Predicted Enrollment Decline in FCPS Materializes

[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.

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.

And then, on the other side, there are trans kids who are told "it's just a phase" and "you'll get over it." These kids got the message that there was something wrong with them, when medical science now tells us being trans, while uncommon, is real, and they were particularly prone to both bullying and self-harm.

FCPS isn't telling kids to transition. It is recognizing the rights of kids who have a different gender identity in accordance with the current law.

[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.

The remedy shouldn't be imposing on the rights of others though. That is the whole problem.

[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.

The remedy shouldn't be imposing on the rights of others though. That is the whole problem.

People in the 1950s claimed that integrating the schools would infringe upon the "rights" of white students to an appropriate education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The remedy shouldn't be imposing on the rights of others though. That is the whole problem.

People in the 1950s claimed that integrating the schools would infringe upon the "rights" of white students to an appropriate education.

Please tell me you are not really comparing this to segregation right now. Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The remedy shouldn't be imposing on the rights of others though. That is the whole problem.

People in the 1950s claimed that integrating the schools would infringe upon the "rights" of white students to an appropriate education.

Please tell me you are not really comparing this to segregation right now. Jesus.

The legal analysis is similar in many respects, but you’re way too bigoted to grasp that.

No doubt you’ll keep hijacking every thread between now and November to harp on your wedge issue of 2025.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The remedy shouldn't be imposing on the rights of others though. That is the whole problem.

People in the 1950s claimed that integrating the schools would infringe upon the "rights" of white students to an appropriate education.

Please tell me you are not really comparing this to segregation right now. Jesus.

The legal analysis is similar in many respects, but you’re way too bigoted to grasp that.

No doubt you’ll keep hijacking every thread between now and November to harp on your wedge issue of 2025.

I’m guessing this is you accusing me of working toward a republican agenda? I’m voting Spanberger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The remedy shouldn't be imposing on the rights of others though. That is the whole problem.

People in the 1950s claimed that integrating the schools would infringe upon the "rights" of white students to an appropriate education.

Ok Karen, totally different things. Are you the water fountain sign lady?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The remedy shouldn't be imposing on the rights of others though. That is the whole problem.

People in the 1950s claimed that integrating the schools would infringe upon the "rights" of white students to an appropriate education.

Ok Karen, totally different things. Are you the water fountain sign lady?[/quote]

Best response all day!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The remedy shouldn't be imposing on the rights of others though. That is the whole problem.

People in the 1950s claimed that integrating the schools would infringe upon the "rights" of white students to an appropriate education.

Ok Karen, totally different things. Are you the water fountain sign lady?

No, I wouldn't threaten to remove Black students from their schools, but you'd tell trans kids their gender identity isn't deserving of respect.

You're the Karen, or maybe it's Chad, here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The remedy shouldn't be imposing on the rights of others though. That is the whole problem.

People in the 1950s claimed that integrating the schools would infringe upon the "rights" of white students to an appropriate education.

And... that dealt with an actual biological difference of immutable characteristics. Blacks weren't exactly walking around declaring themselves to be White in order to gain access to the White classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The remedy shouldn't be imposing on the rights of others though. That is the whole problem.

People in the 1950s claimed that integrating the schools would infringe upon the "rights" of white students to an appropriate education.

And... that dealt with an actual biological difference of immutable characteristics. Blacks weren't exactly walking around declaring themselves to be White in order to gain access to the White classroom.

Wow, that tells me you know nothing of our nation's history. Many people were discriminated against when seeking access to "whites-only" accommodations because of their partial African-American ancestry, even when they were forced by circumstances to try and pass as "white."