Public School Board Elections in 2026 Public education is a cornerstone of our democracy and is essential for healthy communities. Public school boards are designed to give citizens a direct say in local education yet often their membership is critically overlooked, Most jurisdictions in Virginia elect school board members on a regular schedule. Who is elected to those school boards is important because those boards shape the quality, direction, and accessibility of public education. This year most cities in Virginia are holding elections for school board members. Unfortunately most voters can’t identify who are the good candidates running for school board in their jurisdiction. School board candidates don’t claim a political party and have very small budgets so are not able to widely share their values with the public. And, recently, candidates who do not support public education have been winning seats on school boards. This year 4 Public Education has identified school board candidates that hold our values and believe that every child deserves to experience a welcoming, inclusive, safe, relevant, and nurturing public education. We encourage voters to consider voting for the candidates with those values, as identified in the table below on November 3, 2026. 4PE also encourages voters to be informed by conducting research on candidates by reviewing their education values, policy positions, social media posts, and endorsements.

Since 1996 Virginia (and other states) have used standards based (SOLs) annual standardized tests to measure students, teachers, and schools. And if we are honest, nobody has liked them, ever. An internet survey will yield a series of test promotion sites, but even those who most avidly promote them are acknowledging they are something of a necessary evil. Sadly, students have given up field trips, personal goals, capstone projects, and end-of-year celebrations for standardized testing. Teachers have given up student tailored instruction and five weeks of instructional time at the end of the school year as the schools buckle down to the computer administered testing. They have grimly endured being measured by 32-45 questions selected by the state and a testing company to represent the several hundred standards they are supposed to teach each year. They are increasingly measured by daily “fidelity” to those standards. Administrators have learned to cope with rankings and ratings of themselves, their schools, their staffs, and their neighborhoods based on standardized test scores of the children: All so officials at corporations, the federal government, and state capitols can check whether the dollars they spend on educating children is justified. Since 2005, Pearson has been the testing company that has managed those tests in Virginia. On July 28, 2026, the Virginia Department of Education issued a press release announcing a request for proposal for a new testing contract for Virginia that would modernize and deliver a new assessment system. Though labelled as a new assessment plan, it continues to stipulate the contract is to administer the annual SOL tests, and the state legislature has done little, beyond adding required unit testing, to shift away from SOL testing as their primary form of educational assessment and data collection. For several years under the last Virginia governor, the goal has been to develop tests that more closely align with the National Educational Assessment Program (NAEP). So this new initiative is primarily designed to replace the company (Pearson), and shift the testing to more NAEP aligned companies while keeping more demanding standards and higher cut scores brought in during the previous administration. This is even while we know raising standards and cut scores will not improve student achievement. For roughly 30 years we have nationally relied on an assessment plan that has totally failed to deliver anything more than bureaucratic convenience and statistically unreliable data. Even the NAEP acknowledges that all this testing has not improved actual learning outcomes, has not provided a richer curriculum, and has not closed the achievement gap for any higher needs group or individual students. There are also serious current indicators that creating yet another extended testing initiative will not improve learning. At the federal level, serious reduction in education support including NAEP research, and support funding to states hampers the reliability of federal sources to do test analysis or monitor state performances as formerly demanded in ESSA programs. States similarly are struggling with replacing the supports that formerly were intended to make federal demands potentially reachable. Adding to the problem, artificial intelligence is creating an unpredictable and chaotic landscape for curriculum and instructional practices. Will it take a serious effort and planning to change? Yes. But now is not the time to rely on the old adage, “we’ve always done it that way.” “The challenge will be to develop assessment systems that provide meaningful data while supporting, rather than hindering, the ultimate goal of education: preparing students for success in a rapidly changing world.” Rethinking Standardized Testing in American Schools Now is the time to change the goal of assessment from satisfying political and corporate officials to satisfying the more relevant needs of children, families, and communities.

On August 20, 2026, a significant legal decision was made in the ongoing attacks on regulations protecting students in Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS). Judge Rossie D. Alston dismissed Stephanie Lundquist-Arora's lawsuit against FCPS, ruling that she lacked standing to sue. This ruling marks a critical moment for FCPS taxpayers and the community, especially those concerned about politically-motivated lawsuits and how the school system protects the civil rights of students, including transgender and gender-expansive students. Lundquist-Arora has announced plans to appeal the decision in federal court, but for now, the dismissal stands. What Does Lack of Standing Mean? In legal terms, "standing" refers to the ability of a party to demonstrate a sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In other words, a plaintiff cannot suffer from imaginary or speculative harm. The judge's ruling relied heavily on precedent in the Fourth Circuit in Parents 1 where parents were determined to lack standing to sue. The judge’s dismissal means that Lundquist-Arora (mother, prolific author, and Fairfax Independent Women's Network (IWN) Chapter Lead) could not prove she was directly affected by FCPS policies or regulation 2603 in a way that would allow her to bring a lawsuit. As stated in FCPS filing on July 24, 2026 (see FCPS Brief below, 1), Plaintiff Lundquist-Arora: "Challenges a policy that does not say what she alleges and that has never been applied to her." Filed a lawsuit that "rests entirely on speculation, no any actual or imminent injury." "Cannot state any plausible claims for relief." "Constitutional claims fail because they are premised on a misreading of Regulation 2603.3 that is belied by its plain text." Judge Alston's ruling is important because it prevents lawsuits from individuals who do not have a direct stake in the matter, helping courts focus on cases where real harm or legal injury has occurred. For FCPS taxpayers, this means the school system can continue its work without being bogged down by lawsuits lacking clear legal grounds. Background of the Lawsuit On June 22, 2026, Stephanie Lundquist-Arora filed the lawsuit (Lundquist-Arora v. FCPS and Dr. Michelle C. Reid) (see Lundquist lawsuit below) in federal court (1:2026cv01768) against on behalf of her minor children against FCPS after she and America First Legal (AF Legal) threatened legal action regarding Regulation 2603.2 against FCPS in April 28, 2026 (see AF Legal letter below). The AF Legal letter claimed violation of Lundquist-Arora's "parents’ constitutional rights and violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”)" and threatened federal litigation if FCPS did not rescind the policies or establish exemptions within 21 days. After a "spirited" back and forth between her lawyers at AF Legal and FCPS from April through early June, it was clear that a lawsuit was inevitable, even though FCPS released a revised version of the Regulation 2603.3. This is the third time that Lundquist-Arora has been involved in a legal challenge to FCPS's policies protecting the civil rights of transgender and gender-expansive students (see Jane Doe v Fairfax County School Board in circuit and federal courts). During these previous lawsuits, she has steadfastly affirmed that her family's religious values are in opposition to transgender student policies and regulations in schools. For example, she "alleged that each of her children does not believe in the concepts of transgender, gender identity, or gender-expansive." (FCPS Brief, 12) "People have a fundamental right to determine who they are." - Lundquist-Arora in Coping with Gender Fluidity Lundquist-Arora 2018 In this most recent case, Lundquist-Arora affirmed that she "wants to educate her children according to her religious beliefs" (Lundquist lawsuit, 2) that conflict with the existence of transgender students, despite having written a book entitled "Coping with Gender Fluidity" which "highlights that the right to self-define is a civil right." The court found that Lundquist-Arora did not demonstrate a personal injury or direct impact from these policies. This case attracted attention because it touched on the broader national conversation about civil rights, particularly of transgender and gender expansive students, in schools. Many parents, guardians, staff, and community members have strong opinions on how schools should address these issues, especially when it comes to student privacy, safety, and inclusion. Lawsuits like this beg the question: should one parent have the right to fundamentally change a districts policies that protect the civil rights of other parents' students in public schools? Why This Ruling Matters to FCPS Taxpayers For taxpayers in Fairfax County, this ruling brings a sense of relief. Lawsuits like Lundquist-Arora’s can drain public resources, diverting funds from classrooms and essential services to legal battles. By dismissing the case, the court helps protect taxpayer money and allows FCPS to focus on education rather than litigation. Here are some key reasons why the ruling is significant: Protects public funds: Legal defenses can be costly. Avoiding unnecessary lawsuits means more money stays in the classroom. Supports school policy stability: Constant legal challenges can disrupt school operations and policy implementation. Clarifies legal boundaries: The ruling reinforces that only those directly affected by policies can bring lawsuits, reducing frivolous claims. Transgender Student Civil Rights Under Fire Transgender rights have become a central political topic in education across the country. Policies that support the human and civil rights transgender students include access to bathrooms, participation in sports, and protection from discrimination. These policies aim to create a safe and inclusive environment for all students. While the lawsuit was dismissed, threats to transgender civil rights in schools continues. FCPS remains committed to balancing the rights and needs of all students while respecting community concerns. In light of Lundquist-Arora's affiliations and authorship, it is hard to escape the fact that this lawsuit like so many other anti-trans lawsuits filed in federal court may be part of an effort by Project 2025 groups, like AF Legal and Independent Women's Forum (IWF), and affiliated organizations to try to bring a lawsuit to the Supreme court that could reduce, restrict, or eliminate the civil rights of transgender students and adults. In her own words: The United States Supreme Court is another institution that has the power to make policy at the federal level, although it has not decided any cases regarding transgender bathroom rights. In March 2017, the Supreme Court decided it would not hear Gavin Grimm's case about a Title IX violation of his right to use the men's bathroom. Grimm is a transgender man who was refused access to the boy's bathroom at his high school in Gloucester County, Virginia. Rather than deciding the case, the Supreme Court sent it back to a lower court in Virginia. May 2018, a district court in Virginia ruled that the tool had in fact violated Grimm's rights. It was a small victory, but the district court ruling did not have a federal policy consequence as would have been the case if it were adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Imagine what would happen if this case, or one like it, could make it all of the way to the Supreme Court where, in Lundquist-Arora's words, it could "have a policy consequence." When one reviews the incredible number of lawsuits from AF Legal against school districts over transgender civil rights, it seems like this has been the plan all along: to get a case, any case, to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, it is the students, schools, and taxpayers who are paying the price for Project 2025's political interests in overturning Grimm v Gloucester County School Board, a case that underlies nearly all in-school protections for transgender and gender-expansive students. The plaintiff has announced plans to appeal the dismissal in federal court which will review whether the lower court correctly applied the law regarding standing. Appeals can take months or even years to resolve, and the outcome is uncertain. For FCPS taxpayers, the appeal means staying informed about potential future legal developments. However, the dismissal at this stage is a positive sign that courts are cautious about allowing lawsuits without clear legal standing. How FCPS Can Move Forward With this ruling, FCPS can focus on its core mission: educating students. At the same time, the school district must continue to address student rights, safety, and opportunity in the face of near constant threats from the federal government and politically motivated lawsuits. FCPS must represent the needs, interests, and civil rights of nearly 180,000 students, their families, and school staff. By refusing to bow to repeated political pressure from one parent and associated Project 2025 political groups, FCPS has done its duty to its community. Of course, they will need to continue to: Engage with the community via open forums and discussions which can help address concerns and build understanding. Provide clear policies, regulations, and staff training on student rights and protections to reduce confusion and conflict. Support all students to ensure a safe environment for every student which promotes better learning outcomes. Monitor legal developments by staying informed about court decisions helps FCPS adapt policies as needed. Stand up for its Community since FCPS is in the eye of the storm as a large, successful, progressive school district. Not only has it been the focus of political and legal attacks for the last six years, but it is also a primary target of the Trump Administration and its Project 2025 organizations like AF Legal and IWF. What This Means for School Communities The dismissal of this lawsuit may influence similar cases in other school districts. Courts across the country are increasingly scrutinizing who has the right to sue over school policies, especially on sensitive issues like transgender rights. This ruling reinforces the idea that plaintiffs must show direct harm to proceed. For taxpayers and school districts elsewhere, this case highlights the importance of clear legal standards and the need to protect public resources from unnecessary litigation. One can only hope that the repeat and Project litigants will get the message. This ruling marks a clear message: lawsuits must be grounded in real, personal impact to move forward. For FCPS taxpayers, it means their money is better spent on education than on defending baseless legal claims. As the appeal process unfolds, the community can stay engaged and informed, ensuring that FCPS continues to serve all students effectively and fairly.

Trump Blocks U.S. Department of Education Funding Authorized by Congress Federal education programs are caught in the middle of a legal fight over the Trump administration’s role in federal spending. As of July 27, 2026, the White House is blocking $2 billion in education funding from 35 programs under the U.S. Department of Education (US ED) and little to no funding has been appropriated to 21 of those programs. This comes after Congress rejected the administration’s proposed cuts of over 15% to the 2026 US ED budget. Now the Trump administration is using another tactic to dismantle the agency: refusing to ‘appropriate’ the money Congress approved for the US ED. Each year the funding process for the following fiscal year (FY) starts with the President proposing a budget, Congress revising and approving the budget, and the President signing the budget that was approved by Congress. Afterwards, the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must ‘apportion’ or dispense the approved funds to each agency before an agency can fund their programs. In previous administrations, funds were quickly dispensed to the agencies. In contrast, this year, the administration claims education funds will not be given “on autopilot” as the OMB claims to be reviewing each program before dispensing funds. Meanwhile, appropriations for 35 programs are being withheld by the OMB, and funding for 20 programs are due to expire in 2 months, on September 30, 2026. Thus, it is obvious what the administration is doing to the programs it wants to eliminate. It has been a longstanding goal of the GOP to abolish the US ED, and the current director of OMB, Russ Vought, is in a powerful position to realize that goal. Elimination of the entire US ED was one of the objectives outlined in Project 2025, the far right plan to reshape the federal government and Vought was an architect of that document, which in part reads: Schools should be responsive to parents, rather than to leftist advocates intent on indoctrination—and the more the federal government is involved in education, the less responsive to parents the public schools will be. [The US ED] 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. -Project 2025 Chapter 11 of Project 2025 covers US ED. The chapter starts with “Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated,” as authored by Lindsey M. Burke (Heritage Foundation and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Programs, U.S. Department of Education). The Trump administration is working toward that end of eliminating the US ED by cutting funding to education programs and by transferring responsibility of other ED programs to other agencies, as 4 Public Education shares in the blog below. Meanwhile, lawmakers are already working on the FY2027 budget. Again, the President’s proposed FY27 budget cuts funding to many programs. For the 2027-2028 school year he proposed eliminating funding for Titles IIA (professional development), III (English Learner Services), IVA (Academic Enrichment/Student Support), IVB (Before and After School Programs), the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP), McKinney-Vento (Homeless Student Services), and Adult Education. He proposed drastic cuts to Innovation and Improvement Grants, and the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). His FY27 budget proposal indicates his ongoing attempt to abolish the ED through defunding and dismemberment. OMB Apportionment of Congressional Funding for ED Programs As of August 3, 2026, OMB has not apportioned the full 2026 funding Congress appropriated for these 35 ED programs. Funding for 20 programs will expire if not spent by September 30, 2026. Source: "White House Blocks $2 Billion for Education: See All the Affected Programs" Education Week by Mark Lieberman. DATA SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget apportionment documents displayed on the OpenOMB transparency portal. Information is current as of Aug. 3, 2026

A primary goal of the Trump administration has been to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (US ED), because they claim it has been overrun by liberal thinking and its duties can be done by other agencies. Although the Constitution requires permission from Congress before any department can be abolished or defunded, the administration has successfully downsized the department, and made changes with potentially disastrous consequences to the nation’s most vulnerable students whose public education involves federally mandated financial and programmatic support. These include rural and low income students, and students with disabilities. The Department’s workforce has been reduced by almost half and many of the functions of the Department have been offloaded to other agencies. The heavily impacted Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has laid off 90% of their staff and dismissed most of the claims under consideration. The OCR dismissed 90% of the roughly 9,000 new student discrimination and harassment claims in 2025. Additionally, the OCR has fundamentally changed its mission from enforcing civil rights laws in public schools and universities to focusing on gender identity policies, reverse racial discrimination (i.e., “discrimination” against white students), and antisemitism on college campuses–or as the Brookings Institute asserts, OCR “has turned civil rights enforcement into a discriminatory tool.” A Congressional report released in April 2026 detailed the failures of the OCR to protect students from discrimination which also produced financial waste and devastating consequences for students with disabilities. To date, 148 programs have been transferred to other agencies, mainly to the Department of Labor. There is open debate on the legality of the transfer of these, and other, programs. Although the transfers are officially temporary, there are a series of GOP led bills before Congress to permanently transfer the programs by codifying the interagency agreements and permanently moving the functions out of US ED . Already this package of 10 bills has been approved by the House Education and Workforce Committee and now will be considered by the House of Representatives: H.R. 9607, Less Bureaucracy, Better Workforce Development Act H.R. 9610, Less Bureaucracy, Better K-12 Education Act H.R. 9611, Less Bureaucracy, Better Higher Education Act H.R. 9605, Less Bureaucracy, Better Foreign Medical Accreditation Act H.R. 9604, Less Bureaucracy, Better Tribal Education Act H.R. 9606, Less Bureaucracy, Better Child Care for Student Parents Act H.R. 9603, Less Bureaucracy, Better International Education Oversight Act H.R. 9602, Less Bureaucracy, Better International Foreign Gift Transparency Act H.R. 9608, Less Bureaucracy, Better Family Engagement Act H.R. 9609, Less Bureaucracy, Better Student Aid Act Also, bills are being introduced in Congress by Democrats to protect programs in the US ED. For example, Senate bill S.5046, would prohibit the transfer of some offices and functions of the US ED to other agencies.

Gone are the days of expensive FOIAs, because there is a great new tool to evaluate the magnitude of outside legal costs associated with some of the fake scandals ginned up against Fairfax County Public Schools. Meet the Fairfax County Transparency Application brought to you by Fairfax County Public Schools and the Fairfax County Government. Below is an example of a search conducted for the firm King and Spalding LLP (K&S) for the past fiscal year. Which shows that over the last fiscal year (FY 2025-26), $8,933,303.78 was paid to K&S. For FY 2026, FCPS has spent close to $9 million with King & Spalding so far! This is four times more than was spent by K&S in FY2024-25 and more than the entire legal fees per year in any previous year! How is this possible? You may recall that King and Spalding was the firm that was contracted to conduct the outside investigation of the Centreville Abortion "Scandal" (read "Has the Expensive Fake Abortion Scandal been Put to Rest?" for more details) which involved claims by Zenaida Perez (and her allies) that were so astonishing that Governor Youngkin called a criminal police investigation, Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee "demanded answers," and the U.S. Department of Education initiated an enforcement action against FCPS for “reportedly facilitating the provision of abortion services to students.” The story inspired countless political rallies and attracted people to film and target Centreville High School students and staff. Not only that, but the staff and administrators targeted by the allegations were placed on administrative leave, which a dangerous place to be as an employee, and they suffered threats, hate mail, and harm to their reputation due to the published allegations. K&S conducted a thorough investigation by interviewing dozens of people which resulted in two detailed, professional reports that responded to the questions of the public, Superintendent, and Senator Bill Cassidy. At the same time, the FCPS Superintendent and staff managed an entire school district while trying to also manage the chaos created by the outrageous abortion allegations. I wondered how these payments to K&S connected to the Centreville Abortion "Scandal" Activity which involved lurid reporting, secret recordings, and falsified documentation (per the "whistleblower"), so I mapped out the timeline versus the K&S fees in the graph below. Cast of characters are abbreviated: Walter Curt (WC), Zenaida Perez (ZP), Asra Nomani (AN), Americans United for Life (AUL), and Independent Womens Forum (IWF) Of course, bills and payments are usually about one to two months behind, but this (slightly chaotic) graphic gives a visual of why the K&S fees jumped from a "mere" $292,000 in August 2025 to an average of $1.2 million per month from September 2025 through February 2026. During that time, they investigated the allegations of Perez and others before defending FCPS and staff against her lawsuits--all of that was during immense public and governmental pressure. Considering the sources of stories and the timing, it was clear to many Fairfax residents that this scandal was intended to sway the gubernatorial race in 2025, especially since it involved allegations stemming from incidents in 2021-2022. However, no one would have imagined that such a flimsy and old scandal could have resulted in an estimated $6 million or more in outside legal fees! Even I was surprised by how much the Centreville Fake Abortion Scandal has cost, and I analyzed and FOIAed the costs of the National Merit "Scandal" lawsuits involving some of the same parties. Despite there being two lawsuits, the outside legal fees to defend FCPS only cost $1.64 million. However, these 2023 lawsuits were predicated on politically-motivated allegations related to a minor 2022 delay in delivery of paper commended certificates to students, despite the on-time electronic transmission of PSAT and, more importantly, SAT scores directly to their schools. Yet, this fake abortion scandal isn't over. The Daily Signal and IWF continue to churn out support for this weak, unsubstantiated story. Recently, Perez filed an appeal of her lawsuit on June 8, 2026. It looks like K&S may have more work to do! Red Wine and Blue has quantified the costs public school districts spent in 2022-23 related to the culture wars on increased security, communication, staff recruitment, community relations, and legal costs. "Culture wars cost public schools 3.2 billion dollars." -Red Wine & Blue It is sad that taxpayers are footing the bill for personal and political vendettas against school systems. In fact, it would be great if taxpayers had the right to recover these funds from the political operatives and organizations that see school systems like FCPS as ripe for legal shenanigans or battlegrounds for their culture wars. Instead, those who are suing the schools continue to be given media platforms to complain about FCPS's rising outside legal costs, while their free lawyers look for new clients and/or new school districts to harass. Yet, we, the Fairfax County taxpayers, are left holding the bill for their unending culture war appetite. However, based on the independent K&S investigations, it is students, staff, and education who are also footing the bill for the chaos and trauma caused by the unending politically motivated lawsuits. Specifically, in the case of the Fake Centreville Abortion Scandal, the K&S reports are clear that: "Regrettably, it appears that innocent Centreville HS personnel in this case were wrongly and publicly accused of criminal acts without any sound factual basis.” - Superintendent Reid We have to do better. There are good reasons to sue school districts, and there are political tactics to sue school districts. We must push back on the latter.

The recent opinion piece published by Daily Signal by Stephanie Lundquist-Aurora on May 12, 2026, titled Fairfax Schools Financial Scandal, has stirred controversy in the community by presenting misleading information about Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS). The piece contains numerous inaccuracies, misreported figures, and a lack of basic fact-checking. This blog post aims to clarify the truth behind FCPS’s financial situation and expose the real motives behind the opinion piece’s skewed narrative. See Privatizers are Fibbing with Figures for an earlier analysis of Daily Signal's attempts to pull the wool over your eyes about the amazing schools in Fairfax County. Read Know Your Disinformation Source to learn more about Independent Women's Forum (IWF), which employs Lundquist-Arora and others to push anti-public school narratives that encourage private school vouchers. 4 Public Education has previously fact-checked a March 2, 2026 Lundquist-Arora opinion piece in the Daily Signal and found it to be heavy on "hysterical arm-waving, but short on facts." Misreported and Misunderstood Figures It is hard to tell whether there was a tight deadline or merely an unwillingness to give FCPS credit, but the Daily Signal's reported SOL failure rates should not be taken seriously. A less polite way to say it is: "Don't believe what the Daily Signal prints." Ignoring Notations Creates Errors: Although Lundquist-Aurora cited the Virginia Department of Education as a source, she failed to read or include critical notations that invalidate her figures for claimed "failure rates" of 84% and 58% in English Writing and History SOLs, respectively. These notations show that her reported "failure rates" are wildly inaccurate for both English writing and History SOLs. Specifically, there is no History-only SOL score for FCPS because social studies are broken out by course and typically involve assessments that are not captured by VDOE. Overlooking Original Sources: Had Lundquist-Aurora used original sources (e.g., FCPS Goal 3 Report, page 10), she would have found a 97% pass rate for the FCPS English Writing SOL. Under-reporting of FCPS Successes: The Daily Signal attempted to harm FCPS's reputation based on poor SOL pass rates, yet ignored the fact that FCPS not only has better pass rates than the Commonwealth of Virginia but also than most of its neighboring districts. Figure 31 (Page 37) shows that FCPS surpassed surrounding school districts for the percent of 8th graders who took and passed a high school math SOL. Wild, Unsupported Claims Crafted With Utter Confidence The Daily Signal claims that FCPS is embroiled in multiple financial scandals involving hundreds of millions of dollars over a school purchase and a doctorate program aimed at staff, without concrete evidence to support these claims. Simultaneously, they claim that FCPS is failing but ignore the colleges and employers that recruit heavily from FCPS graduates. Skyview High School was a great deal in a great location: It would have taken two to four times the cost and five to ten years to build a new high school to satisfy the overcrowding of the four high schools that will feed into Skyview High School beginning in the 2026-27 school year. Those volunteering on the Boundary Review Advisory Committee, like this author, could see that when they were trying to solve overcrowding in the western high schools. Assuming without Evidence is Wildly Unprofessional: Lundquist-Aurora assumes that doctorates pursued by staff are being funded by FCPS without any evidence. Many have pointed out that universities fund tuitions for PhD programs, not employers. Unsourced Private and Homeschooled Numbers: If the numbers are in a chart, they must be correct, right? Well, the chart does not link to any source but Lundquist-Aurora's own earlier opinion pieces, which are also unsourced. The numbers cannot be tracked to a primary source, thus they will be discounted as false. Daily Signal is "Chicken Littling" Over FCPS SOL Scores: Overwhelmingly, data suggests that FCPS students continue to succeed academically under the current leadership of Superintendent Dr. Michelle Reid and her staff, under the guidance of the School Board. Whether it is the number of National Merit Finalists, International Science and Engineering Fair attendees, or their annual SOL pass rates (see below). Fundamental Lack of Knowledge About How Things Function FCPS is one of the largest employers in Virginia, and its budget is about one-half of the budget of Fairfax County, so things are complicated. This author is no expert on the FCPS budget or how a 180,000-student school district runs, but at least I know enough to know when I need to phone a friend if I don't understand something. Daily Signal should expect their opinion piece authors to do the same to avoid the following pitfalls. Misunderstanding of Fund Allocations: They do not differentiate between funds that are legally designated for specific purposes such as special education or infrastructure improvements versus funding that is more flexible. Some funding cannot just be redirected to other areas, a fact overlooked by Lundquist-Aurora. Ignoring State and Federal Funding Complexities: Lundquist-Aurora fails to account for the complex mix of local, state, and federal funding sources. Some funds come with strict guidelines on usage, which may appear as financial irregularities to an untrained eye. SAT scores are not a measurement of school quality, but of parent's wealth: Studies have long shown that high SAT and ACT scores are correlated with wealth. For example, a "Harvard-based team" of researchers and policy analysts found that children of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans were 13 times likelier than the children of low-income families to score 1300 or higher on SAT/ACT tests. FCPS began offering free SATs in 2020 and still beats the National Average: Lundquist-Aurora continues to gaslight the public just like Youngkin about falling SAT scores in Fairfax County while ignoring truths 4 Public Education revealed in 2023: FCPS increased access to the SAT by providing free SAT testing to all Seniors in 2020. Nationwide, fewer students took SAT preparation courses post-pandemic, and overall scores were lower. Nevertheless, Fairfax County still outperforms Virginia and globally per the chart below. These errors not only misinform readers but also unfairly damage the reputation of FCPS, a school system known for its transparency and accountability. Lack of Basic Research and Context The opinion piece’s flaws go beyond numbers. It shows a clear lack of research into how public school finances work and ignores the broader context of education funding challenges. No Consultation with FCPS Officials: The author did not seek comments or clarifications from FCPS representatives before publishing. This omission leads to a misleading, one-sided opinion piece that is published in the Fairfax GOP newsletter. Ignoring Public Records and Audits: FCPS regularly publishes detailed financial reports and undergoes independent audits. These documents contradict claims in the opinion piece but were not referenced. Additionally, there is a wealth of information available on FCPS Board Docs. Overlooking Educational Priorities: The opinion piece frames spending on programs and staff as wasteful without acknowledging the importance of these investments in student outcomes and community well-being. Concealing Lundquist-Aurora's and IWF's legal entanglements with FCPS: It should be no secret at this point that Lundquist-Aurora has been involved in at least two lawsuits against FCPS (masks and policy 2603), and that she leverages her role as a parent and Independent Women's Forum (IWF) employee to create charged opinion pieces in multiple right-wing outlets (see Know Your Disinformation Source: IWF for more). But what many do not know is how IWF has been involved in amplifying or otherwise supporting legal cases over the years through their media, relationships with other Project 2025 founders, and advocacy. Thus, rather than filing lawsuits itself, IWF affiliates, fellows, and members may serve as plaintiffs, "whistleblowers," or media activists amplifying legal battles spearheaded by other conservative or Project 2025 advocacy organizations. For example, IWF has been heavily involved in both the recent high-profile cases at Centreville High School and Fairfax High School. This biased, superficial approach by the Daily Signal undermines the credibility of their opinion piece and misleads readers about the realities of public school finance. By concealing IWF's and Lundquist-Aurora's own longtime opposition to and legal entanglements with FCPS, it is entirely disingenuous to highlight large legal fees without taking responsibility or ownership for a portion of those fees. The Hidden Agenda: Privatization of Public Schools The Daily Signal’s opinion piece by Lundquist-Aurora fits into a broader pattern of narratives aimed at promoting the privatization of public education. By portraying FCPS as financially mismanaged and failing to meet educational priorities, Lundquist-Aurora continues to build a case for shifting control from public institutions to private entities. Privatization Push: Privatization advocates often use financial scandals—real or fabricated—to argue that public schools are inefficient and need private sector solutions. Ignoring Public School Successes: FCPS consistently ranks among the top school districts nationally in student achievement and equity. These successes are rarely mentioned in such partisan opinion pieces. Potential Consequences: Privatization leads to reduced transparency, less community control, and uneven educational quality. Lundquist-Aurora does not address these risks. Understanding this agenda helps readers critically evaluate the motives behind the misleading claims. How to Verify and Counter Wild Claims About Public Schools Public schools like FCPS play a vital role in communities. Accurate information about their finances helps build trust and support. When encountering sensational claims about school performance and district finances, it is essential to verify information through reliable sources: Review Official Budget Documents: FCPS publishes its budget and financial reports online. These documents provide detailed, audited data. Look for Original Sources: School districts are required by law to maintain documentation of budgets, expenditures, performance, demographics, and so much more. It can be found on their website, on state and federal websites, or via FOIA. Seek Multiple Perspectives: Look for statements from school officials, education experts, and community members. Understand Funding Sources: Recognize that public schools receive money from various levels of government, each with specific rules. Demand Transparency from Everyone: FCPS’s commitment to transparency includes regular financial updates and community engagement. Any media source commanding your attention and trying to influence you should be offering the same level of transparency regarding their funding, motives, and data sources. Recognize that Investments Benefit Students: Spending on teachers, programs, and facilities directly impacts student success. Support Community Involvement because it Matters: Parents and residents should stay informed and participate in school board meetings. By following these steps, readers can avoid falling for misinformation. Promoting fact-based discussions strengthens public education and counters misleading narratives. The Daily Signal’s most recent opinion piece (and previous opinion pieces!) on FCPS finances and performance falls short of journalistic standards by misreporting data and ignoring context. Its misleading claims serve a political agenda rather than the public interest. Readers should rely on verified information and support transparent, well-managed public schools that serve all students.

Another Lawsuit against Public Schools Has Been Dismissed! Last Fall, 4 Public Education shared the truth about the Centreville High School (HS) widely publicized abortion scandal manufactured by political operatives in time for the 2025 Virginia Gubernatorial race. Since then, there have been incredible updates, including a defamation lawsuit and the release of a final investigation by Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS). This blog will briefly cover the history, allegations, FCPS investigations, and lawsuits. Try to follow along, because this is a tangled web of allegations and unreliable narrators, which required expensive investigations to untangle the full story. Brief History of the “Scandal” The story began on August 5, 2025 when a so-called “whistleblower,” an English as a Second Language (ESOL) teacher, Zenaida Perez, shared complex allegations of “illegal” abortions on immigrant students that she claimed were “facilitated” by the school social worker, ignored by her principal, and paid for by FCPS. Click to read 4PE's earlier coverage Supposedly, these events described by Perez occurred during the 2021-22 school year, but for unknown reasons Perez didn’t declare her allegations publicly or to Child Protective Services at the time. Instead, she shared her allegations with a small group of people including a fellow teacher and friend (Julie Perry) and a Fairfax Times reporter (Asra Nomani) in late 2022, after Centreville HS administration investigated and dismissed her claims as invalid. Three years later, in 2025, Perez shared her story with a number of conservative and partisan reporters, including Luke Rosiak of the Daily Wire, Walter Curt Jr. of WC Dispatch, and Nomani of the Fairfax Times. Interestingly, all three of these reporters had close ties to the Youngkin administration: Rosiak’s reporting was used heavily in the Youngkin 2021 campaign, and some say his media spin on parental rights issues and horrific sexual assaults in Loudoun became the cornerstone of the Youngkin 2021 campaign. Curt, an Ohio blogger, was the son of a Youngkin appointee and mega-donor to the Virginia GOP and Governor Youngkin. Nomani was well-known as a self-described “Hopping Mad Mama Bear” who helped get Youngkin elected in 2021, yet whose partisan articles about FCPS have been questionable (e.g., Pride Liberation student walk-outs, FCPS Equity Offices, FCPS Merit “Scandal,” NAACP Vice President, etc.). From August to October 2025, the Ohio blogger and Fairfax Times reporter shared lurid details including: Perez’s secretly recorded meetings with FCPS, interviews with Perez, letters supposedly written by the students involved, etc. However, their reporting on the Centreville HS "scandal" used the term “allegedly” so extensively that some Fairfax County critical thinkers had deep suspicions about the veracity of the story early on. Why? Because “allegedly” may be a term used by reporters to report on accusations; however, when it is overused, it can make stories appear untrustworthy. Nevertheless, the Centreville HS scandal was so titillating that it inflamed anyone who read it. Soon, it was shared wide and far by Sinclair’s WJLA. Perez and Perry were interviewed by multiple news sources, including Fox 5. Oddly, Independent Women's Forum's (IWF) president, Carrie Lukas was interviewed about the story, despite having no children at the school. At the same time, uninformed, angry people had lots to say on social media about the story, most of which centered on the opinion that FCPS was a “woke hellhole” and that people should go to jail for “this” despite not knowing what really happened. However, many Fairfax County parents and voters questioned why this old, unsubstantiated story hit right before an election and was being used by a weak candidate and her surrogates in campaign speeches across Virginia. John Reid uses the fake scandal in his August 28, 2025 campaign speech On August 28, 2025, the story even inspired (or was leveraged by) a rally of anti-abortion groups (e.g., the Family Foundation). Republican Lt. Governor candidate John Reid, busy trying to make a name for himself in advance of the November 2025 election, used the fake scandal in his stump speech. The Family Foundation imported most of their rallygoers from out of town, and their speeches were influenced by Curt’s and Nomani’s reporting of this four-year old unconfirmed story about the “scandal” at Centreville HS. FCPS Pride Rally supporting Fairfax County School Board's resistance to Trump's US ED threats At the time, this pop-up political rally filled with out-of-towners competed for physical rally space and School Board speaking spots with FCPS Pride, a local group, who planned a rally in support of the Fairfax County School Board for their affirmation of transgender student protections and policies in the face of threats by the U.S. Department of Education (US ED). It was a bit messy, to say the least; however, both groups tried to coexist. FCPS Independent But Expensive Investigations Interestingly, the mainstream news did not touch Perez’s story until after FCPS released a preliminary investigation on October 16, 2025 after a ten-week investigation performed by King & Spaulding, a highly regarded “top-tier” law firm in Washington, DC. As 4 Public Education has previously reported, this preliminary investigation found that “based on fact-finding, it appears that the allegations are untrue.” In addition, King and Spaulding found the “shocking” allegations by Perez, Curt, and Nomani that “FCPS procured and paid for minor abortions without parent consent, are very likely untrue and lacking in factual or evidentiary support.” In summary, King and Spaulding’s report found: “The evidence we have reviewed indicates that Mrs. Diaz and Mr. Lehman acted appropriately and consistent with FCPS policies and regulations and with applicable federal and state laws. Mrs. Perez’s allegations appear to be rooted in speculation. It also appears that in her zeal to prove her suspicions true, Mrs. Perez procured statements from students that were false.” Immediately, Curt and Nomani harshly dismissed the findings of the independent report. Nomani referred to it as a “burn book,” and stated that “FCPS will have to delete from its website.” Curt was a bit more colorful with his response, calling FCPS a bunch of “losers,” “liars,” and “scumbags.” Meanwhile, Perez was placed on paid administrative leave on October 20, 2025. Of course, those she had accused of malfeasance had been on administrative leave since August 2025. Click to Read On January 9, 2026, Superintendent Reid provided a further update to respond to allegations by Perez and others: “As explained in today’s submission, the available facts appear to confirm that these allegations are not only untrue but were based largely on statements that were misinterpreted, mistranslated, taken out of context, or in some cases knowingly fabricated. We have found no credible evidence of any actual wrongdoing by school staff or administrators. As important as it was to take these allegations seriously, we also believe we have a duty to be transparent about our findings and, regrettably, it appears that innocent Centreville HS personnel in this case were wrongly and publicly accused of criminal acts without any sound factual basis.” "Regrettably, it appears that innocent Centreville HS personnel in this case were wrongly and publicly accused of criminal acts without any sound factual basis.” - Superintendent Reid The supplemental investigation included another letter to Senator Bill Cassidy and an Appendix that responded to statements made by both Perez and her counsel, Americans United for Life (AUL), which the independent investigators found to further undermine her allegations. The Appendix further outlined major concerns, such as: “If Mrs. Perez or others with whom she shared her private concerns between November 2022 and August 2025 had genuinely believed that young girls were at risk of what she and her lawyers have termed “abortion trafficking,” presumably steps would have been taken sooner to call public or law enforcement attention to these concerns, or at a minimum to bring such concerns to the attention of senior school division leaders, who instead learned of this issue for the first time through the story posted by Mrs. Perez’s social media collaborator, Walter Curt. “ Walter Curt and Congressional Candidate Julie Perry at May 2026 Prince William GOP fundraiser This statement highlights a concern of this author, who has followed this case quite closely. If Perez’s claims were true, as outlined in the stories by her compatriots, then she and they ignored an even worse activity: sex trafficking. Perez’s stories involved vulnerable pregnant girls who lacked housing, power, documentation, language, family, and financial stability to insulate them from sex traffickers. One even had a much older boyfriend! These are all hallmarks of sex trafficking that should have been examined and reported. Instead, these girls were exploited for for a political story for the very same vulnerable circumstances that would expose them to sex trafficking. Seemingly, all of this was done just in time for the 2025 Gubernatorial Election. Additionally, the investigation highlighted how Perez’s lawyer, AUL, had “gone to great lengths to promote this story for its own benefit” with Perez’s active participation in sensational dramatized accounts of Perez’s allegations in videos. Furthermore, the investigation indicated that AUL went beyond attacking FCPS to “disseminating accusations against Mrs. Diaz that the organization should know by now to be false and defamatory” particularly when Mrs. Diaz, the social worker, ”should be commended for the kindness and attention she showed to a vulnerable student facing difficult life circumstances.” Perez’s Defamation Lawsuit Against FCPS On October 29, 2025, with lots of fanfare, Perez filed a lawsuit in Fairfax Circuit Court against various FCPS staff and Dr. Michelle Reid, the FCPS Superintendent (CL-2025-0016376). Monique Miles and Steven Aden of AUL held a press conference in front of the Fairfax County Circuit Court with the Republican National Committeewoman for Virginia (Pattie Lyman), friend and fellow Centreville HS teacher Julie Perry, and reporters present. During this press conference, Perez admitted that the student “didn’t write” the letter, but “it was informed by the student who’d had the abortion.” This lawsuit was soon withdrawn. On November 21, 2025, Perez filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District (E.D.) Court of Virginia, Perez v FCPS (1:25-cv-02126). In her complaint, Perez alleged that she has been subjected to a pattern of retaliation and defamation following her reports to administration of the abortion scandal, demanding $1,000,000 in damages, compensatory damages, legal fees, court costs, and interest. She sued the former principal, current principal, the assistant principal, and FCPS Superintendent. The complaint includes many unsubstantiated accusations, including some against FCPS lawyers, such as claiming that the King & Spalling preliminary report had an "unnecessarily vindictive tenor" and that it made false and fabricated claims that Perez manipulated evidence or witnesses in order to "absolve FCPS" in the "court of public opinion". (Personally, this author found the report to be professional, well-sourced, and thought-provoking!) On December 16, 2025, FCPS responded with a request to dismiss since the claims were barred due to sovereign immunity, Anti-SLAPP immunity, and because Perez failed to demonstrate that her speech addressed matters of genuine public concern. They also asked that “Plaintiff’s immaterial and impertinent attacks on Defendants’ counsel should be stricken from Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.” Additional documents and legal filings can be found here. On May 8, 2026, Judge Anthony J. Trenga, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2008, ruled that Perez’s lawsuit was dismissed on all counts. Rumors are that her legal team is considering appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court; however, it is unlikely such a suit would be successful. What’s Next in this Bizarre "Scandal"? First, it is entirely possible that Perez’s lawsuits are not finished. AUL has already indicated that they are looking at all options, despite the weakness of their case. Additionally, the FCPS personnel who were harassed, defamed, and/or threatened in this process, particularly Ms. Diaz, have good cases against multiple parties for defamation. Perry and Perez attend Rally Virginia Women's GOP Leadership March 2026 Summit It seems fairly obvious that the FCPS personnel who were publicly attacked by by Perez, AUL, and associates have the necessary components for a defamation lawsuit: 1) a false statement of fact that was 2) publicized to third parties by a defendant who 3) either knew the statement was false or acted with negligence in determining the truth. There is ample evidence on social media that the defamatory statements caused harm to the reputation of FCPS staff. Whether or not they wish to pursue such cases is another question, since lawsuits are time-consuming and expensive to pursue; however, due to the high profile nature of Perez’s case, it is possible that the affected staff may be offered some pro-bono legal services for a defamation lawsuit against the parties involved. Second, it is almost certain that someone will lose their job. It is inconceivable that any teacher could keep their job after what was described in the initial and final independent FCPS investigations, now that the defamation litigation was dismissed. FCPS has an array of regulations and policies for staff to follow, and there are consequences for violating them. Third, FCPS suffered economic and reputational damage due to the accusations and lawsuits that cannot be restored. The investigations cost millions of dollars, as did the lawsuit, and there is un-costed time and energy spent by FCPS staff and the Superintendent to address the issues caused by the allegations brought by Perez and her associates. This doesn’t even touch the damage caused by the unsubstantiated allegations initially published in blogs and on social media. It is unfortunate that FCPS can never recover these costs. Fourth, taxpayers will have to foot the legal bills of the FCPS investigations, FCPS defense of Perez’s lawsuits, the police investigation initiated by former Governor Youngkin which never surfaced, and the multiple investigations conducted by the federal government. Additionally, the court time in Fairfax Circuit Court and the Eastern District Court of Virginia is also costly to local, state, and federal taxpayers. Of course, FCPS staff and leadership, targeted by these claims, were either put on paid leave or distracted from their core duties of educating FCPS students by the false claims and the lawsuits. It is impossible to ignore the emotional and reputational impact of hundreds of social media posts threatening prison sentences (and worse!) to innocent people involved in these allegations. It’s possible that the total costs of these allegations by Perez and associates could exceed seven figures when all of the damages and expenses are valued. Finally, all of this was a horrible distraction from our kids’ education, particularly for students and staff at Centreville HS who were under a microscope for months. Centreville HS students were subject to filming by at least one known extremist group, Tradition Family Property (TFP) Student Action, identified by the red capes they wear. TFP Student Action is the campus outreach component of “The American TFP” which has been cited by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a hate group for their “virulently anti-LGBT” views. In fact, a teacher asked that the Fairfax County School Board review their policies about filming students on school grounds due to concerns over recent filming of minors by TFP Action or their allies. She indicated that this group comes to protest at high schools around Fairfax County, which is a concern to many parents, guardians, and staff because it endangers the students and their safety. Fairfax County schools have been the target of many disinformation campaigns by the same actors over the last six years. It is costing our families, students, staff, schools, and taxpayers too much, while the disinformation is dividing the community. Every single time political operatives play legal football with our public schools, it is our students who pay the price.

States are Enticed by Disinformation to Opt-in to the Federal Voucher Program The Trump Administration and allies are doing what they can to entice states to opt into the Education Freedom Tax Credit (EFTC) program. This program was signed into law in July 2025 as part of HR1, or the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). Now it is up to the Governor of each state to decide whether they want to “opt into” the program before Jan 1, 2027. There is much confusion about the program, particularly since this confusion is purposefully fueled by massive amounts of inaccurate claims about the benefits of the EFTC program. Two of the most egregious claims are that: 1) public schools will benefit from the program, and 2) public school systems will not be economically impacted. The administration is using those misleading claims along with other misinformation about the need for school choice and constant efforts to vilify public education to entice participation in the voucher program. This article will evaluate some of the most common and meritless claims being used to entice governors and the families in their states to join the EFTC program. In fact, so much misinformation is circulating about the program, the Education Law Center recently presented and publicly posted a recording of “What almost everybody gets wrong about the Federal Voucher scheme.” 4 Public Education will use this recording as a reference in this document. For example, when the Education Law Center recording explains that misinformation is used by the EFTC to give democratic governors cover for opting into the program and also to fool the general public into thinking the program is beneficial, 4 Public Education will cite that timestamp as “12:14” (i.e., 12 minutes and 14 seconds into the recording) and link to the recording at that timestamp. False Claim: The EFTC will benefit public schools It is unlikely that public schools and public school students will derive significant benefit from Trump’s voucher scheme. Technically, the regulations will provide a way for public school students to apply for and accept vouchers, but experts warn that public school students will receive only “crumbs” relative to private schools and their students. Also, experts warn that the voucher scheme is all risk and no reward. In fact Jessica Levin, education litigator with the Education Law Center, warned that the benefit to public schools would be like paying $5 for a benefit of $1 (timestamp 26:26). The discrepancy between what is technically feasible versus what is probable is related to the fact that Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs) have the freedom to grant vouchers to whomever they want and for the amount they want. States cannot require SGOs to offer scholarships to public school students (timestamp 12:00). Most SGOs have specific organizational goals, such as support for religious affiliated schools, thus those goals may override other factors in granting vouchers to public school students. SGOs will focus the tax credit resources on private schools both because public schools can not accept vouchers and privatization of public education is a well known intent of the program. One has only to review Project 2025, the Conservative Promise and the Administration’s attempts to vilify public schools as dens of indoctrination and immorality to understand the pressure that will be placed on SGOs to focus on private schools. To date, there is nothing in the proposed regulations that seems beneficial to public schools, public school students, or the larger community (timestamp 13:49). False Claim: The EFTC does not impact public school finances. School choice advocates love to claim that vouchers will not impact public school budgets, but experts warn that vouchers are likely to shrink public school budgets. Vouchers usually allow taxpayer funds to “follow” students out of public school systems and into private schools–in other words, vouchers provide taxpayer funds to private entities at the expense of public schools. Unless school districts can find ways to replace the funding lost to private schools, public schools may be forced to cut services to students, including popular and/or necessary programs like advanced academic coursework, special education programs for students with disabilities, and/or programming for English language learners. Declining enrollment and funding will destabilize most school districts, which is of particular concern in rural areas where there are few private school alternatives. And, unlike federal budgets, states cannot run a budget deficit because states can not borrow money to cover overspending, so school districts are highly vulnerable to funding loss. As a result they must make cuts commensurate with the funding loss. Thus, if funding is pulled from public schools for private vouchers, it can mean fewer staff and teachers, larger classrooms, less student services, cuts to afterschool programming, and older, less well-maintained school buildings, and even schools closing. Some “school choice” advocates try to minimize the potential impact of students leaving public schools by claiming that public schools would just have fewer students to teach, so what is the problem? Others minimize potential economic impacts by only considering the per pupil allocation and enrollment. However, school district budgets are much more complicated than school privatizers let on, and declining budgets could have devastating impacts on public schools. Fixed costs such as heating, cooling, support staff wages and transportation, will not change even if enrollment and funding drop. Those monthly bills still come due. Perhaps the biggest impact on public school budgets is that states opting into the EFTC are then responsible for funding oversight of their voucher program, including tracking donations and voucher recipients, and preventing waste, fraud and abuse in the program. None of that comes cheap, and it requires developing an entirely new bureaucracy within the state government. Some states with existing voucher programs have learned the painful lesson about those hidden oversight costs. Arizona, Iowa, Oklahoma, and West Virginia saw their state budgets balloon well over the original estimates as a result of unexpected costs related to their voucher programs. Also, states with voucher programs often suffer from wasteful spending and fraud (eg. Arizona) due to typically poor oversight of voucher programs. Obviously, because private schools have fewer requirements for transparency and accountability than public schools, there is a need for well structured oversight for voucher programs in states that opt in. The costs of a well structured state oversight program can be substantial. Governors and policy makers don’t have to be kept in the dark about the true cost of the voucher program to their state and its public school districts. The Economic Policy Institute created a tool for calculating the costs to each school district before states opt into the program. This author encourages those who are considering opting into the federal voucher program to first determine what it will actually cost their state. False Claim: The ELCT is inevitable in each state Historically, school vouchers programs have been unpopular and referendums for initiating voucher programs tend to be defeated when put to a vote. But privatizing public education and returning control of public education to the states are major conservative goals and getting the ELCT statute on the books was a celebrated step in realizing those goals. Click to read Mike DeGuire's detailed OpEd on the influence of billionaires on education policy The ELCT is an unpopular part of the OBBBA. To help this part of the bill pass, it was decided that Governors in each state would be able to decide for their own state whether they would participate by opting into the program. That is why the administration and privatization advocates are trying so hard to entice states to opt in. Even with each state able to make their own choice about opting in, quite a few members of Congress want to rescind the part of the OBBBA that is the EFTC. Recently, bills have been introduced in both the Senate and the House of Representatives that would, if they pass, strike section 25F, the code for the EFTC, from the OBBBA. Numerous democratic co-sponsors have signed onto each bill - about 30 in the Senate and more than 80 in the House at last count Although it is unlikely that the EFTC part of the OBBBA will be rescinded while republicans hold a federal government trifecta, efforts to rescind the EFTC have helped stimulate a national conversation about the harmful aspects of the federal privatizing voucher program. Hopefully, this will encourage those thinking about opting into the program to more carefully consider that decision. Also, when a more public education friendly government returns to Washington, DC the truth about the EFTC will already be known and that part of the OBBBA may be rescinded. Call to Action: Reject the Federal Voucher Scheme The budget reconciliation bill passed last summer (H.R. 1), created the first national tax-credit voucher program to weaken public education and divert billions of dollars to private and religious schools. Tell Congress to repeal this voucher scheme set to launch on January 1, 2027.

Kids celebrate Independence Day with flags and smiles Independence Day marks a milestone in American history, but it also represents something deeply personal for each individual. As the nation celebrated its 250th anniversary this weekend, it was clear that independence means more than just a date on the calendar. Whether people attended local celebrations or those on the National Mall, Independence Day means the freedom to express, to celebrate, and to honor this day in ways that reflect our unique values and traditions. The founders of the United States did not always agree, yet they found ways to cooperate and build a nation together. This spirit of unity through diversity of thought and expression remains essential today, particularly when the Semiquincentennial celebrations in the Nation's Capitol were "hijacked" to focus on one man, one party, and a Christian nationalist viewpoint, rather than celebrating the diversity of this great nation's people, backgrounds, traditions, and history as we did during the Bicentennial celebrations. Independence Means Personal Freedom The essence of American independence is the freedom to think and act for oneself. This freedom extends to how we celebrate July 4th. Some may prefer quiet family gatherings, others enjoy large fireworks displays, and some participate in community parades or volunteer events. No single way of celebrating is more “correct” than another. A President’s view on the holiday, or how neighbors on Nextdoor choose to mark the day, should not dictate how anyone else observes or celebrates Independence Day. This idea was echoed by former President Bill Clinton, who emphasized that the strength of America lies in its ability to embrace different perspectives while working toward common goals. The founders understood this well. They debated fiercely but ultimately agreed on a shared vision for the country. Today, that means respecting each other’s celebrations and finding unity in our shared values rather than uniformity in our actions. Diverse Traditions Strengthen Community Celebrating Independence Day in diverse ways reflects the rich cultural fabric of the United States. Many communities host events that blend American traditions with their own cultural heritage, such as music, food, and dance from different backgrounds. Some towns hold reenactments of the signing of the Declaration of Independence or Revolutionary War battles, offering educational experiences that connect people to the nation’s origins. Amidst these celebrations, others dedicate the day to community service, helping veterans, cleaning parks, or supporting local charities as a way to honor the freedoms they enjoy. These varied approaches should not divide us; instead, they can enrich our understanding of what independence means for America. They remind us that freedom includes the right to celebrate in ways that feel authentic and meaningful. A lively July 4th parade with floats and spectators enjoying the celebration Cooperation Despite Differences The founders’ ability to cooperate despite disagreements offers a powerful lesson. The Constitution itself was a product of compromise, balancing different interests and viewpoints. Today, Americans can take inspiration from this example by focusing on shared goals rather than perceived differences or conflicts. This means we can follow in the founders' footsteps by: Listening to Others: Understanding and appreciating how neighbors and fellow citizens celebrate can build respect and reduce everyday political conflict. Finding Common Ground: Celebrations often include shared symbols like the flag, fireworks, and patriotic music that unite people. Whether hot dogs or tacos are served at the celebration, it does not matter because they are all part of the great cultural fabric of America, especially on July 4th. Encouraging Dialogue: Conversations about the meaning of independence can deepen appreciation for the holiday and for each other. There is no one way to perceive freedom, independence, or patriotism, and no single person--even the President of the United States--has the right to define these critical American concepts that held dear by each and every one of us. By embracing cooperation and the wonders of American diversity, communities can turn Independence Day into a time of connection rather than division. This was observed on social media as some shared their stories from the bicentennial celebrations, where every community brought out smiles 250th Anniversary as a Moment to Reflect and Recommit The 250th anniversary of American independence is a unique opportunity to reflect on the nation’s journey and renew commitment to its founding principles. It invites us to celebrate not only the past but also the future we want to build together. In addition to celebration, there are other ways to continue to mark this special year in our nation's history through educational programs, community projects, and individual personal reflection. It is important to take advantage of opportunities to learn about the history of independence and the diverse contributions of people to the nation, bring together different groups to celebrate collectively, and/or offer individuals time to consider what independence means to them personally and how they can contribute to a united future. This is how we avoid taking our freedom for granted: by examining and discussing our nation's history and people, we learn why we should continue to support our nation's freedoms. Fireworks bursting over a city skyline during Independence Day celebration Honor Freedom and Democracy Every Day This milestone encourages all Americans to honor their freedom by respecting the freedom of others, while avoiding complacency about the freedom and democracy that we celebrate. As we move forward from July 4th weekend together, we are reminded that Independence Day is more than a holiday; it is a reminder of the freedoms that define the United States. It calls on each of us to stand firm to protect our individual beliefs and traditions while recognizing the strength that comes from unity, and to be brave by protecting our fragile democracy. As former President Bill Clinton recently said: Our Founders were wise when they gave us our mission to form a more perfect union. They knew America would never be perfect but could always be better. That's what they meant by "more perfect." We've done that by being courageous enough to acknowledge our flaws and missteps-and then bold enough to leave them behind for brighter tomorrows. That's the lesson of our first 250 years: we can always do better. In how we treat one another, in person and online; in building a better future for ourselves, our families, and our communities; and in standing up, showing up, and speaking out for our democracy.