Search Results

Let me off this Crazy Carnival Ride! The first 100 days  of the Trump Administration have been a chaotic carnival of harmful Executive Orders ( 142 so far ), irresponsible mass firings of federal employees ( more than 121,000 ), over 200 lawsuits, increased concentration of power under the executive branch, mass deportations of immigrants without constitutionally required due process, and an unknown number of American citizens caught up in these efforts, including children and cancer patients.  The stock market has been a roller coaster ride of dramatic ups and downs. Prices continue to rise, and due to the trade war Tilt-a-Whirl, shelves are emptying of goods and online prices are skyrocketing. Courts around the nation are playing bumper cars with lawsuits and injunctions against the Trump Administration actions. The President’s popularity is in freefall like the Kings Dominion Drop Tower. The full impact of these first 100 days on students, staff, and families in public schools is yet unknown, but the Trump Administration has threatened funding of special education, meals, and Title 1 programs that support our most vulnerable students. Frequently, the Trump Administration has used the funding for these programs as leverage to force other unpopular, and possibly illegal, actions against the rights of LGBTQIA students, Title IX protections, state regulations, and decades long efforts to make schools inclusive and equitable to increasingly diverse populations of families.  Nowhere has this been more evident than the attacks on trans students and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in K-12 public schools. However, more recently, he has turned his eyes on higher education with similar initiatives to remove DEI and force politics into the classroom.  His attempt to strong-arm Harvard into sweeping, politically motivated reforms failed miserably. For non-compliance, the Trump Administration threatened Harvard’s $2.2 billion in grants and contracts, which contribute to groundbreaking innovations  in science and health. In response , Harvard went public with the Administration’s demand letter , and sued the Administration , placing the Trump Administration back on the kiddie rides–at a disadvantage against all of higher education, many of whom banded together  to oppose the Trump reforms: “We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses.” – American Association of Colleges and Universities 4 Public Education has tried to keep up with the first 100 days of the Trump Administration's efforts to defund, destabilize, and destroy public education in the nation. Please view our coverage here, as we experience the next 100 days: Demanding the Impossible: Why DEI cannot be Eliminated from Public Education (Cheryl Binkley) Federal Scene on Education is at a Turning Point: Trump’s First 100 Days (Binkley) Just say NO to Federally Funded Private School Vouchers (Marianne Burke) Trump's Education Appointee has no IDEA about Public Education (Vanessa Hall) When the Attack is on History is About Controlling the Future (Hall) A Week in the Trenches Dodging Bullet Points (Hall) Eliminating the US Department of Education will do more Damage than You Realize (Burke) Wrestling the Department of Education from Incompetence: Linda McMahon Confirmation Hearings (Binkley) Real and Presidential Danger to Public Education: Executive Orders Harming Public Education (Hall) How Fairfax County Public Schools are responding to Anti-Refugee Policies (Binkley) Keep Funding and Freedom To Learn in Our Public Schools (Burke) Trump's Department of Edu-Propaganda (Hall) 4 Public Education will continue to keep you updated on impacts to our K-12 and higher education. Follow  and support us , to keep in the know about federal, state, and local public education issues. May this chaotic carnival ride soon end so that we can find price, political, and personal stability.  Truthfully, seeing our nation through a funhouse mirror has not been flattering or fun for anyone.

"Overly Broad" Says Some School Districts The U.S. Department of Education (USED) made a surprising demand of all state education agencies (SEAs) on April 3, 2025 : agree to USED terms to abolish diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), or else lose federal funding. Federal funding that would otherwise go to special education services, meals for children, and much needed funding for high poverty schools (i.e., those with large percentages of students on free and reduced meals). Nearly 90% of school districts  benefit from the Title I program serving low income schools. In the USED announcement of the anti-DEI demand, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor stated, “Federal financial assistance is a privilege, not a right.” He then claimed that schools use “DEI programs to discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another based on identity characteristics in clear violation of Title VI.” Essentially, to fulfill the Trump and Project 2025 goal of eliminating DEI, the USED targeted the most vulnerable populations of students, threatening to hold hostage funding that is statutorily required under Title V and Title I of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) . This letter was intended to satisfy vague requirements of anti-DEI executive orders  (EOs) by President Trump (e.g., EOs 14173 , 14168 , and 14151 )  and a “novel” interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Each state was given a 10-day deadline, which was later extended to April 24th due to a lawsuit by the National Education Association  against Trump’s USED. Civil Rights groups from around the nation signed a letter sent by the Legal Defense Fund  (LDF) to all SEAs to: “Not abandon your lawful efforts to support Black students and other students of color and should issue guidance to [S]EAs and their administrators and staff to stay the course…. Embracing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility fosters academic excellence, innovation, and a thriving school culture where all students feel valued and empowered…. We urge you to continue to support school communities and educational environments that ensure equal opportunities for all students.” Trump Administration’s Novel Interpretation of the Civil Rights Act The USED claimed that their April 3rd letter  was to certify compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act; however, states had already certified compliance in order to receive federal funds, as they do every year . Additionally, the USED certification letter contained additional language, not found in Title VI, specifically: “The use of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (“DEI”) programs to advantage one’s race over another—is impermissible. The use of certain DEI practices can violate federal law. The continued use of illegal DEI practices may subject the individual or entity using such practices to serious consequences [including withholding federal grants and litigation].” Analyses of the anti-DEI EOs have found that the EOs are inconsistent with the Civil Rights Act, state legislation, and other laws, thus there are multiple lawsuits against these EOs. However, Mel Wilson (LCSW, MBA) , Senior Policy Advisor for the National Association of Social Workers identifies something even more insidious in the EO 14173 , Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity:  “The authors of this EO knew quite well that DEI as a concept is a derivative of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By appropriating that term, they hope to create a false equivalency that DEI is as much a civil rights violation against White people as it is seen as a protection for communities of color.” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)  echoes this when they described the Trump 2025 plans before inauguration:  “The anti-DEI backlash is part of a larger effort by right-wing foundations, think tanks, and political operatives to dismantle civil rights gains made in recent decades.” The Civil Rights Act of 1964  is considered by nearly every American to be one of the nation’s most important equal rights, anti-discrimination legislation for all Americans. But not Project 2025, whose blueprint is the guiding light for the Trump Administration. Youngkin Punts the Controversy to School Districts What did the Governor of Virginia do? Did he defend Virginia’s public schools and funding for our low income students and those who require special education support? No. He shifted the burden to every school district in Virginia. Unlike Maryland which handled the letter at the state level, Youngkin’s Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) stood down and punted the issue to all 132 school districts. Thus requiring expenditures of time and money to individually analyze the demand letter vis-a-vis federal and state regulations and federal funding.  Imagine how much time that took away from education excellence and supporting staff and students. Imagine the difficult conversations behind closed doors with superintendents, general counsels, school boards, and other staff: do we cave to federal extortion to ensure funding for our students, or do we find a different path? The School Superintendents Association (AASA) published a letter on April 14th from the EducationCounsel LLC  to provide guidance to school districts and SEAs citing multiple concerns, including: lack of clarity over what “DEI” actually is makes it hard to comply, it may increase litigation exposure, and “raises multiple procedural concerns regarding the rights of states and districts.” On April 24th, Superintendent Aaron Spence of Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) summed up the controversy  and responded to the USED demand letter  citing legal concerns, as well as a lack of clarity by the USED:  “There are legal challenges to this request that argue, in part, that the requested USDOE certification—as written—is vague, overly broad, and committing public school divisions to terms/conditions beyond what is required under applicable law.” “Most importantly, the requested certification lacks clarity . It references “illegal DEI” or “certain DEI practices” without explaining what those terms mean or how they differ from the diversity, equity and inclusion programs and initiatives we currently have in place–programs that help students feel valued, included, and supported…. We cannot–and should not be asked to–certify we are not engaged in behaviors that have not been clearly defined. Doing so would not be prudent.” Mr. Spence cited that other SEAs (e.g., Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, and about a dozen more) have declined to sign the USED certification, including Maryland which signed an “alternative certification.” In Virginia, LCPS and Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) are reported  to be the only school districts to have declined to sign the USED certification letter. Superintendent Michelle Reid affirmed her commitment of inclusive, equitable education for Fairfax County students to Virginia Mercury , “Here in FCPS, we believe our diversity is a strength and that each and every child deserves access to a world-class education.” Ultimate Impact on the Nation’s Public Schools In many ways, the anti-DEI certification letter from the USED feels like a game of chicken, except Secretary Linda McMahon tried to tie students to the bumper hoping that state SEAs would swerve and cave to Trump’s anti-DEI demands. Or maybe a better metaphor is this was an old fashioned "stickup" with Linda McMahon's USED demanding, "Your Title I student funding or your DEI." Either way, it was effective. Most states caved to the unreasonable demands, yet nearly one-third of the states did not. Outside of Loudoun and Fairfax counties, school districts around the Commonwealth signed the USED anti-DEI certification, but it is clear by public statements that this was, for the most part, under duress, as districts were concerned about losing federal grant funding for their low-income students. For example in Hampton Roads , some school districts responded by eliminating DEI programs (e.g., Virginia Beach and Suffolk), but others modified the terms of the USED anti-DEI certification letter (e.g., Norfolk and Hampton). On April 24th, the Norfolk School Board went a step further  to reject Trump’s anti-DEI EO in a 5-2 vote. Legally, the Trump Administration has hit significant legal hurdles in light of rulings by federal judges in Maryland, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.. NPR reported that these judges ruled on April 24th that the "Trump administration had overstepped when it ordered the nation's schools to stop all diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs as well as classroom teaching the administration might consider discriminatory." This restricts the ability of the USED to force districts to "eliminate DEI" (?) by withholding federal funds designated for low-income and disabled students in K-12 schools.   Fortunately, the AASA has continued coverage  of legal challenges to Trump’s anti-DEI EOs, as well as updates on the USED anti-DEI certification letter including the most recent news that the USED bowed to legal pressure:  “On 4/28, the U.S. Department of Education sent a notice to State Chiefs that they were no longer requiring districts and States to complete the Title VI DEI certification. It is unclear whether the litigation on the underlying DEI guidance will be appealed by[US] ED in three separate circuits. ”  The USED is playing chicken with our students' future, but their games are only wasting time, energy, and critical education funding. Our students, staff, and families deserve better than that. Of course this is not over. Public schools will continue to face attacks on the critical initiatives, like DEI, that offer respect, opportunity, and success for students. This will be played out in the courts and the news for the next 1,360 days .

Teacher Appreciation 2025 I woke up in the middle of the night with Teacher Appreciation Week and  Love in the Time of Cholera o n my mind. Love in the Time of Cholera is a 1985 novel by Nobel Prize Laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez about a long unrequited love that uses magical realism as an element of the story. I know - odd combo - but “teaching in the time of” Executive Orders, state supported measles outbreaks, recurrent school violence, insincere post-COVID learning loss demands, and expansion of Christian Nationalist parental rights groups must feel like a longstanding unrequited love juxtaposed with the everyday reality of guiding and supporting students, in the midst of a supernatural, impossible reality. How else could teachers be expected to educate students when there are threats from the federal government of patriotic education and eliminating lunches for kids, during the everyday possibility of life-ending violence? We observe Teacher Appreciation every year right before Mother’s Day in a pre-planned, but always sudden, burst of notes with effusive sentiments and inexpensive knickknacks, so that for the rest of the year we can all go back to a love-ignore-hate relationship with those who care for and nurture the becoming of our children. I realize parents and administrators who observe Teacher Appreciation are good, and well-intended people, I was and am one of them.  Normally, I would mark the week with cutesy memes about great teachers and remind people to “appreciate” the teachers in their lives, and I probably will do that for the rest of the week, but this year the whole exercise feels sadly insufficient and hollow.  The subtext of Teacher Appreciation now has all the markings of fantastical literature. Themes like: We love you, but only the idealized version of you. We love you but we blame you — for pretty much everything. Sacrifice yourself but don’t expect too much from us; all seem implicit in the world teachers inhabit. I know —a grim view of what is intended to be a lighthearted happy observance—but frankly to pretend that we are in the old days when a sweet message in a childlike hand could fix everything is just plain ignoring the realities of the situation our teachers are in. To appreciate teachers with small tokens in today’s current conditions is so ironic that it has the smell of bitter almonds, the opening motif in Love in the Time of Cholera  that evokes a time of deep sickness.  And there’s every reason to see Teacher Appreciation as a version of giving flowers ( camellias  in Love in the Time of Cholera ) which are ignored or returned as empty promises.  If you genuinely have any small appreciation for the work and craft teachers practice of nurturing and facilitating brighter, stronger, more resilient humans, do let them know. Make that appreciation real with actions and defense of them. Is there a chance we can go back to observing teacher appreciation sincerely, without irony, without it being empty platitudes? Only if we tend to the business of restoring their dignity and respect now and refuse to allow political and governmental abuse of them and their students. If we do not protect them from the menace of current conditions, we have no business giving hearts, kisses and coffee mugs. So here is what’s needed for true Teacher Appreciation:  Try to daily remember that another person (or few people) spends their days and nights doing things that will benefit you and your children, and try to treat them with consistent common regard and respect for their choice to do that with their lives, and the struggle it is in today’s circumstances.  Respect their expertise. Understand they do a low paying and thankless job because they believe in us all and want children to thrive.  When you hear ridiculous things about them, question the speaker with a little skepticism.  When you hear they don’t care or are soulless, spend some time with them to find out the truth.  Stand in the way of those who would abuse them, structurally and physically. Make teacher appreciation more than a trite meme and a kitschy Knick knack. Champion those who make public education possible.

Why DEI cannot be Eliminated Project 2025 Plan & Execution The attacks on inclusion, equity, and diversity have been underway for several years. The Heritage Foundation’s   Project 2025,  which clearly articulated the plan, was published two years ago in April 2023, but the conflict over inclusive ideas was underway well before that. Since his inauguration, the President and his administration have executed the  Project 2025 agenda and set about an  aggressive campaign  against what they term DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) Programs. However, the Executive Orders  (EO) and agenda to defund and eliminate DEI goes far beyond programs and departments which protect traditionally disenfranchised people from discrimination and well beyond what most people expected.  Project 2025  suggests that Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs  not just be eradicated, but be made illegal and those who practice Inclusion or Equity be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Although most think of it as an attack on immigrants and people of color, the plan also calls for a massive roll back of women’s freedoms and rights in the workforce and in classrooms.  The President and his advisers consider any stories, perspectives, or actions that are not focused on white, heterosexual Anglo-Saxon-protestant-males as “discrimination against white people.” This results in books or facts by or about women, Black, Hispanic, LGBTQIA+, or even neurodiverse people being removed from libraries of schools, universities, and towns. Most recently, even the Naval Academy had 381 books removed. People were shocked to find Mein Kampf stayed, but Maya Angelou was removed.   Another example has been a national campaign against a balanced history curriculum in K-12 schools under the guise of anti-CRT (Critical Race Theory) which continues to attempt removal of non-white-hetero-male perspectives from instruction and content from pre-kinder to post-doctorate education programs. Whether the themes in the books and programs are about personal life or are political, the administration deems them objectionable by virtue of the author’s race and gender, or sometimes by the mere presence of the ideas of equality or common humanity of all. Furthermore, the President’s EOs direct his department heads to implement the  Project 2025  goal of trying to establish any non-white-male content as criminal. Once Donald Trump took office, the festival of firing by DOGE and the Pentagon has focused heavily on firing Black, women, and transgender employees, particularly Black and women employees at higher echelons of the civil service such as  NIH scientists where 38 of the 43 senior researchers fired were women or people of color. In the military, besides attacking transgender soldiers in general, the  leadership purge has focused on Black, Hispanic, and women leaders who had, until that time, successfully filled their positions of responsibility. It has been two months since the President delivered a two week ultimatum that U.S. schools had to eliminate Diversity Inclusion and Equity programs, and almost two weeks (April 3) since he specified that governors be required to certify  compliance or lose all federal funding for their state’s public schools. He has not distinguished whether or how other federal funding cuts to education, such as Title 1, IDEA , or Free and Reduced Meals, which have already had substantial staff and grant and program cuts, would figure into this ultimatum. On April 8, Linda McMahon, Secretary of Education, announced a two week extension to the mandate so certifications are now due by April 24.  Our Nation is too Diverse for DEI to Be Erased Though the executive branch and (formerly) conservative political officials seem hell bent to reform the United States into a white-Christian-hetero-male dominated nation, and wish to declare the nation a White Christian Nation, they miss the obvious barrier:  It is impossible to turn either the nation or its schools back to 1953, or even earlier. We are not, and can never again be a monolithic country. The anti-DEI attacks overlook that every school district in the U.S. is different, despite ongoing efforts by the far right to portray public schools as monolithic “failing, government, schools.” Each school district has its own demographics, economic status, and cultural personality.  I grew up in an all white small town-rural school system in a town of half farmers and half factory workers. I also lived and taught for fifteen years in a school with no ethnic majority that was proclaimed by National Geographic as one of the “most diverse high schools in America,” in an inner-suburban working class neighborhood. My children went to a similar school just a few miles away, and the third nearby school in our neighborhood was a majority Asian, gifted magnet school. I also worked in a school that out-scored most schools in the world on international test scores. All were different, and all were good schools. Across this country there are many districts that manage one small high school, a middle school, and several elementaries that feed them. Some of those are majority white, some majority Latin, some majority Black, some very blended.  According to Ed Week, in 2019 the average number of students in an American High school was 524. Approximately 69.5 percent of districts had fewer than 2,500 students, meaning that they likely had only one or two high schools in their system. However, in many locations, from mid-size towns to suburban county systems and cities any one of many district high schools may have thousands of students. There are school systems whose schools are geographically far-flung, transporting students as much as 40 miles to their nearest school, and some who serve a tight geographic neighborhood where most kids can walk to school.  The cultural dynamic can be just as mixed, with the local economic drivers exerting huge influence over school personalities. Schools on Virginia’s Eastern Shore or Cape Cod are influenced by the waterman culture. Schools in the Hampton Roads area and North Carolina’s Ft. Bragg communities are highly impacted by proximity to the military and by proximity to one of the world’s largest shipping ports. Schools in Miami, Dade County have substantial Cuban and Caribbean cultural influences. Northern California’s largest minority populations are Asian, but not from only one Asian heritage. It would be unthinkable to deny music or film to Los Angeles or Nashville schools. Western states we normally think of as being ranching regions, also have large connections to a world tourist trade as well as environmental management, and there is a separate system for schools on native reservations managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Religious practices, even in towns with relatively monolithic history can have diverse practices which influence everything from which historical events are remembered and observed to which holidays are important, to what kinds of food are served in the cafeteria. Even a traditionally Catholic or Protestant community can have wide variations in everything from student dress to holiday food choices. In other words, the variety of diversity is huge. There is no monolithic “government school.” Each is a local school that serves the children and teens of its community, with a goal of preparing those children and adolescents to live in the world. And that world is simultaneously much smaller ( it fits in the palm of their hand, or on their watch), and much bigger for today’s generations than it was only a generation or two ago.  Even the idea of preparing students for the work-force requires an understanding of diversity and the exercise of inclusivity. A mid-western farmer may also be a global business-person. A southwestern town may be the home of artist colonies whose artists work in a variety of media from bronze to holographic art to textile or digital art and whose artists sell to galleries world-wide. A niche business anywhere, may develop a thriving internet trade and get its supplies from several parts of the world, while it sells to multiple customers in multiple countries. According to the  2020 Census, there are 33.9 million people in the U.S. who consider themselves multi-racial. In the U.S., Hispanics can represent a variety of racial profiles and the census counted 62.1 million in 2020. The United States is quite simply no longer as monolithic, exclusionary, or biased as the current administration presumes.  Use Real Definitions In their simplest definitions,  Diversity means a variety of people who are in some way different.  Inclusion means welcoming everyone, and  Equity is a synonym for fairness.  So, when the Trump government dictates local schools that they cannot teach children about diversity, or inclusion, or equity, then the federal government is dictating that local schools cannot teach children about themselves, their own families, their own towns and communities…their own world. DEI is daily reality, not political ideology. Diversity encompasses so many types of differences.   Diversity can be ethnicity. Diversity can mean students who are not in the local majority ethnically, a white child in a black neighborhood, or an Asian child in a white neighborhood. Diversity can be different learning or physical attributes, including:  A child with dyslexia, or who struggles with writing, or has an autism spectrum disorder A student who is hearing impaired or diabetic A student in a wheelchair, or with traumatic anxiety Diversity can be economic. A kid whose family income is below the poverty level, or a homeless child, or a child whose family vacations internationally regularly and owns multiple homes.  All of these Differences Exist in Every Community Inclusion, means simply including that diversity, all the children of a particular town, neighborhood or community. Inclusion has been a mandate for our many faiths and our secular American culture for a very, very long time. Our moral and legal code demands we welcome children, and that we nurture them  Regardless of their racial, ethnic, Economic status, or Intellectual heritage and abilities.  We must provide an open and welcoming education for our children to become their most effective and best selves. It is both what has long been legally required, and what is morally required. Equity, means fairness. It’s that plain, and that critical to our ability to safely survive the wildly changing future.  Children know what fairness is from the time they are toddlers, and they are unwilling to embrace a culture which is unfair. How many times have I heard a 3 year old shout, “That’s not fair!”?  If we do not practice fairness to all, we will be creating schools which alienate  children, not just from one another, but from their local and national communities. Many won’t be willing participants in whatever we teach or the world we create if we are not fair. Some will drop out, others will rage at the feelings of inequity. So, DEI, or saying the other way around Inclusion, Equity, and Diversity are not something we can turn off or just stop doing.  DEI is integral to who we are, woven into the fabric of each little burg and waystation, in whatever town or state we are from, Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity are what it means to be American, to be human, and threatening loss of funds or prosecution will not change that.

An Overview of Education in Trump’s First 100 Days The current conditions of federal education policy can be described as an all out attack, with an anti-equity, diversity, and inclusion twist. As early as February 8th, at least 16 DOGE cyber-saboteurs had begun taking control of the computer systems and data collections  of the U.S. Department of Education (ED). In addition, though the bulk of the National Center for Educational Statistics  employees have been fired, it is unclear what has happened to much of the data collected over the last 45 years. Numerous on-going study grants have been halted while some have been restarted. It is reported that at least some of the department data has been fed to an AI system. On March 11, the ED building was closed, and a day later the building was reopened with roughly half the staff allowed to return to work . This reflected a continuation of firings already implemented for employees of under a year and pushes for early retirement. Some departments, such as the Office of Civil Rights were more decimated than others  which adds to family fears that their students’ civil rights are at risk, especially when 96% of complaints are for discrimination  on the grounds of sex, race, or disability.  After weeks of threatening to do so, on March 20, 2025, Donald Trump issued an  Executive Order to authorize beginning elimination of the federal ED, formalizing an illegal plan to end 45 years of federal support and coordination of education civil rights for U.S students. The recently confirmed Secretary of Education, wrestling maven  Linda McMahon , promptly declared her intent to follow the president’s plan. Of course, only Congress has the authority to abolish an agency.  The Executive Order had two main directives, that: The bulk of U.S. ED’s functions and funding be given to state control, and that  Any programs “under the label “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) or similar terms and programs promoting gender ideology” be eliminated. So far, DEI seems to mean any program that contains any reference related to blacks, immigrants, women, or those with disabilities. However, in other statements the President also directed two of the largest programs overseen by U.S. ED be relocated to other executive departments. College Student Loan service and management is to be under Kelly Loeffler at the Small Business Administration, and IDEA, the program for students with learning or physical disabilities,  is to be managed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s Department of Health and Human Services. However, the change would require Congressional approval, and in the meantime, with staffers fired or laid off, families are left without supports. Given Kennedy’s views on childhood health issues, such as his highly controversial views of autism, vaccines, and nutrition, it can be expected that there will be drastic changes to the policies related to special services and programs for students with conditions such as learning disabilities, autism, and various health or neuro divergent conditions that are legislated by IDEA.  There has already been a measles outbreak among  children in 22 states  and  two children have died in Texas , and kids are overdosing on Vitamin A which Kennedy has suggested as a treatment.  Under Trump’s executive order, the bulk of the remaining U.S. ED programs are to be turned into block grants to be given to state governments for administration. However, the mechanics and how much money will be allocated under those grants remains to be seen as details of cuts and tax credits from the  budget continuing resolution bill become clearer. State by state, and district by district projections are underway at this time. Disbursements of funds for programs like free and reduced lunches, and teacher training have been fluctuating and are highly unpredictable at this point. The current proposed cuts from ED are listed at $330 billion. Estimates for Virginia losses  are approximately $2.4 billion.  The Push Back As each element of the disruption plan has been announced stakeholders and watchdog groups have pushed back via action alerts, protests, and court cases. Blue states’ Attorneys Generals have sued for the loss of state funds and illegal processes. Civil rights watchdog groups  have filed suits to protect students’ rights, and as soon as the employees were fired, the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers  filed lawsuits challenging their dismissals. It is not known what the final resolution of the suits will be or how the Trump administration’s appeals to the Supreme Court to vacate lower court rulings will end. The high court recently allowed the Trump administration to temporarily revoke funding for  teaching training programs , a change that can have far reaching implications in many policy areas. But states and stakeholders are pushing back against rogue procedures and civil rights violations.  Changes in actual funding are not expected to kick in until the next budget year, but localities and states are trying to establish their budgets at this time, and are doing so without clear guidance about 2026 funding.  In the most recent Executive Order on April 4, the administration demanded that localities must either change standards, curriculum and policies to conform to the new reductions in students rights within ten days or the state will face withholding of federal funds. States with Republican governors are largely acquiescing to the demands, but in blue states there are challenges to accepting these policies. These are threats that illegally dictate curriculum content. For military families in DOD schools , the dilemma is similarly confusing, and even more high risk. Conditions system to system reflect potentially drastic variations in rights students may have if this administration’s agenda comes to fruition.  A Turning Point In History The U.S. Department of Education was originally established in 1979 to protect the civil rights of students, particularly students of color who were finally seeing integration of schools come about after more than a decade of local and state level  massive resistance to integration  of public schools. It was also the moment when women were gaining access to higher education and professional schools. The "Education of All Handicapped Children Act" was introduced in 1975, and renamed IDEA in 1990, giving students with disabilities the right to be educated. The current attempted dissolution of the department comes as the Trump administration is purging not just the U.S. ED, but all government programs and records referencing race, gender, and perceived abilities. By doing so the current administration is also questioning the place in history and achievements of women, differently abled, and non-white Americans.  The question we all face is whether we will consider education to their highest potential and aspirations a right for all children or will we retrench to only privilege those considered worthy by fair skin, male gender, and certain religious or ethnic heritages?  We are at another turning point in history as a nation.

April 3rd UPDATE to At the Statehouse Wednesday April 2nd was an all-day session in the Virginia legislature as Delegates and Senators addressed Governor Youngkin’s vetoes and budget amendments, and the Governor’s responses to the bills that had passed the General Assembly and were included in the 2025 Joint Conference Committee Budget Report. The legislature did not allow the Governor to boost Virginia’s rainy day fund by trimming $138.2 million from the $223 million the legislature had approved to finally eliminate the support cap. Eliminating the support cap  has been a top priority for school divisions, advocates for Virginia’s Public Schools, and many of Virginia’s legislators.  The legislature also rejected the additional $10 million boost for lab school and the $25 million for private school vouchers that Governor Youngkin proposed. This was in keeping with the  promise  by the Senate Finance Chair Louise Lucas that Youngkin's Private School Voucher program was “not going to happen.” The Virginia Legislature accepted a recommendation from the governor to increase support for school construction . The Governor had vetoed a bill that passed with bipartisan support that would have allowed localities to hold a referendum for an optional sales tax to pay for school construction.  The Governor thanked the General Assembly  members for their work as he announced that he will review and take final action on the bills and budget amendments that had been sent back to his desk. That is expected to be accomplished by about May 2nd, 30 days after the April 2nd meeting . For more information about what preceded, please see below. At the Statehouse, March 31, 2025 On April 2nd the General Assembly will enter another session where legislators will decide on whether to accept, amend, or reject Governor Youngkin's recommended changes in legislative bills and amendments in the conference budget.  One would think that by his fourth and final year as Governor, Glenn Youngkin would recognize that the proven strategies and practices that improve academic achievement in public schools are not what he endorses for Virginia. Instead, the quality of public education in Virginia seems to be declining under his leadership , and his tendency to veto and amend changes to bills that have passed in the legislature, shows his lack of understanding on how to improve academic achievement. Or maybe he just doesn’t regard Virginia’ K-12 students. For example, the Governor heartlessly vetoed some essential bills including the bill  that would have provided mental health support and services in a culturally responsive and language-appropriate way to Virginia’s public school students. Also, the Governor amended the General Assembly's conference budget in ways that may be harmful to students, schools and communities if his amendments prevail, according to the Fund our Schools Coalition . He drastically reduced funding for school support staff, even after a bipartisan majority of state lawmakers passed a  bill that would lift the  cap  or limit on state funding for support staff. The arbitrary support cap that is still in effect was put in place in 2009  during the Great Recession and it is well past time that the limit is removed. The Governor’s amendment was for $84.8 million when legislators determined it would take $222.9 million to provide the state’s share of the needed additional 4,725 support staff to help students succeed in the classroom. Another part of this bill that has not been funded is better support for students with disabilities.  Instead of supporting those identified needs, the Governor proposed funding a   private school voucher program and an already ample rainy day fund . This was in spite of the fact that the legislature already rejected a number of school voucher bills in the 2025 session, a voucher proposal in 2023, and that there was negative press  on the subject.  The Governor’s insistence on this program was in conflict with what we know about vouchers. P olls show that private school vouchers  are highly unpopular among most Americans, do not tend to improve academic performance, can cause state budget overruns, tend to benefit the wealthy because low income families often can not pay the balance of the tuition (school vouchers would be $5,000 per student), and would use government money to support schools that discriminate against students. Yet Governor Youngkin insisted Virginia develop the program and amended the budget with $25m for that purpose in an apparent ongoing effort to privatize public schools.  Another disappointment was the Governor’s rejection of funds needed to update Virginia's school funding formula . He removed all funds budgeted by the legislature that would support a commission for revising the funding formula, again rejecting recommendations  by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) that Virginia needed to revise the K-12 funding formula. That commission reported that Virginia needs to change from the complicated staffing-based calculation to a simpler student-based calculation for funding schools. The Governor’s veto of that funding ($1 million) will set back the bipartisan effort to transform the calculation of public school funding with a formula that better reflects the needs of Virginia’s public school students and which also should improve academic performance.  Youngkin’s refusal to follow the recommendations made by JLARC flies in the face of the commission’s report that showed Virginia’s public schools are seriously underfunded. Instead the Governor ignores the evidence that academic achievement in K-12 is closely tied to funding of the schools. Yet rather than budgeting for what is known to raise academic performance, the Governor instead has initiated a new accountability system that is fraught with problems  and is unpopular with Virginians . This controversial accountability system  with a cost in 2026 of $25m would label schools as “off track” and “needs intensive support”, and would then provide support when he often makes unfounded claims that Virginia Schools are failing. Furthermore, the conference budget that was approved by the legislature budgeted no money for this purpose, although a bill to postpone implementation of the system beyond 2026 failed during the 2025 session.  Another of Youngkin’s pet projects that is  controversial  and that received no funding in the conference budget is for the Lab School program but that did not stop the Governor from proposing amendments to the conference budget with a $10m boost. Many object to Lab Schools because they divert funds from public schools and seem to have a bait and switch strategy. The original, approved plan for lab schools indicated only public colleges were eligible for the program  but it now appears to be open to private and even religious schools of higher education. As Ashley C. Kenneth , President and CEO of The Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis (TCI), notes “These are steps in the wrong direction” and seem to support the Governor’s agenda to privatize public schools .  “These are steps in the wrong direction.” - Ashley C. Kenneth, President and CEO of TCI On April 2nd, when the General Assembly returns, legislators will make decisions about Governor Youngkins recommended changes on legislative bills and amendments in the conference` budget. At that time, we hope that Legislators recognize that the Governor has proposed some unacceptable changes to their work. Public school advocates urge them to do what is best for Virginia’s public school students, and reject changes that undermine Virginia’s students, schools, and families.

Delays and Mistakes Plague Youngkin's History Standards About three weeks ago, on March 14th, Governor Youngkin’s second Virginia Superintendent of Instruction, Lisa Coons , resigned suddenly.  Within a week, Governor Youngkin had appointed Coons’ deputy Emily Anne Gullickson as his third Superintendent in as many years. Gullickson is an Arizonan. Arizona is known for being 51st in education and having blanket vouchers which have blown a hole in the state budget. Gullickson is noted for having founded a pro-privatization non-profit named “A for Arizona.”  For weeks, speculation had been circulating among education stakeholders as to when the instructional guidelines for Virginia’s latest History standards would be released–each week came with another promise of “soon” as history teachers anxiously waited for the materials. With past updates, guidelines and substantial resources were provided well in advance to give teachers a chance to prepare students for the different standards, new test questions, and changed formulas, thus insulating students from sudden and unnecessary failures. The 2023 History standard revisions date back to Governor Youngkin’s Executive Order One and his decree that he would “restore excellence” to Virginia schools “without the influence of inherently divisive concepts.” But the reality was very different. His first Superintendent (Jillian Balow) and Secretary of Education Aimee Guidera threw out a draft of the history standards which had been  two years in preparation , included robust incorporation of parental and historian input, and which were ready to go. Instead of adopting the draft, in October 2022, the administration commissioned a secret rewrite . What they substituted was a haphazardly drafted and highly controversial  Hillsdale-esque version that took out many Black, Asian, immigrant, and women’s contributions to Virginia’s history, and inserted both developmentally inappropriate and sequentially problematic topics.  After a vocal uprising  from parents, stakeholders, history teachers, and historians, the initial Youngkin drafts were withdrawn and a not-quite-so-terrible, compromised set of standards was approved by the  Virginia Board of Education (VBOE) in April 2023.  Now, almost two years later, on March 26, 2025, Emily Anne Gullickson, the 3rd Superintendent in as many years, delivered her first presentation to the VBOE. In it, she promised the  guideline documents  necessary to implement those standards will be rolled out week by week across April 2025.  Each set of standards are mandated to be updated every 7 years. The Northam administration finished timely revisions of the History SOL in December 2021. Due to Youngkin’s unnecessary delay, we are now 10 years beyond when the 2015 History standards should have been revised.  Rumors as to why they are still not out  and are so late have included talk of the need to conform the standards to Trump’s most recent anti-DEI Executive Orders. At the March VBOE work session board member Anne Holton asked outright what happened, but Gullickson’s response, that they had been adding resources, left more questions than answers.  Adding to the confusion, during the delay, the VDOE once again removed Indigenous People’s Day  from the materials. It has since been added back in, but the change calls into question Gullickson’s assertions that they were only “adding resources.” In a letter co-signed by 12 organizations, the Virginia Social Studies Leadership Consortium asked VDOE to delay implementation of the standards for another year because Virginia’s teachers will not be able to prepare in time for the roll out in August of 2025. However, the department still plans to implement them in the coming year (2025-26)  There are three signature initiatives that Governor Youngkin believed would cement his reputation as the “education governor” and substantially overhaul the whole K-12 system. They are: Changing the core subject Standards of Learning to more reflect business and socially conservative values. Establishing school choice through Lab Schools and Private school Vouchers called Education Savings Accounts, and Creating the new Support Framework for Accreditation and Accountability, which would be “honest” about student and school failures. The Framework includes changing the curriculum tracks and the scoring formulas for all K-12 subjects. Besides the rewriting of the History and Social Studies standards, in the first two years of the Governor’s tenure, the VBOE has changed the Math and English Language sets of standards. Though the Math standards were announced as implemented in Fall 2024, approved textbooks and materials were not approved by the VBOE until March of 2025 , a short 5 weeks before actual SOL testing was to begin. Once again Youngkin left teachers and students without the necessary materials or time to perform well.  The English Language Standards were similarly changed a year ago, March 28, 2024 to be implemented during the 2024-25 academic year, with video support  being released on February 12, 2025, a week and a half into the second semester of the implementation year.  When they reach implementation, the Accountability Framework initiatives promise to be the deepest and most disruptive changes in Virginia’s K-12 education system since the introduction of the Standards of Learning and their yearly state tests  under Governor George Allen in 1997 . Like the Standards changes, the School Performance and Support Framework  was originally to be implemented the 2024-25 Academic year, then was postponed to begin data collection in January of 2025, but now is scheduled to roll out along with two new sets of standards, and an untitled change in score formulations in Fall of 2025. Aimee Guidera, the Secretary of Education who came to Virginia from Minnesota and her DC data collection business, has very much been involved in these last two Frameworks. The goal is to completely remake middle school and high school curricula and testing toward three tracks students will choose in 7th and 8th grades (Post HS schooling, Work, or Military) and raise the cut scores of the state tests to meet or exceed Proficient on the NAEP, the federal test given every three years to a relatively small sample of students . NAEP’s Proficient score  has long been established as a performance score above grade level. The expectation is once again that close to 70% of students will not meet the new cut scores and increased difficulty of the new tests, created for the newly established standards requirements. Although the VDOE is currently staffed with approximately 25 people  over the legal staffing limit, much of the Governor’s flagship initiatives have been developed by privatization consultant groups, some from outside Virginia, rather than by the VDOE or the numerous experts within Virginia’s highly regarded universities. However, several of the VBOE members appointed by Youngkin have a vested interest in the History Standards project, having long standing relationships with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute of Ohio and DC, which was  involved in the development of the standards  The Governor’s proposed budget amendments which would have funded much of his agenda. He called for $50 million to fund his Accountability Framework implementation, $15 million to fund his lab schools, and private school vouchers for an additional 5,000 students at $5,000 each or a total of $25 million. Fortunately, on April 2 in a one day session, the  legislature rejected most of his budget changes.  Many questions remain as the Governor, his VBOE, third Superintendent, and his data analysis Secretary approach their last nine months in office.  Will the guidelines tailored to meet President Trump’s anti-DEI directives actually follow the compromise History standards approved in April 2023, or push them farther back toward the mostly-white, “patriotic” history Youngkin originally tried to get approved?  Will the Accountability Frameworks set to fail a majority of Virginia’s students and communities reach implementation and be permanently established?  How hard will it be for the new Governor in January of 2026 and senior staff to deal with the fall out of 70% failure rates created by Governor Youngkin and his appointees?  There is little to be gained for Governor Youngkin and his appointees by implementing these last initiatives other than contriving a false proof of their earlier assertions that Virginia’s students and schools are not performing well. Yet, it is likely that neither the highly pro-privatization VBOE nor Governor Youngkin’s appointees will change course unless they are forced to. Time is closing in for both Youngkin’s agenda and for Virginia to avoid the threat those plans pose to Virginia school children and teachers.

At the Statehouse, March 31, 2025 On April 2nd the General Assembly will enter another session where legislators will decide on whether to accept, amend, or reject Governor Youngkin's recommended changes in legislative bills and amendments in the conference budget.  One would think that by his fourth and final year as Governor, Glenn Youngkin would recognize that the proven strategies and practices that improve academic achievement in public schools are not what he endorses for Virginia. Instead, the quality of public education in Virginia seems to be declining under his leadership , and his tendency to veto and amend changes to bills that have passed in the legislature, shows his lack of understanding on how to improve academic achievement. Or maybe he just doesn’t regard Virginia’ K-12 students. For example, the Governor heartlessly vetoed some essential bills including the bill  that would have provided mental health support and services in a culturally responsive and language-appropriate way to Virginia’s public school students. Also, the Governor amended the General Assembly's conference budget in ways that may be harmful to students, schools and communities if his amendments prevail, according to the Fund our Schools Coalition . He drastically reduced funding for school support staff, even after a bipartisan majority of state lawmakers passed a  bill that would lift the  cap  or limit on state funding for support staff. The arbitrary support cap that is still in effect was put in place in 2009  during the Great Recession and it is well past time that the limit is removed. The Governor’s amendment was for $84.8 million when legislators determined it would take $222.9 million to provide the state’s share of the needed additional 4,725 support staff to help students succeed in the classroom. Another part of this bill that has not been funded is better support for students with disabilities.  Instead of supporting those identified needs, the Governor proposed funding a   private school voucher program and an already ample rainy day fund . This was in spite of the fact that the legislature already rejected a number of school voucher bills in the 2025 session, a voucher proposal in 2023, and that there was negative press  on the subject.  The Governor’s insistence on this program was in conflict with what we know about vouchers. P olls show that private school vouchers  are highly unpopular among most Americans, do not tend to improve academic performance, can cause state budget overruns, tend to benefit the wealthy because low income families often can not pay the balance of the tuition (school vouchers would be $5,000 per student), and would use government money to support schools that discriminate against students. Yet Governor Youngkin insisted Virginia develop the program and amended the budget with $25m for that purpose in an apparent ongoing effort to privatize public schools.  Another disappointment was the Governor’s rejection of funds needed to update Virginia's school funding formula . He removed all funds budgeted by the legislature that would support a commission for revising the funding formula, again rejecting recommendations  by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) that Virginia needed to revise the K-12 funding formula. That commission reported that Virginia needs to change from the complicated staffing-based calculation to a simpler student-based calculation for funding schools. The Governor’s veto of that funding ($1 million) will set back the bipartisan effort to transform the calculation of public school funding with a formula that better reflects the needs of Virginia’s public school students and which also should improve academic performance.  Youngkin’s refusal to follow the recommendations made by JLARC flies in the face of the commission’s report that showed Virginia’s public schools are seriously underfunded. Instead the Governor ignores the evidence that academic achievement in K-12 is closely tied to funding of the schools. Yet rather than budgeting for what is known to raise academic performance, the Governor instead has initiated a new accountability system that is fraught with problems  and is unpopular with Virginians . This controversial accountability system  with a cost in 2026 of $25m would label schools as “off track” and “needs intensive support”, and would then provide support when he often makes unfounded claims that Virginia Schools are failing. Furthermore, the conference budget that was approved by the legislature budgeted no money for this purpose, although a bill to postpone implementation of the system beyond 2026 failed during the 2025 session.  Another of Youngkin’s pet projects that is  controversial  and that received no funding in the conference budget is for the Lab School program but that did not stop the Governor from proposing amendments to the conference budget with a $10m boost. Many object to Lab Schools because they divert funds from public schools and seem to have a bait and switch strategy. The original, approved plan for lab schools indicated only public colleges were eligible for the program  but it now appears to be open to private and even religious schools of higher education. As Ashley C. Kenneth , President and CEO of The Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis (TCI), notes “These are steps in the wrong direction” and seem to support the Governor’s agenda to privatize public schools .  “These are steps in the wrong direction.” - Ashley C. Kenneth, President and CEO of TCI On April 2nd, when the General Assembly returns, legislators will make decisions about Governor Youngkins recommended changes on legislative bills and amendments in the conference` budget. At that time, we hope that Legislators recognize that the Governor has proposed some unacceptable changes to their work. Public school advocates urge them to do what is best for Virginia’s public school students, and reject changes that undermine Virginia’s students, schools, and families.

Make Yourselves Heard on this Trans Day of Visibility Around the country, communities celebrated the Trans Day of Visibility (TDOV) in advance of March 31st. Nowhere was this more visible than in Fairfax County where proclamations involved celebrations of the trans community, in the shadow of attacks by the current administration and far right groups. Fairfax County Public Schools Proclamation March 27, 2025 Close to 200 people arrived to celebrate TDOV in a Unity Rally held by FCPS Pride and the Pride Liberation Project. People came from all over Fairfax County with homemade signs, rainbows, pink-white-and-blue trans flags, and love in their heart for transgender loved ones, neighbors, friends, and themselves. Following speeches by FCPS Pride and Transgender Education Association board members, and clergy like Reverend Emma Chattin and J.P. Hong, the crowd entered Luther Jackson to hear the proclamation by the Fairfax County School Board. Chairman Karl Frisch read a beautiful TDOV proclamation that reminded the crowd that transgender people have always been here and have made significant contributions beyond civil rights, such as those like neurobiologist Dr. Ben Barres, and Dr. Lynn Conway, an innovator in computer science. Despite all of these contributions, Chair Frisch reminded the crowd that in the first months of 2025, "nearly 700 anti-trans bills are under consideration in state legislatures, seeking to block access for transgender people to basic healthcare, housing, employment, education services, legal recognition, and more." "When he was ready to socially transition at school, we were terrified. But his friends, his school, and his theater community supported him in the best way they knew how. They respected his chosen name, his pronouns, and everything else about him. Overtime we watched him slowly bloom as he became his authentic self." - Christine McCormick, mother and co-leader of FCPS Pride After the proclamation and the obligatory chaotic photo opportunity (so many joyful people!), students and adults shared stories of transgender joy and success, despite the cloud of uncertainty for the future. Listen to their words to understand what it means to be transgender or the parent of a transgender child in this sometimes frightening world. Much appreciation to reporters from the Patch , FFX Now , and the Washington Blade for attending and providing beautiful coverage of this historic event. Media coverage of transgender joy and community support is an important part of being visible. Fairfax City Proclamation March 25, 2025 Reverend Emma Chattin shared this beautiful speech at the Fairfax City council proclamation in honor of the Trans Day of Visibility. Her words buoyed a community that is suffering right now, as transgender people and their families are denied basic civil rights to medical care, education, and their own names. As the Administration tries to prevent our transgender friends, family, and selves from legally existing, let us raise the rafters and be VISIBLE. I want to thank Mayor Catherine Read and every member of the Fairfax City council for this proclamation! These are some pretty words, and i have very little to add to them, except to say that these words mean something. They mean: we see you. You see us. The trans communities are a sliver of the population, less than 1%, somewhere between .4 and .6%. This means that in a room of 500, you may have only two or three trans people. And you would likely never know. Yet this community has been falsely singled out by misinformation and misunderstanding. Way too much time has been spent finger pointing at us. We are gentle, kind, and harmless people. Get to know one of us, and find out the challenges we face in life. And if you don’t know where to start, start with me. I like lunch. We are communities with well over 100 years of medical and scientific documentation. And we have always existed everywhere since the beginning of time. Among indigenous people, we are often regarded as healers, and people of wisdom who walk in many worlds. To paraphrase Shakespeare, we may be a small group small, but we are fierce. And we are not alone. We have friends, family, spouses, and allies here, strong fearless people who believe in the freedom of the human soul to find it’s place in community. Day of visibility? To paraphrase another writer: We are here. A person is a person, and people are people. Even if the group is small. Speak up for what is right, and make yourselves heard; speak up .. speak up… speak up … one and all! You can’t beat Dr. Seuss and in Horton hears a Who. You see us. You hear us. And this… this right here is visibility…. A moment where you see That we here…. we are people, friends and family.. We rise for equality… all groups, big and small And we give thanks for liberty, And a city that makes room… and is a safe place for all. Reverend Emma Chattin is the Pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church of Northern Virginia (MCC NoVA), a Church Home for all people, No Exceptions, No Kidding, Affirming and Celebrating LGBTIQQ Diversity: MCC Was Born That Way. She is also the Executive Director of the TransGender Education Association of Greater Washington, an education and community building organization Supporting Trans and Gender Expansive Individuals and the Communities in which They Live and Work. "Names are so important. They are a demonstration of love and support that we give to loved ones." - Reverend J.P. Hong

There are drastic changes ahead for public education in the United States and these changes can impact our K-12 students via radical, severe cuts to public education funding. The Trump administration and the 119th Congress are working to divest the US Department of Education (ED) of responsibility for K-12 public education and to give federal funding directly to the states, which means public education quality and funding will vary widely from state to state.  Likewise, the Educational Choice for Children Act bills ( S.292  and H.R. 833 ) are also detrimental. If they pass in Congress, these bills will provide  school vouchers  to families by way of a tax shelter that will provide a 100% reduction in tax liability up to $5,000 for parents who pay private school tuition or homeschool their children.   Although not yet federally mandated, 29 states and the District of Columbia currently have private school choice programs. Of those, programs that are available to all students  exist in 15 states. These programs include tax-credit scholarships, education savings accounts, vouchers, and tax-credit education savings accounts.   Virginia is one of the few states that has resisted school vouchers (for the most part), but in 2012, then-Governor McDonnell initiated a limited tax credit program  for charitable donations to scholarship funds. In 2025, five private school voucher bills were defeated in Virginia’s General Assembly, however, Governor Youngkin has not given up on getting $50 million for School Vouchers  in the 2026 budget, currently under consideration.  Of course, if S292 or HR833 passes, all states will have school voucher programs, and public education in the U.S. will be profoundly changed.   Why do we financially support public schools? We support public schools with our taxes because education is too important to our society to leave it to chance. Public education is a cornerstone of our democracy and a thriving democracy needs citizens to be educated. In addition to helping children become productive members of our society, public education provides the knowledge and skills to understand civic responsibilities and participate in the democratic process. A healthy democracy needs citizens who are engaged, can make well-informed decisions about their government, and have critical thinking skills so they can actively participate in the democratic process.   Public education is structured to serve everyone regardless of ethnic background, income status, physical or mental abilities, special education or accommodation needs, English language proficiency, or citizenship status. Also, public school buildings and employees tend to serve as anchors in communities.  In contrast, private schools can refuse to admit students and do not have the accountability, transparency, and oversight requirements that public schools have. If public education funds are redirected to private school vouchers, our government will be subsidizing  a system that is allowed to discriminate against students. Private schools are also not required to have licensed teachers, nor are they overseen by school boards with open meetings, unlike public schools. As a result, private school students are more vulnerable to discrimination, severe punishment, suspension, or even expulsion. Also, they are not required to provide special education support.  Funds from federal and state taxes have fueled mostly excellent public education  in our country. Nevertheless, there is a misconception that public schools are failing and this misinformation is being used to justify the need for private school vouchers. In one of the President’s  executive orders , he shared the disinformation that “too many children do not thrive in their assigned, government-run K-12 school” which precipitated his call for a federal private school voucher program. In fact, voucher programs have resulted in lower academic achievement  relative to public schools while vouchers can actually harm student achievement  and result in worse test scores .  Public education is freely available to every and all students. In contrast, vouchers seldom cover the total cost  of attending a private school and vouchers can be used by students already enrolled in private school.  For these reasons, vouchers are a greater financial  benefit to upper- income families  compared to those families that cannot afford to pay the tuition balance.   Rural communities depend heavily on public education and are less able to use school vouchers because those communities are so sparsely populated. Finally, private schools are not required to provide transportation, unlike public schools.   Why is there a push for school vouchers? The idea of  private school vouchers  was introduced by Milton Friedman in 1955 to allow children to attend for free the schools chosen by parents, rather than their designated neighborhood public school. Unsurprisingly, this concept coincided with the Brown v. Board of Education  decision that mandated the desegregation of public schools. What followed that court decision was  Massive Resistance , where many white families refused to send their children to integrated schools. Instead, numerous “ segregation academies ” were formed so families could send their children to all-white schools.   It was during Massive Resistance that Virginia  adopted a school voucher system  to help pay the tuition for non-sectarian segregated, private schools that accepted only white students. School vouchers enabled white families to use public funds for tuition at these segregated, private schools. At the same time, funding for public schools was reduced. It wasn’t until 1965 that it was determined to be against the law  to use vouchers from the state’s tuition grant program to fund schools that discriminated based on race.  Currently, some states already have school voucher programs , and some states (including Virginia) have fought against initiating voucher programs: 20 States have tax-credit scholarships, 16 States have education savings accounts, 10 States and the District of Columbia have vouchers, and two states have tax-credit education savings accounts.  If Congress passes S.292 and H.R. 833, all states will have school voucher programs funded with federal tax dollars that would have gone to public schools.  Reasons to Fight School Vouchers    Private school voucher programs could divert billions of dollars  away from already underfunded public schools and lead to the unacceptable privatization  of the public school system. Virginia is one of the few states that has fought hard to resist voucher programs and guards its public school funding. At the same time, Commonwealth funding has been documented as inadequate for the needs of Virginia’s children. Diversion of public school funds from federal contributions would further exacerbate the underfunding problem in Virginia and would be especially devastating to rural communities.  In practice, states may not realize the full cost of voucher programs until they are underway. For example, Arizona has what was considered a model voucher program , but a recent “budget meltdown ” occurred due to unanticipated expenses of the voucher program. Still, some states are modelling their voucher programs after Arizona’s, despite its fiscal failures. "As voucher systems expand, they cannibalize states’ ability to pay for their public education commitments. Arizona, which passed universal vouchers in 2022, is nearing a genuine budget crisis as a result of voucher over-spending. Six of the last seven states to pass vouchers have had to slow spending on public schools relative to investments made by non-voucher states.” - Josh Cowan , Professor of Education Policy at Michigan State University Often sold as a way to provide “school choice,” it is only the private school’s choice whether to accept or retain students. Private schools are not required to accept all students, and often will not accept students with learning or physical disabilities, English language learners, those living in poverty, those with challenging behaviors, or even those of particular ethnic backgrounds. Private school students have no guarantee that civil rights laws will be enforced, unlike public schools which must abide by civil rights laws.  Despite continued amplification that vouchers will improve education outcomes, there is no convincing evidence that this is true . Instead, it has been shown that redirecting tax dollars to private schools can lead to even worse academic outcomes  and can increase the gaps between the haves and have-nots. In other words, redirecting tax dollars to private schools has been shown to increase the achievement gap that some claim it will “fix.” The loss of essential funding to public schools may destabilize the schools that serve the vast majority of students, and it will be the most at-risk kids who are most vulnerable.  The National Coalition for Public Education  shares that studies of voucher programs show these programs are not only associated with steep declines in academic performance, but also can have an impact that is greater than natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana and the COVID-19 pandemic on academic performance. "Vouchers harm student achievement as much as natural disasters."  -   National Coalition for Public Education School vouchers remain  deeply unpopular  with the voting public. Polls conducted by  All4Ed, revealed that most voters, regardless of their age, race, gender, education level, political views, or geographic location in the United States, picked public schools over private schools. Also, more than two-thirds of voters chose to fund public schools over the availability of vouchers. Even the majority of Republicans preferred to spend federal funds on public schools over vouchers. Surprisingly, two-thirds of voters in states that voted overwhelmingly for President Trump picked public school funding over private school vouchers. “Public schools aren’t failing, they’re starving.” - First Focus on Children