All Virginia News = A Stealth Propaganda Site Before (yet another) reveal about the stealth Republican propaganda media site known as "All Virginia News," here is a quick recap of what 4 Public Education has learned so far: In May 2026, 4 Public Education began investigating controversial online media sites--All Virginia News (AVN) and Red Virginia News (RVN)--only to find out that they are compromised by partisan politics and run by the Loudoun GOP, without transparency or accountability to the public. In August 2026, 4PE identified that AVN and RVN were originally hosted by the Loudoun County Republican Committee (LCRC, a.k.a., the Loudoun GOP). At this time, it appears that both "news" sites are now located on AVN servers. In September 2026, 4PE revealed that AVN and RVN are an example of pink slime journalism: "journalism for clicks" where artificial intelligence (AI), using templates and automated content production, creates "local news," typically to push a partisan narrative. For example, AVN tried to influence the Democratic primary for Fairfax County school board in January 2026. Many thanks to the local dad who provided digital forensic analysis feedback on the websites finding that both AVN and RVN media sites use seemingly identical Google site kits for posts and pages to drive and analyze marketing and visitor traffic. Of course, there are still open questions about AVN's and RVN's data-harvesting tactics, including whether there was a privacy or opt-out notice to consumers. Additionally, there are great concerns about campaign finances and Virginia law associated with these websites. For example, if this technical infrastructure is directly subsidized by the LCRC, how are they recording these political expenditures? Should there be "Paid for by LCRC" stickers on any of these digital communications, which may be required by Va. Code § 24.2-956.1? Now, for the main event. Do Not Talk about AVN on Social Media It's a pity more high level Republicans in the LCRC are unfamiliar with the movie Fight Club. Otherwise, they would know first rule, and only rule, is, "You do not talk about Fight Club." However, this author is tickled fight club soap pink to reveal that Mr. Ken Reid, current LCRC member and close associate of Scott Pio, has broken that sacrosanct rule. But first, a little background about Reid: He was the GOP Candidate for 37th Senate District that lost to Senator Saddam Salim in 2023. He is a former Leesburg Town Council and Loudoun County Board of Supervisor. In December 2025, Reid penned a post-mortem of the Republican Party of Virginia's (RPV) gubernatorial loss entitled Scott Pio’s 95 Theses for Bacon’s Rebellion after having worked closely with Pio for two years while serving as the vice chair of the LCRC Candidate Search and Support Committee. Clearly, Reid is a man in the know about LCRC "Fight Club." Unfortunately, he broke the first rule of Fight Club when he posted the following on social media: Why is All Virginia News, an lcrc creation, promoting democrats? But wait, there's more.... Eleven days later, inflamed by a AVN pride proclamation post Reid posted: Scott Pio what the hell has happened to you? I understand you're putting this out on All Virginia News, which I thought was to promote Republican issues. Why do you put this out here? Effectively, this means that even if the LCRC hadn't left digital fingerprints everywhere, their plan has been in plain site for months, revealing the underhanded agenda of AVN, which claims to represent "Independent Journalism" on its webpage (see below). However, based on LCRC leader's own words, All Virginia News has an entirely different agenda, which is to: Promote Republican Issues Promote Republican Candidates All Virginia News claims to represent "Independent Journalism" Apparently, per Reid, neither Juneteenth nor Pride Month are "Republican Issues." Any reasonable person would interpret that to mean that Black and LGBTQIA Virginians (and all of their friends, family, and community) are neither supported nor included by the Republican Party, their platform, and their policies. If one peruses Reid's and the LCRC's publications, this becomes even more apparent. More to Come This has been a wild ride so far. Lawyers have been called on yours truly (yes, Virginia, they have). And AVN went completely dark for the past month, so it seems that there may be more interesting news to come! This author would like to express her sincere thanks for input from so many sharing their own concerns and research vis-a-vis All Virginia News. In the crowded online news landscape, distinguishing truly independent outlets from those with hidden agendas is challenging, and it takes a village (or a club) to investigate and separate the independent from the politically captive news outlets. AVN and RVN have been careful to hide the most basic facts about who funds, hosts, or even writes for the media sites. This should concern every Virginian, and possibly regulators due to the political nature and influence of social media and media sites. Thankfully, they have not been very good at covering their tracks, much less remembering the first rule of subterfuge: Do not talk about it on social media.

Virginia does not Want the Education Freedom Tax Credit Program Now that the official regulations for the Education Freedom Tax Credit (EFTC) program have been published, it is time for each state Governor to decide whether this voucher scheme is right for their state. In Virginia, Governor Spanberger has promised to “oppose efforts that seek to erode faith in our public schools or take public dollars out of public schools.” This is your opportunity to oppose the EFTC voucher scheme by clicking the button below before December 1, 2026 to provide comments. Meanwhile, advocates for the program are pushing disinformation and pressuring Governor Spanberger in an effort to make her accept the program on behalf of Virginia. On the other hand, numerous public education advocacy groups have asked the nation’s governors to reject the EFTC. The EFTC program is the Trump administration’s response to the perceived need to privatize public education that is explained in Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. The administration and privatization advocates have vigorously worked to disparage public education in an attempt to convince parents that public schools are flawed and that they should not want to send their children there. What is sad is that even though this type of school voucher program rarely benefits children, conservatives widely support them. Before leaving office in 2026, one of former Governor Youngkin’s last actions was to formally opt Virginia into the EFTC, but Governor Spanberger can decide not to verify the paperwork, effectively opting the state out of the program. To date she has not decided and she has until February 15, 2027 to make a final decision by either submitting or not submitting an updated list of Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs) for the Commonwealth. SGOs are non-governmental, third-party organizations that take monetary contributions from taxpayers and hand them out to families as vouchers. If the Governor submits an updated list of SGOs, it would signify that she is accepting participation, while not submitting an updated list of SGOs has the effect of rejecting participation in the EFTC. This article highlights the many reasons why the EFTC voucher scheme should be rejected by Governor Spanberger, including the following: In the past, Virginia has rejected school vouchers. Virginia values are not supported by the voucher scheme. There is grossly inadequate oversight and accountability of private schools and SGOs. The benefits of these vouchers to students and schools have been significantly inflated. Private schools supported by vouchers can freely discriminate against students with impunity. The Trump Administration has used a disinformation campaign and significant pressure to urge states to opt into the voucher scheme. This voucher scheme will harm public school budgets and students. Virginia Rejects School Vouchers Private school vouchers are not popular in Virginia. Nearly all bills on school vouchers that have been introduced in the General Assembly have failed. Only one much smaller program was started in 2012 for low income students, but it has a relatively modest impact on state funding for public schools. All other legislative attempts to initiate private school vouchers have failed. Meanwhile, two federal bills (H.R. 9289 and S. 2497) were introduced to Congress in 2026 with the intent of repealing the EFTC tax credit and school voucher granting components of the reconciliation bill (H.R.1). Those bills have not progressed to consideration in either Congressional chamber. If the majorities of the US Senate and House of Representatives flip in the mid term elections, it is likely they will repeal the federal voucher program in their reconciliation budget, meaning the program would cause chaos for one year, and many students taking the vouchers would return from private to public schools in January, 2028. So if Governor Spanberger delays joining the federal program for at least a year the General Assembly and Congress may be able to resolve some critical issues that could impact the well-being of Virginia’s children. Voucher Schemes do not Reflect Virginia Values Some Virginia Democratic policymakers tried to pass additional requirements for the voucher program to bring it more in line with Virginia’s values. In 2026, a Virginia bill (HB 359) designed to add strict regulations to the new federal bill was introduced to the Virginia General Assembly by Del. Dan Helmer (D-Fairfax), but it was continued to the 2027 session. However, the Trump administration refused to let states attach any other restrictions. Those requirements prohibited by the Trump administration included: 1) prioritizing public school students and low income students, and 2) imposing accountability requirements on the schools accepting vouchers and the SGOs. Vermont was another state that tried this approach, but concluded that if they can’t adjust the regulations to meet their priorities, they are not interested in the program. In fact, the statute and regulations will likely be disastrous to students, families, communities and public school systems. Additionally, it is unusual that states are prohibited from adding additional restrictions to federal regulations, since it is not uncommon for states to add rules to meet the specific needs of their state. And we must remember that it is the states that have the responsibility for overseeing public education, not the federal government. The prohibition of additional regulations is unfortunate because there are many aspects of this statute that can cause harm, reduce the quality of education, and waste taxpayer’s money, but these issues could be ameliorated if the Commonwealth was allowed to add additional guardrails and requirements to the EFTC program rules. Below are additional unacceptable features of the EFTC program that would be imposed on the Commonwealth if Governor Spanberger accepts it for Virginia. Grossly Inadequate Oversight and Accountability of the EFTC The EFTC regulations released on Oct. 1, 2026 suffer from inadequate requirements for oversight and accountability. In addition, as mentioned above, since states can not add guardrails or additional restrictions there is a high expectation of poor education quality, waste, fraud, and abuse of public funds in schools that accept vouchers and with the SGOs that administer the vouchers. If the EFTC program is adopted in Virginia, Virginians must insist on better oversight and accountability requirements. Before the proposed regulations were published, subject matter experts urged the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury to improve the quality control and fraud prevention requirements in the EFTC program’s interim rules. In response, a feeble attempt was made by the Trump administration to get around the accountability problem through the use of “digital wallets” to manage the voucher component. In this way, the SGOs can claim they meet accountability requirements because another entity was processing payments. However, there is little oversight or accountability of digital wallets, which is concerning because waste, fraud, and abuse of public funds are rampant in other school voucher programs. Currently, thousands of private schools in other states take public money in the form of vouchers without adequate oversight or accountability. Adding to the problem is that it is easy for anyone to say they are starting a private school, enroll students, and collect vouchers with little to no evidence they are a legitimate school. To illustrate just how easy it is to start a private school, journalists pretended to start private schools and succeeded without anyone (including state regulators) noticing they were not educators. That experiment showed how easy it is to open a private school that takes public money (from taxpayers and public schools) without inspection of credentials or a background check. Any family should be terrified at that prospect, and any taxpayer should be infuriated by that level of fraud and abuse. Regarding accountability for academic quality in schools that accept vouchers, private schools don’t have the same requirements for accountability, transparency, and safety as public schools, It has been reported that academic performance drops among students who switch from public to private schools that accept vouchers, but private school students are not required to take standardized tests like public school students, so it is hard to compare learning outcomes between private and public schools. One must remember that not all private schools accept vouchers, and those that do often are not financially stable; therefore, it is common for some to close a few years after opening. Benefits of Vouchers have been Significantly Inflated When the EFTC program was first introduced, some policymakers and advocates supported it because they thought public school students could benefit from the program based on the assumption that some SGOs could be incentivized to target public schools. However, the regulations explicitly limit any state from requiring SGOs to direct funds to public schools or public school students, despite the obvious intent to give SGOs significant leeway in how they disburse funds. Unfortunately, some news sources continue to erroneously suggest that public school students can benefit from these EFTC vouchers. The proposed final regulations should dispel that misunderstanding, because it is clear that the regulations limit how public school students can benefit from the EFTC program. Additionally, since most public school services are part of a constitutionally guaranteed public education and those services are required to be offered for free, public schools cannot accept vouchers or other funding to pay for those services, whether the school actually provides the services or not. Historically, most vouchers in program schemes like this go to students who already attend private schools. Even when public school students are approved for private school vouchers, most end up not using them. Studies show that public school students don’t switch schools for a number of reasons, including: the private school rejected their application; families cannot afford to pay the tuition that isn’t covered by the voucher, or; the family can not provide transportation to the private school. Private schools are not required to provide transportation for their students; therefore, that burden falls on families to arrange for transportation to and from school every day during the school year. Many families do not have the flexibility to chauffeur their children to private school. Private Schools can Freely Discriminate Against Students DISCRIMINATION: Public school students are protected by both federal and Virginia civil rights laws, but students may lose those protections when they move to private schools. Private schools operate with broad discretion over their mission and operations, and are only subject to civil rights laws if they receive federal funding. These vouchers created in the EFTC program do not count as federal funding because they are provided with funds from tax credits. Private schools, especially religious schools and long‑standing segregation academies, are known to discriminate in admissions, often excluding LGBTQ+ students and students with disabilities. Some also maintain racially segregated enrollment patterns. Currently, millions of taxpayer dollars a year are given to segregation academies in the form of vouchers. This means that states can not prevent vouchers from potentially funding segregation and discrimination against students, because states cannot prohibit schools that accept vouchers from discriminating against students in admissions or disciplinary practices. In fact, numerous civil rights organizations have urged governors in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to not opt into the EFTC program, warning that it could undermine public education and disproportionately harm Black children, children with disabilities, and other underserved communities. Also, private schools are not obligated to support the basic civil rights of freedom of speech or free exercise of religion. This is an important issue since a majority of private school students attend faith-based schools. Both SGO’s and private schools can pick and choose the students that they serve. And private schools can choose the students they want to retain. For these reasons the promise of choice of school is limited by discrimination at two levels – by both the SGOs and the private schools. In fact Ohio courts found a similar type of voucher system unconstitutional for these same reasons INEQUITY AMONG AWARDS: There is no mechanism to ensure that EFTC vouchers will be distributed equitably to students. Although public schools must accept all students eligible to enroll, SGOs have the freedom to select the recipients of EFTC vouchers and decide on the size of the award for each voucher. This results in inequitable allocation of funds, since some students may receive vouchers that cover their entire tuition, while other students may receive only partial funding or may not receive any funding at all, while states have no ability to require equitable distribution of EFTC voucher funding. INEQUITY OF DISCIPLINE: Private schools tend to have very strict and brief disciplinary procedures and often may suspend or expel students more readily than public schools. This is a reason many private school students return to public school. It is not uncommon in private schools that harsh discipline practices are applied in misalignment with the severity of an infraction. In other cases, harsh discipline practices may be applied more readily to minorities or disabled students. This lack of protection from disciplinary actions is another way that the EFTC voucher program fails to serve Virginians. LACK OF SERVICES FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: An estimated 15% of students nationwide (14% in Virginia) in public schools are eligible for special education and related services under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and the Virginians with Disabilities Act. However, students with disabilities lose those protections if they transfer to private schools. Private schools can refuse to admit students with disabilities, discriminate in disciplinary procedures, and refuse to provide the services that a student would be entitled to in their Individual Education Program in public schools. Students with disabilities are often not accepted by private schools because the school does not have the facilities or resources to educate a disabled student. Even if a disabled student is admitted, the education in private schools often is inadequate and does not meet their educational needs. Proponents of EFTC vouchers often promise students with disabilities a path to private schools using these vouchers but families’ experiences reveal that is not the reality. Trump and Privatizers Used a Disinformation Campaign and Pressure to "Encourage" States to Opt into the Voucher Scheme In the months since the interim regulations were shared, the Trump administration and privatization advocates have used misinformation to entice states to opt into the program. Now the administration is using “competitive pressure" to try to force states to opt in. The pressure is applied by allowing residents from a non-participating state to take the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit by donating to another state’s program. The argument is that the non-participating state will lose benefits because their students will not be able to receive EFTC vouchers. Already one holdout, Governor Hochul of New York, succumbed to this pressure even as teacher unions protested. And legislatures of Kentucky, North Carolina, and Kansas overrode their Governor’s veto of voucher bills and the states were forced to opt into the scheme. The status of each state’s participation in the EFTC voucher program can be viewed at this link. The EFTC Voucher Scheme will Harm Public School Budgets and Students The EFTC program is designed to divert federal tax dollars that should be used to fund public education, to instead pay private education expenses. Although some claim this program will not impact public schools, this is not true. The ways this program will harm public education are well documented and outlined below. False claims that the EFTC program won’t impact public school budgets are being made by both the Trump administration and school choice advocates. But experts warn that vouchers can destabilize public school districts and are likely to shrink public school budgets. This can result in public schools being forced to cut services to students, including popular and/or necessary programs like advanced academic coursework, special education programs for students with disabilities, and/or programming for English language learners. Perhaps the biggest impact on public school budgets is that any state opting into the EFTC program will be responsible for funding oversight of their voucher program, including tracking donations and voucher recipients, and preventing waste, fraud and abuse in the program. None of that comes cheap, and it may require developing an entirely new bureaucracy within the state government. The costs of a well structured state oversight program can be substantial, sometimes even equaling or exceeding the vouchers themselves. States with existing voucher programs learned the painful lesson about hidden oversight costs. Cost projections for voucher programs in other states have been greatly underestimated, and it is likely that this will be the case in Virginia. Arizona, Iowa, Oklahoma, and West Virginia saw their state budgets balloon well over the original estimates due to unexpected costs related to their school voucher programs. These unexpected expenditures are related to the lack of oversight and accountability demanded of SGOs which means that it falls to the states to perform these necessary functions. This is a key flaw in the EFTC program because fraud, waste, and abuse are rampant in states with voucher programs. More details about how vouchers financially impact public schools can be found at this link. This author encourages those who are considering opting into the federal voucher program to first determine what it will actually cost their state. But, What Can I Do? ACT NOW! Individuals, organizations, and advocacy groups can influence decisions on the Federal Tax Credit School Voucher policy by advocating for their priorities and sharing evidence-based information as they submit public comments before the regulations are finalized. The official site for submitting comments is found at this link or via the button below. One can also view the comments of others on this site. The deadline for submitting comments is December 1, 2026. ACT NOW! Click for More Reasons Why Governor Spanberger Must Say NO!

Trump’s Title IX Gives Rapists the Same Rights as their Victims On September 28, 2026, the same day the world learned of the Cornell 7 sexual assaults, the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Education (ED) rescinded Biden’s Title IX rules, thus enabling men who rape to have equal rights to their victims. Despite the preponderance of evidence that even current guidelines are insufficient, the Trump administration is going to gut what protections currently exist thereby removing critical regulations that protected students from sexual harassment and assault, and provided recourse when sexual harassment and assault was reported. How is this possible? ED Secretary McMahon will now enforce the Title IX rules implemented in 2020 by the then ED Secretary Betsy Devos, which included changes to Title IX that reduced protections for women based on significant input from “men's rights” groups. At the time, these changes were found to have profound effects: reducing the number of sexual assault claims, narrowing definitions of sexual harassment, and reducing the rights of sexual assault survivors. Critics of the Trump administration changes highlighted their failure to adequately protect those who suffered sexual assault, including outsized effects on students of color. All of this occurred while an Association of American Universities report found that nearly 26% of college women reported nonconsensual sexual contact, meaning that sexual assault protections were critical to ensuring safety and opportunity. Yet, Secretary McMahon claims that her ED will “abide by the original promise and purpose of Title IX: to protect women’s safety, dignity, and educational opportunities in schools that receive federal funding.” Of course, their press release and fact sheet focus on attacking the civil rights of transgender students and the school districts that protect these civil rights based on the Trump administration’s fanatical efforts to eliminate the transgender community and undermine parent’s rights over their own children. Their Project 2025 allies are applauding these changes, despite the fact that the ED will make women and girls less safe in the world and on campus. So, it is business as usual regarding their grotesque efforts to eliminate civil rights protections associated with gender identity. However, few understand the vast array of other harmful changes to Title IX. Other Detrimental Title IX Changes The Women’s Law Center created a pdf of the atrocious DeVos Title IX regulation changes that will be reinstated. Here are some of the worst changes creating a rollback of rights for girls and women under the reinstated Trump 2020 Title IX, including: Restricts Harassment Claims: The definition of harassment was changed from "unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature" (under Obama) to “unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient’s education program or activity.” This change is a “stricter definition of harassment than the one used by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to protect adult workplaces” and will result in the dismissal of claims that do not meet this restrictive definition of harassment. The Phoenix Survivors Association indicated this will require “survivors [] to endure repeated and escalating levels of abuse until they can actually seek help from their institutions.” Reduces School Liability for Title IX: Whether in K-12 or on a college campus, formal Title IX complaints would be limited to campus, educational activity or program. Off-campus sexual assaults would not fall under Title IX complaints. Additionally, “institutions only be held legally responsible for investigating formal complaints and responding to reports that school officials have “actual knowledge” of happening” Requires Victim’s Continued Participation in Education Program: Under the DeVos Title IX rules “students will only be able to file a sexual harassment complaint with a school where they are still “participating in or attempting to participate in the education program or activity” when they file the complaint.” So if they graduate, move, or drop out of the program due to the harassment, students have no Title IX recourse. Under the DeVos Title IX rule, the same rules apply to whether or not the accused is still at the school. Permits Delays of Title IX Investigations: Under the DeVos Title IX rule, schools can delay for an unspecified period of time if there is also an ongoing criminal investigation. For Virginia K-12 students, this will mean a delay, since K-12 employees are mandatory reporters–they must report child sexual abuse to the police. Presumption that No Sexual Harassment Occurred: Despite Title IX claims and investigations being non-criminal, the DeVos Title IX rules will hold them to criminal standards of presumption of innocence of the accused, which results in a presumption of malfeasance and deceit on behalf of the accuser. The accused and accuser are treated the same; therefore, if the accuser remains on campus or has a no-contact order with the accused, the accused also can remain on campus and the no-contact order also applies to the accuser. Thus, Trump's Title IX permits the accused to continue to enjoy the same educational opportunities as the accuser. Therefore, for example, when a student was accused of rape in a Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) bathroom in May 2021, after the DeVos rules were in effect, that student remained in LCPS until they attempted a second sexual assault in October 2021. This is just one real life example of the nightmarish impact of the DeVos Title IX rules. In the case of the Loudoun assaults, the harm was compounded by LCPS “improperly handl[ing]” the Title IX claim and the local sheriff delaying the rape investigation, both of which are not uncommon in sexual assault investigations. LCPS has since amended their Title IX policies to ensure better protection of students. Introduces a Live Hearing and Cross-Examination: Unlike before, Title IX will force a sexual assault victim to undergo a formal courtroom-like hearing at their college, and permits the alleged rapist to formally challenge the victim’s credibility–essentially emotionally assaulting them again–thereby retraumatizing a young woman. They instituted these changes despite a 2011 President Obama Dear Colleague letter that indicated “allowing an alleged perpetrator to question an alleged victim directly may be traumatic or intimidating.” The National Education Association (NEA) called this change “shocking, offensive, and defies logic” and the NEA President Lily Eskelsen García indicated that “Educators across the country are appalled.” In 2020, the Chairman of the House education committee, Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., said that the policy "creates new barriers to justice" for victims, and: "While the department's stated intent was to secure due process for those accused of sexual misconduct, the actual effect of its rule will be to erode protections for students, weaken accountability for schools and make it more difficult for survivors seeking redress." History of Trump Title IX Changes A 2020 Time Magazine article summarized the Devos Title IX rules thusly: “The DeVos administration gave perpetrators of sexual assault a blueprint to block damning evidence against them. In that way, the new regulation institutionalizes gender-based discrimination and creates campuses where sexual violence is not only tolerated, but more likely.” Before instituting these Title IX changes, Devos elevated discussion of false sexual assault accusations and met with radical men’s rights groups, despite the fact that as many as 95% of college rapes go unreported. At the time, Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, a Democrat, wrote a letter to Devos stating, “It is disturbing that the Department of Education would place these radical groups on the same level as those working tirelessly to confront the crisis of sexual assault on our campuses.” Other victims rights advocates echoed his assessment and added concerns that Devos’s approach could fuel “fuel a narrative that sexual assault reports do not need to be taken seriously.” Showing how little her office cared about sexual assault survivors, Devos’s own top ED civil rights official made this dismissive statement to the New York Times about sexual assault survivors who were brave enough to come forward, “The accusations — 90 percent of them — fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk’.” Her office failed to clear hundreds of sexual assault cases within the required 180 days. A Dangerous Future for Our Children Before Title IX was passed, there were few opportunities for girls and women in sports, college, and the working world, but the passage of Title IX changed that by working to eliminate sex-based discrimination, ensuring that all students have equal access and opportunity in education–covering athletics, housing, and scholarships–while providing protections from and recourse for sexual harassment and assault. If it is not clear, Title IX has far reaching consequences that reduce discrimination for ALL students, which was why the Biden Administration modified Title IX in 2022 to amend the harmful changes made by DeVos under the Trump Administration, while simultaneously codifying protections for all students, including LGBTQIA students, into law. It enabled the Biden administration to combat “Don’t Say Gay” laws and intentionally discriminatory bathroom bills passed in a number of states. By repealing the Biden Title IX changes and reinstating the DeVos Title IX regulation, girls and women in K-12 and college will be less safe, less able to get justice when harmed, and will be more vulnerable to harassment, discriminatory education spaces, and sexual assault. Imagine this new environment with fewer protections for your daughters when they enter college. Especially, in light of how poorly Cornell University implemented the stricter Biden Title IX regulations that should have given Jane Doe immediate recourse against the Cornell 7 and the 50 fraternity brothers on Snap Chat. Under the reinstated DeVos Title IX, Jane Doe would have no Title IX recourse because the incident occurred at a Fraternity house off-campus. Jane Doe is one of many, when “more than one in four women at a large group of leading universities said they had been sexually assaulted by force or when they were incapacitated while in college” per a study by the Association of American Universities. This is a strange new world where our daughters will be less safe, and predators will be protected by the ED, Secretary McMahon, and the Commander in Chief. As a mother and a former college student who barely navigated college campuses unscathed, I am terrified for all of us and our children. “As someone working on this issue for 25 years, I fear these changes will weaken sexual violence protections, create confusion and inequity, and increase the likelihood that survivors will not report. Two steps forward, three steps back.” –Carol Stenger, NEA member and director of the University of Albany’s Advocacy Center for Sexual Violence in her 2018 Open Letter to Betsy DeVos About Campus Sexual Violence

Understanding the True Value of Fairfax County’s Superintendent It’s not uncommon to hear complaints about how much public school superintendents make per year, especially by anti-public school commentators. They like to compare Superintendent salaries to those of the president of the United States or state governor, as if those are comparable jobs since there are independent administrative departments tasked with the work. The field of public education has never been as lucrative as politics. For example, Forbes reported that President Trump managed to increase his net worth by $3 billion in one year (from 2024-25) and Governor Youngkin’s net worth was approximately 470 million in 2024. Interestingly, both of these obscenely wealthy men rejected increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour, which would translate to a salary of about $31,200 per year. Oddly, the Project 2025 Mean Girls never complain about their obscene level of wealth. Being a Superintendent is more like being the CEO of a company with tens of thousands of employees and with hundreds of thousands of stakeholders (e.g., minor children, their families, and other community members) who require support and education, all while they ensure that the school district complies with layers of local, state, and federal regulations. However, CEOs of small companies often make millions of dollars and no one complains, while Superintendents of public school systems always get dumped on, as if they are supposed to supervise a district’s schools out of the goodness of their hearts. For example, Dominion Energy has approximately 15,200 employees, over 4 million customers, and its CEO Robert M. Blue has a compensation package of more than $16 million. In contrast, Superintendent Reid, Superintendent of Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS), has over 25,000 employees (majority of which are school-based), serves approximately 177,000 students and their families, along with tens of thousands of other community members, but her current contracted salary through 2030 is $469,936. When one considers that Fairfax County not only educates almost 180,000 students per day and employs about 25,000 Virginians a day, and is targeted for lawsuits and harassment by many extremists and Project 2025 groups, and seems to have caught the eye of the Trump Administration’s Departments of Education and Justice, her salary seems more than justified, especially in comparison to a CEO’s $16 million salary. Click for Project 2025 Burn Book Rarely do these anti-public education commentators, recently referred to as "Project 2025 Mean Girls--see their recent "Burn Book" to the right--compare a superintendent’s salary to other superintendents of comparably-sized school districts. Nevertheless, they drone on about the expense of a competent district Superintendent, as if one could find one willing and able to do the job for less, especially in the last six years post-COVID, during the never-ending culture war on public education, teachers, and schools. It won’t surprise anyone that School Superintendents have a high turnover rate. In Fairfax County, this has been a nonstop complaint by Project 2025 paid propagandists: “Superintendent Michelle Reid’s salary is too high!” This blog will challenge that irritating refrain, by providing real data about superintendent salaries across the country, in the largest school districts, and in the region. Of course, Project 2025 Mean Girls will continue with their irritatingly political complaint, because it plays well to their base, but now, you will be armed with data to refute it, especially when these same Project 2025 Propaganda Mean Girls were silent when: Governor Youngkin’s Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) Superintendent Lisa Coons resigned from Younkin’s Administration after failing to perform by missing “several deadlines for reports to the state legislature and failed to publish teaching materials for the new history and social science standards.” Later, it was revealed that taxpayers paid over $100,000 in severance payments to Coons after her resignation. The Virginia Coalition for Open Government also found that her “department had violated state procurement laws, failed to publish teaching materials for the new history standards that the department promised to teachers last year, and hemorrhaged longtime staffers since Coons’ arrival two years ago.” Youngkin was 25 people over the legal staffing limit, especially when he was in violation of the “checks and balances in our system of government” as noted by Senator Surovell. How much did that cost the taxpayers? Be careful, haters of Northern Virginia public schools, you may even learn something valuable by reading this blog because it will inform you about the Superintendent’s job, what influences a Superintendent’s salary (hint: location!), nationwide and regional comparables, and more. The Superintendent’s Job Description in a Nutshell The best way to describe what it takes to be a good Superintendent is: “Running a school district takes more than educational expertise. It requires financial acumen, political skill and an ability to manage thousands of employees across a sprawling organization. Superintendent roles sit at the top of that structure, and compensation reflects the weight of the responsibility.” Emporia State University A Superintendent’s job is somewhat at conflict: they need to multitask while being focused, be multidisciplinary but know minute details about education and their district, be diplomatic but unmovable, and be a manager of thousands while answering to the district’s school board. At the same time, they need to ensure the best educational opportunities are available for students while ensuring testing performance targets are met even though those targets may be out of a district’s control. Meanwhile, they must be responsive to all stakeholders–some of whom have opposing interests–including students (and their families), staff, and school board to the local supervisors, state and federal department of education, and a myriad of groups who like to use public schools as a political football. It’s a job that begins before sunrise and ends at midnight many nights. For example, this author, who is an active parent and volunteer, sees Superintendent Reid at morning, daytime, late night, and weekend events. No matter how many meetings and hours she has been running from school to school, she has always appeared alert, professional, and ready to do her job no matter what that job may be at that moment. Her job performance displays this, as well. Specifically, in Fairfax County, the high level job requirements of a Superintendent are: Student-First Philosophy: Prioritizing academic success, equity, and closing the achievement and opportunity gap for all students. Strategic Planning: Developing and implementing long-term goals, such as the FCPS Strategic Plan, while managing division resources and a large budget. Instructional Leadership: Ensuring consistent quality in core programs, advanced academics, and special education services across roughly 200 schools. Communication and Engagement: Acting as the primary face of the district, building transparent relationships with families, staff, local government, and community stakeholders while “listening and learning continuously.” Operations and Accountability: Overseeing central departments (including academics, finance, human resources, and safety) and supervising regional assistant superintendents. Other: Managing “complex circumstances through problem solving/decision-making.” Superintendent Salary: Size and Location Matters A 2025-26 study by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) surveyed 1,951 superintendents across 49 states to find that superintendent salary “scales sharply with the size of the district.” Thus, the larger the district, the higher the superintendent salary which means that the salary is correlated with student enrollment. So, to a certain extent, a superintendent’s salary is based on the number of students, which means one could even compare superintendents based on their cost per student (i.e., salary/# enrolled students), as 4 Public Education does below. For example, the study found that in a district with fewer than 300 students, a Superintendent made a median salary of $117,500, versus for a district with 25,000 to 49,999 students, the median Superintendent salary was more than twice that at about $295,000. Essentially, the study found that district size was the strongest predictor of compensation, followed by increases based on community type: whether rural or suburban/urban. In other words, suburban and urban community superintendents earned significantly more (nearly 50% more!) than their rural counterparts due to district size and cost-of-living. Interestingly, this study didn’t cover larger districts, but that is because less than 2% of schools have more than 25,000 students and those districts account for over 34% of public school students (per 2021-22 data). Larger school districts are covered next. Largest School District Salaries Per 2021 National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) Data, there are 83 districts with more than 50,000 students. Fairfax County ranked 12th on that list, above Hawaii and below Gwinnett County, Georgia. It should be noted that Niche currently ranks Fairfax County as the 10th largest school district, above Houston Independent, so lists may rank district size differently. The eleventh largest district, Gwinnett County School District, recently conducted a Superintendent search hoping to “unify and inspire” its 179,000 students and 24,000 employees. The listed salary range was $325,00 to $375,000, despite the former superintendent, Calvin Watts, salaried at $475,000 plus expenses, according to state records, at his dismissal in January 2025 (note: per records, it cost close to $675,000 for the school system to buy out his contract). After an extensive (and expensive) search, Gwinnett County named a new Superintendent: Dr. Alexandria Estrella, who has 26 years of education experience. Her base salary was reported to be $400,000 per year in Georgia’s largest school district, with a buyout clause of up to a year’s salary. In Hawaii, the thirteenth largest district, Superintendent Hayashi leads the only statewide public school district in the nation which serves 164,000 students across 296 campuses on seven islands, with over 40,000 employees, and a budget of $2.8 billion. He recently received an 18% raise to $294,674 at the beginning of his 4-year contract. It is important to note that these are two data points among hundreds for larger school districts, and they do not include additional compensation, such as those for Superintendent Alberto Carvalho of Los Angeles Unified School District (who resigned in June 2026) whose base salary was about $440,000, but also received an annual retirement contribution ($50,000), a life insurance policy, and transportation and security paid for by the school district. Some much smaller districts, like those in the state of Washington, have higher than average salaries for district superintendents, even for very small districts where 26 school district superintendents earn more than $400,000 per year, possibly due to high cost-of-living. In Texas, there are ten district Superintendents who earned more than Dr. Reid in 2025-26, but only one of those Superintendents oversaw a district as large as FCPS: Mike Miles of Houston ISD. Miles reportedly earned $462,000 last year and oversaw an enrollment of 168,812 students. The other nine Superintendents oversaw school districts that were between 6-65% of the size of FCPS. See chart below of Highest Paid Texas Superintendents. Highest Paid Texas Superintendents Superintendent District Total Pay Enrollment Pay/Student Dr. Gayle Stinson Birdville ISD $551,576.00 22,123 $25 Dr. Douglas Killian Cypress-Fairbanks ISD $520,231.00 114,697 $5 Dr. Greg Poole Barbers Hill ISD $513,601.00 8,088 $64 Dr. Jenny McGown Klein ISD $508,554.00 51,236 $10 Dr. King Davis Killeen ISD $508,057.00 41,391 $12 Dr. Curtis Null Lake Travis ISD $483,116.00 10,771 $45 Dr. K. Gregorski Katy ISD $474,440.00 95,925 $5 Dr. Ricardo Lopez Garland ISD $467,047.00 49,151 $10 Mike Miles Houston ISD $462,000.00 168,812 $3 Dr. David Vinson Conroe ISD $454,589.00 72,757 $6 Average $494,321.10 63,495 $18 Median $495,586.50 50,194 $10 It is clear that there is not a direct correlation between a Superintendent's salary and enrollment when comparing salaries among districts. Additionally, unless expressly written into a contract, a Superintendent’s salary would not drop if enrollment dropped, particularly since there is an economy of scale in running a school district. In other words, minor drops in enrollment due to COVID (in 2021) or due to birth rate changes (since 2007) would not be significant enough to reduce overall costs to run one of the largest school districts in the nation. Ultimately, it is hard to compare compensation packages of superintendents, even across the largest districts, due to unknown compensation factors and unknown job expectations across the districts. They may be helpful data points, but they should be used in combination with regional comparisons, as well. Northern Virginia Comparison As indicated above, studies have shown that the size and location (i.e., rural versus urban/suburban) of a school district matter the most to determine a superintendent's salary. As best as this author could, she gathered salaries for Northern Virginia District Superintendents (using 2025 as a baseline, where possible) and associated enrollment in Northern Virginia school districts below. The table below shows how there are vast differences in superintendent salaries and enrollment across Northern Virginia school districts, so 4PE evaluated superintendent salaries against their total 2026 enrollment (i.e., divided superintendent salary by total enrolled students) to show the range of “value” for each superintendent based on enrollment alone. This table shows that the cost per student based on the superintendent’s salary ranges greatly from $2 in the largest district (Fairfax County) to $116 in the smallest district (Falls Church City). Of course there are other compensatory benefits for all of these Superintendents, but likely those benefits come out in the wash and would be fairly equal. Northern Virginian Superintendents School District Total 2026 Enrollment Salary (2025) Salary per Student Alexandria City 16,302 $265,000* $16 Arlington City 27,670 283,707** $10 Fairfax County 177,249 $424,146 $2 Falls Church City 2,675 $310,000*** $116 Loudoun County 80,410 $425,334 $5 Prince William County 89,662 $414,324 $5 *departing **2023 ** *estimated As one can see in the chart above there is a wide range of salaries for Northern Virginia Superintendents that seem somewhat unrelated to the size of student enrollment. It is possible that larger districts achieve a high economy of scale for superintendent cost per student versus the smaller districts. In fact the three largest districts (Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William) average about $4/pupil for the Superintendent’s salary versus the smallest three districts (Alexandria, Arlington, and Falls Church City) which average about $48/pupil for the Superintendent’s salary. However, in these smaller districts there may be other factors that lend to higher salaries, including the high cost of housing and comparable salaries. Both Loudoun and Prince William have had active and powerful extremist groups in the form of Moms for Liberty, Fight for Schools, Parents Against Critical Theory, Army of Parents, etc. which might add a form of “hazard pay” to the superintendent salaries, particularly with the number of political lawsuits against the districts and “screamers” at school board meetings. Fairfax County also would fall into this group, particularly since the groups and bad actors in Loudoun and Prince William are involved in lawsuits and actions against FCPS. One should note that Dr. Reid is the “best value” Superintendent if one looks at her base salary which comes to the rate of $2/pupil. Considering her school district is about twice the size of either Prince William or Loudoun counties, one would think that her salary would be much higher than Loudoun or Prince William. There is evidence that women are paid less than men in the education profession, which likely leads to this disparity. In truth, a Superintendent’s contracted wage range is often determined before they are even hired, and annual incremental increases are also part of that contract. Thus, salaries are not negotiable after the fact unless that is part of the terms. Typically, trying to break a contract could be more costly than just paying out the contract. For example, as mentioned above Youngkin agreed for taxpayers to pay over $100,000 severance to former VDOE Superintendent Coons after she resigned. One can be sure that anyone, including a Project 2025 Mean Girl, would sue if their contract was broken. Value your Superintendent if they are Supporting Schools Like Liam Neeson’s character in Taken, public school superintendents have “a very particular set of skills, skills" that they have acquired over a long career in order to serve a school district community. Their job begins before school begins and ends when the school board meeting ends late at night. Their goal is to educate students, pay staff, and repair crumbling buildings with too little money after too much delayed maintenance, while also managing conflict among multiple stakeholders, which can generate ill will. And unlike Mr. Neeson, they need to do all of their work collaboratively with extreme tact and diplomacy as an externally facing civic leader who needs to bridge informational, political, and policy divisions. For sure, many Superintendents are not up to the task of managing an entire school district, especially if they do not have the staff, resources, skills, education, or temperament. One would be hard-pressed to say that about Fairfax County’s Superintendent Dr. Michelle Reid. Even though this author may not agree with all of Dr. Reid's decisions, it is easy to see that she is one of the best Superintendents of a large district in this commonwealth and country. Readers may not know that this was a hard won opinion, since this author spoke out against the appointment of Dr. Reid in 2022. Over the years, Dr. Reid has earned trust and shown herself to be adept at handling complex problems by being committed to students, families, staff, equity, opportunity, and academic excellence. Superintendent Michelle Reid understand the importance of a strong community In some ways, complaints about Superintendents’ salaries may be deeply rooted in sexism. Superintendents are the highest step in a female-dominated job sector, one that is historically underpaid and overworked. Just like the average public school educator, Superintendents need to be the most educated and skilled to get the job, yet they will never earn incomes commensurate with their experience and education, as they would in other professional fields like law, finance, or private consulting. They will never make millions like any other CEO. Since the public education profession is inextricably linked to “women’s work,” which has been historically devalued by society, even those at the top of the profession are underpaid according to their experience, education, hours, and accomplishments. Interestingly, there are still gender disparities in pay among Superintendents and educators. In the case of the paid propagandists, their complaints are clearly political. If it was really about the cost to taxpayers then the Project 2025 Mean Girls would have: Highlighted excessive costs by Youngkin's VDOE blunders noted above. Done a detailed analysis of Superintendent salaries like this author has. Reviewed the average cost of living in Fairfax County, which Salary.com reports is 43% higher than the country. Looked at census data for Fairfax County to review median income. Analyzed impact of local job market for people with comparable experience and education. However, they did none of this. To this author, the Project 2025 attacks on FCPS salaries, especially the Superintendent’s salary, seem to expose their political aims which include undermining civil rights of students, staff, and families; politicizing school curricula; privatizing public schools; and destroying public schools as we know them. Their hyper-focus on Superintendent Reid is likely, in part, because they keep on losing to her in the courts and in the court of public opinion. So maybe, these attacks on her salary are really because they are afraid of her, her staff, and the school board who have defeated Project 2025 and their anti-student, anti-staff, anti-public education at every level so far? This author has heard complaints from staff and families about many local Superintendents, and this author has had her own concerns at times. However, it is doubtful that any one of us would be willing to do the job of Superintendent in a Northern Virginia school district no matter how much we were paid. Much less would we be up to the task. Feel free to offer constructive criticism where it is warranted, and remember to also offer compliments because even adults need to know what they are doing right. How can a school district, Superintendent, educator, or other staff member know to keep on doing something great unless you tell them it’s great? In fact, this author has a personal rule regarding complaints: they should be balanced with compliments. It is too easy to notice the bad and ignore the good, so before leaving any 1-star reviews, this author needs to leave at least one or two 4- or 5-star reviews. Because if all you are doing is complaining, then you aren’t making the world a better place for you or anyone–you are just being a pain in the neck. And if all you have is complaints (looking at your Project 2025 Propagandists), then maybe it’s not about the Superintendent’s salary. Maybe it’s about you and your political agenda. Actually, it’s definitely you.

September Went by Fast! Hopefully, everyone has adjusted to new schedules, students, schools, and teachers. That first month of school went by so quick that we didn't get a newsletter out, and so much has happened! Fairfax rallied against terrible school safety issues, school staff were put on weapons duty at Lake Braddock (check out the call to action!), the Daily Signal put out another Fairfax County "Burn Book." In other Virginia education news: ask Governor Spanberger to opt out of Trump's federal Voucher scheme, beware of pink slime journalism in All Virginia News, an anti-trans lawsuit was dismissed, and maybe we should abandon standardized testing. In national news, everyone should be concerned about the devastation at the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. ED. Happy almost October, Vanessa Hall (4PE President) September 25, 2026 Another Daily Signal Burn Book from the Project 2025 Mean Girls by Vanessa Hall Trump Trashes the U.S. Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights by Marianne Burke Partisan Politics Pretending to be Hometown Journalism by Vanessa Hall Isn't it Past Time to Abandon Standardized Testing? by Cheryl Binkley Safety is Non-Partisan: Bring Back the High School Crossing Guards by Vanessa Hall Judge Dismisses Anti-Trans Lawsuit Citing Lack of Standing to Sue by Vanessa Hall Calls to Action!! Governor Spanberger: Opt Out of the Federal School Voucher Scheme! by Marianne Burke Lake Braddock Teachers Challenge Weapons Duty in Hearing by Vanessa Hall 4 Public Education Blog Feed Catch up on our monthly briefing regarding Project 2025 disinformation, trashing of the Office of Civil Rights, "pink slime" All Virginia News, and why standardized testing should be abandoned. Project 2025 Mean Girls and their Latest Burn Book Daily Signal disinformation is about as reliable as a Mean Girl burn book. Civil Rights have been Trashed by Trump Radical shifts in enforcement protections by the federal Office of Civil Rights should worry all families and students. Partisan Politics Pretending to be Hometown Journalism Learn how All Virginia News influences opinion through hidden political agendas, pink slime journalism, and (possibly) collecting your data! Isn't it Time to Abandon Standardized Testing? Why it's time to move on from antiquated testing methods in our modern schools. Have they even accomplished their goals? Positive Education News Fairfax Rallied to Bring Back Crossing Guards Student safety is non-partisan. Fairfax demanded funding to be returned for high school crossing guards, and they won! Anti-Trans Suit Dismissed Judge protects FCPS students and financial resources by dismissing anti-trans lawsuit for lack of standing. CLICK on these Calls to Action to Make Change! Weapons Detection Call to Action--Stand up for Staff's Right to Educate! Lake Braddock teachers challenge mandatory weapons detection duty in school board hearing. Support their call to action! Ask Gov Spanberger to Opt Out of Federal Voucher Scheme Ask Governor Spanberger to prioritize funding for public schools over voucher schemes from Trump Administration.

Propaganda Mean Girls of Project 2025 How many times has 4 Public Education corrected false narratives and cherry-picked data shared by the Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal? So. Many. Times. Yet, these propaganda "Mean Girls" keep on publishing disinformation right out of the Project 2025 playbook and pushing the "public schools are failing" mantra in their Daily Signal Burn Book. Meanwhile Fairfax County Public School (FCPS) staff steadfastly continue to support and educate Fairfax County students by the hundreds of thousands, and top colleges actively recruit Fairfax County seniors because of the high quality of education. Fortunately, more and more Northern Virginia residents have caught on to the Daily Signal's lies, half-truths, and data fallacies. Nevertheless, the Propaganda Mean Girls are at it again with a September 3, 2026 Daily Signal Opinion piece (see below) by Independent Women's Forum's (IWF) Stephanie Lundquist-Arora, which was amplified by the Fairfax GOP on September 9th (see below), repackaged by the Washington Times on September 16th, before a follow up interview--ominously entitled, VA Schools Failing--with Lundquist-Arora by Larry O'Connor on Salem Media on September 19, 2026. The interview with O'Connor is enlightening (and entertaining) for anyone in the know for multiple reasons. O'Connor says the quiet part out loud (0:30): "We use Fairfax County .... because it is so highly politicized because of its proximity to Washington DC .... What we see in Fairfax County is replicated across the country in a lower profile way, all across the county, because of activists who get on the school board." It has been clear to 4PE that Project 2025 and their affiliates targeted Fairfax County for precisely these reasons; however, this author is presuming that O'Connor may be confused about the definition of "activist" as elected officials are parents, concerned citizens, and neighbors who care about their community. Lundquist-Arora is unable to answer some of her own basic questions: "So like [these jobs] what exactly do you do? The question can't be answered. It's unclear what they do." (6:50). She is quick to criticize different FCPS departments, but never bothers to find out what they do, including FCPS's Green Initiative, Engagement Officer, and Equity Officer. (Look! 4PE found the links quite easily!) O'Connor highlights FCPS outside legal fees (7:30) and questions whether it is about the "transgender issue" (7:55), which hits too close to Lundquist-Arora's own multiple anti-trans lawsuits against FCPS, so Lundquist-Arora pivots to the fake Centreville "whistleblower" legal costs. O'Connor, himself, gives away the Project 2025 Mean Girls goal (3:35) when he says: All you have to do is reach out to Independent Women's Network wherever you are living in the country and say I want to have the tools and resources and training to go after my local school system. Daily Signal Burn Book "Big Reveals" On September 3, 2026 Lundquist-Arora suddenly discovered what everyone else already knew: there is a "performance gap" between students from economically-disadvantaged homes and overall student performance on standardized tests. Or, as the Brookings Institute reported in 2019: "income tracks with test performance." Lundquist-Arora also erroneously referred to these outcomes as "failure rates" rather than "pass rates" wherein she reveals either a strong commitment to a negative narrative and/or a fundamental lack of pedagogical background, since there has been a shift since the 1990's from a "Deficit" model to a "Growth" model which has been the dominant best-practice framework since the 2010s. A Deficit model focuses on what a student cannot do: it may perceive a student as broken and in the need of "fixing." In contrast, a Growth model focuses on what a student knows and builds upon that: students are seen as unique and capable, but may require some support (a.k.a., scaffolding) to achieve success. In Fairfax County, the school system, educators, the Fairfax NAACP, and education advocacy organizations have known and been concerned about opportunity gaps for decades. In fact, FCPS and local advocacy groups have worked hard to narrow opportunity gaps for various groups, including economically-disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English learners. Meanwhile propaganda Mean Girls merely take space in Project 2025-affilated publications like the Daily Signal and the Federalist to complain about those same students (see When Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Seeps into Public School Discussions), but do not lift a finger, much less a dollar, to support students or encourage positive student-focused change. Ignoring the fact that this opportunity gap among students of differing income levels is universal and caused by unequal distribution of resources, funding, and life experiences, Lundquist-Arora insisted that Fairfax and Loudoun counties are uniquely failing economically-disadvantaged students and these recent SOL results require "serious examination of whether Fairfax and Loudoun are getting sufficient academic returns on their substantial education spending." Oh my. She must really care.... But, does she care about economically-disadvantaged students when she has advocated against equity measures intended to support disadvantaged students and has repeatedly railed against rights of disadvantaged and marginalized groups? Does she care if she has never really looked at the data before to discover this income opportunity gap associated with standardized testing? Well, Lundquist-Arora also failed to share that the scores for economically-disadvantaged students have improved in the last two years anywhere from four to seven points in Fairfax County, which is an improvement of anywhere from 7 to 14% (see graph below). FCPS has been using targeted academic interventions, expanded math/literacy access, and strategic budgeting to successfully address opportunity gaps. Why ignore that kind of impressive change, unless it interfered with a Mean Girl Burn Book narrative? This author finds that "particularly disconcerting." What is worse, is that Lundquist-Arora's recent FCPS hit-pieces are using long-standing data on economically disadvantaged students to promote the firing of hundreds of hardworking FCPS instructional specialists, who Lundquist-Arora (and/or her Mean Girl partners) chose to name and shame by posting their salaries, positions, and names. Although this information is public information, many might consider this to be doxing, particularly when these employees are our neighbors, friends, and family members. (Note: 4PE has chosen not to link to the 26 pages of names collected and published by Lundquist-Arora.) Speaking of salaries, as a fellow "mom with a spreadsheet," this author would love to find out Lundquist-Aurora's compensation packages from her various Project 2025 gigs, since she manages to repeatedly complain about how much everyone else is making. Burn Books versus Real Reform The Mean Girl coalition of Project 2025, Fairfax GOP, and Salem Media collaborators have been running the same schtick for far too long, and we have all caught on to it. They claim to care about accountability and transparency but are they accountable to anyone else but those who sign their paychecks? Speaking of which, how much are those paychecks, and who is giving their marching orders? While they write Burn Books full of disinformation about FCPS accomplishments, they are standing in the way of progress and actual reform which can help solve opportunity gaps between average SOL scores and those of economically disadvantaged students. How can our schools solve these critical issues when Lundquist-Arora, her boss, and their friends are suing FCPS right and left? Real reform that creates long-lasting impactful change and improves the quality of K-12 public schools involves policies that focus directly on classroom support, evidence-based teaching practices, and student needs, rather than top-down political mandates or directives from Project 2025 Mean Girls. Real reform would involve community stakeholders, educators, and families working together with legislators to provide equitable pupil funding, fair compensation, and other resources to ensure that every child has access to high-quality education regardless of zip code, disability, or any other immutable characteristic. Daily Signal: Stop Trying to Make "Fetch" Happen Secretary McMahon and Lundquist-Arora This regular amplification of Daily Signal's opinion pieces feels very much like the scene from Mean Girls where Gretchen tries to create a new slang term, but fails miserably. Except in this case, Project 2025 is pretending that a paid author is "just a mom" or an "accidental activist" when she has been actively working with Project 2025 partners and/or the Trump Administration for at least four years. Honestly, that is even more cringe than "fetch." IWF, Heritage Foundation, Salem Media, and the Fairfax GOP are collectively trying to make Lundquist-Aurora's "fetch" happen, but their efforts are flopping. Despite their millions of dark money, political intentions, and anti-public school intentions, Northern Virginia knows that Daily Signal is just a Project 2025 propaganda tool and that cherry-picked data provided without context or links is as reliable as a Mean Girl burn book. It is getting to the point that their attacks on FCPS have the depth and consistency of plastic being led by a queen bee whose only hive seems to be a bunch of paid anti-public school collaborators. It's so fetch.

Secretary McMahon trashes Civil Rights protections in public schools What a difference 20 months can make! During the first 20 months of the Trump administration the priorities and regulations of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) changed so dramatically that it doesn’t seem to be the same agency.* Nowhere are the changes more evident than in their Office of Civil Rights (OCR). Historically, the OCR was the place where students, families and organizations lodged complaints about discrimination, harassment and unfair treatment related to public education. In the past, thousands of complaints were made to the ED each year. In fiscal year 2024, the OCR received 22,687 complaints, the highest number on record, and the office also resolved a record number of complaints that year. Most cases that were in progress or pending at the time of the 2025 inauguration involved diversity, equity and inclusion programs, disability complaints and policies that helped transgender students. Those cases were quickly frozen and there is no telling when, or even if, those cases will be addressed during the tenure of this administration. Prior to the 2025 Trump inauguration, ED priorities were aligned with those of most educators and families, including: Providing an excellent and equitable education to help each student achieve academic success; Closing the gap from pandemic learning loss, with the academic, social, emotional and mental health resources needed to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic; Providing educators and schools with the tools and resources to ensure students most impacted by the pandemic make strong academic progress and are able to succeed; Prioritizing equity and belonging by supporting students and educators in communities most in need; Strengthening the continuum from pre-kindergarten through grade 12 and beyond, including career pathways, higher education, and the workforce; Supporting educators to accelerate students’ learning; and, Providing equitable access to high-quality programs and resources to ensure students thrive, no matter their zip code. Broadly speaking, the Trump Administration ED priorities are now: Closing the ED; Expanding use of public funds for private schools; Dismantling “DEI” and “Gender Ideology” policies at state and local levels; Reversing the last five decades of civil rights advancements in public schools; Increasing artificial intelligence in education; and Advancing patriotic education. One would be hard pressed to find an educator, family, or student who would support such priorities for K-12 public schools. Extreme New Priorities for the Office of Civil Rights Since January 2025, the focus and priorities of the Trump Administration transformed the OCR. Instead of helping to resolve complaints of discrimination and harassment as was statutorily obligated, enforcement priorities changed for the OCR when the Trump Administration released Executive Order (EO) 14281, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, 90 FR 17537 (Apr. 28, 2025). With those and other new executive orders, priorities, and revised regulations, the Trump administration could now investigate schools that did not follow his new priorities and orders. Subsequently, the Trump Administration rewrote the ED regulations, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”), to be consistent with President Trump’s Executive Order which meant the removal of ‘disparate impact’ as grounds for enforcing civil rights laws. Disparate impact is a “key tool used to assess discrimination" and refers to discriminatory practices that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another group, whether intentional or not. Under the Trump revision, discrimination must be proved to be “intentional” to be considered discrimination, even if data demonstrates that one group is clearly negatively impacted more than another group (e.g., school discipline policies). So, as of July 2026, no longer was it the role of the OCR to ensure that students could receive a quality education free of discrimination. Radical Restructuring of the OCR In addition to revising the focus and priorities of the OCR, the Trump administration radically changed the structure of the office. A reduction in force removed half of the 520 employees and six of the 12 regional offices. But the most troubling structural change is how complaints will be handled: although complaints are still received by the OCR, under the ED-DOJ interagency agreement the complaints are referred to the U.S. Department of Justice’s civil rights office, where they will be evaluated, investigated, and many if not all of the complaints will be resolved by the DOJ. Historically complaints were evaluated and resolved by the OCR. This change in civil rights law enforcement is troubling because the two departments operate in very different ways. The OCR was required to consider every complaint it received, with resolutions often negotiated between parties by the OCR. In contrast, the DOJ tends to pursue litigation. Also, the transfer of responsibility to the DOJ may provide more power and effective legal options to the Trump administration to investigate and prosecute schools and districts that are not following the administration’s policies on DEI and transgender students. In 2025 the Trump administration withheld billions of dollars from public schools while the administration determined whether those school programs aligned with President Trump’s priorities. For example, investigations were initiated into 43 school districts in three states to determine how they taught about sexuality and gender identity, and whether parents are given the opportunity to opt their children out of lessons that conflict with religious beliefs. Already more than half (27) of the states in the nation have agreed to restrict transgender girls from participating in girls' athletics. As of September 17, 2026, the OCR has initiated at least 211 investigations of schools based on revised priorities by the Trump administration rather than actual complaints from students, families or organizations. Recently the administration threatened the tax-exempt status of private schools that give race-based preference in admissions. Source: https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/see-which-schools-trumps-education-department-is-investigating-and-why/2025/03 More Cuts Expected at the OCR There is no indication that the radical changes to the ED are over. The President’s budget submitted to Congress last spring calls for continued cuts to the OCR as part of an overall 35 percent cut to civil rights office funding for FY2027. Meanwhile the enhanced power of the Trump Administration to investigate and litigate can financially burden, and possibly break, school districts that want to challenge the Trump administration’s interpretation of civil rights laws. Due to the abdication of OCR responsibilities by the Trump Administration, students and their families are being left vulnerable to discrimination and harassment because the OCR cannot support them as it once did. This will have the greatest effect on students of color and other marginalized students who tend to face higher rates of discrimination and harassment. The guardrails once in place have been removed and the new system limits the ability of the federal government to protect students from harm as they pursue their education. * The federal government’s role in public education is to provide targeted funding, enforce civil rights, set national standards in specific areas, and support innovation and equity, while leaving core governance to states and localities. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants the states authority over education.

Lake Braddock protest over weapons duties At Lake Braddock Secondary School, instructional employees have spent the past year drawing a clear line: school safety matters, but weapons detection duty should not be assigned to teachers and other instructional staff as if it were part of their regular professional role. Union members at Lake Braddock have moved from informal conversations to a formal grievance. They met with school leadership, circulated a petition with 82 signatures, elevated their concerns to regional and district leaders, and, when those steps did not resolve the issue, filed a grievance under Regulation 4465. That grievance has now reached its final stage. The matter is in the hands of the School Board and is being scheduled for an all-day public hearing before a hearings officer on Wednesday, September 23, 2026 at 9am at the Gatehouse Administration Center (8115 Gatehouse Road Falls Church). The dispute is about more than one duty post at one school. It raises a basic question for school systems across the country: when districts add new safety procedures, who is responsible for carrying them out, and where is the line between supporting a safe school and assigning employees work outside their job description? What can the Fairfax Community do? Community members, educators, families, and labor allies can help by paying attention to the September 23rd hearing and its outcome. The core issue is simple enough to explain in one sentence: instructional employees are challenging a weapons detection assignment they believe falls outside their professional responsibilities and job description. Support can take several forms: Attend the all-day public hearing on September 23rd. Follow updates from the impacted staff and their union. Encourage decision-makers to respect job descriptions and assign safety work to properly designated staff. Share media coverage from NBC4, DCNewsNow, and WUSA9 so more people understand the issue. The most useful support stays focused. This is not a debate over whether schools should be safe. Everyone in the school community wants safety. The dispute is about whether the district can place weapons detection duty on instructional employees and call it part of their professional role. The core issue is the meaning of instructional work Every school employee contributes to safety in some way. Teachers notice changes in student behavior. Counselors support students in crisis. Classroom staff help maintain routines and relationships that make schools feel stable. Administrators coordinate emergency protocols. Security staff and other trained personnel carry specific safety responsibilities. The Lake Braddock grievance focuses on where those roles begin and end. The workers’ argument is that weapons detection duty is not an instructional task. It is not lesson planning. It is not assessment. It is not student support in the ordinary educational sense. It is not classroom management. It is not the same as supervising a hallway between classes or monitoring a cafeteria as part of a schoolwide rotation. It is a security function. That distinction matters because job descriptions exist for a reason. They define expectations, training needs, accountability, and the basic bargain between employer and employee. When a district assigns a duty that workers believe falls outside that bargain, it can create several problems at once. It can pull educators away from preparation, parent communication, student support, and other duties tied directly to instruction. It can expose them to responsibilities they may not be trained to handle. It can also blur accountability if an incident occurs. Finally, it can harm their relationship with students who need their support in the classroom. The Lake Braddock petition became a key step before the formal grievance. Why is this Important to Fairfax County Families? Public action can serve several purposes in a labor dispute. It informs families about working conditions inside the school. It signals to decision-makers that employees are organized and willing to speak openly. It also helps workers frame the issue in their own words rather than letting the employer define the dispute alone. In this case, the public message is direct: instructional employees should not be assigned weapons detection duty as part of their regular responsibilities. That message does not reject school safety measures. It challenges who carries them out. The distinction matters for families, too. Parents and caregivers want safe schools. They also want teachers focused on teaching, planning, grading, communicating, and supporting students. If the district relies on instructional staff to fill security functions, families deserve to understand what tradeoffs that creates and how it affects their student's education. Teachers argue that instructional responsibilities should remain centered on student learning. Fairfax County School Board's Role The September 23rd public hearing is the final stage of the grievance. That gives the hearing both procedural and symbolic weight: Procedurally, it is the moment when the grievance reaches the School Board level and is heard before a hearings officer where arguments, facts, and interpretation of Regulation 4465 will be tested in a formal setting. Symbolically, it is a public answer to a year of organizing. The workers have already shown that they are willing to use multiple tools: internal advocacy, petitions, escalation, a formal grievance, protest, and media outreach. Each step has built toward this hearing. The School Board’s role is central because the issue now sits at the intersection of policy and practice, and they should decide a complicated question: If instructional employees can be assigned weapons detection duty, then the district needs to explain how that fits within IPR and the job description. If it does not fit, the district needs to stop assigning it to those workers and identify an appropriate staffing solution. For the workers involved, this is the point where a local concern becomes a public record. The question is no longer just whether a principal or administrator can assign a specific post. The question is whether the district can define core instructional work broadly enough to include weapons detection duty, even when educators say that assignment is not what they were hired, trained, or paid to do. That makes the September 23rd hearing especially important. The outcome could affect more than the employees who filed. A decision may shape how similar disputes are handled later, especially if other schools assign safety-related duties to educators in ways that raise the same job description concerns. Thus, this hearing gives School Board members an opportunity to show how seriously they take worker voice. Any Outcome will reach beyond Lake Braddock School districts across the United States face real pressure to improve safety. Communities expect leaders to prevent harm, respond to threats, and reassure families that students are protected. But safety plans can fail when they depend on stretching job roles instead of building the right staffing model. When new duties appear, they often land on the employees already closest to students. That can happen because they are present, because schedules are tight, or because leaders believe everyone should share responsibility. In schools, that often means teachers and other instructional staff absorb tasks that are only loosely connected to instruction. Over time, those extra duties add up. A few minutes here and there can become lost planning time. A temporary assignment can become routine. A safety measure can become a staffing shortcut. A vague phrase like “other duties as assigned” can become a way to avoid the harder question of whether a task belongs in the role at all. The Lake Braddock grievance challenges that extra duty drift. It asks the district to respect the difference between supporting a safe school and performing a security function. It also asks leaders to recognize that educators’ time is not empty space to be filled with whatever urgent need appears next. That does not mean districts should ignore safety concerns. It means they should address safety with proper staffing, clear responsibilities, and respect for the people doing the work. Actually, if you think about it, the Lake Braddock union grievance is really about being a Lake Braddock Bruin (see Lake Braddock shared vision below). Professional instructional staff should be focused on developing Lake Braddock students' knowledge, skills, and understanding of self and community, not monitoring weapons detectors. These Lake Braddock teachers used their voice, choice, and innovative approaches to advocate for themselves and their community. Now, is our opportunity to support them.

Centreville High School: An SUV and students in the crosswalk (PHOTO: Molly Sullivan) UPDATE: ON 9/15/26, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGREED TO REINSTATE CROSSING GUARDS AT THE AFFECTED HIGH SCHOOLS Fairfax County budget constraints eliminated crossing guards at ten high schools in Fairfax County, and a student has already been hospitalized after being hit by a car. Most of these schools are located on highly trafficked multi-lane roads that can be heavily congested during rush hour in the morning and afternoon, right when students are arriving and leaving school. Needless to say everyone is distracted at those times of the day, so it is unsurprising, yet still truly horrible, that on the seventh morning of the new school year, a student was hit by a car outside South Lakes High School, as reported by Hunter Mill School Board Member Melanie Meren. The entire community hopes that they will recover quickly, and students will be protected. This is exactly what everyone was worried about when the crossing guards were removed from the ten high schools around Fairfax County, particularly at Centreville, Edison, West Springfield, and South Lakes high schools. If the Board of Supervisors (BoS) and Fairfax County Police Department (FCPD) don’t make changes immediately, they will not recover from this, because it’s only a matter of time before a student dies. No one will forgive themselves for that. First, this is a nonpartisan issue. Republicans and Democrats should unite on this effort to keep kids safe. In fact, Supervisor Pat Herrity, School Board member Sandy Anderson, Delegate Laura Jane Cohen, and parents from across the county are advocating for the return of these necessary school crossing services provided by the FCPD and funded by the BoS. The safety of our children should surmount partisan bickering. Second, please immediately contact your BoS representative (find your BoS here) and Chairman Jeff McKay (chairman@fairfaxcounty.gov) to demand crossing guards be returned to our high schools. The BoS holds the purse strings and they are responsible for the defunding of these positions. While you are at it, be sure to cc your school board member and Virginia Delegate or Senator (find your representative's contact here), for good measure, so they can keep track of the level of Fairfax County support for this much needed safety measure. If this is not solved soon, please consider providing testimony for the BoS hearing on September 15th (click here). “Surely, it’s worth the resources to save our children.” - Melanie Meren, Hunter Mill School Board Representative Finally, the BoS holds the purse strings, which means the buck stops with them. However, their funding is directly related to unfulfilled funding requests and requirements from the federal and state government, and demands by Fairfax County residents. If you want to play the “blame game,” there is enough blame to go around, but honestly, that is not particularly helpful right now. The primary focus should be on keeping our high school students safe from Fairfax County traffic. 4 Public Education will provide a blog shortly to provide more details about how this came to happen. It is important to know what went wrong, so that we can all prevent this from happening again. But right now, we just want to empower you and provide the tools to advocate for the safety of Fairfax County Students. Photo shared by: Molly “Sully” Sullivan, FCPS teacher and parent, candidate for School Board Sully District. Molly is one of the hundreds of brave parents keeping an eye on the students as they cross the busy streets of Fairfax County. UPDATE! Since the student was hit at 7:54 this morning, it seems that there is movement on the issue, but that does not mean anyone should slow down their advocacy. Here are statements by FCPS, At-Large School Board member Kyle McDaniel, and Sully Supervisor Walter Alcorn: "This morning, a South Lakes High School student was hit by a car as he crossed the street to school. While we are thankful that the student’s injuries are not serious, this incident serves as a reminder of the critical importance of having crossing guards and other traffic and pedestrian safety measures at our high schools. As we consider longer-term improvements, we have requested that the County restore crossing guards to our high schools with the greatest safety concerns, which includes South Lakes High School. We encourage students, families, and drivers to use extra caution when traveling to and from school, follow all traffic laws, and remain alert for pedestrians and other vehicles. The welfare of our students, staff, and community remains a top priority." - FCPS "I have been in conversation with the Superintendent, School Board Members, and Supervisors across the County to create a solution to this situation. I am optimistic that we can restore crossing guard functions at our high schools through a combination of police officers, crossing guards, school resource officers, and working with VDOT and FCPS Safe Routes to Schools staff. Safety remains a top priority, and I am working diligently to create a sustainable solution." - Kyle McDaniel “I was very sorry to hear about the student hit by a car exiting the South Lakes High School drop-off this morning. While this is not the intersection where a school crossing guard was previously posted, this incident highlights that our school safety programs should not be the target of discretionary cuts. The Board of Supervisors should restore funding for school crossing guards at the other South Lakes Drive entrance — the flag pole entrance — and any other high school that presents an unacceptable risk. During last spring’s budget discussions, I unsuccessfully asked Chairman McKay that high school crossing guards be spared from budget cuts, and cosponsored last week’s board matter that asked for risky crossings to be reviewed and considered for funding restoration or other improvements at the carryover budget review later this month." - Walter Alcorn

All Virginia News brought to you by the Loudoun GOP Stealth Political Propaganda Hidden in Your Local News Click to read more In the crowded online news landscape, distinguishing truly independent outlets from those with hidden agendas is challenging. 4 Public Education has investigated controversial online media sites--All Virginia News (AVN) and Red Virginia News (RVN)--only to find out that they are compromised by partisan politics and run by a a local political party, the Loudoun GOP, without transparency or accountability. All Virginia News = Pink Slime Journalism This type of media is more commonly known as "pink slime" journalism, which is "named after a meat byproduct and describes outlets that publish poor quality" reporting as local news. Effectively, pink slime journalism is "journalism for clicks" where artificial intelligence (AI), using templates and automated content production, creates "news," typically to push a partisan narrative. In fact, an independent review of AVN and RVN has identified that they are using a "pink slime" master template configured for political behavioral profiling, which means they are using data-driven profiling to feed target audiences tailored, hyper-targeted propaganda disguised as independent local news. And they may even be harvesting your personal data.... Kind of terrifying, right? And you just thought you were watching Facebook reels! More on this below. Unfortunately, pink slime journalism become more common as it has has taken the place of independent, accountable news media, due to print and tv media bankruptcies, employee layoffs, and/or larger conglomerates exerting more control over the media produced (e.g., Sinclair Media which runs WJLA ABC7 in the Washington DC area). Two Loudoun GOP Propaganda Sites for the Price of One! After being inundated with Facebook reels from both AVN and RVN in the Spring, this author began investigating the media groups, their content, and their websites. Both websites' design resemble traditional news outlets, bolstering their credibility, but both lack transparency about ownership, funding, and clear editorial guidelines. Interestingly, RVN is transparent about its bias: it purports to be "The Greatest Republican Leaning Newspaper in Virginia." However, its sister site, AVN, is less clear about its biased agenda with only hints at its subversive right-wing spin. For example AVN's editorial style mixes factual reporting with opinionated language, thus blurring the line between news and commentary, and its content often pivots from straight reporting to criticize progressive organizations and echo GOP propaganda. It was surprising to discover that BOTH media sites, AVN and RVN, were originally hosted by the Loudoun County Republican Committee (LCRC, a.k.a., the Loudoun GOP), with former LCRC chairman Scott Pio filing Articles of Organization for AVN and RVN in Spring 2026, and the new LCRC chairman George Taplin filing an annual report for RVN in late July 2026. At this time, it appears that both "news" sites are now located on AVN servers. Of course, none of this information is disclosed on their websites or social media accounts. Instead to find out that the Loudoun GOP is behind TWO "news media" sites, it requires knowledge of how to search for business entities via the Virginia State Corporation Commission website. Technical Analysis of the Propaganda Sites The News should be Honest about Republican Handlers! After the publication of this author's August 4, 2026 blog tying AVN and RVN to the Loudoun GOP, 4PE was contacted by multiple people regarding revelations in the blog. The most enlightening feedback came from a local dad who performed digital forensic analysis on the websites. He found that both allvirginia.news and redvirginianews.com inject the identical site kit by Google plugin on their posts and pages to drive and analyze marketing and visitor traffic. Of course, anyone with eyes can see this, since their style and branding looks almost identical, especially since the AVN and RVN often cover the same subjects (see below), but it was nice to have it confirmed through a technical analysis. Significantly, the email domains of AVN and RVN were both originally hosted on the Loudoun GOP server (below) during the 2024 campaign season, which opens up questions about LCRC campaign finances that are outside of this author's "pay" grade. Someone more knowledgeable of campaign finances could review Loudoun GOP's campaign finance reports (CFR) from those time periods to determine whether these were accounted for correctly. But significant questions remain about data harvesting and finances: Did the Loudoun GOP create an engine for non-consensual data-harvesting while masquerading as "independent news" outlets? Did the Loudoun GOP respect Virginia voters by providing opt-outs to data harvesting? If this technical infrastructure is directly subsidized by the LCRC, how are they recording these political expenditures? Are they violating the law? E.g., there are no "Paid for by LCRC" stickers on any of these digital communications, which may be required by Va. Code § 24.2-956.1. Finally, AVN, RVN, and RVN's parent group, Virginia Guardian, are all hosted on the same server. This would be unusual, except that they are all run by the same political group: the Loudoun GOP. The three groups now use one email server: mail.allvirginia.news (see below). These three media groups sharing servers and email hosts should concern anyone who consumes news, because without transparency about the media source, its bias, or even its reporters, then is it "news" or is it just pink slime propaganda masquerading as news? Attempted Influence in the Democratic Primary As has been already been established (repeatedly), AVN is run by the LCRC without any disclosure to its readers. Since AVN's influence extends beyond online readership into social media and broader conversations, it is shaping narratives around school districts and political figures, thus it can influence both public opinion and local elections. In fact, overt influence was visible on January 29, 2026 when AVN published an anonymous report about a primary school board candidate for the Braddock district, Tom Dannan. The hit piece was heavy on innuendo and hyperbole, and it (see below) was so poorly researched and written that the link had his name misspelled as "Tom Dannen." In fact, AVN failed to even name Dannan's February 28th democratic primary opponent, Ms. Alexa Krezel. Nevertheless, the rumor promulgated by AVN about Dannan's association with ICE and Homeland Security swept through progressive circles in Fairfax County, creating confusion and concern, thereby impacting his reputation during the Democratic primary, which ran from January 16 to February 28, 2026. This same January 29th AVN piece heavily highlighted Dannan's future Republican opponent, Saundra Davis, for the upcoming Braddock District School Board race on March 3, 2026. Not only did AVN share Davis's political platform in the very first paragraph of the piece, but AVN worked hard to portray Dannan's future opponent as a qualified, "independent" candidate, despite her long-time Republican associations and failed efforts to recall School Board members. Fortunately, despite AVN's best efforts, Dannan handily won the March 3rd race. Stealth Propaganda in a Confusing Media Landscape In a world where studies have shown that people are more likely to trust fake local news web sites over real news, pink slime news websites like AVN and RVN can slither their way into a community in the absence of local newpapers. While AVN and RVN present themselves as independent media, they are stealth Republican propaganda sites, increasing polarization and mistrust in the community. Ethical journalism requires transparency and accountability so that people know who is writing for, funding, and hosting a news media website. AVN and RVN have provided none of that information. In fact, they have been careful to hide the most basic facts about who funds, hosts, or even writes for the media sites. This should concern every Virginian, and possibly regulators due to the political nature and influence of these media sites. Other key points to remember about AVN and RVN: They were hosted by the LCRC (aka, Loudoun GOP). Former LCRC chairman Scott Pio registered them with the Commonwealth of Virginia. They use seemingly identical Google site kits for posts and pages to drive and analyze marketing and visitor traffic. Their data-harvesting tactics are concerning, particularly without a privacy notice to consumers. There are open questions about campaign finances and Virginia law associated with these websites, hosting, etc. None of this information is revealed on their webpages or social media sites. All Virginians, no matter their political party, should be concerned about this. Independence and non-partisan perspective in journalism is crucial for public trust, especially when covering sensitive topics like education, local policy, and other news. In the crowded landscape of online news, it can be difficult to distinguish truly independent (i.e., not controlled by or tied to a political party) or non-partisan outlets from those with hidden agendas. Media literacy is essential to critically analyze and evaluate media content. Sites like AVN and RVN highlight the need to question sources and motives behind news.