Virginia Board of Education: Transgender Policy

This blog builds on Critical Thinking and Policy Development and Analysis, Critical Thinking: Logic and Rationality, Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Key Components and Dimensions, Critical Thinking: Bounded Rationality and Time, Critical Thinking: Credence and Veracity, and A Solutions-Based Approach to Social Justice. These help look at some of the key issues around policy the key factors in a current Virginia education policy debate.

I attended a Virginia Board of Education meeting and saw firsthand the messy issues involved in policy making. Policy-makers can rarely make everyone happy. While The 2022 Model Policies on the Privacy, Dignity, and Respect for all Students and Parents in Virginia’s Public Schools was not the thrust of the agenda, it was the focus during the public discussion.

The 2002 Virginia Model Policies is still a draft, and many people spoke about it. But this policy is really a subset of a larger issue: who is responsible for rearing and educating American children? This issue was fundamental in the 2021 Virginia gubernatorial race. The Democratic candidate seemed to have the election well in hand, and then Loudoun County blew up over the school board. McAuliffe, the democratic candidate, said, “I’m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decisions,” adding, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” (National Review)

The election turned on a dime and Youngkin, the Republican candidate, won. The proposed changes result from this dynamic. The Virginia electorate appears to think parents own the education system and the boards of education are their representatives and answerable to them.

A few observations from the meeting.

• There are deep, deep feelings on both sides of the issue.
• The transgender speakers were deeply emotional and expressed their pain and used life examples to show why they opposed the new policy. Most of the speakers opposed the policy. There was a coherent messaging that seemed coordinated.
• While those in favor of the policy mobilized some people to come, they did not have a slate of speakers and messages. They did not seem to have the organization and energy that those opposing the policy displayed.

This is essentially a tradeoff between parental rights and student rights. It boils down to whether or not we trust parents to act responsibly. The trans witnesses argued from personal experience they could not trust their parents to act responsibly. What was very interesting is there were parents of trans children that argued against the proposed policy. These are parents that supported their children. I suppose they are saying they are the exception rather than the rule. But the question never asked or answered was why? What can we do to help parents to understand and help their children rather than throw them out onto the streets?

So what does the Model Policy say? Annex A and Annex B provide a summary extract of the model policy and the law it is based on. The Model Policy requires a balance of parent and student needs, but shifts the balance to the parent’s favor and requires notification. The law provides specific tasks, but no real standards of performance. It’s the same for the model policy. It provides Guiding Principles in Section 2, but again no standards or way to balance the needs of students and parents. Part A states, “Parents have the right to make decisions with respect to their children”. Part B states, “Schools shall serve the needs of all students”. Parts C and D likewise split the difference, saying schools must partner with parents and respect all students.

There is no risk assessment and balancing mechanism. Presumably, implementing processes will address these issues. However, they need to be addressed in the policy to at least establish balancing principles and risk assessments. That lack is causing the current angst on both sides.

At the heart of this debate are two deductive syllogisms, one on each side of the issue.

Table 1 The Logic on Both Sides of the Divide
	Schools, teachers, and trans advocates	Parents and their advocates
Major Premise	Children, especially trans children, are vulnerable and need to be protected	Parents understand their children the best and have the legal responsibility for them
Minor Premise	Experience has shown parents do not understand and often act out against trans children	Schools, through their social just programs, are implementing an agenda antithetical to American values and denigrate the parents’ role in society
Conclusion	Therefore, schools need to keep parents out of the discussion and work directly with trans students to protect them and ensure they receive an education	Therefore, parents need to oversee the schools and maintain responsibility for educating and nurturing their children

Virginia requires an evidence-based approach. There is an extensive literature on evidence-based management, but there are two fundamental problems. I am not sure there is a consistent definition on what constitutes evidence. Is there a scientific and factual basis for it? As we see in court, one person’s evidence is another person’s hypothesis or anecdote. We need standards to evaluate the evidence. Second, how much evidence is enough? In a criminal trial, the threshold is reasonable doubt. It is lower in a civil trial. What is the threshold and balancing point on this policy?

The evidence should support the major and minor premises of a valid logical argument. Critical Thinking: Logic and Rationality discusses assessing deductive logic. Critical Thinking: Credence and Veracity provide a framework to assess the evidence and determine logic’s validity and reliability.

Following pieces will assess the validity of the logic and the evidence that supports it.

Annex A Model Policy Extract

Three key points from its purpose statement:

1. “The Virginia Department of Education (the “Department”) recognizes that each child is a unique individual with distinctive abilities and characteristics that should be valued and respected. All students have the right to attend school in an environment free from discrimination, harassment, or bullying.”

• “The Department also fully acknowledges the rights of parents to exercise their fundamental rights granted by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to direct the care, upbringing, and education of their children. The Code of Virginia reaffirms the rights of parents to determine how their children will be raised and educated. Empowering parents is not only a fundamental right, but it is essential to improving outcomes for all children in Virginia.”
• “The Department issues the 2022 Model Policies to provide clear, accurate, and useful guidance to Virginia school boards that align with statutory provisions (Code of Virginia, § 22.1-23.3 or the “Act”).”

Annex B Code of Virginia Extract

The Act states:

“A. The Department of Education shall develop and make available to each school board model policies concerning the treatment of transgender students in public elementary and secondary schools that address common issues regarding transgender students in accordance with evidence-based best practices and include information, guidance, procedures, and standards relating to:

1. Compliance with applicable nondiscrimination laws;

• Maintenance of a safe and supportive learning environment free from discrimination and harassment for all students;
• Prevention of and response to bullying and harassment;
• Maintenance of student records;
• Identification of students;
• Protection of student privacy and the confidentiality of sensitive information;
• Enforcement of sex-based dress codes; and
• Student participation in sex-specific school activities and events and use of school facilities. Activities and events do not include athletics.”