Disruption is NOT Accountability The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) created disruptive accountability measures that will harm Virginia students. The VDOE has not been transparent with or accountable to stakeholders by ignoring input from public listening sessions, and by withholding information before rushing to approval. Then, a Virginia Board of Education (VBOE), composed primarily of members who have worked to defund public education, rushed to approve the disruptive measures. Just yesterday, it was revealed that the Virginia Secretary of Education accused critics of a “misinformation campaign” and asked close associates to write opEds, submit positive input, and speak at the VBOE meeting. ALERT: VBOE changed the date of the September meeting to September 26th. Please consider joining 4 Public Education on our Road Trip to Richmond next week. See graphic for more information. We need you to act NOW by contacting your state senator or delegate, submitting input to the VDOE by Sept 25th, and/or by signing up to speak at the VBOE meeting on Sept 26th to tell them to reject the VDOE regulatory revisions, because these ill-advised changes will: 1) Harm Virginia’s Long-standing Reputation as an education powerhouse and ideal place to locate a business. Simultaneously, taxpayers and legislators will be on the hook for this unfunded mandate while more than half of Virginia’s students, families, and schools will suffer the consequences of shrinking opportunities, especially in rural, low-income, immigrant, and Black and Brown communities. What will be the impact of ‘failing school’ designations on local communities and property values? Will this make DC or Maryland properties look more appealing for future homeowners and entrepreneurs? 2) Create Radically Inappropriate Measures. VDOE has radically changed academic expectations, likely to produce large-scale school-wide failures for Virginia’s school districts by placing 50-70% of Virginia’s diverse schools in a failing category. VDOE changes will increase current inequities for students while requiring already over-extended teachers to earn additional certifications to teach accelerated coursework in middle school mathematics, science, history and social science. VDOE has reduced the number of semesters before English Language Learners (ELL) are counted as part of a school's performance from eleven semesters to three semesters is inconsistent with best practices. This means that ELL students are tested on English skills instead of the subject matter, which depresses their scores of the school that they attend. VDOE expects middle and high schoolers to master accelerated coursework above their grade-level (e.g., Algebra 1 and 2, and English 11 courses in middle school, and Advanced Placement or college dual-enrollment courses in high school). This shows a troubling lack of consideration for the hundreds of schools unable to provide accelerated courses due to logistical and financial accessibility, and teacher certification challenges. Additionally, VDOE is ignoring the developmental readiness of students, which means these revised accountability standards may be setting up students to fail. Nevertheless, VDOE added accountability measures to assess all schools based on above grade-level, accelerated work for middle and high schoolers in mathematics, science, history and social sciences. 3) Disrupt with No Known Benefits or Additional State Funding. The new VDOE standards artificially downgrade Virginia schools. Parents and educators know this isn’t accurate, as it contradicts Virginia’s above-average scores on SATs and the Nation’s Report Card. In 2024, Virginia was ranked # 1 state for business and education. There is no reliable evidence or studies showing that VDOE’s plan will improve education outcomes for students, families, and schools. The VDOE plan will require all schools and educators to quickly adjust by changing all curricula, learning disability supports, and education methodologies educators have developed for students over the last decade. This is an unfunded mandate. There are no state funds allocated for VDOE to fully develop or implement their plans, nor has VDOE provided plans or funding to support the 1,000-1,200 schools they will artificially downgrade to failing (i.e., “off track” or “needs intensive support”). The impact will be even worse in rural, currently underfunded school districts with large populations of students who need greater support. This would likely increase funding needs in Virginia, if more than half of Virginia’s schools are re-classified as "failing," according to VDOE’s own projections. The VDOE places the heaviest burden on already underfunded public schools to fix a problem manufactured by VDOE bureaucrats and their consultants. To education experts, this is a clear effort to siphon off public taxpayer money to private enterprises, instead of improving public schools. Please act immediately on behalf of students, educators, and public schools, and keep an eye on 4 Public Education for more alerts to support and protect our public schools. Contact your state legislator Submit input to VDOE by Sept 24th rejecting their Accountability revisions Sign up to speak at the Sept 25th VBOE meeting

We just updated our Events Calendar for the 2024-25 School Year with our September 26th Road Trip to Richmond (NOTE: VBOE date change!), some great opportunities with education partners around the state, and (of course!) lots and lots of upcoming school board meetings. If you are a group who would like to join us as an ally or partner advocating for public schools, please contact us at info@4publiceducation.org . Road Trip to Richmond on September 26th If you haven't heard, our August 28th Road Trip to Richmond made waves with the Virginia Department of Education , but not enough for the Virginia Board of Education to reject their disruptive accountability measures that will harm Virginia's school school children's opportunities and possibly even economic opportunities in the state. To make your voice heard, you can: Sign up to speak on at the VBOE meeting on Sept 26th , Submit online input to the VDOE by Sept 25th , and/or Contact your state senator  or delegate VBOE UPDATED THE DATE TO Thursday, September 26th THIS WEEK! Parents Not Politics Tour: School Board Conversations Consider attending upcoming school board community discussion events sponsored by Red Wine and Blue , a wonderful education partner, from September 23-October 6. This "Parents Not Politics" tour is also cohosted by We The People , Virginia Education Association , and 4 Public Education . Join the candid and critical conversations between school board members and candidates, parents, and students about the ongoing threat of extremism on local school boards and how these efforts to push a radical, far-right agenda harms our children and undermines public education. There will be four events held around Virginia (check our events calendar to sign up ): Virginia Beach on September 23, 2024 from 6-7:30 pm at the Meyera E. Oberndorf Central Library, 4100 Virginia Beach Blvd, Virginia Beach, VA 23452 Radford on September 30, 2024 from 6:30-7:30 pm at the Radford Public Library, 30 W Main St, Radford, VA 24141 Petersburg on October 2, 2024 from 4-5:30 pm at the Petersburg Public Library, 201 WASHINGTON St, Petersburg, VA 23803 Arlington on October 6, 2024 from 2-4 pm at the Columbia Pike Public Library (Drew Room), 816 S Walter Reed Dr, Arlington, VA 22204 Be sure to check out the 4 Public Education 2025 Arlington Election Questionnaire before you vote in Arlington, Virginia! Click below. LGBTQ+ History Month Rally FCPS Pride is hosting an October 10th rally at 6 pm before the Fairfax County School Board Pride Proclamation at the 7pm meeting. Come to listen to advocates and elected officials speak their truth, and stand together with the LGBTQ+ community and allies to celebrate queer change-makers and champion inclusive history. There is no doubt that we are at a turning point in LGBTQIA+ History. We want to ensure that students who enter our schools in the future will learn about how our community met the current crisis. Learn more about the October 10th rally here . Fairfax School Board Meetings We just added nearly all of the Fairfax County School Board meetings to our calendar. Consider attending these meetings so that you can offer public input or listen to policy and plans that may affect your school community. Click on any of the school board events 2-5 days before the meeting date to sign up to provide public input. If you cannot attend, but want to watch, the meetings are simultaneously televised on FCPS Channel 99 and later posted on the FCPS Youtube channel . Check out the full Fairfax County School Board meeting calendar here to find out about other meetings you may want to attend. It is strongly recommended that you sign up for alerts from FCPS, your school, and/or your school board so that you can keep up to date on community events, news, and opportunities to make change for the future. Click here at the "News You Choose" to sign up so that you can stay informed and involved.

Report Out on the 8/28/24 Virginia Board of Education Meeting Despite citizens across Virginia rallying to action , the Virginia Board of Education (VBOE), approved Governor Youngkin’s Virginia Department of Education’s (VDOE) amendments to Virginia’s Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) plan per Nathaniel Cline’s reporting in the Virginia Mercury . This is not surprising since VBOE is made up almost entirely of Youngkin appointees who overwhelmingly have voiced support for defunding public education and/or work directly with groups that support charter schools and/or private education.  The lone dissenting vote was Ms. Anne Holton, a Former Secretary of Education and board member appointed by Governor Northam, who echoed the concerns  of many of the speakers during public input when she expressed that she felt the new VDOE system was “ fundamentally flawed in a number of ways ” including that it ignored “loud, persistent” feedback from parents, the Parent Teachers Association (PTA), School Board Association, Teachers’ Associations, and assessment directors in the divisions, the folks who most understand this system and its implications,” all of whom represent thousands of Virginia voices. She added that the plan is not “fully fleshed out,” lacks modeling of potential impact on schools and families, and that it will be hard to implement because the associated VDOE offices are already “over-extended.” As 4 Public Education has noted , this policy change makes schools all over Virginia ripe for takeover, reputational damage, and privatization . However, before that happens, all schools and educators will need to quickly adjust to new student measurement plans, which will change all of the curricula, supports, and education methodologies they’ve developed over the last decade. All of this is expected by Younkgin’s VDOE with no promised additional financial support to our schools and students. Unfortunately, the meeting was delayed by an hour-and-a-half and was sparsely attended despite the importance of the accountability plans which will completely change how schools are judged by the Youngkin VDOE, and will have extensive and possibly devastating consequences in many communities. Citizens’ concerns regarding these changes are below.  One cannot help but note that the atmosphere in the room was not welcoming, as Chair Grace Creasy seemed either annoyed or bored by the public feedback. She displayed extra irritation in the face of additional speakers and admonished participants for clapping. Her comments and behavior occurred after Ms. Creasy reminded the audience to “model professionalism, dignity, and respect for others.” Inequity of Access to Advanced Courses Dr. Scott Brabrand , former Fairfax County Public School (FCPS) Superintendent and current Executive Director of Virginia Association of School Superintendents (VASS), thanked VDOE for their efforts and expressed interest in collaboration. He added concerns, including those about “the addition of advanced social studies and science coursework to Middle School just one year from now, as there are currently major inequities across the Commonwealth and [lack of] student access to that coursework, as well as Middle School teacher licensing issues. We understand virtual options are being explored; however, it's too early to agree to this incorporation until more defined supports are in place.”  He shared that VASS “remain[s] concerned about the On Track/Off Track summary of categories even with your updated partial modeling using 23-24 school year data…we still see [that] the new framework suggest[s] over 55% of our schools are off track or need intensive support. We strongly believe at VASS [that] all of our schools can continue to improve. We don't believe the majority of our schools are in those two categories, as we said last month. Ask yourself if this new framework aligns with a state that just received a number one ranking for business from CNBC that included within its methodology a number one ranking for Education.” "Ask yourself if this new framework aligns with a state that just received a number one ranking for business from CNBC that included within its methodology a number one ranking for Education.” -- Dr. Scott Brabrand Does VDOE have the Analytical Skills after False "Honesty Gap" Allegations? Dr. Marianne Burke  of Fairfax County, 4 Public Education Board Member and mother of three children who have graduated from FCPS and Virginia colleges, shared “grave concerns” about the VDOE plan and whether VDOE had the chops to “appropriately analyze the data for the proposed accreditation plan:” “In 2023, the GOP singled out Fairfax County schools  as failing because SAT scores had declined . The truth was that Fairfax county SAT scores were above  both the state and global SAT averages , and SAT scores dropped across all of Virginia, in other states, and around the globe at the same time.” In addition she said “Youngkin’s DOE used misinformation in their claim that there was an “honesty gap” in Virginia because SOL and NAEP scores differed . Published information had warned that the two tests measured very different things and scores can not be directly compared. Even now, the Governor refers to the honesty gap , showing the administration still doesn’t understand or does not want to give up this talking point that disparages public schools.” "Even now, the Governor refers to the honesty gap , showing the administration still doesn’t understand or does not want to give up this talking point that disparages public schools.” --Dr. Marianne Burke VDOE Ignored Parent and Expert Feedback Vanessa Hall ,Vice President of 4 Public Education and an FCPS alumnus and mother of FCPS students, first apologized for her disappointment before listing several ways that VDOE ignored feedback from parents, principals, educators, and other experts. In particular, she shared concerns about expectations that students take and excel at above  grade-level courses: “We asked for thoughtful measures , yet these measures judge our children based on college coursework rather than grade-level proficiency. Do you know how many students cannot access advanced classes due to language, disability, cost, or availability? We asked for support for English Language Learners , but these measures throw them under the bus. I’d love to see any of you learn a new language in 3 semesters sufficient to take science and history tests in it!” She questioned whether this plan was an unfunded mandate since it is unknown where funding will come from “to flesh out this policy outline, implement it, and then support schools that can’t meet these draconian measures.”  Thus far, VDOE has not provided answers to any of these questions. "I’d love to see any of you learn a new language in 3 semesters sufficient to take science and history tests in it!" -- Vanessa Hall Are these the Actions of Good Stewards of Public Education? Speaking gently, but firmly, Ginge Sivigny  shared that her children and grandchildren attended public schools in Fairfax County before reminding the VBOE members of the far reaching implications of their decisions on “Virginia’s children, families, school communities, and the very quality of life in Virginia” and that they have the choice of being remembered as a hero or villain: “When people look back on these times, will the actions this board takes be looked upon with gratitude or shame? Will you be respected as champions of public education, supporters of the common [good], or will you be looked upon with dismay, the way we now revile those who dismantled our public schools in the 1950’s and 60’s?” "Will you be respected as champions of public education, supporters of the common [good], or will you be looked upon with dismay, the way we now revile those who dismantled our public schools in the 1950’s and 60’s?” -- Ginge Sivigny Is Youngkin’s VDOE Breaking Our Schools on Purpose? Mike Karabinos , parent of children in Chesterfield, Virginia, likened the VDOE’s plan to breaking Virignia’s schools on purpose in order to remake them: “Early on in my career I was delivering a new PC to a coworker who pulled a paper clip out of the power supply because he wanted a new pc. The unethical life hack there being if it ain't broke and you want it replaced, break it on purpose.” He voiced the sincere concerns of many about this impact since Governor Youngkin and his allies on this board "have acted like they have a mandate to dismantle successful schools in order to sell voucher systems and Charters to enrich his friends in private education. Snitch lines, watered-down history standards, abusive model policies, underfunding, the empaneling of people from states with far worse records on education than this state on higher level boards, [and an] accountability crisis that's about to be manufactured by this new policy…These new consultant-written standards are crafted to provide a manufactured metric foundation to the false claim that this Administration keeps making, but our schools are not failing.  Virginia has some of the best schools in the country in spite of his efforts over the last three years.” Mr. Karabinos referred negatively to the backgrounds of most of the VBOE and the leaders of VDOE in his speech, indicating that they came from states “with far worse records on education” than Virginia, lacked credentials, or were involved in efforts to promote charter schools and/or privatize public education. Likely he was referring to the former and current appointed VDOE Superintendents of Public Instruction: 1) Jillian Balow , former Wyoming Superintendent of Public Instruction, and 2) Dr. Lisa Coons  who served as chief academic officer for the Tennessee Department of Education. Virginia is typically ranked in the top 10-20% of schools across the nation while Wyoming ranges from top 30-50% and Tennessee ranges from the bottom 20-40% of schools across the nation. "These new consultant-written standards are crafted to provide a manufactured metric foundation to the false claim that this Administration keeps making, but our schools are not failing.  Virginia has some of the best schools in the country in spite of Governor Youngkin's efforts over the last three years.” -- Mike Karabinos Don’t Label our Students as Failures! Cheryl Binkley , President of 4 Public Education and retired teacher, began by reminding VBOE that policy makers working in back rooms are not going to be affected by this policy, but it will be “the children: Brown children, immigrant children, Black children, poor children who do not have the luxury of living in the most affluent communities of the state yet the they are the people that you are going to hold accountable by calling them and their schools failing. Over half of the children in Virginia? That's how you're going to label them? These [policies] are not for the children or for our schools.” She added, “This is a disaster. It is made to create chaos and made to create punishment. Please don't do this. This is not what Virginia does. We support our kids.” Her voice broke as she spoke these words. “This is a disaster. It is made to create chaos and made to create punishment. Please don't do this. This is not what Virginia does. We support our kids.” -- Cheryl Binkley Too Many Moving Targets for Schools and Teachers to Be Successful Carol Medawar, who  serves on the School Board in Spotsylvania County and as a math coach in Northern Virginia, offered a critical perspective from someone on the ground in education with 28 years of education experience. Her passion for students, teachers, and their needs was infectious. She had intended only to listen so she could collaborate, but felt called to speak after the “moving targets and absolute misinformation campaign, and making it impossible for school divisions to know how they're being measured, what they're being measured on, when they're being measured on it with to no instructional Resources.” This is after teachers and schools have worked hard to understand the current measures, to align instruction, and built in scaffolds for struggling students, they are being told that they need to change it all. Ms. Matawar went to the listening sessions where growth was the primary measure, but now VDOE has completely removed these measures, which pushes things back 20 years for teachers: “Let's change it all…. You have now instituted new language, standards, new math standards with no crosswalk year to even go from the old standards to the new standards and you want to set new cut scores and you want to do a new accreditation system and you want to change the testing platform all at the same time so that you can say 55% … of our schools are failing and it's just not true. That is dishonesty. Our school buildings in Virginia are doing amazing things for kids every single day: kids who struggle, kids who are new [English] Language Learners, kids who are excelling, and we are working to make progress in every single one of those areas.” "Let's change it all. You have now instituted new language, standards, new math standards with no crosswalk year to even go from the old standards to the new standards and you want to set new cut scores and you want to do a new accreditation system and you want to change the testing platform all at the same time so that you can say 55% … of our schools are failing and it's just not true." -- Carol Medawar Failing Labels do not Define Student Experience or Success Jeff Coupe  of Richmond, VA said that he has participated in the listening sessions and shared his views. Like Ms. Medawar, he had not planned to speak but felt compelled to speak to share his reservations. He used a story of his kids’ experiences in so-called “failing schools” under the No Child Left Behind Act. He said that these kids, whether disadvantaged or English Language Learners, came away with great educations and attended colleges, despite being at schools labeled “failing.” He echoed Ms. Medawar’s request to retain growth standards, and identified that although growth is important, some kids need more time for mastery and this is supported by educational research, thereby intimating that the new standards may not offer that time. Additionally, he offered suggestions to the plan, that he called the “nuts and bolts of teaching,” including:  Favoring internal responsibility of teachers and the community over external accountability Quality support that is asset-based, not deficit-based. As an asset-based system, VDOE needs to remember the drivers and factors causing underperformance at schools will be varied, so educators and the community need to evaluate theories of change. Any system will need to put an emphasis on formative assessment and quality of feedback. "The educational research basically [says] what separates mastery for some students and from others is is is time. Some kids need more time" --Jeff Coupe What can you do? 4 Public Education has been keeping a close watch on this issue, including four of us taking a day to "Roadtrip to Richmond." Accountability is complex and appears uninteresting or irrelevant until you dig deep and realize that accreditation and accountability underpins all public education funding, initiatives, curricula, and success. As Dr. Presidio Sloan  stated at a recent FCPS work session on the subject, “Like many things in large bureaucracies, I think the process has been quite complicated and pretty opaque and difficult…for community members to understand.”  Many of the speakers mentioned that there is no additional funding provided by VDOE for revising accountability measures. Since Dr. Lisa Coons completely overhauled the accountability framework, it will be expensive to flesh out the full plan, implement it, and offer support to the more than half the schools that will require support after implementation. Taxpayers and legislators will be on the hook while students, families, schools, and communities will suffer the consequences. Unknown is the impact the ‘failing school’ designation will have on property values.  Please consider learning more about this critical issue and letting the VBOE, VDOE, and your legislators hear your opinion. You can message the Board of Education with your response to their plan via any (or all!) of these methods below.   Contact your state legislators to let them know how you feel! If you need help on what to say, feel free to check out our blogs below, or review the list of critical concerns on our Facebook page . Additional Resources, If You Would Like to Know More VDOE’s Statewide Comprehensive Support Plan VDOE’s Performance and Support Framework   An examination of the VDOE accreditation and accountability system  by the Fairfax County School Board. Check out the 4 Public Education blogs on this which have great links to more information (most recent at the top): Youngkin’s Privatization Team Makes Its Move on Virginia’s Public Schools VDOE's Accreditation Overhaul: An Unnecessary Risk for Schools Does VDOE want Accountability or Disruption of Virginia Schools? Ironically, the VDOE Accountability Listening Tour Lacks Both Transparency and Accountability Keep Virginia DOE Accountable by Providing Input on Public School Accreditation and Quality! A (Seemingly) Pleasant Surprise from Virginia's Department of Education: A Review of the Northern Virginia VDOE Accountability Listening Session

On Wednesday August 28, the Virginia Board of Education will hold a Special Session to consider the Statewide Comprehensive Support Plan . The Plan proposes the requirements that will be imposed on schools and districts when they do not meet the Board’s new rules for accreditation and accountability.  Despite significant outcry, the board approved the new rules for schools, the School Performance and Support Framework , at their July 24 meeting. The Board projects that under the new performance plan 60% of Virginia public schools will be rated as low-performing or failing, in spite of Virginia’s still high national ratings. Virginia public schools ranked 4th when Youngkin took office. Most recently they were rated best in the nation by CNBC.   The Statewide Comprehensive Support Plan will require schools in Tier 3, those in the 60% deemed low performing, to sign a custom designed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) which will in essence give Youngkin state control over the daily running and conduct of the school. Sixty percent of Virginia’s schools can, at the state’s discretion, be taken over based on the VDOE’s time-line by September 2025.  According to the VDOE plan, schools will be reported for not conforming, and will be required to sign MOU’s by that date one year from now.  Currently, Virginia has only five districts  which operate under MOU agreements. Most are  economically distressed zones  which have strived for decades to gain higher performance levels. Thus, such a large-scale take-over plan is unprecedented. Calculating the 60% estimate, based on Ballotpedia’s listing  of numbers of schools and students, the new policy could impact over 1,000 schools and over 75,000 students across Virginia.  Though carte-blanche school take-over plans have been used in other states, they have occurred mostly where legislatures passed legislation to authorize such an invasive action. The Virginia legislature has not passed such a bill, nor has JLARC, the research arm of the legislature, recommended bills initiating such changes. The Youngkin VDOE is once again bypassing authorization from the elected legislators for enormous changes in how Virginia’s highly respected public schools will be administered.  Under the new policies, districts which have one-quarter of their schools labeled as failing under the new VDOE regulations will be required to agree to MOU which implements takeover for the entire district, not just individual “underperforming” schools.  The Performance and Support Framework cuts services for Multilingual Learners from 11 semesters to 3, effectively requiring them to take English Language exams long before academic language fluency can be met. Many researchers  project that it takes 3 to 5 years for English language learners to reach conversational fluency and 3 to 7 for academic fluency. Three semesters is a radical expectation, likely to produce large scale school wide failures for Virginia’s high diversity districts. The test scores resulting from this change are likely to put highly diverse schools in the troubled or failing category.  Also, the new regulations increase the number of reporting levels. The changes will most affect students who meet the PASS standard in SOL levels. That level will be divided into Proficient, Basic, Below Basic. Proficient is a term from the national NAEP which is above grade level performance, but it is unclear how the Proficient level (or any of these levels) will be calibrated for Virginia students. This leaves schools with a moving target for testing goals. If Proficient is used as the required standard for pass rates, more schools will be caught in the “failing” net while being held to above grade-level requirements.  From Governor Youngkin’s Executive Order 1  on day one, to last week when he misrepresented SOL scores in a surprise, unvetted release of partial scores, the Governor has been attacking Virginia’s public schools. His appointments to the department and the board of education have almost universally gone to people whose day jobs advocate for privatization of Virginia’s schools, and they have acted as might be expected.  Each attempted policy change by Youngkin, from teacher tattle lines, to whitewashing Virginia history, to banning books, and creating Lab Schools as backdoor charters, has failed, creating more chaos, confusion, and cost than positive learning impact.  This scheme to take over 60% of Virginia’s schools in one year cannot be allowed to move forward. Youngkin and his allies cannot be allowed to strangle the futures of Virginia’s children for the sake of greed and politics. Please message the Board of Education with your response to their plan via any (or all!) of these methods below. Signup to speak at the 8/28/24 9am Board of Education Send your written comments to Board of Education.  Contact your state legislators to let them know how you feel!

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

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

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

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

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

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