Youngkin’s Reform Goals Threatened by the Board of Education

by James C. Sherlock

Jim Bacon yesterday was relatively pessimistic about the prospects of Governor Youngkin and his administration rolling back regulations.

The number of regulations not mandated by federal or state law is miniscule.

A mandate in law is not the only test of a regulation.

The current Virginia Board of Education’s regulations have gone well beyond the texts of the laws of Virginia to challenge parental authority and completely redesign standards and curricula in service to progressive dogma.

Most of those regulations can be modified to eliminate or change the most radical passages and still be responsive to the underlying laws as written.

The issue is that the current Board membership won’t do it. I recommend the Governor replace its membership.

One particularly infamous regulation among many is one written in response to Code of Virginia § 22.1-23.3. Treatment of transgender students; policies.

That law is comprised of a numbered list of items to be covered in the subsequent regulation. The regulation is 29 pages long and challenges both common sense and parental authority over their children.

Some paragraphs, like these, are fiercely controversial:

Gender identity is considered an innate characteristic that most children declare by age five to six (Lamb & Lerner, 2015).

School divisions will need to consider the health and safety of the student in situations where students may not want their parents to know about their gender identity, and schools should address this on a case-by-case basis. If a student is not ready or able to safely share with their family about their gender identity, this should be respected.

In the situation when parents or guardians of a minor student (under 18 years of age) do not agree with the student’s request to adopt a new name and pronouns, school divisions will need to determine whether to respect the student’s request, abide by the parent’s wishes to continue using the student’s legal name and sex assigned at birth, or develop an alternative that respects both the student and the parents.

No distinction is made in Virginia’s regulation between the schools’ treatment of kindergarteners and high school seniors. It may be the only such regulation in the country that does not.

For example, Utah’s regulation, addressing the same issue, recognizes that younger children need parental guidance:

Parental involvement is addressed on a case-by-case basis. The paramount consideration is the health and safety of the student, while also making sure that the student’s gender identity is affirmed in a manner that maintains privacy and confidentiality.

Grades K-5: Generally, the parent or guardian will inform the school of an impending transition. However, it would be appropriate to approach the parent of an elementary school student if school personnel believe that a gender identity or expression issue is presenting itself at school and creating difficulty for the student.

Grades 6-12: Generally, notification from students’ parents about their students’ gender identity, gender expression, or transition is unnecessary.

We note here that Utah’s regulation is compliant with Virginia’s law. Virginia’s Board of Education went far beyond compliance to directly challenge parents over their rights to guide the life choices of their 5-year-old kids.

This is but a single example, but the Board of Education has proven itself to be by far the most radical of Virginia’s Policy Boards.

I have suggested previously that the Governor appears to me, a non-lawyer, to have the authority under Code of Virginia § 2.2-108. Removal of members of certain boards, commissions, etc. to remove and replace members of the Board of Education. Others here have disagreed.

The Governor and, if he seeks an opinion, the new Attorney General, can determine his authority in this matter. I expect he will use all of the tools available to him.

But both the Governor and parents will be paddling upstream against a strong current if he does not fire the current members of that hyper-radicalized board.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

15 responses to “Youngkin’s Reform Goals Threatened by the Board of Education”

  1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Of course, I and others on this blog have been pointing out all along that Youngkin would not have plenary power to do all that he has promised to do.

    Following are the grounds for removing a board member. Which reason do you suggest he employ: malfeasance, misfeasance,
    “incompetence, misconduct, neglect of duty, absenteeism, conflict of
    interests, failure to carry out the policies of the Commonwealth as
    established in the Constitution or by the General Assembly, or refusal
    to carry out a lawful directive of the Governor”

    1. dick dyas Avatar

      Any one. Let them spend four years litigating their removal.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Under the law, the Governor is the sole judge of their removal.

    2. DJRippert Avatar

      From Steve Haner’s column earlier today, “On paper, the members appointed or reappointed under previous Democratic Governor Ralph Northam have fixed terms to complete, and Youngkin can replace only two of the seven members come July 1. Need he wait years for a majority? Four years ago Northam fired two air board members out of the blue, right on the eve of a key regulatory vote involving the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.”

      I assume the Air Board is less protected than the Ed board?

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        As I pointed out in response to Steve, the terms of those Air Board members had expired several months earlier. He just had taken no action to reappoint them or appoint someone in their place. Since no action had been taken, they continued to serve, albeit on borrowed time.

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Which neither proves nor disproves that they serve at the pleasure. It was clear at the time they were shit-canned, and others were not, because of how they would vote. And there is this in the section Sherlock cited:

          The Governor is the sole judge of the sufficiency of the cause for removal as set forth in this section.

          Now there is a phrase that a judge will notice.

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            I noticed that phrase, as well. I think the legal argument would go something like this: If that phrase means that a board member who is being replaced under one of the reasons cited in this section has no recourse to the courts, that, in effect, makes a board appointment subject to the pleasure of the Governor. If the legislature had meant for an appointment to be at the pleasure of the Governor, it would have said so. Therefore, a Governor’s action under this statute is subject to judicial review.

            Regardless of the legal argument, I, like you, would be surprised if any board member would be willing to go through the aggravation of a law suit to retain an unpaid position that demands a lot of his personal time.

            So, it would depend of whether Youngkin were willing to stir up the political blowback that firing the Board of Education would cause.

          2. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            I have been reminded of another famous case, in 2012, McDonnell removing the full Port Authority Board to get something he wanted and they opposed…

          3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            The Port Authority is a different case. By law, it is a “body corporate and as a political subdivision of the Commonwealth.” Therefore, the statute which limits the power of the governor to remove member of agency boards in the executive branch does not apply to the Port Authority. Because the statute providing for the appointment of the members of the Port Authority does not place any restriction on the Governor, they essentially serve at his pleasure.

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Keeee….rect. Not the same legal construction at all, and I think there is case law on the Board of Education. The lawyers will fight it out, but for many boards the reality is they can be removed at will.

        I admit I’m not an expert on this and fully understand that the laws say what the judge says they say! Must “serves at the pleasure” be explicit in the Code? Or must it work the other way, and the Code must state that board members cannot be removed? Despite the protection, will some Woke BoE member want to spend the next couple of years in that cauldron, Horatio on that bridge? Won’t be fun.

    3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      We agree. That is the law. I suggest the Governor cite misfeasance. “Misfeasance describes some affirmative act that, though legal, causes harm.” Fits this situation exactly.

      I also note that ” The Governor is the sole judge of the sufficiency of the cause for removal as set forth in this section.” Misfeasance in this or any other case of removal is thus what the Governor, as the sole judge, determines it to be.

      1. Virginia Project Avatar
        Virginia Project

        The gender nonsense getting in there proves both incompetence and malfeasance.

    4. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      There is a larger issue as this board is actually created and empowered in the Constitution, not just the Code. It was intended by the framers to be in a different category, more protected, and if you know the history no surprise. Plenty of the others are at-will. If you read the section further you see it also protects the higher education boards of visitors from removal.

  2. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    … and reality. Republican unicorn dies on altar of the law.

    Don’t worry. He has plans with transvaginal ultrasound. Just wait ’til you see that one!

  3. […] Note. I wrote a story in January recommending that the governor fire the BOE.  Turns out he did not have to.  The […]

Leave a Reply