Search Results

Accountability Standard Scheme Intends to Make our Schools Sub-Standard   While the Commonwealth was preparing for the end of the school year and summer vacation, the Virginia Board of Education (VBOE) and Department of Education (VDOE) rammed through unpopular and controversial new accreditation and accountability standards. These standards will tank the credibility of schools across the Commonwealth while making our highly ranked schools ripe for privatization. At the same time, these convoluted standards will confuse families and students and encourage teachers to flee before VDOE places an even heavier burden on them to fix this problem caused by bureaucrats and their consultants. Only a few months ago, Cheryl Binkley  and I both wrote about disappointment in VDOE’s Accountability “Listening” Sessions . After driving an hour each way in rush hour traffic, we were scolded, talked at, and rushed through our only opportunity to understand accountability changes and provide input to Dr. Lisa Coons of VDOE. However, we only had an inkling of what was to come. Now that I see the finished product, it is an absolute horror show for Virginia public schools.  In April 2024, Cheryl summed up Youngkin’s intent quite well by asking “ Does VDOE want Accountability or Disruption of Virginia Schools? ” The answer is clearly disruption. If this VDOE plan is implemented, it would mean that most schools will be found to be “off track” or “needs intensive support.” It is important to note that “Needs intensive support” is a euphemism because it almost always involves more punishment than support. Needless to say, there is little guidance and no promise of funds to solve any supposed problems identified by these radical new VDOE Accountability and Accreditation standards.  As many educators have noted, these accountability and accreditation revisions would hit schools that are in rural areas especially hard because they have fewer financial resources. Also, it will affect those schools with a high number of students who live in poverty, are English language learners, and/or have learning disabilities. Where is the Outrage and the Action? Truly, I’m surprised at how little news coverage or outrage there is about this, since with implementation, these new standards would trash the reputations of up to 60% of our schools per VDOE’s projections . How does this help anyone, much less students and teachers? Before you read further, take an opportunity to tell the Virginia Board of Education how you feel before their August 28th meeting, and consider signing up to speak when they open up the sign up list. You know that I will be there, and I love to carpool. The thing that angers me the most is that the VDOE and VBOE, mostly Youngkin appointees, are setting up students and schools to fail with absolutely no support or money from the state. We, the taxpayers, teachers, and parents, will be left holding the bag for a flawed solution to a problem that we didn’t have.  Also, I’m angry that instead of listening to experts, educators, and parents, Youngkin hired consultants to solve a problem that didn’t exist, held listening sessions where they didn’t listen, and then in the middle of the summer released an incomprehensible 50-page revised regulations  along with this official statement : "Those who oppose establishing an accountability system are the same people who allowed the previous two administrations to lower standards and conceal issues and data from parents to prioritize their own agendas at the expense of Virginia’s students and their futures.” - Youngkin Administration No, Governor Youngkin, Dr. Coons, and VA Board of Education. We all  want meaningful accountability and for our students to succeed. In fact, we had a perfectly fine system that was transparent and easy enough to use and understand. But then you came along to waste money and time to create something that when enacted immediately fails the majority of our schools. To make it even worse, you ignored and belittled families and educators in the process, after claiming that you supported “parents rights.” Where is the accountability for this administration's refusal to fund the JLARC report, continued underfunding to localities, and false publicity campaign against Virginia's public schools? Ironically, all of those groups and individuals who, since 2020, have fought against local school board control over school districts, as guaranteed by our constitution , are now fully in favor of this accountability and accreditation experiment using our public schools, children, families, and educators as unsuspecting guinea pigs. Youngkin’s Intent is Clear: Privatization of Public School Funding In 2022 Youngkin began his attacks on Virginia’s accreditation system. He criticized that “ 89 percent of Virginia’s public K-12 schools were fully accredited, compared with 92 percent in the 2019-2020 school year ” despite a world-wide pandemic, with over a million Americans dead, and remote work and schooling for much of the nation for over a year. As the Washington Post noted at the time , Youngkin’s “push for a new accreditation system [was] also part of his broader effort to declare that the state’s schools need a rescue.”  As 4 Public Education has shared in an earlier blog : The truth is that Virginia students  performed as well or better than students nationwide  on the [NAEP], and Virginia’s public schools are rated fourth out of all the states, based on reviews by both  Forbes  and the  World Population Review .  The path from Younkin’s teacher snitch line in 2022 to this current accreditation and accountability scheme seems clear in retrospect: how else do you arrange state control and/or privatization of schools? Answer: by discrediting them through constant attacks and creating accountability standards that are nearly impossible to achieve by most schools, much less by underfunded school districts with large populations of students who need greater support.  All students need more education support, not a higher bar that is out of reach. Raising standards does not automatically improve student performance–providing funding, opportunity, and support improves student achievement. What can you do? First, get up to date.  Read our blogs outlining the expected changes: Cheryl Binkley's Does VDOE want Accountability or Disruption of Virginia Schools (4/23/24) Vanessa Hall's   Ironically, the VDOE Accountability Listening Tour Lacks Both Transparency and Accountability (4/12/24) Read the recent Washington Post article  (gifted!) about the subject. Review the VDOE submission to VBOE on June 20, 2024. Read the current 50-page regulatory proposal  and compare it to the current regulations , if you have the stomach. Check out the VBOE webpages on the changes to date . Review the VBOE Discussion and Actions on Accountability Reform . Review comments on the reforms , but be aware that few parents were aware of the input opportunities, so parent input may be coordinated by larger groups. Educator and administrator input is overwhelmingly negative. Second , tell the Virginia Board of Education how you feel  and consider signing up for their August 28th meeting using the link below. Third , make this public to as many people as possible.  Write a letter or opEd to your local paper. The more local the better–think Virginia Mercury, Fairfax Patch, or whoever has the best local reach in your region Contact your local school board and superintendent. Contact the: Virginia Board of Education at BOE@doe.virginia.gov Governor Youngkin at https://www.governor.virginia.gov/communicating-with-the-governors-office/ Virginia Secretary of Education, Aimee Guidera, at education1@governor.virginia.gov VDOE Superintendent, Dr. Lisa Coons at 804-225-2057. Finally, ask all of your friends and neighbors to do the same.  Do all of this the sooner the better, because this is not a small thing, but actually changes everything for our children, educators, and beloved local schools as education experts know that VDOE’s accountability and accreditation scheme will: “Penalize schools that demonstrate significant student growth but serve students who start further behind due to various educational barriers.” - State Education Union Fail ”to provide critical information for parents about which student subgroups are struggling versus schools that are underperforming across all grade levels.” - Virginia PTA President Jenna Alexander.

Theocratic Veto versus School Policy This is part 2 of coverage on Jane Doe v. Fairfax County School Board  (FCSB) (CL-2024-0003171), a lawsuit asserting that religious freedom is more important than all other freedoms and can permit the violation of policies of a school board and rights of other students.  Although hearings will continue before this goes to trial, Robert Rigby and Vanessa Hall attended the July 25, 2024 demurrer hearing to hear the judge’s decision after the lawyers pled their cases. Please see Part 1, A Controversial Legal Attack on Students and Schools  for more details about the case, filings, law firms involved, and constitutional implications of the case. Jane Doe Claims Sex and Religious Discrimination Since the case was filed on March 4, 2024, there has been significant activity on this case, including demurrer (i.e., dismissal) hearings, and an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff filed by the Virginia Attorney General, Jason Miyares. Of course, significant activity means higher outside legal fees for FCPS. FCPS has often been assailed for their high outside legal costs  by the same people who are contributing to those high legal costs.  In this case, America First Legal (through Jane Doe) has asked for an immediate injunction to stop FCPS from using: 1) portions of the Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) Guide , the behavior and discipline manual for families, and 2) FCPS regulation 2603  which covers Transgender and Gender-Expansive students in school.  FCPS Asked that the Case be Dismissed On July 25th, court began with the FCSB lawyer, Noah Sullivan of Gentry Locke, summarizing facts of the case for Judge Brett A. Kassabian, followed by a response from Andrew Block of America First. Then the judge grew impatient and asked him to get to the point of whether or not he was objecting. The judge later cut off Mr. Block’s comments to say that he felt that the case was “ripe for a decision today on the demurrers.” In other words, the judge had heard enough and wanted to discuss the facts and law related to dismissal of the case. Mr. Sullivan, the FCSB lawyer, opened his case describing how counts 5 and 6 (religious and sex discrimination), of the Jane Doe  lawsuit didn’t “even begin to get out of the gate for constitutional discrimination.” He said it was plain that there was nothing discriminatory in the FCPS policy or its implementation, because there were alternative accommodations available to all students. He also stated that the petitioner’s “assumed intent” of the SR&R guide was not enough for actual discrimination. In other words, Jane Doe did not suffer discrimination or discipline, she just feared that she would.  Mr. Sullivan proceeded to make a good case against Plaintiff’s counts 1-4 by sharing a binder of the actual SR&R guide and teacher policies while noting that regarding counts 1-3, the policy American First Legal attacked “does not exist,” nor are names and pronouns required anywhere in the policy. He also highlighted that claims regarding Count 4 said that the policy was “unconstitutionally vague” but student non-harassment policies are used across the state and are codified in the Virginia Human Rights Act , so why would “constitutional vagueness” apply here? Mr. Sullivan asked some important legal questions regarding the facts in the America First Legal case, including: Why was Jane Doe so afraid that she might be punished without stating what she actually wanted to convey?  “How chilled is her speech, if she won’t state what speech she wants to make?” Jane Doe was never disciplined, so what was her claim? Finally, the FCSB lawyer walked through all of the applicable SR&R language outlining the rights of students in schools. Mr. Sullivan noted that the only real discipline described in the SR&R guide was discipline for discriminatory harassment or slurs before adding, ”Hopefully, the petitioner does not have a religious belief to use slurs.” ”Hopefully, the petitioner does not have a religious belief to use slurs.” American First Legal Responds For America First Legal’s response, Ian Prior began talking about Policy 2603.2 . This seemed weird since 2603 is a school policy that applies to employee conduct and record-keeping, not student conduct and discipline. Nevertheless, Mr. Prior focused on 2603.2 which states, “Students who identify as gender-expansive or transgender should be called by their chosen name and pronouns.” Odder still was that Mr. Prior ignored the third sentence of the purpose of Policy 2603 that, “ Any student who has a need or desire for increased privacy, regardless of the underlying reason, shall be provided with reasonable, non-stigmatizing accommodations.”  Mr. Prior then focused on Policy 2601 , which outlines “Acts for Which Students May Be Disciplined, Disciplinary Procedures, and Interventions” in violation of the SR&R. In his words, he said that a student could be disciplined by merely misgendering another student; however, in truth, Policy 2601 clearly states that discipline is related to “Using slurs based upon the actual or perceived gender identity (which includes, but is not limited to, malicious deadnaming or malicious misgendering).” In fact, FCPS Policy 2601 offers disciplinary action associated with using slurs expansively (see below) associated with identity characteristics, including “actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color, national origin, citizenship/immigration status, weight, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or disability.” All in all, Mr. Prior’s speech often seemed to be more about his personal views than about the facts of the case. For example, why did he talk about the current use of slurs versus “traditional slurs”? He claimed that “everyday words” are now considered slurs, as if what is considered a slur isn’t constantly changing.  Inside the courtroom, this particular argument felt a little like a dog whistle. Historical slurs about and harassment of female, non-Christian, non-heterosexual, and non-white people used “everyday words” of the time. Those historical “everyday words” that were used against people based on race and sexuality are now (thankfully) considered unacceptable. It makes one wonder, in the vein of Mr. Sullivan’s earlier question: what does Mr. Prior want to say that is now considered a slur outside of “traditional slurs”?  Mr. Prior also undercut his arguments by the use of ridiculous strawman arguments like saying that kids are “suddenly changing pronouns” or using inaccurate terms like “biological female” when the medically accurate term is “gender assigned at birth.” He also used quite inflammatory language when he claimed that the plaintiff, Jane Doe, would be forced “to wear the scarlet letter of a religious bigot” if she is unable to respect the pronouns of other students. Hyperbolic to say the least. In a brief response, FCSB’s lawyer noted that Mr. Prior was trying to apply employee policies to students; however, to a casual observer, it was hard to tell whether Prior was conflating employee policies to policies that governed student behavior on purpose or through inattention to detail.  The Court’s Decision Ultimately, the court allowed the case to continue to trial on four of six counts, all four of which relate to Jane Doe’s religious right to misgender other students based on American First Legal’s argument that FCPS regulations required  Jane Doe to use a student’s chosen pronoun. This is in spite of facts put forward by FCPS that the regulation does NOT require  any speech: rather, that the policy enjoins students from “maliciously” harassing other students with repeated speech aimed at them that intentionally inflicts harm.  The court dismissed the two counts of the case related to restrooms (counts 5 and 6) allowing American First Legal the right to amend their case within three weeks. If they are disappointed again, of course American First Legal can appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court. The judge asserted that a trial would be the proper place to decide many of the other factors. He said this demurrer decision is not about FCSB policy being reasonably or narrowly tailored, or whether the plaintiff is still in school or has graduated. Under a recent Virginia Supreme Court ruling ( Vlaming v. West Point, Virg., School Board ) the judge felt compelled to allow the idea that religion really is elevated above other rights to go forward despite the knowledge that the facts of this case could not be more different than Vlaming.  Although disappointed that the court failed to dismiss the whole case, a FCPS spokesman told WJLA , “Once the court considers all the issues, FCPS is confident that the court will affirm our policies, as they protect all students’ rights. We will continue to vigorously defend our policies that support all our students and staff at FCPS.” Oddly, none of those who reported on this case attended the case, so it is a wonder from where they got their information? Who described exactly what happened? It seems obvious who they talked to (i.e., American First Legal lawyers) based on the slant of their pieces in the Daily Signal, Washington Examiner, and on WJLA. The Fairfax GOP has expressed delight that the regulations about trans students may be overturned. They talk about bathrooms, but the counts that relate to bathrooms were dismissed.  Despite some assertions on social media, this was not a “huge win” for America First Legal. The judge dismissed two counts and made a clear statement that he could not look beyond the factual statements of the case, which meant that he was loath to dismiss the case, but that did not mean that the case had merit at trial.  Why is America First Legal Pursuing this Case? Likely, America First Legal are pursuing this in Virginia courts under the Virginia legal code and Constitution, because they do not think it would fly under the U.S. Constitution. Their claim is that the provisions in Virginia around religion are different from those under the U.S. Constitution in two ways.  First, in Virginia, per Mr. Prior, one person’s “deeply held religious belief” overrides another person’s “deeply held religious belief.” What a doctrine?! Who will decide what beliefs are religious and which are secular? This is precisely why the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t allowed this doctrine. How are courts going to judge which religions are valid?  Mr. Prior’s second argument is that in Virginia there is NOT a provision against the “establishment of a religion.” He seems to WANT the courts to decide whose beliefs are valid religiously and whose are not. This should alarm everyone who is not a member of Prior’s own congregation.  One thing that FCPS may do is to see whether they can have the case moved to Federal Courts on the basis that these are federal questions. For example, if a Virginia court result favors American First Legal, it would conflict with Federal court rulings that allow LGBTQIA+ people to live fully in the US (see both Bostock v. Clayton County  and Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board ). Who is America First Legal? After reading this case, one may wonder who is America First Legal? America First Legal has claimed to be the antidote to the ACLU, and thus far has sued dozens  of “woke” corporations and taken actions against the LGBTQIA community, multiple school districts, voting rights, and other civil rights. Many organizations beloved by Americans have been sued by America First Legal, including: Disney, Nike, Shake Shack, Tyson Foods, Hasbro, Mattel, IBM, Macy’s, Major League Baseball, airlines, candy companies, beer companies, and cereal companies. Frequently, they sue on the grounds of racism against white men. America First Legal is known as a “dark money” group made up of former Trump advisors and appointees. In their first year of operation, America First Legal raised more than $6.3 million and in 2022, their revenue was over $44 millio n – which is being used to push a " radical agenda ." A significant chunk of this (85%)  was spent on divisive ads in advance of the 2022 mid-terms. Their past tax forms, compensation, and donations can be found on the Propublica website . One can’t help but question why they are considered a non-profit 501(c)(3)  considering the obviously political nature of their activities. America First Legal and Project 2025 America First Legal is listed along with Moms for Liberty and a hundred other “conservative” groups on the advisory board for Project 2025, which is the Heritage Foundation 900+ page plan to “overhaul” the federal government. As the Intercept notes, “ America First Legal staff  were deeply involved in writing and editing the Project 2025 playbook. Its vice president and general counsel, Gene Hamilton, drafted an entire chapter about the Justice Department, which proposes launching a “campaign” to criminalize mailing abortion pills. “ Nevertheless, America First Legal President Stephen Miller claims “zero involvement”  in Project 2025 despite appearing in a promotional video. Project 2025 aims  to “gut protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” America First Legal’s Jane Doe  case is in line with Project 2025 efforts to outlaw transgender people . The Jane Doe  case is to be Continued Don’t expect a resolution to this case anytime soon.  First, there are three legal bases on which the FCSB will continue to challenge this case: Standing:  Does the petitioner (i.e., Jane Doe) have standing to sue? Are there any damages actually being claimed? Mootness: Both sides acknowledge to the court that the student has graduated. FCPS therefore will argue that there is no legal basis to pursue injunctive or declaratory relief, because she is not and will not be subject to any FCPS policies now or in the future (once you graduate you can’t re-enroll as a K-12 student). Sovereign immunity: FCPS argued and lost on the dismissal of the claim for nominal damages (the plaintiff was asking for just a few dollars, in an effort to make the case continue after her graduation). They may or may not appeal.  Additionally, as the petitioner is now 18, FCSB has asked that they be identified by name. Finally, this case is intended as much to raise America First Legal's profile as it is to keep FCPS in the news. This will be another expensive legal attack on our schools that distracts from the education of our students while it sucks funds from our public schools, teacher's salaries, and student opportunities. Downloadable Case/Legal Documents

Public education is on the ballot this November The outcome of the next presidential election is destined to influence K-12 public education in the United States. We get a preview of what to expect if Donald Trump is elected through the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025  and candidate Trump’s  Agenda 47 . Those proposed policy changes for K-12 public education promise a radical change from the public education policies of today. Some have described  Project 2025 as “a remarkably detailed guide to turning the United States into a fascist’s paradise.” Although Trump once enthusiastically embraced the policy reforms  published by the Heritage Foundation in Project 2025, recent publicity has prompted Trump to try to distance himself from the document. This attempt to take the heat off the newly published policy document has prompted some to report that the policy effort has stopped . But don't be fooled! The project is completed, the document is published, and the plan is ready for implementation by the next Republican president, so although the team’s work is done the strategy for policy changes remains.  Voters are reminded of similar situations that occurred during the Trump administration. The three Supreme Court justices nominated by Trump swore that they would respect the legal principle of keeping prior rulings in place in  their senate hearings, but then they overturned Roe vs. Wade . Fool us twice, shame on us.  It is a “remarkably detailed guide to turning the United States into a fascist’s paradise”  ~ Melissa Gira Grant, The New Republic What is Project 2025? In 1973 a group of conservative operatives founded what became the official infrastructure of the Republican party - The Heritage Foundation. This organization has a major influence on the policies of Republican presidents, members of Congress, Governors, and General Assembly members across the country. Over the years since its founding, nine editions of the ‘Mandate for Leadership’ armed Republican presidential administrations with policy prescriptions, and a recruitment and training playbook. This year’s version is also referred to as Project 2025 , the Presidential Transition Project. These policy documents have been developed by partisans who specialize in how to shape public policy. Each of the   nine editions have been considered “policy bibles” that provide conservative administrations with blueprints of policy solutions. The strategy has been very effective, as evidenced by the degree of implementation by Republican presidents. For example, nearly half of the ideas included in the first edition were implemented by President Reagan by the end of his first year in office and two thirds of the ideas were implemented by Trump after his first year as president.  Who authored Project 2025, aka "The Mandate for Leadership"? Many conservative groups are on the advisory board of the current version of the Mandate for Leadership (page xi) and some of the authors were formerly on Donald Trump’s staff when he was president, and worked with current and former republican governors in Virginia (page xvi). Most notably: Paul Dans , the director of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project was Trump’s former chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM),  Spencer Chretien , associate director of the project, was former special assistant to the president and associate director of Presidential Personnel under Donald Trump.  Lindsey M. Burke , who was the author of the Chapter on Education (page 319), is Director of the Center for Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation, served on Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin’s transition steering committee  and landing team for education , and is on the board of two groups that endorse radically conservative public education policy, the Educational Freedom Institute and the Independent Women’s Forum’s Education Freedom Center.  She was appointed to the Board of Visitors at George Mason University by Governor Youngin, but because she authored the Project 2025 chapter on Education with proposed policy changes that were so radically right, Speaker of the House Don Scott demanded  that the Governor remove her from that Board. The Governor has refused.  Ken Cuccinelli  is another author of the 9th edition who served under Trump as Acting Deputy Secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Acting Deputy Secretary, and Chief Regulatory Officer for the Department of Homeland Security. Also, he served as Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia under Governor McDonnell. He is notorious in Virginia circles for his far right and often cruel politics on many topics,  including his concern about “education about homosexuals and AIDS in public schools” and his work to prevent same-sex marriage while Attorney General. Republicans want to end our freedom to learn.  How Project 2025 could influence K-12 Public Education Proposed changes to public education in Project 2025 include: elimination of the US Department of Education, ending the alleged indoctrination of students, reducing the federal contribution to school budgets, giving parents the choice of how to educate their children, and reversing education policies put in place by the Biden administration. The following drop down sections provide details about each of these plans.  Eliminate the US Department of Education Project 2025 explains that “Schools should be responsive to parents … and the more the federal government is involved in education, the less responsive to parents the public schools will be. This department [Education] is an example of federal intrusion into a traditionally state and local realm. For the sake of American children, Congress should shutter it and return control of education to the states” (page 285). For these reasons Project 2025 proposes eliminating the federal Department of Education, and Federal education policies, regulations and red tape.  If elimination of the department can not be realized, Project 2025 directs that the Secretary of Education must make serving parents and American ideals the priority. The document calls for passing a “Department of Education Reorganization Act” (page 330) where education would be “publicly funded but education decisions [would] be made by families.” Some of the options that would be reserved for parents include deciding where their students would receive their education and how the student’s share of federal funding would be managed (page 319). The Heritage foundation argues that “education should be publicly funded but education decisions should be made by families.” (page 319) Under Project 2025, every parent would have the option to direct his or her child’s share of education funding through an education savings account (ESA) funded overwhelmingly by state and local taxpayers, which would empower parents to choose a set of education options that meet their child's unique needs. (page 319) Also, states would be allowed to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. (page 351) In the document, the Heritage Foundation insisted that state and local control over education funding be restored. “As Washington begins to downsize its intervention in education, existing funding should be sent to states as grants over which they have full control, enabling states to put federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law.” (page 322) The authors admit that “The next head of this department will have a lot to do—hopefully culminating in the department’s closure and the salutary restoration of educational control to states, localities, and parents.” (page 286) End (Alleged) Indoctrination of Students The Heritage Foundation claims that the Department of Education contains “leftist advocates intent on indoctrination” (page 285) and that “Bureaucrats at the Department of Education inject racist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda into America’s classrooms” (page 6). Furthermore, authors of Project 2025 suggest “the Department of Education…is a convenient one-stop shop for the woke education cartel, which …is not particularly concerned with children’s education.” Also they insist that “Schools need to reject gender ideology and critical race theory” (page 322) and “schools should be responsive to parents, rather than to leftist advocates intent on indoctrination” (page 285) Alleged indoctrination of public school students is a main rationale that the Foundation gives for wanting to eliminate the Department. They also propose that “Short of this (eliminating the Department of Education), the Secretary of Education should insist that the department serve parents and American ideals, not advocates whose message is that children can choose their own sex, that America is “systemically racist,” that math itself is racist, and that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ideal of a colorblind society should be rejected in favor of reinstating a color-conscious society.” (page 286)  Significantly Reduce Federal Contribution to Local School Budgets The Heritage Foundation proposes that federal funds under Title I, which provides federal funding for lower income school districts, be administered by a Department other than Education (page 325). Also, they propose that the “revenue responsibility for Title I funding to the states” be given in a “10-year phase-out period” as a “no strings attached formula block grant” after which federal Title 1 funding will end and the need to fund low income students will be the responsibility of each state (page 326).  Another Heritage Foundation proposal that will influence school budgets involves the elimination of Impact Aid (federal funds that replace revenue that would go to schools to make up for the lack of a tax base due to federal property in the school systems), or at least transfer responsibility of the administration of the Impact Aid to other departments. (page 326). Let Parents Pull Funding from Local Schools The Heritage Foundation has strong opinions about privatizing public schools. In Project 2025 it states that “Education should be publicly funded but education decisions should be made by families. Ultimately, every parent should have the option to direct his or her child’s share of education funding through an education savings account (ESA), funded overwhelmingly by state and local taxpayers, which would empower parents to choose a set of education options that meet their child's unique needs.” (page 319) The Heritage Foundation claims that ”Empowering families to choose among a diverse set of education options is key to reform and improved outcomes, and it can be achieved without establishing a new federal program. For example, portability of existing federal education spending to fund families directly or allowing federal tax credits to encourage voluntary contributions to K–12 education savings accounts”. (page 322) Recently it has been reported  that privatization of publicly funded education has surged in “red states” while “blue states” have tended to stay with the traditional public education model. “Critics of changes (privatization) argue they amount to a wealth transfer to families with kids in private schools, and they fear it will result in the weakening or even the eventual privatization of public school systems. They also voice concern over the separation of church and state, since many ESA funds will go toward sending children to religious education.” Since public education is the cornerstone of democracy and was instituted for “the common good”, privatization of public schools using taxpayer’s money for private education seems to have many negative points, including that privatization will:  Take funding away from public schools, giving public school students reduced access to resources needed for a good education.  Offer less accountability and transparency to taxpayers,  Remove anti discrimination standards that are set for public schools. Most states do not protect private school students from discrimination. Not necessarily improve achievement compared to that for public school students.  Reverse Biden Administration Policies Project 2025 calls for rescinding many of the education policies implemented by the Biden administration with specific plans to: Review all the education-related regulations enacted by the Biden Administration.  Review the school meals program and the Income-Driven” student loan program. (page 331) Rescind Biden’s new requirements and lessen the federal restrictions on charter schools.  Rescind recent changes in data collection methods to remove the “nonbinary” sex category to OCR’S [Office of Civil Rights] data collection authority.” Rescind restrictions on the use of pronouns. (page 346) Proposed education policy changes in Agenda 47 In addition to the policy reforms under Project 2025, candidate Trump has posted another list of policy reforms he plans to implement. In Agenda 47  the Trump campaign uses in his election bid the Republicans tactic of trying to frighten parents about supposed “Marxist indoctrination” in public schools. This strategy has been and is central to Trump’s election bid . It is a well known tactic of extreme right and fascist political groups to paint political opponents as Marxists and communists and claim that they dominate education institutions. Currently this allegation is being proposed as a justification to make it easier to fire educators and replace them with ultranationalists and those loyal to conservative administrations.  The Trump campaign is following that strategy and has published their proposed agenda that has the potential to” threaten the stability of the economy and government itself ”. Details of the strategy include:  Offering universal school choice.  Eliminating the Department of Education. Allowing for the direct election of school principals by parents who also be allowed to to hire, fire, and decide on rewards for them, school boards, and teachers. A promise to get "Critical Race Theory, transgender ideology, and left-wing indoctrination OUT of our schools.” A plan to cut federal funding   to any school “pushing Critical Race Theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children.” Also,   if elected the former president plans to pursue civil rights investigations into any school that engages in race-based discrimination. A plan to “fight for patriotic education in America’s schools” because “decades of poor scholarship have vilified our Founders and the principles that they championed and have taught many of our young people to hate their own country.” Providing incentives to states and school districts to abolish teacher tenure for grades K-12. Eliminating the “equity agenda” from classrooms and urging Congress to provide restitution to those who have been discriminated against by “equity” policies. Reinstatement of the 1776 Commission , which Trump created during his first term and that was disbanded by Joe Biden after he was elected. It is worth mentioning that the 1776 Commission was established in response to the publication of the 1619 project , and the 1776 report has been described as warping“ the history of racism and slavery.”  A promise  to “veto any effort to weaponize or nationalize civics education” and “create a credentialing body to certify teachers who embrace patriotic values and support the American Way of Life.” A promise to fiercely protect “the First Amendment right to pray in public schools.” The proposed changes under Project 2025 and Agenda 47 would dramatically change  our public education system from one that supports the common good to one that “transforms the United States into a banana republic and theocracy—both concepts repugnant to a U.S. Constitution committed to secular governance and equal access under the law.”  There is no place for apathy during this upcoming election because public education is on the ballot. Voters are urged to understand the ramification of electing each candidate and vote for the candidate that supports their views on what is needed to ensure that every child has access to a welcoming, inclusive, safe, relevant, nurturing and quality public education.

The session had the sheen of input, but lacked the rigor and transparency of true public engagement. Report on the 4/4/24 VDOE Listening Session Last Thursday, 4 Public Education President Cheryl Binkley and I drove an hour out to Manassas during rush hour traffic for the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) Accountability Listening Session . We hoped to learn about planned changes and provide much-needed input, particularly after reading Board Member Anne Holton’s call to arms . Instead, we learned that we need to keep a close eye on this process, and it may already be too late. I’ve tried to keep an open mind on the VDOE efforts  to change accountability and accreditation measures for public schools, but there are too many red flags, which we will delve into, including:  A lack of transparency (e.g. What data points are being changed?) Inadequate measures A lack of awareness (or interest in) of the role that equity plays in school success Use of education reform consultants A reliance on data from school privatization outfits A rushed process that has deterred and diminished Virginia stakeholder engagement and input VDOE Superintendent of Instruction Dr. Lisa Coons and her staff were organized and knowledgeable; nevertheless, I came out of the meeting more concerned than ever about VDOE plans and potential deleterious impact on our public schools, student opportunity, and teacher retention. The rushed process made it clear that the performance measures were immature and far from adequate to measure growth, readiness, and excellence of our students or schools.  Before discussing my concerns, first I must make a pitch for everyone to be involved in this process: Attend the Virginia Board of Education (VBOE) business meeting on Thursday April 25, 2024. Sign up here to address the Board, submitting no later than 5:00 p.m. the day before the scheduled business meeting. VBOE business meetings will be held in the James Monroe Building, 101 N. 14th Street, Richmond, VA 23219 beginning at 9 am. If you cannot attend, fill out a public comment form . They have no video component to respect the needs of a working parent or someone who cannot travel to Richmond from great distances. Feedback is due by COB 4/19. Check out the full VDOE presentation  here to understand and identify concerns. Lack of Transparency The funny thing was that “transparency” was the word of the hour at the VDOE meeting. If it had been a drinking game based on the number of times VDOE used the word “transparency” related to the accountability efforts, all three dozen of us would have been drunk within the first 10 minutes of the Accountability Listening Session. Despite the overuse of the word “transparency,” the meeting lacked transparency on two key issues: 1) What were the old measures versus the new suggested measures, and 2) Why were the old accountability measures considered to be inadequate? In my previous life, I did change management to create more efficient and effective processes. My first step was always to understand the current process and how it worked before I suggested changes. Unfortunately in the VDOE Listening Sessions, we were not given that information, thus it was hard to understand the old system of measures versus the proposed new system of measures.  What were the old measures, which measures changed, and why were those measures changed? I would have liked those answers during the meeting, because it would have given me confidence that change was necessary and that the changes recommended were positive changes. I did a little digging to find where the current system  is located, and found that school quality profiles are available and that they provide significant amounts of information that is entirely transparent, including school-level information . Repeatedly, VDOE said certain information just wasn’t available, but I found the current system had school profiles that provided lots of illuminating tabs filled with critical accountability information. Unfortunately, I found the ESSA School Quality Indicators Summary tab to be pretty incomprehensible; however, I think that it is a data and organization issue and not a content issue that requires a complete overhaul, as recommended by VDOE. Inadequate Measures Lacking Equity Most comments in the 4/4 Listening Session were concerned that new measures ignored equity and other indicators of student learning in Virginia public schools. For example, it is known that schools with high percentages of students who live in poverty struggle with standardized test scores, attendance, and access to rigorous higher-level curricula, yet these were recommended by the VDOE as the key measures of success for schools!  The indicators (see above and slide 17 in VDOE presentation ) for Middle School readiness produced some interesting discussion. One new indicator is a performance task, separate from a traditional SOL, to test student abilities using critical thinking, communication, collaboration, citizenship, and creativity. This generated excitement over the 5 Cs, but also great concern that such a student product would be analyzed and graded by artificial intelligence. It is important to note that this would be tested in 5th grade, since VDOE considers middle school to be grades 6-8. To make matters worse, readiness in middle school and high school (see above and slides 19 and 21 in VDOE presentation ) was based on taking courses ABOVE grade level. Why is readiness for high school is based on taking high school level courses, many of which often aren’t available in rural and smaller schools? For example, courses like Algebra and Geometry may routinely be available in Northern Virginia (i.e., Region 4) middle schools, but may not be available in smaller, more rural districts. Also, evaluating high schools based on how many students take Advanced Placement (AP) courses or pass AP and IB exams, both of which cost money, shows a troubling lack of consideration of school districts that are unable to provide such higher level courses due to lack of resources, students and teachers.  Repeatedly, public input focused on the need to recognize differences among schools, including how these revised accountability measures would have negative impacts on schools with large numbers of immigrant, lower income, and English language learning students. One of the measures receiving the most criticism was the chronic absenteeism measure, which few schools are able to meet at this time. Even well-funded schools might find it difficult to meet the chronic absenteeism threshold in that measure. Dr. Coons stated that a school could lose accreditation on chronic absenteeism alone in the new system, which means many of our schools could lose accreditation overnight. Not cool at all. Some accountability ideas that sparked interest in the crowd included those that might measure civic engagement; however, we did not have time during our session to discuss these fully or identify measurable student civic or learning activities to quantify for such a measure.  Involvement of Education Reformers and Privatizers I am just a parent, so I’m not well-versed in the history of education reform  which has impacted K-12 public education; however, I have witnessed privatization movements push to take public funds from our public schools and put them into experimental charter schools or private schools. What is the real goal of new accountability measures and how will they hurt or help our schools? Thus, I always look into who the consultants are who are managing the process: are they really pro-public schools, or do they lean toward privatizing public education? With the VDOE, I’m wondering how they hired these consultants (e.g., by competitive bid) and what is the success rate of these consultants?  I had trouble finding much on the primary consultants working on this, the Hunt Institute. Their web pages do not ring alarm bells, but they don’t allay my concerns either. One major concern is that they are not actively partnering with the National PTA, a grassroots organization that has existed for over 125 years and has over a century of knowledge and partnerships that would be useful. Instead, the Hunt Institute partners with National Parents Union , a four year old group with dubious funding sources  and questionable motives  regarding public education.  Additionally, the VDOE is relying on data and recommendations from the Fordham Institute , a well-known school privatization   “think tank”  based out of Ohio. By the way, Ohio is 19th in school ranking, while Virginia is 4th, which makes recommendations from Fordham doubly suspect. Diminished Virginia Stakeholder Engagement and Input We attended the Region 4 session which represents 19 counties , 131 school districts, and 2,258 schools/centers. This means that the listening session represented the interests of 472,241 students and untold employees and parents/guardians–i.e., 37% of the public school student population of Virginia. How is it possible that the 29 people in the room could possibly represent the interests of 37% of the public education students, never mind the parents, teachers, administrators, and taxpayers? If only 29 people attended the Listening Session, that means their voices represented the voices of nearly a half-million public school children and millions of other stakeholders. Yet, the audience had very few parents, only one school board member (shoutout to FCPS’ own Melanie Meren!), stakeholders from nonprofits, the President of Virginia PTA, school principals, and teachers. There were even two Moms for Liberty attendees who made no comments and left early. There was little time for input, and repeatedly Dr. Coons had to rush through questions to ensure that we reviewed the entire VDOE presentation. We were told what input they didn’t want, but it was hard for most of us, especially a novice parent like me, to understand what they wanted. Slide 9 (above to the right) showed the types of feedback the VDOE wanted from the public: performance task or specific courses under middle school advanced coursework, weights of the specific indicator bullets within each category, etc. Additionally, I sensed a scolding tone from Dr. Coons in response to some questions, particularly from Cheryl and me. At first, I thought this was because I wrote last week’s blog, but they wouldn’t have known that. Then I thought it was because I used the word “equity” in my comment, which may be forbidden after Youngkin just closed the Equity Office. Cheryl informed me that it was likely because of our yellow 4 Public Education shirts, which have become well-known at VDOE and VBOE meetings during public input. Nonetheless, the responses didn’t feel friendly or respectful. I felt like Youngkin’s VDOE had no intention of listening to any parents, except maybe cherry-picked parents whose comments are more aligned with VDOE’s plans. Finally, the lack of a VBOE member felt like a slap in the face to the largest region in the Commonwealth. I also have questions about how our responses will be documented and forwarded to the VBOE, since there were no cameras in the room. I would hope that Youngkin’s strong opinions about Loudoun County School Board video requirements  would mean that he would ensure full documentation of public input at his own meetings. Unfortunately, as evidenced by the lack of video from last year’s History SOL input from hundreds of Virginians, I suspect that Youngkin doesn’t feel his own agency’s need to follow sunshine rules. What Can You Do? Despite all of these concerns, I do want to emphasize that the VDOE staff were polite and the meeting was well-run. We were welcomed upon arrival, and were given handouts and a QR code for feedback. I liked that they used a microphone, which makes things more accessible for all. Big TVs with presentations, combined with handouts also increased accessibility and comprehension. For the most part, they listened patiently, except when they hurried us up with our comments and questions because the 1.5 hours allotted for the meeting was nowhere near enough even with the tiny crowd.  I don’t know who is responsible for the deficiencies outlined above. Is this a Youngkin directive? Is this coming from the VBOE or VDOE? I have no idea as the origin was not provided. But the fears  I expressed before I attended the session were realized during the 4/4 VDOE meeting, and I’m not sure what we can do except show up, provide clear input, and keep records of how this effort is proceeding. So, please consider signing up to address the VBOE on 4/25. If you cannot attend, fill out a public comment form  by 4/19. Check out the full VDOE presentation  here to understand major concerns outlined above and others, including: Cost of implementing these new measures, particularly with adding testing and data gathering. Lack of equity and understanding of different school populations. Expectations of middle and high schoolers to do above grade level work Heavy weight and negative effects of SOLs and chronic absenteeism. Low weight of on-time graduation. Concerns that the new accountability/accreditation standards won’t actually help schools perform better, but will rate them nonetheless.

Is a “Theocratic Veto” coming to Virginia? In a case ( see below ) brought this year in Fairfax County Circuit Court by America First Legal , Do nald Trump’s former aide Stephen Miller and Virginia’s current Attorney General Jason Miyares try to establish a right to sue about and invalidate any law that goes against a “sincerely held belief” (a.k.a., a religious belief). In other words, they want a theocratic veto.  In simple terms, a theocratic veto would be the right for someone’s freedom of religion to give them a veto over someone else' s freedom, whether it be speech or public accommodation. In his Amicus brief, ( see below ) Miyares is suggesting that the state has the right to enforce this religious f reedom to force one person’s religious doctrine on others. Jane Doe v. Fairfax County School Board (CL-2024-0003171) The case is officially brought by an unnamed student (“Jane Doe” for the lawsuit) who probably graduated this June from her high school and is no longer a student in Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS). The defendants in the case are the Fairfax County School Board (FCSB), defended by Gentry Locke Attorneys. Interestingly, nearly one year ago, Miyares lost a case against the FCSB that cost FCPS nearly $1.4 million in outside legal fees , unknown internal costs, and unknown costs to Virginia taxpayers. Miller brings his suit via an activist law-firm bearing the name of a Nazi-associated movement known as “America First” that existed in the US before the Axis attacks on our country at the start of World War II. This movement was exemplified by the America First Committee  of 1941/42, which was a political, isolationist (and notably antisemitic) group that opposed giving aid to the Allied Forces (a.k.a., our allies, Britain and France) fighting Germany and Italy, the Axis Powers, during World War II ( see Dr. Seuss cartoon to the right ). This committee posited that “ the fight against fascism was not America's fight .” A small group of congressmen associated with this influential committee were found to have colluded with Germany prior to the war . Miyares makes his statements in the Amicus Brief in his role as Attorney General of Virginia, on behalf of all of the residents of the state, no matter how unpopular his views may be. Miller’s lawyers (including Ian Prior , another former Trump appointee), with the support of Miyares, is asking the Fairfax County Circuit Court to declare that FCPS regulation ( 2603 ), which spells about support for transgender students and complies with Federal court precedents, is invalid because Doe interprets it as violating her “sincerely held beliefs.” They have a  free speech claim, too. Per American First Legal, this policy “violates their free speech rights under the Virginia Constitution” despite the fact that the policy does not ask the student named Doe to actually do anything; it does not affect her directly. Because she disagrees with it, Doe says that it “burdens her rights to express disagreement with it.”  Implications of a “Theocratic Veto” This case is at its heart a “theocratic veto.” Core to Miyares’ Amicus brief ( see below ) is a recent decision in Vlaming v. West Point School Board, et al  (this is West Point, Virginia, not New York!), where the Supreme Court of Virginia (SCOVA, as opposed the SCOTUS) increased the privilege of religious beliefs in Virginia beyond those given in the first amendment to the United States constitution. In Vlaming , SCOVA says that religious beliefs must be accommodated unless there is a threat to public safety and order that is caused by giving that accommodation. The FCSB response to Miyares’ brief notes ( on page 10 of the FCPS response below ) that Miyares’ Amicus Brief “endorses Petitioner’s attempt to extend Vlaming as a tool to invalidate generally applicable laws–and that is a step that Vlaming does not endorse.”  However, Miyares, in writing in support of Miller’s America First Legal firm, goes further. He appears to argue that simple disagreement on religious grounds to a law or policy gives a person the right to ask a court to invalidate the law. He demands a supremacy of religious belief in the elimination of the choices of the elected legislators rather than a less intrusive accommodation for religious beliefs. Oh my lord, what a statement! What freedom that we have in the United States, what freedom does anyone have in the world, that has not been opposed on the grounds of “sincerely held belief?” What step towards a more fair and inclusive society has not been opposed on the grounds that someone wants to prevent freedom on a “religious ground.”  The end of mass enslavement , the continued work toward ending oppression of women, the right of the non-wealthy to vote, the right to an education, the right to desegregate schools , and freedom of religion itself have all been opposed on “religious grounds”. However, no American could imagine where this country would be without these rights? Miller and Miyares have chosen to propose this Gilead-level legal theory with regard to transgender students, not coincidentally. Their hope may be, with enough smoke and mirrors around bathrooms, sports teams, medical care, and names and pronouns, that they can slip through a precedent that puts personal religious belief above all  law. Above school boards, above the General Assembly, above the Governor. Religion above Democracy spells the end of our experiment at a Republic.  It’s absurd on the face of it. Why is this being proposed now? In the National Review  (a long-time ultra-conservative magazine) Miyares hinted that he is considering a run for Governor of Virginia, or other office. He says “I will be happy to comment about and discuss my political future at the appropriate time,” then shifts the focus to Donald Trump’s candidacy for president of the United States. This was just two weeks ago. Miyares is being coy about what office he will run for. The current Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, Winsome Sears, has a commanding lead over Miyares in early polls for the nomination for governor of Virginia. Trump was similarly coy about whom he would choose for his Vice-Presidential running mate. Now that he has chosen his VP running-mate (JD Vance), other jobs in his administration remain open: cabinet positions, ambassadorships, directorships, and many more. What will Miyares’s “political future” hold? One thing we can be sure of: he is building that future on pandering to the greatest dreams of America’s religious nationalism: a theocratic veto, initially aimed at smashing the hopes and rights of transgender students. Next Week: Attend Hearings on the Case! There are a number of hearings coming up in this case at the Fairfax County Courthouse (4th and 5th floors):  July 25 at 2 p.m. before Judge Kassabian on a motion by FCPS to end the case basically on the grounds that “you can’t bring a suit just because you disagree with a policy” (called a demurrer). July 26 (time TBD– click here for docket information ) for a hearing before a judge to be appointed on whether the case should be dismissed because the student has graduated and it is now “moot.”  In terms of precedents set, the most important of these is probably the July 25 2 p.m. demurrer before Judge Kassabian. It is worth noting that Kassabian is the same judge who dismissed a somewhat similar case in 2015 (Lafferty v FCSB). Eventually in Lafferty SCOVA ruled that simply disagreeing with a policy doesn’t grant the right to sue about it. This matter is returning because Miyares is hoping that the new SCOVA ruling in Vlaming v. West Point will grant the “theocratic veto.”  It’s grandstanding pure and simple, but one never knows what a court will do. We should all hope (or pray, if you like) for the best outcome for our transgender students and families, because that is the best outcome for all students. Downloadable Case Documents

Para garantizar que la comunidad de la escuela primaria de Bucknell pudiera leer este artículo, utilizamos el traductor de Google para ofrecerlo en español a nuestras maravillosas familias de habla hispana. Nos disculpamos profundamente por cualquier error de traducción en este artículo. Por favor disfrute este artículo. Click here for English version . ¡En los días caninos del verano, aparecieron los Bucknell Bulldogs! Bucknell Elementary es una pequeña escuela comunitaria de Título 1 de 278 estudiantes en el distrito Mount Vernon del condado de Fairfax. La mayoría de los estudiantes caminan a la escuela y varias familias han visto a tres generaciones de hijos, nietos, sobrinas y sobrinos graduarse de la escuela primaria Bucknell. Esta comunidad muy unida tiene un nivel de lealtad y determinación que rara vez se ve en los suburbios con sus poblaciones transitorias y largos viajes. En cierto modo, la actitud de la Primaria Bucknell recuerda la lealtad de un pueblo pequeño a su escuela secundaria local. Como corresponde, su mascota son los “Bulldogs”, una mascota cuya lealtad a la familia es reconocida. Si no está claro, Bucknell es más que una escuela; es una familia. La Escuela Primaria Bucknell es una familia valiente que ha estado luchando por su escuela durante décadas. Al igual que los bulldogs, la tenacidad de Bucknell los convierte en una fuente inagotable de coraje, listos para afrontar amenazas y controversias. La Escuela Primaria Bucknell recibió noticias no deseadas   Recientemente, esta comunidad fue puesta a prueba por algunas noticias difíciles. Dos días antes de que terminaran las clases en junio de 2024, los profesores y las familias de la Escuela Primaria Bucknell fueron informados de la intención de FCPS de convertir su escuela comunitaria en una escuela Magnet Montessori en un futuro próximo utilizando una subvención de 15 millones de dólares a cinco años del Departamento de Educación de EE. UU. con la introducción gradual de Pre-K y Kindergarten a partir de 2025. Durante y después del período de incorporación paulatina del Montessori Magnet, se invitó a las familias de la Escuela Primaria Bucknell a permanecer en el entorno Montessori o ser transportadas en autobús a la escuela primaria Stratford Landing; sin embargo, la carta contenía pocos detalles. Se informó a los maestros que tendrían que obtener una recertificación en su propio tiempo si deseaban permanecer en Bucknell, o serían reubicados. También se les informó que había maestros certificados de Montessori esperando entre bastidores para puestos en Bucknell que no eran maestros certificados de Virginia. La comunidad estaba en armas y temía por el futuro de su escuela, sus maestros, sus estudiantes y su comunidad. La PTA de Bucknell Bulldog y las familias entraron en acción Inmediatamente, la comunidad se organizó. Trabajaron para informar a los vecinos, especialmente a aquellos que tienen múltiples trabajos. Crearon y firmaron peticiones. Las familias, los maestros y la PTA abogaron por detener el proceso, que había procedido sin notificación ni participación pública. Las peticiones recibieron cientos de firmas de profesores y padres.  Los Bucknell Bulldogs se presentaron con fuerza y ​​determinación. Casi todos los asientos estaban llenos en la cafetería de la Escuela Primaria Bucknell (ES) a las 5:30 pm del 16 de julio, el día más caluroso del año, para escuchar lo que la Dra. Reid y su personal tenían que decir sobre una discusión reciente sobre convertir a su amada escuela en una escuela magnet Montessori en un futuro cercano. Más de 100 padres, estudiantes, abuelos, tías y tíos y maestros se sentaron con la respiración contenida, esperando luchar para mantener su escuela como un centro de la comunidad, como lo ha sido durante generaciones. Inmediatamente, las primeras palabras de la Dra. Reid sacaron un poco del aire de la habitación, ya que afirmó claramente que la Escuela Primaria Bucknell ya no estaba en la lista como imán Montessori. En cambio, si FCPS recibiera la subvención, intentarían ubicar la escuela Magnet Montessori en una ubicación más central, en una escuela actualmente vacía, para garantizar que más estudiantes tuvieran acceso y causar menos interrupciones en una escuela activa. El Dr. Reid se disculpó profundamente por la mala forma en que se comunicó la propuesta y por no “involucrar a las partes interesadas como deberíamos”. Dejó en claro que aceptaba toda la responsabilidad por la debacle. Luego abordó el lenguaje problemático de la subvención y, al mismo tiempo, continuó haciéndose cargo del problema. Luego preguntó a la sala: “¿Cuáles son sus esperanzas y sueños para la comunidad?” Preocupaciones de la comunidad de Bucknell Para muchos, fue un soplo de aire fresco escuchar a un líder asumir su responsabilidad y luego estar abierto a escuchar a una multitud de padres y maestros insatisfechos (nota: puedo contar con los dedos el número de veces que he escuchado a un líder hacer eso). .) Se necesitan agallas y valor para asumir la responsabilidad y luego escuchar activamente 90 minutos de comentarios, muchos de los cuales provienen de un lugar de dolor, no sólo como resultado de la debacle de la falta de comunicación de Montessori Magnet, sino también del tratamiento de otras escuelas y padres en el condado. Los temas y comentarios más comunes fueron los siguientes (nota: algunas de las respuestas del Dr. Reid están entre paréntesis): Si la escuela primaria Bucknell se considera “antieconómica” debido a su tamaño, ¿qué pasará después y por qué otras familias no quieren unirse a nuestra escuela? (Respuesta: En el futuro, será necesario equilibrar las escuelas con matrícula insuficiente y excesiva para garantizar las mejores oportunidades educativas para los estudiantes). La subvención Montessori se redactó con un lenguaje despectivo con la intención de eliminar la segregación en lugar de integrar a de la Escuela Primaria Bucknell ; no queremos gentrificación a través de la desegregación; Queremos integración con más estudiantes. (Respuesta: La subvención se redactó basándose en una plantilla del Departamento de Educación de EE. UU. Sin duda, el lenguaje es malo). (Nota: Hay artículos académicos que analizan cómo la eliminación de la segregación (es decir, detener legal y/o voluntariamente la segregación de grupos) no es lo mismo que la integración (es decir, la mezcla reflexiva de diferentes grupos para garantizar que "los diferentes grupos raciales y étnicos experimenten trato justo e igualitario dentro de un entorno sin segregación"). O como afirma tan elocuentemente el historiador y profesor de HBCU, el Dr. Jemar Tisby : "La desegregación es pasiva. Significa simplemente derribar barreras para dejar entrar a la gente. La integración es activa. Significa tomar medidas proactivas para incorporar diferentes tipos de personas en lo que se está haciendo. Es la diferencia entre dejar una puerta abierta y abrirla, salir a la calle, recibir a la gente y luego hacerla sentir como en casa". ¿Hay escuelas cercanas con exceso de capacidad que puedan aumentar las cifras de inscripción de Bucknell?  (Respuesta: Sí, la Junta Escolar está votando una Política 8130 revisada que ofrecerá una visión integral de todos los datos del condado de Fairfax, pero este no es un proceso rápido). Nuestra comunidad es segura con niños jugando en los patios delanteros y en la escuela. Somos una comunidad que se cuida unos a otros. Por favor no cambies eso.  Algunas personas ven nuestra escuela mal y con prejuicios negativos.  Esto nos afecta mucho a nosotros y a los niños aún más. ¿Cómo podemos asegurarnos de que otras escuelas de nuestra pirámide vean las excelentes cosas que hacemos aquí? ¿Cómo podemos alentar a otros a ver nuestra escuela desde una mentalidad positiva versus una mentalidad deficitaria ? Mire el vídeo a continuación para comprender mejor esta idea y cómo cambiar esta mentalidad, que está influenciada por estereotipos históricos. ¿Cómo podemos asegurarnos de que haya aportes de la comunidad sobre las futuras pautas de límites?  (Respuesta: Habrá un comité directivo que necesitará padres, similar al Panel de Padres de diferentes escuelas, y queremos que esos padres también proporcionen comentarios a la comunidad). La escuela primaria Bucknell solía tener muchos programas  (por ejemplo, el centro AAP y el programa de mentores del FBI), pero fueron eliminados con el director anterior. ¿Cómo podemos recuperar esos programas para fomentar el interés de la comunidad aquí? (Respuesta: Los programas que tenga aquí dependen de usted. Comuníquese con el Superintendente Regional para obtener apoyo). ← Este fue uno de los comentarios más comunes. Otros programas sugeridos incluyeron: inmersión, STEAM, centro AAP y educación financiera. Los comentaristas quieren "criar a nuestros hijos". Existe un prejuicio contra las grandes escuelas como la escuela primaria Bucknell.  Un estudiante comentó que su padre quería que fuera a la Escuela Primaria Waynewood, que tiene mejor reputación, pero que está muy feliz en la Primaria Bucknell.¿Cómo podemos informar a otros sobre nuestra escuela? A menudo se pasa por alto a los profesores a la hora de ofrecer la programación más adecuada para su escuela y sus estudiantes. Los docentes deberían tener más libertad porque conocen a la comunidad de una manera que la sede no lo hace. Nuestros maestros son increíbles y trabajan muy duro para nuestros estudiantes.  Págales mejor, por favor. ¿Podemos tener más conversaciones comunitarias en este lado del condado?  Tal vez incluso considere organizar reuniones de la Junta Escolar en diferentes lugares porque es difícil para los padres conducir en las horas pico en todo el condado para una reunión de las 7 p.m. en Falls Church. (Respuesta: Esté atento a más conversaciones regionales con el Dr. Reid en otoño y primavera. Mientras tanto, el personal regional puede reunirse con más frecuencia). ¿Cómo podemos planificar el futuro de la escuela primaria Bucknell?  (Respuesta: Si se aprueba la Política 8130, es una oportunidad de oro para la participación, porque el Superintendente necesitará desarrollar un plan para el futuro. FCPS necesita un mapa y comprensión de todo el condado considerando las rutas de autobuses, los límites escolares, el número de estudiantes, y más. Si no hacemos esto, continuaremos duplicando el status quo, lo que significa más autobuses, remolques y renovaciones que pueden no estar dirigidas a las escuelas que están creciendo). ¡Padres, únanse a la PTA de la esquela primaria Bucknell para continuar esta conversación! Como espectador, quedé impresionado por el nivel de atención y consideración que cada miembro de la comunidad aportó a la conversación. Aunque algunas preguntas y comentarios fueron justificadamente señalados, el Dr. Reid y la comunidad trabajaron juntos para encontrar puntos en común, resolver problemas y planificar el futuro de la Escuela Primaria Bucknell. Pero lo que realmente me sorprendió fue el nivel de participación y atención comunitaria por parte de las familias y el personal de la Escuela Primaria Bucknell. A mediados del verano, durante las vacaciones y una abominable ola de calor, la PTA de Bucknell trabajó para reunir a tantas familias como fuera posible. Esto puede ser difícil en una escuela de Título 1 con familias que hablan diferentes idiomas y/o tienen múltiples trabajos, pero la comunidad de la Primaria Bucknell reunió a más de 100 personas para una reunión a la hora de la cena. Una comunidad pequeña pero poderosa defiende su escuela   Si no es obvio, el tema común durante la reunión es que la Escuela Primaria Bucknell es una escuela superior donde los niños aprovechan las oportunidades educativas. La Escuela Primaria Bucknell tiene una excelente proporción de maestros por estudiantes (1:9) y es una comunidad segura comprometida con la grandeza. El increíble director, el personal creativo y capacitado y los maestros comprometidos distinguen a la Escuela Primaria Bucknell de tantas experiencias escolares que han compartido conmigo. El profundo amor, compromiso y cuidado que estas familias y el personal tienen por su escuela no deben ser ignorados por el resto de los padres del condado o la administración de FCPS.  Y como los padres dijeron tan elocuentemente una y otra vez: centrarse en las limitaciones y los estereotipos es doloroso. Todo el condado debe pensar en esto en el futuro cuando asigne recursos, programación y estudiantes. Todos debemos superar nuestros prejuicios mutuos para poder evitar el caos y el daño a nuestros estudiantes.  La Escuela Primaria Bucknell merece una voz en la mesa: sus experiencias y necesidades no deberían ser desplazadas por comunidades más grandes, más ricas y más organizadas. Aunque la Escuela Primaria Bucknell es pequeña, es una comunidad poderosa y valiente.

Haga clic aquí para ver la versión en español . In the dog days of summer, the Bucknell Bulldogs showed up! Bucknell Elementary is a small Title 1 , community school of 278 students in the Mount Vernon district of Fairfax County. Most students walk to school, and a number of families have seen three generations of children, grandchildren, and nieces and nephews graduate from Bucknell ES. This tight-knit community has a level of loyalty and grit rarely seen in the suburbs with its transient populations and long commutes. In some ways, the Bucknell ES attitude is reminiscent of a small town’s allegiance to their local high school. Appropriately, their mascot is the “Bulldogs”, a pet whose loyalty to family is renowned. If it is not clear, Bucknell is more than a school; it is a family. Bucknell ES is a courageous family that has been fighting for their school for decades. Like bulldogs, Bucknell’s tenaciousness makes them a powerhouse of courage, ready to take on threats and controversy. Bucknell Elementary received Unwelcome News   Recently, this community was tested by some difficult news. Two days before school ended in June 2024 , faculty and families at Bucknell Elementary School were informed of FCPS’s intention  to turn their community school into a magnet Montessori school in the near future using a 5-year $15 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education, with Pre-K and Kindergarten to be phased in beginning in 2025. During and after the phase-in period for the Montessori Magnet, Bucknell ES families were invited to stay in the Montessori environment, or be bused to Stratford Landing elementary; however, the letter was short on details. Teachers were informed that they would need to get recertified on their own time if they wished to remain at Bucknell, or they would be relocated. They were also informed that there were Montessori certified teachers waiting in the wings for positions at Bucknell who were not Virginia certified teachers. The community was up in arms and fearful for the future of their school, teachers, students, and community.  The Bucknell Bulldog PTA and Families Sprang into Action Immediately, the community organized. They worked to inform neighbors, especially those working multiple jobs. They created and signed petitions. Families, teachers, and the PTA advocated to stop the process, which had proceeded without public notification or input. The petitions received hundreds of signatures from teachers and parents.  The Bucknell Bulldogs showed up with strength and resolve. Nearly every seat was full in the Bucknell Elementary School (ES) cafeteria at 5:30 pm on July 16th, the hottest day of the year, to hear what Dr. Reid and her staff had to say about a recent discussion about turning their beloved school into a magnet Montessori school in the near future. Over 100 parents, students, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and teachers sat with baited breath, expecting to fight to keep their school as a center of the community, as it has been for generations. Immediately, the first words from Dr. Reid took some of the air out of the room, as she stated clearly that Bucknell ES was no longer on the list as a Montessori magnet. Instead, if FCPS received the grant , they would try to locate the magnet Montessori in a more central location, at a currently empty school, to ensure that more students had access and to cause less disruption to an active school. Dr. Reid was deeply apologetic for the poor way the proposal was communicated and for the failure to “involve stakeholders the way we should.” She made it clear that she accepted full responsibility for the debacle. She then addressed the problematic language of the grant and while continuing to take ownership of the problem. She then asked the room, “What are your hopes and dreams for the community?” Bucknell Community Concerns To many, it was a breath of fresh air to hear a leader take responsibility and then be open to listening to a crowd of dissatisfied parents and teachers (note: I can count on my fingers the number of times I have heard a leader do that.) It takes guts and grit to take responsibility and then to actively listen to 90 minutes of comments, many of which came from a place of hurt, not only resulting from the Montessori Magnet miscommunication debacle, but from treatment by other schools and parents in the county. The most common themes and comments were as follows (note: Some of Dr. Reid’s responses are in parentheses ): If Bucknell ES is considered “uneconomical” because of its size , what will happen next, and why don’t other families want to join our school? ( Response: In the future, it will be necessary to balance under-enrolled and over-enrolled schools to ensure the best education opportunities for students. ) The Montessori grant was written with derogatory language with the intent to desegregate instead of integrate Bucknell ES –we don’t want gentrification through desegregation; we want integration with more students. ( Response: The grant was written based on a template from the U.S. Department of Education. Without doubt, the language is bad. ) ( Note: There are scholarly articles discussing how desegregation (i.e., legally and/or voluntarily stopping the segregation of groups) is not the same as integration (i.e., thoughtful mixing of different groups so as to ensure that " different racial and ethnic groups experience fair and equal treatment within a desegregated environment.") Or as historian and HBCU professor Dr. Jemar Tisby so eloquently states : "Desegregation is passive. It merely means taking down barriers to let people in. Integration is active. It means taking proactive action to actually incorporate different kinds of people into what you're doing. It’s the difference between leaving a door unlocked, and opening the door, going out into the street, welcoming people in, and then making them feel at home. " Are there nearby schools with overcapacity that can bring up Bucknell’s enrollment numbers?  ( Response: Yes, the School Board is voting on a revised Policy 8130  that will offer a comprehensive look at all Fairfax County data, but this is not a quick process. ) Our community is safe  with kids playing in front yards and at the school. We are a community that looks out for each other. Please don’t change that.  Some people view our school poorly and with negative bias.  This hits us hard and the kids even harder. How can we make sure other schools in our pyramid see the great stuff we do here? How can we encourage others to view our school from an asset versus a deficit mindset ? Watch the video below to better understand this idea and how to change this mindset, which is influenced by historical stereotypes. How can we make sure that there is community input on the future boundary guidelines?  ( Response: There will be a steering committee that will need parents, similar to the Parent Panel from different schools, and we will want those parents to provide feedback back to the community, as well. ) Bucknell ES used to have a lot of programs  (e.g., AAP center and FBI mentor program), but they were eliminated with the previous principal. How can we get those programs back to encourage community interest here? ( Response: What programs you have here are up to you. Please contact the Regional Superintendent to get support. ) ← This was one of the most common comments. Other programs suggested included: immersion, STEAM, AAP center, and financial literacy. Commenters want to “raise up our kids.” There is bias against great schools like Bucknell ES.  A student commented that his dad had wanted him to go to Waynewood ES, which has a better reputation, but he is so happy at Bucknell ES. How can we let others know about our school? Teachers are often overlooked in offering programming  most suited to their school and students. Teachers should have more latitude because they know the community in a way that headquarters does not. Our teachers are amazing and work so hard for our students.  Pay them better, please. Can we have more community conversations on this side of the county?  Maybe even consider hosting School Board meetings in different places because it is hard for parents to drive through rush hour across the county for a 7pm meeting in Falls Church. (Response: Please look out for more regional conversations with Dr. Reid in the Fall and Spring. In the meantime, regional staff can meet more frequently. ) How can we plan for Bucknell ES’s future?  ( Response: If Policy 8130 is approved, it is a golden opportunity for involvement, because the Superintendent will then need to develop a plan for the future. FCPS needs a map and understanding of the entire county looking at bus routes, school boundaries, number of students, and more. If we don’t do this, then we will continue to double-down on the status quo which means more buses, trailers, and renovations that may not target the schools that are growing. ) Parents, join the Bucknell PTA to keep this conversation moving! As a bystander, I was impressed by the level of care and thoughtfulness that each community member brought to the conversation. Although some questions and comments were justifiably pointed, Dr. Reid and the community worked together to find common ground, solve problems, and plan for the future of Bucknell ES. But what really bowled me over was the level of community engagement and care by the Bucknell ES families and staff. In the middle of the summer, during vacations and an abhorrent heat wave, the Bucknell PTA worked to bring as many families to the table as possible. This can be hard in a Title 1 school with families speaking different languages and/or working multiple jobs, but the Bucknell ES community brought over 100 people to the table for a dinner-time meeting. A Small But Mighty Community Defends its School   If it isn’t obvious, the common theme during the meeting is that Bucknell ES is a superior school where kids take advantage of education opportunities. Bucknell ES has a terrific teacher-to-student ratio (1:9) and is a safe community committed to greatness. The amazing principal, creative and skilled staff, and committed teachers set Bucknell ES apart from so many school experiences that have been shared with me. The profound love, commitment, and care that these families and staff have for their school must not be ignored by the rest of the parents in the county or FCPS administration.  And as the parents so eloquently said over and over again: focusing on limitations and stereotypes is hurtful. The entire county needs to think about this in the future when they are allocating resources, programming, and students. We all need to overcome our biases toward each other so that we can avoid chaos and harm to our students.  Bucknell ES deserves a voice at the table–its experiences and needs should not be crowded out by larger, wealthier, and more organized communities. Even though Bucknell ES is small, it is a mighty and courageous community.

The National Merit Commended Certificate "Crisis" School Districts are Under Fire School districts across the country are under fire. The assaults on our school systems are not just being fought just at school board meetings and by FOIA, but they are also being conducted through politically motivated lawsuits and investigations, many of which lack merit.  Here in Northern Virginia, we are in the eye of the storm with near constant politically-motivated news coverage, lawsuits, or investigations–all of which pop up too often for any one citizen or group to monitor. Last December, 4 Public Education promised  it would examine the National Merit Commended Certificate “crisis” in order to estimate its impact on the school district. This “crisis” involved an expensive investigation by FCPS and of FCPS by the Youngkin administration, vilification of the school district via significant negative national and local media coverage, and multiple legal attacks on our school system. These investigations and lawsuits racked up substantial legal costs for FCPS and the Commonwealth, and unknown other financial and emotional costs during a nearly year-long attack on FCPS staff. However, in the current case of Miyares v. FCPS , the facts are particularly bewildering. Seemingly, based on exaggerated reporting and the complaint of one non-Asian parent, Attorney General Jason Miyares leveraged the civil rights division of the Commonwealth of Virginia to pursue an investigation of alleged anti-Asian discrimination due to delayed distribution of National Merit Commended Certificates, despite no  Asian-American students or families raising an alarm about 2022 delays of the certificates.  AG Miyares’ investigation resulted in two legal cases, unnecessary confusion and division in the Fairfax community, more outsized scrutiny attention on Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology (TJ), a distraction from the education of students in FCPS, and an untold amount of taxpayer money wasted on a fake crisis. Also, it cost over $1.6 million in outside legal fees to date for two legal cases, per a recent FOIA from FCPS : AG Miyares’s case cost FCPS $1,376,484 and Mark Spooner’s case cost FCPS $266,270 in outside legal fees. We will now fulfill that promise by revealing the full story of the investigations and lawsuits that cost taxpayers millions dollars through: Describing the issue and Governor Youngkin’s involvement in the investigation. Mythbusting the “Commended Certificate Crisis.” Defining a manufactured crisis and the National Merit Scholarship Corporation (NMSC) process. Describing the FCPS investigation and identifying impact on FCPS staff and students. Detailing the legal cases against FCPS by Attorney General Jason Miyares and retired lawyer Mark Spooner. These subjects will all be detailed in drop-downs below. Click on the triangles to read more about any of these discussions.  As best as possible, this blog will refer to source documents, news reports, and FOIAs to detail the financial and local impact of the Commended Certificate Crisis. However, as I share the story of the “Commended Certificate Crisis” below, I will share personal observations about the events, because I (accidently) found myself in the eye of the storm. My own high school Junior had received PSAT scores in December 2022, and would be going through the National Merit Scholarship Corporation (NMSC) process during the 2023-24 school year, which made me curious about the news reports, and later confused why some news sources were making a mountain out of a molehill. Even I  knew that commended certificates were nice, but no key to the kingdom of college admission and scholarships.  Also, as a regular at school board meetings, I was interviewed by Fox 5  about the National Merit “Commended Certificate Crisis” because I mentioned it in my public input  to the school board. Specifically, I said “ I’m dismayed by recent news about FCPS…that delayed paper certificates are taking priority over critical needs of all of our students and that the loudest voices are using this as yet another opportunity to pit equity against merit as if they are mutually exclusive. ” During this interview with Fox 5, I was interrupted, stalked, and videoed by the Coalition for TJ parent responsible for the initial and ongoing local reporting on the manufactured Commended Certificate Crisis. Likely, that intimidation inspired me to attend a number of legal hearings this summer to see how taxpayer money was spent on such ridiculous allegations. So…sit back and enjoy this blog that covers how a manufactured crisis siphoned $1.64 million in outside legal costs from Fairfax County’s budget. Click on the triangles below to expand any section. Fear and Confusion Feed a Manufactured Crisis A manufactured crisis is a controversy created to sway the public and politics, typically to affect social, political, or economic change. Typically, manufactured controversies rely on fear-mongering and confusion combined with regular amplification of cherry-picked information and voices.  Across the country, public schools have had to deal with the onslaught of manufactured crises over Critical Race Theory (CRT), inclusion, equity, and diverse books. Manufactured crises have been a critical tool of the culture wars on our schools. As Michael Hinojosa, former Superintendent of Dallas ISD , said about CRT, “This is a manufactured crisis. This is not real. This is a national playbook by some very smart, organized people.” Agreeing with this idea, the National Education Association, which represents 3 million voices, shared that dark money networks are behind these attacks.  Nevertheless, school districts across the nation have had to spend money and time defending themselves from lawsuits, resources that could otherwise be spent on educating students and improving their opportunities. This national trend of fear mongering and wasting the time and funding of school systems seems to have reached amazing heights since the pandemic, leveraging the fact that few people understand how public schools work. Locally, TJ has been a political football for the last three years. Nathan Cline notes that “Thomas Jefferson has been at the center of Virginia’s educational culture wars after the school began overhauling its admissions policies in an attempt to add more Black and Latino students to its rolls. “ This “Commended Certificate Crisis” is a manufactured crisis that relies on fears already triggered by 3 years of anti-public school rhetoric and nonstop media onslaught from right-wing media. It also relies on the lack of understanding of how things work and inattention to details by the general public, which includes a failure to review FCPS publications and source documents. While We Weren't Watching, a Manufactured Crisis Unfolds The manufactured crisis over delayed notification of commended certificates in FCPS broke over Winter Break, while staff, parents, and students were on vacation. On December 21, 2022 an inflammatory story  was published in a right-wing think tank  publication, The City Journal, by Asra Nomani, a senior fellow of the Independent Women’s Network (IWN) . The story accused FCPS administrators of intentionally withholding student awards, when in fact, it was merely a minor delivery delay of commended certificates  to TJ students. Commended certificates are essentially the honorable mention of the NMSC  world, which means that although the students achieved great PSAT scores, they were not semi-finalists and did not have access to National Merit scholarships, thus that recognition means little to most colleges.  The City Journal outlined an accusation that this delay was part of a long “war on merit” triggered by an overzealous attempt at equity by FCPS, rather than an accidental oversight by overworked administrators in the school system. Of course, one should take this accusation with a grain of salt, since the City Journal is the same source for Chris Rufo’s fabricated CRT crisis in 2020 , and it has fomented anti-transgender culture wars through an unrepentant  anti-LGBTQIA stance in 2023 . In other words, it can be considered an unreliable source of news and facts. Once the City Journal story broke, it was amplified by other right-leaning publications like the National Review  and New York Post . Soon the allegation was reposted all over twitter like a Christmas gift no one wanted or deserved. To fully understand the lack of depth and accuracy of these first “reports” on the “crisis”, none of them managed to spell the name of the complaining parent correctly: her name is “Shawnna Yashar '' with two n’s, not one. Leveraging misunderstandings (and possibly paid troll farms ), word of mouth on Twitter misinformed followers that the impact of the delayed notification was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for affected students. This is an outlandish claim, since even the National Merit Finalist and Semi-Finalist awards are frequently less than $2,500 per year.  Unforgivable false accusations, threats, and calls for administrators’ resignations spread across social media platforms. Little did we know, at that time, that the delayed commended certificate crisis would dominate the news and social media. It infiltrated social media like a virus leaving truly horrific comments on positive community posts about children, some of which hit several days before the CIty Journal story was published, which is curious.  TJ’s principal received threats, false accusations, and demands for her resignation  over the winter school break. For example, this celebratory post of TJ staff  in adorable costumes received so much hate that it is painful to read the comments.  At the time, I didn’t really pay much attention to these stories, because I was recovering from COVID, and my family narrowly avoided the Southwest meltdown of 2022, a delay so bad that it inspired an SNL skit , before celebrating Christmas with family. Nevertheless, I remember feeling bad for TJ’s Principal (Dr. Bonitatibus), FCPS staff, and the newly hired Superintendent Dr. Reid whose much-needed Winter Break was derailed by something so silly and contrived. Governor Youngkin Quickly Intervenes in the "Crisis" Despite other pressing education issues like under-funded schools and problems with teacher retention, this minor delay in notification resulted in an overreaction by Governor Youngkin. (Well…maybe it wasn’t really unexpected, because the Governor’s office has rarely ignored an opportunity to exploit or target public schools, especially those in FCPS which have a 12-member School Board composed entirely of Democrats.) On January 3, 2023, Governor Youngkin officially  declared: “ We need to get to the bottom of what appears to be an egregious, deliberate attempt to disadvantage high-performing students at one of the best schools in the country. Parents and students deserve answers and Attorney General Miyares will initiate a full investigation. I believe this failure may have caused material harm to those students and their parents, and that this failure may have violated the Virginia Human Rights Act .”  Does it seem highly unusual that the Governor’s office would consider a 2-3 week delay in delivery of honorable mention certificates a human rights violation? Yes, and it was surprising at the time considering the facts involved: Only one student’s parent complained out of 261 TJ commended students. There were no complaints from current parents of Asian seniors at TJ. FCPS had already remedied the situation  in December by informing all affected TJ parents and the colleges to which the students applied.  While most Fairfax and TJ families were dumbfounded by the hype and attention from the Governor and Attorney General Miyares, there were complaints and accusations from a small selection of Coalition for TJ parents, few of whom had kids at TJ or FCPS, and none of whom could define actual impacts of delayed notification on any TJ students. Nevertheless, these three to seven parents held rallies at TJ, Langley, and Gatehouse (FCPS headquarters), sporting signs and t-shirts with the slogan “Save Merit.” This was an obvious attempt to generate media attention . This small number of Coalition for TJ parents demanded the resignation of the TJ principal, Dr. Ann Bonitatibus, something they had been demanding since June 2020 over another manufactured outrage. Thankfully, media outlets like Reston Now recognized these actions early on as an “ outcry stoked by conservative activists ,” which was substantiated by the outlandish and unverified claims the Coalition for TJ parents made to the media, including calling the delayed notifications:  A “ criminal act ”  “ Robbing the rights of parents  to celebrate these achievements with their children”  “Downplay[ing] the significance  of these awards to students in the name of equity”  “Catastrophic”   A “ coverup that stole scholarships  from students” AG Miyares Platforms the Coalition for TJ On 1/4/23, Attorney General Miyares announced investigations  into the delayed commended certificate notifications and changes to TJ admissions for “for unlawful discrimination in violation of the Virginia Human Rights Act.“ This is an odd action, considering that AG MIyares fired the civil rights division  of the AG’s office upon taking office in 2022. This announcement involved a press conference where Coalition for TJ members  stood on a stage with AG Miyares, while members of the public were summarily ejected from the event. To date, there has been no update on either of these investigations and it is unknown how much staff time was expended on these investigations.  Meanwhile, throughout January, the Fairfax Times continued to churn out outrageous pieces that named principals (some of whom received threats) and additional schools to keep up the hype of this manufactured crisis. Somehow, they tried to connect unrelated costs for a consultant for the strategic plan into the mix, likely to reinforce their conviction that merit and equity were being pitted against each other.  Honestly, it was silly, but the public ate up this manufactured crisis because of ignorance about the significance of commended certificates, but also because certain media platforms fed peoples’ innermost fears that had been inflamed by constant, negative right-wing media coverage about public schools. I was glad my kids’ school wasn’t on any of the Fairfax Times’ lists because it seemed like a huge distraction to administrators who were trying to manage college applications and educating students. Most parents I knew thought it was as ridiculous as I did. Little did they know what it would cost our district–click on the triangle below to read more. TJ Families Myth-Bust the "Crisis" Narrative Although the first interviews and comments were all from Coalition for TJ members, eventually the rest of the student body and parents of TJ were finally interviewed by the media. Aimee Cho of NBC4 debunked myths  promulgated by Coalition for TJ parents about the impact of commended certificates, and interviewed a parent of a commended student who confirmed that it wasn’t a big deal to his daughter and that some were “blowing this out of proportion.” On 1/25/23, Athena Jones of CNN  did an amazing interview with Dr. Reid. She also uplifted voices of other parents who said the delay was “not a very big thing” or “My son got noticed a little bit late. It did not impact his applications.”  These independent news reports confirmed what most of us already knew: this was a manufactured crisis that was wasting the time and money of our school system and families. At the same time, these news reports highlighted  that 393 of the 459 seniors at TJ, were either commended or semi-finalists ( 132 were semifinalists  and 261 were commended). Thus, the sheer number of commended certificates that needed to be physically handed out was a burden on the staff, as it had been for years, particularly when staff were focusing on fulfilling obligations for college application season, which started November 1st. Also, nearly all students and parents compared their score to college board cutoff scores available online as soon as PSATs scores were sent to students. Of course, some of the best reporting came from the students themselves. On 1/7/23, staff at tjTODAY  published a hard-hitting editorial that included copies of Ms. Yashar’s initial emails to TJ staff  after she found her fson’s commended certificate in his backpack a week after he had received it at TJ. At the time, her son felt, as many local FCPS students do, that the commended certificate “didn’t mean very much because he wasn’t a semifinalist.”  The emails also show that Ms. Yashar’s emails seem to become more combative as time progressed, and that she was in communication with Governor Youngkin’s Department of Education (VDOE) within a day of discovering the certificate in her son’s backpack. How was she able to involve the VDOE so quickly, particularly during Thanksgiving week? Why would anyone from VDOE care about a delay in notification with no actual impact? The tjTODAY students also poked holes in Ms. Nomani's City Journal story that “indicated that students lost millions of dollars in scholarship money because commendations were delayed. This is far from the truth. “ In some ways, this editorial identifies that the NMSC process is so convoluted that even a TJ student had trouble understanding it. So, now might be a good time to explain the National Merit scholarship process–click on the triangle below to read more. What is the National Merit Scholarship process? Since controversy is manufactured where there is uncertainty, now seems to be a good time to explain what the National Merit scholarship process is. To be honest, it felt like this manufactured crisis relied heavily on people’s basic misunderstanding of terms, because few understand the National Merit awards process except for college admissions officers, the College Board, high school administrators, and high school junior and senior families. So, here is a quick rundown of the PSAT and National Merit awards process:  PSATs are taken by about 1.5 million high school juniors in October, and they receive their scores about 8 weeks later, are informed the following September if they are in the top 1% of PSAT scores and are eligible for National Merit scholarships, and are informed if they are in the top 3% of PSAT scores and receive Commended Certificates sometime in October or November.  Few of the National Merit scholarships come with big money attached; however, some schools or businesses offer scholarships based on National Merit status as finalists and semifinalists, with a shorter list of offers for students who receive commended certificates.  Also, scholarships are typically not determined until the Spring of Senior year after college acceptance.  Most parents I know  look up their student’s PSAT score to compare it to previous year semifinalist cutoffs published online . Many TJ juniors immediately check their PSAT scores against these cutoffs. I looked up my own son’s scores last year. To further dispel misunderstandings, there is a handy blog that covers the National Merit awards  process and other insights  on the manufactured “commended certificate crisis.”  Of course commended certificates are essentially the honorable mentions of this whole process. They include the top 3% scoring students who took the PSATs, but they carry little to no weight in college admissions. Thus a slight delay in delivery is unlikely to have an impact on most students in Northern Virginia, much less for TJ students. Unfortunately, after so much hype and disinformation, FCPS was forced to not just investigate and solve the problem, they also had to prepare for litigation. Click on the triangle below to read more about this investigation. FCPS Investigates to Reveal the Truth about the "Crisis" By early January, noting threats of lawsuits raised in various media sources, most by Coalition for TJ leaders and their allies, FCPS had already decided to conduct its own thorough investigation using Sands Anderson, an outside legal firm with whom they initially contracted on 12/29/22. Although preliminary internal reviews showed that this was “ a unique situation due to human error ,” the media hooplah meant that more needed to be done to reassure FCPS families and Fairfax citizens of the true situation and to ensure it would never happen again. During the Sands Anderson investigation commissioned by FCPS, AG Miyares continued turning up the heat on social media and in the news with aggressive comments and press releases. It became so bad that Sidley Austin, an outside law firm representing FCPS, deemed it necessary to to publish a letter on 3/14/23  outlining concerns about the AG’s behavior: “Since January of this year, your office has sent a number of pre-investigation letters to Fairfax County Public Schools (“FCPS”). These letters have not been used to confidentially seek information from the district. Rather, the Attorney General has publicly released these letters through press releases and social media posts. The language used in these letters and accompanying press releases does not suggest that the Attorney General is conducting legitimate inquiries and investigations, but rather that your office has reached certain conclusions before even gathering the basic facts. More problematically, the Attorney General has used inflammatory language and rhetoric, falsely accusing certain FCPS school-based educators, by name, of racially discriminating against students.” Thankfully, Sands Anderson did a quick and thorough report that was completed in March 2023. Shortly thereafter, FCPS provided key findings from the Sands Anderson external investigation . Essentially, the report found that a few of FCPS high schools had delayed notification of commended certificates due to a lack of comprehensive policy regarding notification which resulted in delays due to lack of administrative oversight, logistics, and lack of awareness of a deadline–all of which was compounded by the fact that the NMSC does not directly notice students or provide guidance for notification.  Ultimately, the Sands Anderson report summary written by FCPS directly contradicted accusations the school system faced of deliberate delays and equity. However, the report noted FCPS was impacted by the manufactured crisis with impacts including significant costs to the division, threats to staff, and a distraction from focusing on the education of students:  “It is unfortunate that a media report erroneously attributing these issues to intentional conduct triggered this unnecessary controversy. Among other things, this has necessitated that FCPS expend significant division funds on legal counsel to investigate the assertions made, but that is only the beginning. After FCPS retained Sands Anderson to conduct its external investigation, the Virginia Attorney General publicly announced its own investigation into these issues. FCPS has been required to retain separate legal counsel to respond to that investigation, imposing significant additional legal costs on the division.”  But the greatest cost of this unfortunate episode has been borne by FCPS staff. The controversy surrounding these issues, fueled by additional press reports and by the Attorney General’s public statements and press releases, has led to FCPS staff members being individually harassed and threatened, including through targeted phone calls and emails using hate-filled and threatening language. The emotional toll on our staff has been substantial, and, in addition, staff have been required to divert significant time and attention away from their education-focused roles to respond to these inquiries. All of this has harmed and undermined our core educational mission, and we do hope that the factual findings of this external investigation can put this entire issue, and the erroneous claims that sparked this controversy, to rest.” As a parent of a high school senior, I concur with the key findings published by FCPS : 1) Colleges are fully aware of PSAT and SAT scores because scores are transmitted with college applications, and 2) most academically aggressive Fairfax County students with high standardized test scores knew that  if the National Merit Finalist and Semi-Finalist awards don’t tip the admission scales at elite colleges, why would a commended certificate make a difference? I was upset to find that FCPS staff were harassed and threatened and substantial outside legal costs were borne by FCPS. Based on the news coverage, some of which was vicious and targeted staff by name, I had suspected as much; however, I was wondering about the financial costs, as well. How much were these costs?  Through a FOIA, I found out that through March 2023, FCPS invoices for outside counsel related to the AG Miyares’ investigation totaled $767,104.39. This number doesn’t include FCPS staff time, much less time for AG MIyares and his staff to pursue a Human Rights Violation investigation over one current parent’s complaint. It also doesn’t include future cases filed against FCPS–click on the triangle below to read more about the legal cases. Where there is a Will, There is a Costly Lawsuit Before proceeding any further, a reminder is in order: All of this time and expense is related to a minor delay in delivery of paper commended certificates to students in 2022, when all involved students would be reporting their PSAT and, more importantly, SAT scores directly to their schools. The Governor of Virginia declared this delay to be discriminatory, and Human Rights Abuse, despite the fact that only one current parent complained and her child is not Asian. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page before discussing expensive legal challenges to FCPS over the Commended Certificate Crisis. The Attorney General’s Case In total, the AG Miyares investigation against FCPS cost FCPS a total of $1.4 million in legal costs. To understand how, one must look at the case brought against FCPS: Miyares v. FCPS (CL-2023-001005, previously filed as CM-2023-0000285). Piecing together information from press releases, court documents, and hearing attendance (by yours truly), these are the basics of the case: AG Miyares launched a civil rights investigation into the delayed commended certificates (and TJ admissions changes) on 1/4/23. On 1/25 and 3/31 AG Miyares issued demand letters asking for all Sands Anderson findings and documents.  In April, FCPS offered underlying non-privileged documents, a list of FCPS employees interviewed, and video recordings of interviews with one current and one former TJ parent (Ms. Yashar and Ms. Nomani). However, citing attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, FCPS refused to “provide Sands Anderson's report, findings, employee interviews or any related documents.”  The AG then invoked VA Code demanding assistance in investigation of “unlawful discriminatory practice[s]”. Va. Code §2.2-521 Subpoena Power to get access to this report. On 6/12/23, FCPS responded that it would not provide the Sands Anderson documents because:  Virginia Code requires a "good cause" for subpoena. FCPS is protected by sovereign immunity. The documents are protected Attorney-client privilege & work-product doctrine. Dr. Reid addressed the public directly about status of the legal case, including FCPS actions to date. On 6/14/23 during an interview with WJLA, MIyares claimed  that he had not heard that employees had been harassed before Dr. Reid’s video message  on 6/12/23, despite the letter sent to him dated 3/14/23 .  On 6/20/23, FCPS provided a public update  regarding its continued cooperation with the AG’s National Merit commendation investigation. Out of concern for the privacy and safety of the 23 employees interviewed and the AG’s continued “disregard [of] such privacy concerns” certain exhibits in the case were removed from the public record. Referencing his 6/14/23 interview, FCPS noted that AG Miyares was continuing to “dismiss the significance of such privacy and safety concerns, claiming that he was entirely unaware of anything supporting concerns that FCPS teachers and staff have received threats over this issue.”  On 8/3/23, at the Fairfax Circuit Court, I watched John McGavin (McGavin, Boyce, Bardot, Thorsen, & Katz) and Sean Royall (Sidney Austin LLP) argue on behalf of FCPS claims identified above against Christine Johnson (Senior Assistant AG) and Nathan Moberly (Assistant AG, VA Office of Civil Rights) who represented the Attorney General’s office.  The AG’s office claimed that FCPS might be hiding evidence of “race discrimination” in the Sands Anderson report and work papers, despite no evidence (other than articles inspired or written by Ms. Nomani who penned the initial City Journal story) to support such a claim.  Repeatedly, FCPS’s lawyers responded that documents under attorney-client privilege would not be given to the AG’s office, and that they already shared evidence and documents needed by the AG to conduct his investigation. Mr. Royall shared that FCPS had even offered to help with an investigation, so he was questioned whether the AG’s office was actually doing an independent investigation.  Mr. Royall described the entire episode as “very costly,” indicating that it would be better to “spend money on educating children, and not on legal disputes.”  On 8/15/23, the judge  decided not to grant AG Miyares subpoena for FCPS’s privileged investigation conducted by attorney’s Sand’s Anderson (see full decision ).  Attending the hearings led me to more questions than answers, including:  How could this entire investigation be caused by one parent’s complaint?  How did the AG’s office and Governor get involved in the first place–who contacted them? When and how did they contact them? What happened with the VBOE concerns? Who at the VBOE was concerned? Had the AG’s office conducted an independent investigation or were they just trying to get the Sands Anderson work papers?  And, how much did this misguided case cost Virginia taxpayers? I’ve only been able to answer the last question: FCPS Invoices for the AG Investigation totaled $1.38 million in outside legal fees. Mark Spooner’s Lawsuit To date, Mark Spooner’s case, Spooner v. FCSB (GV23007550) , cost $266,270 in outside legal fees for FCPS. On 4/27/23 , Mr. Spooner (of Fairfax School Monitor), a retired lawyer whose blog  is regularly amplified by the Fairfax GOP , filed a petition  to force FCPS to produce unredacted copies of Sands Anderson attorney materials and communications pursuant to his FOIA–in other words, he demanded nearly the same documents that the AG had requested. Apparently, Mr. Spooner wanted to answer the question “How could it be that there was “no evidence” that “woke” considerations  played a role in the high schools’ decisions, given that a mother of a TJ student had quoted school administrators of admitting otherwise?”  Mr. Spooner’s “petition contend[ed]  that the claim of “attorney-client privilege” has no merit,” presuming that the 3/31/23 FCPS update was produced by Sands Anderson, which would waive privilege.”  This set off a series of hearings in 2023 held on 5/8, 5/17, 7/19, 8/23, and 10/4.  On 10/4 both John Foster (FCPS Counsel) and Mr. John McGavin (FCPS’s outside attorney) were present during an all-day hearing and were quite solicitous of Mr. Spooner. In contrast, the consideration shown Mr. Spooner during his questioning was not returned when the FCPS General Counsel, Mr. Foster was cross-examined. Instead, Mr. Spooner’s cross-examination of Mr. Foster appeared to have  more sustained objections than actual answers. It was so painful that at one point the judge said to Mr. Spooner, “I can’t tell you how to ask your questions. You have a burden of proof.” It was quite painful to watch. Over the course of several hours, Mr. Spooner was proved to be wrong, since Mr. Foster had penned the summary of the Sands Anderson report. Also, FCPS counsel reaffirmed that the Sands Anderson report and work product was protected by attorney-client privilege, something that was not really under doubt, as attorney-client privilege  has significant precedent. On 11/01, Mr. Spooner appealed with an unknown outcome During the 10/4 hearing, FCPS’s lawyers noted a number of times that the AG’s office seemed to have an interest in his case because they sent two of their lawyers: Mr. Moberly and Joel Taubman (Assistant AG, Virginia Office of Civil Rights, Fairfax). This begs the question: how much did that cost taxpayers and what was their relationship with Mr. Spooner? Were these two cases and parties connected?  While writing this blog, I also learned that Mr. Spooner, a grandfather whose children have never attended FCPS, has sued FCPS at least four other times! How much have those cases cost Fairfax County taxpayers? How much did they distract FCPS staff from their purpose of running a school system and educating our schoolchildren? I spent about two working days attending these hearings, which made me realize the costs associated with both the Miyares and Spooner cases must be immense. For every hour that attorneys and staff are in the courtroom, 10-200 hours of work goes into preparing materials. But even I  was surprised to find via FOIA that  outside legal counsel for FCPS for these two cases totaled $1,642,383, neither of which includes the cost of Mr. Foster’s time and other internal costs borne by FCPS. Financial, Emotional, and Education Costs of a Manufactured Crisis We will never know the full impact of the manufactured Commended Certificate Crisis on FCPS and its employees, much less Fairfax families, particularly those at TJ who were at the heart of the manufactured controversy. We will also never know how much time, energy, and money the governor’s, attorney general’s, and VBOE’s offices spent on this effort. Nor will we ever know what motivated the amplification of this story across social and news media. But we do know that this affected our schools where time and money was taken from needed education of students and support of teachers, a number of FCPS employees were threatened and harassed directly and on social media, and great harm was done to the safety and reputation of leaders like Superintendent Dr. Reid, TJ Principal Dr. Ann Bonitatibus, and Mr. Brandon Kosatka, TJ's longtime director of student services. We also know that this manufactured crisis caused division in the community, as people argued over the merits of the case on social media. I felt this division intimately when I was stalked and harassed during an interview with Fox 5 in January 2023 and on social media in 2023. Ultimately, this was an expensive distraction from the goals of our school system to support and educate children. This manufactured crisis cost $1,642,383 in outside legal fees for two cases that seemed to lack merit and were based on a City Journal opinion piece and a series of Fairfax Times stories. That is quite a lot of money that, as Mr. Royall said, would be better spent “on educating children, and not on legal disputes.”  Additionally, Superintendent Dr. Reid shared that delays “had nothing to do with race or any effort to downplay students’ achievements” and the investigation found no evidence “suggesting that any later-than-usual notification impaired students’ academic, professional, or financial interests, including college admissions or scholarships.” She indicated that FCPS would create policies to prevent such a situation in future. As an observer and parent whose child had just received his PSAT scores when this story came out in December 2022, this whole thing seemed bizarre and the timing of the story was suspect–who releases a story over winter break, much less a month after the facts were available? To me, it seemed that not only was there nothing to this story but all of the parties involved in the reporting seemed to be the same ones who were involved in the costly Coalition for TJ lawsuit against FCPS.  Regarding the impact of delayed notification, all should heed the words of the Nick Anderson in Washington Post  when he said:  “Yet the matter at the core of this drama — a delay in delivery of letters of commendation for standardized test scores at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology and elsewhere in Northern Virginia — in all likelihood will have zero effect on the college admission prospects of any high school student or access to financial aid, according to experts in the field.”  What matters far more than awards and honors, experts say, is the rigor of an applicant’s courses. So do grades, extracurricular activities and obstacles that might have been overcome. If applicants submit test scores, colleges will take into account the SAT or ACT, and often Advanced Placement scores. But experts say admission officers don’t pay much attention to performance on the PSAT/NMSQT.”  Basically, everyone received their kids' PSATs in December 2021, so by September 2022, they had likely done their due diligence to know whether their student was a semi-finalist or commended student. Thus parents of 2023 and 2024 seniors knew that this story was garbage from the get-go. FCPS described the impact of this case perfectly when it said: “ It is regrettable that the AG is continuing to devote public resources and funds to this issue. The AG has all the information it needs to conduct its own investigation. Nonetheless, it has gone to court to try to breach FCPS’s attorney-client privilege. As a matter of principle and in order to protect our valued teachers and staff, we are opposing this unreasonable legal action. “ At the end of the day, this was a costly manufactured crisis to staff and the school district. Of course much of this is truly about money, power, and control: if school districts’ reputations suffer and/or they and school boards look like they are breaking the law or violating civil rights, it is that much easier to defund and dismantle public education. This is part of a game plan to make schools look like they are corrupt, dysfunctional, and inept rather than underfunded and overworked. Legal means are often necessary to right wrongs, protect students, and ensure that school boards are not flagrantly violating the law. However, lately, legal methods are being used unscrupulously to extract time, money and attention away from our students, teachers, and school systems for culture war debates and click-bait. In this case, for FCPS, the price tag was $1.6 million in outside legal costs. In a world where local ethical journalists are far and few between, it behooves us to follow the threads to see where it leads us. If you have questions, look at the source documents. Be sure to keep in the loop. Go to the courthouse, if you must and watch the proceedings, and then share your findings.  You never know, you too may just find the price tag of these unfounded attacks to be too high.

My most recent blog, Essential Boundary Policy for a New Century , identified some “interesting” school boundaries in our area. Any rational person would look at those boundaries and wonder how they came to be. Of course, those non-contiguous, gerrymandered boundaries are a developer’s dime a dozen in Fairfax County. Nevertheless, I did a little research (shared below), but first I want to discuss the recent history of Policy 8130. I was surprised by recent history and previous efforts to prevent updates to the Boundary Policy.  Revisions to Boundary Policy 8130 Although Policy 8130 has not been updated since 2013, which was largely in response to the One Fairfax policy , it was not for trying. In fact in 2019, there was a concerted effort by the School Board to make minor changes, but of course these changes were fought by the loudest and most organized voices . They stormed the July 2019 school board work meeting with 102 people so that there was standing room only, carrying photo-copied, inflammatory, emotional signs like “We are watching you.”   2019 was the year of a Fairfax County School Board (FCSB) race, thus there was a hard push by a local republican PAC, Voices of Fairfax, and Fairfax GOP candidates to frame the election as a boundary election . Basically, their rhetoric was that “radical social justice warriors want to bus your kids to failing schools because of equity.”  In retrospect, it was disingenuous and divisive framing using a (then) ill-defined term (“equity”) to spur people to action in an election year. This disinformation campaign used the usual scare tactics  to rile up citizens by leveraging their honest interest in protecting their children’s future by protecting their children’s education. I wouldn’t have noticed it at all, except that they held a supposed “non-partisan” 2019 candidate forum at my elementary school that included inflammatory framing in terms of boundaries, equity, and busing (note the correct spelling is “busing” not bussing as was used in their alarmist video , because “bussing” is something completely different). I was confused at the time, but others were not, per local social media flame wars. It was u-g-l-y and neighbors were fighting neighbors. Watching this unfold on social media clued me into the less savory political undercurrents of Fairfax County. As a result, the 2019 event at Mantua ES was solely a republican candidate campaign forum. All of those candidates failed at the ballot box in November, mostly because of their reliance on culture war issues and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric. The ugliness of this race spurred me to donate to a school board candidate for the first time–in reaction to at-large candidate Vinson Palathingal referring to Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) as a “silly thing.” Thus, I donated special education advocate Rachna Sizemore-Heizer running against him. Why? Because there was no way in heck that I was going to vote for someone who discounted my child’s learning disability. But, I digress…. In the middle of all of this chaos, the FCSB was trying to complete the work that they begin in 2018 when they initiated discussions based in part by the Facilities Planning Advisory Council (FPAC) annual report ( see page 10, recommendation 23 ) when FPAC requested an updated charge for 2018-19 to include, “FPAC work with staff to recommend changes to the boundary policies and processes.”  The FCSB held four work sessions  to discuss and review boundary policy from 2018-2019 for a variety of reasons, including: overcrowding, over-reliance on trailers, continued growth, inadequate bond funding for renovations, planned growth, demand for pre-K classrooms, and a failure in more than thirty years to have a comprehensive review of policy 8130. Additionally, it was felt that the expedited process added to the regulation in 2015 was a “ less than transparent approach .” The 7/22/2019 work session  involved the organized protest described above and an associated disinformation campaign , which likely forced the creation of this fact sheet . Of course, Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) and FCSB continued their work even after the election of a new school board, including holding three community meetings  in 2019, facilitated by MGT Consulting Group (MGT), an education consulting firm who shared information and a boundary policy presentation  while collecting community input.  On December 4, 2021, MGT provided the FCSB a series of reports at a school board work session , including Boundary Policy Best Practices Review Report , Boundary Study Report , Boundary Study Supplemental Materials . Likely, these are materials that have influenced current boundary policy discussions. On February 13, 2024, the FCSB held a public forum  to update and align the boundary policy with the new strategic goals of safety, support, and equitable opportunity.  All in all, I’m glad that the current FCSB is trying to avoid piecemeal, disruptive boundary changes through financial, capacity, and growth lenses. One of the biggest suggested changes in Policy 8130  is to do boundary reviews for the county, on a 5-year interval which means that the FCSB would get a better picture of all communities and communities like Glasgow MS wouldn’t have to beg for and be denied a boundary study. Since boundary changes are often called the “third rail” of education policy, it is not surprising that it has taken this long. Speaking of “long” here is a “brief” history of FCPS boundary changes in the last 20 years. Attendance Zone Changes in the last 20 Years I know of seven significant boundary changes in the last 20 years; however, I’m sure there have been others. When reading these summaries, be aware that there are real families, students, and schools behind these events–there is no way to capture their stories in such a brief format. Because this is my blog, I will start with my own kids’ school, Woodson High School (HS), to explain the “barbell.” By starting with my kids’ school, I am also making a point about boundary change discussions: we care the most about our own kids and typically know the most about our zoned schools.  The idea that people mostly care about their kids and only know their own school is the primary theme that has run through every attendance zone change in history and will likely continue in the future. This commonality can build strength in advocacy, but it can also be a trap leading one to only think of one’s own child (i.e., the “not my kid” phenomenon), if one: Fails to understand other communities or schools outside of one’s own school zone. Fears or has distaste for another school or community. Does not look to original sources for information. Refuses to understand that change is inevitable, and it will affect each of us. I will do my best to cover the last 20 years, but I’m sure that I will have missed some boundary changes. Also, I’ve found some older Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) ( 2016 , 2017 , 2019 ), which may reveal more information about boundaries, but there are not enough hours in the day for me to read several hundred more pages of capital improvement data, but some of you may be interested. Woodson HS “Barbell” This strange “barbell” attendance zone actually occurred during two boundary changes: 2011 and 2015. I knew of the 2011 change because we had just moved into our house when suddenly all of the single-family homes west of the beltway moved from Annandale HS to Woodson HS. Having studied land use policy in graduate school I was concerned, because it seemed like they were simply moving single-family homes from a school dominated by apartment buildings; however, it turns out that the boundary change was more nuanced than that.  The 2011 change was spurred by overcrowding at Annandale HS combined with Wakefield Forest Elementary being a “split feeder,” which is a school that feeds two different upper level schools, in this case half of Wakefield Forest ES went on to the Annandale HS pyramid, while the other moved to the Woodson HS pyramid. Also it turned out that many residents in those homes west of the beltway wanted to stay at Annandale, rather than move to the “higher performing” Woodson HS. This is key to understanding boundary discussions: those attending a school, even a school considered “low performing” by outsiders, want to stay at their school, because they love their school community. Although testing may show that one school is higher performing than another, there is more to a school than test scores: students, teachers, and families who make a community that is a great place for an education. Thus, there is always rivalry among schools, but perceptions are not the truth about a school community, and are often grounded in an “us versus them” mentality and fear of change.  In 2011, almost 90 speakers  gave four hours of testimony at the boundary hearing. Many gave passionate speeches about why the neighborhoods west of the beltway should remain in the Annandale HS pyramid, and others spoke about wanting to remain in the Stuart HS pyramid. As per usual, the student speeches were the most convincing , like 2011 Annandale HS graduate Emma Barker who said “it took 513 students to make a difference in her life and that she would not be where she is today without her AHS family. ‘For years, Wakefield Chapel has been a part of Annandale. For me, they come hand-in-hand,’ said Barker. ” The 2015 western “barbell” was formed to accommodate overcrowding at Fairfax HS and Katherine Johnson Middle School (MS), then known as Lanier MS. At the time, the City of Fairfax identified that Fairfax HS and Lanier MS would be overcrowded  in the next 3-5 years, so they asked FCPS for help. In response, the FCSB asked for a study of the issue that included several adjoining high school boundaries in the study (e.g., Chantilly HS, Falls Church HS, Oakton HS, Robinson HS, and Woodson HS). The end result of the study and hearings held at the time determined that the affected Fairfax City elementary schools would remain in the Fairfax Pyramid, but the students would then move on to a number of middle and high schools, including Frost/Woodson, Lake Braddock Secondary School (SS), and Robinson SS . Specific changes can be found on this 2016-17 High School boundary map . McLean HS Decades of Overcrowding McLean HS has a long history of overcrowding due to rapid development in the Tysons area. A comprehensive 2019 Tyson’s Reporter article  highlighted the extent and source of overcrowding, noting that nearly all schools in the McLean HS pyramid would be over capacity in the next school year. Of course, that was five years ago! In 2020, McLean HS had 2,350 students in a building built to accommodate 1,993 students. The Highlander, a McLean HS student publication, covered a December 7, 2020 virtual discussion  of the overcrowding issues and solutions, including former school board member Elaine Tholen making the point that holds true for all overcrowded schools: “If the school is overcrowded, it might prevent us from introducing new programs or different things that we might want to do if we had classroom space ... .As the school becomes over capacity, you don’t have those basic spaces for people to go to the restroom [or] eat their lunch. Even those basic things become an issue.” –Dranesville district representative Elaine Tholen During the meeting, parents had distinct ideas about where their own child should go, including picking out “acceptable” middle schools. Some questioned why McLean HS wasn’t given an addition to accommodate the students (likely answer: too expensive) and some added that the solutions offered were only temporary solutions, as one-off attendance adjustments cannot accommodate long-term growth or change. On February 4, 2021 , a boundary adjustment (informed by the boundary study ) was adopted by the FCSB for Cooper and Longfellow MS and Langley and McLean HS to provide “capacity relief to McLean HS by using available capacity at Langley HS.” To avoid split feeders, Cooper and Longfellow MS were added to the boundary study and adjustment to “slowly shift” students over the 2021-22 school year “with as little disruption as possible” (i.e., starting with rising 7th graders). The plan also slowly shifted students from McLean HS to Langley HS until SY 25-26 when complete by giving options to students in the 2021-22 school year to remain or move the next year. None of this would have happened without organization and advocacy. In 2019, boundary review  was demanded by the McLean Citizens Association. 27 speakers  addressed the FCSB during the McLean Boundary Change hearing on 1/21/21  and a number provided input to the December 7, 2020 Feedback session . To be clear, some community organizations are more organized and have more power than others, which can mean that their demands are met before less powerful communities. Of course, McLean continued to grow. On December 4, 2023, the FCSB approved another McLean area boundary adjustment , this time at the elementary level. New boundaries for six elementary schools would begin in the 2024-25 school year with a “phasing plan…approved to allow students the option to remain at their existing schools for certain grades.” See map  to the right. By the way, I have yet to figure out the non-contiguous attendance zones of McLean HS. Please contact me if you have any information. Justice Pyramid Elementary Boundary Changes On June 17, 2021, the FCSB approved a boundary change  for the elementary schools in the Justice HS pyramid to reassign an estimated 497 students with new boundaries starting the 2021-22 school year. The adjustment immediately moved rising kindergarten and 1st grader students into six elementary schools immediately, with choice and phasing for students in grades 2-5. Only the elementary boundaries changed in order to keep enrollment below 1,000 students at each elementary–the middle and high school boundaries remained the same.  Most of the students (389)  were moved from Glen Forest ES which was relying on 12 temporary and 17 modular classrooms. A few in the community voiced dissatisfaction  with the speed of the changes; however, the boundary scoping meetings began in June 2019  and community meetings in April 2021.  In all honesty, it is hard to keep track of expected boundary changes, and many ignore the happenings at the local government until it feels like a crisis. For example, I was completely ignorant of those in the Woodson community until after they happened. I strongly suggest that people subscribe to and read the FCPS bulletins, because the bulletins give timely information about such happenings. Southwestern Fairfax Adjustments and the Closure of Clifton ES The closure of Clifton ES in 2011 was an interesting one to look at, because I have seen former Springfield District School Board Member Elizabeth Schultz and other former school board candidates complain about the closure at school board meetings in the last three years, but never knew the real story.  Clifton ES was closed because of the excessive cost of renovation  and projected enrollment declines. The source documents  tell the story that renovation at Clifton would cost about 50% more per student ( $35,287 versus $22,805 per student) than similar renovations at FCPS combined with a projected student population of less than 300 students in 2015-16. Thus on February 24, 2011, the FCSB approved phased adjustments  to school attendance areas in the southwestern part of the county for 21 elementary schools, and to close Clifton ES in June 2011. Clifton ES principal informed the school of the closure in a heartbreaking letter:  "This decision will have a profound impact on our students, staff, and families," the principal said in the letter.  "Clifton Elementary School has played a significant role in the lives of Clifton families.  Closing the school is comparable to losing a dear friend, and many of us have already recognized that we have been passing through the five stages of grief—denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.” These emotions are part of learning to live with loss and serve as tools to help us frame and identify what we may be feeling.  Acknowledging the sense of loss we all feel, allowing ourselves to grieve, and accepting the reality of our loss will enable us to move forward and embrace change.  Our students need to see that the adults in their lives have hope for their future." School closures are truly sad–I can attest to this personally–but they can also be a necessary part of life. When schools become too small and too old to function for the students who attend, difficult decisions must be made. These decisions are both financial and logistic–there are economies of scale in education which are reflected in both cost and available opportunities for students. Eagle View ES Opens School openings are celebrated, but they also involve attendance zone changes, as happened with the opening of Eagle View ES on September 5, 2006 . In 2005, FCPS held town halls  to discuss the change and solicit input, which resulted in six elementary schools phasing students into Eagle View ES beginning in the 2006-07 school year. Existing school attendance areas related to West Springfield and Lewis High Schools remained the same. West Springfield and Lewis HS Boundary Discussions There is a long, uncomfortable history between West Springfield and Lewis high schools, much of which goes back to the last century. Much of this “history” seems to be based on perception and misperception with some West Springfield families declaring Lewis as “problematic” while Lewis HS families loudly defend their school.  These debates underpinned the early 2005 boundary hearings  that had 86 speakers signed up and and also during town halls held in late 2005  to deal with overcrowding at Lewis HS (then known as Lee HS) by adding a nearby neighborhood zoned for Lewis to West Springfield. In January 2006, during this process, there were 126 pages of input  from students, teachers, and families. Mostly students asked to remain with their friends, celebrated their allegiance to their high school, and for the FCSB to put an end to split feeders, while adults posed “what ifs” and sometimes verged into “us versus them” territory. Others vigorously defended Lewis High School as the best place for their children. Honestly, I can’t quite tell how this was resolved, which makes me suspect that the attendance zone adjustment didn’t happen. Change is Constant so Why would Boundaries be Different One thing I’ve learned in my five decades is that change is constant. Nothing highlights that as much as a large suburban school district like Fairfax County.  In the 1980s, I played in creeks that are now filled with McMansions instead of water. The Shakey’s pizza that we went to in high school after football games is now a karaoke bar. The movie theater at Heritage shopping center where I saw The Breakfast Club is long gone. Although I may mourn these memories, they remind me that change is inevitable and important.  Developments are built. Companies move in. Remaining open space is infilled. Older developments become filled with older people, until younger people with children move in. In some ways, this change is the cycle of life, but in others, it is a sign of a healthy county with an ever-expanding economy and millions of opportunities. Boundary changes in the last 20 years have amended the failures of the previous decades where little thought was given to the impact on families and students when schools were closed or reassigned. Ask me how I know…or better yet, ask my parents because they are still mad nearly four decades later. In this century, FCPS tries to give options that recognize the needs of different communities and work to slowly phase change to prevent harm and disruption, as much as possible. They try to minimize disruption and calculate exactly how many students will be affected during each year of phasing. This is an uncomfortable and often contentious process, but it must happen in a county with hundreds of buildings, 180,000 students, and limited funds for capital improvement. However, one thing our county has failed to do is update policy 8130 to reduce the number of “one-off” boundary changes. This current FCSB recognizes that and has expounded on the need for comprehensive policy change to solve that problem. The FCSB is not  advocating for comprehensive boundary changes, just policy changes to ensure that we have school boundaries that best serve the community in this century. Another thing I’ve learned as both a former kid and current adult is that kids are resilient, particularly if their families show them the way. Every year, Fairfax is filled with newly relocated immigrants and military families, along with others who come for great opportunities and a stellar public school district. Joining our school system is a change for each of them, but their families, teachers, and communities show them the way. They make memories of the change, but if we work together, we can avoid long term disappointment or trauma.  Decades later, I still remember kindergarten orientation. I remember the teacher showing us where we could nap in a comfy, dark, quiet space. I remember the rocking horses, book nooks, and free play areas. I also remember being completely shocked on the my day of elementary school when I arrived in a first grade classroom filled with desks, with no toys or rocking horses, because I had tested out of kindergarten. I remember my feelings that first day of school seeing uninviting desks, but as an adult, I know that it was a sliding doors moment for me where I met lifelong friends in that first grade class, once my shock wore off. Being moved ahead a year placed me with people who have been my friends for life. Change can be scary, but it can also be filled with opportunity. I would love to know what each of the students experienced or learned through their change over the years in FCPS. Please consider approaching an updated boundary policy 8130 with an open mind. Choose to look at primary sources for information, instead of listening to pundits or closed social groups with an agenda. Doing so can help you understand why change may be necessary and how to guide your family and community while living in this vibrant ever-changing community of Fairfax County. Please consider signing up to speak at the next school board meeting (on July 18th) to share your views on this subject (or any subject because the Summer can be slow) by signing up here between Friday and Tuesday before the meeting.

It Is Time For Some Real Change After months of debate, the Fairfax County School Board is finalizing a comprehensive overhaul of the county’s current boundary policy  which was originally adopted in 1986 and last revised in May of 2013, despite 5-year review requirements. This all followed a February school board meeting  on Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) amendments, when most of the school board members expressed strong concerns that one-off boundary adjustments at individual schools ignore the overcrowding across the county and directly impact school boundaries at nearby schools, a sentiment echoed in a 2023 Annual report  from the FCPS Facilities Planning Advisory Council (FPAC). The school board universally agrees that change is necessary, but they have different approaches and concerns regarding a new boundary policy. I find that I agree with their expressed positions, even when they are seemingly at odds. For example Mr. Kyle McDaniel told Fairfax Now  that he wanted ”data-driven decision making, and [wanted] our expert boundary and facilities staff out doing this….Because … if you remove the politics from it, it means that every school gets treated fairly through the same process.” In this same article , Dr. Ricardy Anderson said, “I don’t think we should tie our hands…. We have to realize that while we want to have comprehensive structures in place, we still need to give ourselves the opportunity to be nimble. We have to be responsive to what’s going on in front of us.” Of course, Dr. Anderson was referring to immediate needs to address overcrowding at Glasgow Middle School, which has overwhelming community support. So let’s hope that the new boundary policy developed by this school board, the first new one in nearly four decades, will address both of their concerns. Hopefully, it will be nimble, non-political, fair, and data-driven by experts while including community feedback.  Of course, in the past 38 years of boundary changes, it has often been the loudest, angriest, and most organized voices who have steered school boundaries that affect the majority of the community. Looking at a side-by-side comparison of the old versus new boundary policy , I see improvement that protects families, supports students, and removes politics and strong-arm tactics. It also involves community participation, which is critical.  The school board is trying to ensure that current and future families in this century have the boundary policy that they need. At the same time, I hope that schools that critically need boundary reviews and adjustments like Glasgow Middle in Mason districts will be prioritized for future boundary changes to alleviate the burdens on families and students. A Look at School Boundaries Honestly, if one looks at any one of the current maps  of elementary, middle, and high schools across the county, it is blindingly obvious that many school boundaries do not make sense. Boundaries are influenced by decades of population growth, new construction, and carve outs by developers and more influential communities who successfully lobbied to remain at “preferred schools” which often involve miles of commuting and a removal of students from their home community.  These “preferred schools” often tend to be less demographically diverse, particularly in terms of economic diversity. For example, “preferred schools” are rarely Title 1 schools , which receive grant funding to upgrade educational programs, in part to close achievement gaps. Additionally, it is easy to see that historical placement of schools make boundaries difficult. For example, 9 of 26 regional high schools in Fairfax County (Annandale, Fairfax, Falls Church, Lake Braddock, Oakton, Robinson, Thomas Jefferson, W. Springfield, and Woodson) are located at the center of the county in a three-mile radius, and very few high schools located at the outer boundaries of the county. Whitman MS is an island middle school located within Sandburg MS boundaries in the middle of the West Potomac High School boundary, yet Whitman MS students continue onto Mt. Vernon HS. “Unfortunately, segregation of schools today is at the same level as it was when the Brown v Board of Education decision was made…. Gerrymandering that worsens school segregation has increased since 1991.” -- Sophia Marjanovic , Union of Concerned Scientists  There is evidence that suggests that school boundaries can be (or have been) “ highly gerrymandered into irregular shapes. ” Briefly below, I will provide a couple of examples of this gerrymandering in Fairfax County at each school level; however, it is important to note that just looking at school boundaries is not enough, because boundaries include current and projected data (e.g., CIP data ), families, communities, and an understanding of historical demographic and development changes. Elementary School Boundaries Recently, Mr. McDaniel stated , “We have an elementary school like Coates that’s pushing 176% projected capacity, and you have other elementary schools nearby that are under 100% capacity; that defies logic.” To understand what Mr. McDaniel meant, I looked at Coates Elementary (see 15-4 and environs on this map ) and found that its boundaries defy logic, requiring miles of commute for some students when they live much closer to four other elementary schools. Additionally, Coates currently has 131% capacity utilization  versus 83-99% at other nearby elementaries (see below).  Many Elementary Schools have non-contiguous attendance islands where students must pass through other elementary school boundaries on the way to their elementary schools. Examples of this in Mount Vernon District include : Fort Hunt ES (111-1 on the map) and Groveton ES (92-2 map). Walkable schools that have usable sidewalks should also be a consideration. When you overlay the Advanced Academic Program (AAP) maps over the local schools, you see a picture that is equally complicated as AAP elementary centers  take students out of their high school pyramids. For example, my kids’ elementary, Mantua ES, takes kids for AAP from at least three different high school pyramids, which is disruptive for the students and families in those pyramids, and has resulted in overcrowding for the last 10 years. Mantua has a decades-old system of trailers where the entire 6th grade has been located, and closets and small storage rooms were repurposed for music rooms and offices when my kids were there. I’ve heard that the trailers are now used for the 5th grade, as well. Middle School Boundaries Middle school boundaries mostly seem to follow the high school boundaries, thus they seem pretty gerrymandered and make little logical sense. However, it is the AAP middle school  boundaries that are particularly unusual, because these schools draw from multiple high schools.  For example, Luther Jackson Middle School (see this map ) pulls from four different high schools: Falls Church, Oakton, Madison, and Marshall. Presumably for two years, students from at least five different AAP elementaries (Mantua, Mosaic, Sunrise Valley, Hunters Woods, and Louise Archer) would go to Luther Jackson and then return to their four different high schools? In fact, Ms. Rachna Sizemore Heizer mentioned the impact of this on student mental health at a recent meeting  and Ms. Melanie Meren mentioned this in terms of effects on families , as well. Honestly, this issue seems as chaotic and disruptive as any boundary change could be but the boundary change could simplify the chaos and would last into the future so that future families do not suffer the same level of chaos as exists in the current situation.  High School Boundaries High School boundaries are equally gerrymandered For example, Langley High School (see 21-4 and environs on this map ) includes communities that are over 11 miles away (as the crow flies) from Langley and are within one mile of Herndon. Nearby McLean High school (see 30-4 and environs on this map ) has two communities that are not even contiguous to it. Why are those communities not part of the Langley or Marshall high school communities? I bet there is an interesting story behind it. My own kids’ high school, Carter G. Woodson, has surreal boundaries that extend all the way west past West Ox Road and into Clifton and all the way east to 495. This unnatural barbell shape (see 58-3 and environs on this map ) makes little sense, particularly when 1) those communities are easily a 20 minute commute from Woodson in the morning, and 2) some are less than a mile from Robinson or are much closer to Centreville and Fairfax high schools. As a parent, I don’t want any one of my kids’ friends (or my friends!) to be at a different high school, but as a taxpayer and parent, I can't help but question the value of all of those daily bus miles for these kids. School Board Boundary Policy Review It seems that the issues that I highlighted above are pretty much what the school board wants to avoid in the future. During the FCPS Policy Review  this spring, they have identified the following intended benefits: Improving instructional quality  by reducing class sizes, improving student-to-teacher ratios, decreasing overcrowding, and reducing student travel time.  Improve financial sustainability  by providing “more timely and cost-effective results,” better prioritize funding, reduce renovation project waits, and best “maximize transportation routes” resulting in lower costs. Improve student well-being and experience  by shortening commutes, increase time for sleep, reduce “split feeders”, living closer to their school community, better engagement with community and school.  It has been reported by FFX Now  that the “The biggest difference between the current policy and the new policy is this “may”/”shall” language…. The old policy just had 14 criteria that had no priority or no ranking or no real intentional guidance to staff in terms of what the board would prioritize over other items,” per Mr. McDaniel. This can be seen in the side-by-side of the old and new boundary policy . The policy changes so far have also given the Superintendent greater authority for emergencies or catastrophic events to temporarily adjust boundaries. We are 24 years into a new century, and our families deserve thoughtful change. Nevertheless, even with a new policy, it will take time for necessary boundary changes. The school board has the goal of implementation of the new boundary policy by the 2025-26 school year. Although there is community interest in updating some boundaries as soon as possible, it will likely take time to do this right and include community input. Or, as Mr. McDaniel told FFX Now  "that the committee’s recommendations would be implemented collectively and within a “reasonable timeframe” to prevent sudden disruptions to students and their families;" however, Mr. McDaniel reminded everyone that, "If the superintendent comes back and says, ‘Well guys, it’s actually going to take more like 18 months to recommend lines,’ then obviously, we have to wait and that’s fine.” Our student and county population continues to change and dozens of schools are facing or projected to face “ moderate to severe overcrowding ” while our schools are now on a 42 year renovation cycle, so now is the time for change.  Please consider signing up to speak at either of the next couple of school board meetings (on July 11th and 18th) to share your views on this subject (or any subject because the Summer can be slow) by signing up here between Friday and Tuesday before the meeting. Helpful Resources about School Boundaries FCPS. Boundary Policy Review - Spring 2024 . https://www.fcps.edu/departments-and-offices/office-chief-facilities-services-and-capital-programs/facilities-planning FCPS. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) . https://www.fcps.edu/capital-improvement-program FCPS. Maps: View Advanced Academic, Boundary, Region and Magisterial District Maps . https://www.fcps.edu/facilities-planning-future/maps FCPS. School Boundary Adjustments: Everything you need to know about school boundary information, including the boundary locator.   https://www.fcps.edu/facilities-planning-future/school-boundary-adjustments FCPS. School Profiles.   https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108%3A8 FCPS, Facilities Planning Advisory Council. FPAC Annual Report (School Year 2022-2023) . https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/CSBJAD4AC36A/$file/FPAC%20SY%202022-2023%20Annual%20Report.pdf Fairfax County School Board. FCPS School Board Work Session - 6/25/24 . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yER9RNMCzBc  (Note: Boundary Policy discussion is at 23:53 ) Fairfax County School Board. Local School Boundaries, Program Assignments, and School Closings.   https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/97KJK54D54F8/$file/P8130.pdf Jarvis, James. FCPS hopes to alleviate school overcrowding with new boundary adjustment policy.  FFX Now. 14 April 2024. https://www.ffxnow.com/2024/04/15/fairfax-school-board-tackles-overcrowding-with-boundary-policy-overhaul/ Richards, Meredith P. The Gerrymandering of School Attendance Zones and the Segregation of Public Schools: A Geospatial Analysis . American Educational Research Journal. December 2014, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp. 1119–1157. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1045657.pdf