Come Together to Inspire, Interact, Influence, and Impact.

x
Notifications
Log Out? Are you sure you want to log out?
Log Out

Virginia’s public schools need to stay in their lane regarding student absences

Stephanie Lundquist-Arora is a contributor for the Washington Examiner, a mother in Fairfax County, Virginia, an author, and the Fairfax chapter leader of the Independent Women’s Network. This piece originally appeared on Washington Examiner.


This weekend, as we sat on the sidelines of our children’s lacrosse game, a mother told me about an incident at her son’s Fairfax County public school. When her mother, the student’s grandmother, went into his school late to sign in her grandson following his doctor’s appointment, the administrative assistant looked at her doubtingly and asked, “Are you sure he had a doctor’s appointment?”

Over the years, other parents have shared similar stories with me about the sanctimonious gatekeepers in the offices of our children’s public schools. Unfortunately, the invasive lines of questioning are codified in school policy to determine whether or not our reasons to excuse our own children from school are sufficient.

In December 2023, I received a notification from my son’s school that he had unexcused absences. I found this peculiar because I had excused him each time he was not in school. When I excuse my sons from school, I indicate “personal” — because it is. The reasons my sons are out of school are absolutely none of the district’s or the state’s business, as long as I am aware that they are not there.

A patient district administrator sympathetically explained to me at that time that the school was simply following district and state policy. Fairfax County Public Schools has a specific category for absences for which the parent excuses the student but does not provide a reason that he or she is missing called “unexcused locally defined.” Although it appears on students’ transcripts as “unexcused,” the policy is meant to allow students to make up their work and tests for that day.

The district administrator further informed me, to my surprise, that the “unexcused locally defined” category of absence is based on Virginia’s state policy. State law includes in its definition of an unexcused absence an absence in which “the parent provides a reason for the absence that is unacceptable to the school administration.”

According to Virginia state law, local school districts can decide that our children missing school for family vacations or important athletic events is unacceptable and that the absence is, therefore, unexcused. That sounds like a policy that a “parents matter” administration might want to revise.

On Dec. 15, 2023, I reached out to officials in the Virginia Department of Education, including the state’s superintendent of public instruction and the deputy superintendent of teaching and learning. I have yet to receive a response from them. I am confident that because we hear all the time that parents matter, the state administrators are looking into this issue — four months later.

As one Fairfax County high school administrator has pointed out to me, the policy provides a dysfunctional incentive structure. Parents are basically encouraged to lie and tell the school administrators that their children have an illness to ensure that their absences are excused. 

It should be enough when parents say their children will not be in school that day. With that notification, it is the parent’s right to excuse the absence and not the school’s domain to determine validity. We should not need to inform our public schools’ administrations or teachers about personal matters in our children’s or families’ lives — because it is simply none of their business.

The National Organization for Women needs to change its name

Stephanie Lundquist-Arora is a contributor for the Washington Examiner, a mother in Fairfax County, Virginia, an author, a member of the Coalition for TJ, and the Fairfax chapter leader of the Independent Women’s Network. This piece originally appeared on Washington Examiner.


Last week, the National Organization for Women objected to women’s sports being reserved for females only. NOW needs to change its name — maybe from NOW to the National Organization for Misogyny, because it definitely does not represent women any longer.

Not only is the organization advocating males in women’s sports, it is trying to silence critics with absurd name-calling. They claim that opposing the participation of males in women’s sports is “white supremacist patriarchy at work.”

Someone needs to get that internet keyboard warrior away from the computer.

It is unclear how race entered the equation. In fact, in a Pew Research Center survey, black respondents were more likely than white respondents to agree with the statement that gender is determined by sex at birth. And it seems that whoever is handling the social media account for NOW, excuse me, NOM, doesn’t understand what “patriarchy” means.

I am disappointed in NOW, an organization that I once supported. When notions of feminism meant equal rights for the two sexes, I referred to myself as a feminist. You might have noticed those inclinations by my hyphenated last name.

Betty Friedan’s book, The Feminine Mystique, made an impact on my thinking as I came of age and still sits on my bookshelf. I wonder what Friedan, one of the founders of NOW, would think about her organization’s support of this blatant discrimination against females if she were alive today. Friedan and others in her organization were at the front lines of advocating Title IX only to have it gutted by the misogynists who took over.

On the other hand, Title IX has an ally in Caitlyn Jenner, who well understands what the differences between the biological sexes mean for athletic competition. Jenner, who is transgender, has been a vocal proponent of keeping women’s sports female.

It is remarkable that anyone, particularly members of NOW, would support the idea that males should compete in women’s sports. Maybe it is just out of sheer ignorance. Often, the most vocal proponents of this insanity look like they have never competed in any sports, ever. From experience, I recommend that proponents of males in women’s sports start learning jiu-jitsu. Spar with both a male and a female of your weight for a quick lesson in fairness.

It seems to me that males who are subpar athletes might feel that they have a better shot at winning when they are competing against females, who are comparatively biologically disadvantaged in size, speed, and strength. You only need to look at the male athletes, such as collegiate swimmer Lia Thomas, who once competed against men before transitioning to compete against women. Males, Thomas included, obviously fare much better in women’s sports than in men’s sports.

The athletic differences between the sexes are notable from an early age. Recently, I sat on the sidelines of a soccer scrimmage where 12-year-old boys competed against 14-year-old girls. The two teams were ranked at similar levels within their respective leagues. Already, the strength and speed difference gave the younger boys the advantage. And to the great disappointment of the girls, the boys’ team won.

Aside from the obvious fairness problems of males competing in women’s sports, the resulting injuries are undeniable. There are so many to point out and likely many more that have gone unreported. For example, a male’s spike in a North Carolina girl’s high school volleyball game resulted in Payton McNabb’s concussion, neck injury, impaired vision, and partial paralysis. In an MMA fight, a male fractured a female’s skull. Tamikka Brents had a concussion and required seven staples in her head as a result. Is this what equity and fairness look like to the Left?

Finally, there is the locker room issue. Real feminists do not support males in women’s private spaces. Former collegiate swimmer Riley Gaines has detailed her experience as an NCAA athlete being forced to change in a locker room with a large male, which made her feel extremely uncomfortable.

So, to the National Organization for Women, I conclude with this: if you are going to support obvious sexism, at least change your name.

The ironies of commemorating ‘Transgender Visibility Day’ on Easter

Stephanie Lundquist-Arora is a contributor for the Washington Examiner, a mother in Fairfax County, Virginia, an author, a member of the Coalition for TJ, and the Fairfax chapter leader of the Independent Women’s Network. This piece originally appeared on Washington Examiner.


After Fairfax County’s Board of Supervisors co-opted Easter this year with Transgender Visibility Day, other local and state governments, and even the Biden administration, did the same.

Our elected officials did not need to issue commemorative proclamations for a made-up, 15-year-old holiday that they knew would offend many Christians on their holiest day. They could have let the day take place for the leftist worshippers of the DEI religion without trying to cast shadows on Easter. But part of the DEI religion is forcing everyone else to worship at their altar, think their thoughts, and say their words. To that end, politicians issued commemorative proclamations for Transgender Visibility Day because it fell on Easter.

This type of disregard and mockery is reserved specifically for Christians in this country.

Jeff McKay, chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, tried to justify the usurpation of Easter by saying that he planned to attend church on Easter. In an email, he wrote, “As a Catholic, I will be celebrating Easter with my family on Sunday and will take the opportunity to also celebrate all people, especially the most vulnerable in our community.”

Because McKay calls himself a Catholic, he implies that his Christian constituents should be fine with the proclamation. People such as McKay can stand in a garage and call themselves a truck, but that does not make them a truck. In fact, Cardinal Wilton Gregory, the seventh archbishop of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. suggested that President Joe Biden is a “cafeteria Catholic,” pointing out that Biden “picks and chooses dimensions of the faith to highlight while ignoring or even contradicting other parts.”

Although so-called Catholics such as Biden and McKay would like to legitimize their actions and hide behind their church attendance, their proclamation to commemorate Transgender Visibility Day on Easter is no less offensive to Christians because of it.

Make no mistake: Democratic politicians would have been much more cautious in issuing commemorative proclamations to celebrate a manufactured transgender holiday if it fell on an Islamic holy day. White liberals are terrified of being seen as culturally insensitive, which is why their cars are decorated with “Be Kind” magnets — because they hope you will believe they are kind and culturally sensitive. Whether or not they actually are seems to be irrelevant to them.

They also have a tenuous political alliance with American Muslims that fractures on LGBT matters. For that reason, if any transgender holiday fell on Eid, for example, the Biden administration would let it pass without comment.

Similarly, the Biden White House’s Easter message on social media was posted on both its Spanish and English accounts, but its message for Transgender Visibility Day four hours later was posted only in English. Clearly, the Biden administration was aware that co-opting Easter with a transgender holiday proclamation would do further damage to its relationship with Hispanic voters, many of whom are much more serious about their faith than Biden.

American Christians are appropriately shocked by the state-sanctioned takeover of Easter this year. Re-assigning Christian holidays, however, is part of the communist playbook. In this case, the DEI religion mandates that we worship at the altar of the state, not the church. This is not the first time that a government has tried to co-opt a Christian holy day, and it likely will not be the last.

In 1935, for example, the secular holiday “New Year’s Day” replaced Christmas in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin’s order. Rather than celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, citizens were told to celebrate the arrival of Father Frost. The government promoted gift-giving as a way to show gratitude to the state and promote loyalty to the communist regime. In effect, they banned Christmas and repurposed it with a secular day that was compatible with communist ideals.

Any hint of a step in that direction, such as our politicians commemorating Transgender Visibility Day on Easter, is a step too far.

Fairfax County’s board of supervisors mocks Christians by designating Easter as Transgender Visibility Day

Stephanie Lundquist-Arora is a contributor for the Washington Examiner, a mother in Fairfax County, Virginia, an author, a member of the Coalition for TJ, and the Fairfax chapter leader of the Independent Women’s Network. This piece originally appeared on Washington Examiner.


Last week, Democrats on Fairfax County‘s board of supervisors voted to designate Easter Sunday as Transgender Visibility Day. The proclamation goes far beyond the supposed intent of making transgender people and gender ideology activists feel seen. Members of the board are also sending a message to Christians that they do not matter as they turn one of their holiest days into a celebration of an ideology that undermines the church’s core convictions.

Ironically, Chairman Jeff McKay, a Democrat, paid lip service to the importance of advocating all constituents when the board passed the resolution. He said, “As an elected official, it should be our moral responsibility to stand up for all people that we represent, not just the people we like or the people we agree with.”

If McKay and other members of the board were serious about their stated commitment to representing constituents, there are many other days they could have designated as Transgender Visibility Day.

Members of the board also used their illogical decision to hijack Easter as an opportunity to celebrate the governing body’s ideological homogeneity. The nine Democrats present at the meeting all voted in favor of the measure, but they lamented that there was one member of the board who was not present for the vote. Pat Herrity, a Republican, likely did not want to antagonize Christians who feel that their holy day is being desecrated. 

Herrity’s absence appears to have been unacceptable to James Walkinshaw, a Democrat. Walkinshaw advocated complete groupthink on the board of supervisors when he said, “I’m looking forward to the day when we have a full dais for this proclamation, and that day will come. One way or the other, that day will come.”

Aside from the inappropriateness of Transgender Visibility Day being on Easter this year, the resolution seems unnecessary in Fairfax County. The transgender activist community does not have a visibility problem in northern Virginia. But it does appear to have a narcissism problem. Fairfax County School Board, for example, has designated June as LGBT Pride Month and October as LGBT History Month. The community gets two full months of celebration in our district’s schools. Apparently, that just wasn’t enough.

Fairfax County Public Schools’ policies align with the board’s resolutions. For the last few years, Fairfax County’s students have been inundated with surveys at the beginning of the school year questioning them about their pronouns and gender identity. Many of the county’s classrooms are decorated with transgender flags. After mandating preferred pronouns, district officials are also pushing to include gender identity lessons in the family life education curriculum beginning in fourth grade. How much more “visible” does a group need to be?

One can’t help but feel that Fairfax County officials’ timing was deliberate. In fact, this is not the first time that Democratic-endorsed local officials have attacked Easter in Fairfax County. In past years, Fairfax County Public Schools’ spring break has traditionally coincided with the Easter holiday. But in 2021, the school board made many politically loaded changes to the district’s calendar that included the intentional “decoupling” of spring break from Easter. It was not only inappropriate but logistically problematic for many reasons, and it had to reverse the decision.

I agree with McKay that elected officials should do their best to advocate “all people [they] represent, not just the people [they] like or the people that [they] agree with.” Hopefully, McKay and others on the board of supervisors and the district’s school board will try harder moving forward to represent the Christians in their community.

Loudoun County School Board members appear to hate free speech

Stephanie Lundquist-Arora is a contributor for the Washington Examiner, a mother in Fairfax County, Virginia, an author, a member of the Coalition for TJ, and the Fairfax chapter leader of the Independent Women’s Network. This piece originally appeared on Washington Examiner.


The Loudoun County School Board has a concerning parallel to George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth in 1984. After voting to turn off the cameras during public comment this week, the district’s school board members are now considering additional measures to further limit and silence dissent during their meetings.

The majority of the school board members would like to teach their beliefs, such as the acceptability of allowing males to use females’ school bathrooms and locker rooms, and suppress parents’ ability to say otherwise. On Thursday, Democratic-endorsed school board member April Chandler outlined more ways they might restrict parental input. Claiming that these ideas have precedent in Virginia, she raised the following for the board’s consideration: allowing only 20 minutes for public comment, requiring that members of the public speak only once on a topic, cutting the microphone if speakers become too emotional, requesting that speakers first take their problems to the superintendent before bringing them to the board, and requiring speakers to submit their comments to the chairwoman, who would then determine if the comments were fit to be made public.

Chandler seems to have much in common with dictators at all levels of government who have preceded her. She clearly does not understand the meaning of the word transparency and has conveniently forgotten that she works for her constituents.

Fellow Democratic-endorsed school board member Anne Donohue supported Chandler’s discussion of additional restrictions on parents’ free speech.

“I do fear that it can at times distract from or derail our work as we try to get through all of our agenda items in a board meeting,” Donohue said.

It’s really too bad when parents and other constituents are obstacles to the omniscient school board members’ agenda. We, the parents, should simply sit back quietly and trust that these elected officials know what’s best for our children — at least, that seems to be the suggestion here.

What Chandler and Donohue also fail to understand is that many of these dictatorial ideas are unconstitutional and violate free speech rights. Chandler did not specify which districts implemented the restrictions to public comment she hopes to emulate, but many of these new rules likely would face legal challenges in Loudoun County.

In 2019, for example, the Houston Independent School District School Board proposed a policy that would require members of the public to submit written comments 48 hours in advance of board meetings in order to speak during the public comment period. This measure did not even include the extra step Chandler would like to take, in which the school board’s chairperson would decide if the constituents had the right to share their thoughts after reviewing their written comments. The new policy faced backlash from community members and advocacy groups who argued that it violated their free speech rights and stifled their ability to discuss problems facing the school district. In the end, the school board decided to allow both written and verbal comments at its meetings.

The impulse to cut the microphone because parents are “too emotional” about matters such as their children’s safety in bathrooms and locker rooms is also concerning. It implies that emotional expression is not valid in public discourse. The father of the girl who was sexually assaulted in a Loudoun County school bathroom, for example, had a right to express himself publicly. It is important for constituents to be allowed to speak up, especially about something as personal as their children’s education and safety, without fear of censorship or retribution.

Someone ought to remind Chandler that she is an elected representative of parents and their students. She does not get to implement her tyrannical ideas and then prevent us from discussing them. And the more Chandler and other elected officials abuse their power to limit free speech rights and suppress dissent, the more public their dysfunction and tyranny will become.

Loudoun County School Board members are fighting against transparency

Stephanie Lundquist-Arora is a contributor for the Washington Examiner, a mother in Fairfax County, Virginia, an author, member of the Coalition for TJ, and the Fairfax chapter leader of the Independent Women’s Network. Suzanne Satterfield, IWN member and Loudoun County Chapter Leader, also contributed to this article.

Originally appeared on Washington Examiner.


Last week, the Loudoun County, Virginia, School Board voted against transparency when members decided to turn off the cameras during public comment. The decision was made along party lines, with the six Democratic-endorsed members voting to turn off the cameras, and the three Republican-endorsed and independent members voting in favor of transparency.

Many Loudoun County parents are speculating that this decision was based on the desire to silence debate. The chairwoman of the Loudoun County School Board, Malinda Mansfield, tried to justify the decision by claiming that the inability to control what members of the public wear and the signs they carry meant that they “could have all sorts of things that we could get in trouble with [the Federal Communications Commission] on.”

When a reporter asked if the FCC had contacted the school district in the last few years, there was no response. Parents in Loudoun County argue that what the board members are actually worried about is the presentation of signs with messages inconvenient to the board’s leftist initiatives, such as those objecting to bathroom use based on gender identity, or others pointing out students’ shockingly low proficiency in reading and math, and another that reads “Stop Funding DEI.”

Loudoun County School Board member Sumera Rashid suggested that turning off the cameras during public comment was to avoid drama and for safety reasons.

“I’m trying to avoid a Jerry Springer show type of episode,” she said. “So, for that reason, I can’t support that the camera be on the speaker, but mainly it’s the safety issue.”

Rashid’s comment is particularly ironic given that the motion to turn off the cameras came following parents’ attendance at the Feb. 27, 2024 meeting to object to males being in female bathrooms. According to Rashid, it seems the real safety issue is video cameras showing parents speaking — and not the sexual assaults that have occurred and are likely to happen again in their children’s school bathrooms under the district policy.

Another school board member, April Chandler, argued that turning on the cameras during public comment “invites and undermines the work of the school board and the transparency of the school board.” Clearly, someone needs to explain to her what transparency means and remind her that she works for her constituents.

It is also laughable that school board members take issue with speakers’ political grandstanding. At the meeting last week, Mansfield said, “I’m not interested in this being a political grandstanding, which has been happening a lot lately.” And yet school board members in Loudoun and Fairfax counties spend a great deal of time offering platitudes for symbolic resolutions. It’s not political grandstanding with which Mansfield and others take issue. These school board members simply do not like when they are not the ones with the microphone.

For that same reason, school board members in Loudoun and Fairfax counties also reduced speaking time during public comment as their priorities increasingly shifted from education to leftist politics. A few years ago, both districts offered speakers three minutes to share their thoughts. The Fairfax County School Board now offers only two minutes, while Loudoun County’s time allotment shifts anywhere from 30 seconds to two minutes depending on the meeting and what seems to be the chairwoman’s whims.

In both school districts, the cameras now point to the dais in a widescreen shot rather than at speakers’ faces, likely to deemphasize their arguments. The Fairfax County School Board made an exception to this at a meeting where students involved with Pride Liberation spoke against Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s (R-VA) Model Policies, which include bathroom use based on sex rather than gender. Apparently, some rules are flexible if the school board members agree with the speaker’s argument.

The flip side to that coin is that school board members might suppress testimony if they disagree. The Fairfax County School Board refused to play my video testimony, which contained arguments against shared-sex bathrooms and locker rooms in our district’s schools. After exposing the board’s suppression of my testimony, I resubmitted it, and members were forced to play it at the following meeting.

Indeed, when the camera goes dark during public comment at Loudoun County’s future school board meetings, and likely soon at Fairfax County’s school board meetings as well, given the two dysfunctional districts’ corruption competition, I will think of the slogan of a newspaper the school board members likely read: “Democracy dies in darkness.” And these elected officials are at the front lines willingly killing it.