While we are celebrating that our K-12 education funding priorities are funded for the 2024-2025 fiscal year, we must remember that, rather than securing a steady funding base earmarked for K-12 education, some of the education priorities are funded with the budget surplus. What will happen to these education priorities next year when there is not a budget surplus?  This week we explain the good news, bad news, and ramifications of using surplus funds to meet our priorities.  The Good News Finally, the months-long stalemate over the state budget ended on Monday, May 13, 2024, when the Governor signed the spending plan for 2024-2026. That plan includes   $2 billion more in K-12 public education funding   than was in the last budget and also recommends 3% pay raises for teachers and state employees each year. However, many localities may not have the funds to provide such raises because most of education funding comes from local, not state sources. After the Budget passed, House Appropriations Chairman Luke Torian (D-Prince William) shared, “We were able to address and fund all of our priorities.”  This good news was that a surging state revenue  that exceeded an earlier forecast meant that this year’s spending plan had a financial buffer  enabling budget lawmakers to fund K-12 education priorities while maintaining a balanced budget. The additional revenue allowed the priorities to be funded without reliance on an expansion of taxes on digital goods and services , originally planned to help meet the serious underfunding of K-12 education . But unlike a tax on digital goods and services, the surplus is a windfall that is not a stable revenue stream (see Bad News below).  One of the priorities in the General Assembly’s Conference budget  was a major increase in at-risk add-on funding for High Poverty schools , extra money the state gives to school systems with a high proportion of economically disadvantaged students. Other priorities were additional funding for English Language Learners and an increase in teacher pay. This spending plan provides funds to increase by 3% the state’s portion of teacher pay raises over the next 2 years.  The Bad News Teacher pay. Virginia’s teacher pay rate is well below the national average  and this budget resolution does not fix that gap. The General Assembly passed a bill with the goal of getting Virginia teachers' pay-rate to the national average by 2026 , but the Governor has not yet signed the bill. (He has until May 17th to act on it.) Instead of providing a pay raise that could help to realize that goal, the compromise budget increases by 3% the Commonwealth’s portion of pay raises. This is far from an amount that will help close the gap between school employee salaries and that of the national average. In fact, it barely keeps up with inflation . Because Virginia has fallen even further behind the national teacher pay average , the Commonwealth will need to approve a pay raise of 14% the next budget cycle  to meet the goal of national teacher pay average by the 2027-28 school year. Apparently, the Governor still has the misconception  that Virginia already has closed the gap in teacher pay relative to the national average, which is far from the truth. This erroneous belief is based on a flawed analysis by his administration that claimed there were mistakes in the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission’s (JLARC) report on the teacher pipeline . However, most recognize that it was the Governor’s analysis that was flawed  and recently the Virginia Education Association elaborated on the basis of the administration’s error.    The graph above shows that when adjusted for inflation, Virginia teacher pay average is well below that of the National Average pay for teachers. The compromise state budget recommends an increase of 3% each year for the next 2 years. However, most of the burden of providing those raises will fall on local school districts. Instead of approving the bill that would provide the raise needed to meet the goal by 2026, Governor Youngkin decided we should “study” the issue rather than act on revising it. As a result, school districts are still getting funded using outdated tax policies and formulas, and school districts continue to be underfunded .    Long term funding stability. Although K-12 education priorities were partially met this funding cycle, there is concern about the long-term fiscal stability of education funding. The revenue source used to meet current needs is not stable because it is based on a temporary revenue surplus .  Originally, a change in the digital sales tax was identified as the revenue source earmarked for continued and direct K-12 education support. This was especially important in providing funding for high poverty school districts. That tax change was not approved but instead the shortfall for this priority was covered with this year’s budget surplus. What is not clear is how funding for high poverty schools or any other education priority will be funded in subsequent years when we may not have a budget surplus. There is a critical need for legislators and the Governor to identify a stable revenue source  to fund education priorities.  Governor Youngkin vetoes localities’ ability to raise funds. Governor Youngkin vetoed the bill that would have allowed localities to hold a referendum on a local sales tax to support schools. By vetoing this bill the Governor has prevented localities from accessing a stable funding source for their schools. The impact of his veto on HB 805 is potentially serious. Public school districts in Virginia receive only a fraction of their operating budget from the state. For example, Fairfax County Public Schools receive only 19% of their funding from the state.  An immediate ramification of this veto is that school districts may have to reduce planned teacher salary increases. For example, Fairfax County Public Schools may have to reduce teacher salary raises  from 6% to 3%. Other than the 1.3% contribution from the federal government, the balance of the funding comes from local sources including revenue from property and sales taxes. A recent albeit unpopular increase in property taxes  for Fairfax was intended, in part, to better fund the schools. Youngkin’s veto of HB 805 has eliminated the ability of all localities to use a referendum to potentially increase financial support for their public schools.  JLARC recommendations were barely addressed. With the $371m for high poverty schools and the $71m to better support English Language Learners, Virginia has met only 4% of the $10 billion worth of critical recommendations made in the JLARC Report . And this is in a year when we have a budget surplus! What will happen to public education when the budget tightens again? "By only meeting 4% of the JLARC funding recommendations and falling further behind the national teacher pay average in this budget, lawmakers must find sustainable ways to increase revenue to meet our critical K-12 funding needs and fulfill their promises.... Retreating from RGGI and abandoning modernization of our sales tax in this budget means lawmakers must be even bolder in the coming years to propose significant tax restructuring to address the serious challenges facing our students and staffing shortages across our public schools.” - Dr. James Fedderman , President of Virginia Education Association

Science Fair is More Than a Competition Science Fair has inspired students around the world for over 100 years , from the tiniest kindergartners to gangly teenagers in high school. Recently, my first grade neighbor excitedly described his science fair project on light waves. Then, he listened raptly about my son’s project with an autonomous humanitarian aid drone. Both science fair efforts are equal in my eyes: the budding first grade scientist exploring the physics of light and a high school senior coding an autonomous drone. Unfortunately, for some people, Science Fair has gotten a bad rap, in part because it is time-intensive, misunderstood, and often required for a grade. However, when you take the love of science and combine it with the bravery to experiment, science fair projects become something else completely.  Of course, I had to learn this the hard way. Scarred by my own childhood science fair experience, I’ve never been particularly supportive of the Science Fair; however, I now understand how participation in science fair, early and often, can bring great opportunities for students and the world. It’s unfortunate, but it took my own child’s participation (and success) to fully understand the impact and importance of the Science Fair for so many students. Last week, 1,700 students from around the world descended on Los Angeles last week for the International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF) . Included in those were 14 students from Fairfax County Schools  whose projects received Grand Prizes at the 69th annual Fairfax County Regional Science and Engineering Fair featuring over 300 projects. The  timeline of events  at ISEF was rigorous with hours spent in professional wear (and uncomfortable shoes).  There is money available at ISEF for scholarships ; however, the likelihood of accessing enough money to pay for college is slim. Thus, these students from around the world do this for the love of science, not expectations of grandeur. Nevertheless, there are opportunities for internships, mentors, and great advice from experts, and I suspect that many sponsors at ISEF  and at high school science fairs around the country are looking for future employees and projects. Before our kids traveled to Los Angeles for ISEF, FCPS held a required meeting for the students and parents to discuss logistics and discuss expectations. Just when I thought the meeting was over, they announced that each student team would be sharing their projects. Internally I groaned at the idea of sitting through 30 more minutes of a meeting; however, by the end, I was near to tears, overwhelmed at the incredible work, thoughtfulness, and future of these students and their projects. They found real problems and came up with real solutions that could affect hundreds, if not millions, of people. It is no big surprise that many of the Fairfax ISEF attendees  were from TJ; however, six other local high schools also had grand prize winners. During the presentations, I found that a couple of the projects were incomprehensible because they were so complex (and I lacked the background), but each showed ingenuity, problem-solving skills, and bravery. These were my favorites: Detecting and Degrading Formaldehyde using Synthetic Biology and Engineering Techniques  – Many countries, including developing ones, have no efficient or  cost-effective methods of removing formaldehyde from wastewater, so a Sophomore from McLean High School created a device that would “run autonomously, testing polluted water hourly using a motorized pump.” Improving Racial Equity in Skin Cancer Detection via Artificial Intelligence –Realizing that “massive underrepresentation of non-White skin in dermatology research contributes to significant disparities in skin cancer outcomes” a Junior at The Potomac School, developed a model to “capture, upload, and diagnose skin lesion images. The 30 dollar device consequently serves impoverished communities across the globe without access to immediate healthcare.” Robee: A Novel Autonomous Pollinator  – A rapid decline of bee populations, when bees are responsible for pollinating about one-third of the world’s food supply led a Junior and Senior from Hayfield Secondary School, to create Robee, “an autonomous, intelligent drone, designed to augment the pollination behavior of bees.” Autonomous Hybrid Humanitarian Delivery Drone  – Concern over escalating urban warfare depriving individuals of needed supplies, two Juniors and a Senior from Woodson High School created a drone and “designed and implemented an autonomous guidance program that can operate even under GPS-denied environments, allowing it to navigate through warzones without an operator.” Each of these projects had equity and human need at their core. They have the potential of improving the lives of millions of people around the world by ensuring food production (Robeez!) or supporting safety and health. These students looked beyond their world to find others to help. Interest in science fair begins in elementary school. Some schools, like Mantua Elementary, are trying to expand participation in science fair with great success. Students proudly displayed their projects in the cafeteria this spring, beginning a lifetime of brave experimentation. Without the support of parents, teachers, school, and volunteers, none of this can happen, so consider volunteering as a mentor, sponsor, or judge in Science Fair. Check out resources at FCPS here . If you would like to learn more about the ISEF projects, please visit here .

Please take five minutes to take this survey to support comprehensive sex education in Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS). Currently, the FCPS School Board is reviewing recommendations from the Family Life Education Curriculum Advisory Committee (FLECAC), a group of parents, educators, experts, and spiritual representatives who have volunteered to help review and update the FLE materials for FCPS students. FLECAC Recommendations Despite expected outrage by far right publications and groups, most of whom want to eliminate comprehensive sex education, the 41 recommendations by FLECAC are, for the most part, not particularly controversial. They include: Objective and descriptive statements updates, some of which will affect instruction and curriculum (recommendations # 1-36), which cover: Consent and boundaries for K-12 (#1-25), including how to recognize unsafe situations, how to communicate “no,” identifying abuse and how to report it, understanding sexual harassment, bodily autonomy, respecting consent, relevant laws, etc. Reproductive systems for grades 4-7 (#26-29). Family and boundaries for Kindergarten (#30-32). Identifying and reporting abuse in grade 5 (#33) Contraception/abstinence and sexuality in grade 10 (#34-35). Modified Unit (#36). Note: Exact recommended changes for each of the above recommendations can be found in Appendix C of the FLECAC report. Media changes (recommendations # 37-40), which include: Ensuring equitable videos in 4th grade for boys and girls (#37). Many thanks to the parent who noticed that the girls’ 4th grade video was truncated, which meant that boys got full education on their internal and external reproductive system while girls only learned about their internal system! Providing access to both 4th videos to boys and girls (#38), which makes sure that all students are learning about what is happening to their own bodies and to others' bodies, as well. Adding a 7th grade puberty video (#39). Removing a 10th grade testicular cancer video (#40) which is inaccessible to most classrooms, since the video is on VHS and DVD, and most schools no longer have access to VHS or DVD players. Elementary curriculum recommendation to develop a more inclusive curriculum overall that reflects the needs of the current student body (recommendation # 41). How to Provide FLE Feedback to FCPS The FCPS feedback form may initially seem a little hard to understand, because they have listed numbers for all 41 recommendations; however, you can choose “all of them” to provide your feedback, unless you care to read each recommendation individually on this page. As you are providing feedback, please be aware that FLE in Virginia is abstinence-based by law, which means that all sexuality education is rooted in abstinence before marriage. Few know this fact–every time I share it, people are surprised. Personally, I am dismayed by this, since studies have shown that abstinence-only sex education is less effective at preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Some also consider abstinence-based sex education heteronormative, particularly since gay marriage was illegal in Virginia until October 14, 2014, and students have told me that abstinence-based FLE feels both heteronormative and homophobic. All parents should be aware so that they can discuss their family values vis-a-vis sexuality and abstinence with their children. Parents as Primary Educators Speaking of which, I want to emphasize that FCPS and FLECAC fully support that parents are the primary educators of their children. Of course, parents should talk to their students about sex and reproductive health; however, many do not because of discomfort with the subject. Nevertheless, decisions that affect emotional and physical health should be made in the context of a family’s values; thus, it is possible to opt out of FLE partially or entirely if the lessons do not conform to a family’s needs or values. In fact, I have done this myself with one or two lessons. FLE is a complex topic that needs to be discussed with care. The FCPS professionals who teach it take their duty to students and families seriously, as does the FLECAC who made these recommendations. The volunteers of FLECAC each have experience, interest, and a desire to support students’ well-being and decision-making, within the bounds of a student’s family values and life experiences. Consider contacting your school board representative(s) today to be on the committee next year. For full disclosure, I would like to share that I have been a member of the FLECAC for the past three years. I support comprehensive sex education because it makes our students safer by empowering them to make good choices, including delaying sexual activity and knowing the importance of consent. If you would like to learn more, I suggest that you review the Fairfax County Health Department Youth Survey to understand the state of youth today. Also this neat guide from the Centers for Disease Control may help explain how Virginia’s FLE regulations affect the sex education in our public schools, including whether or not instruction is evidence-based. Other Relevant Resources FLE Survey (closes at 4:30 on June 10th) Full FLECAC Report Summary of FLECAC report for the School Board power point presentation FLECAC recommendations for consideration 5/21/24 School Board FLECAC recommendations discussion on youtube

Best Schools Update 2024 “Above all, I believe every child, no matter their ZIP code or their parents' jobs, deserves access to a quality education.” - Betsy DeVos 2016 “A child's course in life should be determined not by the zip code she's born in” - Barack Obama “Literally nothing is evenly distributed by zip code, except having a zip code.” - Elon Musk Part I: Rankings v. Zip Codes “All children should have a great education regardless of zip code,” is perhaps one of the most repeated mantras in education. MAGA and “Woke” policy makers, Ed leaders, and billionaires often repeat it from speech to speech, almost as a litany and as prima facie evidence they are not racist or classist. It is that time of year. US News annual Best Schools report is the most well known rating and ranking report on schools, meant to tell us how we are meeting the “no matter what zip code, metric.” Their 2024 Best High Schools in America came out April 23rd and winners are bragging. School critics are blaming. Those whose place dropped are rationalizing, and the real estate industry is redrawing their target markets. The original annual rating and ranking system was “Jay Mathews’ Challenge Index" which was published by Newsweek and the Washington Post. It started in 1998 about the same time standardized testing was taking hold as the panacea for all problems in education. The model has become so popular, ratings have become an industry, with US News, Forbes, Scholaroo, EdWeek, Niche, Great Schools, the CATO institute, and others joining the rating game. These ratings have come to drive company relocations, local home buying markets, and be used as political shorthand about state political administrations. But what do these rankings really tell us about our schools, and how do you get to be a “best school?” Three things you need to know to make your school a top ranking school 40 percent of the ranking is based on Advance Placement and IB (World school) test numbers (taken and/or passed) 50 percent of the ranking is based on state standards tests. In Virginia that is Standards Of Learning (SOLs) In other states it may be the PARCC or one of several commercial test options. 10 percent of the score is based on how many students graduate in 4 years. Wait! You mean this ranking is not based on how safe, healthy, and positive the physical plant and atmosphere is? Or how highly educated, innovative, or experienced their teachers are? On how many electives or career courses a school offers? Or how extensive their arts programs, plays, art shows and music concerts are? How many sports do they offer, or teams go to regionals? Or how many of their students go on to highly successful careers? Or creative lives? Or how welcoming and supportive they are for each unique learner? Nope. None of the above count at all. This whole national competition is based on a set of tests? Whether it be US News, or one of the other brands, they are based on national or state level tests. At the bottom is always a test. (Niche offers the added opportunity to load up the system with positive reviews, much like a yelp review for your favorite restaurant). In US News’ case, they are based on six categories. Two of the categories measure AP and IB tests, two are based on state assessments (SOLs) , and one category based on on-time graduation rates. The Advanced Placement tests are produced by College Boards (the SAT company which makes $1.1 billion dollars a year off their testing services). The International Baccalaureate program and tests are run by the International Baccalaureate Organization, the more internationally oriented version of Advanced Placement. Both programs are based on the idea that students in high school can and should be doing college level work and should get credit for it when they go on to college, though students don’t always get that college credit. Both programs can cost a substantial amount of money, depending on how many AP/IB courses you offer and how many tests each student takes. So, these rankings are basically a promotion of the idea that giving more kids harder tests is what makes a good school? Well, yes. So more and harder tests reflect better instruction? Maybe, in some cases, but not necessarily if you are valuing skills based learning, or problem solving, or social-emotional health. So, if we want our local school district to be ranked highly, We buy and make sure every student takes at least one AP test or IB Test, and push them to take more than one. In regular classes, we research what will be on this year’s state test and teach directly to the test. We try to minimize the number of students who need more than 4 years to complete the graduation requirements. Problem Solved. Right? Or do we want to create schools that measure something else? Here are the schools and areas that get penalized. 1. Schools where funding limits offering AP and IB classes. For rural schools and particularly small districts, or higher poverty districts, the cost of offering large numbers of AP or IB courses can be prohibitive or just plain irrelevant, especially for areas that are in University deserts two hours from a four year college. Every test has a fee, and every course requires different text books and equipment. Every instructor is required to have specialty training in their course philosophy and approach which often includes travel costs in addition to the training fees. If your students do not have convenient access to Universities or higher paying jobs, AP and IB courses can seem a waste of precious dollars. 2. Schools where larger percentages of English Language Learners or neurodivergent students study. English language learners average 3 years prior to reaching fluency. Offering AP or IB courses can be just out of their time-line. Also, both ELL and Special Education students are given extra years to graduate, but in the ratings system, taking those years to graduate more prepared is penalized. Does that support make them worse schools or better schools? As a state, Virginia has fared well in this caldron of competition, with its K-12 public schools ranking in the top 5 consistently with various publishers before the current administration, and ranking 7th through 13th this year. But what does that mean for individual schools or students? Part II: Does a Zip Code really make a difference? Back to the zip code question. “Don’t let anyone tell you that standardized tests are not accurate measures. The truth of the matter is they offer a remarkably precise method for gauging the size of the houses near the school where the test was administered.” - Alfie Kohn Is that true? Below is a study of zip codes, median home prices, and median incomes based on 2022 prices and salaries. See Take Aways after the zip codes listings for a summary of Part II information. The Top Schools According to WTOP in 2022, of the top 50 schools nationwide, 25 of the top 50 were some form of magnet, gifted and talented, or specialty admission schools that recruited and accepted students from varied zip codes. In Virginia, Fairfax has more than once occupied 7 of the top 10 state spots in US News rankings. Some of the other rating brands have mostly Loudoun County schools in the top ten. Of note, according to AI, Loudoun County is now the most affluent county in the nation with a $170,463 median household income, with Falls Church and Fairfax coming in second and third. See Part II of this article for a more detailed analysis of those zip codes. Of the schools ranked in the top ten, Thomas Jefferson, Open High School. and Richmond Community High School are specialty schools with competitive application processes that serve a wider area than a cluster of neighborhood zip codes. The remaining top seven are public neighborhood schools that occupy a crescent of zip codes around the western edge of Fairfax County and Falls Church in which median house prices are $625K to $2.2 million and up. See the drop down for more information about houses in these zip codes. An evaluation of Langley, McLean, Madison, Marshall, Meridian, Oakton, and West Springfield zip codes Langley, McLean, Madison, Marshall, Meridian, Oakton, and West Springfield are the seven remaining schools. The zip codes in those districts are : 22101, 22102, 22181, 22182, 20170, 20194, 22031, 22043, 22046, 22066. Those schools all provide either robust AP programs, or a long-standing well-developed International Baccalaureate Diploma program. They have student bodies of between 2,000 and 2,900. McLean High School 1633 Davidson Rd, McLean, VA also serves 22182 The average 22182 house price was $1.1M in April. Marshall High School Median listing home price in 22043 was $779.5K in April 2022. The average 22182 house price was $1.1M. Oakton High School Median listing home price in 22181 was $1M. The average 20171 house price was $755K in April 2022. Madison High School Median listing home price in 22181 was $1M. West Springfield High School In April 2022, the median listing home price in 22152 was $627K. Pretty much all of the top seven neighborhood schools have Standards of Learning scores in the mid-90’s percentage range for Science, Math, and English Language. All have between 2,000-2,900 students. The median household income for the top seven schools ranges between $228K-$146K per year. In general the poverty rate hovers between 2.2% and 3.3%. The Bottom Ranked Schools: 263 to 320 Of the 320 high schools that US News ranked in Virginia, the lowest 57 schools were lumped together and listed in alphabetical order. So looking at them in firmly ranked order is not possible, but we can see their general characteristics and do some comparisons by looking at a few schools from varied parts of the state. Alleghany High School occupies the far western edge of the state, and is about central north to south. Brunswick sits along the central southern border, and Booker T. Washington is in Norfolk on the southeastern side of the state. Two of the three are majority Black schools, but overall there are numerous majority white schools among the 57 in this tier. See the drop down for more information about houses in zip codes associated with the bottom ranked 57 schools. An analysis of homes associated with the bottom-ranked schools' zip codes around Virginia Alleghany High School in Covington Virginia was the first of the alpha ordered “low” schools. With 619 students, Alleghany High School serves zip codes 24426, 24422, 24445, 24448, 24457, 24474 Median home price is $149,500 They had a 97% graduation rate, but showed no advanced academics tests (AP or IB), and their SOL state scores were below the state average, between 65-79% The area is also losing population and in summer 2022 consolidated the smallest high school in the state Covington City High School with Alleghany. In October 2021 broadband service for the county was completed. Brunswick High School is in Lawrenceville, VA and serves Brunswick County on the southern border of the state. Is in zip code 23868, and covers 23920, 23950, 23919, 23856, 23821, 23843, 23857 The Median home price for 23868 is $131.3K The median household income for Brunswick County is $46,111 There is no IB or AP program and scores on the SOLs are between 62-75% The graduation rate is 94% Booker T. Washington High School in Norfolk rounds out our quick survey of the 323-266 grouping. It is in zip code 23504 The median household income of $30,546 The median house price in 23504 is $249.9K Booker T. Washington does have AP classes. 35% of students take courses with a pass rate of 6% SOL scores range between 65-70% and Graduation rate is 88% The sample schools selected for the 323 -266 grouping have much in common with the other 54 schools in the cluster. They tend to be small (900-500 students) to very small (under 500 students) and most do not have AP or IB programs or have only small advanced academics programs. Take Aways So, what do we learn when we look at the zip codes of the highest ranking and lowest ranking schools in Virginia? Large suburban schools serving highly affluent communities tend to value college preparation courses and can afford to pay for them. Costs, like IB/AB program coordinators, instructor trainings, and registration, testing fees of $96-116 per test, though costly, are not prohibitive for them. Smaller schools that serve large geographic areas and lower income economies are less likely to spend the dollars and curriculum emphasis to tailor their programs to advanced college preparation. A few last data points that are seldom reported in connection to the choices: Broadband speeds and access in Northern Virginia is substantially higher (200mb-1G) as opposed to Covington and Lawrenceville at 100-200 mbps. Norfolk is the exception with high speed access due to proximity to military installations. Among other 320-263 districts broadband is still an issue and under construction. The under 18 years poverty levels for all three 320-263 schools are 11-31% while the poverty levels for the NoVA zips are between 2.1-3.3% Parents who make $30K a year are less likely to spend $96 on a course test fee than those making $220K a year. The cost of the AP/IB programs US News measures is significant. They require registration fees, professional coordinator staff, and instructor professional development, all of which costs the schools money. There is a per student registration fee and unless the school picks up the tab students pay between $96-$116 per test. Support for those costs across the state are not consistent, and application for subsidies is not always easy. For a school strapped for budget, to meet the number of required tests to attain ranking can be cost prohibitive. It seems that US News “High School Rankings” does measure some things accurately, or as Alfie Kohn put it, “the size of the houses near the school where the test was administered.” It is clear that the top seven Fairfax County schools are doing a magnificent job of challenging their students to perform well on high stakes tests. Besides all the advanced academics, they also provide substantial enrichment opportunities for students. Their academic quality is not in question. However, looking at the websites of the 320-263 schools, there are some remarkable programs and efforts by the local parents and school employees across these 57 districts to provide exceptional and high quality instruction and opportunities. There are many schools that have advanced academics programs, almost all have multiple career programs, and numbers of enrichment activities; schools whose students are winning state awards and accolades. Those data points are not measured under a ranking system that looks only at test scores and graduation rates. Which brings us to the question: If as they say, we measure what we value, what are we really measuring? And what do we really value? As Lani Guinier put it: “The increasing reliance on standardized test scores as a status placement in society has created something alien to the very values of our democratic society yet seemingly with a life of its own: a testocracy.” Additional Credits: Photos and Median Home prices are from realtor.com Poverty and median household income statistics are from census.gov Testing percentages and rankings are from US News. https://apnews.com/article/1d856cd98d4c491e8443576b3a817740 https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/about-ap/start-expand-ap-program/start/consider-costs

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

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

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

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

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

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