Search Results

A Strong Student Production of Kinky Boots While several hate groups descended on the FCPS high school last weekend, the students, teachers, and families of West Potomac High School chose to work together, put on an excellent show, and have a great time. Like their shirts said, “You can change the world when you change your mind.”  The administrators, parents, students, and educators who put their hearts, souls, and bodies on the line for this production should be commended. They created a welcoming atmosphere in the midst of an astroturfed  protest. They made attendees feel safe despite the need for increased police and security presence. They created a show that made us forget the silliness and hate outside, so that we could be in community with each other while watching a performance of a lifetime. I was struck by the set design, which resembled working-class neighborhoods from the United Kingdom. Of course, center stage were public restrooms, marked with a male and female icon, which is why protestors were outside. Binary bathrooms in a multifaceted world have become the center of political protests around the country. I hope the strong, subtle statement was not lost on others attending. The show was phenomenal. Each person’s character resonated with their performance, including their use of working-class English diction and delightfully expressive costumes. Each actor sang well despite some exceptionally challenging songs.  Of course the star of the show was Lola. Her dancing, singing, and humor were of professional quality. I felt her pain, joy, and fervent hope for love and acceptance. I loved how the main characters (Lola and Charlie Price) were so similar despite their differences: both felt driven and abandoned by their fathers. Their stories and friendship reminded the audience to speak from our hearts and listen with our whole unbiased mind. I’ve heard some folks question why there was a drag brunch. Personally, I think that it added to the understanding of a community and offered an opportunity for students to learn and see people with whom they may feel a kinship; however, it was also wildly entertaining. We were thrilled watching Orpheus Rose do back flips (video below) and cheekily snag some brunch, or Pirouette dance her soul out. After the drag brunch, my eighty year old dad had a lovely conversation with Dixie Crystal, MC and drag mother to both Orpheus and Pirouette.   Typically, neither musicals nor drag shows are my cup of tea, but I’m glad that I attended both last Saturday with a bunch of other board members from 4 Public Education and FCPS Pride. I was challenged, informed, and entertained, which is why art is necessary in this world, because it challenges your assumptions, prejudices, and senses. The Protestors Outside Outside, about 30 protestors stood on the median and sidewalk, distracting traffic at the entrance to West Potomac High School. We even saw one woman step out in front of a car and nearly get hit. At one point, these “moral citizens” even shouted at a teacher who walked by to “EAT A SALAD” revealing that in their heart, they behaved like immature bullies. Thankfully, their bagpipe music drowned out much of their hateful comments. For the most part, their signs were either horrifically offensive or nonsensical, but one made me giggle: "FCPS is a drag." I always appreciate humor over hate. If it isn’t clear, the protestors seemed to be more interested in provoking locals than having an honest conversation, as evidenced by the professional cameras pointed at the counter-protesters the whole time. Fortunately, the counter-protesters were FCPS parents, students, grandparents, and Kinky Boots ticket holders, so the protestors didn’t capture anything exciting on camera, despite one of them entering the school and secretly filming West Potomac parents and teachers. A couple of these protestors paid to attend the drag show brunch. Of course, they couldn’t just watch the show, but felt compelled to cause a disturbance by dropping white powder from a sandwich baggie near the stage. I wish I were joking, but this is what happened. Of course, being who I am, I immediately approached them to ask what was in the baggie. They told me that it was sacrificial salt, but who knows what it actually was. Based on their responses to my questions and comments, they felt it was their right to violate rules of school and perceived safety of attendees. Their sacrificial salt looked exactly like imitation drugs or anthrax to me–if they were students, they could have been expelled.  I’m not sure why they felt driven to pour an unidentified powder on the floor of a school theater, but they refused to understand how such behavior could be perceived as threatening. However, anyone who remembers the anthrax scares post-9/11 , would not be amused by their actions. Such behavior makes people think twice about attending–in fact, how was their behavior any different than a bomb scare? Although these two women didn’t do any direct harm, their behavior was still threatening, particularly under the circumstances of the angry protest of hate and local republican groups outside.  Reportedly, only one West Potomac parent participated in the protest, while the most of the protestors came in from outside the school district and represented multiple known hate groups who have caused disturbances and spread hateful messages in Georgetown  and around the country.  TFP Student Action: One of the defined hate groups was TFP Student Action –they were the young men wearing the red capes. TFP Student Action is the campus outreach component of “The American TFP” which has been cited by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a hate group for their “virulently anti-LGBT” views . Media Bias/Fact Check  shares that American TFP is a “far-right hate group that publishes false and misleading information,” which was confirmed by my quick review of their social media pages which were littered with victimization videos declaring how evil the “left” is, despite their 501(c)(3) status.  American TFP is organized under the name “The Foundation for a Christian Civilization, Inc.” which seems to have christo-fascist leanings and direct ties to religious and political right and the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank . It is also a participating sponsor of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the annual political conference attended by republicans that involves far right extremists  and gives a platform to conspiracy theories . Public Advocate of the United States: The second group, “Public Advocate of the United States,” was classified as a hate group by the SPLC in 2012. It is run by Eugene Delgaudio, a man so infamous that he has his own wikipedia page . Per the Washington Post , this former Loudoun Supervisor has a long history of anti-gay actions and words, which were so concerning that his resignation was demanded in 2012. Delgaudio was censured in 2013 by the all republican Loudoun board of supervisors for various improprieties , including potential misuse of public resources  after a months-long investigation by a special jury. Colonial Mount Vernon Republican Women's Club: One other group who participated in the protest was the Colonial Mount Vernon Republican Women’s Club, whose president is former school board candidate Stori Zimmerman (who lost in 2023 to Mr. Mateo Dunne). The student-run Potomac Wire  interviewed an unnamed protestor from this group who declared that Kinky Boots was “inappropriate for high school level students” and expressed deep (illogical) concern about the fact that a board member of FCPS Pride was part of the community talk-back after a Saturday matinee. Sadly, the republican women's group and Fairfax GOP lead the charge against West Potomac students, parents, and educators, as evidenced by numerous posts on their official web page (see above and here ). These posts seem to ignore "parents rights" (and constitutional rights!) to attend and support musicals like Kinky Boots. As a parent, I don't want an outside group to abridge my parental rights to buy a ticket to attend a delightful student theater production and associated events with my child and her grandfather. Nor, do I want outside groups that coordinate with known SPLC-defined hate groups to tell my Superintendent, Principal, School Board member(s), or school employees what to do. On a side note: As co-leader and a long-time member of FCPS Pride , I find the comments of this Colonial Mount Vernon Republican Women’s Club to the Potomac Wire  about FCPS parents and teachers from my group to be both ignorant and inflammatory. She indicated that the board members of FCPS Pride are somehow dangerous when we are parents and teachers in FCPS . Such a comment is offensive, verging on defamatory. She also made claims that we are not background-checked, even though that is not a requirement for in school activities. This statement is also false, since FCPS Pride board members are teachers and community volunteers, both of which require background checks. Is she background checked? I highly doubt it. How can YOU Change the World? “As educators, we need to shine the light on subject matters and events happening in the world that need to be addressed and talked about,” Mr. Cruz, director of the show,  described. “Change doesn’t happen by not addressing things. And right now, the LGBTQ community needs advocates.” [quote] It is well known that school board members, staff, the superintendent, and principal all received hate mail from multiple sources who objected to the production. One of the known hate groups, TFP, set up auto-links to send emails to Ms. Jessica Statz, the West Potomac principal. Mr. Mateo Dunne (Mt. Vernon School Board member) and Dr. Michelle Reid also received emails. This caught the attention of national groups like Parents Defending Education, another SPLC-defined hate group, which has employed local activists   against FCPS  and other public school systems  over the last few years. It has been said that positive emails outweighed the negative ones. But just in case, consider sending an email to Principal Statz, Dr. Reid, or Mr. Dunne to say thank you for standing up for our students and community.   To Principal Statz, West Potomac High School Dr Reid, FCPS Superintendent Mr. Dunne, Mt. Vernon School Board Member Also, consider supporting the theater programs at your local high schools. They have exceptional performances--a play in the fall and a musical in the spring--by high school students who are talented and committed. Each year, pledge to see two performances, or donate some money to support the programs. You will not be disappointed.

June is only two days away, so you might want to pull out the rainbow gear (and some sunscreen!) to attend local pride events, most of which are fun for the whole family. There are so many that you may want to plan your weekend around them. As co-leader of FCPS Pride , I plan to attend multiple festivals this Saturday, June 1st. I hope to see some of you there! But there are even more events all day on June 1st and all month during June. Check out the full list below for an event near you.

The Gaslighting Continues while Youngkin Explains away his Vetoes Although Governor Glenn Youngkin claims to be making education his priority , his actions continue to tell a different story.  While setting a new record  for the number of bills vetoed in a single year, the Governor all but eliminated the General Assembly’s ability to act on recommendations  for K-12 education from the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC). The compromise budget that passed did not address the critical underfunding of K-12 education but instead used one time funds to delay the crisis. In addition, the governor continued to fearmonger as he wasted the chance to help many more Virginia’s students succeed.  The Governor misled Virginians when he claimed that enough additional funding had been given to K-12 education which he announced was “nearly 10% increase over the previous biennium.” This amount does not keep up with inflation which was about 15% during that interval and does nothing to solve the ongoing serious underfunding of k-12 education in Virginia.  The one-time funding that was provided  this year used “ a variety of tactics  that may jeopardize our ability to support these critical investments in the future” according to The Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis. Instead of lawmakers “updating our tax code to reflect the economy we live in today,” our Governor allowed the budget surplus to temporarily bridge the gap in K-12 education this next year.  Here, we will evaluate the legitimacy of the explanations the Governor gave for why he vetoed 4 Public Education’s priority bills, most of which passed with bipartisan support in the General Assembly.  Teacher Compensation In addition to concluding that K-12 education in Virginia is seriously underfunded, JLARC provided recommendations  on how to alleviate the worsening teacher shortage. However, little was done this session to codify changes that would resolve that issue.  Two General Assembly bills HB187  and  SB105  intended to raise teacher salaries to meet the national average by the 2027-28 school year and they passed with bipartisan votes. Yet the Governor vetoed these bills and provided a rationale with no basis in fact that “Virginia’s average teacher pay was already projected to exceed the national average this fiscal year.” Not only is teacher pay in Virginia NOT “projected to exceed the national average this fiscal year,” Virginia  will need to raise teacher pay  by 14% over the 2026-27 and 2027-28 school years to get to the national average by 2028.  Also, the Governor is mistaken that “ teacher salaries have increased by 23% since 2021.”  Anyone can access data contradicting Youngkin’s claim on the VDOE Education Workforce Data & Reports  webpage. According to those data–if one used the correct way to calculate the change–average teacher salaries increased during that interval by  10.7%,  not 23% as the Governor claims. However, it is clear that teacher pay in Virginia is not even keeping up with inflation, since inflation during that interval was 15.75% !  Although this year’s suggested 3% raise for teachers’ salaries was made possible due to an unplanned budget surplus, there is no requirement to raise salaries in the future because the teacher salary bills were vetoed by Youngkin. Without a budget surplus, what will happen in the future? We should remember the warning from the previous President of the Virginia Board of Education, Daniel Gecker , “[W]e cannot expect to attract and retain a high-quality cadre of teachers if we continually underpay the profession relative to other college graduates.”  Authorization to hold a referendum to support schools Of course, there is abundant evidence  that K-12 education is NOT adequately funded in Virginia, but both Governor Youngkin  and his Board of Education  continue to claim that Virginia K-12 schools are adequately funded. Besides the JLARC report citing evidence to the contrary, in 2023, the previous president of the Virginia Board of Education, Daniel Gecker , warned that, We are “starving the [school] system of resources.”  As if it wasn’t bad enough that the state could not better fund the schools, now the Governor has deprived local jurisdictions from finding a way to fund their schools! By vetoing HB803 and SB14 , the Governor prevented localities from holding referendums to consider increasing sales taxes to help fund their local public schools; even though, those bills passed the General Assembly with bipartisan votes and  would have enabled local residents to decide (through a referendum) whether they should increase sales taxes to better fund their schools.  In Virginia, local governments shoulder a significant portion of the burden of funding public schools because the Commonwealth pays a much smaller proportion  of school expenses, but now localities are handicapped by Governor Youngkin’s veto from even raising funds locally! There are few other local options other than the overwhelmingly unpopular option of increasing property taxes. Essentially, Youngkin tied local governments' hands while forcing them to open their pockets to avoid teacher layoffs and underfunded schools. By vetoing these bills, the Governor can brag that Virginia has no new taxes. In truth, he succeeded at that by underfunding education and preventing localities from increasing funding to their schools even if they wanted to.  Restorative Student Discipline Governor Youngkin vetoed two bills that would have reformed how schools approach student discipline. He  justified  his vetoes of SB 586  and HB 398  by claiming that Virginia is in the midst of a school discipline crisis, that teachers are concerned about decaying discipline, and that he objected to “forcing school administrators to first utilize restorative practices rather than immediately suspending or otherwise disciplining students who are violent in school.”  The Governor used these vetoes to present his “tough on crime” agenda but failed to acknowledge that restorative discipline, outlined in the bills, was not meant to be used for serious or violent infractions. Instead, this reform was meant for less serious infractions to decrease suspensions and expulsions from schools in order to mitigate a cycle of exclusion that can lead to academic disengagement and increased student involvement with the justice system, neither of which is necessary or helpful for minor issues.  Punitive measures are too often used as a first resort, especially for students of color and disabled students. In fact, it was reported  that the Commonwealth of Virginia had the highest rate of school-based criminal referrals in 2015, and referrals were disproportionately greater for disabled and black students.  Since 2015 there have been other unsuccessful attempts  to reform school disciplinary practices but Youngkin’s vetoes will ensure that Virginia will remain the state that leads in referring students to law enforcement for even the slightest offenses. Thus Virginia will continue to support the school-to-prison pipeline . Sadly, we know that other approaches are more effective , including approaches like community service, mentoring, peer juries, and peer counseling, all of which can foster peer and staff relationships while repairing harm to the injured party.  Bills SB 586  and HB 398  were championed by Chlo’e Edwards, Policy Director  at New Virginia Majority , and were aligned with the new federal guidelines  for reducing the high rates of discipline for students with disabilities and potentially discriminatory behavior by school administrators and law enforcement. The intent of the bills was to reduce the number of suspensions, expulsions, and other punitive disciplinary actions in cases where students may be able to benefit from initial use mentoring and peery counseling, as part of “restorative disciplinary practices.”  Sadly, because of Youngkin’s veto, Virginia public schools will not be encouraged to use the evidence-based, restorative discipline approaches that would provide opportunities for positive and instructive responses to misconduct. Students will be denied the opportunity to develop the self discipline and appropriate conduct they will need to grow into emotionally healthy adults. The use of restorative discipline could have provided many advantages to students. For example, a 2023 study  found that high rates of student exposure to restorative practices at school also increased achievement and reduced mental health challenges.  Governor Youngkin’s explanation  for vetoing HB 398  and SB586  shows he values his “tough on crime” agenda over the needs of actual students , much less their parents. According to Edwards, “The punishment doesn’t fit the crime." In Virginia, only 5 percent of out-of- school suspensions are given for serious or dangerous disciplinary incidents, such as possession of a weapon or drugs on campus. We are talking about our youth, not criminals. Furthermore, the bills had exemptions for inherently violent offenses and aggravated circumstances.  Funding for At-Risk students Virginia law acknowledges  that “poor children are more at risk of educational failure than children from more affluent homes,” so it follows that students  from low income families require additional resources. The Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis reported  that: “More money is needed for low-income students because they require additional services and supports, like early childhood learning so they enter kindergarten with basic skills, and additional instruction and remediation for struggling students. The schools serving these students also need to provide salaries that attract and retain the best teachers, which can be more expensive in high-poverty communities. These types of investments have been shown to be effective nationwide in improving test scores and graduation rates, and even improving adult earnings.” Governor Youngkin has tried to blame student achievement gaps in the Commonwealth on unrelated issues , but it is clear that providing more funding to at-risk students would help close achievement gaps. HB 624 and SB 105  intended to establish an At-Risk Program to provide support services for students who are educationally at risk. These bills were aligned with the Governor’s interest to close the achievement gap among students, so it is surprising that he vetoed these bills that would help to close that gap! However, the Governor gave an excuse that the bills would have “significant changes to education funding ” so before the funding for at-risk students is codified, Youngkin wants the funding formula to be studied. The Governor noted a review of the Commonwealth’s funding formula is due by November 1, 2024.  Meanwhile, the budget surplus provided one year of funding to better support at-risk students. Like so many other parts of the K-12 education budget, we don’t know what will happen to at-risk student support when we do not have a surplus budget. We can not rely on future budget surpluses to fund our at-risk students. At the same time, Virginia lags behind other states in funding for at-risk students.   Where do Education Advocates go from here? Lawmakers and public school advocates are breathing a temporary sigh of relief because education priorities have been funded for the next fiscal year. What has not been resolved is what will happen in subsequent years when there are no surplus funds. For that reason we do not have the luxury of resting in our education advocacy. We must continue to push to get funding and needed reforms codified into Virginia law by encouraging lawmakers to reintroduce the vetoed bills and also by helping to get them passed in the 2025 General Assembly session. Budget decisions made at the state-level have serious local consequences. Angst and anger have marred meetings of Boards of Supervisors and School Boards across the Commonwealth because funding from the state was inadequate relative to the needs of public schools. Now that the Governor has vetoed the referendum bill, which is a way localities could raise their own funds, there is not much that local officials can do to bridge the gap of public school needs versus available funds. So, be sure to point in the right direction when it comes to Virginia’s budget . Virginians must stay vigilant and evaluate the truthfulness of what the Governor says. Over the past couple of years Governor Youngkin has frequently provided inaccurate information in an apparent attempt to sway public opinion. In addition to the examples provided above in this article, 4 Public Education has identified inaccurate statements from Governor Youngkin about a manufactured crisis over SAT scores , a manufactured crisis over SOL scores,  incorrectly interpreting NAEP scores , the  state of the K-12 funding,  the 2023 manufactured National Merit Scholar crisis , and the impacts of the Commonwealth’s education budget . And, now we know that he uses misinformation to rationalize his decision to veto bills. It is particularly egregious that he uses fear mongering to prevent school disciplinary practices reform even though these reforms have been shown to be  safe, effective, and restorative .  We must stay vigilant and question what Governor Youngkin says. We must advocate for K-12 funding to be written into Virginia Code!

Governor Glenn Youngkin and his allies used attacks on public education to win the governorship in 2021. National and local dark money groups managed to paint a fearful, failing picture of Virginia public education. Nevertheless, overwhelming support for public schools continued among most community members. It is now 2022, so why are Governor Youngkin’s allies and groups like Moms for Liberty (M4L) , Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) , and Parents Defending Education (PDE) continuing to push false narratives that Virginia public schools are failing when Virginia students typically continue to outperform the national average ? Current misleading claims from the right-wing about “ parental rights ” and “ compelled speech ” are merely an update of the artificially amplified “ CRT ” and “ book banning ” strategy used to influence voters during the 2021 election. It is clear that dark money groups are continuing to use fabricated moral panics , that most parents ignore , to try to foment outrage in voters. The national groups pushing such narratives are largely fake grassroots groups , known as “astroturf,” which are part of a carefully crafted campaign by right-wing think-tanks and PACs, funded by dark money to foment chaos and discontent for the purposes of advancing political and social agendas. Their financial opacity and lack of accountability hide the sponsors of the message and/or campaign, while creating the illusion of “concerned citizens,” most of whom are part of the campaign. Over the last two years, anti-public education and anti-CRT groups appeared across the U.S. with coordinated messaging, and loud and angry voices at school board meetings and on social media. These astroturf groups were started and operated by Republican operatives, candidates, lobbyists, and consultants backed by powerful people, institutions, and millions of dollars. They use a network of fake local news websites and social media to amplify their messaging to make it seem as if there is more support than actually exists. Founded in January 2021, M4L and PDE are two national groups that have portrayed themselves as “grassroots” despite evidence showing how they were founded by political operatives and/or Koch network regulars . Their funding is secretive, with links tying them to billionaires like the Koch, Devos, Bradley, and Scaife families. Their sponsors and allies include a who’s who of dark money right-wing organizations (e.g., Heritage Foundation, ALEC), many of whom are members of the Council for National Policy (CNP). Maurice Cunningham, author of a book on dark money and privatization of public schools, typifies the CNP as “a secretive network of right wing billionaires and Christian fundamentalist leaders that underwrites and coordinates right wing politics .” Employees of both IWF and PDE live in the DC metropolitan area, thus a significant amount of their focus seems to be on Loudoun and Fairfax counties’ public schools. These groups have a very narrow definition of “parental rights” to push hateful rhetoric which seems to focus entirely on: 1) teaching selective American history, and 2) preventing transgender students from using the bathroom or participating in sports according to their gender. Conveniently, they seem to ignore more traditional parental rights to ensure that accurate history is taught, students have access to diverse literature and curricula, and that students are protected and respected. Not only that, but they ignore the wide range of parental rights that already exist in school, including basic, broad, and critical parental rights like the right to: Privacy. Receive appropriate and needed special education support for students. Provide curriculum input or other feedback by serving on citizen curriculum committees at local and state levels, speaking at school board meetings, and communicating via other methods offered. Opt out of surveys, sex education, standardized testing, or public school. Control of a child’s education within the bounds of Federal, State, and Local regulations and policies. The last two rights are critical, as they clearly state that parents already have the right to remove their children from portions or all of public education, and that parental control ends where regulations and policies begin. In other words, one parent’s rights cannot abridge another parent’s defined rights enshrined in law, regulations, or policy. Nevertheless, right-wing news outlets continue to push this narrow “parental rights” narrative by interviewing political operatives posing as concerned parents. Fox News recently interviewed a panel of parents who were later revealed to be political operatives and/or leaders of Northern Virginia anti-public education groups . Similarly, almost exactly a year ago, Fox News interviewed anti-CRT political operatives , as if they were merely “ concerned parents .” Political operatives and dark money groups are continuing their unfounded attacks on Virginia public schools in 2022, despite Virginia’s consistent ranking in the top 5-10 school systems across the United States. These attacks on Virginia’s public schools impact public education today and in the future, which will be discussed in next week’s blog .

We are in the middle of a civil rights battle, fighting for the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in our living room and school room. There are local and national efforts to criminalize the LGBTQIA community, starting with students and teachers, using the most appalling tactics available, such as false accusations of “grooming” to dehumanize and cast suspicion on our loved ones, our friends, our children, and ourselves. These are age-old tactics of homophobes and transphobes against the LGBTQIA community. Unfortunately, the right-wing has weaponized these accusations against anyone who does not fall in lockstep with their efforts to censor or ban books, and remove support and protections for our LGBTQIA students and community. LGBTQIA activists note that, "This is a classic trope of dehumanization and fear that has been used against gay people decade after decade after decade. ... Think about the calumny against gay people throughout most of our lifetimes: that gay people somehow are…predatory." For example: Nazis used the same pink triangle badge on both gay men and sexual predators in concentration camps, as if to say they were one and the same. The Florida “Don’t say gay” bill has its roots in Anita Bryant’s 1977 homophobic “Save the Children” crusade to permit firing of teachers because they were gay and presumed predatory by angry homophobes. The 1978 Briggs initiative (a.k.a., Prop 6) banning gay and lesbian teachers in California schools was defeated by 58% of the vote was likely inspired by the Florida legislative efforts. In 2016 , anti-gay protestors and pundits promoted “Pizzagate” conspiracy theories targeting gays and democrats as predatory, which inspired an armed invasion. In 2021, a small group of Loudoun County parents and right-wing media pushed a false narrative of predatory behavior by LGBTQIA students in bathrooms to try to prevent adoption and implementation of student Policy 8040. Today , right-wing activists, leaders, and media continue to promote the predator myth. These efforts all fail to acknowledge the fundamental human rights of all people, no matter their sexuality or identity, which requires access and protection in jobs, education, housing, medical care, and free speech. They also fail to remember that “parental rights” means that parents of LGBTQIA children have rights in the public education setting, as do LGBTQIA families. Finally, they promote harmful and disproven stereotypes. Nevertheless, there is hope as today’s repulsive rhetoric has inspired many to stand up, just like the 1978 Briggs initiative inspired Californians and Harvey Milk to stand up against false and hateful rhetoric. As the first openly gay person to be elected to public office in California, Harvey Milk used his platform as supervisor to promote civil rights for all. He spoke out against Prop 6 in his “ Hope Speech ” calling for all to “make the commitment to fight” against discrimination, because he recognized that such legislative efforts would affect individual human rights of ALL Americans, not just those targeted by bigoted legislation. Like Harvey Milk, we must call on our community and elected officials to oppose the demonization of the LGBTQIA community and its supporters, but also to push back against any rules or legislation that would abridge the human rights of ANY citizens, particularly those of our students. June is Pride Month where we celebrate all aspects of LGBTQIA pride across the country. Pride month is about self-respect, celebration, and civil rights. The Pride flag is about hope for the future. I am hopeful that we will push back on these hateful efforts that demonize our children or our loved ones for their gender, sexual identity, race, religion, ability, class, or immigration status.

Last week, Glenn Youngkin’s Department of Education released their so-called “ Model Policies on Ensuring Privacy, Dignity, and Respect for All Students ” which does everything but respect the privacy and dignity of Virginia’s students and families. Some have renamed the policies the “Don’t Be Trans” policies , alluding to the fact that the Youngkin “model” policies arrive in the wake of hundreds of bills and policies across the nation targeting LGBTQIA students. To add insult to injury, Youngkin’s policies literally remove the word “transgender” from the title of 2021 policies governing treatment of transgender students, as if to remove the identities and bodies of transgender and gender-expansive students from public education. Fortunately some school systems–including Fairfax County , Stafford County, Alexandria, and Arlington –immediately declined implementation of the "Don’t Be Trans “model” policies. Arlington Public School Superintendent Superintendent Francisco Durán made a strong, clear statement fully rejecting the “Don’t Be Trans” policies: “I reaffirm our unwavering support for our LGBTQIA+ students, staff, and community. I want our transgender, non-binary, and gender fluid students to hear loud and clear that you belong here, you are valued, and we stand with and support you. We have reviewed the model policies and determined that our current policies and policy implementation procedures that protect the rights of our transgender students will stay as is.” -- Superintendent Francisco Durán Schools that reject Yougkin's “Don’t Be Trans” policies choose to continue implementing the 2021 Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students (2021 Transgender Model Policies) enacted under Governor Northam which are considered consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws and protective and supportive of transgender students. The 2021 Transgender Model Policies were created by a diverse advisory committee from across the Commonwealth which conducted a comprehensive analysis before providing clear accessible guidance to address questions about pronouns, names, bathrooms, and team sports. Unlike the “Don’t Be Trans” policies, they ensured dignity, privacy, and respect for transgender and cisgender students. Not only that, but the 2021 Transgender Model policies involved: Widespread community involvement from parents, students, organizations, and medical experts. A thorough analysis of all applicable laws, regulations, and policies. Use of evidence-based best practices in response to 2020 bills that amended the Code of Virginia regarding treatment of transgender students. Accurate definitions and the use of medically accurate terminology. Clear intent to alleviate bullying, harassment, and discrimination. Straightforward, easily implementable policies for school districts. Whereas Northam’s 2021 Transgender Model Policies used evidence-based best practices to enable students to use the facilities and participate in activities based on their gender identity, Youngkin’s “Don’t Be Trans” policies remove those rights, replacing them with a hodge-podge of rules and restrictions that place undue burdens on students, parents, teachers, and school administration while opening up transgender students to bullying, harassment, and discrimination. In brief, Youngkin’s “Don’t Be Trans” policies endanger the mental and physical health of students, place an unfair (and unfunded) burden on schools and parents, limit or prevent participation in sports, and violate students’ rights to access public education free of harassment. Likely, they would also open up school districts across the Commonwealth of Virginia to legal action from parents. Whether these deleterious outcomes are purposeful or are a product of poor policy-making is yet to be known. Nevertheless, in an effort to impose ideological beliefs on the Commonwealth of Virginia, Governor Youngkin has eliminated transgender students from the title of the policies that govern their inclusion and access to public education. When you care for transgender students so little that you remove them from the title of the policy that governs their access to public education, then you have a discrimination problem. Excluding them from the title is merely an example of how transgender and gender expansive students will be excluded from public education, if these policies are adopted. 4publiceducation.org applauds school districts that reject Youngkin’s 2023 so-called “model policies.” We stand by transgender and gender expansive students who deserve a safe, inclusive, secure, and respectful public school environment. We stand by the families of those students whose parental rights are being ignored. Since the rights and voices of transgender and gender-expansive students have been excluded from Younkin's policies, 4publiceducation.org commits to amplifying their voices this fall with a regular feature that highlights their voices and experiences, because there is no room for debate about human rights and the right to exist.

On August 15, 2023, FCPS Superintendent Dr. Michelle Reid made an official statement after community members expressed concern about Virginia Department of Education's new model policies regarding treatment of transgender and gender expansive students. Dr. Reid indicated that FCPS conducted a legal review which determined that the current FCPS policies ( Regulation 2603 ) complied with federal and state anti-discrimination laws. She made stated that FCPS’s existing policies still stand: Let me be clear that FCPS remains committed to fostering a safe, supportive, welcoming, and inclusive school environment for all students and staff, including our transgender and gender expansive students and staff. We believe that supporting our students and working with parents and caregivers are not mutually exclusive; we already do both and will continue to do so. We know that students can only learn effectively when they feel safe and supported. Later that day, FCPS Pride led a successful rally and march in support of transgender and gender expansive students and to acknowledge FCPS's firm commitment to protect the rights of these students. Nearly 100 students, parents, teachers, elected officials, and faith leaders marched together along Gallows Road carrying flags and signs. As the Washington Post noted , Youngkin’s revised model policies will “roll back protections for transgender students in K-12 schools.” The ACLU has declared that “The 2023 policies seek to erase transgender and non-binary youth from the classrooms, creating a hostile and potentially dangerous school environment.“ One week later, on August 24, 2023, Gov. Glenn Youngkin, Attorney General Jason Miyares released an official advisory opinion that the Youngkin model policies comply with federal and state anti-discrimination laws. He also reiterated that school boards must adopt policies in line with these policies, despite outstanding concerns that the policies discriminate against transgender and gender expansive students in violation of § 22.1-23.3 Code of Virginia , or, as ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Eden Heilman stated: At best, [the model policies] invite discrimination; at worst, they require it ... .Attorney General Jason Miyares’ opinion defending the policies is every bit as cruel and misguided as the policies themselves. 4 Public Education applauds FCPS’s commitment to transgender and gender expansive students and rejects the anti-transgender Virginia Department of Education model policies. School districts should follow Fairfax County’s lead by adhering to state and federal anti-discrimination laws to ensure that transgender and gender expansive students: Will continue to be addressed by their chosen names and pronouns. Will continue to be provided with access to facilities, activities, and/or trips consistent with their gender identity. Will continue to have their privacy respected regarding gender expansive or transgender status, legal name, or sex assigned at birth. Please contact your school board member(s) and Dr. Reid to thank them for standing up against discrimination. Contact them via email or call them with your supportive feedback. If you are unsure what to say, you can always follow FCPS Pride 's lead. Photo Credit: The cover photo and first three slide show photos are thanks to Jim Andrukonis. Other photos are thanks to FCPS Pride board members.

Michael Petrilli Wants Virginia and He Wants Her Bad The Thomas B. Fordham Institute labels itself as “America's leading education reform think tank,” and Michael Petrilli is its CEO. Amazon’s  About the Author declares him “one of the nation’s foremost education analysts.” As such, his work has influenced state education systems in Ohio, DC, Maryland and others; however, many critique Fordham’s support of vouchers , charters , and other efforts to redirect public money  away from public school students.  In spite of his successes, for many years Petrilli has cast a longing eye from his 16th Street NW office in D.C. across the river toward Virginia because the Commonwealth has spurned the ardent seduction of school choice. With just 8 charter schools (if you don’t count Glenn Youngkin’s 12 fledgling Lab Schools), and very limited Education Savings Accounts rather than carte blanche vouchers, Virginia has lived up to her namesake as virgin territory.  Fordham Institute and Petrilli’s allies have been very successful at conversions of public schools to charter schools in Maryland and DC with almost ½ the DC schools now charters and 37 charters in Baltimore alone. Ohio has 324 charters. Fordham and Petrilli insist his ideas improve districts like DC and Maryland, by shifting schools to charter and “choice” free-for-all if you win the lottery. But Virginia still has not succumbed. Then Glenn Youngkin was elected Governor and rolled out his day one Executive Order One. It was like a lowered ladies’ fan and come-hither look for Mike Petrilli. Since then Mike has been deeply involved with Glenn Youngkin’s Virginia.  From advising on the much disliked and whitewashed History standards  to this year’s new Accountability and Accreditation regulations , Petrilli has been there each step of the way.  He has been so involved that when his friend Secretary  Aimee Guidera  called for support defending the Virginia Department of Education’s controversial Accreditation & Accountability regulations, he came to the rescue with messaging against Virginia’s schools in an OpEd in the Richmond Times Dispatch titled Most Schools in America are Off Track and Virginia Is No Different.  Amber Northern, Petrilli’s Senior Vice President, was Fordham’s emissary on the disastrous rewrite of Virginia’s History standards. Afterward she both bragged and minimized that influence in a Fordham blog This summer Northern was rewarded with an appointment to the Virginia Board of Education. One of Petrilli and Northern’s jointly written articles “Which large school districts provide fertile terrain for charter growth?”   lists Virginia Beach as a targeted district. Ironically, it doesn’t list Fairfax or the other northern Virginia districts Youngkin has made direct targets in his culture war policies. There are problems with the story Michael Petrilli tells Virginia. After all, phrases referencing Virginia public schools as “putting lipstick on a pig,” is not very endearing. The Baby, you’re a failure. Let us show you how it’s done  narrative doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, and isn’t making Virginia feel very attracted to him or his policies.  Virginia’s performance continues to be highly competitive or outstrip those of states and regions using Fordham’s philosophy and techniques. For instance US News says Virginia has the highest graduation rate in the country hovering between 91-92% in recent years.  One month before the Fordham style A&A regs were approved on August 28, CNBC said this about Virginia and her schools. “At the K-12 level, Virginia offers some of the most individualized K-12 instruction in the nation, with an average of 10.9 students per teacher last year, according to the National Education Association. That appears to be translating to solid test scores.” They rate Virginia as the number one education system in the nation and the reason Virginia has been first for business for 5 out of 6 years.  A further look at graduation rates reveals,  in DC  the four-year graduation rate for DCPS is 75.27 percent, an increase of roughly 3 percent over last year and 16 points lower than Virginia. The four-year graduation rate for DC public charter schools is 79.38 percent, a slight decrease from the rate of 80.1 percent last year.” Maryland f alls between DC and Virginia’s rate at between 85-86%, only 5-6 points lower than Virginia. Testing scores reflect a similar problem for Fordham’s charter heavy states.  Maryland’s average National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) 4th grade math score of 229 was lower than 35 states. While  DC came in even lower at  223.  Virginia’s average was 236, one point over the national average. However, on 8th grade NAEP and reading the states all cluster at or near the national averages. Still, not a compelling argument that charters substantially elevate the whole state or cure achievement gaps.  To make matters worse for Petrilli, the number of charter applications across the nation are leveling off,  in some districts like DC numbers of charter students are dropping , and  voucher plans are crashing and burning in state after state, including budget crises  and corruption problems. Finally, Fordham and Mike Petrilli don’t just want Virginia. They need  her to support their payroll. IRS forms show a non-profit that went from $7 million in donations two years ago, $3 million of which they have spent, to $1 million in donations in the recent year. With Petrilli’s $350,000 annual salary, $50 thousand annual expense account, and a big staff each paid six digits salaries, those coffers will have to be refilled. Perhaps it will be easy with all the  large donors Fordham has, on the other hand it may be harder without a successful privatization of schools in Virginia.  We know Virginia’s beautiful, but Michael please don’t be a stalker. Virginia does not consent to your advances. She has repeatedly rejected privatization and taking public money from public schools. Please take a hint and back off. Caveat: Glenn Youngkin, Aimee Guidera, and Mike Petrilli continue to use NAEP scores as the authoritative measure of education performance of Virginia’s schools. For the record, those tests are given every three years to only 1.9% of Virginia students. The NAEP, for these and a variety of other reasons , cannot be used as a statistically valid measure of state performance.

Although Governor Youngkin was lambasted 18 months ago for his inaccurate conclusions about the current state of Virginia Public Education, he continues to make the same erroneous claims in a politically expedient attempt to convince Virginians that our public schools are failing. In 2022, he claimed that Virginia’s students were performing poorly on national assessments, they were falling behind their peers in other states, and this was due to the previous administration’s decisions to “...lower standards and fail[ure] to prioritize the needs of students.” Those conclusions were, and continue to be, patently false, as is revealed below. In May 2022, the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) released a report on student achievement . It was in that document where they made the erroneous claims using National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) scores and Standards of Learning scores. The fact that there were serious errors in the VDOE analysis was published shortly thereafter, but even now the administration continues to make the same fallacious claims in an apparent attempt to gaslight the public for political purposes. "... the NAEP test is very different from Virginia’s Standards of Learning tests, and experts warn against comparing their results." The truth about Virginia’s NAEP scores Even after being warned in 2022 that the NAEP assessment categories can not be directly compared with the categories on the Standards of Learning (SOL) tests, the administration continues to do that. Although the tests use the same terms (basic, proficient, or advanced), these terms refer to different levels of student achievement on the two tests. Since the standards are not equivalent, the percentage of students deemed “proficient” cannot be expected to be the same for student groups taking the NAEP and SOL tests. If the administration wanted to compare achievement levels between the NAEP and SOL tests, they should have used the well developed and documented method of mapping the NAEP and state achievement tests . The Youngkin administration has not done that. Instead, they use invalid direct comparisons of “proficiency” scores to make the erroneous claim that Virginia’s public schools are failing. It seems to be a desperate attempt to gaslight the electorate that he is the “education governor” before the state midterms. If the Youngkin administration had properly compared NAEP and SOL proficiency levels by mapping results for comparison, very different conclusions should have been made. The data would have shown that students in Virginia performed as well or better than students nationwide . Since the Administration began making their false claims, numerous educators and politicians have objected to those claims, but that has not stopped Governor Youngkin, his Secretary of Education and his Superintendent of Public Instruction (formerly Jill Balow and now Lisa Coons) from repeating falsehoods . Confusion about results of state assessments is amplified because NAEP uses the same names for their benchmarks as do states for their student assessment scores. The U. S. Department of Education can eliminate this confusion by renaming the NAEP benchmarks as low, intermediate, high, and advanced. While it is commendable that Governor Youngkin wants to raise Virginia student achievement, he is incorrect in saying that Virginia’s standards are the “lowest in the nation.” The truth is that when it comes to the nation’s report card (NAEP) , Virginia students “ranked near the top in fourth grade math and reading and eighth grade math,” and average in eighth grade reading, according to the National Center for Education Statistics in a PolitiFact analysis. Also, it is important to remember that in contrast to Governor Youngkin’s claims, raising standards does not improve student achievement . The governor has been informed that there are proven effective ways to improve achievement that do not involve manipulating academic standards or privatizing public education. A proven method is to adequately fund public schools. Currently, Virginia is 44th in the nation in per student state funding , so it looks like Youngkin has his work cut out for him. Bottom line Either Governor Youngkin and his VDOE are not up to the task of evaluating student achievement, or they are intentionally gaslighting the public for political advantage. 4 Public Education suggests both may be true. This is part three of a three-part series on Gaslighting the Public in Virginia by Governor Youngkin : Part 1 covers the Manufactured SAT Crisis Part 2 covers the Manufactured Crisis over SOL Scores .

For two years in a row, Governor Youngkin has blamed slow growth and recovery of SOL test scores on his predecessors and pandemic school closures. Although scores showed some recovery in 2022 during Youngkin’s first year in office, 2023 SOL scores remained stagnant during his second year in office. This begs the question: Is Youngkin intentionally attempting to gaslight Virginians and spread disinformation, or does his administration fundamentally not understand how SOLs are scored? Perhaps more importantly, do leaders at the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) know the difference between their misguided plan and evidenced-based methods to improve student performance? A week ago, the Youngkin administration released the SOL results, three weeks late , claiming corrections were necessary; however, VDOE also ascribed blame for this year’s stagnant scores on previous gubernatorial administrations (McAuliffe and Northam). Specifically, VDOE claimed those administrations dishonestly lowered expectations for students, standards for schools, and SOL proficiency cutoff point so that students appeared to do better than they actually did, thereby setting up Younkgin’s administration for low SOL scores. Ironically, the Youngkin Administration made similar claims last spring and they were soundly debunked ; however, Governor Youngkin, Secretary of Education Aimee Guidera, and Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Coons have resurrected these false claims in an apparent attempt to gaslight the public for political advantage. Rather than take responsibility for stagnant SOLs , they have been presenting misinformation and blaming previous administrations in town halls and press conferences . Youngkin’s VDOE claims that the solutions to improve Virginia SOL scores are to raise expectations and SOL proficiency cutoff points, in addition to spending millions of dollars for intensive tutoring, which may be hard to implement considering the current teacher shortage. Educators and education experts question these improvement methods as both ineffective and misguided. To understand why Youngkin’s claims are unfounded, one must understand: 1) How proficiency levels are determined for SOL tests State education agencies rate proficiency levels for tested students based on scores that separate each proficiency level, which are called “ cut scores .” There is a well established method of determining cut scores that has been in place since 1998, when SOL testing started in Virginia prior to the passage of George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” Education Act. Across the country, proficiency level cutoff points for standardized tests are determined using one of two methods, the Angoff method or the Bookmark method , both of which use education experts to identify appropriate proficiency level boundaries. Virginia uses the Angoff method, which identifies appropriate cut scores by conducting detailed assessments of the content of the test to determine the rigor of the new tests before the tests are given. On the other hand, the bookmark method identifies cut scores after the test is given. In Virginia, proposed proficiency level cutoff points are evaluated by three different parties, Standard Setting and Articulation committees and the Superintendent of Public Education, who provide recommendations for cut scores to the Virginia Board of Education (VBOE). The VBOE considers recommendations from all three groups before voting on the final cut scores for each test. This transparent process of identifying appropriate cut scores provides detailed documentation on how the final cut scores are determined. Additionally, it shows that pass proficient cut scores are almost always at or above the recommended scores . Because cut scores are based on the rigor of each new SOL test, and the tests change over time, changes in cut scores for Virginia are expected. 2) Whether “raising standards” improves student performance Secretary Guidera claimed , without providing evidence, that higher cut scores historically have led to higher student achievement. However, available data show that increasing state standards does not improve learning or student achievement , and students likely will not deliver better test scores when standards are raised. In fact, researchers at Education Next analyzed education testing and “found no correlation between a rise in state standards and a rise in student achievement – despite this being the main objective of raising the bar of test proficiency.” Nevertheless, in October 2022 Governor Youngkin asked the VBOE to “[w]ork to establish new accountability and accreditation systems, that will include contemplations by the Board about learning proficiency and high expectations for students… Raising our cut scores to what we believe is the content and skill mastery needed to be on track for readiness for college and career is foundational'. After meeting on the topic for nine hours, the Board did not act on the request other than by recommending that Virginia should add experts from higher education to one of the committees, and that they should consider impact data in determining future cut scores. To date, the VBOE has not changed Virginia’s cut scores since Governor Youngkin took office, but recently the VDOE announced that the administration is working on a new system of accountability . Much fuss has been made over cut score values but some education experts criticize the use of cut scores to begin with. In fact, the President of the American Federation of Teachers said, “States should ditch the use of cut scores, with their simplistic picture of performance. Yet there’s political appeal in bashing schools based on the higher failure rates created by raising cut scores, which isn’t the same thing as declining student performance.“ How should Virginia increase academic proficiency? In his January 17, 2022 address to the General assembly, Governor Youngkin promised to improve student performance in Virginia’s public schools, while ignoring the fact that Virginia students perform better than most students in the United States . Across the county 65% of students did not meet the national proficiency standards in 2019, compared to 60% in Virginia. Also, Virginia public schools are rated fourth out of all the states, based on reviews by both Forbes and the World Population Review . As mentioned previously, there are no studies that show that raising expectations or standards improves student performance. However, there is a strong positive relationship between the funding levels of schools and student learning and between academic achievement and student socioeconomic leve l, so it follows that academic achievement can be improved by increasing resources to underfunded schools. Increased funding is especially important for schools in low income communities. In Virginia, the number of economically disadvantaged students has increased since 2008. Sadly, the 2023 Joint Legislative And Review Committee report ranked Virginia 40th in the nation for per student state funding, well below the national average, and 24th in the nation for K-12 teacher pay. The Commonwealth Institute noted that “In Virginia, economically disadvantaged students underperform on standardized tests – scoring 24 to 31 percent lower on average – are less likely to graduate on time, and more likely to drop out.” It is clear that the best way to raise student proficiency scores in Virginia is to increase state funding to public schools, especially in low income communities, as well as increase teacher salaries to attract and retain good teachers. Imagine how well Virginia students would do if they and their teachers were adequately funded. Imagine how well Virginia students would do if they and their teachers were adequately funded. This is part two of a three-part series on Gaslighting the Public in Virginia by Governor Youngkin : Part 1 covers the Manufactured SAT Crisis Part 3 covers the Misinterpreting Student Performance and NAEP Scores