unhinged,” and “psycho.”  Davis’s Twitter video quickly gained traction and went “viral”--just as Davis had threatened–over 76,000 views, but barely 800 likes. The comments about Evens on twitter were far worse and cannot be repeated here. Unfortunately, Evens’ address was shared several times, which Twitter (actually) removed after it was reported. Sharing a person’s address on social media is known as doxing, which is illegal. Unfortunately, it is difficult to prove; therefore, it is a standard strategy used to intimidate by bots, trolls, and MAGA. MAGA Media Attack As if this wasn’t enough, within hours of the incident, the Fairfax Times  reproduced GOP candidate Davis’s false narrative in an article, as if the tense interaction between Davis and Evens was real news and not merely political gossip. The Fairfax Times shared an extraordinary amount of personal information about an unimpeachable private citizen, including Evens’s donation history, volunteer history, social media posts, photos of her family, and her Twitter handle, @screaminglibral, which has some fun content. Of course, this is a standard republican strategy used to intimidate democratic volunteers, school board speakers, civil rights activists, and progressive activists. Besides being profoundly invasive, the Fairfax Times’ article completely misrepresented the interaction between Davis and Evens: it used pejorative language to describe Evens’s behavior while presenting Davis as a victim. The Fairfax Times “reporting” may have inspired even further dangerous rhetoric about and further doxing of Evens, who received hate mail, in addition to all of the repulsive social media comments incited by Davis’s twitter post, local GOP’s amplification of that post, and the Fairfax Times article. Less than 36 hours after Davis yelled at Evens, WMAL hosted Matthew Hurtt, chair of the Arlington Republicans, and Stewart Whitson, GOP candidate for the special election for Gerry Connolly’s congressional seat against James Walkinshaw. WMAL and Hurtt used Davis’s version of the incident to hype the “sign stealing” as one more example of “dirty democrats” furthering WMAL’s incessant mantra that “all democrats are evil.”  Oddly, the WMAL interviews primarily focused on Evens’s age, race, gender, and assumed identity as “a hippy,” involving sexist comments on the show and on Twitter. Both Hurtt and Whitson echoed Stephen Miller’s complaint  about problematic “elderly white hippies.” This is such a weird and hurtful description of the septuagenarians and octogenarians who are actively supporting democracy and pushing back against authoritarianism. Their comments were dismissive and critical of Baby Boomer activists. Especially Hurtt  who seemed triggered by feminist women like Evens caring for their community and being active in politics. Hurtt dismissively called people like Evens as “Grantifa” and described them as displaying nasty, aggressive behavior, more along the lines of candidate Davis’s behavior than any behavior seen among the grandparent activists at Tesla and No Kings rallies.  Hurtt went further to describe a “catch and release program” for senior citizens where he claimed that his group, Arlington GOP, actively seeks to capture Grantifa on video and audio to expose them because they are “anti-democratic.” He echoed this idea in a tweet  at the time: Is the GOP afraid of the Golden Grantifa? The @arlingtondems and @FairfaxDems think they can allow their grand-tifa activists to act like fools without us blowing them up on social media. … Doris Ann Sprague Evens is learning today. You will be identified. You will be held accountable. - Matthew Hurtt, Arlington GOP Chair If it is not clear, the Republican Party has declared a war on grandparents. Why? Because it is our kids’ grandparents (a.k.a., our parents) who are showing up again and again to fight against an authoritarian regime, speak up for the vulnerable in our schools and life, and happily wave signs at rallies around the country. MAGA Politics in Local Elections The activities described above and associated threats are a feature, not a bug in MAGA politics–in other words, it is part of the Trumpian strategy to intimidate people into silence in order to control the nation. Often it is referred to as “ stochastic terrorism ” which is “ political violence instigated  by hostile public rhetoric directed at a group or an individual.” Often the rhetoric offers “the instigator plausible deniability for any associated violence,” while the instigators use dehumanization, disinformation, fear, hate, and conspiracies to incite violence through  “ideologically driven hate speech  [which] increases the likelihood that people will violently and unpredictably attack the targets of vicious claims.”  Unfortunately, this was not the last time that GOP candidate Davis targeted and filmed a lone senior white woman during her unsuccessful campaign to unseat Delegate Laura Jane Cohen. In this October 11, 2025 video , only a small snippet of the interaction is captured, but whatever preceded this outburst likely was heated on both sides. Why? Well, it was a beautiful October day at the Burke farmers market which is a lovely place to be on a Saturday morning. One can’t help but wonder what was said or done by Davis and her Fairfax GOP companions to elicit a “ F*** you” and “F*** ICE ” from a passerby carrying a reusable bag full of fresh produce on a beautiful fall morning. Is This What Democracy Should Look Like? Of course, anyone with eyes watching both of the videos and the media pile ons could see what was REALLY going on: media propaganda in support of one political party, gaslighting of the public, and intimidation of volunteers and voters for clicks.  Just because their lackluster candidates don’t inspire their base, and they can’t get enough volunteers to canvas doesn’t mean that you should stop showing up to rallies, school board meetings, and Back to School nights.  Keep on showing up and speaking up. Keep on doing the work supporting candidates, citizen voice, and democracy. But always bring a friend for safety and keep calm and keep receipts.  Don’t let them rile you up. Be a calm Doris Evens in the face of aggressive belligerence.  When they attack (because they will!) be sure to take video, photos, and screenshots. Document everything . Call the police when necessary. Take some time for self-care, and then head back to the bridge with your sign, to the election booth with your vote, and to the school board podium with your voice. THIS is what Democracy looks like. We cannot remain free without a fight. This includes our most local elections like the School Board, Board of Supervisors, and Mayor. Be Cool like Doris in the Face of MAGA-Goliath

Special Election: Learn more Here! You may have noticed that there are special elections around Virginia after so many wonderful elected officials have been appointed to Governor Abigail Spanberger’s cabinet. Here in Fairfax County, we have an open School Board seat, after Rachna Sizemore Heizer won the Braddock District Board of Supervisor seat vacated by James Walkinshaw. There is a special election for her vacated seat on the school board. In perso n voting runs at select locations from 1/16-2/28/26 and election day on March 3, 2026. See more information at Fairfax County Elections here . You can vote at the following locations on the following dates below: Weekdays, January 16 through February 27 (8:00 am to 4:30 pm) @Fairfax County Government Center, 12000 Government Center Pkwy, Fairfax Saturdays, February 21 and February 28 (9:00 am to 5:00 pm) @ Fairfax County Government Center, 12000 Government Center Pkwy, Fairfax @ Burke Centre Library, 5935 Freds Oak Rd, Burke Centre. Weekdays, February 23 through February 27 (1 pm to 7 pm) @ Burke Centre Library, 5935 Freds Oak Rd, Burke Centre. Tuesday, March 3, 2026, Election Day (6:00 am to 7:00 pm) * Vote at your regular polling location* There are two candidates for Braddock School Board non-partisan position. Tom Dannan  is endorsed by the Fairfax Democrats  after winning a competitive Democratic caucus. Earlier this month, I had an hour-long conversation with Mr. Dannan during which he shared his vision for the Braddock district, which included safe, inclusive schools, and a community with great educational opportunities for all students.  Mr. Dannan has children who currently attend FCPS. He has never run for public office before, but has been elected PTA President where he nearly doubled membership in the first year and increased fundraising by over 40% in the second year.  His website and his many endorsements can be found here .  Saundra Davis  is running as an independent. Her signature collection was facilitated by the Braddock District GOP, and she appears to be endorsed by the Fairfax GOP . I have been blocked from Ms. Davis’s campaign Facebook page after being berated by her friends and supporters, and have had poor interactions with her campaign manager, Cameron Ward, at a September Winsome Sears event  outside the Fairfax County School Board. Ms. Davis has no children currently in FCPS. Shas ran and lost for at-large School Board in 2023 and Delegate VA15 in 2025 as a Fairfax GOP endorsed candidate. She ran an unsuccessful effort to recall three Fairfax County school board members in 2021. A judge ruled one of the recall petitions “ not based on facts establishing probable cause for removal.”   Her website and associated endorsements can be found here . Click to learn about the candidate attack that "went viral" at the Braddock District Back to School Night It is important to know how a candidate treats their constituents, so it feels timely to share a harrowing story from last fall about a local Moms Demand Action volunteer’s terrifying interaction with one of the above-mentioned candidates at a Braddock district elementary school. It is a reminder that one must know both the positions and personality of the people running for school board, because school board members are in charge of children, families, and staff. Finally, they need to be able to treat people with dignity, safety, and respect.   NOTE: 4 Public Education feels that relevant facts and events should be reported when they pertain to the safety and security of our neighbors, but is not providing an endorsement in this race.

The 2026 General Assembly (GA) session convened on Wednesday, January 14, 2026. The calendar for the session is available at this link .  2026 Priority Public Education Bills   Already some education bills are advancing to the respective chamber floors. The progress of 4 Public Education’s priority bills, which are listed below, can be followed at this link . Please click on the "Calls to Action" , where available in the bill description, to ask elected representatives to vote for the priority bills below. We thank you for encouraging our legislators to vote for these bills:  HB92 Equity in public school funding and staffing; at-risk Program established, standards of quality. Sam Rasoul is the Chief Patron . Please answer this Call to Action  to ask the House Education Committee members to vote for this bill that will provide equity in public school funding for schools with at-risk students.  HB199   Through-year growth assessment system; alternatives during 2024-2028 school years permitted. Sam Rasoul is the Chief Patron . Please answer this Call to Action  to ask your delegate to vote for this bill that will extend the period of growth assessment to the 2027 to 2028 School Year.   HB206   College partnership laboratory schools; transparency. Karen Keys-Gamarra is the Chief Patron.   Please answer this Call to Action  to ask your delegate to vote for this bill that will improve transparency in College partnership laboratory schools. HB279 Teachers; timeline and process for increasing salaries to at least national average. Nadarius E. Clark is the Chief Patron. Please answer this Call to Action to increase the salaries of teachers and support staff to at least the national average. SB33   Programs for at-risk students; permissible uses of funding. Barbara E. Favola the Chief Patron. Please answer this Call to Action to ask the Senate Education and Health Committee to help at-risk students succeed in school by addressing health issues. SB66   Sales and use tax, local; additional tax authorized in all counties and cities to support schools. Jeremy McPike is the Chief Patron. No Call to Action available.  SB90   Equity in public school funding and staffing; at-risk Program established, standards of quality. Barbara Favola is Chief Patron. Please answer this Call to Action to ask the Senate Education and Health Committee members to vote for this bill that will provide equity in public school funding for schools with at-risk students.  Constitutional Amendment Bills The seven constitutional amendment bills have passed in both chambers in consecutive years, with a House of Delegates election between those General Assembly sessions, so these bills will now each go to a vote in 2026  to determine whether Virginia will change the Virginia Constitution with these amendments: HJ1  and SJ1   Constitutional amendment; fundamental right to reproductive freedom.   This amendment would provide that every individual has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom and that such right shall not be, directly or indirectly, denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest, as defined in the amendment, and achieved by the least restrictive means.  HJ2  and SJ2   Constitutional amendment; qualifications of voters, right to vote, persons not entitled to vote.   This amendment would provide that every person who meets the qualifications of voters set forth in the Constitution shall have the fundamental right to vote in the Commonwealth and that such right shall not be abridged by law, except for persons who have been convicted of a felony and persons who have been adjudicated to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting.  HJ3  and SJ3  Constitutional amendment; marriage between two adult persons; repeal of same-sex marriage prohibition; affirmative right to marry.   This amendment repeals the constitutional provision defining marriage as only a union between one man and one woman as well as the related provisions that are no longer valid as a result of the United States Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges .  HJ4   Constitutional amendment; apportionment, congress districts, limited authority of the GA to modify.  Proposes an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia related to the establishment of congressional districts. The amendment provides explicit authority for the General Assembly to modify one or more congressional districts, outside of the standard decennial redistricting cycle, in the event that any other state conducts a redistricting of the state's congressional districts outside of the standard decennial redistricting cycle or for any purpose other than complying with a state or federal court order to remedy an unlawful or unconstitutional district map.

Meanwhile the Nation Loses Critical Functions and Oversight 4 Public Education has warned about the Trump Administration’s major changes to public education . As has been the goal of the Republican party for the last 40 years, they intend to shut down the Department of Education (ED) even though closure should require Congressional permission  which they do not have . Nevertheless, the administration has successfully gutted the ED by:  Outsourcing many of its functions to other government agencies, despite a lack of agency familiarity with K-12 education; and Reducing the ED workforce from 4000 to 2000 employees in 2025, with another 400 soon to be lost .  If the Administration’s changes stand, this nation will lose mission-critical functions and oversight by the ED.  In 1979, the ED became a cabinet level agency, after recognition that federal oversight was needed to ensure equitable access to education for all students. Other functions included providing federal funding and oversight to improve student achievement and global competitiveness, managing student aid programs, enforcing civil rights laws, supporting innovations in education, collecting and disseminating data, and helping to implement national education policy, especially for underserved groups. In fact these many responsibilities of the ED  provide a clear counter argument to the suggestion by the Administration and others that a federal education department is unnecessary . In response, many Democratic and Independent US Senators have called the Administration’s actions illegal and have demanded the reversal of those changes.  In addition to reforms at the department level, the Administration has initiated on-the-ground measures designed to weaken public education. Efforts are ongoing to encourage students to leave public school for private schools by propagating a negative view of public education . Public schools are being starved into compliance  with the republican agenda by threats of withholding funding. Also a heavy-handed effort is underway to influence school curricula including demands to include lessons on patriotic history and remove lessons on black history. At the same time, there are contradictory efforts. For example, there is a plan to “return” control of education to the state s at the same time the federal government is forcing compliance with federal curriculum changes.  More Gaslighting from the Trump Administration When the ED was first established in 1867 , it had only about four employees and a small goal: to collect statistics on the status and progress in education across the states. It started during Reconstruction in a volatile political period. The political volatility led to its quick dissolution since the department was associated with Reconstruction efforts to rebuild the South  and educate formerly enslaved people, which many in the country opposed. Thus the dissolution of the ED was framed as it being an “unnecessary investment” and an “overreach of federal power”  but many recognized that it was mostly about opposing the education of Black students. This is not dissimilar to the efforts today to l imit education of Black students , weaken programs that are meant to fund students in high poverty communities, and gut the office of Civil Rights. Members of the Trump administration and their allies have been gaslighting the public about public education using falsehoods to get parents to reject public schools. For example, they claim that public schools are failing students  but they don’t acknowledge that public education is a two-tiered system  with great inequity in student achievement between high poverty and affluent communities.  It is clear that better funded schools have better student outcomes , and this is a reason that the federal government has been providing supplemental resources to disadvantaged students under Title I  . This funding is to close achievement gaps, but (ironically) the federal government is withholding funds from many communities, including Northern Virginia. Merely sending more students to private schools will not solve the problem of low-achieving students in high-poverty areas. We already know that help offered via vouchers to provide “school choice” will not improve student achievement, because private schools tend to raise the price of tuition by the voucher check value. As a result voucher benefits will land unequally  across states and the country, with greater harm to students caused by voucher schemes in rural and low income communities .  “Public schools aren’t failing, they’re starving.” - First Focus on Children Some try to create a negative view by claiming that public schools are dangerous and that they impose a Marxist, anti-God and anti-family agenda to indoctrinate students. That kind of misinformation helps the lobby for privatizing public schools , which have economic rather than student-centered goals. Part of the Republican agenda is a free market economy, and public education is just one area they target for privatization. However there are many problems associated with the privatization of public schools . Many communities that have supported privatization by accepting voucher schemes can testify to the fact that privatization initiatives have a dismal record . As a result of those failures there is a nationwide effort by educators to demand that lawmakers support public education.  Why do we financially support public schools? Public education is structured to serve everyone regardless of ethnic background, income status, physical or mental abilities, special education or accommodation needs, English language proficiency, or citizenship status. Also, public school buildings and employees tend to serve as anchors in communities. We support public schools with our taxes because education is too important to leave it to chance. Public education is a cornerstone of our democracy and a thriving democracy needs citizens to be educated. In addition to helping children become productive members of our society, public education provides the knowledge and skills to understand civic responsibilities and participate in the democratic process.  A healthy democracy needs citizens who are engaged, can make well-informed decisions about their government, and have critical thinking skills so they can actively participate in the democratic process.  “Stripping the [Education} department of its resources and mission would be catastrophic for the millions of students in low-income communities who need educational services and support. Civil rights protections against discrimination based on race, gender, and disability would also be gutted.” – National Education Association

Updates on Politically-Motivated Lawsuits Assaults on our public schools are not just being fought just at school board meetings and by Executive Orders, but they are also being conducted through politically motivated lawsuits and investigations, many of which lack merit.  These lawsuits and associated investigations are a costly way to attack public schools. Just one politically motivated investigation by Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares generated over $1.65 million in outside legal costs for Fairfax County Public Schools  (FCPS), but that doesn’t fully calculate the cost to Virginia taxpayers.  Over the last five years, there have been hundreds of lawsuits by dark money groups against public school districts across the nation. Some, like America First Legal (AF Legal), of  Project 2025 , have focused significant energy targeting local northern Virginia school districts, in particular FCPS and Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS), often with Virginia’s AG acting as a cooperating partner . While AF Legal goes to social media to crow about their “big wins,” many of which are not really anything to crow about, it would be interesting to determine the total amount their politically motivated lawsuits have cost taxpayers in those counties. Since the Trump Administration took office in January 2025, they have focused significant energy targeting these same school districts, often in combination with AF Legal. In fact, they have used U.S. Department of Education (ED) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in many of these cases, despite firing OCR attorneys and a backlog of thousands of civil rights cases  which are not being addressed. All of this is happening while the US ED OCR is being dismantled  and their work is transferred to other divisions.  Updates on some of the most critical lawsuits against FCPS and LCPS are outlined below. However, as one reads these updates, one would wonder: How do the cases below come to the front of the line of 25,000  OCR complaints? There are 25,000 complaints , many of which involve active  and ongoing harm against students attempting to: access special education, protection from sexual harassment and abuse, and protection from retaliation. OCR has been so lax regarding these cases that their website hasn’t been updated since January 14, 2025. In the case of Loudoun and Fairfax counties, AF Legal and US ED OCR have magically managed to expedite some of the cases below in front of dozens of open civil rights cases related to restraint and seclusion, sexual violence, and disabilities. Why? Why do AF Legal clients receive red carpet treatment from Trump’s US ED?  Title IX Lawsuit against US ED by FCPS On behalf of FCPS, Superintendent Michelle Reid gave an update  on their lawsuit against the US ED concerning the school system’s policies and regulations on bathroom and locker room use based on a student’s gender identity. Oral arguments are expected in late January 2026. Previously, the ED had issued a demand that would force FCPS to discriminate against their students or put the school system at risk of losing $167 million or more in federal funding that primarily affects lower income schools and students with learning disabilities. Initially, the Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed one FCPS legal challenge but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case on appeal. Oral arguments are scheduled for late January 2026 and briefs are linked below. FCPS is just one of many public school divisions across the country that have lost federal funding due to policy disagreements with the ED.  It is important to note that this recent lawsuit ( Fairfax County School Board v. McMahon , 1:25-cv-01432) by FCPS was precipitated by an AF Legal complaint submitted on February 3, 2025  that triggered a US ED OCR investigation only nine days later. On July 25, 2025, US ED OCR  found FCPS and four other northern Virginia districts to be in violation of Title IX and made demands incompatible with FCPS’s commitment  to “fostering a safe, supportive, welcoming, and inclusive school environment for all students and staff.” Read more at these links: Message from FCPS Superintendent December 6, 2025; FCPS legal Brief in support of Appeal, October 20, 2025; , ED Response Brief   November 19, 2025 ; and FCPS Response Brief , December 5, 2025 . If you want background about the case, please see the fourth item in 4 Public Education’s recent blog . $50 FCPS Settlement Accepted by Jane Doe and AF Legal In the first week of December 2025, FCPS offered a settlement of $50 compensation and legal fees to now-graduated Jane Doe . This settlement occurred nearly two months after her legal team, AF Legal, refiled the Jane Doe v. Fairfax County School Board  ( case: 2024-03171 ) in federal court: Doe v. Fairfax County School Board  (1:25-cv-01662) . Jane Doe accepted the offer, despite the offer stipulating that FCPS did not admit fault and the settlement would not change FCPS policies regarding transgender students using pronouns, names, and bathrooms that match their gender identity.  This case has been ongoing since March 2024. 4 Public Education has been following this case, and has attended hearings which are described in these blogs:   Part 1 (July 2024) ,   Part 2 (August 2024) , and   Part 3 (December 2024) . It is unknown how much this case has cost Fairfax County taxpayers; however, FCPS made it clear that they offered the settlement to avoid a long and expensive legal effort without ceding to any of AF Legal’s demands.  Despite this relatively small financial settlement, AF Legal has declared this a “ victory ” and pushed their victory on various conservative media venues. How is it a “victory” if AF Legal did not achieve the stated goals of the lawsuit? If they failed, once again, to overturn FCPS policies that support and protect the civil rights of transgender students, it seems like a loss, right? This should lead any observer to question the intent, narrative, and actions of AF Legal. US DOJ Sues LCPS Over AF Legal Lawsuit On December 8, 2025 , Trump’s U.S. Department of Justice made a motion to intervene, and sue LCPS for “violating Equal Protection of Christian students.”  This involvement by DOJ will likely increase legal costs even greater for LCPS, Loudoun County taxpayers, and those who pay federal taxes. This case is related to S.W., et al. v. LCSB  (Cas e No. 1:25-cv-01536, East. District of VA) where the plaintiffs are represented by the   Founding Freedoms Law Center  and AF Legal. Interestingly, far right news sources and officials have presented the harassment of a transgender student as mere “discomfort” expressed by the two cisgender students, but the August 15, 2025   LCPS Title IX Investigation Determination  in the court documents demonstrated evidence of threats and long-term sex-based harassment against the transgender student by the two plaintiffs. On the surface, the case of S.W., et al v LCSB is an attempt to overturn the suspensions of the two cisgender students who allegedly committed harassment in the locker room; however, the case is ultimately challenging LCPS’s ability to enforce its own anti-discrimination policies that protect and support transgender students.  Earlier this year, AG Miyares investigated LCPS, filed a referral of the case to US ED OCR and US DOJ Civil Rights Division, and on  October 1, 2025, Miyares filed an Amicus Brief  in support of the students whose alleged harassment of a transgender student in a LCPS locker room resulted in their suspension.  After AG Miyares lost his 2025 election, it is not surprising that the DOJ is now involved. Even more significant are the relationships between AF Legal and the DOJ. At a recent Moms for Liberty event, Ian Prior, AF Legal counsel, detailed AF Legal’s connections to the current Trump administration  (e.g.,  Harmeet Dhillon , Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the US Department of Justice and  David Warrington , White House Counsel). In fact, Dhillon’s law firm has close connections to Prior, as well. These connections should concern anyone who cares about influence, accountability, and transparency in government. AF Legal Locker Room Lawsuit Turns to Conspiracy Allegations In related news, S.W., et al. v. LCSB  was amended on October 29, 2025  to include additional claims about the defendant and bizarre conspiracy allegations against a beloved local organization, Loudoun for All , a political action committee focused on social justice and equity. It seems the amended case is directly related to Loudoun for All’s press releases  about the threats and sexual harassment incidents against a transgender student associated with the Stone Bridge High School locker room incident and Title IX investigation. Of course, this is not the first time Prior, the AF Legal lawyer on the case, has targeted Loudoun for All or its members. A quick review of Loudoun news media confirms that there has been conflict for several years among the parties, which begs the question of whether this case in federal court is becoming personal, rather than just legal. Is it infringing on the free speech rights of individuals and a political organization? Abortion Scandal Allegations Awaiting Dismissal in Federal Court Less than a month after the defamation case was filed in Fairfax Circuit Court, Zenaida Perez vs. Fairfax County Public Schools, et al.  (CL-2025-0016376), it was refiled in federal court . This feels like an odd choice after Americans United for Life  held a press conference for Perez in front of the Fairfax County Circuit Court on October 29, 2025 with media , Patti Lyman (Republican National Committeewoman for Virginia), her lawyers, and Julie Perry  her friend and fellow Centreville High School teacher, present. Please read 4 Public Education’s previous coverage of the manufactured abortion scandal in FCPS Blows Apart the "Abortion Scandal."   Despite the shocking allegations by Perez, the preliminary FCPS investigation indicated that her allegations “are very likely untrue and lacking in factual or evidentiary support.” It is unknown how much the FCPS investigation  by King and Spaulding and outside legal fees have cost FCPS taxpayers thus far; however, Project 2025 contributor IWF has claimed that FCPS spent $980,515.14 on the investigation by King and Spaulding. If that is what has been spent in a two-month investigation, then this case will be quite costly. Per court filings in Perez v. Fairfax County Public Schools  (1:25-cv-02126) , FCPS has until December 16, 2025 to file a Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's opposition brief to the Motion to Dismiss is due by January 7, 2026.

By now, you’ve likely heard of the ongoing war against higher education by the Trump Administration. They’ve halted funding and attacked anything that they can label “DEI” or “liberal.” Harvard University is one of the few Ivy institutions that has held its ground by pushing back  while others, like Columbia and Brown universities, have struck deals  with the Trump Administration that involve them agreeing to make sweeping changes regarding gender, gender identity, and admissions, in addition to paying restitution to the Trump Administration in order to receive federal funding that had already been allocated by Congress. In each of these cases, the rationale for opening an investigation into the school involved claims of antisemitism due to pro-Palestinian protests on the university campuses in 2023; however, as mentioned above, the agreements with the Trump administration by both Columbia and Brown seem to focus more on gender identity and eliminating anything remotely related to “DEI” thereby affecting admissions, student and faculty supports, hiring, scholarships, and administration. The agreements seem to offer little in the way of combatting antisemitism. These attacks also have managed to pit leaders and ruling bodies of college administration against each other, as colleges typically have complicated leadership structures . Typically, leadership will include executives (e.g., president, provost, and deans); a board; and various deans, administrators, or officers in addition to many other powerful stakeholder groups. For public universities the governing authority (a.k.a., board) is appointed by the governor. Each of the attacks on these universities involved targeted efforts to force out university presidents for their support of diversity and equity initiatives.  Virginia’s esteemed universities have not avoided the onslaught of Trump interference; however, there was significant behind-the-scenes efforts by both the Trump and Youngkin administrations to unduly influence hiring, admissions, and student and faculty supports at two of the top public universities in Virginia: George Mason University (GMU) and the University of Virginia (UVA). Thus, it should not be considered a coincidence that the Trump investigations occurred simultaneously with conflict over university board appointments  at both universities. Specifically, UVA and GMU board appointees by Governor Youngkin which were rejected by the Virginia General Assembly. At GMU the vacant seats prevented a quorum for the board, so the board could not conduct business. Conspiracies and Complicity at UVA UVA is ranked in the top five public universities and about 25th overall in the nation. It has a long and storied history, since its founding in 1819 by Thomas Jefferson. It has notable graduates and incredible athletic wins. Students in and outside of Virginia strive to attend The University. Unless one is a UVA Wahoo, one may have missed the crazy happenings at UVA over the summer. In June, UVA’s community newspaper, The Cavalier Daily , offered an early look into how Trump Administration investigations by the departments of Justice (DOJ) and Education (ED) led to the resignation of beloved UVA President Jim Ryan. Ryan, concerned that remaining in his job would threaten university funding and student financial aid, made the difficult decision to resign: I am inclined to fight for what I believe in, and I believe deeply in this University. But I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government in order to save my own job. - UVA President Jim Ryan In November, shortly after Abigail Spanberger’s gubernatorial win, a conflict between her and current Governor Glenn Youngkin reignited this story when Youngkin sharply accused Spanberger, a UVA alum, of “overreach”  and “hyperbole” in his hyperbolic letter in response to her request for a delay  in the UVA search for a new president. This opened up a laundromat of dirty laundry about what really happened leading up to Ryan’s resignation. Again, The Cavalier Daily  provided a blow-by-blow account, including President Ryan’s action-packed 12-page letter  (a must read!), as it exposes the actions of 1) Youngkin who drafted a DEI resolution for UVA’s board and then “crowed” that “DEI is dead” on Fox News; 2) former Board member (appointed by Youngkin in 2023) and current UVA Rector Rachel Sheridan who may have used undue influence on his resignation; and 3) that his resignation was part of a “supposed deal with the Trump Administration.” Earlier this year, the Virginia General Assembly rejected several Youngkin appointees to UVA and GMU, including former former Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who Senate Privileges and Elections Committee Chair Aaron Rouse (D-Virginia Beach) referred to  as ““MAGA extremists” and “Project 2025 supporters,” who are opposed to Democrats’ progressive ideals.””  Nevertheless, several universities continued to recognize  these appointees as board members; therefore, on June 9, 2025, Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D-Fairfax) sent a letter  to remind all of the public universities that “state code requires all governing body members to be confirmed by the General Assembly.” Since then, Youngkin and Democratic legislators have been locked in a series of legal disputes that made it all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court, which denied Attorney General Jason Miyares’ appeal on behalf of Youngkin on November 17, 2025 . On December 9, 2025, Senate Democrats won an injunction against the university boards of UVA and GMU recognizing Youngkin’s appointees that had not been confirmed by the General Assembly which offers Governor-Elect Spanberger the opportunity to seat new appointees in 2026. Considering this protracted legal battle and the influence of the Board on UVA’s decisions vis-a-vis the Trump Administration’s attacks on UVA and President Ryan. In fact, Ryan has asserted that three of Younkin’s appointed UVA board members  were the real force behind his resignation, instead of the DOJ.  Photo: Vanessa Hall Investigations and Interference at GMU GMU is ranked in the top 60 public universities in the nation and number one among regional universities. It began as a branch campus of UVA in the 1950s, and became its own university in 1972. Locals have seen its transformation from a local commuter campus in the 1980s, to the research, academic, and arts powerhouse it is today.  Trump’s departments of Justice (DOJ) and Education (ED) opened at least five investigations  into GMU’s admissions and scholarship practices, antisemitism, and hiring and promotion of staff. The first federal investigation involved antisemitic discrimination on campus . Both the GMU president  and Jewish faculty  responded that the GMU community was safe and inclusive. The Jewish faculty letter  was particularly pointed, describing the investigations as “quickly intensifying under a false, racially divisive, and deeply cynical claim of combating anti-Semitism”. These investigations came fast and furious from January to August with tight deadlines, including an August 22, 2025 ED finding and list of demands  that gave GMU only 10 days response time. This list of demands included a “personal apology from GMU’s President to the University community for promoting unlawful discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and tenure processes” and demanded that GMU change its website. At one point, the GMU governing board sought to negotiate with the Trump Administration to resolve the supposed issues; however, the GMU faculty senate  spoke up early and often to reject the federal efforts to stifle academic freedom. GMU faculty recognized early on that GMU President Gregory Washington was a likely target of the federal investigation and they fiercely advocated  for his position and positive record at the university. At the same time Washington protected his university faculty and students, at one point referring to the ED investigation findings as “ legal fiction .” It is entirely possible that GMU had the benefit of observing the federal attacks on UVA in real time, which enabled them to gather forces to reject federal overreach and efforts to suppress free speech and academic freedom on campus. In fact, a faculty member emphasized this point to NPR , “What’s going on at Mason is really following on the heels of what happened at the University of Virginia and the ouster of President Ryan and we are seeing a similar play.” Photo: Vanessa Hall Overreach and Opportunism by the Administration In each of these cases, the Trump Administration used antisemitism as a weapon to target the universities after pro-Palestinian campus protests. The Trump Administration’s ED targeted 60 universities  in this manner. Unfortunately, some universities, like Brown and Columbia, have caved on the very DEI policies that have made those universities appealing to faculty, students, and families while others have taken a firm stance against the government. Unfortunately, it appears that in each instance, antisemitism was a red herring, as the real targets of the Trump Administration have repeatedly been revealed to be diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and practices; antiracism; and accessibility. The Administration has done this by effectively redefining its anti-discrimination laws to, as Representative Bobby Scott , a Virginia Democrat and the ranking member on the House’s education committee, stated: Under this Administration, the government’s Office of Civil Rights has adopted a radical reinterpretation of our civil rights laws to attack diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility…. The Trump Administration’s selective actions undermine the pursuit of justice, and the independence and academic freedom of America’s institutions of higher education. - Representative Bobby Scott (VA-D) Additionally, a GMU alum stated that “Using Jewish identity as a cover for political attempts to restructure an institution is not true support, it’s instrumentalization, and ultimately, it does more harm than good.” It has been clear from the beginning, that the Trump administration was attacking academic freedom at the university level. GMU has gotten to the heart of this debate : This is a debate about who governs our universities and colleges, who belongs here, whose speech counts and whose speech is silenced, and who and what we serve.

The Trump administration has all but accomplished what the Republican Party has been trying to do for more than 40 years. Although the U.S Education Department (ED) is not totally dismantled, the Trump administration has fired most of the employees and is moving offices and responsibilities to other federal agencies, essentially an end run around the law that only Congress can abolish a Department. Although Secretary of Education McMahon is doing her best to close the ED, its elimination is far from complete .  We were warned early on that public education was in danger  if Trump was reelected. He misled the electorate  during his campaign by insisting that he shunned the conservative mandate known as Project 2025 , but since being elected he has been adopting its ideas. Barely two months into his second term he published an executive order  to close the ED, fully actualizing the proposed mission for the ED as stated on page 319 of Project 2025: Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated. - Heritage Foundation History of the ED The Republican Party’s efforts to abolish the ED began in earnest during the Reagan presidency, but Project 2025 is wrong to state that President Carter “created” the ED, since its roots are much older. The responsibility for public education was enacted in 1887 with the Congressional Act to Establish a Department of Education . The idea of forming this department originated with a resolution in 1885  to create a new government agency whose duty it would b e to “enforce education upon the population without regard t o color upon all such states that should fall below a standard to be established by Congress”. Early on, there was political wrangling about that newly established agency, and at one point it was reduced to an office within the Department of the Interior. In 1979, it was restored to full departmental status through an  Act of Congress , and the programs housed in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare formed the ED .  At present, the Trump administration is transferring most of the K-12 programs of the ED to other agencies   (e.g., departments of Interior, Health and Human Services, Labor, and State)  by way of “partnerships.”  However, with the labor reductions under DOGE, it is unknown how these departments will manage the K-12 programs and ED responsibilities. Pushback against Destruction of the ED The Trump administration has made significant progress in dismantling the ED but there is forcible pushback to stop and reverse the changes, some of which 4 Public Education outlined in a June 2025 blog, U.S. Dept of Education loses in Court and at Senate Hearings . More recently, numerous members of the U.S. Senate sent a  December 4th letter to Secretary McMahon  objecting to the changes as outrageous and illegal, and warned that the changes will jeopardize the funding and support for tens of millions of students, teachers, and families across the country. In addition, instead of reducing the “bureaucratic bloat” and “red tape” in public education alleged in the Project 2025 directives, the senators pointed out that McMahon’s changes will: "Create even more bureaucracy that states, school districts, and educational institutions across America will have to expend time and resources navigating at the expense of students and families. " By law, if an agency desires to reorganize its internal structure, it can only do so if Congress has authorized the action . The Senate letter instructed that “Congress has unambiguously authorized dozens of education programs to be administered by the Department through numerous laws and has clearly appropriated funding on a bipartisan basis for decades to the Department to carry out those programs. Appropriations law prohibits the transfer of funds to another federal agency unless expressly authorized in appropriations law, which it has not done in this case.” Nevertheless, the Trump administration has illegally developed partnerships with six other agencies and has reassigned ED responsibilities to those agencies.  Also, the twenty states that previously sued to stop the massive layoffs at the ED are now also challenging the  transfer of major functions  of the ED to other federal agencies, and the American Federation of Teachers is suing  over those same changes.  Impacts of Dismantling the ED The original mission  of the ED, established in 1877, was to protect a republican form of government from oligarchy by educating its citizens. This presents a clear counterargument to the faulty ideas that a federal education department is unnecessary . This assertion makes no sense when considering that the ED is responsible for ensuring equitable access to education and for providing federal funding and oversight to improve student achievement and global competitiveness. The ED is charged with managing student aid programs, enforcing civil rights laws, supporting innovations in education, collecting and disseminating data, and helping implement national education policy, especially for underserved groups.  The Trump administration claims that changes to ED will return power to the states and parents ; however, the original and current goal for an ED was to have a federal department to manage the differences (inequity) in the quality of public education within and among states because states are not able to do manage quality on a national level.  There is no truth to the claim in Trump’s Executive Order that his plan would return control of the schools to the states. The responsibility for K-12 public education is already primarily a state and local fiscal responsibility and the Federal financial contribution to elementary and secondary education is only about 8 percent. Finally, it is the state, not the Federal government, that is responsible for  curriculum development  and local policies in the school system. There is a concern that the critical functions assigned to the ED by Congress are in jeopardy. The Senate letter to Secretary McMahon expressed concern that the ED has spun off responsibilities “to other agencies that lack the expertise, capacity, and legal mandate to successfully administer key programs”. The senators  objected to the serious and negative consequences already plaguing the early interagency agreements (IAAs).  The NEA warned  early in Trump's second term that his plans for “Stripping the department of its resources and mission would be catastrophic for the millions of students in low-income communities who need educational services and support. Civil rights protections against discrimination based on race, gender, and disability would also be gutted.” Shortly thereafter the NEA released its forecast that dismantling the ED will result in:  “Larger class sizes and less support for students and educators. Lower income students and their families in rural, suburban, and urban communities in every part of the country would lose needed funding. Students and families who receive support to attend college and vocational schools could lose Pell Grants or federal student loans, leading to more students dropping out, fewer choices, and less options for families. Students with disabilities and their families would lose the support they need at school and at home. Students with disabilities and lower-income students and their families would lose access to Upward Bound, TRIO and other programs that encourage them to participate in higher education. Cuts to afterschool and summer programs will undo the progress educators make with tutoring, reductions in chronic absenteeism, and providing skill-building programs.” Another major concern is about the dismantling of ED’s research division, which provides information that is not available from any other source and is needed by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers to inform their decision making. In an analysis by the NEA , it was concluded that:  The administration canceled sweeping and impactful education research grants and cut most of the staff, with very few analysts left to conduct research that schools, policy makers, and the public rely upon. Without the research and data analysts to provide it, updated numbers required for formula funding for Title I schools hangs in the balance. Rather than reducing waste, experts say the cuts will create it. - National Education Association How fitting is it that the current attempts to damage democracy should so vigorously attack the ED? Consequently, it seems appropriate that people are taking to the Congressional offices, State Houses, and the streets to fight for our right to quality, equitable, 21st Century public schools. If you would like to learn more about changes to the ED during the Trump Administration, 4 Public Education has several blogs to help bring you up to date on the full range of changes to mission, funding, and regulations of the ED. US Dept of Education Threatens Northern Virginia School Districts  By Vanessa Hall 7/31/25 Federal Shorts: U.S. Dept of Education loses in Court and at Senate Hearings  By Marianne Burke and Vanessa Hall 6/4/25 Contact Your Legislators And Say "NO" to the Newest Voucher Scheme  By Marianne Burke 5/12/25 U.S. Dept of Education Demands "anti-DEI" Certification in Exchange for Student Funding  By Vanessa Hall 5/1/25 Scrambling Public Education: What Will Happen in the Next 100 Days?  By Vanessa Hall 4/3/25 Demanding the Impossible: Eliminating DEI in Public Education  By Cheryl Binkley 4/18/25 Federal Scene on Education is at a Turning Point: The Dismantling of U.S. ED  By Cheryl Binkley 4/8/25 Trump's Education Appointee has no IDEA about Public Education  By Vanessa Hall 3/12/25 Eliminating the US Department of Education will do more Damage than You Realize  By Marianne Burke 2/13/25 Wrestling the Dept of Education from Incompetence : McMahon’s Senate Hearings  By Cheryl Binkley 2/12/25 Executive Orders: A Real and Presidential Danger to Public Education  By Vanessa Hall 2/6/25 Trump's Dept of Edu-Propaganda  By Vanessa Hall 1/28/25

How Cozy is Virginia's Attorney General with the Trump Administration and Project 2025? Two weeks ago, I pondered whether our Attorney General, Jason Miyares, was acting as the Trump administration’s errand boy , ensuring that Trump Executive Orders are followed, even if they conflict with the rule of law, US Constitution, and Congressional authority. AG Miyares and Governor Youngkin have deep connections with the Trump Administration, and to various Project 2025 groups, who seem to be cooperating together to fulfill Project 2025’s anti-public school and anti-LGBTQIA agenda.  This concept was confirmed after I attended the Moms for Liberty Town Hall on October 3, 2025, where I learned that a number of the panelists were beneficiaries of amicus briefs  and other legal support by AG Miyares. Was he acting in his duty to Virginia citizens or for a darker purpose? What is an Amicus Brief? An amicus brief is submitted by a party, known as an amicus curae  (a.k.a., “friend of the court) that has interest in the outcome of a legal case in order to offer their views on the case. Attorney Generals may write or offer  to sign on to an amicus brief when the case could impact their jurisdiction. In some cases, these briefs may merely be submissions of comments on federal or state rule-making. Essentially, AGs offer amicus briefs when the case has broad public or legal consequences, to advocate for the public on specific legal positions or outcomes, and to bring their specific expertise. Therefore, an AG should not file amicus briefs for private law firms because:  An AG’s primary duties are to the state and the citizens. There could be a conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety when the AG is supposed to be impartial and advocate for the public good. Amicus briefs are to provide information to the court not serve as a form of “legal assistance” for legal firms. Ultimately, AGs are legal officers  whose job is to “the interests of their clients—the states—and in many cases those interests will be grounded in state laws and policies.”  When I posed the question to Google AI: “ Is it normal for an attorney general to do amicus briefs for private law firms? ” I received the following response: No, it's not normal or appropriate for an Attorney General (AG) to directly do amicus briefs for private law firms; rather, AGs file their own amicus briefs to advocate for the public interest or their state's specific interests in cases that have broad public consequences, often in response to requests from interest groups or agencies, not individual law firms. While private law firms also file amicus briefs, their purpose is to offer unique expertise or perspectives, which differs from an AG's role as the chief law officer for the state. AG Miyares Represented the Interests of Moms for Liberty Panelists and Project 2025 Over the last four years, a significant number of AG Miyares’ education-focused briefs were written in support of groups, individuals, and organizations who have supported his and Youngkin’s 2021 gubernatorial campaigns, and/or are currently supporting his campaign for reelection. Of course, many of these groups, such as America First Legal (AF Legal), were also directly involved in producing Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership . After watching the Moms for Liberty Town Hall on October 3, 2025, I realized that every litigant or lawyer  on the Mom’s for Liberty panels had received amicus brief  support from AG Miyares on cases in the courts in 2025. There is no way that can be a coincidence?! What seemed even weirder is that nearly all of the cases concerned transgender civil rights which are codified in the Virginia Human Rights Act  (HRA). The HRA requires that Virginia: Safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, or disability in places of public accommodation, including educational institutions and in real estate transactions. This means that AG Miyares as Attorney General is required to uphold the law of the Commonwealth for the transgender community, yet he repeatedly focused his amicus briefs on cases challenging Virginia law and undermining the civil rights guaranteed to transgender students in public schools. Why is AG Miyares so focused on such a small and vulnerable group and writing amicus briefs against the laws of Virginia? How much has this cost taxpayers? What is AF Legal's role in AG Miyares’ actions? Who is America First Legal? Founded in 2021 by Stephen Miller, Trump’s current Deputy Chief of Staff, AF Legal is a “ right-wing litigation operation .” As Axios noted , “Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller is setting policy from inside the White House, but [AF Legal which is] a legal group he co-founded is shaping policy from the outside, through legal complaints and lawsuits against corporations and even the Trump administration itself.” Axios calls AF Legal the “private enforcement arm of the White House's assault on DEI — or as it has billed itself, a right-wing version of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).” Although AF Legal is a tax exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit, it had over $44 million in revenue in 2022 , its second year of existence. Also it pays its top employees and officers quite well. In  2023, AF Legal’s VP earned $290,000 and Prior $217,000 .  Unlike the ACLU which is a non-profit, non-partisan civil rights organization that defends constitutional civil rights for all, AF Legal acts as the antithesis of the ACLU  in that it operates in support of conservative values. Where the ACLU fights for civil rights for underrepresented and vulnerable populations, AF Legal primarily focuses on the perceived oppression of white , Christian, male, cisgender, heterosexual population, filing lawsuits against governmental bodies and private businesses over perceived civil rights violations. Per Matt Cohen of the Democracy Docket , AF Legal has attacked voting rights and “made good on their promise to wage a legal war against all things progressive: the group has filed dozens of legal actions against “woke corporations,” civil rights, LGBTQ rights, abortion rights and just about any other cause championed by the left.”  In many ways, AF Legal almost acts as a pro bono law firm, except that its revenues come from unknown sources such as Leonard Leo’s Donors Trust, The Bradley Impact Fund (over $27 million ), and Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund (over $5 million ), etc. This kind of murky funding is called “dark money” where political spending is intended to influence the voter, public policy, or public information yet the source of the money is not transparent or obvious. Project 2025 Cases Receiving Personal Attention by AG Miyares   AG Miyares involved himself and/or wrote Amicus Briefs for each of these five active 2025 lawsuits involving Moms for Liberty panelists. The only consistent matter is that all but one of the cases concerns transgender student rights and involves AF Legal, specifically Prior, as a pro bono lawyer. In general, the cases argue that freedom of speech and religion trump the rights of transgender students to their pronouns, access to bathrooms and locker rooms, and ability to play sports. In each case, minor children are being pitted against other minor children, mostly in anti-transgender culture war issues. The cases will be discussed below based on their key subject matter in order of filing. All but one are challenges to school districts’ transgender policies.  1) Exclude Trans Girls from Sports During the Moms for Liberty Town Hall, Prior (AF Legal) specifically mentioned West Virginia v. B.P.J.  as a case to watch in the U.S. Supreme Court  concerning the state's "Save Women's Sports Act" banning transgender girls from sports teams. Wouldn’t you know, but AG Miyares joined the charge  against transgender athletes on an amicus brief  in this case? In 2024, he and 25 other AGs asked the Supreme Court to take up West Virginia’s appeal of a lower court  ruling against the anti-trans “Save Women’s Sports Act.” It is unknown how much Miyares’ involvement in this case has cost Virginia taxpayers. 2) Target Anti-Discrimination Policies and Exclude Bathroom Access In Jane Doe v. Fairfax County School Board  (case: 2024-03171), panelist Lundquist-Arora (Independent Women’s Forum and Network) was represented by AF Legal. The Jane Doe  case contended that Fairfax County Public Schools ( FCPS) anti-discrimination policies  regarding the rights of transgender students (i.e., use of pronouns and name) and transgender student access to bathrooms violated the religious liberty rights of a high school senior, Jane Doe. Because Jane Doe graduated in June 2024, Lundquist-Arora’s children were added to the suit in the Summer of 2024. FCPS repeatedly moved to have the case dismissed because the students involved were never disciplined and damages were undefined.  In June 2024, Miyares   filed an Amicus Brief  in support of AF Legal’s case . The Jane Doe v. FCSB was nonsuited this summer in order to bring the case to federal court. Feel free to read 4 Public Education’s coverage of of Jane Doe v FCSB in the following blogs which also contain some of the filings: Part 1 (July 2024) , Part 2 (August 2024) , and Part 3 (December 2024) . It is unknown how much this litigation has cost FCPS in outside legal fees, or how much Miyares’ involvement has cost Virginia taxpayers. 3) Viewpoint Discrimination Platt, et al v Loudoun County School Board (LCSB)  Case No. 1:24-cv-1873 Eastern Dist. of Virginia) was filed in late October 2024 by AF Legal on behalf of the parents, including Anne Miller  who was on an October 3, 2025 Moms for Liberty panel. The lawsuit concerned the issue that public input was cut short at an October 3, 2024 LCSB meeting when speakers repeatedly tried to discuss a specific student with alleged gang ties who may or may not have been in Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS). At the time, as the Washington Post  noted “School Board Chair Melinda Mansfield reminded the speakers about the board’s policies for public comment decorum, which prohibits speakers from targeting individual students. After multiple warnings, Mansfield ended the public comment period. Several people who were signed up to speak were not able to.” To anyone who regularly attends school board meetings, this seems like an obvious case of “you broke the rules, so you suffer the consequences,” but somehow these Loudoun County citizens managed to get a free lawyer (AF Legal), filed a case, and within months they got an Amicus Brief  from AG Miyares.  AG Miyares argued that the LCSB actions to end public input at a LCSB meeting “constituted classic viewpoint discrimination, where speech is censored solely because officials disagree with its content in direct violation of the First Amendment.” AG Miyares has used “viewpoint discrimination” as a point in other amicus briefs against transgender student civil rights. It is unknown how much this litigation has cost LCPS in outside legal fees, or how much Miyares’ involvement has cost Virginia taxpayers. 4) Challenge School Districts’ Anti-Discrimination Policy and Exclude Bathroom Access Shortly after the Trump Administration took office, AF Legal submitted a complaint on February 3, 2025  that five Northern Virginia school districts (Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, and Prince William County) were violating Title IX according to the “principles” (a.k.a. Anti-trans ideology) of Trump’s Executive Order (EO) “Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.”  Based on the evidence, AF Legal’s involvement seems to have triggered and fast-tracked federal enforcement. This is unusual because AF Legal’s complaint was not  on behalf of any individual students in these school systems which contain a combined total of over 375,000 students. Nevertheless, the US Department of Education (ED) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued a Notification Letter nine days later to FCPS indicating that a complaint had been filed.  On September 25, 2025, Miyares filed amicus briefs  to deny emergency requests for injunctions by FCPS and Arlington Public Schools (APS). Miyares demonstrated his support for the federal overreach by the US ED and violation of student civil rights by this statement: The policies in Fairfax and Arlington allowing students to use restrooms and locker rooms based on subjective gender identity instead of biological sex are unlawful, unsafe, and indefensible. The Fourth Circuit should deny the schools’ attempt to rewrite the law through litigation. - AG Miyares Click to Learn More FCPS and other school districts are still in litigation regarding this matter. See their August 29, 2025 complaint  which contains key history, legal precedent, civil rights support, and various supporting documents related to US ED’s actions against the five school districts. It is unknown how much this litigation has cost FCPS, APS, and the other three school districts in outside legal fees, or how much Miyares’ involvement has cost Virginia taxpayers; however, it is expected that this will be quite costly as it moves through the courts. 5) Challenge School District’s Anti-Discrimination Policy and Exclude Locker Room Access In S.W ., et al. v. LCSB  (Cas e No. 1:25-cv-01536, East. District of VA), involves a complicated case of sexual harassment in an LCPS locker room in March 2025 and was reported to LCPS on March 21, 2025, including: A threatening statement prompted the report however, the Complainant replied that other harassing statements had occurred with frequency throughout the school year in the locker room prior to the students' shared physical education (PE) class. Based on news reports, a transgender boy documented harassment by cisgender boys in the locker room, as proof that the harassment had occurred, including allegations that the cis-students made the following comments (in loud voices) about the trans-student over many months, including calling him a “boy-girl” and “It” and threatening to “beat [their] ass.” The Founding Freedoms Law Center  and AF Legal are representing the Loudoun County boys pro bono  against the civil rights of all students. Founding Freedoms is the legal arm of the Richmond-based Family Foundation of Virginia, a known anti-LGBTQIA extremist group .  Interestingly, WJLA, AF Legal, and AG Miyares have presented this harassment as mere “discomfort” expressed by the two cisgender students, but the August 15, 2025 LCPS Title IX Investigation Determination in the court documents shows otherwise. In August 2025, LCPS completed a detailed 24-page Title IX investigation report that found that a preponderance of evidence found a violation of Title IX rights of the transgender student. Ultimately, both the transgender and cisgender students were suspended. The transgender student was found to have violated Policy 8655  for recording in the locker room, and the cisgender students were found to have violated the Title IX rights of the transgender student. On the surface, the case of S.W., et al v LCSB  is an attempt to overturn the suspensions of the two cisgender students who allegedly committed harassment in the locker room; however, the case is ultimately challenging LCPS’s ability to enforce its own anti-discrimination policies that protect and support transgender students. Additionally, the case seems to try to codify that Title IX does not cover transgender students, to align with multiple Trump Executive Orders permitting discrimination against transgender people , versus current Title IX regulations passed by the Biden Administration. One could even wonder if this is intended to be a shortcut to change Title IX before the Trump Administration took the time to review, accept public comment, and change the actual Title IX regulations, which is a lengthy process. What is most shocking is AG Miyares’ involvement in this case. He intervened on multiple levels, including submitting this case to the US ED, which, despite firing over 25% of its employees and nearly half of the US ED Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in March 2025 , found the time to fast track actions against LCPS. AG Miyares’ involvement included but was not limited to: In early May 2025, AG Miyares began an investigation  of LCPS actions. On June 2, 2025 he reported that he found “significant concerns regarding potential violations of Title IX, unlawful retaliation, and viewpoint discrimination,” and that “that LCPS initiated a retaliatory Title IX investigation” into the cisgender students at Stone Bridge High School. On June 2, 2025, AG Miyares referred the matter of LCPS and LCSB actions to the US ED OCR and US DOJ Civil Rights Division. On October 1, 2025, Miyares filed an Amicus Brief  in support of the students whose alleged harassment of a transgender student in a LCPS locker room resulted in their suspension.  On September 16, 2025, US ED concluded  that LCPS “violated Title IX and retaliated against male students amid sexual harassment claims.” Unfortunately, the US ED conclusions outlined are rooted in anti-trans ideology, violate the civil rights of the transgender student, and deviate significantly from the facts of the case based on the August 15, 2025 24-page LCPS Title IX investigation . Additionally, the US ED gave LCPS “ten days to voluntarily enter the Department’s Resolution Agreement” which would effectively gut LCPS’s anti-discrimination policy. This case is ongoing. Not only did AG Miyares refer this case to Trump’s US ED, but he also wrote an Amicus Brief. This is a significant level of involvement on an issue over two students, and seems more like a sincere attempt to overturn Policy 8040  than to support the more than 80,000 LCPS students enrolled in 100 schools . It is unknown how much this litigation has cost LCPS in outside legal fees, or how much Miyares’ involvement has cost Virginia taxpayers. Do We Know Who AG Miyares Serves? 4 Public Education has already noted that many of AG Miyares’ briefs and investigations may have been directed by private actors over public interests . Even a glance at AG Miyares’ involvement in education lawsuits over his four year tenure, particularly his cozy relationship with Project 2025 author AF Legal, would raise serious concerns about partisanship, misuse of public resources, conflicts of interest, and transparency. When AG Miyares’ tenure is reviewed in the future, it is likely that it will not be viewed as effective and accountable to all Virginians or that it followed the current code of Virginia when it comes to public education and civil rights. It would not be surprising if future analyses will find even more connections among AG Miyares, AF Legal, and the Trump Administration. Those findings could result in more litigation that will cost Virginians even more money. In the meantime, Virginians, especially LGBTQIA Virginians, will continue to lose civil rights. Click to discover whether AG Miyares prioritizes political agendas over Virginians' civil rights

Did the Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate Denigrate and Misrepresent Student Learning for Political Advantage? Despite being in office for the past four years, gubernatorial candidate Winsome Earle-Sears continues to present a flawed analysis of Virginia’s student achievement. She claims, as does the sitting Governor Youngkin, that previous administrations claimed students were learning when they were not, and passed students when they should not have. Both Earle-Sears and Youngkin refer to this as an “honesty gap.” Although for years they have been cautioned that those statements were invalid , both the current governor and lieutenant governor continue to use those claims in an apparent attempt to influence voters.  A major concern is that the administration’s inaccurate portrayal of Virginia’s public school system was used to justify the unnecessary overhaul of the Department of Education’s (VDOE) accountability system.  Essentially, the Youngkin administration created a fake problem which required an expensive and unnecessary solution. The fake problem was that Virginia’s student performance was lacking, but this “problem” was caused by the Youngkin administration comparing the wrong statistics from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) and the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) Tests (explained in sections below). Thus, the Youngkin administration reported that Virginia had been overestimating student performance and he accused the previous democratic administrations of creating an ‘honesty gap’ . He used this “honesty gap” as the impetus to overhaul the accountability system, which has been expensive and disruptive for Virginia school districts. At a recent Moms for Liberty Town Hall panel discussion of GOP candidates, Katie Gorka, Chair of the Fairfax GOP committee despaired that only 31% of 4th grade (and similarly, 29% of 8th grade students) could read with “proficiency” (i.e., above  grade level). In fact, the figures Gorka, the Youngkin administration, and candidate Earle-Sears should have used are 58%  and 66%,  respectively, which means that Virginia’s 4th and 8th graders are well above the state national average in Reading at  grade level. Correspondingly, 76%  and 63%  Virginia’s 4th and 8th graders (respectively) are at grade level in Math. In the following sections below 4 Public Education will explain how the Youngkin administration and Earle-Sears came to use the wrong statistics. Despite published warnings about their error, the Youngkin administration and Earle-Sears continue to ignore those warnings.  What is the Difference Between the NAEP and SOL Tests? The Youngkin administration and Earle-Sears conflate both data and the purpose of the SOL and NAEP tests. As  explained by Andrew Ho, professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education , the NAEP is a “low stakes” test that monitors groups (i.e., the states), not individuals. On the other hand, tests like Virginia’s SOL are “high stakes” tests, because they contribute to decisions about school certification and which students need additional help (figure 1). Direct comparisons of statistics of the two tests are not valid because the tests differ in who  and how  they test, and how the results should be interpreted and applied.  Figure 1. The four types of educational tests and their purposes, from Ho (2022) Perhaps even more importantly, the Youngkin Administration and Earle-Sears not only made the egregious mistake of conflating terms used to compare results in the two tests, they then used their erroneous interpretation to cast aspersions  on the achievement of students and performance of teachers in Virginia’s public schools! Apparently, they assumed the term “proficient” had the same meaning in both the NAEP and SOL test results, despite abundant literature that explained how the statistical terms that have the same name also have different meanings in the two tests.  The Youngkin Administration first published the error in 2022 when Youngkin’s Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) released a report on student achievement  which made the incorrect claims that the SOL tests were overestimating performance of Virginia students. The VDOE claimed that more students should have failed because a greater proportion of students were classified as “proficient" in SOL tests results than in NAEP  tests results.  Shortly thereafter the Washington Post  explained the errors the Youngkin Administration made in their VDOE analysis, and further clarification was published by the Public Broadcasting System . Both publications explained that, although the NAEP and SOL tests use the same terms to categorize scores, the meaning of those categories differed greatly between tests. It was clear that direct comparisons of categories with the same name were not valid. But in the years since then the administration continues to use the same flawed reasoning  which undercounts Virginia schools’ performance in both Math and Reading The NAEP assessment sorts student scores into three achievement levels — basic, proficient, and advanced, which have different meanings than the SOL achievement levels despite the same names. The federal test makers who designed NAEP use “proficient” as a desirable or “aspirational” standard, while their “basic” category more closely correlates to achievement at a grade level. In fact, a multiple year   comparison of NAEP and state tests  revealed that “ most state standards for both grades [4 and 8] and both subjects [Math and Reading] mapped [achievement at grade level] at the NAEP Basic  achievement level” (Figure 2). As a result, the proportion of students performing at grade level should include students with scores in either the Basic or Proficient NAEP levels. Thus, the correct statistics are that  58% of 4th graders  and 66% of 8th graders  of Virginia students read at grade level in 2024, not the 31% and 29% figures used by the Youngin administration, VBOE, and candidate Earle-Sears.  Figure 2. The NAEP mapping study showed that “most state standards for both grades [4 and 8] and both subjects [Math and Reading] mapped at the NAEP Basic achievement level.” National Center for Education  Earl-Sears is Misrepresenting Virginia’s Performance It is concerning that Candidate Winsome Earl-Sears promises that if she is elected she will “peg the SOL scores to the NAEP scores” for Virginia for two reasons. First, this is pretty much what has already been approved for this year’s overhaul of the VBOE accountability system. The NAEP test is not designed to evaluate an individual student’s performance in a subject. Instead, the NAEP is designed to monitor learning across states, and to show where each state is ranked relative to the national average, primarily for reading and math. NAEP scores capture “two-year snapshots” of a small subset of students, and it is never the same group of students . As a result a high amount of variation among years should be expected.  In 2023, 4 Public Education again pointed out how Governor Youngkin was   incorrectly interpreting NAEP scores and how  his interpretation did not support his claim of an “honesty gap” . Yet his Lieutenant Governor Earle-Sears continues to share the misinformation. She should know better. She served on Virginia’s Board of Education; therefore, it is hard to believe that she doesn’t know the difference between the NAEP and SOL performance statistics.  Why is she conflating the NAEP and the SOL scores? Is it because Earl- Sears, like Youngkin, finds this line of fearmongering a politically expedient attempt to convince Virginians that our public schools are failing? Is this to help push the state toward privatization of public schools? Or is it just to win an election? We need to remember that NAEP proficient scores are “ aspirational ”  and a “flawed benchmark ” and that “ not a single nation can demonstrate that not even 50 percent of its students can clear the proficiency benchmark in  fourth-grade reading ”. It is essential that the next gubernatorial administration in Virginia better understand the intricacies and appropriate application of data from these two very different testing methods. They must be accountable to Virginians and accurately report what the NAEP and SOL scores indicate about our public schools and Virginia students.  The bottom line is that in contrast to what the GOP candidates are claiming in the 2025 gubernatorial campaign, the majority of Virginia students are learning appropriately and students in Virginia continue to do better than students in most other states. Virginia students score in the 4th quartile for 4th grade Math and 3rd quartile for 4th grade Math, 8th grade Reading, and 8th grade Math. Wasteful spending based on politically motivated misleading claims is the opposite of what is needed.