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

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

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

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

Governor Youngkin continues to gaslight the public by manufacturing problems that he continues to blame on public schools in Virginia. It worked stunningly to get him elected in 2021; nevertheless, parents are weary of Youngkin’s empty claim that he is the “education governor.” This November, all of the Virginia General Assembly and many school board seats are up for election, thus the Governor and his supporters are repeating the tired claim that Virginia K-12 schools are failing. This seems like an odd self-own since the Youngkin administration has been in charge of the Commonwealth’s schools for nearly two years. Also, this claim flies in the face of the fact that Virginia public schools are rated fourth out of all the states, based on reviews by both Forbes and the World Population Review. In Fairfax County, all 12 non-partisan school board seats are up for election on November 7, 2023; therefore, the Fairfax County Public School system (FCPS) is in the eye of Youngkin’s storm of attacks. Additionally, far right and right-leaning candidates are smearing the current Fairfax County school board in order to justify an enormous shift to the right come November. In advance of the election, one of their many claims is that a recent decline in SAT scores demonstrates that Fairfax County schools are failing, which will lead to a drop in property values in the county. This is an astonishing claim, because FCPS performs above both the state and global SAT averages. Also, it is absurd to condemn the Fairfax County School Board for a decline in local SAT scores when schools across Virginia, in other states, and around the globe had similar declines between 2018 and 2022. Many variables limit our ability to accurately compare performance based on SAT scores before, during and after the pandemic. However, it is clear that the pandemic has had an influence on SAT scores across the country: fewer students took the test, participation varied among school systems and years during the pandemic, and SAT scores dropped. In fact, the College Board reported that only 1.5 million students took the SAT in the class of 2021 versus 2.1 million in the class of 2020. A significant number of colleges and universities no longer require applicants to submit SAT scores, resulting in a smaller number of students taking the test and a shift in the profile of students taking the test. Because some school systems like Fairfax County now offer school-day and free SAT testing, more students from lower-income families have been taking the test. In addition, there are reports that fewer students are retaking the test for a better score, more students are not reporting their scores to colleges, and students not planning to attend college are now taking the test. These are some of the variables that changed the pool of students taking the SAT, and have affected average SAT scores for all school systems. Surprisingly, there does not seem to be a similar pandemic effect on SAT prep course attendance. The dip in average SAT scores for FCPS is influenced by many of the same factors that influence dips in SAT scores across the country; however, FCPS has been working to maintain and increase their SAT testing rate. One strategy is offering FCPS seniors free access to SAT School Day testing. Although residual impacts of the pandemic and changes in college admissions requirements have mostly delayed the return to the pre-pandemic SAT testing levels, the participation rates for FCPS “reflect a developing nationwide movement to de-emphasize entrance exams within the college admissions process.” This is part one of a three-part series on Gaslighting the Public in Virginia by Governor Youngkin: Part 2 covers the Manufactured Crisis over SOL Scores. Part 3 covers Misinterpreting Student Performance and NAEP Scores

The Problem Two hundred thirty-three amendments : there are so many problems with the Governor’s amendments to the bipartisan budget that it’s hard to know where to start. I mean, who thinks to take retirement funds out of the school buildings and repairs budget ?  Governor Youngkin’s administration has been fraught with various forms of misrepresentation,  from iffy sole source consultant procurement practices to stacking commissions and boards with conflict of interest candidates,  but no initiative has been more flawed than his dream project of establishing 20 charter/Lab schools  during his term of office.  Still, Governor Youngkin is determined to open the gates for creating independently run but publicly funded charters in the state of Virginia, and to place authorization firmly at the state level. Currently, the Governor’s appointees are scrambling to convince universities to submit applications and are changing the approval process  to fast track approval of lab schools by removing first review, which limits public input and reduces process transparency. They are desperately trying to get as many as possible in the hopper before June 30 in the hopes that the renewed interest will convince the legislature to approve Governor Youngkin’s $85 million he would like to have for Charter-Lab school implementation. The Current Situation From the beginning in 2022, Education Secretary Guidera toured the state creating rosy pictures announcing Lab-Charters that would open in Fall 2023 at universities that had not yet submitted even a planning grant application.  In spite of those glowing promises that 13 Lab Schools might open by fall 2023 , by December 2023, only one school, the VCU-CODEVA  program was near opening in January 2024 and that “school” incorporated two programs that had already existed.  Of the 23 planning grant applications only 5 had moved forward to apply for an actual implementation grant, and the legislature declined to reauthorize the remaining $85M in seed money due to expire on June 30.  The stated goal of the Charter-Labs has been to create innovation and to serve under-served or at-risk students. However, most of the applications piggy back on programs that already exist such as AVID, Dual Enrollment, Coding, and career Health Science courses, and the lottery selection process for “at-risk” students is unclear in at least some of the program profiles. Thus, they are nothing innovative and it is unknown if they will serve the targeted populations. In a last ditch effort to reinvigorate the initiative, Youngkin restored $85 million in his April 2024 budget amendments. He and Secretary of Ed Guidera launched another media blitz appealing for the funding by pushing districts that opted out to reconsider and pursue a Lab School. Two more were authorized in early April and just Thursday (April 11th) the five person Lab School standing committee voted to  by-pass first review of applications  to expedite quick approvals. Unfortunately, the latest publicity matches reality even less than the initial stories.  The refusal to abide by the Lab-Charters restrictions have bordered on violation of the laws from the beginning. To get the budget seed money of $100 million, the initial agreement between the administration and the legislature were for lab schools that could be sponsored by the 14  public four year universities  joining with local school districts. The other critical limitation was that this $100 million needed to be spent by July 1, 2024 or returned to the general fund. Those agreements were ignored. Across the two years, the Lab-Charter committee and Board of Education have expanded eligibility to 27 private universities including Liberty University, Marymount University, and George Washington University, 23 community colleges, and to the five state regional Institutes and Centers. The partnering units are now virtually any post-high school institution and any approved partnering entity including employers and independent specialty training programs.  Secretary Guidera has talked about 23 schools that will serve 4000 students . But the reality is less than one-third of her projection.  Of the 7 Universities that have completed the required $5 million implementation applications for start up, the required detailed budgets for the first year and 5-year contract period are there but leave many questions. Most of the 7 applicants propose programs that will serve under 100 students each of the first two years, (with the exception of UVA which is proposing to offer 7th graders in Charlottesville a career exploration course). JMU’s application   anticipates serving 600 students divided across 5 districts five years from now.  Another concern is staffing costs, including expensive directors serving a small population of students. For example, many of the 7 applicants expect to employ a full time Executive Director and substantial implementation staff (6-8) while still relying on college student interns and the local district teachers to supply core instruction. It is unclear how the per-pupil dollars given to the Lab-Charter will affect the state’s allocation of per-pupil funding to the local district or how those programs will be funded once the $85 million is spent.  Most of the 7 Charter-Lab applications say they will be ready to start or soft-launch in August 2024, which is after the funding deadline, with staff in place and students identified and admitted. As of April 2024, it was unclear from most the applications how that would be achieved. Just to juxtapose numbers Gov. Youngkin’s budget amendments cut the At-Risk Add-on which would serve 247 of the lowest income communities (over 123,000 students)  across the commonwealth from $300 million to $96 million (the current level of funding), while the Charter-Lab $85 million would serve under 1000 students in year one, and under 1500 in year two.  When we look at the programs   The Charter-Lab school applicants want to provide and ask: “Who is served and what is offered in Virginia now?”  According to JLARC 42,000 students already take Dual Enrollment Courses each year.  16 of the Virginia community colleges offer an Associates degree in Early Childhood Development (pre-K teacher training). 5,662 students now take AP computer science courses, and 785 students take CodeVA programs or workshops.  There are 89 AVID sites in Virginia schools which would reflect approximately 1,700 or more students.  24 Community College sites across Virginia offer welding programs. Virginia currently has 9 Governor’s Health Science Academies which provide Health Sciences career and technical education.  Should Virginia seek to provide more access to great opportunities like these to high school students? Absolutely.  The Why? However, if we already have most of these programs available, why create a completely separate administrative staff and pseudo-schools to serve such a small sample of students, students who would probably be the enrollees for the existing programs?  The simple answer to this “Why?” for Youngkin is to create a state-level charter school authorization Standing Committee that can bypass the Virginia Constitution and local districts that insist on things like the viability of programming and responsible budgets–that has been the dream of Glenn Youngkin… to take public education into his hands and have state-run schools that serve few students while taking taxpayer funds from local schools.

On Friday, June 17 Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin fulfilled his campaign promise of 20 new charter schools in the form of university and college affiliated lab schools that will have their own independent governing boards. The legislature gave him 100 million dollars to start them; dollars that won’t go to public schools at a time when Virginia still ranks 41st in per pupil spending for public school students, somewhere between Mississippi and Missouri. The lab schools are also promoted by Go Virginia , the Chamber of Commerce’s program for increasing K-12 workforce training for Virginia’s major companies. Private religious universities such as Liberty and Virginia Union will be eligible to start lab schools and able to access the millions available. But what will those lab schools look like? Will they be elementary schools that provide high quality academic opportunities for children of faculty and staff of the university, as some lab schools around the country do? Will they be elementary schools that focus on career choices in grades 1-6 as some have suggested?. Taking the “What do you want to be when you grow up?” question to a whole new level of concentration? Will they be urban centers for under-served youth in grades 9-12 in the handful of colleges that exist in less affluent neighborhoods? Will they be variations on the Career and Technical programs already provided across 21 career fields by existing high schools and community colleges? It is hard to tell at this point. Though a few universities and colleges have been in behind the scenes talks, no new application processes have been posted to the DOE website yet, and the details won’t be revealed until we see the individual applications. Another problem is how to structure a deal in which the legislature’s bill and regs require a 5-year financial plan, but the budget bill only provides 1-year of seed funds. For parents and universities there are more questions than answers: For parents: Do I want to risk my child’s education on a program that is funded for one year; for which there is no stated curriculum and the teaching perspective is oriented toward job training, rather than educational excellence? For colleges and universities: Do we want to invest time, energy and resources in developing a program that is highly dependent on one party holding a slim majority in the legislature, and stretches our expertise from educating young adults to educating children? How will establishing a new K-12 charter school under the auspices of the universities’ business department or a private management company serve the mission of the larger institution? So, Governor Youngkin has his charter/lab schools, but two central questions for Virginians still remain: Who do the charter/lab schools really serve? And why does Governor Youngkin want to move toward a privatized charter model which has failed so thoroughly across so many other states?

The following is a transcript of remarks made by 4 PE's Cheryl Binkley made to the Virginia Board of Education at their meeting on April 19th: There are so many problems with Governor Youngkin’s lab schools I hardly know where to start. I urge you to delay moving forward on approvals of lab school guidelines, applications and programs until the legal issues with them are resolved. It will save you from later involvement in testimonies about your part in a program that is at best a misguided ego scheme, and at worst an illegal attempt to take over Virginia’s schools. 1. First they are for the most part illegal. There is no legislative authorization for the giant project you are facilitating. In fact, the Lab School bills failed to pass in the General Assembly in both 2022 and 2023. Secretary Guidera and Governor Youngkin have gone around the state offering free money to authorizers that are clearly excluded from the budget bill language of 2022, and they play carrot and stick with our public universities to push them into participating. They know their proffers are illegal and pursue them anyway, announcing ready to open Lab Schools in the local news even before the local authorizer has filled out an application. There are already complaints filed with the state auditor about misappropriation of funds, and the legislature is unlikely to offer future support to a program that has run so roughshod over the rule of law. 2.. Second, Lab Schools are unconstitutional. The Standing Committee structure, and independent regional boards which do not answer to local school boards or any elected authority violate the requirement that local districts control the curriculum of Virginia’s public schools. 3. Third, many of the lab schools that are planned are not full schools at all, but after school tech activities, Dual Enrollment scholarships, coding training, career Academy classes, or company internship programs. They are mostly duplications of programs we already make available, and bypass input from the better qualified departments in our system such as the health and nursing programs. Other than meeting SOQs, there is little to no mention of providing the full range of courses that are required of a full service K-12 school. Are Lab School students even going to get a high school that includes science, languages arts, math and history or just on the job training? 4. Lab Schools are expensive, $150 million requested this year, and rising costs every year afterward; money that will bleed local schools dry, and will make our business environment less entrepreneurial and less attractive as these programs support the regional largest companies to the exclusion of more creative business opportunities. They will train kids to grow up with no more aspiration than to work at the company store or factory. 5. They further disrupt and damage the qualified teacher supply and seek to lower training qualifications. Some of the applications talk of turning out teachers on the street at the age of 20 with a truncated high school experience, and two years of college. That does not describe a high quality education experience for those prospective teachers or for the students they will be expected to teach. Please do not take the next steps in establishing this program.

This is Public Comment Given at Arlington Public Schools Board Meeting by Anjy Cramer on September 19, 2024. Please note that h istorical documents are used as references in this blog, which means that you may encounter harmful, discriminatory language that is no longer acceptable. Please proceed with that in mind. In 1960, Arlington Superintendent Mr. Ray Reid gave testimony  to the US Commission on Civil Rights reporting on APS’ desegregation progress. He said, in part: “Standards of… Arlington County schools are high... [Black] students… experienced severe scholastic difficulties… [They]… are working considerably below the average of other students…”  Dorothy Hamm’s own child was denied admission to the school that now bears her name “for lack of academic achievement.” See Ms. Hamm’s letter below. Four children desegregated Stratford  not because the proximity to whiteness would somehow make them smarter, but because they lacked the same opportunities in their home schools. “Separate but equal” was anything but. Over-scrutinizing their standardized test scores followed. Here is a document of test scores from SY 1963-64  comparing our three Black schools to APS county averages. Look at how much lower those test scores are.   Was   it really the fault of the Black kids in segregated schools? Our schools are still segregated. Whose fault is it now? This is not academic failure. Just as in 1959, it’s a failure of opportunity. We’ve been failing them for 65 years now, not just since the Pandemic. More if you want to talk about when they didn’t even have access to public education. Stop calling it an achievement gap… it’s an OPPORTUNITY GAP . How many more opportunities does Discovery  have with their $118,000 PTA budget, $71K raised at their annual fundraiser last year   compared to Carlin Springs? More teacher stipends, more field trips, more enrichment…. I’m not saying don’t collect or analyze the data. I believe you need to put these results in the proper context and create solutions for success based in best practices and academic research  rather than wax poetic every year. We need to invest in these children in different and more intensive ways than dominant culture, and that will involve… yes, lots of money, time and commitment. Make the budget work for them!  These kids are so much more than their test scores. I wish people would stop misusing math and statistics to further marginalize them. I know VDOE is forcing your hand too , but APS doesn’t have to frame this issue to suit their narrative either. There are people on the sidelines who are cheering for these children to fail to justify their own agendas. Don’t give them red meat. Our Black, Brown, Immigrant and disAbled children deserve at least that much from APS leadership. ** Thank you to John Stanton, Arlington Public Library, Charlie Clark Center for Local History for assistance in locating the source documents linked herein.

Social Media Threats Close Schools and Delay Games in Multiple Virginia Counties Nationwide there is always a spike in threats of violence after a school shooting, but Virginia has been included in the social media threats of the last three weeks. Social media threats to at least three schools have made local headlines in Chesterfield Co .,  Pulaski Co . and at a  Virginia Beach private school; however, we are aware that other schools and districts have also had threats  All three lost one day or more of school. Fortunately, in Virginia all three of the threats that made headlines have been traced back to their origin with seemingly no continuing threat level. Briefly, Hanover County residents even though schools on a TikTok list referred to their schools, but then recognized Georgia schools of the same names were the actual targets.  These incidents coincide with a nationwide wave of violence related to the Apalachee High School shooting which killed four and injured nine, and the presidential debate Ohio political hoax against migrants that has triggered regional aggression and closures in twelve or more Ohio school districts. At this writing, the Proud Boys fascists are marching in Springfield Ohio as they did in Charlottesville Virginia. In addition to Georgia and Ohio, incidents are being reported from numerous states. Florida, describes their schools as being inundated with social media threats. Kentucky , Indiana ,  West Virginia , Texas,   Colorado , and  Tennessee  all report recent outbreaks.  There is a long list of questions to be asked about these outbreaks and the prevalence of violence and violent threats. What are root causes, contributory issues, immediate costs, and longer term solutions? Are there higher level policies and national leadership actions that carry responsibility, such as weapons laws and the use of hate and disinformation in our political rhetoric?  However, these Virginia closures are not just national trends. They are local. They are immediate and personal for the families, students, and school employees who feel threatened and whose lives are affected by immediate fears, uncertainty, closed schools, delayed games and longer-term fears. One day, these threats may become actual violence. Also, these concerns disrupt learning and teaching, long after the threat has been dealt with. The questions we ask when it’s our own communities are different from those we ask at a safe distance. Are our students and families getting the support they need to meet the challenges of current times? How can we protect our children without creating a barricaded existence for them? How do we build a community where we all belong and are not alienated from our neighbors and fellow students? One of the reasons we as a society put so much emphasis on the quality of our schools is because they are an almost lone indicator for the quality of our communities. Are our local neighborhoods peaceful and nurturing to our families or are they dangerous and a source of fear? Our local schools mirror those questions for us, and when they are disturbed and threatened, our sense of who we are as a community and as a people is disturbed. Our confidence in our own ability to live together is shaken. After all, what kind of society allows its children to kill one another without effective intervention? There have always been hoax school threats. In 1998, one of my students called in a bomb threat from the pay phone at the front of the building to avoid that morning’s math test. He was picked up before he walked away from the phone, and never came back to school. I knew this kid and he was not capable of harming people, but he was very creative at avoiding school work. Today he would be criminally charged, not just sent to an alternative school with more intense psychological services and smaller class sizes.  Many of the students who are using social media to close their schools for the day are winding up charged with felonies. Sadly, we no longer have the luxury of not taking social media threats seriously. The tragedies of school shootings and of racist attacks on school children must be responded to, and with so many school shootings that is almost an unending process. Education Week  reveals, ” There have been 28 school shootings this year that resulted in injuries or deaths, according to an Education Week analysis. There have been 210 such shootings since 2018 . There were 38 school shootings with injuries or deaths last year . There were 51 in 2022 , 35 in 2021 , 10 in 2020 , and 24 each in 2019  and 2018 .” The divide between those who would harden schools with drastic measures and those who believe we must make deeper changes that provide living conditions and psychological supports that help our children before their mental health reaches crisis levels will no doubt be a larger topic this year among parents and policy makers because we all feel the need to respond more than ever.  It is easy to be paralyzed by the fear some want us to feel, but we can work through the chaos political hate has unleashed. We have to remember we are the people who define what we want the world to be like for ourselves and our children and make it so. Note: Since this piece was written, there have been even more documented threats at Virginia schools. On September 19, 2024, the date of the letter (see below) from Fairfax County Schools Superintendent Dr. Reid regarding gun violence, it was hard to know what school shooting she was referring to when she said, " Recent news of another school shooting in our nation has deeply impacted our community," as there were a number of known incidents of gun violence at schools around that day, in addition to a threat in Palmyra, VA and a 6 year-old bringing a gun to a school in Orange, VA earlier in the week.