Opinion Archives

Hayfield football scandal exposes incompetence of superintendent

Posted on December 5, 2024December 24, 2024 by Stephanie Lundquist-Arora

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

The Hayfield Secondary School football recruiting scandal has shown us that there is absolutely no oversight of Michelle Reid, superintendent of the Fairfax County School Board in Virginia, from our elected school board members, the county’s Board of Supervisors or the internal auditor general.

It has also highlighted that Ms. Reid is either incompetent or ill-intended. Addressing Hayfield’s mass recruiting violation was a test of Ms. Reid’s leadership, and she failed.

What began as a local injustice regarding fairness in high school sports has echoed in warning nationwide. The scandal is not just about school athletics; it’s about poor district leadership.

After school administrators hired coach Darryl Overton this past January, 31 students transferred to Hayfield Secondary School in time for football season. Many of them were Mr. Overton’s former players from across county lines. Hayfield students, parents and staff posed questions about the many student-athlete transfers to their school. Such a significant number of talented football players transferring to one public school within months of one another is undoubtedly suspicious.

Fairfax County residents looked to the district’s senior leaders to investigate the matter. Ms. Reid announced that the district would conduct an internal investigation in early May.

Two months later, when Ms. Reid’s internal “confidential investigation” regarding residency checks was still ongoing and summer training had already begun, other high school football coaches drafted a letter to raise their concerns about fairness in Hayfield’s recruiting process.

At the end of August, mere days before the season opener against West Springfield High School, Ms. Reid announced that her investigation had cleared Mr. Overton and school district administrators of wrongdoing.

One school board member, Mateo Dunne, didn’t buy it.

…

Read the full piece on The Washington Times

Rank Choice Voting Is Unfair And Undemocratic

Posted on November 1, 2024November 1, 2024 by Christy Narsi

Christy Narsi lives in Surprise, AZ. She is the National Chapter Director at Independent Women’s Network (IWN). Christy is passionate about developing and empowering women who make an impact in their communities. This piece originally appeared in Arizona Free News.

This November, Proposition 140, the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act, will be on the ballot. Prop. 140, if passed, would create a Rank-Choice Voting (RCV) system, where voters rank candidates in order of preference. Supporters of the proposition claim it will incentivize candidates to reach out to as many voters as possible, regardless of party affiliation and “liberate us from the grip of partisan primary elections.”

But will it really make Arizona elections more fair?

RCV may seem logical on the surface, but in reality, it introduces a complex vote tabulation system that lacks transparency and often leads to weird election outcomes.

In most elections, a voter casts a single ballot for the candidate he or she likes most. With RCV’s ranking system, if one candidate receives more than 50 percent of first place votes, the election is over and the candidate with the most votes wins. If, however, no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the votes, election officials conduct a series of closed-door instant runoffs by eliminating the candidate with the fewest first place votes and redistributing those votes to the second choices on those ballots. This process continues (eliminating the last place finisher and redistributing his or her votes) until a faux majority is created for a single candidate.

Today, there is bipartisan support for ensuring every vote counts. Yet RCV guarantees the opposite, and instead will create confusion, dropped votes, and a convoluted system of ballot counting that does not represent the will of the people.

“Ranked Choice Voting can lead to bizarre outcomes where a person who was the first choice of very few voters can still win,” explained Independent Women’s Law Center’s Jennifer C. Braceras. Democratic principles are actually sidelined as RCV encourages candidates and interest groups to play games and try to manipulate outcomes by introducing additional candidates to divert attention from stronger opponents, rather than try to simply bolster their own support.

A study of ballot data from New York City’s 2013 and 2017 general election, and of New York City’s 2021 Democrat mayoral primaries, showed “ballot errors in RCV elections are particularly high in areas with lower levels of education, lower levels of income, higher minority populations, and a higher share of limited English proficient voters.”

Policymakers should be working to make voting easier and more accessible for all Arizonans. Therefore, we should reject schemes such as RCV that make voting more complicated, less accessible, and less transparent.

Voting should be simple: one person, one legal vote; may the best person win. RCV violates this principle by allowing some voters to effectively cast more than one ballot while excluding other voters whose ballots were exhausted prior to the ultimate run-off. RCV is a dangerously complex process that confuses voters and disincentivizes participation. This is a real threat to our democratic process.

A significant reason for the mass exodus of minorities from the Democratic Party

Posted on October 25, 2024November 5, 2024 by Stephanie Lundquist-Arora

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 in the Washington Examiner.

Last week, Maryland’s Democratic Party had a meltdown and started gaslighting the public about so-called “extremist” school board candidates running for office across the state, whom they allege want to push a political agenda.

And really, how dare school board candidates want to focus on reading proficiency, student test scores, and the budget instead of integrating the gender unicorn in kindergarten education?

For years, school boards with Democrat-endorsed majorities in Maryland have been working overtime to promote “Rainbow Clubs” in elementary schools, allow shared-sex locker rooms and bathrooms, and compel speech by mandating preferred pronouns.

But apparently, such politicization of public education does not meet the metric for “extremism” among the Maryland Democrats or, for that matter, the national Democratic Party under Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN). Rather, Democrats embrace and endorse it because it is their own brand of extremism.

With a mostly oblivious public, Democrat-endorsed school board members across the country have succeeded in pushing the Harris-Walz leftist extremism in our public schools. Now, however, the Democratic Party leadership fears roadblocks to their leftist agenda in public education as voters become increasingly aware of their local political landscapes.

Minority voters, in particular, are pushing back on the Left’s agenda. There’s a reason the effort to sexualize and indoctrinate our nation’s young children in their taxpayer-funded schools has a mostly white face. Minority parents overwhelmingly disagree with radical gender ideology being taught in schools. The Pew Research Center’s opinion polling, conducted in April, shows that 70% of black respondents and 62% of Hispanic respondents say that “gender” is determined by sex at birth.

The lack of enthusiasm among minority parents for the transgender indoctrination of their children in public schools is one of many reasons that black and Latino voters are leaving the Democratic Party in droves.

On June 6, 2023, for example, the racial divide on this topic was abundantly clear at a rally against the LGBT indoctrination of students in Montgomery County’s public schools. Video footage shows mostly minority parents advocating religious freedom and the right to opt-out their children from LGBT lessons in public schools. They held signs that said “Protect our Children” and “Restore Opt-Out Now.”

Meanwhile, the rainbow-clad alphabet people demanding the ideological indoctrination of Montgomery County’s children were almost all white.

It is telling about the state of Maryland’s Democratic leadership that they label the side rallying for religious freedom and opt-out options as “the extremists.”

Brenda Diaz is one of Montgomery County’s candidates in the November election who intends to fight for religious freedom in local public schools. Maryland Democrats laughably have labeled Diaz as an “extremist,” and they are paying canvassers to campaign against her. Her website, however, specifies that her priorities include “championing academic excellence, focusing on restoring safety, empowering students, families, and teachers, and ensuring responsible resource allocation through diligent oversight of our schools.”

What likely bothers Maryland’s leftists the most is that Diaz expresses the following sentiment on her campaign website: “[W]e will respect the inherent right of parents to guide their children’s moral compass and cultural beliefs.”

Maryland’s Democratic leaders have the right to spend money any way they see fit, but they should at least be honest about why they are putting it toward these local school board races. Like Harris and Walz, they believe that the government, not parents, should be responsible for the moral and cultural upbringing of children. And their money is used to fund candidates who will institutionalize this notion in America’s public schools.

I am for both inclusion and women’s rights

Posted on October 17, 2024October 17, 2024 by IWN Media Team

This piece originally appeared in Arizona Capitol Times and was written by Alison Furno — fitness instructor, volleyball coach, and resident of Phoenix, Arizona. She is a member of Independent Women’s Network and co-host of Into The Fire.

Elections are all about choices. Candidates and the horse-race-obsessed media often try to make it seem like issues are entirely black and white; or, in this case, red or blue.

Yet some issues – like the future of women’s sports – aren’t like that. People don’t have to choose between preserving opportunity, safety, and fairness for women, and the kind and inclusive treatment of people who identify as trans. We can be for both.

As a fitness instructor, I know how much all people – from the youngest children to our senior citizens – benefit from athletic training and staying fit and active. No matter someone’s sex, race, gender identity, sexuality, or disability, getting involved in sports and fitness activities has the potential to better people’s lives. Physical activity provides a host of benefits, including improved mental health, less isolation, lower rates of substance abuse, and better outcomes in academics. The list could go on and on.

It is critical that we provide opportunities for athletic participation for anyone and everyone who is willing to engage.

Yet that doesn’t mean that we have to gut rules and policies that create fair playing fields for athletic competitions. Arizona offers competitive golf tournaments for senior citizens. There are also robust competitions for boys and girls based on their ages. Age restrictions are put in place not because of a desire to exclude players outside of those age thresholds but to ensure that golfers who are young and developing their skills, or who are older and past their physical prime years, have the chance to compete against those with similar skills. It’s common sense.

Sex-specific women’s leagues and athletic competitions were created for the same reason: to give women the chance to win. If there weren’t separate leagues for women and for girls, if all sports were co-ed, then women and girls wouldn’t have the chance to win or, in most cases, to even make the team. It’s simply a scientific fact that men and women are physically different, and those physical differences give men an advantage in athletic competitions.

Recognizing that fact and insisting that female athletic competitions are reserved for women and girls only isn’t needlessly exclusionary; it’s necessary. Americans are seeing every day what happens when males are allowed to compete in women’s sports. Women are getting injured, losing places on teams, and having awards and opportunities stripped from them. Sadly, many girls and women are being discouraged from even playing sports at all. This is a tragedy.

Title IX was passed more than 50 years ago to stop the kind of sex discrimination that was preventing women and girls from participating in sports. It’s astonishing – and plainly sexist – that today, the Biden-Harris administration is gutting sex-based protections and prioritizing the interests of men who want to compete in women’s leagues over women themselves. Overwhelmingly, Americans know this is wrong.

Women’s interests are being downgraded when it comes to privacy. Women, including sexual assault survivors, are being told they have no choice but to change and shower in front of men who claim to feel more comfortable in women’s spaces. Women’s comfort and desire for safe, private spaces don’t matter.

This isn’t inclusion. It isn’t kindness. It’s a war on women and on common sense. I’m grateful that some Arizona candidates have spoken out and are protecting women’s sports and spaces, while some federal candidates have indicated they would make restoring women’s right to single-sex sports and spaces a priority. Why haven’t others made the same promise? Why haven’t they even answered this question?

Inclusion does not require that we abandon common sense and destroy opportunities based on age, sex, or ability. I believe we can achieve both – and want leaders who are willing to stand with women too.

Fairfax County leadership’s legacy is likely to be one of nepotism and waste

Posted on October 3, 2024November 5, 2024 by Stephanie Lundquist-Arora

Last week, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors sent a letter to Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) begging the state for more money, particularly for K-12 public education. If he does consider this request, Youngkin should introduce a condition requiring an external audit of the county’s “critical services.”

Alternatively, Fairfax County’s supervisors, could, if they actually care about local costs, reconsider their sanctuary policy passed in January 2021, which is not only substantially increasing expenses for the county but also sinking our public schools.

The problem with Fairfax County’s request for more money is that the county’s elected leadership admittedly has relinquished any power to ensure that local public school funds are spent in a responsible manner with a clear focus on student outcomes. On Aug. 12, 2024, Board of Supervisors Chairman Jeff McKay sent me an email acknowledging that “the Board of Supervisors is the largest funder of FCPS but does not have authority over operations.”

So who is monitoring the school district’s budget that has ballooned from $3 billion in fiscal 2020 to $3.7 billion in fiscal 2025, even as the student population decreased from 188,355 to 181,701?

Esther Ko, the district’s auditor general, does not seem to be looking for fraud, waste, and abuse. Instead, it appears she is in lock-step with the district’s other leaders to boost imaging. In fact, former school board member Karen Keys-Gamarra told Ko at a school board meeting in April 2023, “I personally wanted to thank you for being a partner … and for making us look good.”

The truth of the matter is that the district’s budget, which accounts for more than half of the county’s spending, is on a runaway freight train with irresponsible leaders as the conductors. Specifically, Superintendent Michelle Reid, who has an annual salary of more than $400,000, bloats the school district’s bureaucracy with overpaid, non-school-based administrators who are not from the area and have little to no local knowledge of the district.

Meanwhile, student test scores have plummeted, and the performance of multiple schools has declined. Reid’s priorities are bringing in her buddies and politicizing public education with equal outcomes at all costs, not improving student achievement and genuine education. Our elected school board members should address such gross negligence and waste, but they do not seem to understand that they are in charge of Reid, not the other way around.

Here are just a few examples of Reid’s questionable decision-making with regard to the budget and the district’s imported senior leadership.

In July 2022, Reid announced a new senior position and entire bureaucratic department for her friend and former colleague from Washington’s Northshore Schools. Lisa Youngblood Hall, the district’s new chief experience and engagement officer, will earn an annual salary of $239,468 in fiscal 2025. Though it remains unclear what she or her office does, Hall’s budget is more than $8.2 million and includes 70 non-school-based, full-time employees.

Hall is not the only interstate import. In March 2023, the Texas Education Agency announced that the state was removing Houston Independent School District’s leadership and taking charge of the state’s largest school district due to its poor performance over multiple years. A few short months later, Reid announced Fairfax County’s new chief of schools, Geovanny Ponce, who was formerly a district administrator in Houston’s failing public school system.

Geovanny Ponce has held the position of Fairfax County’s chief of schools since July 2023, during which time his annual salary increased from $186,000 in Houston to $253,665 in Fairfax County. The fiscal 2025 budget shows that under Reid’s and Ponce’s leadership, the Office of the Chief of Schools more than doubled its expenses from fiscal 2024 to fiscal 2025, increasing from $16 million to $40 million.

Also joining us from Houston’s failing school district is William Solomon, the district’s chief human resources officer since June 2024. Under Reid’s tenure, the non-school-based human resources expenditures have increased from approximately $12 million in fiscal 2022 to $16.7 million in fiscal 2025.

Fairfax County’s school district’s senior leadership is unimpressive, and their budget management is an embarrassment. The answer to our school district’s problems is not more money from skyrocketing local taxes or from the state. Rather, the district’s budget needs an external audit.

Reid and her friends clearly are lemons. Fairfax County residents would be better served to find competent leaders who have a genuine vested interest and stake in our local public schools.

What will it take for public school officials to start caring about student needs?

Posted on September 27, 2024October 1, 2024 by Stephanie Lundquist-Arora

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 in Washington Examiner.

Fairfax County’s public schools have an unprecedented problem with chronic absenteeism. Students considered chronically absent are those who miss more than 10% of school days in a year.

Chronic absenteeism is problematic because it affects academic performance, creates problems for teachers in their flow of instruction and curricula, and increases the likelihood that students will drop out of high school.

However, the district’s leadership did not appear to be worried about these matters when they closed the schools to in-person instruction for 1 1/2 years during the pandemic. Or, even more personally, when they suspended my three sons for 39 cumulative days for not wearing their masks after Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) signed Executive Order Two, which gave parents the right to choose whether to send their children to school wearing masks.

Now, however, Fairfax County’s Democrat-endorsed leaders are concerned because chronic absenteeism is one metric that affects a school’s accreditation in Virginia, and its COVID-19 waiver expired this year.

Each of Fairfax County’s 199 schools is graded in every accreditation category on a level one to level three rating. A performance rating of level one indicates “at or above standard,” level two is “near standard,” and level three means a school is performing “below standard.” Any school that earns a level three for chronic absenteeism, or any other category for that matter, is put on probation or “accredited with conditions.” The conditions are that the school needs to follow the state’s guidance to improve performance for that indicator, or the school will subsequently lose its accreditation.

Of Fairfax County’s 199 schools, 98 schools received a level two in chronic absenteeism for the 2023-2024 academic year, according to the Virginia Department of Education. Meanwhile, 10 schools (eight elementary schools and two middle schools) received a level three, or “below standard,” in the chronic absenteeism category. If that were to happen again this year without the waiver in effect, those 10 schools would be “accredited with conditions.”

When Fairfax County’s leaders followed teachers unions’ demands and locked our children out of their schools, they proved they are not particularly concerned about students not attending school. But what they are obsessed with is perception. Even when our schools are failing, they want people to believe they are great and proclaim it ad nauseam.

When the Virginia Department of Education announced an opportunity to allow in-person flexible instructional hours to adjust schools’ chronic absenteeism calculations this year, Fairfax County’s school district leaders, particularly Geovanny Ponce and Marie Lemmon, were smart to jump at the chance to alleviate this clear problem. The concern is that they are abusing the program. There is little to no oversight by the regional assistant superintendents to ensure the flexible instruction is administered by a licensed teacher, it does not exceed appropriate pupil-to-teacher ratios, and instruction is tied to Virginia content standards, as Virginia’s Department of Education’s guidelines mandate.

Instead, school administrators quietly whispered stories of what actually happened in several schools. Dozens of children stared at their phones in cafeterias across the county as principals changed attendance sheets to meet the preferences, and likely the demands, of county administrators.

The intended purpose of providing flexible instructional hours is to support our district’s chronically absent students. Done the right way, school and district leaders might be able to prevent colossal learning gaps and worse.

Sadly, Fairfax County’s school board members and district administrators are again failing our most vulnerable children in their attempts to make the district appear to be performing better than it actually is. What will it take to shift the school district’s focus from bureaucrats’ wishes to children’s needs?