This article was written in 2015 when changes in FCPS policy began. It provides historical reference.
Most parents and citizens of Fairfax County were surprised when the Fairfax County School Board decided to impose the topic of “gender identity” on the school system. Polls show that most people don’t think of “gender identity” and it is not a concern of voters. Less than one percent of the population is affected by gender confusion. Virtually everyone agrees that schools should insist on respectful and compassionate treatment of everyone. When the issue became public, the response to the school board was 3 to 1 opposed to bringing “gender identity” into the schools. So why did the Fairfax School Board feel it was necessary? The topic provides a case study of what has gone wrong with the current Fairfax School Board.
Partisan Politics – School Board Members campaign without a political party affiliation because children should not be used as pawns in partisan politics. Political party agendas should not have any part in policy decisions on the Board.
At the May 7 meeting, some members of the Fairfax School Board gave anecdotal stories of persons with “gender identity issues”, but no one suggested that existing policies and procedures were inadequate to address the needs of these individuals. No examples of discrimination were cited. In fact, the School Board bragged that Fairfax schools had shown tremendous sensitivity. Yet, the Board rushed through a policy to add non-discrimination based on gender identity to its policies. The Board acted without knowing the implications of the policy because they would need to hire an outside consultant to study the issue.
Was partisanship politics on display? In response to a request by VA State Senator Adam Ebbin (D-Alex), on March 4, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring issued an official Advisory Opinion reversing a 2002 Attorney General opinion that stated school boards do not have the authority to amend nondiscrimination policy. Only the State Assembly had that authority. AG Herring was asked specifically about “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”. The next day, on March 5, Ryan McElveen proposed a resolution to institutionalize Herring’s Advisory in Fairfax County, before the public was even aware of the opinion, giving the appearance of a coordinated campaign. Sen. Ebbin asks the question that AG Herring will answer in the affirmative and Mr. McElveen pushes it through the School Board. On May 7, the Board voted for the resolution despite two board members raising concerns that the process violated board rules and an overflow crowd of citizens opposing the resolution.
However, Ryan McElveen stated on May 7 that the impetus of the policy was a requirement from the US Department of Education that school board’s adopt a nondiscrimination policy on gender identity or lose federal funding for school lunches. The US Department of Justice is also pressuring school districts with threats of lawsuits. Other school districts have not moved to add “gender identity” to the non-discrimination policy and one would assume that federal regulations would apply to all school districts, even those without collaborative School Board members. In addition, while Mr. McElveen stated the threat, other members were unaware of the requirements.
Transparency – FCPS sends continuous emails to parents and teachers about logistical issues. No communication was sent to parents or teachers about the proposed change in the “nondiscrimination policy”. The public became aware through social media and only in time to respond the night of the vote. “Discussion” was limited to the usual 10 speakers who gave three-minute statements, followed by statements by the school board. There was no “dialogue” on the topic.
When a board member, Elizabeth Schultz, proposed to delay the vote in light of the community response, the need for community discussion, and the need to study the implications of the policy change, there was reluctance to even discuss her motion. Finally, Mr. Storck, who is retiring, seconded her motion to allow for discussion. Patty Reed, who arrived late, raised more objections to the rush for a vote without understanding the full implications and voted for the delay in the vote until the Fall. A reasonable suggestion to delay the vote was rejected. Some Board members stated no changes would occur as a result of the policy, that it was just codifying existing practice. Then why was there a need for a consultant?
The second issue on this topic arose two weeks later with a proposal to expand teaching on “gender development theory” and include it in 7th grade. The Family Life Education staff also proposed moving many topics that had been eligible for parent “opt out” to mandatory lessons. Why would the staff want to remove parents’ right to make decisions about their own children?
Parents as Partners – Parents know their children better than anyone. They know what topics their children are ready to hear and what will cause them confusion or anxiety. Parents must have a say whenever sensitive issues are being considered. Fairfax County has a very diverse population in terms of culture, religion and values. FCPS should not insult or violate the beliefs or customs of any student.
This obvious attempt to exclude parents raised outrage across the county. Ultimately, the School Board did allow some of the topics to remain optional with parental opposition allowed. They also voted to send parents hard copies of the “opt out” forms rather than require parents to find and download the forms on-line, making the “opt out” process a little easier. However, parents must still make extraordinary efforts to find out what is in the lessons. Learning objectives that are published are so vague and the wording so bland, it is impossible to know what actually is taught in the class.
If FCPS was truly concerned about having parents make the appropriate decisions for their children, they would make sure that they had an actual consent before providing sensitive material. Instead, if a parent does not send in a form for any reason, the school assumes consent. The school requires a number of forms before a child can attend FCPS, including health forms. There is no reason that they could not require a form that indicates a “yes” if the parent wants the child to participate and “no” if the parent does not. That would be the respectful way of assuring that it is a parent’s decision.
Local Control – Mr. McElveen reported at the May 7 Board Meeting that the “nondiscrimination policy” was being required by the Federal Department of Education. No information was given to the parents of what this requirement was and it had not been disclosed to the full board previously as a reason for the proposal. This is an often used “pass the buck” tactic of the current school board: “We have no choice, they are making us do it.”
The same argument was given to parents when staff proposed to implement new topics to the Family Life Education curriculum and remove some topics from parental control and make them mandatory lessons. Parents were told that it was a state mandate. A committee of parents compared Fairfax County requirements to State requirements and found that with a number of topics, the “state mandate” was not true.
Decisions on education should be made at the local level. The decision makers should be people that are closest to the children involved – parents, teachers, principals, school officials, School Board, County, State, Federal. Mandates from state and federal governments should be reviewed to assure that they are consistent with the needs of the children and families of Fairfax County. If they are in conflict, the School Board has an obligation to advocate for its students and resist mandates that are not consistent with their welfare. Budgetary needs are not always a sufficient reason for going along with a mandate. Fairfax students and families need leadership.
Cost – The School Board could not tell parents how the “nondiscrimination policy” would be implemented. They were going to hire a consultant to find out. How much will the consultant cost? What would be the qualifications of a consultant who could provide expert advice on this issue? How much will it cost to implement the suggestions from the consultant? The School Board could not tell parents or the citizens of Fairfax what would be taught about gender development theory. Again, they would have to hire a consultant? Who would this consultant be and what would be the qualifications of the consultant? How much would that consultant cost? How much would it cost to train the teachers who have not been trained on this issue? How much will it cost to train the school counselors to address the questions of students that have been raised by the class material?
Program – The fact that the School Board could not tell parents what would be taught in the class raises the legitimate question of whether they are proposing a theory that is scientifically sound or whether it is ideological. If the topic is something a seventh grader should learn and could understand, someone from the administration or board should be able to explain it in simple terms to parents.
It has been a growing concern that too much of the school day is being spent on topics and programs that do not legitimately belong in school. Some are controversial and are dependent on values systems and therefore should be left to the family. Some topics are inappropriate from a developmental point of view because they are offered before a child can understand the complexities of the topic or is emotionally ready to comprehend. Others are faddish programs that take up time that could be spent on the basics of reading, writing and math to bring up test scores.
Teachers Carry the Burden for Poor School Board Decisions – Teachers who are asked to teach lessons on “gender theory” will generally have little more preparation for the topic than a lesson plan or short training. The topic will be taught to an age group that is only beginning to consider and understand their sexuality. Brain research has given much information about the limitations of cognitive understanding for this age group. Teachers will be expected to deal with these student limitations and teach a topic that few adults understand or agree. The topic will generate much discussion with students and teachers will be expected to address all of their issues. The topic will unnecessarily raise some emotional concerns for a minority of children and teachers will be expected to deal with them. These questions will not be limited to the Family Life Education teacher, they will be raised in a number of classes, putting teachers in the position of answering questions that should be answered by parents or even mental health professionals. If a child is concerned about something he/she heard in class, it is the parent that will see it when the child is at home. The teacher who presented the material may never know about the inner turmoil that the class content has caused a child. It is the teacher who is on the front line with parents and who will have to deal with irate or troubled parents It is unfair to put teachers in that position. We can’t pay them enough.
In Summary, FCPS needs a School Board that refrains from partisan politics; is truly transparent so that all stakeholders can see, understand and have input in all policies and procedures affecting children; respect parents as partners in determining the best interest of children; keep decision-making at the local level and resist the imposition of mandates that run counter to the needs of Fairfax children; refrain from passing policies until adequate information on the fiscal cost is known; assure that the programs are appropriate and effective in meeting the stated objectives and needs of the children; and that does not burden teachers with programs that create conflict and problems for children and families.
For parents who would like scientific, non-ideological information on the topic of gender theory, a website of the American College of Pediatricians has a useful website: http://factsaboutyouth.com/
parentsoutofexile 