Children are our priority. Ensuring their needs are met is our goal.
The transcripts can be found in the article “Update on Fairfax County School Board’s Legal Action Against Parents,” which is a running update of what’s going on with the case.
I’m posting them again here, for easy access.
“Universal features” are the “common administrative features” shared by College Board tests. These common features are supposed to be provided to all students, which in turn negates the need to ask for one of these “universal features”—such as a quiet testing environment—as an accommodation.
And yet . . . College Board continues its failure to ensure all students who have accommodations receive a testing environment that includes College Board’s “universal features”.
Although FCPS schools has committed to banning restraint and seclusion practices in all of its schools, “including private schools with whom FCPS contracts, by the start of the 2022-2023 school year,” questions remain about the training being provided to FCPS staff.
Restraint and seclusion videos in this article were created by FCPS and made public in response to a FOIA request.
The videos feature responses from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, such as Fairfax County Public Schools’ (FCPS) restraint and seclusion training videos, school web site pages (to preserve in case the pages are deleted), and documents (to preserve in case something happens to the hard copies).
Although the videos posted to date are FCPS focused, the intent is to include videos related to education throughout the United States.
What is Fairfax County Public Schools trying to hide?
“Attention to email correspondence with C. Rosenberg regarding status of investigation and communications with DOJ.
“Conference call with AUSA Pedersen regarding status and developments.”
VDOE concluded that that the legal invoices at the core of the investigation, which contain personally identifiable information (PII) about children, “are maintained by the school division, therefore they are education records under FERPA and this matter is within our jurisdiction.” In addition, VDOE rejected the following argument posed by FCPS, thus acknowledging that initials constitute PII:
“Under the definition of PII, information is PII if it is possible to identify a student with reasonable certainty. In this case, students E1 and E2 have a different last name as the parent, and so the disclosure of parent name does not make the students identifiable.”
Although VDOE determined the matter in its jurisdiction and once again found FCPS noncompliance, VDOE refused to place weight on the thousands of students whose privacy FCPS has breached over the past five years, and did not “characterize” FCPS’s noncompliance as systemic.
This week the censorship shackles came off.
Included in this article are all 1,316 pages that FCSB tried to prevent us from sharing.
We had the honor of being represented by Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute and Ketan Bhirud of Troutman Pepper. It was extraordinary to witness the dedication and passion of these two lawyers.
While FCSB’s lawyers made arguments that the court called “almost frivolous”, Tim and Ketan stood up for Freedom of Speech and First Amendment Rights, and in turn for me and for Debra.