Predicted Enrollment Decline in FCPS Materializes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like language arts has been improved since covid. It was abysmal with Lucy Calkins. Hasn't this been an improvement? The math they change every 3 to 5 years so its harder to track. I thought they found a middle ground between too much acceleration and too little. For awhile the state was talking about not even allowing acceleration which backfired. To me either the state and/or school board has improved these subjects over the years if for no other reason than they were going downhill and they had to do something different.

Algebra in 6th is an example of too much acceleration. LA is atrocious at FCPS. They don’t teach anything!

So which is it? Do they teach too much math or not teach anything? Just because your kid isn't ready for Algebra in 6th doesn't mean all kids aren't. There is a large group of kids that are, enough to fill classrooms. Why hold them back just to be bored in class with your kid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K is always a smaller grade - there are some people who send right to 1st, they homeschool K, or stay at their preschool/day care that has a K program because the schedule is better.

But this shouldn’t be a surprise. We’re starting to be in the population “crunch” caused by the Great Recession. This isn’t necessarily the case in this area, but greater school choice in some areas has lead to falling public school enrollment. ABC News had an article today: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/enrollment-falls-districts-mull-schools-close-decisions-big-125880210

It should concern everyone that the teacher’s groups in these areas have successfully advocated for no school closures, even where enrollment is significantly down. It’s a look into our own futures. FCPS asking for more and more money, but not making any cuts despite the student population having peaked years earlier.

FCPS is spending budget dollars to fight a lawsuit over their choice to violate Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

How many times do we have to go over this?

The Trump Administration wants to ignore lower appellate court rulings and create conflicts for the Supreme Court to resolve, hoping that the Supreme Court will rule in its favor.

It leaves FCPS and other school districts in a Catch-22 where they can either comply with Trump's DOE and violate the civil rights of some students, according to the Fourth Circuit, or follow the law and see federal funding denied or delayed. If it violated a court ruling, it could be subject to civil monetary sanctions as well.

It would be one thing if FCPS was just striking out on its own and flouting both Trump's DOE and the Supreme Court, but that is not currently the case.

They’re off bass with their interpretation of the Grimm case and they know it.

Grimm’s case was very different than the FCPS policy. Grimm was under a doctor’s care and receiving therapy for gender dysphoria. Together with a doctor it was agreed that it was in his best interest to transition. The single occupancy stall near a nurse that he was offered was not adequate to take care of his basic biological needs and slow him to navigate the building as needed to attend classes on time.

He could not easily make it to and from the far and inconvenient single stall which led to multiple UTI’s from having to hold his urine so often.

He was approved for virtual summer PE so he never used or asked to use locker rooms.

The school upgraded the privacy of each bathroom to have partitions at urinals and stalls were given longer doors with shorter gaps in between to enhance privacy. So when the court asked the School Board how Grimm’s presence in the bathroom would impact anyone’s privacy, they were unable to answer. This was a key part of the ruling.

A locker room would have a very different legal outcome. It would lack the material harm (UTI) and there is actual privacy concern.

Self identifying and immediately being able to go to the locker room of your choice is not at all what this ruling had in mind.

There is a middle ground that will protect ALL students. It’s not what FCPS is doing by internally misconstruing the Grimm ruling.

They're going to overplay their hand and get this issue of biological boys in girls' spaces definitively banned by the SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like language arts has been improved since covid. It was abysmal with Lucy Calkins. Hasn't this been an improvement? The math they change every 3 to 5 years so its harder to track. I thought they found a middle ground between too much acceleration and too little. For awhile the state was talking about not even allowing acceleration which backfired. To me either the state and/or school board has improved these subjects over the years if for no other reason than they were going downhill and they had to do something different.

Algebra in 6th is an example of too much acceleration. LA is atrocious at FCPS. They don’t teach anything!

So which is it? Do they teach too much math or not teach anything? Just because your kid isn't ready for Algebra in 6th doesn't mean all kids aren't. There is a large group of kids that are, enough to fill classrooms. Why hold them back just to be bored in class with your kid?

You seem unaware that most kids are not showing readiness for this but that it’s going to be implanted for all.

I’m all for accelerating kids who need it. That’s what AAP was supposed to be for, but they are mismanaging AAP in the name of equity so you also have a sizable amount of AAP kids not ready for algebra is 6 but gen ed students who are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When asked about the enrollment decline at last night’s board meeting, Reid said that they’re working to create online options for students who don’t feel comfortable coming to school anymore. How much is that going to cost and it is frustrating that they plan to do this while crying poverty all the time.

What is the source of the “discomfort”?

All the people pulling out to homeschool for various reasons. Also kids who are victims of bullying in the schools.

I don’t think that’s what she meant. I’m guessing it’s ice enforcement.

Lol they’re so out of touch. Look at the attendance statistics of lower income and ESOL groups from COVID times. They might as well be saying, we know you’re not attending and you won’t be attending virtually either but please stay enrolled so we still have your student $$$ and don’t have to make cuts.

So? Isn’t that what we all want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like language arts has been improved since covid. It was abysmal with Lucy Calkins. Hasn't this been an improvement? The math they change every 3 to 5 years so its harder to track. I thought they found a middle ground between too much acceleration and too little. For awhile the state was talking about not even allowing acceleration which backfired. To me either the state and/or school board has improved these subjects over the years if for no other reason than they were going downhill and they had to do something different.

Algebra in 6th is an example of too much acceleration. LA is atrocious at FCPS. They don’t teach anything!

So which is it? Do they teach too much math or not teach anything? Just because your kid isn't ready for Algebra in 6th doesn't mean all kids aren't. There is a large group of kids that are, enough to fill classrooms. Why hold them back just to be bored in class with your kid?

DP - I don’t love the idea of virtual 6th grade algebra from a learning standpoint, but I do like the fact that they are at least trying something to bring 6th grade algebra to all qualifying students at all schools. It sounded like previously, it was sort of a school by school, case by case basis thing. But there are talented math students at all the elementary schools. My coworker’s son went to TJ from Twain Middle in Alexandria. I’m sure he could have done 6th grade algebra, but who knows if it was offered to him under the old system?

I grew up in a small yet pretty affluent district in the Midwest and we had a small number of students in 6th grade algebra every year too (I would guess around 5, maybe 10 at most out of a class of roughly 175?) It did create a small problem when they had to go to the HS for math in 8th grade, but they made it work and it was fine. So it’s not even some crazy new thing either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K is always a smaller grade - there are some people who send right to 1st, they homeschool K, or stay at their preschool/day care that has a K program because the schedule is better.

But this shouldn’t be a surprise. We’re starting to be in the population “crunch” caused by the Great Recession. This isn’t necessarily the case in this area, but greater school choice in some areas has lead to falling public school enrollment. ABC News had an article today: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/enrollment-falls-districts-mull-schools-close-decisions-big-125880210

It should concern everyone that the teacher’s groups in these areas have successfully advocated for no school closures, even where enrollment is significantly down. It’s a look into our own futures. FCPS asking for more and more money, but not making any cuts despite the student population having peaked years earlier.

FCPS is spending budget dollars to fight a lawsuit over their choice to violate Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

How many times do we have to go over this?

The Trump Administration wants to ignore lower appellate court rulings and create conflicts for the Supreme Court to resolve, hoping that the Supreme Court will rule in its favor.

It leaves FCPS and other school districts in a Catch-22 where they can either comply with Trump's DOE and violate the civil rights of some students, according to the Fourth Circuit, or follow the law and see federal funding denied or delayed. If it violated a court ruling, it could be subject to civil monetary sanctions as well.

It would be one thing if FCPS was just striking out on its own and flouting both Trump's DOE and the Supreme Court, but that is not currently the case.

They’re off bass with their interpretation of the Grimm case and they know it.

Grimm’s case was very different than the FCPS policy. Grimm was under a doctor’s care and receiving therapy for gender dysphoria. Together with a doctor it was agreed that it was in his best interest to transition. The single occupancy stall near a nurse that he was offered was not adequate to take care of his basic biological needs and slow him to navigate the building as needed to attend classes on time.

He could not easily make it to and from the far and inconvenient single stall which led to multiple UTI’s from having to hold his urine so often.

He was approved for virtual summer PE so he never used or asked to use locker rooms.

The school upgraded the privacy of each bathroom to have partitions at urinals and stalls were given longer doors with shorter gaps in between to enhance privacy. So when the court asked the School Board how Grimm’s presence in the bathroom would impact anyone’s privacy, they were unable to answer. This was a key part of the ruling.

A locker room would have a very different legal outcome. It would lack the material harm (UTI) and there is actual privacy concern.

Self identifying and immediately being able to go to the locker room of your choice is not at all what this ruling had in mind.

There is a middle ground that will protect ALL students. It’s not what FCPS is doing by internally misconstruing the Grimm ruling.

They're going to overplay their hand and get this issue of biological boys in girls' spaces definitively banned by the SCOTUS.

That’s exactly what is going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K is always a smaller grade - there are some people who send right to 1st, they homeschool K, or stay at their preschool/day care that has a K program because the schedule is better.

But this shouldn’t be a surprise. We’re starting to be in the population “crunch” caused by the Great Recession. This isn’t necessarily the case in this area, but greater school choice in some areas has lead to falling public school enrollment. ABC News had an article today: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/enrollment-falls-districts-mull-schools-close-decisions-big-125880210

It should concern everyone that the teacher’s groups in these areas have successfully advocated for no school closures, even where enrollment is significantly down. It’s a look into our own futures. FCPS asking for more and more money, but not making any cuts despite the student population having peaked years earlier.

FCPS is spending budget dollars to fight a lawsuit over their choice to violate Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

How many times do we have to go over this?

The Trump Administration wants to ignore lower appellate court rulings and create conflicts for the Supreme Court to resolve, hoping that the Supreme Court will rule in its favor.

It leaves FCPS and other school districts in a Catch-22 where they can either comply with Trump's DOE and violate the civil rights of some students, according to the Fourth Circuit, or follow the law and see federal funding denied or delayed. If it violated a court ruling, it could be subject to civil monetary sanctions as well.

It would be one thing if FCPS was just striking out on its own and flouting both Trump's DOE and the Supreme Court, but that is not currently the case.

They’re off bass with their interpretation of the Grimm case and they know it.

Grimm’s case was very different than the FCPS policy. Grimm was under a doctor’s care and receiving therapy for gender dysphoria. Together with a doctor it was agreed that it was in his best interest to transition. The single occupancy stall near a nurse that he was offered was not adequate to take care of his basic biological needs and slow him to navigate the building as needed to attend classes on time.

He could not easily make it to and from the far and inconvenient single stall which led to multiple UTI’s from having to hold his urine so often.

He was approved for virtual summer PE so he never used or asked to use locker rooms.

The school upgraded the privacy of each bathroom to have partitions at urinals and stalls were given longer doors with shorter gaps in between to enhance privacy. So when the court asked the School Board how Grimm’s presence in the bathroom would impact anyone’s privacy, they were unable to answer. This was a key part of the ruling.

A locker room would have a very different legal outcome. It would lack the material harm (UTI) and there is actual privacy concern.

Self identifying and immediately being able to go to the locker room of your choice is not at all what this ruling had in mind.

There is a middle ground that will protect ALL students. It’s not what FCPS is doing by internally misconstruing the Grimm ruling.

Facts and circumstances can be different, and yet the governing principle remain the same. Other school districts have construed the Grimm holding similarly to FCPS.

At present, the law in the Fourth Circuit is that "claims of discrimination on the basis of transgender status are per se actionable [under Title IX] under a gender stereotyping theory," and that alleged school policies that discriminate against transgender students are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

In reaching those conclusions, the Fourth Circuit cited prior decisions of other courts that dealt not just with bathroom policies, but also locker room policies. It concluded:

"The proudest moments of the federal judiciary have been when we affirm the burgeoning values of our bright youth, rather than preserve the prejudices of the past...How shallow a promise of equal protection that would not protect Grimm from the fantastical fears and ubfounded prejudices of his adult community."

The Supreme Court may yet hold that the distinctions you make are significant enough to reach a different conclusion than the Grimm court reached, or that Grimm was wrongly decided, but it has not done so yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K is always a smaller grade - there are some people who send right to 1st, they homeschool K, or stay at their preschool/day care that has a K program because the schedule is better.

But this shouldn’t be a surprise. We’re starting to be in the population “crunch” caused by the Great Recession. This isn’t necessarily the case in this area, but greater school choice in some areas has lead to falling public school enrollment. ABC News had an article today: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/enrollment-falls-districts-mull-schools-close-decisions-big-125880210

It should concern everyone that the teacher’s groups in these areas have successfully advocated for no school closures, even where enrollment is significantly down. It’s a look into our own futures. FCPS asking for more and more money, but not making any cuts despite the student population having peaked years earlier.

FCPS is spending budget dollars to fight a lawsuit over their choice to violate Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

How many times do we have to go over this?

The Trump Administration wants to ignore lower appellate court rulings and create conflicts for the Supreme Court to resolve, hoping that the Supreme Court will rule in its favor.

It leaves FCPS and other school districts in a Catch-22 where they can either comply with Trump's DOE and violate the civil rights of some students, according to the Fourth Circuit, or follow the law and see federal funding denied or delayed. If it violated a court ruling, it could be subject to civil monetary sanctions as well.

It would be one thing if FCPS was just striking out on its own and flouting both Trump's DOE and the Supreme Court, but that is not currently the case.

They’re off bass with their interpretation of the Grimm case and they know it.

Grimm’s case was very different than the FCPS policy. Grimm was under a doctor’s care and receiving therapy for gender dysphoria. Together with a doctor it was agreed that it was in his best interest to transition. The single occupancy stall near a nurse that he was offered was not adequate to take care of his basic biological needs and slow him to navigate the building as needed to attend classes on time.

He could not easily make it to and from the far and inconvenient single stall which led to multiple UTI’s from having to hold his urine so often.

He was approved for virtual summer PE so he never used or asked to use locker rooms.

The school upgraded the privacy of each bathroom to have partitions at urinals and stalls were given longer doors with shorter gaps in between to enhance privacy. So when the court asked the School Board how Grimm’s presence in the bathroom would impact anyone’s privacy, they were unable to answer. This was a key part of the ruling.

A locker room would have a very different legal outcome. It would lack the material harm (UTI) and there is actual privacy concern.

Self identifying and immediately being able to go to the locker room of your choice is not at all what this ruling had in mind.

There is a middle ground that will protect ALL students. It’s not what FCPS is doing by internally misconstruing the Grimm ruling.

Facts and circumstances can be different, and yet the governing principle remain the same. Other school districts have construed the Grimm holding similarly to FCPS.

At present, the law in the Fourth Circuit is that "claims of discrimination on the basis of transgender status are per se actionable [under Title IX] under a gender stereotyping theory," and that alleged school policies that discriminate against transgender students are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

In reaching those conclusions, the Fourth Circuit cited prior decisions of other courts that dealt not just with bathroom policies, but also locker room policies. It concluded:

"The proudest moments of the federal judiciary have been when we affirm the burgeoning values of our bright youth, rather than preserve the prejudices of the past...How shallow a promise of equal protection that would not protect Grimm from the fantastical fears and ubfounded prejudices of his adult community."

The Supreme Court may yet hold that the distinctions you make are significant enough to reach a different conclusion than the Grimm court reached, or that Grimm was wrongly decided, but it has not done so yet.

And FCPS or LCPS is going to hand deliver to the Supreme Court the case on a silver platter to topple it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K is always a smaller grade - there are some people who send right to 1st, they homeschool K, or stay at their preschool/day care that has a K program because the schedule is better.

But this shouldn’t be a surprise. We’re starting to be in the population “crunch” caused by the Great Recession. This isn’t necessarily the case in this area, but greater school choice in some areas has lead to falling public school enrollment. ABC News had an article today: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/enrollment-falls-districts-mull-schools-close-decisions-big-125880210

It should concern everyone that the teacher’s groups in these areas have successfully advocated for no school closures, even where enrollment is significantly down. It’s a look into our own futures. FCPS asking for more and more money, but not making any cuts despite the student population having peaked years earlier.

FCPS is spending budget dollars to fight a lawsuit over their choice to violate Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

How many times do we have to go over this?

The Trump Administration wants to ignore lower appellate court rulings and create conflicts for the Supreme Court to resolve, hoping that the Supreme Court will rule in its favor.

It leaves FCPS and other school districts in a Catch-22 where they can either comply with Trump's DOE and violate the civil rights of some students, according to the Fourth Circuit, or follow the law and see federal funding denied or delayed. If it violated a court ruling, it could be subject to civil monetary sanctions as well.

It would be one thing if FCPS was just striking out on its own and flouting both Trump's DOE and the Supreme Court, but that is not currently the case.

They’re off bass with their interpretation of the Grimm case and they know it.

Grimm’s case was very different than the FCPS policy. Grimm was under a doctor’s care and receiving therapy for gender dysphoria. Together with a doctor it was agreed that it was in his best interest to transition. The single occupancy stall near a nurse that he was offered was not adequate to take care of his basic biological needs and slow him to navigate the building as needed to attend classes on time.

He could not easily make it to and from the far and inconvenient single stall which led to multiple UTI’s from having to hold his urine so often.

He was approved for virtual summer PE so he never used or asked to use locker rooms.

The school upgraded the privacy of each bathroom to have partitions at urinals and stalls were given longer doors with shorter gaps in between to enhance privacy. So when the court asked the School Board how Grimm’s presence in the bathroom would impact anyone’s privacy, they were unable to answer. This was a key part of the ruling.

A locker room would have a very different legal outcome. It would lack the material harm (UTI) and there is actual privacy concern.

Self identifying and immediately being able to go to the locker room of your choice is not at all what this ruling had in mind.

There is a middle ground that will protect ALL students. It’s not what FCPS is doing by internally misconstruing the Grimm ruling.

Facts and circumstances can be different, and yet the governing principle remain the same. Other school districts have construed the Grimm holding similarly to FCPS.

At present, the law in the Fourth Circuit is that "claims of discrimination on the basis of transgender status are per se actionable [under Title IX] under a gender stereotyping theory," and that alleged school policies that discriminate against transgender students are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

In reaching those conclusions, the Fourth Circuit cited prior decisions of other courts that dealt not just with bathroom policies, but also locker room policies. It concluded:

"The proudest moments of the federal judiciary have been when we affirm the burgeoning values of our bright youth, rather than preserve the prejudices of the past...How shallow a promise of equal protection that would not protect Grimm from the fantastical fears and ubfounded prejudices of his adult community."

The Supreme Court may yet hold that the distinctions you make are significant enough to reach a different conclusion than the Grimm court reached, or that Grimm was wrongly decided, but it has not done so yet.

And FCPS or LCPS is going to hand deliver to the Supreme Court the case on a silver platter to topple it all.

There is already a split between the Fourth and the Eleventh Circuit, so the Supreme Court will have an opportunity to take this up whenever it wants. It doesn't depend on FCPS or LCPS following what they think Grimm requires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K is always a smaller grade - there are some people who send right to 1st, they homeschool K, or stay at their preschool/day care that has a K program because the schedule is better.

But this shouldn’t be a surprise. We’re starting to be in the population “crunch” caused by the Great Recession. This isn’t necessarily the case in this area, but greater school choice in some areas has lead to falling public school enrollment. ABC News had an article today: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/enrollment-falls-districts-mull-schools-close-decisions-big-125880210

It should concern everyone that the teacher’s groups in these areas have successfully advocated for no school closures, even where enrollment is significantly down. It’s a look into our own futures. FCPS asking for more and more money, but not making any cuts despite the student population having peaked years earlier.

FCPS is spending budget dollars to fight a lawsuit over their choice to violate Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

How many times do we have to go over this?

The Trump Administration wants to ignore lower appellate court rulings and create conflicts for the Supreme Court to resolve, hoping that the Supreme Court will rule in its favor.

It leaves FCPS and other school districts in a Catch-22 where they can either comply with Trump's DOE and violate the civil rights of some students, according to the Fourth Circuit, or follow the law and see federal funding denied or delayed. If it violated a court ruling, it could be subject to civil monetary sanctions as well.

It would be one thing if FCPS was just striking out on its own and flouting both Trump's DOE and the Supreme Court, but that is not currently the case.

They’re off bass with their interpretation of the Grimm case and they know it.

Grimm’s case was very different than the FCPS policy. Grimm was under a doctor’s care and receiving therapy for gender dysphoria. Together with a doctor it was agreed that it was in his best interest to transition. The single occupancy stall near a nurse that he was offered was not adequate to take care of his basic biological needs and slow him to navigate the building as needed to attend classes on time.

He could not easily make it to and from the far and inconvenient single stall which led to multiple UTI’s from having to hold his urine so often.

He was approved for virtual summer PE so he never used or asked to use locker rooms.

The school upgraded the privacy of each bathroom to have partitions at urinals and stalls were given longer doors with shorter gaps in between to enhance privacy. So when the court asked the School Board how Grimm’s presence in the bathroom would impact anyone’s privacy, they were unable to answer. This was a key part of the ruling.

A locker room would have a very different legal outcome. It would lack the material harm (UTI) and there is actual privacy concern.

Self identifying and immediately being able to go to the locker room of your choice is not at all what this ruling had in mind.

There is a middle ground that will protect ALL students. It’s not what FCPS is doing by internally misconstruing the Grimm ruling.

Facts and circumstances can be different, and yet the governing principle remain the same. Other school districts have construed the Grimm holding similarly to FCPS.

At present, the law in the Fourth Circuit is that "claims of discrimination on the basis of transgender status are per se actionable [under Title IX] under a gender stereotyping theory," and that alleged school policies that discriminate against transgender students are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

In reaching those conclusions, the Fourth Circuit cited prior decisions of other courts that dealt not just with bathroom policies, but also locker room policies. It concluded:

"The proudest moments of the federal judiciary have been when we affirm the burgeoning values of our bright youth, rather than preserve the prejudices of the past...How shallow a promise of equal protection that would not protect Grimm from the fantastical fears and ubfounded prejudices of his adult community."

The Supreme Court may yet hold that the distinctions you make are significant enough to reach a different conclusion than the Grimm court reached, or that Grimm was wrongly decided, but it has not done so yet.

The appeals court found that the school board could not exclude Grimm from the boys’ bathrooms without referencing his “biological gender” under the policy, which it had defined as the sex marker on his amended birth certificate.

The 4th Circuit reasoned that because Grimm’s sex was a “but for” cause for the board’s actions, the board's policy excluded Grimm from the boys’ restrooms “on the basis of sex.”

Not the same as deciding one day and being admitted access to opposite gender facilities.

Grimm’s transgender status was defined by having received transgender health care and going the legal process of gender transition.

That’s not what FCPS policy follows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K is always a smaller grade - there are some people who send right to 1st, they homeschool K, or stay at their preschool/day care that has a K program because the schedule is better.

But this shouldn’t be a surprise. We’re starting to be in the population “crunch” caused by the Great Recession. This isn’t necessarily the case in this area, but greater school choice in some areas has lead to falling public school enrollment. ABC News had an article today: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/enrollment-falls-districts-mull-schools-close-decisions-big-125880210

It should concern everyone that the teacher’s groups in these areas have successfully advocated for no school closures, even where enrollment is significantly down. It’s a look into our own futures. FCPS asking for more and more money, but not making any cuts despite the student population having peaked years earlier.

FCPS is spending budget dollars to fight a lawsuit over their choice to violate Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

How many times do we have to go over this?

The Trump Administration wants to ignore lower appellate court rulings and create conflicts for the Supreme Court to resolve, hoping that the Supreme Court will rule in its favor.

It leaves FCPS and other school districts in a Catch-22 where they can either comply with Trump's DOE and violate the civil rights of some students, according to the Fourth Circuit, or follow the law and see federal funding denied or delayed. If it violated a court ruling, it could be subject to civil monetary sanctions as well.

It would be one thing if FCPS was just striking out on its own and flouting both Trump's DOE and the Supreme Court, but that is not currently the case.

They’re off bass with their interpretation of the Grimm case and they know it.

Grimm’s case was very different than the FCPS policy. Grimm was under a doctor’s care and receiving therapy for gender dysphoria. Together with a doctor it was agreed that it was in his best interest to transition. The single occupancy stall near a nurse that he was offered was not adequate to take care of his basic biological needs and slow him to navigate the building as needed to attend classes on time.

He could not easily make it to and from the far and inconvenient single stall which led to multiple UTI’s from having to hold his urine so often.

He was approved for virtual summer PE so he never used or asked to use locker rooms.

The school upgraded the privacy of each bathroom to have partitions at urinals and stalls were given longer doors with shorter gaps in between to enhance privacy. So when the court asked the School Board how Grimm’s presence in the bathroom would impact anyone’s privacy, they were unable to answer. This was a key part of the ruling.

A locker room would have a very different legal outcome. It would lack the material harm (UTI) and there is actual privacy concern.

Self identifying and immediately being able to go to the locker room of your choice is not at all what this ruling had in mind.

There is a middle ground that will protect ALL students. It’s not what FCPS is doing by internally misconstruing the Grimm ruling.

Facts and circumstances can be different, and yet the governing principle remain the same. Other school districts have construed the Grimm holding similarly to FCPS.

At present, the law in the Fourth Circuit is that "claims of discrimination on the basis of transgender status are per se actionable [under Title IX] under a gender stereotyping theory," and that alleged school policies that discriminate against transgender students are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

In reaching those conclusions, the Fourth Circuit cited prior decisions of other courts that dealt not just with bathroom policies, but also locker room policies. It concluded:

"The proudest moments of the federal judiciary have been when we affirm the burgeoning values of our bright youth, rather than preserve the prejudices of the past...How shallow a promise of equal protection that would not protect Grimm from the fantastical fears and ubfounded prejudices of his adult community."

The Supreme Court may yet hold that the distinctions you make are significant enough to reach a different conclusion than the Grimm court reached, or that Grimm was wrongly decided, but it has not done so yet.

The appeals court found that the school board could not exclude Grimm from the boys’ bathrooms without referencing his “biological gender” under the policy, which it had defined as the sex marker on his amended birth certificate.

The 4th Circuit reasoned that because Grimm’s sex was a “but for” cause for the board’s actions, the board's policy excluded Grimm from the boys’ restrooms “on the basis of sex.”

Not the same as deciding one day and being admitted access to opposite gender facilities.

Grimm’s transgender status was defined by having received transgender health care and going the legal process of gender transition.

That’s not what FCPS policy follows.

The group that has the influence on the School Board thinks that anyone that says they are trans is trans. And, that we need to put their wishes and claims above the rest of the students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K is always a smaller grade - there are some people who send right to 1st, they homeschool K, or stay at their preschool/day care that has a K program because the schedule is better.

But this shouldn’t be a surprise. We’re starting to be in the population “crunch” caused by the Great Recession. This isn’t necessarily the case in this area, but greater school choice in some areas has lead to falling public school enrollment. ABC News had an article today: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/enrollment-falls-districts-mull-schools-close-decisions-big-125880210

It should concern everyone that the teacher’s groups in these areas have successfully advocated for no school closures, even where enrollment is significantly down. It’s a look into our own futures. FCPS asking for more and more money, but not making any cuts despite the student population having peaked years earlier.

FCPS is spending budget dollars to fight a lawsuit over their choice to violate Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

How many times do we have to go over this?

The Trump Administration wants to ignore lower appellate court rulings and create conflicts for the Supreme Court to resolve, hoping that the Supreme Court will rule in its favor.

It leaves FCPS and other school districts in a Catch-22 where they can either comply with Trump's DOE and violate the civil rights of some students, according to the Fourth Circuit, or follow the law and see federal funding denied or delayed. If it violated a court ruling, it could be subject to civil monetary sanctions as well.

It would be one thing if FCPS was just striking out on its own and flouting both Trump's DOE and the Supreme Court, but that is not currently the case.

They’re off bass with their interpretation of the Grimm case and they know it.

Grimm’s case was very different than the FCPS policy. Grimm was under a doctor’s care and receiving therapy for gender dysphoria. Together with a doctor it was agreed that it was in his best interest to transition. The single occupancy stall near a nurse that he was offered was not adequate to take care of his basic biological needs and slow him to navigate the building as needed to attend classes on time.

He could not easily make it to and from the far and inconvenient single stall which led to multiple UTI’s from having to hold his urine so often.

He was approved for virtual summer PE so he never used or asked to use locker rooms.

The school upgraded the privacy of each bathroom to have partitions at urinals and stalls were given longer doors with shorter gaps in between to enhance privacy. So when the court asked the School Board how Grimm’s presence in the bathroom would impact anyone’s privacy, they were unable to answer. This was a key part of the ruling.

A locker room would have a very different legal outcome. It would lack the material harm (UTI) and there is actual privacy concern.

Self identifying and immediately being able to go to the locker room of your choice is not at all what this ruling had in mind.

There is a middle ground that will protect ALL students. It’s not what FCPS is doing by internally misconstruing the Grimm ruling.

Facts and circumstances can be different, and yet the governing principle remain the same. Other school districts have construed the Grimm holding similarly to FCPS.

At present, the law in the Fourth Circuit is that "claims of discrimination on the basis of transgender status are per se actionable [under Title IX] under a gender stereotyping theory," and that alleged school policies that discriminate against transgender students are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

In reaching those conclusions, the Fourth Circuit cited prior decisions of other courts that dealt not just with bathroom policies, but also locker room policies. It concluded:

"The proudest moments of the federal judiciary have been when we affirm the burgeoning values of our bright youth, rather than preserve the prejudices of the past...How shallow a promise of equal protection that would not protect Grimm from the fantastical fears and ubfounded prejudices of his adult community."

The Supreme Court may yet hold that the distinctions you make are significant enough to reach a different conclusion than the Grimm court reached, or that Grimm was wrongly decided, but it has not done so yet.

The appeals court found that the school board could not exclude Grimm from the boys’ bathrooms without referencing his “biological gender” under the policy, which it had defined as the sex marker on his amended birth certificate.

The 4th Circuit reasoned that because Grimm’s sex was a “but for” cause for the board’s actions, the board's policy excluded Grimm from the boys’ restrooms “on the basis of sex.”

Not the same as deciding one day and being admitted access to opposite gender facilities.

Grimm’s transgender status was defined by having received transgender health care and going the legal process of gender transition.

That’s not what FCPS policy follows.

The group that has the influence on the School Board thinks that anyone that says they are trans is trans. And, that we need to put their wishes and claims above the rest of the students.

Your beef - that transgender rights unfairly get elevated over the wishes of the "majority" - is exactly the type of argument that the Fourth Circuit viewed as prejudicial and damaging to trans kids.

I don't really think there are many "trans kids for a day" as you want to suggest, but in any event, it's a big stretch to imply FCPS's position on what Grimm requires is a major contributor to the big enrollment drop since June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K is always a smaller grade - there are some people who send right to 1st, they homeschool K, or stay at their preschool/day care that has a K program because the schedule is better.

But this shouldn’t be a surprise. We’re starting to be in the population “crunch” caused by the Great Recession. This isn’t necessarily the case in this area, but greater school choice in some areas has lead to falling public school enrollment. ABC News had an article today: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/enrollment-falls-districts-mull-schools-close-decisions-big-125880210

It should concern everyone that the teacher’s groups in these areas have successfully advocated for no school closures, even where enrollment is significantly down. It’s a look into our own futures. FCPS asking for more and more money, but not making any cuts despite the student population having peaked years earlier.

FCPS is spending budget dollars to fight a lawsuit over their choice to violate Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

How many times do we have to go over this?

The Trump Administration wants to ignore lower appellate court rulings and create conflicts for the Supreme Court to resolve, hoping that the Supreme Court will rule in its favor.

It leaves FCPS and other school districts in a Catch-22 where they can either comply with Trump's DOE and violate the civil rights of some students, according to the Fourth Circuit, or follow the law and see federal funding denied or delayed. If it violated a court ruling, it could be subject to civil monetary sanctions as well.

It would be one thing if FCPS was just striking out on its own and flouting both Trump's DOE and the Supreme Court, but that is not currently the case.

They’re off bass with their interpretation of the Grimm case and they know it.

Grimm’s case was very different than the FCPS policy. Grimm was under a doctor’s care and receiving therapy for gender dysphoria. Together with a doctor it was agreed that it was in his best interest to transition. The single occupancy stall near a nurse that he was offered was not adequate to take care of his basic biological needs and slow him to navigate the building as needed to attend classes on time.

He could not easily make it to and from the far and inconvenient single stall which led to multiple UTI’s from having to hold his urine so often.

He was approved for virtual summer PE so he never used or asked to use locker rooms.

The school upgraded the privacy of each bathroom to have partitions at urinals and stalls were given longer doors with shorter gaps in between to enhance privacy. So when the court asked the School Board how Grimm’s presence in the bathroom would impact anyone’s privacy, they were unable to answer. This was a key part of the ruling.

A locker room would have a very different legal outcome. It would lack the material harm (UTI) and there is actual privacy concern.

Self identifying and immediately being able to go to the locker room of your choice is not at all what this ruling had in mind.

There is a middle ground that will protect ALL students. It’s not what FCPS is doing by internally misconstruing the Grimm ruling.

Facts and circumstances can be different, and yet the governing principle remain the same. Other school districts have construed the Grimm holding similarly to FCPS.

At present, the law in the Fourth Circuit is that "claims of discrimination on the basis of transgender status are per se actionable [under Title IX] under a gender stereotyping theory," and that alleged school policies that discriminate against transgender students are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

In reaching those conclusions, the Fourth Circuit cited prior decisions of other courts that dealt not just with bathroom policies, but also locker room policies. It concluded:

"The proudest moments of the federal judiciary have been when we affirm the burgeoning values of our bright youth, rather than preserve the prejudices of the past...How shallow a promise of equal protection that would not protect Grimm from the fantastical fears and ubfounded prejudices of his adult community."

The Supreme Court may yet hold that the distinctions you make are significant enough to reach a different conclusion than the Grimm court reached, or that Grimm was wrongly decided, but it has not done so yet.

The appeals court found that the school board could not exclude Grimm from the boys’ bathrooms without referencing his “biological gender” under the policy, which it had defined as the sex marker on his amended birth certificate.

The 4th Circuit reasoned that because Grimm’s sex was a “but for” cause for the board’s actions, the board's policy excluded Grimm from the boys’ restrooms “on the basis of sex.”

Not the same as deciding one day and being admitted access to opposite gender facilities.

Grimm’s transgender status was defined by having received transgender health care and going the legal process of gender transition.

That’s not what FCPS policy follows.

The group that has the influence on the School Board thinks that anyone that says they are trans is trans. And, that we need to put their wishes and claims above the rest of the students.

Your beef - that transgender rights unfairly get elevated over the wishes of the "majority" - is exactly the type of argument that the Fourth Circuit viewed as prejudicial and damaging to trans kids.

I don't really think there are many "trans kids for a day" as you want to suggest, but in any event, it's a big stretch to imply FCPS's position on what Grimm requires is a major contributor to the big enrollment drop since June.

I’m not the PP but I don’t read what they said that way. I read it as the transgender rights get elevated over the rights of cisgender students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K is always a smaller grade - there are some people who send right to 1st, they homeschool K, or stay at their preschool/day care that has a K program because the schedule is better.

But this shouldn’t be a surprise. We’re starting to be in the population “crunch” caused by the Great Recession. This isn’t necessarily the case in this area, but greater school choice in some areas has lead to falling public school enrollment. ABC News had an article today: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/enrollment-falls-districts-mull-schools-close-decisions-big-125880210

It should concern everyone that the teacher’s groups in these areas have successfully advocated for no school closures, even where enrollment is significantly down. It’s a look into our own futures. FCPS asking for more and more money, but not making any cuts despite the student population having peaked years earlier.

FCPS is spending budget dollars to fight a lawsuit over their choice to violate Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

How many times do we have to go over this?

The Trump Administration wants to ignore lower appellate court rulings and create conflicts for the Supreme Court to resolve, hoping that the Supreme Court will rule in its favor.

It leaves FCPS and other school districts in a Catch-22 where they can either comply with Trump's DOE and violate the civil rights of some students, according to the Fourth Circuit, or follow the law and see federal funding denied or delayed. If it violated a court ruling, it could be subject to civil monetary sanctions as well.

It would be one thing if FCPS was just striking out on its own and flouting both Trump's DOE and the Supreme Court, but that is not currently the case.

They’re off bass with their interpretation of the Grimm case and they know it.

Grimm’s case was very different than the FCPS policy. Grimm was under a doctor’s care and receiving therapy for gender dysphoria. Together with a doctor it was agreed that it was in his best interest to transition. The single occupancy stall near a nurse that he was offered was not adequate to take care of his basic biological needs and slow him to navigate the building as needed to attend classes on time.

He could not easily make it to and from the far and inconvenient single stall which led to multiple UTI’s from having to hold his urine so often.

He was approved for virtual summer PE so he never used or asked to use locker rooms.

The school upgraded the privacy of each bathroom to have partitions at urinals and stalls were given longer doors with shorter gaps in between to enhance privacy. So when the court asked the School Board how Grimm’s presence in the bathroom would impact anyone’s privacy, they were unable to answer. This was a key part of the ruling.

A locker room would have a very different legal outcome. It would lack the material harm (UTI) and there is actual privacy concern.

Self identifying and immediately being able to go to the locker room of your choice is not at all what this ruling had in mind.

There is a middle ground that will protect ALL students. It’s not what FCPS is doing by internally misconstruing the Grimm ruling.

Facts and circumstances can be different, and yet the governing principle remain the same. Other school districts have construed the Grimm holding similarly to FCPS.

At present, the law in the Fourth Circuit is that "claims of discrimination on the basis of transgender status are per se actionable [under Title IX] under a gender stereotyping theory," and that alleged school policies that discriminate against transgender students are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

In reaching those conclusions, the Fourth Circuit cited prior decisions of other courts that dealt not just with bathroom policies, but also locker room policies. It concluded:

"The proudest moments of the federal judiciary have been when we affirm the burgeoning values of our bright youth, rather than preserve the prejudices of the past...How shallow a promise of equal protection that would not protect Grimm from the fantastical fears and ubfounded prejudices of his adult community."

The Supreme Court may yet hold that the distinctions you make are significant enough to reach a different conclusion than the Grimm court reached, or that Grimm was wrongly decided, but it has not done so yet.

The appeals court found that the school board could not exclude Grimm from the boys’ bathrooms without referencing his “biological gender” under the policy, which it had defined as the sex marker on his amended birth certificate.

The 4th Circuit reasoned that because Grimm’s sex was a “but for” cause for the board’s actions, the board's policy excluded Grimm from the boys’ restrooms “on the basis of sex.”

Not the same as deciding one day and being admitted access to opposite gender facilities.

Grimm’s transgender status was defined by having received transgender health care and going the legal process of gender transition.

That’s not what FCPS policy follows.

The group that has the influence on the School Board thinks that anyone that says they are trans is trans. And, that we need to put their wishes and claims above the rest of the students.

Thank goodness I grew up in the 80s and not now. I hated wearing dresses and skirts. I hated dolls and anything girly. I wished that I was a boy and wanted to always dress like a boy and cut my hair. It's called being a tomboy. I outgrew it eventually but even now I still don't do girly stuff. I fear that if I was a kid today, the school system and society would tell me that I should transition to a boy and start taking drugs and harm my body. It's just really sad. I feel really bad for these kids today that feel this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K is always a smaller grade - there are some people who send right to 1st, they homeschool K, or stay at their preschool/day care that has a K program because the schedule is better.

But this shouldn’t be a surprise. We’re starting to be in the population “crunch” caused by the Great Recession. This isn’t necessarily the case in this area, but greater school choice in some areas has lead to falling public school enrollment. ABC News had an article today: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/enrollment-falls-districts-mull-schools-close-decisions-big-125880210

It should concern everyone that the teacher’s groups in these areas have successfully advocated for no school closures, even where enrollment is significantly down. It’s a look into our own futures. FCPS asking for more and more money, but not making any cuts despite the student population having peaked years earlier.

FCPS is spending budget dollars to fight a lawsuit over their choice to violate Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

How many times do we have to go over this?

The Trump Administration wants to ignore lower appellate court rulings and create conflicts for the Supreme Court to resolve, hoping that the Supreme Court will rule in its favor.

It leaves FCPS and other school districts in a Catch-22 where they can either comply with Trump's DOE and violate the civil rights of some students, according to the Fourth Circuit, or follow the law and see federal funding denied or delayed. If it violated a court ruling, it could be subject to civil monetary sanctions as well.

It would be one thing if FCPS was just striking out on its own and flouting both Trump's DOE and the Supreme Court, but that is not currently the case.

They’re off bass with their interpretation of the Grimm case and they know it.

Grimm’s case was very different than the FCPS policy. Grimm was under a doctor’s care and receiving therapy for gender dysphoria. Together with a doctor it was agreed that it was in his best interest to transition. The single occupancy stall near a nurse that he was offered was not adequate to take care of his basic biological needs and slow him to navigate the building as needed to attend classes on time.

He could not easily make it to and from the far and inconvenient single stall which led to multiple UTI’s from having to hold his urine so often.

He was approved for virtual summer PE so he never used or asked to use locker rooms.

The school upgraded the privacy of each bathroom to have partitions at urinals and stalls were given longer doors with shorter gaps in between to enhance privacy. So when the court asked the School Board how Grimm’s presence in the bathroom would impact anyone’s privacy, they were unable to answer. This was a key part of the ruling.

A locker room would have a very different legal outcome. It would lack the material harm (UTI) and there is actual privacy concern.

Self identifying and immediately being able to go to the locker room of your choice is not at all what this ruling had in mind.

There is a middle ground that will protect ALL students. It’s not what FCPS is doing by internally misconstruing the Grimm ruling.

Facts and circumstances can be different, and yet the governing principle remain the same. Other school districts have construed the Grimm holding similarly to FCPS.

At present, the law in the Fourth Circuit is that "claims of discrimination on the basis of transgender status are per se actionable [under Title IX] under a gender stereotyping theory," and that alleged school policies that discriminate against transgender students are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

In reaching those conclusions, the Fourth Circuit cited prior decisions of other courts that dealt not just with bathroom policies, but also locker room policies. It concluded:

"The proudest moments of the federal judiciary have been when we affirm the burgeoning values of our bright youth, rather than preserve the prejudices of the past...How shallow a promise of equal protection that would not protect Grimm from the fantastical fears and ubfounded prejudices of his adult community."

The Supreme Court may yet hold that the distinctions you make are significant enough to reach a different conclusion than the Grimm court reached, or that Grimm was wrongly decided, but it has not done so yet.

The appeals court found that the school board could not exclude Grimm from the boys’ bathrooms without referencing his “biological gender” under the policy, which it had defined as the sex marker on his amended birth certificate.

The 4th Circuit reasoned that because Grimm’s sex was a “but for” cause for the board’s actions, the board's policy excluded Grimm from the boys’ restrooms “on the basis of sex.”

Not the same as deciding one day and being admitted access to opposite gender facilities.

Grimm’s transgender status was defined by having received transgender health care and going the legal process of gender transition.

That’s not what FCPS policy follows.

The group that has the influence on the School Board thinks that anyone that says they are trans is trans. And, that we need to put their wishes and claims above the rest of the students.

Your beef - that transgender rights unfairly get elevated over the wishes of the "majority" - is exactly the type of argument that the Fourth Circuit viewed as prejudicial and damaging to trans kids.

I don't really think there are many "trans kids for a day" as you want to suggest, but in any event, it's a big stretch to imply FCPS's position on what Grimm requires is a major contributor to the big enrollment drop since June.

I’m not the PP but I don’t read what they said that way. I read it as the transgender rights get elevated over the rights of cisgender students.

They are saying both that boys will claim to be trans when they aren't just for access to girls' bathrooms or locker rooms, and that transgender rights get unfairly elevated over those of cis students.

The Constitution protects the rights of minorities over the preferences of the majority. Right now, the Fourth Circuit has embraced the view that being trans is a real thing; that trans students deserve access to facilities that align with their gender identity, not just the sex they were assigned at birth; and that arguments that denying them access to such facilities because it would infringe the purported privacy rights of cis students are subject to heightened scrutiny because they often stem from prejudice and inflict further damage on trans kids.

That view may not prevail with the current Supreme Court, but FCPS is but one of many school districts that views its hands as tied right now.