As President of VASN, I am coming forth to represent our entire membership, which consists of 500+ School Nurses throughout all of the State Superintendent’s eight regions in Virginia. We are in unanimous support of SB 704 and ask for your support by voting in favor of it on Tuesday. This bill will produce data which is urgently needed to determine continuous quality improvement in school health services across Virginia schools. It will allow for better implementation of professional development and can help determine where staff may be needed in. Currently, this data is already being collected in all schools. VASN knows this to be true, because it is done by the school clinic. In 2019, when it was only optional, 92 of 132 school districts were already choosing to send this very data to VDOE. With that, please note that there is no fiscal impact related to SB704 because it is already being done. If the only school nurse organization in the Commonwealth is asking you to push forth a bill that would bring us more work… then it must be very important to us, especially with Covid already on our hands. BUT… That is just not the case though. This is not more work. We are simply asking you to mandate the collection of data that already exists. Thank you, on behalf of the School Nurses in Virginia. Angela Moore, VASN President VASN would like to give their support in favor of HB1328 (Delaney) and SB737 (Boysko) because it aligns with previously passed laws which mandate epinephrine in schools. K-12 already has the stock epinephrine, and this will just include the EXS3, which has seen a huge expansion since the previous bill was passed. Thank you for expanding the availability of epinephrine to our ECSE students by voting yes. It is the equitable vote to make. Angela Moore, VASN President VASN also supports HB215 and SB62 with a very STRONG recommendation to add a School Nurse who is Nationally Certified to each of the two committees. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any such committee to make recommendations and/or pass along reports without the insight and expertise of a School Nurse. School Nurses are the most appropriate healthcare providers to answer questions regarding school related procedures, trainings, healthcare plans, emergency action plans, levels of training for staff, classroom and other school environments, documentation, and the like, when it comes to the health and safety of school children. It would behoove you to include a nationally certified School Nurse on both of these committees if they should pass, to best represent the school environment and to speak on behalf of school children. Thank you for your consideration. Angela Moore, VASN President SB161 VASN would also like to offer its support of SB161 and its willingness to provide assistance in developing guidelines on policies to inform and educate coaches and athletes. This will be beneficial to a magnitude of students throughout the Commonwealth and is geared toward optimizing the health and safety of our students, so VASN is in support. Please vote yes on SB161, for our students. Thank you. Angela Moore, VASN President

Have you tried Roll On – 200mg from JUSTCBD?

Stop with the lies!

No! Stop with the lies! Cannibas is much safer than alcohol and pharmaceuticals!! Let the average person be free with a plant! Stop holding the little guy back....just stop.

HB 1024... OPPOSE... Diverts public funds to private entities ... sounds like vouchers/tax shelter HB 344/356 OPPOSE... Local School Boards already have the authority to review applications for charters, etc.. once again looks like a method of diverting public funds to private entities .. Virginia underfunds it public schools as it is. We need to keep the public funds where it would do the most good and if the Va. Leg had not tied the hands of public education with all the SOQ/SOL requirements and was able to allow the educators more flexibility to implement programs tailored to the needs of their district more freely and would FUND these public programs things would be even better. I noted that all the Ed representatives opposed this at committee hearing. Who is going pay for that regional board mentioned in 356?? that will just siphon more public money for another layer of admin. HB346. I noted in the committee meeting that only the colleges who already have the capability to create lab schools now spoke FOR this bill because it would bring more of the public k-12 funds to their doorstep. Opens door for corporate/for profits to operate as well.

To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB 1034. As a public high school school teacher and parent of two young children (ages 5 and 2) in Virginia, I have serious concerns that this bill will wind up doing more harm than good for the children of our state. I have worked in two different public school systems in Virginia over 13 years, and I have seen first hand how beneficial counseling services can be to a wide variety of students. If parents are allowed to prohibit their students from accessing counseling services in the school, these students may be cut off from not only critical mental health support, but but also the academic, career, and community support that school counselors and mental health team members provide. All members of a school mental health team must undergo rigorous education before obtaining their licenses, and as such they should be trusted as the professionals they are to provide only services that they deem necessary for students well-being. I strongly urge you to let the trained mental health professionals do their jobs. Don't make students get tied in the mire of adult squibbles. Thank you, Sara Watkins Mother Teacher Concerned Virginia Citizen

To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB HB1032. As a public high school school teacher and parent of two young children (ages 5 and 2) in Virginia, I have serious concerns that this bill will wind up doing more harm than good for the children of our state. As VA Senator Peterson said on January 27 of this year, regarding a similar bill, "I don't think we should be involved in micromanaging school libraries...The problem is that you’re going to sweep up books that you don’t intend to sweep up" (Matthew Barakat, abcnews.go.com). I strongly urge you to leave the books in the libraries for the kids. They deserve to have the opportunity to decide with their own parents and personal support systems what books to read. Thank you, Sara Watkins Mother Teacher Concerned Virginia Citizen

I am writing in opposition of HB344 and HB346. HB344 - local governing bodies should have the sole discretion to approve or reject charter schools within their jurisdiction. Given that our schools are still underfunded, the emphasis should be improving the educational experience for all students, not passing the buck. HB346 - Our local school boards are best equipped to make recommendations for student needs. We should not be establishing schools outside the purview of the school board and without accountability to the parents and voters. The bill would also allow institutions whose values run counter to the goal of inclusive public schooling to enter our public schools. Underserved communities are already struggling and should not have their vulnerability exploited by schools or private businesses with a political agenda. Keep our money in our schools. A strong public education system benefits every citizen and improves our communities.

Both I, a public school teacher in Fairfax County, and the Virginia Education Association OPPOSE HB 344 & 346. Charter schools (and variations) take essential moneys away from public education. Charters hurt students, schools, and communities.

I SUPPORT HB 1328. I OPPOSE HB 344, 787, and 1009.

I oppose HB344. There are already processes outlined in the Code of Virginia allowing the development of new charter schools. The reason Virginia has not developed new charter schools in recent years is because there was simply no interest in doing so, and so few applicants. This bill will remove local authority of school boards who are most qualified to make these decisions.

Please oppose HB344 and HB356. Our public schools need attention and are the best places for our tax dollars. Charter schools will not lessen the financial burden of education and would compete with funding for existing public schools. Another level of administration, teachers, libraries, and food services, for example, would have a significant impact on funding our public schools. The public schools are still not funded at the 2008 level when funds were diverted due to the recession. Public schools first and foremost.

Dear Members of the Education Committee, I respectfully wish to oppose HR344. I am a retired Virginia K12 teacher and I have seen first hand what lack of funding and support for our public schools has done to the quality of education and the morale of both students and staff. The schools I served and loved have never recovered from the decrease in funding that began in 2008 and has continued on into the present. Public schools are important. They are the place where students of all races, all economic classes, and all abilities mix together to form an inclusive community that promotes acceptance. This community where ALL children have a place is important to the health of our county. Please do not destroy this mission of the public schools by taking needed funds to provide a duplicate and divisive system of schools which will surely support a division of children until there is NO place left for us all to be citizens together. I support full funding of America's public school system.

Remember the Great Recession? The cuts made then to school funding have never been fully restored. That's where our tax dollars should be going, not diverted to schools where taxpayers have no voice. My taxes educate other people's children and I'm fine with that as long as I have a vote on electing the governing school board and the opportunity to speak at that board's public meetings. HB344 takes away my voice as a voter and taxpayer. Please do not pass HB344.

Our current schools should be our priority. The charter schools would compete with our public schools for our current tight and limited resources. Another level of administration at a regional level would have a major fiscal impact. Significant personnel for administration, teachers, maintenance, health, safety, and food services would be required even if it is a school with a smaller number of students. It is already difficult to staff our public schools. Funds would be needed for transportation, libraries and books. These standard educational supplies, alone, carry high costs. Our public schools are still not funded at the 2008 level when funds were diverted due to the recession.

Please oppose all bills which give taxpayer money to charter schools or university lab schools. These schools are not accountable to local parents or voters, and their support takes money away from public schools, which are essential to our democracy.

HB344 (Davis) Public charter schools; applications; review and approval and HB356 (Tata) Authorizes the Board of Education to establish regional charter school divisions Our current schools should be our priority. The charter schools would compete with our public schools for our current tight and limited resources. Another level of administration at a regional level would have a major fiscal impact. Significant personnel for administration, teachers, maintenance, health, safety, and food services would be required even if it is a school with a smaller number of students. It is already difficult to staff our public schools. Funds would be needed for transportation, libraries and books. These standard educational supplies, alone, carry high costs. Our public schools are still not funded at the 2008 level when funds were diverted due to the recession. HB346 (Davis) College partnership laboratory schools; application and establishment Local school boards are best positioned to determine what their students need. The proposed legislation would set up schools that are outside of the local school board purview and therefore outside of accountability to local parents and voters. The bill would allow private institutions and businesses to establish schools.

We need to prioritize energies and money for our current schools and their students. Our public schools are still not funded at the 2008 levels when funds were diverted due to the recession. Charter schools will compete for these limited funds: additional teachers, administrators, educational supplies, maintenance and health, safety and food services. Charter schools do not equitably serve the needs of all students. I oppose any legislation supporting charter schools.

Hello esteemed committee members, I am a parent of a current Chesterfield County Public school child as well as a 2019 graduate of CCPS schools. I am a STRONG supporter of public schools. I oppose any proposed bills, including HB344, HB346, and HB356, that take away control from locally elected school boards and give it to privately operated boards that have the real potential for cronyism, grift, corruption, and fraud. Charter schools also siphon taxpayer money from Virginia's already severely underfunded public schools and fling open doors to businesses/people that profit off of public education. Virginia's current College partnership laboratory schools are public, nonsectarian, nonreligious schools established by a public or private institutions of higher education that operate a teacher education program approved by the Board of Education. The language in HB 346 would allow ANY public or private institution of higher ed OR private business to apply to the BOE to establish a college partnership laboratory school. This would open doors for for-profit schools like EPI, religious schools like Regent, or businesses like Amazon or McDonalds to establish teacher training programs. This is another attempt at education privatization. Please keep in mind that Virginia is currently ranked 4th by Wallet Hub for best schools in the US. This is WITHOUT a proliferation of charter schools and attained during the Covid-19 pandemic. Why do we need charter schools? Who REALLY wants them? https://wallethub.com/edu/e/states-with-the-best-schools/5335 Public education is the foundation of a democratic society. It is open to all students, regardless of color, disability, income level, religious belief (or lack of one), gender identity, or national origin. Please say no to HB 344, HB346, and HB356. Thank you.

I oppose HB1024, HB344, HB356, and HB346. These bills divert funds from public schools, reduce transparency with respect to public interest in the education of its citizens, remove/reduce influence of local school boards, potentially introduce religious bias into instruction, and/or disproportionally benefit the wealthy. We need to invest in our public education system and encourage parents to participate in public education. We do not need to divert funds to private schools from an already underfunded public education system or reduce the tax base for public schools. Our society requires a quality education system for all of its citizens for its continued growth and stability. The public has as much interest in the education of children as parents. Focus on funding and promoting public education not trying to fund private and particularly, private for-profit schools, which are NOT in the best interests of the public.

OPPOSE HB344 Charter schools would compete with our public schools for limited resources and personnel at a time when public schools are struggling. The General Assembly does not fund the SOQ, and our public schools are still not funded at the 2008 level when funds were diverted due to the recession.

I oppose HB344, HB346 and HB356. Our current schools should be our priority. The charter schools would compete with our public schools for our current tight and limited resources. Another level of administration at a regional level would have a major fiscal impact. Significant personnel for administration, teachers, maintenance, health, safety, and food services would be required even if it is a school with a smaller number of students. It is already difficult to staff our public schools. Funds would be needed for transportation, libraries and books. These standard educational supplies, alone, carry high costs. Our public schools are still not funded at the 2008 level when funds were diverted due to the recession.

Please do not support house bills 1024, 344,346, or 356. These bills divert resources from public schools. There is not interest in charter schools in Virginia, creating new schools is highly inefficient especially when there is a shortage of teachers and staff.

Oppose HB344 and HB356 Current schools should be the priority.

Oppose HB344 Current schools should be the priority.

Oppose HB344 Current schools should be the priority.

HB344 - Public schools that are open to all students need to be our priority and these public schools need to remain under the control of local school divisions. Funding additional schools outside of local control removes funding from local public schools. This is especially important when more, not less, funding is needed for public schools. HB346 - This bill also removes local control and funding from public schools. Public school divisions have the capability to work with local public institutions of high learning to provide lab schools. This cooperation should be encouraged at the local level - NOT with legislation that encourages private institutions and business to establish schools.

I oppose any of the pending legislation that would divert funds and resources from our public schools. Our public schools are already shamefully underfunded.

Good morning, esteemed members of Virginia's House of Delegates, I’m a parent who lives several hours away from Richmond and DC and I believe it’s imperative that local control in education decision making should remain just that; local. I currently have easy access to the locally elected, public school leaders and school system administrators in my county and am able to see their budgets, provide input on income and expenditures, and ensure our tax dollars are being spent wisely. Please don’t remove citizens’ rights to do this by opening the flood gates to charter school operators, outsiders who aren’t invested in our communities. I’ve chronicled the problems other states have with their charter schools since 2015. Each day in the headlines I see fraud, waste, embezzlement, and mismanagement of funds by charter school operators in those states. We don’t need those problems for Virginia. Charter schools often use selective enrollment tactics, can’t accommodate children with special needs, and don’t provide transportation and meals. These would be very big issues for countless students and their families here in SW Virginia. If communities would like to open charter schools, they may do so now under Virginia’s Constitution, and that’s the way it should remain. Virginia’s public schools are ranked 4th in the nation. They’re valuable, not because they’re money-makers, but because they’re responsible citizen makers. Please don’t undermine them and further under-fund them through unwise charter school legislation. Instead, please better support our neighborhood public schools through full and fair funding. Please look at the Community Schools model as a way to provide services for children in need of supports that will help them succeed in the classroom. Sincerely, Laura Bowman

Respected Committee Members, The push to create charters in Virginia via a variety of methods in HB346, HB356, and HB344 is a deeply flawed idea. Across Virginia we have over 44 International Baccaulareate schools which are the most respected advanced acacemic program in the world. Those districts are all across the Commonwealth, including 2 in Virginia Beach, Danville, York, Hanover, and Fauquier. Most students can access Dual Enrollment classes in virtually any subject at our community colleges while still in high school, and over 640K students have accessed a range of career courses over 17 career categories that encompass many fields. CNBC ranked Virginia 1st in the nation on 85 different metrics aross 10 categories. We have school choice built into our system. To disrupt the system by siphoning money and resources to privately managed or regional schools that many students cannot reach will negatively disrupt what is already highly successful and more readily available buffet of choices. Please vote no on HB346, HB356, and HB344. Thank you.

We oppose the above listed bills

Please pass HB217. Moe can be done to encourage and educate students about opportunities in STEM-C fields and to make sure that educational opportunities in our schools are adequately supporting students pursuing these goals. Identifying the full range of employment opportunities in these areas and the education needed to succeed in them can only be a benefit. Please pass HB221. Please oppose HB344. The establishment of charter schools should remain with local school boards who are accountable to their constituents. Members of the State Board of Education are appointed and consequently are accountable only to those who appointed them. Also, this bill provides that there is no longer the opportunity to revisit the decisions of this State or local boards in granting or continuing such charter. The public should not lose a mechanism of redress already in place. Please oppose HB346. The establishment of charter schools should remain with local school boards who are accountable to their constituents. Extending the establishment of charter and lab schools to private institutions of higher ed and private businesses further removes the oversight of such schools to boards that have no accountability to the public that they serve. Please oppose HB356. The establishment of charter schools should remain with local school boards who are accountable to their constituents. Please oppose HB486. Governor's School admissions should not be constricted by an arbitrary quota of students from one district. Please oppose HB563. While assisting local districts in funding construction where school buildings are in disrepair is a desirable goal, the diversion of funds allocated for instruction should not be institutionalized as a regular mechanism to accomplish this. Please pass HB585. Standardized testing has become the tail that wags the dog in education. Increasing amounts of time are dedicated to teaching towards the test and administering tests to the detriment of education tailored to the needs of students and localities. Reducing such testing the minimum required for federal accountability would free time and resources to more fully meet the needs of students. Please oppose 789. Family life education should remain an opt out program instead of an opt in program. The latter puts an onerous burden on schools for the delivery of this important curriculum. Please oppose HB988. Transgender students deserve equal protection in schools across the Commonwealth. All school districts should maintain certain expectations in this regard. Please pass HB994 Please pass HB1005. This bill stipulates that teachers under continuing contract can resign within the school year but must do so providing 2 weeks of notice. Such a provision provides more time for local school districts to make arrangements for staffing adjustments. Please pass HB1023. Human trafficking is increasingly a problem in the Commonwealth and beyond. Our students should be alert to its threats and educated as to how to protect themselves from it. Please pass HB1026. With technology and the internet playing an increasing role in every aspect of our lives, expanding our understanding of this role and improving education surrounding it can only be a good thing. Please pass HB1299. Our students need as much information as possible about their opportunities after graduating from our public school system.

Our current schools should be our priority. The charter schools would compete with our public schools for our current tight and limited resources. Another level of administration at a regional level would have a major fiscal impact. Significant personnel for administration, teachers, maintenance, health, safety, and food services would be required even if it is a school with a smaller number of students. It is already difficult to staff our public schools. Funds would be needed for transportation, libraries and books. These standard educational supplies, alone, carry high costs. Our public schools are still not funded at the 2008 level when funds were diverted due to the recession.

I am a public school teacher in Fairfax County and I am writing to urge you to vote no on HB 344, HB 346, and HB 356. These bills divert public money out of our existing public schools and into creating new charter and “laboratory” schools. It is the state’s responsibility to ensure that our public schools are fully-funded. Up until this point, the General Assembly has not even funded the Virginia Board of Education’s Standards of Quality for minimum staffing standards in our public schools (relatedly, I ask that you please vote in favor of HB1135/SB490 so that we can finally fund these minimum recommended staffing standards). The argument in past years has been that fully funding our public schools would be too costly, and yet there are over a dozen bills this session seeking to further deplete state public school funding to divert into private and charter schools. Please protect public school funding by voting no on these bills.

My name is Dr. Rachel Levy and I live in Ashland, Virginia (23005), in the 55th House of Delegates District and the 9th State Senate District. I am a mother of three--I have one child in Hanover County Public Schools as well as two who are just graduated in 2021. I am also a teacher who has a PhD in Educational Leadership & Policy from VCU. I was a candidate for the 55th District seat in 2021. I oppose HB344, HB346, and HB356 because I support our public schools, because they are impractical and unnecessary, and because this legislation would disenfranchise local communities. We already have good laws that allow establishing charter and lab schools, in ways that preserve local democratic control and don’t rob funding from our public school students. All of these bills would strip power away from our locally elected school boards and hand it over to un-elected regional boards stocked with gubernatorial appointees. These regional charter school boards could override our locally elected school boards and their constituents (us!), duplicating services and forcing taxpayers to fund schools run by national and global for-profit companies that are focused on profits, not education. Allowing these companies to force their schools on us would be harmful across our Commonwealth, especially in rural areas such as where I live. Our public schools are beloved shared public and community institutions. Even if we don’t agree on what should be taught or on masking policies, we can all agree that the parents and citizens who fund our public schools should get to determine how they’re run and by whom. We want fully funded public schools, fairly compensated teachers and staff, and modernized school buildings. Corporate charter schools would drain the resources needed to achieve these goals. Many public school teachers and staff are of their communities, especially in rural areas, with deep knowledge and relationships. Outside charter school operators will bring in non-professional teaching staff and a “we know better” attitude. They pay reduced wages, salaries, and benefits. I hope you will join me in opposing this legislation that will bypass local communities and defund our education-centered public schools.

I am against these three bills and against any tax payer funds going to anything other than our public schools that are already underfunded in some areas of the Commonwealth. Our public schools are still not funded at the 2008 level when funds were diverted due to the recession. If parents want to send their children to private, religious, or charter schools, fine, but at their own expense. Our public schools offer extremely good educations in Virginia and we should be supporting our educators and facilities with our tax dollars. We do not need another level of administration at a regional level to run a parallel set of schools, many that would have a small number of students.

I oppose HB344 & HB356 - please vote no for the following reasons: Our current schools should be our priority. The charter schools would compete with our public schools for our current tight and limited resources. Another level of administration at a regional level would have a major fiscal impact. Significant personnel for administration, teachers, maintenance, health, safety, and food services would be required even if it is a school with a smaller number of students. It is already difficult to staff our public schools. Funds would be needed for transportation, libraries and books. These standard educational supplies, alone, carry high costs. Our public schools are still not funded at the 2008 level when funds were diverted due to the recession.

I am writing in opposition to HB344, HB346, HB356. HB344 - It shows the complete dishonesty of the argument, that you want local governing bodies to have expanded rights, except where it serves your purpose. HB346 - Local school boards are best positioned to determine what their students need. The proposed legislation would set up schools that are outside of the local school board purview and therefore outside of accountability to local parents and voters. The bill would allow private institutions and businesses to establish schools. HB356 - Our current schools should be our priority. The charter schools would compete with our public schools for our current tight and limited resources. Another level of administration at a regional level would have a major fiscal impact. Significant personnel for administration, teachers, maintenance, health, safety, and food services would be required even if it is a school with a smaller number of students. It is already difficult to staff our public schools. Funds would be needed for transportation, libraries, and books. These standard educational supplies, alone, carry high costs. Our public schools are still not funded at the 2008 level when funds were diverted due to the recession.

Our current schools should be our priority. The charter schools would compete with our public schools for our current tight and limited resources. Another level of administration at a regional level would have a major fiscal impact. Significant personnel for administration, teachers, maintenance, health, safety, and food services would be required even if it is a school with a smaller number of students. It is already difficult to staff our public schools. Funds would be needed for transportation, libraries and books. These standard educational supplies, alone, carry high costs. Our public schools are still not funded at the 2008 level when funds were diverted due to the recession.

I am writing to oppose any bill that would divert tax dollars from our public schools. Charter schools compete with our existing schools and reduce their ability to meet the needs of the students in their community. Our public schools are underfunded. We need to use our tax dollars to support our existing schools, to pay teachers a living wage, and to provide safe and up to date educational facilities. My sister has taught in Virginia's public schools for 35 years, and her salary is an insult to her professionalism and commitment to her students. Regional charter school divisions and laboratory schools would take control away from local school boards. Private institutions and businesses should not receive tax dollars for education. Thank you.

Please move to report HB344, HB346, HB356, HB789, HB1188, HB221, HB340, HB1125, HB1215, HB988, HB1023, HB1093. Please gently PBI HB486 so that academic merits ONLY decide who gets in.

I oppose this bill on the grounds that localities should maintain control of public schools. There is no need for the Board of Education to override School Boards, most of whom are elected in Virginia. This bill removes local control of public schools and undermine the authority of a School Board.

Both I, an public school teacher in Fairfax County, and the Virginia Education Association oppose HB 344, 346, and 356. Programs that drain public school budgets, such as vouchers, are a very bad idea. These programs hurt kids, schools, and communities.

I am a wife, mother, educator and resident of the city of Suffolk and I oppose these bills (including HB788, which was not on the list) because k-12 vouchers do not improve student outcomes. They take much needed money from public education. Virginia needs to put more money into public education, not less. We are current ranked 41st for per student spending. Our teacher salaries are nowhere near where they should be and we are currently suffering from a teacher shortage. There are numerous studies (Brookings Institute, National Bureau of Economic Research, University of Virginia) that show vouchers do not improve student outcomes. Investing in public schools improves outcomes, graduation and post secondary enrollment. Vote no on these bills. Thank you. Mrs. D. Waddell

Greetings legislators, I categorically oppose HB344 and any bill that is pushing vouchers, charters, and the privatization of our public schools. Under current law, the power to grant or deny a public charter school application and enter into an agreement for the establishment of a public charter school rests solely with local school boards— this current law must stay the same. We should be pushing to fund all public schools (and public schools only) in all communities to ensure equitable opportunities for all students. Students should be able to attend their neighborhood/community school and their parents/guardians/family adults should expect the same quality public education and public services across their school district/county and throughout this great commonwealth. Championing vouchers is a way to create enrollment and staffing problems already exacerbated by the pandemic. Vouchers are a way to siphon money from our public schools and to charters and private schools. Virginia is already 4th in the nation for public education. Privatization efforts will run this commonwealth into the ground and hurt public education which will ultimately hurt the futures of our students and our families. Look no further than the District of Columbia to see how charter schools have negatively impacted the public schools. I am afraid this will create a new Massive Resistance here in Virginia. This is just another way to segregate our schools. Please oppose this bill. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment.

I ask that you categorically oppose HB113 as it Violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It establishes a government preference for some religions over others or none. Our public schools exist to educate ALL students and that means students of all religions and no religion. Please oppose or amend HB344. While extending the agency of instituting charter schools to the state at large MAY be a desirable outcome (I remain unconvinced on this but openminded), the ability of local citizens to appeal the decision of the Board should not be removed. Citizens deserve the opportunity to revisit the determination of the Board and to additional information to strengthen their case for or against. Please oppose HB37. Local school boards should retain the decision power re the necessity of SROs. In general I am against the eroding of local control of schools. And in this specific case locations do exist where the presence of LEO’s in the educational setting will be more disrupting than helpful. I ask that you categorically oppose HB4. Schools should absolutely retain the right to determine when misdemeanors committed while in school should be reported to law enforcement. Crimes rising above the misdemeanor level should be required reporting. Please oppose HB8 Schools need fewer guns not more in them.

Please oppose HB113. Our public schools exist to educate ALL students and that means students of all religions and no religion. Students should not begin or end their day feeling marginalized by the institution that exists to serve them all. Please oppose or amend HB344. While extending the agency of instituting charter schools to the state at large may be a desirable outcome, the opportunity to appeal the decision of the Board should not be removed. Citizens deserve the opportunity to revisit the determination of the Board and to present a strengthened case. Please oppose HB37. Local school boards should retain the purview to determine if school resource officers are installed in their school based on their citizenry, cultural norms, and level of disruption in the school environment. Many environments exist where the presence of law enforcement in the educational setting will be more disrupting than helpful. Please oppose HB4. Schools should retain the purview to determine when misdemeanors committed while in school should be reported to law enforcement. Crimes are committed in many settings that do not result in the involvement of law enforcement. Staff and teachers who are attempting to build relationships of trust and nurturing with students should not be mandated into law enforcement referrals in instances where pursuing such discipline responses as restorative practices could result in positive and meaningful growth without funneling students into an already robust school to prison pipeline.

HB 1024... OPPOSE... Diverts public funds to private entities ... sounds like vouchers/tax shelter HB 344/356 OPPOSE... Local School Boards already have the authority to review applications for charters, etc.. once again looks like a method of diverting public funds to private entities .. Virginia underfunds it public schools as it is. We need to keep the public funds where it would do the most good and if the Va. Leg had not tied the hands of public education with all the SOQ/SOL requirements and was able to allow the educators more flexibility to implement programs tailored to the needs of their district more freely and would FUND these public programs things would be even better. I noted that all the Ed representatives opposed this at committee hearing. Who is going pay for that regional board mentioned in 356?? that will just siphon more public money for another layer of admin. HB346. I noted in the committee meeting that only the colleges who already have the capability to create lab schools now spoke FOR this bill because it would bring more of the public k-12 funds to their doorstep. Opens door for corporate/for profits to operate as well.

As a VA taxpayer for over 50 years, I write to oppose the diversion of money from our excellent public schools to new, state sponsored charter schools. Such schools reduce the autonomy of local school districts in favor of "big government" and would require another costly layer of administration, including that needed for transportation, support staff, etc. Virginia's public schools, despite funding deficits, rank high (#4 or 5, as rated by non-partisan agencies World Population Review and Wallet Hub) nationally and make our Commonwealth attractive to businesses. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." What is to be accomplished by this bill? Local school boards are best able to decide what is needed for that district's students. That is where I want my tax dollars spent. HB346 is a non-starter.

I am writing in opposition of HB344 and HB346. HB344 - local governing bodies should have the sole discretion to approve or reject charter schools within their jurisdiction. Given that our schools are still underfunded, the emphasis should be improving the educational experience for all students, not passing the buck. HB346 - Our local school boards are best equipped to make recommendations for student needs. We should not be establishing schools outside the purview of the school board and without accountability to the parents and voters. The bill would also allow institutions whose values run counter to the goal of inclusive public schooling to enter our public schools. Underserved communities are already struggling and should not have their vulnerability exploited by schools or private businesses with a political agenda. Keep our money in our schools. A strong public education system benefits every citizen and improves our communities.

Comments Document

The purpose of my comments are to OPPOSE HB 346.

Both I, a public school teacher in Fairfax County, and the Virginia Education Association OPPOSE HB 344 & 346. Charter schools (and variations) take essential moneys away from public education. Charters hurt students, schools, and communities.

Dear Members of the Education Committee, I respectfully wish to oppose HR356. I am a retired Virginia K12 teacher and I have seen first hand what lack of funding and support for our public schools has done to the quality of education and the morale of both students and staff. The schools I served and loved have never recovered from the decrease in funding that began in 2008 and has continued on into the present. Please do not destroy or dilute our public schools effectiveness by further taking needed funding away and giving it to duplicate and divisive systems. I support all available funding be used to renew America's public school system.

We strongly support HB346! This last election demonstrated that parents want more options for educating their children. They rejected the attempt by school boards and politicians to prevent parents from engaging in their child's public education. It is time for politicians on both sides of isle to start listening to parents.

I am opposed to HB346. This is yet another bill that seeks to stifle my voice as a voter and taxpayer by setting up a complicated governing structure at several removes from the people whose taxes are paying the bills. I urge you to vote against all these bills that dis-empower voters and elected school governance.

I do not support this bill. Local school boards are best positioned to determine what their students need. The proposed legislation would set up schools that are outside of the local school board purview and therefore outside of accountability to local parents and voters. The bill would allow private institutions and businesses to establish schools.

Please oppose all bills which give taxpayer money to charter schools or university lab schools. These schools are not accountable to local parents or voters, and their support takes money away from public schools, which are essential to our democracy.

HB344 (Davis) Public charter schools; applications; review and approval and HB356 (Tata) Authorizes the Board of Education to establish regional charter school divisions Our current schools should be our priority. The charter schools would compete with our public schools for our current tight and limited resources. Another level of administration at a regional level would have a major fiscal impact. Significant personnel for administration, teachers, maintenance, health, safety, and food services would be required even if it is a school with a smaller number of students. It is already difficult to staff our public schools. Funds would be needed for transportation, libraries and books. These standard educational supplies, alone, carry high costs. Our public schools are still not funded at the 2008 level when funds were diverted due to the recession. HB346 (Davis) College partnership laboratory schools; application and establishment Local school boards are best positioned to determine what their students need. The proposed legislation would set up schools that are outside of the local school board purview and therefore outside of accountability to local parents and voters. The bill would allow private institutions and businesses to establish schools.

Local school boards are best positioned to determine their students' needs. The proposed legislation would set up schools that are outside of the local school board purview and therefore outside of accountability to local parents and voters. Didn't Gov Youngkin's campaign indicate that parents would be able to determine what their children are taught? How does HB346 meet this promise?

Hello esteemed committee members, I am a parent of a current Chesterfield County Public school child as well as a 2019 graduate of CCPS schools. I am a STRONG supporter of public schools. I oppose any proposed bills, including HB344, HB346, and HB356, that take away control from locally elected school boards and give it to privately operated boards that have the real potential for cronyism, grift, corruption, and fraud. Charter schools also siphon taxpayer money from Virginia's already severely underfunded public schools and fling open doors to businesses/people that profit off of public education. Virginia's current College partnership laboratory schools are public, nonsectarian, nonreligious schools established by a public or private institutions of higher education that operate a teacher education program approved by the Board of Education. The language in HB 346 would allow ANY public or private institution of higher ed OR private business to apply to the BOE to establish a college partnership laboratory school. This would open doors for for-profit schools like EPI, religious schools like Regent, or businesses like Amazon or McDonalds to establish teacher training programs. This is another attempt at education privatization. Please keep in mind that Virginia is currently ranked 4th by Wallet Hub for best schools in the US. This is WITHOUT a proliferation of charter schools and attained during the Covid-19 pandemic. Why do we need charter schools? Who REALLY wants them? https://wallethub.com/edu/e/states-with-the-best-schools/5335 Public education is the foundation of a democratic society. It is open to all students, regardless of color, disability, income level, religious belief (or lack of one), gender identity, or national origin. Please say no to HB 344, HB346, and HB356. Thank you.

I oppose HB1024, HB344, HB356, and HB346. These bills divert funds from public schools, reduce transparency with respect to public interest in the education of its citizens, remove/reduce influence of local school boards, potentially introduce religious bias into instruction, and/or disproportionally benefit the wealthy. We need to invest in our public education system and encourage parents to participate in public education. We do not need to divert funds to private schools from an already underfunded public education system or reduce the tax base for public schools. Our society requires a quality education system for all of its citizens for its continued growth and stability. The public has as much interest in the education of children as parents. Focus on funding and promoting public education not trying to fund private and particularly, private for-profit schools, which are NOT in the best interests of the public.

I oppose HB344, HB346 and HB356. Our current schools should be our priority. The charter schools would compete with our public schools for our current tight and limited resources. Another level of administration at a regional level would have a major fiscal impact. Significant personnel for administration, teachers, maintenance, health, safety, and food services would be required even if it is a school with a smaller number of students. It is already difficult to staff our public schools. Funds would be needed for transportation, libraries and books. These standard educational supplies, alone, carry high costs. Our public schools are still not funded at the 2008 level when funds were diverted due to the recession.

Please do not support house bills 1024, 344,346, or 356. These bills divert resources from public schools. There is not interest in charter schools in Virginia, creating new schools is highly inefficient especially when there is a shortage of teachers and staff.

I oppose House Bills 344 and 356 because they support charter schools. Charter schools take funding away from public schools, and there is no evidence that they produce better educational outcomes. At a time when the funding and staffing of public schools is a problem, the allocation of funds to charter schools is not an educational decision but a political sop to a vocal constituency.

HB344 - Public schools that are open to all students need to be our priority and these public schools need to remain under the control of local school divisions. Funding additional schools outside of local control removes funding from local public schools. This is especially important when more, not less, funding is needed for public schools. HB346 - This bill also removes local control and funding from public schools. Public school divisions have the capability to work with local public institutions of high learning to provide lab schools. This cooperation should be encouraged at the local level - NOT with legislation that encourages private institutions and business to establish schools.

I oppose any of the pending legislation that would divert funds and resources from our public schools. Our public schools are already shamefully underfunded.

Good morning, esteemed members of Virginia's House of Delegates, I’m a parent who lives several hours away from Richmond and DC and I believe it’s imperative that local control in education decision making should remain just that; local. I currently have easy access to the locally elected, public school leaders and school system administrators in my county and am able to see their budgets, provide input on income and expenditures, and ensure our tax dollars are being spent wisely. Please don’t remove citizens’ rights to do this by opening the flood gates to charter school operators, outsiders who aren’t invested in our communities. I’ve chronicled the problems other states have with their charter schools since 2015. Each day in the headlines I see fraud, waste, embezzlement, and mismanagement of funds by charter school operators in those states. We don’t need those problems for Virginia. Charter schools often use selective enrollment tactics, can’t accommodate children with special needs, and don’t provide transportation and meals. These would be very big issues for countless students and their families here in SW Virginia. If communities would like to open charter schools, they may do so now under Virginia’s Constitution, and that’s the way it should remain. Virginia’s public schools are ranked 4th in the nation. They’re valuable, not because they’re money-makers, but because they’re responsible citizen makers. Please don’t undermine them and further under-fund them through unwise charter school legislation. Instead, please better support our neighborhood public schools through full and fair funding. Please look at the Community Schools model as a way to provide services for children in need of supports that will help them succeed in the classroom. Sincerely, Laura Bowman

Respected Committee Members, The push to create charters in Virginia via a variety of methods in HB346, HB356, and HB344 is a deeply flawed idea. Across Virginia we have over 44 International Baccaulareate schools which are the most respected advanced acacemic program in the world. Those districts are all across the Commonwealth, including 2 in Virginia Beach, Danville, York, Hanover, and Fauquier. Most students can access Dual Enrollment classes in virtually any subject at our community colleges while still in high school, and over 640K students have accessed a range of career courses over 17 career categories that encompass many fields. CNBC ranked Virginia 1st in the nation on 85 different metrics aross 10 categories. We have school choice built into our system. To disrupt the system by siphoning money and resources to privately managed or regional schools that many students cannot reach will negatively disrupt what is already highly successful and more readily available buffet of choices. Please vote no on HB346, HB356, and HB344. Thank you.

We oppose the above listed bills

Please pass HB217. Moe can be done to encourage and educate students about opportunities in STEM-C fields and to make sure that educational opportunities in our schools are adequately supporting students pursuing these goals. Identifying the full range of employment opportunities in these areas and the education needed to succeed in them can only be a benefit. Please pass HB221. Please oppose HB344. The establishment of charter schools should remain with local school boards who are accountable to their constituents. Members of the State Board of Education are appointed and consequently are accountable only to those who appointed them. Also, this bill provides that there is no longer the opportunity to revisit the decisions of this State or local boards in granting or continuing such charter. The public should not lose a mechanism of redress already in place. Please oppose HB346. The establishment of charter schools should remain with local school boards who are accountable to their constituents. Extending the establishment of charter and lab schools to private institutions of higher ed and private businesses further removes the oversight of such schools to boards that have no accountability to the public that they serve. Please oppose HB356. The establishment of charter schools should remain with local school boards who are accountable to their constituents. Please oppose HB486. Governor's School admissions should not be constricted by an arbitrary quota of students from one district. Please oppose HB563. While assisting local districts in funding construction where school buildings are in disrepair is a desirable goal, the diversion of funds allocated for instruction should not be institutionalized as a regular mechanism to accomplish this. Please pass HB585. Standardized testing has become the tail that wags the dog in education. Increasing amounts of time are dedicated to teaching towards the test and administering tests to the detriment of education tailored to the needs of students and localities. Reducing such testing the minimum required for federal accountability would free time and resources to more fully meet the needs of students. Please oppose 789. Family life education should remain an opt out program instead of an opt in program. The latter puts an onerous burden on schools for the delivery of this important curriculum. Please oppose HB988. Transgender students deserve equal protection in schools across the Commonwealth. All school districts should maintain certain expectations in this regard. Please pass HB994 Please pass HB1005. This bill stipulates that teachers under continuing contract can resign within the school year but must do so providing 2 weeks of notice. Such a provision provides more time for local school districts to make arrangements for staffing adjustments. Please pass HB1023. Human trafficking is increasingly a problem in the Commonwealth and beyond. Our students should be alert to its threats and educated as to how to protect themselves from it. Please pass HB1026. With technology and the internet playing an increasing role in every aspect of our lives, expanding our understanding of this role and improving education surrounding it can only be a good thing. Please pass HB1299. Our students need as much information as possible about their opportunities after graduating from our public school system.

Local school boards are best positioned to determine what their students need. The proposed legislation would set up schools that are outside of the local school board purview and therefore outside of accountability to local parents and voters. The bill would allow private institutions and businesses to establish schools.

I am a public school teacher in Fairfax County and I am writing to urge you to vote no on HB 344, HB 346, and HB 356. These bills divert public money out of our existing public schools and into creating new charter and “laboratory” schools. It is the state’s responsibility to ensure that our public schools are fully-funded. Up until this point, the General Assembly has not even funded the Virginia Board of Education’s Standards of Quality for minimum staffing standards in our public schools (relatedly, I ask that you please vote in favor of HB1135/SB490 so that we can finally fund these minimum recommended staffing standards). The argument in past years has been that fully funding our public schools would be too costly, and yet there are over a dozen bills this session seeking to further deplete state public school funding to divert into private and charter schools. Please protect public school funding by voting no on these bills.

My name is Dr. Rachel Levy and I live in Ashland, Virginia (23005), in the 55th House of Delegates District and the 9th State Senate District. I am a mother of three--I have one child in Hanover County Public Schools as well as two who are just graduated in 2021. I am also a teacher who has a PhD in Educational Leadership & Policy from VCU. I was a candidate for the 55th District seat in 2021. I oppose HB344, HB346, and HB356 because I support our public schools, because they are impractical and unnecessary, and because this legislation would disenfranchise local communities. We already have good laws that allow establishing charter and lab schools, in ways that preserve local democratic control and don’t rob funding from our public school students. All of these bills would strip power away from our locally elected school boards and hand it over to un-elected regional boards stocked with gubernatorial appointees. These regional charter school boards could override our locally elected school boards and their constituents (us!), duplicating services and forcing taxpayers to fund schools run by national and global for-profit companies that are focused on profits, not education. Allowing these companies to force their schools on us would be harmful across our Commonwealth, especially in rural areas such as where I live. Our public schools are beloved shared public and community institutions. Even if we don’t agree on what should be taught or on masking policies, we can all agree that the parents and citizens who fund our public schools should get to determine how they’re run and by whom. We want fully funded public schools, fairly compensated teachers and staff, and modernized school buildings. Corporate charter schools would drain the resources needed to achieve these goals. Many public school teachers and staff are of their communities, especially in rural areas, with deep knowledge and relationships. Outside charter school operators will bring in non-professional teaching staff and a “we know better” attitude. They pay reduced wages, salaries, and benefits. I hope you will join me in opposing this legislation that will bypass local communities and defund our education-centered public schools.

I am against these three bills and against any tax payer funds going to anything other than our public schools that are already underfunded in some areas of the Commonwealth. Our public schools are still not funded at the 2008 level when funds were diverted due to the recession. If parents want to send their children to private, religious, or charter schools, fine, but at their own expense. Our public schools offer extremely good educations in Virginia and we should be supporting our educators and facilities with our tax dollars. We do not need another level of administration at a regional level to run a parallel set of schools, many that would have a small number of students.

I oppose HB346 for the following reasons - please vote NO! Local school boards are best positioned to determine what their students need. The proposed legislation would set up schools that are outside of the local school board purview and therefore outside of accountability to local parents and voters. The bill would allow private institutions and businesses to establish schools.

Our current schools should be our priority. The charter schools would compete with our public schools for our current tight and limited resources. Another level of administration at a regional level would have a major fiscal impact. Significant personnel for administration, teachers, maintenance, health, safety, and food services would be required even if it is a school with a smaller number of students. It is already difficult to staff our public schools. Funds would be needed for transportation, libraries and books. These standard educational supplies, alone, carry high costs. Our public schools are still not funded at the 2008 level when funds were diverted due to the recession.

I am writing in opposition to HB344, HB346, HB356. HB344 - It shows the complete dishonesty of the argument, that you want local governing bodies to have expanded rights, except where it serves your purpose. HB346 - Local school boards are best positioned to determine what their students need. The proposed legislation would set up schools that are outside of the local school board purview and therefore outside of accountability to local parents and voters. The bill would allow private institutions and businesses to establish schools. HB356 - Our current schools should be our priority. The charter schools would compete with our public schools for our current tight and limited resources. Another level of administration at a regional level would have a major fiscal impact. Significant personnel for administration, teachers, maintenance, health, safety, and food services would be required even if it is a school with a smaller number of students. It is already difficult to staff our public schools. Funds would be needed for transportation, libraries, and books. These standard educational supplies, alone, carry high costs. Our public schools are still not funded at the 2008 level when funds were diverted due to the recession.

I am writing to oppose any bill that would divert tax dollars from our public schools. Charter schools compete with our existing schools and reduce their ability to meet the needs of the students in their community. Our public schools are underfunded. We need to use our tax dollars to support our existing schools, to pay teachers a living wage, and to provide safe and up to date educational facilities. My sister has taught in Virginia's public schools for 35 years, and her salary is an insult to her professionalism and commitment to her students. Regional charter school divisions and laboratory schools would take control away from local school boards. Private institutions and businesses should not receive tax dollars for education. Thank you.

Please move to report HB344, HB346, HB356, HB789, HB1188, HB221, HB340, HB1125, HB1215, HB988, HB1023, HB1093. Please gently PBI HB486 so that academic merits ONLY decide who gets in.

I oppose this legislation and any other legislation that opens the door for private charter schools to move into Virginia. HBCU's Lab Schools should be fully funded via the existing Lab School laws and policy.

Both I, an public school teacher in Fairfax County, and the Virginia Education Association oppose HB 344, 346, and 356. Programs that drain public school budgets, such as vouchers, are a very bad idea. These programs hurt kids, schools, and communities.

Radford University has a proud history of preparing teachers for schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia since 1910. Our existing educator preparation programs, which are fully accredited by CAEP and approved by the Virginia Department of Education, prepares educators for early childhood, special education, elementary education, middle education, and secondary education. The University is committed to growing the teaching workforce and welcomes the opportunity to partner with school divisions to explore an array of innovative education opportunities, including college partnership laboratory schools. We support the provisions in HB 346 that expands eligibility for all public and private institutions of higher education; and investment by the Commonwealth to support the establishment of college partnership laboratory schools.

Dear Education Committee Members: My name is Frank Morgan. I am a retired educator who spent 43 years working in public school districts in Virginia and South Carolina, including 16 years as a superintendent I have a fair amount of experience with charter schools. I was very involved in Albemarle County in the development of one of the first local charter school policies in Virginia around 2000 and in the establishment of one of the first charter schools in the state shortly thereafter. I also worked with a charter school in the district in South Carolina where I served as superintendent. That said, there is no research out there that indicates that charter schools are overall any more or less successful than regular public schools. There are good ones and not-so-good ones, just like with regular public schools. The front-page publicity on January 28 in The Richmond Times-Dispatch about Governor Youngkin’s charter school proposal requires, I believe, some cautionary caveats. Governor Youngkin asserts that his advocacy for charter schools is connected to increased ‘choice”. Consequently, any expansion of charter schools in Virginia must reflect legitimate and realistic “choice” for families. This means that charter schools must be subject to fully open or lottery-based enrollment and be required to serve economically disadvantaged, special needs, and non-English-speaking students. Publicly funded charter schools must also be required to provide no-cost transportation given that transportation is often a barrier to economically disadvantaged students attending “schools of choice”. In the absence of these requirements, charter schools will simply be “choice” for charter schools to cherry-pick the students they want and exclude the ones they don’t. I would hope this is not the vision involved. Further, charter schools must be subject to the same academic accountability and state testing requirements as regular public schools. Otherwise, how will measurable and valid comparisons be drawn? Parent satisfaction and teacher grades should not be the sole accountability barometers for charter schools unless regular public schools can also be judged solely by these measures. Finally, charter schools must be subject to the same due process requirements as regular public schools. Especially given that they would be publicly funded, charter schools must not be permitted to exclude a student because of low achievement or minor behavioral issues. Regular public schools can’t exclude students for these reasons. In addition, charter schools must be subject to the same stringent financial (auditing) oversight as regular public school divisions in Virginia. I googled “charter schools/financial mismanagement/scandal” and got almost 5 million hits, which clearly indicates the nationwide seriousness of this issue. Such oversight is particularly important if corporate interests become involved in managing charter schools. The private sector has some history of financial missteps when involved with charter schools. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this feedback. Dr, Frank E. Morgan 2002 Deep Ridge Court Henrico, VA 23233 (803) 572-2591

Both I (a public school teacher in Fairfax County) and the Virginia Education Association OPPOSE HB346 and HB356. VEA is against the creation of any type of charter schools. Charter schools are bad for students and community, because they are so unregulated, and they take needed dollars away from our public schools.

Virginia Faith and Freedom Coalition supports this bill.

The Roanoke Regional Chamber supports HB 565, which will assist our educational institutions in the ongoing process to fill well-paying jobs in high-demand fields. Thank you to the committee for its consideration.

I strongly oppose this bill. It is censorship about what can or cannot be said. Conservatives talk about wanting kids to be 'taught how to think /critical thinking,' not taught 'what to think.' This bill pretty much tells them and teachers what they must think. Part of critical thinking involves gathering multiple viewpoints and observations. This bill completely obliviates some viewpoints. Where is the critical thinking in that?

I strongly oppose HB787. It is censorship, pure and simple, controlling what one can and cannot say. Should this bill pass, I look forward to additions to the standards of learning (SOLs) such as adding to VUS.7: "understanding the Civil War was fought to keep systems of white superiority and slavery in place and that this was wrong." Or adding a new standard between VUS.4 and VUS.5 such as "The student will apply social science skills to understand that the US is not fundamentally racist or sexist by examining how the nation's founding documents only promoted equality for white men and how such documents could have been improved. Students will analyze the practice of coverture (i.e., women being regarded as men's property) with its roots in English law that the colonists continued in the new nation and analyze the fears that white men had of being outnumbered by slaves of color if they were counted as part of the population." Should this bill pass, I look forward to knowing that teachers will stand at the front of their classrooms and say "Boys are not better than girls" and "White people are not better than people of color" and "we can do better than looking down on one race or sex and instead treat everyone with dignity and respect."

The censorship and clamping down on academic freedoms through HB787 is chilling: The bill fails to outline what a "divisive" concept is and could easily be misconstrued dependent upon the biases of those accusing said teacher. It is right up there with book burning and the type of law that, frankly, Adolph Hitler would be proud of. Furthering any war on teachers, especially given how underpaid and embattled they are, is not a solution. Ensuring that students receive a fair and balanced education should be a greater concern, especially at this moment in time.

I am writing to this legislative body, the oldest in the Western Hemisphere to express my disdain for HB787. Funny, the place I learned that fact is the very place you are trying to ruin, the classroom. As an Historian & Educator, I cannot think of anything worse than a government stifling the learning of the future. HB787 is a bill that would punish teachers & educators for discussing anything the powers that be deem "divisive". Simply put, it is classroom censorship. My question to the makers of this bill, what do you consider divisive? Although this legislation is presented otherwise, this law has nothing to do with helping young people better understand history & current events. Today, more than ever, children turn to their teachers to help them make sense of a worldwide pandemic & systemic racism; a law like this is specifically designed to silence these conversations. What does that accomplish? This bill is geared to uphold comfort & feelings over facts. It also furthers diminishes the voices & histories of the children of color who are also students here in Virginia. These students, their humanity & their histories matter. It is important that all students, regardless of race, learn all aspects of our history, especially the parts we may not like. How can you expect students to develop essential skills such as critical thinking, perspective & compassion when they aren't taught all parts of history, even the uncomfortable aspects? So much of how we are as a society today has roots in our history, our nation cannot thrive and grow if we are not educated on our past. History is not always meant to make people feel good, it is sometimes sad, scary & traumatizing. With education comes understanding, with understanding comes acceptance & progress. Students deserve a well-rounded, solid education that helps them develop into productive citizens, engaged in the government process & advocates for positive change in our country. The place this all starts is in the classroom. This bill, along with the idea that exempting historical facts from the classroom for the sake of feelings must fail. This state, especially the children who live here, deserve better.

I strongly oppose this.

I am incredibly confused by the HB787 banning the teaching of "inherently divisive concepts" as these concepts are not being taught in our schools. We do not tell students what to think and assuredly would never tell them how to feel. Certainly, it’s important to teach, discuss and analyze history. Exploring our past allows us to model good citizenship, learn from the mistakes of others, and understand the changes that have taken place in our society over time. There are some topics in history that bring up thoughts and feelings that may be difficult to process, but giving students the space to do this is how we help them grow. In schools, we are teaching human beings, and human beings have feelings that aren’t always comfortable. That’s normal, it’s not divisive. It is within our feelings of discomfort that we grow. Additionally, who is going to decide what is divisive? It’s incredibly subjective. Facts however are not subjective. It is a fact that in the past and even within our present, there are people who believe(d) that one race, gender, sex, and/or faith is better than another. It is a fact that people have and are discriminated against based on their race, gender, sex, and/or faith. If we’re teaching history, these facts will arise from the Spanish Inquisition to women’s suffrage, to the end of slavery. We will not and cannot tell a student how to think or feel about these concepts, so again, I’m incredibly confused by this bill. Will we be able to teach about the great leader Martin Luther King, Jr,? Will school boards be allowed to pray at the start of their meetings? Will teachers' dress be restricted from perhaps wearing a cross, or a “girls rule” shirt? Will we continue to celebrate holidays linked to Christianity in schools if we aren’t also celebrating those linked to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism? This bill is divisive, and set up to be so, perhaps we should just ban it? Please oppose HB 787.

I am writing to oppose this legislation that will censor education and ultimately put our state at a disadvantage. Children should learn history as it happened and we should not try to shy away from the ugly truths of our society just because it makes some parents uncomfortable. If black children were able to endure and survive slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, the civil rights movement, and a system that inherently puts people of color at a disadvantage, frankly, white children can endure and survive learning about it. Laws like this getting introduced in other states are not only leading to censorship in the classroom, but making it possible for parents to sue teachers for teaching something that goes against their religion. Virginia can not tolerate this blatant corruption of our education system.

HB787 is a disgusting attempt to censor educators — how DARE you all mask your fear and bigotry behind this weak rallying cry of banning “divisive concepts.” Refusing to let educators teach real American history is ignorant and racist, and you are setting a generation of children up for failure. In a time where there is already a teacher shortage you all are putting nails in the coffin. Republicans, if you want to coddle your children and create individuals without compassion or open mindedness, do so in the privacy of your own homes. Censorship and hatred have no place in education. We see you.

Virginia Public Schools are among the best in the nation. This bill would seriously degrade the quality of our public school education. How are students supposed to emerge from our schools as knowledgeable critical thinkers if they are denied exposure to and the opportunity to think about and consider important history and literature? And how can we expect to keep our amazing teachers, who are already underpaid and struggling to teach under impossible conditions if we further erode trust in their profession and put them under punitive scrutiny for doing their jobs? This bill seems a great way to break our Virginia Public Schools. I sincerely hope that Virginia does not go the way of Kansas, which saw its public school system sink from top 10 in the nation to the bottom in just a few years because of politically motivated policy decisions.

This proposed law is vague and will easily be used to suppress teaching history around race in Virginia. No teacher is teaching that one race is superior to another or that one race must pay for the actions of the past. What we learn from our history is about how race was viewed then and how that impacted generations of people and policy. To try and ban this, only furthers the notion that republican led measures to rewrite history or ignore the truth of our history so the systemic racism that prevails today. Education should be open and honest for the students to learn and from that shape their perspectives. I would ask why do these topics make people uncomfortable. Our history is uncomfortable and as such there should not be any law to suppress its teachings which is exactly what this level will do. Under these rules, how will you be able to talk about civil rights or equality issues that persisted for generations? I urge lawmakers to vote no on this bill and allow our history and education to be taught free of suppression.

As a public school teacher, I oppose HB787. Our students deserve a well rounded education with multiple tellings of historical events. This sometimes includes teaching “divisive topics” and teachers know what their students are capable of understanding. Teachers should be trusted to do their jobs.

To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB 1034. As a public high school school teacher and parent of two young children (ages 5 and 2) in Virginia, I have serious concerns that this bill will wind up doing more harm than good for the children of our state. I have worked in two different public school systems in Virginia over 13 years, and I have seen first hand how beneficial counseling services can be to a wide variety of students. If parents are allowed to prohibit their students from accessing counseling services in the school, these students may be cut off from not only critical mental health support, but but also the academic, career, and community support that school counselors and mental health team members provide. All members of a school mental health team must undergo rigorous education before obtaining their licenses, and as such they should be trusted as the professionals they are to provide only services that they deem necessary for students well-being. I strongly urge you to let the trained mental health professionals do their jobs. Don't make students get tied in the mire of adult squibbles. Thank you, Sara Watkins Mother Teacher Concerned Virginia Citizen

To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB HB1032. As a public high school school teacher and parent of two young children (ages 5 and 2) in Virginia, I have serious concerns that this bill will wind up doing more harm than good for the children of our state. As VA Senator Peterson said on January 27 of this year, regarding a similar bill, "I don't think we should be involved in micromanaging school libraries...The problem is that you’re going to sweep up books that you don’t intend to sweep up" (Matthew Barakat, abcnews.go.com). I strongly urge you to leave the books in the libraries for the kids. They deserve to have the opportunity to decide with their own parents and personal support systems what books to read. Thank you, Sara Watkins Mother Teacher Concerned Virginia Citizen

I am against bill 787 the censorship of education will not benefit students, neither will a tip line for the enforcement of censorship.

I urge all members of the House of Delegates to vote NO on HB787. I am the proud child of a lifelong educator and have a deep understanding of what happens in classrooms. I have been an employee of the state of Virginia working as both an educator for the Science Museum of Virginia and as part of the Communications Team for the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. I have a deep respect for educators of all type, particularly those who dedicate themselves to teaching younger age groups like those served by elementary and middle schools. Educators do not use their role maliciously. They do not indoctrinate or brainwash. They do not shape their curriculum to be “divisive.” Educators dedicate themselves to helping young people establish foundational skills which will carry them through the rest of their lives. Educators teach math. They teach children how to read and write, about the history of the United States and certainly about the history of our Commonwealth. Educators do not, as individuals, dictate what happens in their classrooms. Every member of the House of Delegated understands that your legislative body and numerous other policy setting groups dictate the academic goals of students for in the Commonwealth. This idea of banning “divisive concepts” is not a substantive contribution to the legislative dictates offered to schools. I believe that if this bill passes: - Parents of all backgrounds and political viewpoints will feel empowered to constantly torment and report their children’s educators for arbitrary reasons - Existing educators will continue to feel that their profession is being disrespected and undermined amid an already challenging time. More and more educators will leave the field. - Less people will choose to become educators. - Rather than receiving age and grade level appropriate instruction, students will likely become the recipients of increasingly watered down lessons which simply omit portions of history I believe strongly that our state and the localities within it already have robust systems by which teachers and their curriculums are appropriately supervised. Parents already have numerous ways of communicating concern regarding instructional content. There is no need to create a category of “divisive concepts.” Glenn Youngkin has set out to unite the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Labeling educators as “divisive” does exactly the opposite of the Governor’s intentions. VOTE NO ON HB787

My name is Christina Hagemeier. I have been an art therapist and educator with Fairfax county public schools for the past five years. I disagree with the foundations of HB787 and am writing to ask that it not be put into law. To censor what we teach in schools is wrong. Creative, thoughtful, collaborative, caring citizens are formed through discourse and discussion, especially in the face of uncomfortable and divisive concepts and dialogues. By creating a law that requires teachers to censor what they are teaching, we not only would make them fearful to do their job, but also diminish the power of education. This bill and it’s ramifications would take away from our students their right to make decisions for themselves and create their own paths and futures. This bill is a detriment to us all and it should not be passed. Thank you for your time. Christina Hagemeier, LPC, ATR-BC, MA Art therapist and art teacher

What qualifies as "divisive?" The language used is subjective, and with things like the hotline and this bill, you created a culture of distrust in education and teachers. There's already a shortage in teachers. Do you believe that demeaning their intelligence and creating an environment of distrust will bring in more teachers or even retain the ones that we currently have?

I am firmly against Hb787. "Divisive Concepts" have not been specifically identified by the creators of the bill. This bill may also harm retaining and hiring of teachers who will have no idea if they are teaching what leaders consider but have not clearly defined as a "divisive concept." It also appears to be censorship and could be used to alter a true representation of history or any topic. Lastly, if a parent has an issue with a topic and how it is covered in the classroom, there is already a plan that works to create change. The parent can discuss the issue with the teacher, the principal and then the school board. If they don't get the results they want, they can reelect a new school board member. PLEASE DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS BILL- we can't have any more reasons for teachers to quit. They have been through enough without having to worry that the state government is looking over their shoulder.

I strongly opposed HB787!! I can't believe that someone would take the time to write a bill that would punish teachers. After all teacher have been through, particularly during the pandemic. All these types of bills do it to drive away good teachers. You should be ashamed of yourself!! Who decides what a divisive comment is?? Please leave teachers alone and let them do their job: to educate our children. Again, I strongly oppose HB787.

I am very saddened that the Government is only interested in telling one side of the truth. History classes are able to lecture about various wars and other topics that can be considered divisive. It’s important that the truth be taught so that all children can know the facts about how this country originated not just those that a certain group wants children to hear about. This bill alone is divisive in nature and ensures only the parts of history one group is comfortable with is told.

As a public school teacher, I am saddened by the fact that teachers are not being trusted. We are trained professionals with strong relationships to our students and the communities in which we live and work. This bill deminishes the role of a teacher- why not trust them to have conversations with students at an age appropriate level? We follow the SOL standards and our county standards; we teach the curriculum, and now the curriculum is being censored with this bill. This censorship of ideas and exposure to whatever "devisive" content is at the detriment of students who can form their own opinions and ideas when they fave difficult, age appropriate topics. What goes next? You will lose more teachers.

This is censorship, plain and simple. Please, for the sale of our both our educators and our students, do not pass this bill.

Muzzling teachers is a bad idea for so many reasons I don't even know where to begin. I find it terrifying that in THIS COUNTRY, in this century, it is necessary to have to point that out to you. Also, it won't work. Just so you know. It will only galvanize teachers to redouble their efforts to teach TRUTH! So unless you plan on having "minders" a la North Korea and China in every classroom, you are doomed to fail. You will simply be pulling out one more piece of the fragile Jenga structure that public schools have become.

Please vote NO on this bill. It would do nothing , but punish teachers. I’ve watched serval meetings and haven’t heard of an example of this happening in VA or a definite definition of divisive. Please let teachers teach true history.

This is horrifying and I promise you we have much bigger concerns to worry about in our schools. This is censorship and government’s who censor or white wash their education system historically end up as the bad guys. Let’s start treating teachers with the respect of other graduate level professionals or there won’t be any teachers left.

I am writing in opposition to HB 787. “Divisive “ Instruction is totally subjective in nature. I worked in Chesterfield Co Schools for 30 years. You never know where a discussion on an important historical event might go. This is why teachers are trained to stick to the facts and curriculum. In todays politically charged environment the smallest comment could be misconstrued. We barely have enough trained teachers in public schools as it is - are we now trying to have all the experienced teachers leave the profession? I rarely had a parent dissatisfied after a parent and teacher met to discuss something the teacher had questions about. Often ( not on purpose) a student will take a remark out of context. Misunderstandings are best handled in the school. In person. This bill should not only not be voted on, there is no real reason for it except politics and sensationalism. Martha Turner - former school counselor CCPS

I am deeply opposed to HB 787 which seeks to ban "divisive concepts" in public schools was allowed to move forward. Our role as parents, teachers, representatives etc is to teach our children, even if it is uncomfortable. If we wish to avoid the mistakes and injustices of the past, we must acknowledge, study, and discuss those mistakes. This ban will contribute to the rearing ignorant fragile children in a time when our state and country needs strong educated leaders.

I’m a Virginia voter and parent, and I do NOT support the passage of HB787. Our children and schools are not political pawns. Let professional educators do the jobs they’ve been trained and hired to do. Please.

The intention of this bill seems to be arbitrary censorship and intimidation of teachers for discussing any subject deemed to be controversial. This is the very antithesis of education and it is no surprise that a very large number of excellent Virginia teachers are planning to leave the profession. The promotion of ignorance should not be considered or tolerated.

I am legitamately opposed to this bill. It would harken back to "1984", the book. Government does not have the right to take away private rights and education. To have an intelligent populus is the design of schools and teaching NOT to create people who wonder around like sheep doing only what they are told to do, who have no rights to learn and survive. I bet that you do not pass this bill.

I thought we didn't want to "erase history?" You are not trying to protect children, you are trying to avoid all conversations of racial and gender inequality, thereby perpetuating the systems that keep those people affected by them at a disadvantage. This is a white supremacist and cowardly bill.

I oppose the passing of HB787 that would ban "any local school board or employee or contractor thereof to train or instruct any individual on any divisive concept" or ban teaching anything that would cause someone to "feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual's race or sex". As a former teacher, I understand this bill's implementation would make the already difficult job of teaching even more challenging as teaching real history is inherently uncomfortable and psychologically distressing, especially for certain races and sexes. However, in order to prevent the centuries-old cycle of discrimination and hate, it is essential to teach history as it happened and support students through the discomfort. It's essential to give them tools to prevent further cycles of discrimination and hate. The creation and promotion of this bill is another attempt to prevent actual history from being taught under the guise of "anti-discrimination". It's another attempt for legislators who have never been in a classroom to undermine teacher's experience and expertise. It's another attempt to promote a particular party's agenda and talking points, which is why we have been in a cycle of discrimination and hate for so long. Let's do what is best for ALL students, the future citizens and voters of this state, and choose to teach history as it happened, not a smoothed-out version to make us feel better. Let's teach a real, honest curriculum that confronts our past mistakes and imagines a better future together.

I speak as both a former history major and current day law student. This bill, if passed, would take away one of our key American educational values: the ability to think critcally, something sorely lacking in countries that exist under more totalitarian regimes, and something that makes American education special. Banning "divisive topics" in school will deeply harm the educations of Virginian students. The ability to discuss and debate difficult and challenging topics in the classroom allows students to question the world around them and explore creative solutions to challenging problems, with wideranging applications not only in terms of historical and archeological discovery, but also how we approach science and create new technologies. How should we define a "divisive topic?" Boiled down, all topics are divisive in nature in the world of history, because our historical understanding is never set in stone. New archeological discoveries are made every day, which change how we view the past, forcing historians to debate how this evidence changes our understanding of the past. For instance, many ancient languages have been translated for the first time in South America, allowing us to read stone carvings left behind by these ancient civilizations. This has opened the door to an expansion of historical knowledge, and historians are still piecing together this history and debating the truth using the evidence avaliable to them. Additionally, our understanding of the world changes how we view history. Once, America was ruled by a monarchy, and many historians pointed to an old idea of history that extolled the virtues of that monarchy. After the American Revolution, historians questioned that view, and instead pointed to new historical heroes, like George Washington who fought against the now seen as tyrannical monarchy. These changes still occur, based on new understandings of the world, and we should welcome debate to further strengthen our historical understanding based on real evidence. I again ask, how do we define "divisive topics"? Will we simply not discuss dark chapters of human history, like the Hollocaust or slavery? History not taught is only an invitation to see history repeated. Please, consider the future of our state and our country when deciding that you will govern how we teach the past, and consider how you take a step closer to totalitarianism if you pass this bill. Thank you.

Censorship of education and our classrooms is not okay. It is extremely important to teach accurate history and science in order to bring up a knowledgeable generation. Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. This is incredible government overreach.

As a student of history, I believe it is ridiculous to limit what is taught in schools because it makes people uncomfortable or challenges their beliefs. History has not been smooth sailing. It is full of injustices perpetrated by one group onto another, and it is often not easy to discuss. That does not mean we should censor what is taught. It means we need to learn how to teach it sensitively yet truthfully. Lessons should be adjusted for age, but they should not be untruthful and censored. History is doomed to repeat itself if we refuse to discuss topics that make us uncomfortable or challenge existing knowledge/beliefs. Students deserve a transparent education so that they may one day participate in our democracy with critical thinking skills and historical context for modern politics, both of which are taught and developed in history classes.

It would be very dangerous and unwise to pass this bill. Children learn about "divisive" content whether it is censored in school or not. To hide parts of school curriculum that make people uncomfortable is to censor history. Children deserve to know the truth about this country. There is a lot of talk about children feeling bad or being uncomfortable learning about what marginalized groups have experienced in America in the past. Has anyone stopped to consider how marginalized children feel living in America in the present? If corners are cut when teaching children about the history of oppression in the United States, generations will fail to understand how things came to be the way they are today. On behalf of children everywhere, they have a right to know. Please do not pass HB787.

This legislation is extremely vague and frankly dangerous. The idea is un-American and it is a slippery slope for government to be able to censure almost anything they want. This must be voted down.

This is an absurd bill due to its vagueness. Sex-ed can now be thought of as “divisive,” should a parent truly push the matter.

Delegates- I would hope this proposed bill is seen for what it truly is, an attack on learning the true history of the United States. There is no need for legislation like this. Yes learning history can be uncomfortable, yes there are facts about this country that are hard to hear, but that doesn’t mean we should hide from them. Children have the right to learn an accurate and full history and be able to be in an environment where they can ask questions and wrestle with tough feelings they may have. This bill proposes to not allow any meaningful discourse to occur in our schools and is a blatant attack against conversations on racism and sexism. I want to express how concerning I find this proposed bill and I hope that it is not something we would allow to pass here in Virginia. Thank you, Colleen O’Connell

I strongly protest the passing of this bill. It does not reflect the constituents or the reality of our society. We can not hide away the truths of our past to make people more comfortable. If we ever truly want to move on we must educate with the whole truth.

HB787 unjustly censors the classroom from government deemed “divisive concepts”. Education should reflect the truth.

This bill aims to dismantle the future of our community by obstructing the truths of our past. Our public schools should not be spaces where we promote a distorted reality of our history or spaces where we criminalize those who know our history best and wish to inform the next generation of leaders and professionals to reduce replication of injustice. Our present world is a result of the actions of those that came before us, including the current disparities and privileges that we see today. For leaders to deny the existence of these situations and their lasting impact, especially here in Virginia, is a pursuit of ignorance.

The world is full of uncomfortable, divisive concepts. History, science, literature, art: they can all be uncomfortable at times. If we do not give students the tools and opportunities to navigate and explore these topics safely, who will? Should children be taught to simply avoid everything that challenges them? Censoring classrooms will harm students and teachers alike, limit learning, and set a dangerous standard. This bill would silence important voices and put our children at a disadvantage instead of teaching them how to think critically. It teaches them to fear learning. It teaches them to fear speaking up. New information can be scary. It can be divisive. But, that doesn’t mean it isn’t important. The world will not become more comfortable because we hide it; this bill would only keep knowledge from students, so that they lack the ability to manage that discomfort.

Good job listening to a loud minority of racist parents and working to block the teaching of real history. No mind taken to the millions of black parents and their children who are going to be hurt by having their history erased in schools. Know that the majority of Virginians don’t support this measure.

Every student should have the right to receive an equitable education and have an open and honest dialogue about America’s history and government. HB 787 threatens that. Teaching students about the American government and history without examining its contradictions and failures leave students ignorant of their country's full story. Having the opportunity to learn and talk about the history, cultures, and experiences of Indigenous communities, people of color, LGBTQ+ and Two Spirit people, and other marginalized communities benefits all students. Preventing discussions like this is an affront to free speech and robs young people of the opportunity to learn the inclusive and complete history of our nation. Education is a tool of empowerment put to its highest use when teachers and students are given the full scope of their constitutional rights to engage in comprehensive, meaningful, and sometimes difficult conversations. Equal access to learning about our country's history – the good, the bad, and the ugly – in our educational institutions is important. The ability to discuss and debate ideas, even those that some find uncomfortable, is a crucial part of our democracy. Please vote no on HB 787.

I fully oppose HB787 which attempts to ban the teaching of “divisive” concepts in public schools. The wording of this bill is nonspecific and that could lead to widespread censorship and the blurring of the line between church and state. Who is to decide what is a divisive concept? Should we stop teaching evolution because some feel that this goes against the Bible? Are we to stop teaching historical facts because they make some people feel uncomfortable? Schools are established to teach our children what they need to succeed in this society. It is necessary for them to learn from our past mistakes so that we do not repeat them. Censoring our teachers and their curriculums is not right and it is dangerous.

This is censorship. Censorship of real events, real people, and real history. Teachers are trained professionals who have been educated how to provide appropriate education for their students at their level. They hold bachelors, masters and even PhD’s in their fields. These are highly competent and qualified individuals. It is not the job of the government to decide what teachers can or can’t teach. Censorship has never solved any issues. We are a country founded on freedom of speech.

As a young student and American citizen, I take learning the history of my nation extremely seriously. There are times where history is uncomfortable, shocking and violent, but I still understand that this is the fabric of my country. The horrors experienced by minorities in our nation throughout history can’t go unheard simply because they are an uncomfortable truth. I am a white woman, as well as a human being, and I stand with my fellow Americans whose ancestors have endured slavery, subjugation, internment, and so many more abuses. Knowing these things doesn’t traumatize me, or fill me with shame. My privilege of having this knowledge fills me with hope for having a better future that’s brighter. I feel sorrow for people who have gone through terrible things, but I feel pride in the resilience of humanity and culture through the darkest points in history. My teachers have gone through a pandemic, long working hours, lack of funding, and more, and I appreciate everything they do for me in my education. They have no control over what happened in the past, but they are obligated to inform me. I APPRECIATE their effort to educate me. They don’t make me feel afraid or ashamed of myself. They answer my questions and expand my learning. I am enlightened when I walk into my classroom. To ban “divisive topics” is to give into the “cancel culture” you claim to hate. Facts over feelings.

What happened to big government and being anti censorship? Student's have an inalienable right to learn the factual history of their country. Anything less than factual is fictional and fiction is not how you teach students about history. If you actually cared about the education system and wanted to do something other than virtue signaling, maybe you could start with taking "under god" out of the pledge of allegiance. I mean, the concept of "god" is a divisive concept afterall isn't it. "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" ~George Santayana

Censorship of history has no place in education. Teachers should be supported in teaching accurate history so the our children have a better understanding of the world they live in.

Everyone has the right to feel included, and to know about who and what groups are out in the world regardless of if you personally agree with it or not. To be selective on what areas of knowledge is taught to kids is a dangerous path to walk. All too often we as adults think we know the best path and aspect of a child’s growth, yet every child is different. To not teach about certain minority groups could lead a child to feel on the outside or different. This kind of thing is what has led to a staggering number of teen/young adult suicide rate. We need to allow our children to know this world is diverse and there are endless possibilities out there. We cannot box young minds into thinking that the American sociological norms of the past few generations are the only acceptable path or education to learn. I cannot stress how much I oppose this bill. Thank you.

This is going to set a dangerous precedent for censorship in the classroom. Children should be taught the TRUTH, regardless of if it paints our government/country in a negative light - this country has done horrible things and that’s just a fact. It isn’t anti-government to teach the truth.

Censorship in schools is not okay. Let teacher teach.

I oppose HB 787 because it will do a great disservice to our students by constraining teachers from teaching the full history of the United States and the Commonwealth. Students are entitled to an education that helps them become critical thinkers and to do that we must provide the historical facts as they happened. Sadly, it appears that HB 787 is a response to changes in the Standards of Learning that would provide a more holistic and fair version of Black history.

I am a public school teacher in Fairfax County and I am writing to urge you to vote no on HB 787. This bill is dangerous and damaging to the institution of public education in the Commonwealth. Please stand behind the professional educators who seek to help their students develop a deeper understanding of the history of our country and navigate the interplay of race, power, and privilege in both our past and present.

Comments Document

The attachment is written to OPPOSE HB787

I, a public school teacher in Fairfax County, and the Virginia Education Association OPPOSE HB 787. I oppose that because it assumes that the teachers in this state (that happen to be highly educated professionals) are not responsible or intelligent enough to determine on their own what is appropriate or inappropriate for their students.

I oppose this proposed interference with local control of public schools.

How in the world does a bill use the word “feel” in defining a law. Everything that is taught at school invokes feelings. The idea that something can be banned because of how it makes them feel is crazy. So black history month should be banned because it make someone “feel” a certain way. The holocaust should be banned from being taught because it makes someone “feel” a certain way. Science has been under fire these days, so now we can ban that too because it make someone “feel” a certain way. If we run our education solely on feelings, we better just end all education. As defined by Webster, education is “an opinion arrived at through a process of reasoning.” In order to reach that process of reasoning, we must provide all perspectives, even if they may make some people “feel” like they are decisive. Doing this could open teachers to choose that they will not teach about very important historical events because they feel like it is too divisive. If this passes, I am going to request that the confederacy be banned from being taught at my child’s school. I will request that Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee will never be taught at school because it makes me feel like this country is divisive. I will request that we never teach about elections, because they are divisive. Please stop with this ridiculous bills, and get to work on our state’s economy. Work on bills that bring in jobs to the state. Work on bills that help with infrastructure. Work on things that matter and not bills that are designed to be decisive. If we want this country to move forward, start focusing on the whole and not the parts.

I SUPPORT HB 1328. I OPPOSE HB 344, 787, and 1009.

This bill in incredibly vague and will clearly be used as a political tool to interfere with teachers doing their jobs. Virginia students deserve the best education, not "alternative facts". Just because subjects can be considered divisive doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught; quite the opposite. Learning from hard topics is what teaches them to think critically and helps develop their moral compass. I do not want my kids to be ignorant adults

Please OPPOSE this legislation in light of the 3 article of the United States Constitution. I immensely disappointed by the actions of elected officials to attempt to suppress knowledge and fact in public education.

"Divisive concepts" = This country has a history; this is what it is. I hope people of good character and intellect help this poor fellow not go down in history as completely unable to look around a corner intellectually to understand what this means for our society. Legislators, especially Republicans, please help avoid this!

Who determines what content is "divisive" If a white person objects to learning about slavery and a person of color wants to learn about it-who is the arbitrator? Teaching of History should include slavery, the Civil War, Japanese Internment Camps, the Holocaust, the Civil Rights Movement, etc. I was taught these things in school and nobody felt "bad" No feelings were hurt. Stop trying to suppress/white wash our history. How are we supposed to grow and learn and become more inclusive if we do not teach about the mistakes of the past. Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It.

This country was founded on liberty and freedom. And yet we divided and slaughtered the people who were here already and then divided and enslaved the people who physically built this country. And then we divided them again by telling them they were less than. The only way to grow as a country is to teach truthful history, which isn’t pretty but is real and indisputable. To not teach history that may “hurt people’s feelings” is a sure-fire way to raise a generation of ignorant citizens. We are not cowards. We are Americans. So tell the truth as it happened. As it was. As it still is.

OPPOSE: This bill is a veiled effort to control curriculum and liken it to book banning. We have seen, in past history, the danger of government over reach into public school curriculum. School Boards have served public education by having experts in the field of study provide curriculum for students. Parents can be members of their local School Board. When that decision is taken over by any politician, it becomes indoctrination and not education. Parents have a choice in where they want their children educated, therefore, we do not need any laws passed to restrict curriculum in public schools to favor any one group. Home schooling is a viable alternative where parents can make all decisions on curriculum. I strongly urge opposition to this bill.

Honor Delegates, My name is Joseph Deluna and I am a resident of Virginia. I am submitting a comment to oppose proposed bill HB787. As this bill describes the prohibition of teaching divisive concepts, I implore to reconsider and oppose the passing of HB787 as it would censor, whitewash, and prohibit true learning of future generations of children within this country surrounding topics of racism, sexism, and oppression. The passing of this bill would be truly vile and would continue to strengthen and perpetuate systems of oppression that this country is built upon, further marginalizing the less privileged. I hope you all make the right decision to not pass this bill.

This bill is narrow, reactionary, preferential and infeasible. A person’s thoughts and/feelings cannot be legislated and cannot be judged by another since, by nature, thoughts and feelings are subjective. History and facts do not have emotion or intention, only people do. So what is your intention? History is made and shared by all of us and is vital to our future generations in order to inform them of our great progress and the lengths we have yet to go. Please vote no on this bill! It’s passage will only serve to stifle the necessary truths that are required to build a greater commonwealth and a stronger country. Vote NO. Thank you.

Esteemed members of the House of Delegates, I write to you to oppose House Bill 787 regarding the teaching of divisive content. My issues with the proposal are three-fold. First, I am not convinced that this is a practice that is occurring. Instead, this appears, on the face of it, to be an appeal to the so-called culture wars. It is an example of the very divisiveness that your text purports to eliminate as a threat to our children. Second, "divisive content" is an ambiguous notion. How exactly would you determine what is considered divisive? Would the founding of our country not be divisive? After all, it offends the sensibilities of anglophiles and recent British immigrants to the commonwealth? Would it be divisive because it excludes the voices of women and people of color and therefore puts advocates for further marginalization by example? Would it not be divisive because it relied on the genocide of our nation's indigenous peoples and serves as an example of the ends justifying the means, even if those means are killing? Third, even if we were to accept some agreed-upon definition of divisive, how on earth would you enforce this? Would it not require a surveillance state apparatus? Or would this just be another opportunity for helicopter parents to make baseless reports to the tattle-tale tip line? As a concluding thought, I would like to remind you all that teachers are not the enemy. These are trained professionals who are following established learning objectives. Our public school teachers are leaving in droves. It is time to reward their work and recognize their skills. Stop vilifying them in the hopes of dividends at the ballot box during the next election cycle.

This proposed bill is a dangerous infringement to the ability for teachers to teach young people how to think for themselves after learning about the context of historical and contemporary events. If approved, bill 787 is a slippery slope that may lead to more controversy rather than less. Our children deserve to learn so called "divisive concepts" in order to determine how to become productive and caring citizens within their communities. I vehemently oppose this bill.

This proposed bill is a dangerous infringement to the ability for teachers to teach young people how to think for themselves after learning about the context of historical and contemporary events. If approved, bill 787 is a slippery slope that may lead to more controversy rather than less. Our children deserve to learn so called "divisive concepts" in order to determine how to become productive and caring citizens within their communities. I vehemently oppose this bill.

If education is left to the whims of school boards, our students will not be graduating as critical thinkers. Students need exposures to a variety of systems of thoughts in order to become critical thinkers. Please do not support this bill for the future of our students!

As a librarian in a Virginia public school I oppose this bill. To restrict teachers and librarians in the manner in which this bill proposes is, in and of itself, divisive. I stand for intellectual freedom and defend my students' free access to information. Additionally parts of this bill, such as the posting by July 1 all resources to be used in the upcoming year is absurd. Please kill this bill and protect the students and staff of Virginia from the DIVISIVENESS that this law would perpetuate.

I am writing in opposition to HB787. I'm from a family of educators and believe strongly that we need to trust professional educators to develop appropriate curriculum for our children. This should not be legislated. "Divisive concepts" are necessary to be taught with care if our children are to learn the real lessons our history has to offer. Do children learn about the origins of Thanksgiving at an early age? This indeed is a "divisive concept." Are you suggesting that elementary students should not begin to learn these lessons? Black children, immigrant children and many other children learn "divisive concepts" in their day-to-day existence. I believe racism is the underpinning of this ill-advised legislation. As such, it should be killed immediately.

Regarding HB391, it is dangerous and non-sensical to repeal gun restrictions around schools. Gun violence is an epidemic in this country, with increases in gun-related deaths in 2021, and yet this bill would remove key protections for our student population by allowing guns in school zones. It would also strip local school boards of their right to regulate local school districts, which goes against principles of local control. I strongly oppose this proposed legislation. Regarding HB787, this bill would strip schools of the ability to teach a fair and balanced version of history for fear of making anyone feel "discomfort." Such restrictions on education are inherently ridiculous, as there are significant episodes in history that are uncomfortable that we as a society must learn from. Our own civil rights movement and the Holocaust are two critical examples of history that should not be avoided or whitewashed, else we will not be able teach how to avoid the mistakes of history. I strongly oppose this legislation. Lastly, HB1036 again attempts to supercede local control of local schools in protecting the health and safety of our students. If conservative principles are against "big government" and government control, why is it that conservatives are using the heavy hand of government to restrict local oversight? Not to mention, removing mask mandates ignores the science that masks prevent the spread of COVID in a significant way. I strongly oppose this legislation.

As a state struggling to increase student literacy rates, standardized testing scores, and teacher retention, HB 787 will hinder educational growth. Who benefits from such censorship and fear tactics? Big testing corporations and software companies, that’s who.

I am a middle school English teacher. The word divisive is too broad and certainly captures in its definition murder and love. Therefore to pass this you willingly throw out classic authors like Poe, whom resides in Virginia, and Shakespeare who’s divisive concepts are universal. I beg you, do not do this to our children.

I am a Virginia public school teacher and I am urging this body to strongly vote NO against HB787. Despite being a bill against the teaching of "divisive" topics, this bill creates division, but I suspect that's the point. Recently in my class, my students were learning about Susie King Taylor, who was a woman that was born into slavery in Georgia, learned how to read and write in a clandestine school for enslaved children, and later became a Union nurse and published the first account of an African American woman during the civil war. Is that divisive? I asked my students why they thought slaveholders didn't want people who were enslaved to go to school. One of their responses struck me. A student told me that they didn't want them to learn in school for the same reason they're banning the books today- "they don't want us to know the truth". The youth are so much wiser, and just "get it" so much more than politicians that actually try to divide us. Vote no against it this bill, students already know what you're up to.

Dear Delegates, Thank you for your time and the opportunity to reach out regarding bills before you that impact the quality of education and the safety of my children and community. The past two years have shown us how critical it is for students to be in school for their education and mental health. After so much loss, our goal is to keep kids in school in person. School boards must have the ability to mandate masking when recommended by the medical and scientific community for mitigation to enable continuation of in person education. School boards should have the pulse of their community and be able to make the best determination for their needs as a whole. In regards to teaching, please allow teachers to do their job without "Big Brother" hovering over their shoulders. This is what they were trained to do and why they were hired. Educators have years of formal higher education, specialized professional development, experience and an interest in helping our children learn and grow. We want our children to learn facts about the world and develop critical thinking skills. To hear, at times, uncomfortable truths and develop empathy and problem solving skills is what we need for our future leaders. There are channels in place to deal with concerns with a particular teacher or lesson and those should be pursued as needed on an individual basis. We don't need to add this restraint and fear to teachers across Virginia who are showing up to lovingly and professionally do their job of educating our kids. I would like to express my strong desire for the school boards to have the ability to establish gun-free zones in their places of business. I will assume you have seen video of school board meetings such as ones in Loudoun County where I live. Having attended several in person, I can attest to the intensity, anger, and nasty verbal attacks in the room, in addition to the group gatherings to rally beforehand. Guns have no business in our school business. No one should feel intimidated or threatened and feel the need to remain silent and absent at a public meeting. Students, parents and community members attend for a multitude of reasons and should have a peaceful place to do so. In addition, our school board members have received multiple threats against them and their families and they deserve to feel and be safe. It is just common sense and for the greater good of all. It seems very strange to have to email to express my desire for pandemic mitigation, allowing teachers to do their jobs, and to not have deadly weapons in school board business. These all seem common sense, especially given the world we've been living in. But I realize everything is upside down right now. Please consider the greater good of all when voting on these bills. Most everyone just wants good health, safety, and peace. I wish that for each of you as well. Thank you for your time and for all you do. Kerry Kidwell

In contradistinction to the critics of the policies or curriculum that the originators of this bill seek to remove, there are palpable benefits from teaching these so-called divisive topics. The argument is that subjects like Critical Race Theory causes division by pitting white persons against black persons, but this is a fallacy. Critical Race Theory and other so-called topics that supposedly cause division truly only call for a reckoning on those topics. This is not about blaming those in the present for the sins of the past or making those in the present to feel some sort of guilt from advantages they received from the oppressive tactics and practices of the past. We all stand on the shoulders of our ancestors - for good or for bad. This type of curriculum therefore only calls for everyone to have a conversation and come to the table based upon the truth of what happened in the past. What happened in the past regarding slavery and Jim Crow etc. cannot be denied or refuted. The advantages that some received as a result are undeniable. However, one could choose to look at so-called divisive topics another way. Instead of viewing them as a threat to the status-quo or happiness of those in the present, it actually encourages healing and reconciliation. It invites everyone to the table to have difficult conversations while maintaining the idea that we are not responsible for the sins of those of yesteryear. I remember hearing a white brother and fellow preacher say that in order to fix it, you've got to face it. Let us face what happened in the past and the inherent disadvantages/advantages that such practices produced so that we can move forward united to work for the equality of all human beings. Why is it that around the day where we celebrate the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. we only want to remember the dream without first acknowledging the nightmare that he highlighted - how this country wrote a check to people of color which was returned or bounced due to insufficient funds? We want to remember the hope but try to turn a blind eye to the despair of King and others. To appreciate the light you need to acknowledge that darkness exists and existed. Failing to reckon with the past will perpetuate the same spirits in the present. So-called divisive topics can actually bring more healing than proponents of this bill realize. I hope that before seeking to prevent the teaching and discussion of these so-called divisive topics, that lawmakers truly pause and consider. Is teaching about the Holocaust divisive for students of German origin? Is teaching about Pearl Harbor or the atomic bombs in World War 2 divisive? Is teaching about apartheid to persons of South African descent divisive? Is teaching about Tiananmen Square to persons of Chinese descent divisive? Is teaching about slavery, Jim Crow, and all that black people endured in this country divisive or is it just a reckoning with history? If you consider these questions honestly, you will arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the only thing capable of keeping us divided is a refusal to come to the table honestly and discuss the past so that its effects in the present are minimized.

HB391 and HB787 are connected, and both bills need to drop dead on the floor. HB 787 bans critical THINKING in the name of banning an epistemology and conceptual framework designed for researchers and academics. When we don't teach our children to be critical thinkers, and when we don't educate the whole child, we end up in situations where divided communities and schools bolster unaddressed mental health issues (another flaw in our broken system) leading to school shootings. You're trying to tell us that by repealing the gun prohibition on school board property, no unhinged parent is going to show up, waving a gun, making demands? A woman made national news for *threatening* to bring a gun at a school board meeting. Why are we making it easier to harm one another? At the root of both of these bills is an evil need to do harm to others. Drop them both.

Good morning. I am a teacher, a mother of 2 school aged children and a voter here in the state of Virginia. The purpose of public education, historically speaking, is not to indoctrinate or youth, but to educate them on concepts for the betterment of the WHOLE of society. To understand the world we are living in and create humans who can actively interact in our society, sometimes concepts must be taught that may make some uncomfortable. Change and growth can, at times, be uncomfortable. If they were not, we would be stagnant. We would be the same. Growth is uncomfortable. We need the growth to better our own ever changing society. For our children, our teachers and our Virginia, please vote no on bill hb787. Thank you.

I'm asking you to reject HB787. The Bill remains unclear about exactly what would constitute an inherently divisive concept. Moreover, denying Virginia students the opportunity to learn about and navigate complex issues in the classroom leaves them woefully unprepared to navigate the world outside the classroom. They will be losing the opportunity to become critical thinkers and informed, engaged citizens. They will face uncomfortable moments and difficult decisions throughout their lives. Our job is to prepare them for that. Children learn every day, not just in classrooms, bit beyond, by watching our words and our deeds. Passing legislation that prevents them from dealing with complex issues in fully informed ways, or fully and completely understanding their history and how it had shaped and continues to shape the world on which they live does not prepare them to do so ethically. It also teaches them that being informed, making long-lasting decisions based on information and facts is less important than acting on impulse and emotions. It teaches them refusing to engage with the difficult, the complex, the scary is appropriate and denies them the opportunity to be empathetic and engaged citizens. Virginia public schools should be a point of pride in Virginia, a reason people live here, move here, stay here. A Virginia that bans essential elements of rhe curriculum (like a robust knowledge of history), and this denies children opportunities to develop key skills necessary for successful adult of the future (critical thinking, problem solving, and more, hurts Virginia. It hurts our schools, our children, and our future in so many ways. To legislate a curriculum that is based on vague terms and ideologies not fully articulated is hardly worth this risk.

The effort to remove "divisive concepts" is unclear and leaves room for broad censorship and unspecified alteration of our education system without clear justification or benefit. This bill should not move forward.

It’s shameful and dangerous to vilify teaching history because it may cause discomfort. We learn valuable lessons from the past. It is important to teach our students accurate history, including the painful parts so that we can reflect, grow, and learn. Hopefully parents are raising children to identify with the moral actors in history, how to stand up to injustice, and build better communities. We shouldn’t need to fear teaching history because it may hurt some peoples feelings.

Dear Delegates, As a constituent and taxpayer of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I am writing to urge you to oppose HB787. I believe that Virginia students deserve the very best education, which should include opportunities for thoughtful dialogue and the ability to learn about a variety of perspectives, beliefs, and experiences. By seeking to legislate what content is or is not allowed in public schools, this bill reflects a deeply disturbing attempt at censorship. Additionally, to suggest that racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression are “divisive concepts” disregards crucial moments throughout U.S. and Virginia history, moments that were undeniably impacted by these concepts. Censoring discussion of the many lessons we have learned throughout our history takes away the opportunity for Virginia students to reflect on the past and to forge a unified future for everyone. I urge proponents of this bill to reconsider how censorship is what, truly, would sow division in our Commonwealth. Again, please oppose HB787. Sincerely, Cameron Shaw Hampton VA

I strongly oppose HB787. As a Loudoun resident, I have heard repeated claims on both local community social media accounts, and in our school board meetings, of "CRT" being taught in our schools. To date, there has been no evidence provided as proof that these claims have merit, despite multiple requests of anti-"CRT" proponents to share evidence. No copies of assignments, presentations, or recordings of these occurrences in our schools. The repeated response is that this is happening clandestinely, but still reaching our students. The truth is that until conservative media started presenting this boogeyman of "CRT," the majority of people in VA, and the US, had never heard of it. Our curriculum has not changed significantly in the years that I have had children in the K-12 school system, so if this were to exist, we would surely have plenty of evidence to reference. Last week, I received a note from my child's 9th grade Honors English teacher informing parents that students would be starting their next literary unit. The students will be reading "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee, a book I also read in high school English many years ago, and "Just Mercy (Young Adult Version)" by Bryan Stevenson. The former is a celebrated, Pulitzer-prize winning work examining the roots of human behavior, and the latter is a true story of a lawyer's experiences dealing with the machinations of the criminal justice system. Both books focus on a man accused of crimes he did not commit. The announcement of both books also came with a reassurance from my child's amazing teacher that "CRT concepts" would not be taught. I personally found the need for that reassurance disgusting. I truly cannot comprehend support for a bill that promotes the idea that condemning injustice against our nation's citizens is somehow "divisive," or that feeling "discomfort" when learning about these injustices is somehow problematic. The goal of a K-12 education is to prepare children to enter university-level studies and/or begin their careers. It is critical that our students have the skills to analyze a situation from multiple viewpoints in order to have a more complete understanding. "Feelings" are not objective, nor can they be extrapolated to anyone beyond the individual themselves. The idea that all students would be robbed of educational opportunities based on one individual's feelings, or a politically motivated activist group's opinion on the instructor's motivations in teaching a book or concept, is an embarrassment to the state of Virginia. I ask that you oppose HB787, and continue to allow our children the freedom to experience a complete education that will result in the development of the critical thinking skills needed in the future. The citizens of this state are richly diverse, and all should be able to contribute to the education of our children without fear of government retaliation. This bill would violate the 1st Amendment rights of every citizen of VA, and should not be allowed to proceed further.

I strongly oppose HB787. This is an absolute violation of rights to be so broadly controlling what can and cannot be taught in public schools. You can't pick and choose what parts of history and life our children learn about. You can't decide what points if view are taught and which are not just based on your own personal politics. That's not giving the full picture and not giving children the opportunity to learn and form their own perspectives. This bill is outrageous to even be proposed and must be stopped.

HB787: I am a Loudoun County resident and I am writing against HB787. I am outraged and disgusted by the proposal of this bill. This proposed bill is in response to what some lawmakers think is critical race theory being taught in our schools, which is absolutely untrue. Talking about race and sex is not racist or sexist, but ignoring these topics is. This proposed bill limits students’ academic freedom, is a violation of free speech, and is an attempt at thought policing. I am a history and political science major and I can’t stress enough the importance of teaching the history of our nation in its entirety. Not all topics in our nation’s history are pretty. It includes historic unfair treatment for Americans of different race and sex and these are not topics that should be glossed over or avoided. I don’t understand how these grown adult lawmakers are so afraid of these topics. It is because they are cowards, and I am ashamed that representatives of my state would propose such legislation. Our students deserve to learn the truth of our nation’s history so that they can understand the American experience from all sides and have a richer understanding of the past because of it. I strongly oppose this proposed bill and I hope that our state representatives make their constituents proud and do the same. HB391: I am a Loudoun County resident and I am writing against HB391. Schools should retain the authority to deem their non-school zone property as a “gun-free zone.” The current statue does not apply to law enforcement officers, therefore they are not prohibited from carrying firearms and they are the only individuals that should be permitted to do so. There is no need for individuals on school board owned, non-school property to (as the current statue states) “purchase, possess, transfer, carry, store, or transport firearms, ammunition, or components of combination thereof while an individual is on such property”. In 2020, (the most recent year for which complete data is available) 45,222 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC. Our country has one of the highest rates of gun related deaths among developed nations. With an increase in mass shootings, especially tied to schools, more firearms are not the answer. As a tax payer who provides funding for these buildings, I want my local school board to retain the authority to set the policy on guns that they deem appropriate for our area.

Comments Document

Dear Delegate LaRock and K-12 Education Committee, My name is Dr. Sabrina Dent. I write these comments responding to HB787 as the parent of an African American school-aged child; and, as a public scholar whose research and work is dependent on the truths about American history. ALL of American history. Whereas, I have made several attempts to submit my comments that were under the character count requirement but were accepted; I have attached them as a file. Please read my attached statement in its entirety along which include citations from the National Council for the Social Studies C3 Framework guidelines about historical inquiry and historical thinking for students' learning experience. Sincerely, Dr. Sabrina E. Dent

As a public middle school teacher, I write to urge you to OPPOSE HB787. We are highly trained professionals who know how to lead discussion in our classroom. This bill only furthers the false messaging that public educators indoctrinate our students to believe what we believe. On the contrary, we teach our students to engage in critical thinking on countless topics, so they may form their own opinions based on evidence. NO ONE who supports this bill can claim to be supportive of public education. If you were, you would be spending your time in Virginia schools to see what we actually teach, what our amazing students can achieve, and what massive needs we have for your productive attention. If you truly knew anything about public education, you would know that this bill is wholly unnecessary. This does nothing but continue to sow devisiveness, which is the very thing it is supposedly going to ban. Just because history is uncomfortable, does not make it devisive. If you actually trust and respect the trained professionals who have been hired in public schools all over the Commonwealth, you will stop wasting your time, and the time of the people of Virginia, with this incredibly insulting bill. Instead, direct your attention toward further funding our schools so that we can continue to give our students the education they deserve.

Delegates, I am writing to urge you to vote no on HB787. A law that prohibits the instruction of "divisive concepts" is overly broad and subject to the interpretation of political influences. To secure the future of this commonwealth, we need to ensure that our education systems can adapt to societal changes. It is clear that this law aims to make the teaching of Critical Race Theory illegal. It is also painfully evident to anyone who has paid attention to national events over the last few years that racism will not disappear if we refuse to acknowledge its existence. We have a responsibility to give future generations the tools they will need to call out racism where they see it. Our kids deserve to understand discrimination and recognize it so they can effectively fight it better than we have. I want all children to learn what I didn't realize until I was nearly grown. That racism didn't end with slavery or with the Civil Rights Act. This bill will stop that from happening. This bill will keep the status quo. This bill will allow for the political weaponization of our children's education. HB787 is a disservice to our children and to Virginia I call upon all of you to vote no.

It is vital to have as much of an objective and realistic representation of history and facts that the country is built on and the mistakes we are learning from as possible. We should not be omitting or manipulating the facts to make them seem less atrocious or terrifying (though of course they should be presented in age appropriate ways in the classroom). We need to ensure we learn and heal from history, not turn a blind eye to it or put on rose colored glasses. To make vague, blanket rules or ways of restricting how educators present an already objective, accurate curriculum in an effort to be "less divisive" is so very dangerous and frankly unacceptable. Some things unequivocally need to be argued against, and repeating or even simply denying a horrific history is something we cannot do as a whole. We all lose when we don't have the power to hear both sides without biases being allowed to manipulate the message in a way that silences a side that has repeatedly been oppressed. This is a slippery slope, and I hope you will consider the gravity of allowing such a bill to pass without more defined parameters.

It is vital to have as much of an objective and realistic representation of history and facts that the country is built on and the mistakes we are learning from as possible. We should not be omitting or manipulating the facts to make them seem less atrocious or terrifying (though of course they should be presented in age appropriate ways in the classroom). We need to ensure we learn and heal from history, not turn a blind eye to it or put on rose colored glasses. To make vague, blanket rules or ways of restricting how educators present an already objective, accurate curriculum in an effort to be "less divisive" is so very dangerous and frankly unacceptable. Some things unequivocally need to be argued against, and repeating or even simply denying a horrific history is something we cannot do as a whole. We all lose when we don't have the power to hear both sides without biases being allowed to manipulate the message in a way that silences a side that has repeatedly been oppressed. This is a slippery slope, and I hope you will consider the gravity of allowing such a bill to pass without more defined parameters.

What in the world do representatives think is happening in school classrooms to warrant a bill such as this?? I teach middle school in Virginia and I’ve been made to feel like an enemy of the state with this language. What is it , specifically, that this bill aims to prevent? Does it intend to end culturally responsive teaching? Learning about students’ realities and how faculty/staff can better include their culture in schools? Celebrating the rainbow of diversity within student bodies and communities? Maybe supporters of this bill would prefer to pretend Black musicians didn’t have to consult the green book before going on tour or that enslavers loved the people they enslaved. Maybe they would prefer to gaslight children of color, making them believe they’re imagining things when they wonder about racial injustice seen with their own eyes and in their own lives. I don’t assign guilt to my white students for the injustices of this country. Yet I surely teach the nation’s ugly history along with its proud history so the future doesn’t mirror the past. This assignment of guilt is something that’s being projected; it is not something manifesting in school classrooms. Kathy Allen Live in Goochland Teach in Louisa

I and my family and community of active educator voters oppose this proposal because it offends our values. Teachers are public citizens and deserve respect. They ensure all children succeed and promote growth and compassion and empathy. Do not censure educators!

I and my family and community of active voters oppose this proposal because it offends our values. Medical professionals and health departments are charged with community health-not politicians. Keep mask mandates on as long as health advisors recommend communities to do so! Also, encourage more people to get vaccinated and bolstered to keep our communities safe.

Censorship does not belong in schools, let alone politically based censorship. Refusing to teach history accurately is a well known play in the fascist handbook, and I ask legislators to stop this now. School is exactly where minds should be expanded, not narrow beliefs reinforced. The refusal to teach “decisive concepts” is both vague and dangerous and will be used to silence both students and educators. If your beliefs can only stand in an artificially created echo chamber, then you do not truly believe them. This is plain and simple censorship in the service of white supremacy. Please vote no on this bill.

CRT is not taught in our schools. However, this bill would deter efforts to ban the teaching of the true but not always pretty history of our country. I do not support this bill.

The bill set forth by Del. LaRock (HB 787) should not be passed. It is an affront to people of intelligence everywhere to try and limit the pursuit of knowledge.

This country was founded on liberty and freedom. And yet we divided and slaughtered the people who were here already and then divided and enslaved the people who physically built this country. And then we divided them again by telling they were less than. The only way to grow as a country is to teach the truthful history, which isn’t pretty, but is real and indisputable. To not teach history that may “hurt people’s feelings” is a sure fire way to raise a generation of ignorant citizens. We are not cowards. We are Americans. So tell the truth as it happened. As it was. As it still is.

This is a bill that will increase divisiveness rather than address it. First, it does not lay out any description, definition or examples of what is meant by "divisive" so how will this bill be implemented without metrics defining meaning or practice. Second, and more importantly, this bill is a set up to attack teachers with subjective, biased and unfounded claims. School administrators and teachers were drowning in demands on their time, skills and hearts before COVID, which has made those demands enough to drive them out of their professions. Talent we can ill afford to lose if we truly care about our children. Just like the Governor's spying, tattle tail education hotline, this is just one more attempt to destroy public education. This bill should experience a quick death in committee.

I still can’t believe this is even being considered an issue. While our history is not pretty (most peoples aren’t unfortunately), but just because it makes people uncomfortable doesn’t mean it didn’t happen and we shouldn’t teach it. It SHOULD make you uncomfortable, it NEEDS to make you uncomfortable! It’s uncomfortable because we have to look back, own up, and accept the fact that our country as a people have committed horrible atrocities on those they deemed different or less than, many of our own. The only way to grow and move forward as a country is to teach the truthful history, which isn’t pretty, but is real and indisputable. To not teach history that may “hurt people’s feelings” is a sure way to raise a generation of ignorant citizens, doomed to repeat the past. If we’re going to claim all the glory that comes with calling ourselves Americans, then we have to claim the shame of our past as well. So tell the truth as it happened. As it was. As it still is.

I am writing to encourage the subcommittee to vote against HB787. This wrong-headed and dangerous legislation flies in the face of all that is sacred in public education. This ill-considered bill smacks of censorship and authoritarianism. Its language regarding what constitutes a "divisive concept" is purposely vague, making it all the more dangerous. Knowledge and information coupled with sound critical thinking skills are the bedrock of our public education system. Intellectual discomfort and challenges to rote thinking can be precursors to growth and greater understanding, individually and among people. We do not need to hide factual information or difficult concepts from our children. On the contrary, they need and want to experience such things in an age-appropriate and safe manner, like a classroom, to begin to develop their own abilities to evaluate and assess information and come to reasoned, supportable conclusions. This bill does not seek to solve a problem in public education. This bill seeks to inject partisan ideology into our classrooms. Young people want factual, honest information from which they can learn and grow. Adults pushing their politics into the classroom are doing great harm to students. Please reject HB787.

School curriculum should be determined by school board and should be open to FACTS and history. We cannot avoid topics that make some people uncomfortable. The point of teaching history is to help people avoid mistakes of the past. We cannot do that if we make stories of the past more palatable. As a parent, I want my children educated with the truth.

"Divisive" topics is vague and EverWing the territory of propaganda instead of education. If petite don't want their children to learn certain topics, then they can homeschool their children. We need to teach actual American history which will include issues that people find divisive for some reason, like the KKK was bad, slavery was bad, land was illegally stolen from Native Americans, etc. These aren't issues that need to be "hidden" from elementary schoolers and even less so from those in middle school. Many children learn about these "divisive" topics firsthand due to the inequality/inequity our country still shows to half of its citizens in elementary school. Stop pretending you're trying to "protect children" because these bills don't do that, it just spreads propaganda pretending we have some immaculate history in this country while having no issue pointing out the faults of others. America is and should be better than this. It's 2022, not 1964, and especially not 1864. Anyone supporting this bill needs to grow up and accept the reality of our history and how things still need to change instead of pretending we're some testament to democracy access growth, because bills like this price exactly the opposite. It's a disgusting request and it should be immediately denied as unnecessary and dangerous to society to pretend certain topics don't exist. Children are smart and hate is taught by glossing over indignities, not by teaching what happened to learn how to avoid it from continuing to happen. The writers and supporters of this bill should be ashamed of themselves.

How in the world is Virginia even legitimately considering this racist bill? This document is suggested by delegate who participated in the insurrection of our government, spreads conspiracy theories, and whose his resignation has been called for - how is Virginia even considering any legislation from a from a known toxic, racist, delusional white supremacist?

You can't just say divisive you need to be explicit. History teachers have to cover some uncomfortable topics so everyone understands what is at stake if we don't learn from the past.

This bill is astoundingly arrogant. Who decides what is divisive? Will we stop teaching math? Particularly division? It is a natural phenomenon. Do members of this Body never disagree with a spouse? Do members of the party that Mr. LaRock declares ever disagree? Or is the General Assembly trying to achieve cult culture? How do children learn to cope with difficult subjects or problems if never taught to reason through them? How do you teach critical thinking skills if students are never presented with problems? What is the point of education? When a student graduates from this "cult" academy, how will they problem solve on a job? How will they creatively suggest multiple solutions to a problem? Perhaps the book "The Giver" might instruct one as to why censoring schools is a very bad idea. This bill is outlandish and insulting. I encourage the members of this body to vote no on HB787.

As a citizen of Virginia and a registered voter, I want to express my opposition to HB787, which seeks to ban the teaching of "divisive concepts" to kids in elementary & middle schools. I do not want my elected representatives voting to enact a law that has been created with intentionally vague terms, which are dangerous and problematic in the fact that they will inevitably lead to restricting educators from being able to teach historic truths, including the dangers of long term systemic racism that has been woven into our stare's and nation's history and continues to affect every part of our society. Students cannot become critical thinkers and productive citizens when swaths of history are ignored, and furthermore, being able to examine and identify systemic wrongs is not divisive, but rather unifying in that it will lead to young people of all backgrounds to become aware that the problems in our society can only be changed when we all work together to change the system instead of trying to blame individuals .

The Virginia Education Association and I (a public school teacher in Fairfax County) OPPOSE HB 787, because it is a close-minded, unnecessarily restrictive demand of public educators.

This is a blatant piece of pandering to those Virginia citizens who have been duped into fear of "critical race theory." It is an unpatriotic and cynical attempt to reinforce fear-mongering lies Virginians have been told alleging the teaching of critical race theory in public elementary and secondary schools. This legislation should be rejected because: 1) Critical race theory is not being taught. 2) The definition of "divisive concept" is outrageously broad and could be used to intimidate public school teachers and other employees into avoiding important topics in history or civics. History is an absolutely critical subject matter for our students, and not just the pleasant parts of it. Our nation isn't perfect. To understand it, to love it, to contribute to its betterment requires honest, full examination. We need to focus on encouraging rigorous examination rather than narrowing what parts of history and the American experience can be discussed in our schools. 3) In particular, this bill may prevent teachers from examining the full view of our nation's history, which must include an examination of slavery and racial discrimination. True patriotism requires us all to look honestly at our country, to appreciate the both the great achievements of our people AND the injustice that has undermined this nation and prevented us from reaching our full potential. This country can be greater, but to improve, we have to examine our nation considering the many different experiences of our people and seeking to ensure true equality and opportunity for all. I urge all legislators who truly love Virginia and the United States to reject this ridiculous and dangerous legislation. It was not produced in service of the citizens of this state, but in service of con men trying to increase their own power and fill their coffers by tricking citizens into shortchanging our students and the future of this great state and country.

Way too vague. This is a disguised attempt to banned CRT which is not part of the current curriculum. Section vii is so vague that if any student feel ANY discomfort, this would mean it is unlawful. This vaguely written sub section would open the flood gates for almost anything. Stop controlling and trying to regulate thoughts and progress.

This country was founded on liberty and freedom. And yet we divided and slaughtered the people who were here already and then divided and enslaved the people who physically built this country. And then we divided them again by telling they were less than. The only way to grow as a country is to teach the truthful history, which isn’t pretty, but is real and indisputable. To not teach history that may “hurt people’s feelings” is a sure fire way to raise a generation of ignorant citizens. We are not cowards. We are Americans. So tell the truth as it happened. As it was. As it still is.

The proposal of this is ridiculous. VA students should be taught *all* history, good & bad. Wow, talk about your snowflakes. Only those who fear real history being learned to keep power will vote for this.....or by some who are so simple they have no idea they're being duped. We will never grown as a nation without the pain of development.

Our children need to be taught broad scale perspectives on every topic. Do not censure and limit what our children can learn. That is a grave disservice to the children of Virginia. It’s also blatantly classist, racist, discriminatory, and oppressive.

This bill is blatant racism, plain and simple. Aren’t we better people than to hide behind trying to protect children from feeling uncomfortable when you really mean white parents who feel uncomfortable with their children learning that racism and prejudice still happen today. Clearly there is no concern for Black and Latinx parents and children who feel uncomfortable. When I attended a private high school in Fairfax, VA from 1975-1979. There were 1500 students and 18 were Black. Teachers turned a blind eye when students called us “n****r” and taped pictures of cross burnings to our lockers. My first job was at a public library, none of the Black staff was allowed to work on the main floor. I taught for thirty-eight years in Prince William County at a public school named after a man who fought to not be a part of the United States. In 2015, a coworker told her largely Latinx class that after the election most of them would not be allowed to stay in this country. If I tell you this and your response is that it’s okay because talking about it makes you uncomfortable then you are neither a good person or an honest public servant. I never thought I would live in a fascist country but inch by inch that is the direction we seem to be going. Please do better for all of the citizens of this commonwealth, especially the non-white citizens, who deserve laws that respect them and their lived experiences.

HB787 is a particularly troubling bill. This bill reads like, and appears to be intended to encourage, embolden, and further entrench systemic racism. As such, it amounts to an attack on education. What could have been a bill to enhance education and deal w/ the nuances of teaching about our countries history on the subject of racism is instead taking a hatchet to the entire notion of teaching about it. The bill is so broad and open that it would likely be very difficult to apply in practice and lead to quite a few lawsuits I imagine. I suspect that the bill would further weaken public education as it would require teachers to follow an extremely vague and broad set of guidelines that are at odds with teaching history. Virginia's students are capable of learning and understanding difficult concepts like racism and they deserve far better education than this bill would allow.

There are currently many ways to review and provide feedback on curricula/instruction and instructional materials in our public schools. There are meetings, information sessions, posted instructional material, PTA/PTO, etc. What we emphatically do not need is a bill banning the teaching of "divisive concepts." Teachers' instructional material is already reviewed in advance; what more does Del. LaRock want them to do? Adding additional hoops to jump through with absolutely no benefit is a ridiculous overreach and demand on teachers' and administrators' time. Implying repercussions for not teaching from both sides of a "divisive" issue is extremely harmful. As a parent of public school students I have no desire for my children to learn that Nazis maybe weren't all bad and that Jim Crow wasn't necessarily meant as a way to extend slavery in a slightly different form. These topics should be addressed with the expertise of educators in their field, not dictated by a whitewashed view of history, contemporary culture, and politics. Furthermore, the language encouraging local school boards to "adopt policies.... more comprehensive" is a dangerous, slippery slope for board members to ban difficult topics altogether and silence educators. I wholeheartedly oppose this bill and ask all those who believe in an accurate, thought provoking, and thorough education for Virginia's children do the same. Thank you.

I want to voice my concern about and opposition to HB1036. To my mind this bill is constructed in overreaction to a normal and necessary history and cultural curriculum. I think we need to tamp down the rumors and emotional reaction to what we think may be divisive concepts. Our teachers are working hard to give our children a well rounded education and we should support them. This bill puts educators under fire who already have a stressful job. Please vote against it.

LaRock's HB 787 is, frankly, un-American. The attack on free speech and academic freedom is predicated on the biased judgement of the charging party--so they can make teaching an actual crime. As an educator (former elementary and high, current university), parent, and American, I am abhorred this is even entertained this far. What is the criteria for charging a "divisive" concept? How can you measure "damage" done to children's psyche by learning a new perspective? What examples does LaRock have of children being harmed by being exposed to "divisive" concepts? What the heck IS a "divisive" concept, and who gets to define that? It is a relative term and, like the Supreme Court knocked out Youngkin's EO on "divisive" concepts, that precedent should be followed in considering 787. This is an opening salvo on education that leaves the door open for burning books that have "divisive" ideas, and an attack on our already-embattled public school teachers. My grandfathers both nearly lost their lives fighting an enemy who had this philosophy towards knowledge, ideas, and free thought in the Second World War. The fact that a public official would think this appropriate is disconcerting.

This bill is absolutely atrocious. Please do not pass this. Teachers are not teaching divisive things to children. Please trust teachers to continue doing what they can for our students.

As a teacher of 14 years, this bill is offensive and belittling of the profession. Teachers are trained and licensed professionals, not leftist talking boxes. There is a teacher shortage and bills like this will cause many to leave the profession and dissuade others from entering. This is an outright attempt to white wash history and prevent students from becoming critical thinkers.

I am writing to express my opposition to HB 787. It is too vague in wording and overreaching and excessively restrictive in intent. Please let teachers teach. Respectfully, Alicia Peycelon

This proposed bill is shameful - and frankly embarrassing. It is clearly pandering to people who don't understand the purpose of education, and don't appreciate the value of education. There are so many things wrong with this, beginning with the ridiculously vague and dangerous idea of "divisive concepts." I assume that this would include any discussion of religion? Please, Virginia is often the laughing stock of the country and the world... this is a perfect example of why we are ridiculed on a regular basis.

The bill is Unlawful and Discriminatory. This is Fascism.

Respectfully, please do not pass this bill. This is dangerously vague, and has a chilling effect on our teachers. Please trust them. They have the education, training, and experience to know what and how to teach our children, and when difficult conversations and topics are appropriate. I'm a parent of a child in public school; the last thing that I want is another piece of bureaucracy getting between our children and what our teachers do best: teach. I want my child to grow up learning how to grapple with difficult concepts and ideas, not coddled into a stupor by pretending that "everything is awesome." Thank you for your time.

You don't know me, but I attended and graduated from Henrico County Public schools. My life has been deeply enriched by quality teaching of literature and history involving "divisive topics." They fostered critical thinking and a reverence for facts and truth in a world where everything seems to be nothing but spin. I'm deeply disappointed that Virginia legislators would even think to create this bill. It's straight out of Orwell's "1984," a book I read as a public school student that taught me a vivid lesson about trying to hide or rewrite history, which seems to be the point of this bill.

Please vote NO HB787, which seeks to ban the teaching of "divisive concepts" (a dangerously vague term). I’ve watched several committees meetings and I haven’t heard of an example of it being taught here or a actual definition of it. Thanks

This idea that our schools are teaching divisive concepts, therefore using indoctrination is absurd. I’ve had 2 students recently go through LCPS (one 2021 graduate and one is currently a senior). CRT is NOT being taught to these students, and they are certainly not being indoctrinated. Define “divisive concept”. If it’s anything that makes a person uncomfortable, I challenge you to listen to a family member of a Holocaust survivor or slave. These topics ARE uncomfortable, and they should be. They are a dark cloud over our history. But that doesn’t mean students should not learn that history. It’s how we grow and how we do better. Our history wasn’t always unicorns and rainbows, and it shouldn’t be painted as such. Teach these kids age appropriate but ACCURATE history, and stop pretending these historical events didn’t occur.

“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without Freedom of Speech.” - Benjamin Franklin These bills are vague, unnecessary, and potentially massively harmful. Teachers have enough tightropes to walk on, and are underpaid and underappreciated to boot. They've stepped up massively during this pandemic, and this is what we think they need from their legislature? This censoring of freedom of spiritual and intellectual inquiry is harmful, and while potentially coming from a good place morally, is fundamentally wrong-headed. What happens when children grow up and are confronted with these or any other challenging concepts in the wild of their everyday lives? They'll be all the more blindsided by it, and will be more vulnerable to bad actors acting in bad faith. Not allowing exploration of these or any other concepts into the classroom, where a healthy discussion can occur guided by capable professionals, will hamper the development of young minds. Young minds can gain wisdom by discussing these concepts in a safe setting, and can prepare them to decide for themselves how they'd like to live. These bills, in their current iterations, would do children harm in their efforts to protect them. The first amendment is fundamental to American political and intellectual life. Bills that seek to limit it do not belong in our laws. "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion." - Thomas Jefferson

Stop these divisive and ignorant bills regarding what concepts teachers my teach. Our teachers work in a learning environment and our children deserve the truth. Stop being ashamed of our history. We will not move forward as a Nation by not understanding history, all of it, the good with the bad. Allow teachers to teach and support them accordingly. Our children and future depend on it.

Critical race theory is not taught in grades K-12 in Virginia schools. Teachers need to teach topics that tell the whole truth of our history and the world’s history, and not just from the perspective of the American point of view, the colonizer point of view, or the hidden whitewashed point of view many of us grew up with. To understand history and not be doomed to repeat, students need to be taught the real truth of history.

Read the history of the Third Reich and of Stalin's USSR. You'll find that they, too, did not permit "divisive" material. See "Stasi" if that doesn't help. We pay taxes to fund public education in order for children to *learn*.... not to be programmed like robots. This bill is a disgrace to the Commonwealth, and the Constitution of the United States.

Once again, thank you for offering the public the opportunity to comment on proposed legislation. The bill's attempts to define "divisive" only open up an endless can of worms of problematic terminology: "fundamentally," "inherently," " should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual's race or sex," (this last clause so clearly has affirmative action and opposition to diversity initiatives in employment in mind), "bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex." Rather than try and conceal any critical teaching about significant historical and social problems in American society stemming from the institution of slavery and systems of discrimination, it should be recognized that these problems must be understood as clearly as possible, discussed, and dealt with. This legislation will desperately try to sweep problems under the rug.

“Divisive concepts” is so nebulous and meaningless that it opens a Pandora’s box of what is and isn’t illegal. Leave teachers alone.

This bill will cause our teachers to have to walk such a tightrope as to make their work impossible, and it should not be passed into law. There are many hard truths in this world, and teachers should be free to talk about them with students - there is no indoctrination going on in our public schools. This bill will run even more teachers out of our public school system, which perhaps is the point. But I believe in strong, thorough, honest public schools. Do not pass this bill.

Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it. We need to be teaching real history, including difficult concepts. That isn't being divisive, it is being honest. These attempts to ban divisive concepts are nothing more than an attempt to prevent teaching true history and they are rooted in racism. Please oppose this racist bill.

Dear Committee Members: When I moved up here from rural South Carolina it never occurred to me that I was moving to an area that is even more regressive and reactionary. The Republicans seem to believe in children's inherent rights (right to life) except when they don't (restricting them from their right to any and all information; CONTROLLING what they learn.) The same people seem to believe in local control (don't like the state or federal telling them what to do) except when they don't (new GOP administration nixes masks, locals want them). Make up your minds, folks, you can't have it both ways. Thoughts: 1. Give your kids some credit. They are a whole lot brighter than you give them credit for. They are perfectly capable of being exposed to all points of view on any subject, sifting through it, and deciding what is CREDIBLE and what is not. I.e., they are not your chattel and are not yours to brainwash. You have no right to restrict their exposure to information and/or ideas. (this covers un-whitewashed history, different religions, sexual content, etc, etc.) I am a retired high school history teacher, and I would suggest to you that most of you know as much about what the true essence and academic origin of CRT is as I do about plumbing. It's origins are part of the history of legal scholarship. Not exactly K-12 material. 2. Science is science is science. While you are busy being reactionary, people are dying. Most of the kids do fine and don't mind the masks. YOU JUST DO NOT LIKE BEING TOLD WHAT TO DO. Grow up. You know that's true. Besides being a retired history teacher, I am a mother, a grandmother, and a pragmatist. In case you haven't been following the (real) credible news (that leaves out FOX and Facebook), our nation is in an educational crisis. We are hemorrhaging teachers and those enrolling in teacher education. Why? Recent surveys indicate: they feel restricted in what they can teach, they don't feel safe (guns), and because of the pandemic and increased screen time, the students have ever shorter attention spans and are hard to teach. The biggest reason, though, is the parents. Parents want complete control over what their kids are allowed to learn, and they are litigious. If they don't get what they want, they sue or initiate re-calls. I.e., they are insecure and threatened 'little' people. Threatened that their own kids might be brighter or aspire to be more educated than they are. If we can't fill the teaching gaps, we will be left with private schools (not available to all) and homeschooling. I would suggest that very few people are fully equipped to homeschool. How many of us are qualified to teach the higher maths, the sciences, the languages, and performing arts, that will prepare our kids for college? And where will our next generation of doctors, engineers, college professors, thinkers, inventors, come from? Public school teachers, administrators, superintendents, librarians, are well trained and know the law. The kids are eager to learn, even when it's the cold, hard, unvarnished facts. I had black kids in the same classes with Klan kids. No topic was off limits. They did fine. We had two rules: be civil and LISTEN to each other. Joan Henry Leesburg

People who are trained as educators spend years getting their teaching certification as well as attending ongoing professional development every year. Educators, not politicians, are qualified to create and implement curriculum. A good teacher welcomes discussion among students with differing views, as it encourages critical thinking skills. HB787 is NOT good for Virginia education.

This bill would impose the opinion of a political faction on the schools, overriding the considered judgement of professional educators. It would pave the way for more arbitrary political interference in teaching. It should be rejected completely.

I'm writing to object to passage of HB787. This bill is an attempt to restrict educators ability to teach any number of subjects including history, philosophy, anthropology, political science and comparative religions, just to name a few. It could be construed to limit the teaching of other subjects such as science and mathematics should any concept within those subjects be deemed a "divisive concept" Recall that during the Roman Inquisition of 1615 it was deemed that Galileo's theory of heliocentrism was deemed heretical, and Galileo deemed suspect of heresy. History shows the error of such acts and laws, are we now to assume that the teaching of the history of Galileo might also be deemed "divisive"? This bill should also be considered as unconstitutionally broad and vague. It gives far too much power to a government to regulate thought which is a concept of freedom that this country should never surrender. Respectfully, J. Paravecchio

Please vote no on guns in school (HB 391)- we've already had a threat to our schools this year and with school shootings on the rise again, we do not need access to weapons on school grounds. I have children in schools and appreciate that schools are a safe, gun-free zone. Please vote no to HB787- teachers are trained professionals following an approved education curriculum. This bill is government overreach especially as the author has no educational background, just a fear of teaching real history. Please vote no to HB1036 - school districts should be able to assess (with health department and medical recommendations) and decide for their own districts if masks need to be mandated. My kids are able to safely attend in-person school this year 5 days a week during peek Covid numbers because the students and staff are masked and vaccinated. Many immuno-compromised students or students with medically vulnerable families are able to attend because masking provides a barrier to disease particles. School boards should be able to assess and mandate safety protocols without government overreach. Thank you, Huyen MacMichael, Parent and Virginia Constituent

Loaded handguns shouldn’t be permitted on airplanes where an errant gunshot could lead to tragedy. Right? The same can be said about bringing a gun into a school board meeting, where adults and student representatives gather in what should be a safe space. Unfortunately in my county the school board meetings have already become hostile. Gun owners agree there is a time and a place to carry your weapon, this space is not one of them. Please oppose HB391. (HB1036) is written in an effort to defy science: “make it harder for local school boards to do mask mandates”. State officials do not know what is best for each county. Each county should have the authority to respond to public health emergencies in a way that best suits their community and follows guidelines set by the public health agencies. If theses agencies are not reputable then why are they funded by your same government? Stop playing games with our health and safety, we should be relying on expert health and public safety officials. Please oppose this bill HB1036 and continue to allow each county the power to decide what is best for their communities. And finally, I urge you to oppose HB787 which seeks to advance ignorance in education. The intention of this is to make sure that “teachers can’t teach divisive concepts" even though there is no evidence that CRT is being taught in ANY VA school. Where is the evidence that this is needed? VA is ranked nationally as one of the top 10 states with a solid education system. We should not be "dumbing it down" because it hurts a handful of people's feelings or because it is on our Governors agenda who has no idea about the realities of daily public school systems. The same people who want a say in their child's curriculum, likely aren't even aware they already have access to their child's curriculum. Have they ever looked? No. Has the Governor? Stop trying to change what isn't broken. Focus your efforts on attracting good teachers to VA, increasing their pay, ensuring every child can read, providing mental health resources, increasing special needs awareness, and give the teachers some paper for heavens sake. Many times they have to pay for their own paper to teach a lesson. That is the real problem.

These latest bills introduced by LaRock, Freitas and Durant are ridiculous to the point of embarrassment and deserving of as little consideration as possible. To that end, I'll keep my comment intentionally brief. School systems can and should dictate student safety. School systems can and should control access to "Sexually explicit" reading material in schools. School systems can and should teach our children about things that are divisive, despite Dave LaRock's feigned fragility. Guns should, of course, not be anywhere in the vicinity of a school, a School Board meeting, a church, an airport, a restaurant, a shoe store, etc. What kind of absurdity is this bill?

To the Education K-12 Subcommittee: I'm from Loudoun County (Aldie) and I'm writing to reinforce the view that I'm sure most of you hold, that the delegate we sent to Richmond (Dave LaRock) is plum crazy. His views on K-12 education, and the needs of an informed populace are so far out in right field that if you grant him his wish to ban the teaching of any concept that might appear to some ignoramus as "divisive", NOTHING will be taught in our schools .... least of all anything that has a grain of truth to it. For Pete's sake, ignore the man and stand up for the purpose for which we sent you to Richmond - to foster the development of an informed populace capable of critical thought. As for guns at school board meetings .... yeah, right. Just what we need. O.K. Corral at the School Board. One side brings a Sig-Sauer 9mm; the other shows up with an AR-15. Great. And we expect the kids to be O.K.? WTF.

This should be called The Advancement of Ignorance bill. This legislation must be defeated if we want history and education to have any real meaning. We don't have to be proud of everything our ancestors did -- but we MUST learn from what they did.

These bills are OPPOSED by the Virginia Education Association and myself, a public school teacher in Fairfax County.

I know you do not believe that both the Commonwealth and US aren’t racist and sexist! Even your own statistics bear this out. Women’s make less than men at the same jobs and blacks ((if they are hired) make even less. These groups are very underrepresented in upper management and until fairly recently have been barred by certain public schools and the military. We weren’t even given the right to vote in the original Constitution! You would have to be willingly blind not to see that these things have ramifications for our Country’s opportunities for these groups. Racism and sexism exist in our Commonwealth and this is borne out by your own statistics. Not to teach that there are, along with the many wonderful things about our country, some things that need changing, is pure twisting of history.

Dear Legislators: HB 781 and HB 787 do not make sense to me, and they are not sound pedologically. I am concerned that these bills will push teachers to teach things that they know are not true. I do not wish to go backwards in our state. When I was in Junior High, in 1969, our Virginia history textbook said that slaves were well treated and lived good lives. Fortunately, my teacher was a true historian who knew that this was a blatant lie and propaganda. He taught us that this was inaccurate, and he taught us that not everything you read is the truth. He taught us to question. There may have been students in other schools with other teachers who were not taught to question what was in that history book. This is sad and it is wrong. I was happy that by the time my youngest sisters went through school, that book was no longer in use. No country in the world can be proud of everything that has been done in their society. We cannot be scared to teach the ugly parts of our history, or else, we will repeat the mistakes over and over again. Allowing parents to withdraw their children from school and be given funds to educate them elsewhere, because they don’t want their children to hear perspectives different from their own will destroy the public school system and create future leaders who are not well-rounded and well-educated. Good education should open a student’s mind, it should make the student see different perspectives, and it should help them understand how to differentiate between facts and fiction. It is impossible to do this without delving into controversial or divisive subjects. Please do not restrict the many good and dedicated teachers in our commonwealth by legislating how they work. Sincerely, Linda Goldstein Charlottesville, VA

Public education should be based on things that are true. Things that happened in the past in the US have been well-documented. Good and bad. Truth is the only honest way of teaching children. Anything else is lying, indoctrination or vile revision of fact. If the truth makes a student uncomfortable then that needs to be addressed. No student currently alive is responsible for slavery. for instance, and no critical race theory would suggest this. Our ancestors did some very bad things and learning about that will teach them that this was and is wrong so that they know that our Country has bad aspects but can yet be what we aspire to in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Many children are taught the Bible. There are horrible things done there by the ancestors. They are expected to learn not to do these things they learn about. They are expected to learn from those lessons that they are expected to do better and even act to fight against the wrong the biblical ancestors did, not so they’ll feel guilty or responsible for what was done but so they learn not to do those things and learn to right the wrongs they encounter. Both the good and the bad of American history should be taught just as freely as the lessons of the Bible. Don’t teach only half truths or frank deceptions . We all know that doing that is evil just like perverting religious lessons. Uncomfortable is what leads us to be better people. Being uncomfortable means a child has a conscience.! I challenge you to raise a child and never make them uncomfortable. Treating both sides of a moral issue as having value or validity is the height of moral relativism. Are you willing to allow that the killing Jesus has a wrong side and a right side that should be given equal time in education? Some things are, you know in your heart, WRONG. No two equally valid sides about selling, buying people , separating families and killing. No two sides about slaughtering six million including children. No two sides about killing Jesus. Teach what really happened and remember that right and wrong are taught to children or they grow up savage. If you edit history you are making our students and our Country only less moral.

Both HB781 and HB787 are extremely dangerous draconian education repression bills that have no place in our school systems. Who determines what constitutes the teaching of "divisive concepts"? The constant looming threat of criminal charges against our teachers for teaching reality and truth? My mother as a 13 year old school girl, because of unfortunate circumstances, found herself in Nazi Germany in 1941 in a school who's walls were hung with portraits of the Fuhrer. She found these portraits ugly and offensive. In her rebellious naiveté she turned one of them against the wall. The next day the Gestapo were at her home interrogating her parents for the 'divisive' actions of their oldest daughter. How different world events could have been if honest hard truths hadn't been criminalized in that country.

I urge to you to oppose HB78. This bill is anti-democratic and sets a dangerous precedent in that it outlaws anything and everything that someone may say falls under the vague definition of "divisive." This bill seeks to stifle free thinking and the realities of history, which harms students, teachers, and communities. What future does our state have if students aren't allowed to develop critical thinking skills due to censored curricula, and teachers are driven from the field by the potential for punishment for teaching facts? As a parent of school-aged children, I urge you to oppose HB787.

Please vote no on HB787. This bill uses the word "divisive" and attempts to clarify the meaning of the word. This word is subjective, and the definition of the word as laid out in the bill is also subjective. Part of the meaning is that people and institutions are not inherently racist. Educators, if this bill is passed, would not be allowed to educate students on real history of their nation because racism is part of the very foundation of this nation. We are actively working to change racist policies and make the United States and the state of Virginia a place of equity and opportunity for all. This bill is a muzzle against truth. Shutting people up about real history and real issues of the past and present will not allow for equity to exist or for a better future.

There most definitely needs to be standards for age-appropriate literature in all schools. Also, if it passed/passes, thanks for allowing parent choice (opt-in) and transparency pertaining to family life instruction. If we as Virginians don't do something about this, we will end up with school divisions having Hustler and Playboy, etc. in their rotations. My vote is for common decency, transparency and yes, parent choice as to what our children are exposed to in school instruction. Without this, there could be a mass exodus of students to home-school cooperatives, and yes, the funds for education should follow the child. Definitely.

I am for HB1007/HB1126 because it is a needed step to help break poverty cycles caused by destructive behavior choices, which is unfortunately so heavily suggested in a lot of today's "education" and normalized by media echo chambers, social media trolls, rent-a-townhall mobs, and faux "community represented" committees. I am also for Parents Right to the education and well-being for their children. In America, kids belong to parents, not the government, and the government is run by we the people, nor vice versa. Our county government leaders, teachers unions, pharmaceuticals industry, and abortion industry and their activists in the schools and libraries are as guilty now as the Tobacco Industry was for causing devastation to many kids and adults for their self-centered profits and agendas. The Tobacco Industry was Guilty in getting many kids and adults sick and devastated because of smoking addictions.  Everyone knows that the Tobacco Industry increased the demand for smoking by using constant imagery of smoking cigarettes and cigars, creating a world image that everyone does it, adding addiction to it, and suppressing the knowledge that it leads to cancer and heart failure, among other diseases.  It took a reversal of the methods--getting the image of doing it out of pictures and movies and teaching what smoking does to the body--to significantly reduce the bad behavior choice. It is a known fact that marketing through repetition, especially when echoed in the entertaining and "newspaper" world, is a psychological form of influence and acceptance--a way to normalize behaviors, it is behavioral change manipulation. Now substitute cigarettes with sexually explicit materials and substitute the Tobacco with the new gravy train sex industry groups of abortion, pharmaceutical, government-dependence, and enemies.  Now you see what's really going on, and shame on the evil profiteers of destroyed lives.  Vultures -- all of them.  Health and economic statistics clearly show that temporary"benefits" of teenage sexual.activity, premarital sexual.activity, extra-marital sexual activity, or improper sexual activity lead to abortions, diseases, infertility, preterm births, depression, insecurity, single family homes, impoverishment cycles, broken families, unsatisfied married life, broken dreams, increased drug use and crime, and premature death. Social-economic and health statistics cleanly show that to significantly break economic poverty cycles and to significantly improve health statistics, financial status, dream achievements, and longevity, one must follow behavioral choices of the two parent married home and to save sexually activity until then and within that.  Therefore, to best help accomplish such successful behavioral choices stop aiming at kids lessons and easy access to imagery of sexually explicit and disease-ridden behaviors and normalizing it in fake echo chambers of acceptance. And to counter those that defend Compressive Sex Education, which teaches EVERYTHING under the sun, as the best method, who with a sane mind would teach 1000 ways with 1000 images to smoke if you don't want them to smoke, or 1000 ways with a 1000 images to use drugs, or drink alcohol, shoot a gun or eat delicious candy if you really don't want them too?  Therefore, you don't teach 1000 ways with 1000 images of what sex activity exists, healthy or not, outside of marriage, and especially before legal ages. This is grooming.

To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB 1034. As a public high school school teacher and parent of two young children (ages 5 and 2) in Virginia, I have serious concerns that this bill will wind up doing more harm than good for the children of our state. I have worked in two different public school systems in Virginia over 13 years, and I have seen first hand how beneficial counseling services can be to a wide variety of students. If parents are allowed to prohibit their students from accessing counseling services in the school, these students may be cut off from not only critical mental health support, but but also the academic, career, and community support that school counselors and mental health team members provide. All members of a school mental health team must undergo rigorous education before obtaining their licenses, and as such they should be trusted as the professionals they are to provide only services that they deem necessary for students well-being. I strongly urge you to let the trained mental health professionals do their jobs. Don't make students get tied in the mire of adult squibbles. Thank you, Sara Watkins Mother Teacher Concerned Virginia Citizen

To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB HB1032. As a public high school school teacher and parent of two young children (ages 5 and 2) in Virginia, I have serious concerns that this bill will wind up doing more harm than good for the children of our state. As VA Senator Peterson said on January 27 of this year, regarding a similar bill, "I don't think we should be involved in micromanaging school libraries...The problem is that you’re going to sweep up books that you don’t intend to sweep up" (Matthew Barakat, abcnews.go.com). I strongly urge you to leave the books in the libraries for the kids. They deserve to have the opportunity to decide with their own parents and personal support systems what books to read. Thank you, Sara Watkins Mother Teacher Concerned Virginia Citizen

I believe children should not be judged by age groups, each is a unique individual. Therefore, the parents are the ones who know their children best. Certainly not a teacher that may see a group of 25+ a day for 5 day a week for8 months. I feel, that sexual information should be handled by the parents.

I'm concerned that a bill allowing the censorship of "explicit materials" will quickly be misappropriated to censor sex education and other important learning. This kind of censorship is unnecessary.

I am a public school teacher in Fairfax County and I urge you to vote no on HB 1009. The definition of "sexually explicit" is vague and could be used to restrict students' access to content with LGBTQIA+ characters and themes. There are already procedures in place for notifying families and giving families options to opt out of health and Family Life Education lessons. This bill is too broad-reaching and has too much potential to be misused. Please vote no.

I am very uncomfortable with other people deciding on what is sexually explicit for my own children. I would rather have them experience and learn from a book than perhaps try things on their own. I worry that some parents and school board members may feel that books featuring LBGTQ characters are "too sexual"; for example Drama by Reina Telegemeier is frequently challenged and releveled due to a kiss between two boys, yet another graphic novel Big Nate has a kiss between a similarly age boy and girl without any comment. Students have a range of sexual experiences by high school especially, sometimes without choice. Books could allow them the opportunity to see their feelings validated and reflected. Books may help those students' mental health. By requiring removal or automatic exceptions, these bills (1007/1009) discount the professionalism of the teachers and librarians who select the texts. Students may feel challenged by the texts, they may experience something different from their own experiences, they may learn about themselves - and that's okay, especially for our high school students who are becoming adults in their senior year and earlier.

I oppose banning any books. Parents should have the right to say what their kids can read, but they should not take away my child's choice to read said book. All books have value. I taught in the public school system for 10 years and I have worked in the public library. Please stop banning books. A child who can not talk to someone maybe able to find themselves in a book.

Both the Virginia Education Association and I, a public school teacher in Fairfax County, OPPOSE HB 1009. As written, the bill is too vague. The bill states that the board will define what is meant by "sexually explicit content." This definition needs to be included in the bill before the bill is approved.

I oppose HB 1009. I understand the need for parents to oversee what their children read, even if it overrides what is in the school curriculum. However, this bill gives too much general power to parents to determine what they think is best for everyone's children, not just their own. This bill puts already-beleaguered teachers in an impossible position and is an affront to intellectual freedom.

I am father of three graduates of Virginia public universities who were students in Virginia public grade schools, middle schools, and high schools. At no point in their educations did I feel poorly informed about curriculum nor feel that additional labeling of their textbooks, library books, or other school materials was in any way needed to support my role in their educations. The move to label certain books and materials as sexually explicit is unnecessary legislative over reach done in a context of highly partisan politicization of public education. Such labeling opens the path to suppressing unpopular ideas or simply ideas that challenge readers to think for themselves. As the American Library Association's Freedom to Read statement puts it, "Every silencing of a heresy, every enforcement of an orthodoxy, diminishes the toughness and resilience of our society and leaves it the less able to deal with controversy and difference." I am also a Presbyterian pastor who has served Norther Virginia congregations for almost 20 years. I believe, as the gospel of John says, that the truth shall set us free. But we'll only know the truth if we encounter it, free from labels that are intended to scare us away from it. Trust parents to parent. Trust teachers to teach. Trust librarians to curate collections.

Greetings, I am the parent of a self-identified LGBTQ student in the Fairfax County School system. When I head about book that reflect LGBT student experiences I was extraordinarily disheartened. As an LGBTQ student with very few "out" school leaders it is exceedingly important that my kid see herself reflected in literature, as I did as a kid. Certainly, when I was a kid we had all sorts of books that talked about sexuality ranging from Judy Blume to "Go Ask Alice" which was a book about a girl who runs away from home, does drugs and gets into a lot of dangerous relationships. We needed these books to answer our questions, as cautionary tales, to understand what came next etc. We didn't use them as guidebooks on how to do drugs and engage in risky sexual behavior but used them to explore and understand ourselves better. Frankly, teens are engaged in sexual behavior and literature mirrors real life experience. What's to gain from pulling books from the library? Who wins? Kids who don't have parents to rely on need peers who understand and need literature to reflect their personal experiences- all of it, not just the pretty PG parts. Don't ban books. It's un-American and frankly, goes against everything school libraries should stand for: openness, honesty and a love of literature of all types. Thank you

I SUPPORT HB 1328. I OPPOSE HB 344, 787, and 1009.

It is ridiculous to think that students who are upset about anything that’s taught in the classroom won’t go home and tell their parents it is not necessary to pass a law to demand this. This is about banning. I do not support this law

I am writing in opposition to HB 1009. I understand the impulse to allow parents to control what their children read, and I wish I could share your optimism that parents' hearts will always be in the right place. But it is naive to think that they always will be. I grew up queer in Virginia. I was not out to my parents. I'm lucky that my parents were open-minded, and probably would not have restricted my reading. But books from the VA library system were where I found the information I needed to understand myself and my feelings. Books were where I found a community, before I ever met any other queer people. Many of the books that have and will be flagged as "sexually explicit" are being flagged solely because they're about LGBTQ issues. Parents may mean well, but it is naive to think that they will always act in the best interests of their children. Some parents will block their queer children from accessing the vital info they need to survive their confusing adolescent years, either because they are unaware of their child's queer identity, or out of ignorance, or out of outright bigotry. This bill hurts queer kids. Whether you all like or not, we're here, we're queer, we're Virginians, and these are *our* libraries and schools too.

I respectfully oppose this bill. It is unnecessary to create a state law for this purpose as decisions regarding content should be made at the individual, school, and local levels. This is tantamount to censorship. Who decides what is sexually explicit? What may be to one person isn't to another. Should a student or parent object to the material then allow them to work with the teacher to come to an alternate arrangement. That is typically what already occurs. There is no need to create a law that wouldn't allow for any nuance or difference of opinion. Parents should have a say in their children's education, but that does not mean that one parent's objections should allow them to decide for all parents. Once again, I believe this is an unnecessary law and is a form of censorship.

Delegates, I appreciate the genuine concern of those of you wanting to keep Virginia's children safe. I appreciate the genuine concern of parents across the Commonwealth who want to take an active role in monitoring the content their children have access to. I am not sure how this bill accomplishes either of these goals. Teachers already devote so much time and energy to parental engagement. As a parent of children in a Virginia public school I can assure you that there is no end to the communication from my children's teachers. On any given day I can easily find out what materials my boys will be learning. Furthermore, parents already have the option to opt their child out of certain lessons or request alternate materials. What I do think this bill will result in is teachers facing punitive action should they inadvertently fail to disclose any form of romance or typical human interaction that a parent later finds objectionable. Is hand holding sexually explicit? What about a protagonist with same-sex parents? Please think about the example of tv shows and movies. I can use the same rating guide as my neighbor next door and yet, we may each come to a different conclusion about whether the media is appropriate for our children. No one can guess what I deem appropriate, I need to do the research myself and not rely upon someone else to do the work for me. Let parents choose what is best, yes, but we do not need this legislation. Do more to encourage parents to communicate with their child's school.

As a Librarian I completely disagree with censoring material in any library. Our job is to provide material of all genres, subjects, cultures, religion, etc. Information is the most important tool we have to educating society and the government making the decision on what people can read is not the responsibility of our government and limits our freedoms.

Comments Document

The U.S. federal government and every state has strict laws against obscenity and child pornography. The intent of these federal laws, state laws, and Supreme Court case law is to protect children from inappropriate content. In Roth v. U.S. (1957) the legislature does not need to show actual harm to ban materials in order to protect “the social interest in order and morality.” The distribution of R-rated books is inconsistent with directives of law. The Supreme Court has stated there is a “duty to inculcate community values in school.” And “[t]he importance of public schools in the preparation of individuals for participation as citizens, and in the preservation of the values on which our society rests, long has been recognized by our decisions.” The Code of Virginia emphasizes moral and character education. There are numerous studies that illustrate that explicit materials psychologically negatively affect teenagers. R-Rated materials betray the stated goals of teachers to their students: to enhance the holistic intellectual being, to shape the moral character and ethical value systems, and to have the objective of student mental health well-being. Studies that illustrate we have a vulnerable teen population. Video games, audio recordings, and movies have ratings. Fairfax County Public Schools requires permission to watch R-rated movies. It is outrageous that we have adults wanting pornographic materials. This is not book banning. There is porn in our schools and it needs to come out.

I oppose this bill. If parents do not want their child “exposed” to literature they deem unacceptable , they already have options to prevent that. They should not, however, be given the power to prevent others access to it. The government should not be involved in the business of legislating/enforcing book bans based upon the opinions of a vocal minority. Intellectual freedom is a right and it’s pursuit is something that everyone should be able to determine for themselves.

The first principle of the American Library Association’s Freedom to Read statement is that “It is in the public interest for publishers and librarians to make available the widest diversity of views and expressions, including those that are unorthodox, unpopular, or considered dangerous by the majority.” This is a concept going back long before its 1953 adoption—it’s part of the founding principles of the US--the freedom to read is essential to our democracy. Even in a school library, there are and must be a wide variety of materials available. This is important for critical thinking. Age appropriate? Yes, but what is appropriate for the student population, whose members come from a wide variety of backgrounds, family structures, and belief systems, should be decerned by professional librarians. Then parents, working with teachers and librarians, can decide what is right for their own individual child. As a law, this can create a chilling effect for educators who may avoid having students read challenging and important works because of a single passage or two that could be defined as “sexually explicit” by someone. When I was in high school three decades ago, the book “Catcher in the Rye” was assigned for an English class. It’s a classic. And frequently challenged. This time by a parent and her minister. Not content with her own child reading an alternative, the parent didn’t want it taught to any student. It was not banned, but it was dropped from the lesson. The chilling effect meant that the young and engaging teacher left the system the next year and high school students were “protected” from lessons that included allegedly dangerous books—no teacher wanted to endure the publicity of fighting the good fight after that. Every book isn’t for every child, even if age appropriate. But professional librarians are there to help students chose well and work through understanding literature that may either reflect their own world and dealing with reality or serve as a window into new worlds, new ideas, and foster empathetic understanding.

I am writing in opposition to HB 1009. As a mother of a middle schooler and high schooler, I find it abhorrent that the state thinks it is a better judge of what my children should be reading than their teachers and I am. Questions about what should be read in schools is best left up to parents, students, and teachers. Legislating this at the state level is a disturbing overreach of authority. In addition, I have seen from the many challenges to books across this commonwealth that the titles that are under review are written by and about LGBTQ+ people and people of color. This is a thinly-veiled attempt to control what white children read, so that they are not exposed to the beautiful variety of literature, and to suppress diverse voices among our students by suppressing the authors who show them what is possible.

I am strongly opposed to HB1009 for a multitude of reasons: Labeling books is a form of censorship and an infringement on the freedom of speech. Teaching materials and books used should be decisions made by the individual school systems and teachers. Our teachers are already heavily burdened and this bill would add unneeded stress to our classroom professionals. The term "sexually explicit" is vague and narrow. Parents already may request alternate reading materials for their children if they feel an assigned book is not appropriate. This bill can also target books to which our young people in the LGBTQIA+ community can relate and thus be harmful.

I am writing in opposition to HB 1009. As a believer in limited government, I believe that parents, students, and teachers can work together when disagreements arise to best choose what is appropriate for individual students. Using the legislative system bypasses local policies and initiatives and amounts to the state attempting to dictate for others, removing all “offensive materials” as defined by individual parents relying on the state. As a librarian, I have witnessed that book challenges and laws often target authors of color and representatives of other marginalized groups, and are stories including such characters. Six books on the American Library Association’s 2020 Top 10 Most Challenged list were written by authors of color. Increasingly, challenges target material dealing with racial inequality and LGBTQIA+ issues. These include the books referenced in regard to "sexually explicit" material. Finally, as a researcher, I know that bibliotherapy research has demonstrated that books often serve to identify harmful behavior that students might otherwise categorize as “normal.” Removing books deemed “sexually explicit” (such as The Color Purple) denies students an important opportunity to identify sexual assault. Through the bibliotherapy that exposure to these materials provides, students can be given language to address the criminal behaviors they’ve experienced that would otherwise remain hidden. Please consider those reasons, and oppose this bill. It will not help children, and it will likely harm them.

I oppose this bill because school policy like this is better set locally. If parents don’t like the assigned books, they can ask for substitutes but never should a group of parents or the state be able to decide for others who may want more freedom of choice for their children.

To whom it may concern: I am opposed to any bill that infringes on the freedom of speech and the freedom to read. Labeling of books and material (by policy or law) is a form of censorship, and places the weight of responsibility wrongly on teachers to judge what different parents may deem “sexually explicit.” Legal definitions of the term “sexually explicit” have been intended to prohibit criminal conduct, not reading. We do believe in parents’ rights to oversee what their children read; we don’t believe some parents should unilaterally decide for others. The bill can create a chilling effect for educators, who may avoid having students read challenging and important works because of a single passage or two that could be defined as “sexually explicit” by someone. Parents, students, and teachers can work together when disagreements arise to best choose what is appropriate for individual students. Using the legislative system bypasses local policies and initiatives and amounts to the state attempting to dictate for others, removing all “offensive materials” as defined by individual parents relying on the state. Parents only have the right to determine what their child should read, not what all children should read. Who determines what is sexually explicit? That definition is different from family to family. Every school board has the right to determine the policy for challenging a book, not the state. Do not go down the slippery slope of censorship.

In looking at the websites of many of the patrons of HB1009, I am struck by how many mention that issues are best decided at the local level. Yet this bill makes a statewide issue out of discussions that are had at the local level between educators and parents. Who makes the decision about what books should be labeled "sexually explicit?" Why would we label books, when labeling is censorship? This bill (and others like it) are an attempt to control information and experiences, and cause an unreasonable amount of extra work for educators. You have many bills you are considering during this legislative session. I ask you to think deeply about the long-term impact of this bill. Research what has happened to communities that have attempted to censor reading materials. Learn from the past. Understand that the reason bills like this have not passed before is that they are unsustainable, unfair and suppress a variety of voices. Recognize that you may not have all the information you need about intellectual freedom to make an informed decision on this bill, in the short time you have had access to it. Thank you for your time.

Both I (a FCPS teacher) and the Virginia Education Association OPPOSE HB 1009 due to how the bill is currently written. This bill depends on how the board defines sexually explicit content, and since this definition is not included in the language of the bill, I think it is inappropriate to pass the bill as it.

I oppose this bill as this is an issue that should be handled locally and not by the state. Labeling is the start of censorship and has no place in libraries, academic or public. If this bill is passed it would apply yet another pressure to teachers who already are dealing with issues way above the scope of teaching or kids.

This bill is laden with problems. I think most people would agree that education policy should be set locally rather than be dictated by the state. Labeling is a gateway to out-and-out censorship, and stands in opposition to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Additionally, labeling pressures teachers to self-censor as they fear repercussions for choosing books that may be deemed appropriate by the vast majority of parents but by others thought to be "sexually explicit." Parents may already, at any time, ask for substitute material if they do not approve of that which is assigned, and never should any one parent or group of parents or the state be allowed to determine what is available to be read by others' children. Thinking otherwise denies the right of families to determine things for themselves, and ignores the diversity of students being taught in Virginia schools.

I am requesting that you vote no on this bill. Although the level of censorship seems innocuous and beneficial at first glance, the phrasing allows for the subjective interpretation of what is objectionable. We must discourage any opportunity for controlling so broadly the accessibility of literature. Let's continue to protect our rights as citizens to read, to think, and to speak our ideas. Thank you.

I encourage the committee not to approve the bill HB1009 which bans sexually explicit language from instructional materials as a matter of statewide policy. While parents are the primary line of nurture for Virginia's children, there are many trained and concerned professionals that are part of the village that raises every child. Many parents sit on school boards of the state's districts and have direct responsibility to oversee the suitability of instructional materials used in that district's classrooms. Unlike measure guarding public health and safety, the selection of instructional materials should be left up to local schools and their libraries. as guided by local parents, teachers, librarians, and other informed participants in the selection decisions. Banning books has long been a disputatious concern for local leaders. Experience has shown again and again that on closer examination of the instructional materials being considered for prohibition, reviewers realize that material with sexually explicit language has socially redeeming value. Please do not approve this bill.

I am writing about HB1009. It is absolutely ludicrous to ban books. We, as a state, are better than this. I have been making it a point to read all proposed banned books. While I don’t think all belong in a classroom’s lending library, I think nobody should be banning books in school libraries. This is how Hitler came into power. Let’s not be like Nazi Germany!

As a professional Librarian in both a school and public setting, I feel the freedom of an individual to determine what they should read is of utmost importance. I am the parent of 2 children, one of whom is non-binary. They have found information and solace from books from the library to help them with who they feel they are. When students are unable to see themselves in the world, they do not feel that they have a place here. I respect a parents right to determine what is best for their own child but not for everyone else's and certainly not for my child. • The American Library Association’s Freedom to Read Statement (originally written in 1953) provides some helpful starting points. https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/freedomreadstatement • Labeling of books and material (by policy or law) is a form of censorship, and places the weight of responsibility wrongly on teachers to judge what different parents may deem “sexually explicit.” Legal definitions of the term “sexually explicit” have been intended to prohibit criminal conduct, not reading. We do believe in parents’ rights to oversee what their children read; we don’t believe some parents should unilaterally decide for others. The bill can create a chilling effect for educators, who may avoid having students read challenging and important works because of a single passage or two that could be defined as “sexually explicit” by someone. • Parents, students, and teachers can work together when disagreements arise to best choose what is appropriate for individual students. Using the legislative system bypasses local policies and initiatives and amounts to the state attempting to dictate for others, removing all “offensive materials” as defined by individual parents relying on the state. • Book challenges and laws often target authors of color and representatives of other marginalized groups, and are stories including such characters. Six books on the American Library Association’s 2020 Top 10 Most Challenged list were written by authors of color. Increasingly, challenges target material dealing with racial inequality and LGBTQIA+ issues. • Bibliotherapy research has shown that books often serve to identify harmful behavior that students might otherwise categorize as “normal.”. Removing books deemed “sexually explicit” (such as The Color Purple or Speak,) denies students an important opportunity to identify sexual assault. Through the Bibliotherapy that exposure to these materials provides, students are given language to address the criminal behaviors they’ve experienced that would otherwise remain hidden. Thank you.

Good day, We live in a country that prides itself on the concept of free speech. Most people forget that free speech exists only as long as said speech is not directly harmful to others - unfortunately, people on all sides of every spectrum imaginable are guilty of this oversight. Even when the best of intentions are being considered, personal views and beliefs oftentimes interfere with decisions and cause situations that could easily have been avoided. This bill is a shining example that mistake. The concept, in its most base form, is simple - some parents may not want their child to be aware of "sexually explicit" material. This likely stems from not only a feeling of protectiveness, but also an unconscious realization of just how much unfettered access to information has permeated our everyday life. But the bill puts too much power into too many hands; power that is not clearly defined in any scope or fashion. The main crux of the issue is this: there is no specific answer to the question "What is sexually explicit material?". Requiring a policy that centers around a question that could have a thousand different answers from a thousand different people is a terrible way to handle education. Furthermore, what happens when a parent decides that their definition of "sexually explicit" material clashes with a teacher's? As an example, consider a work of literature that remains one of the most widely-taught across the county: William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Several passages throughout the work have characters taunting Romeo with various body parts of his romantic interest at the time, and yet that pales in sight of the fact that the two title characters, both grown but far from adults, spend a night together in bed. Does this constitute "sexually explicit" material? Many libraries maintain a collection of periodicals for referential use, including copies of the magazine National Geographic. Some issues contain nude or near-nude humans, with various portions of their bodies exposed. I do not believe that anyone could reasonably argue that National Geographic portrays "sexually explicit" content, but what happens when a parent challenges that based on the images contained within? Even middle and high school Biology textbooks contain information that is designed to educate students, not only about their bodies (and the changes happening within them), but the very real social pressure and expectations that revolve around sexual activity. Would this information be labeled as "sexually explicit"? If so, would we then be creating a situation where teenagers and young adults are unprepared for life's circumstances, thereby endangering themselves and those around them? Any form of censorship of the written word, regardless of intentions, is not the way to properly educate anyone. Almost any material can be used for the purposes of education, even if said material is an example of how things should NOT be done. Restricting viewpoints to a single line eliminates critical thinking and will help create a society where adults cannot think for themselves, but instead follow the "popular" opinion so as to not stand out as being "different". We do not need sheep in the classrooms. We need smart, educated people who will grow to be our leaders. Do not pass this bill.

I strongly oppose this bill as an unnecessary layer of government interference, dressed up as protecting parental authority. Disagreement or even disgust isn't an excuse for censorship, even in the schools. I am more concerned about moral parameters being put in place by politicians and mob rule than I am about sex--in any form. There is only so much a human body can do but a governing body can wreak immeasurable havoc! Parents can't protect kids from learning and thank God for that. I'm a parent. There is only so much you can do to guide young people and leave the rest to their own decisions, prayer, and abiding faith that you've done the best you can. Control doesn't work.

Giving authority to the state as to what material students may access prohibits learning and critical thinking. Parents have the right to judge what material they wish to expose their child to but that does not give them the right to decide for others. Books that are regularly targeted for banning often are written by minorities and other disenfranchised demographics. Removing their voices removes diversity in education and reinforces the belief that these groups are "wrong" or "unacceptable." Removing representation for these groups has a large negative effect on students belonging to those demographics. Censorship is unacceptable and against the very core values of the United States. The diverse population of the country must not be silenced and censored by a very tiny vocal group of individuals with malicious agendas.

I do not support this bill. I believe this legislation as proposed places the weight of responsibility wrongly on teachers to judge what different parents may deem “sexually explicit.” Legal definitions of the term “sexually explicit” have been intended to prohibit criminal conduct, not reading. As a parent myself, I do believe in parents’ rights to oversee what their children read; however, I do not think it fair that some parents should unilaterally decide for others. The bill can create a chilling effect for educators, who may avoid having students read challenging and important works because of a single passage or two that could be defined as “sexually explicit” by someone. Unfortunately, we are seeing some groups target certain book and authors they deem controversial such as authors of color and representatives of other marginalized groups, and are stories including such characters. Six books on the American Library Association’s 2020 Top 10 Most Challenged list were written by authors of color. Increasingly, challenges target material dealing with racial inequality and LGBTQIA+ issues. I trust teachers to provide a caring and challenging environment to support all students. This bill will hinder them.

HB 1009 addresses an important educational consideration. What reasonable person would want a child exposed to sexually explicit material? Also, parents should have a say in their children's educations. That said, I have concerns about HB 1009. When one group of people labels content in a context where others are subjected to the results of that labeling, then the opinions of the defining group are being enforced on people who hold other points of view. If the concern is that parents do not want their children exposed to certain topics, then there are ways besides a law that serve this purpose. HB 1009 would remove the choice of parents who do want their children educated in the vocabulary and contexts that would allow them to identify and report sexual abuse. It would remove the choice of parents who define "sexually explicit" differently from those who may label a book as such. One parent may want a book labeled and another may believe the book offers an essential part of education or not consider it sexual at all. No matter how thoroughly defined a term, the application is still a matter of judgement. When opinions on application vary, who is right? How do we know? Is a law the right way to answer these questions? In short, I see this bill as an attack on the rights of individuals to make choices for themselves and their families. HB 1009 is an attack on the values of individual choice and freedom from oppressive government. Protecting children is good. The methods in HB 1009 used by individuals may have benefit. The methods in HB 1009 used as law are not good.

First and foremost my opposition is based on the bill calling for the Board of Education to define sexually explicit materials. For the Board or any state agency to do so is unwarranted censorship. What is or is not "acceptable" then comes at the whim of any current board membership or state administration. Secondly, my opposition is based on the bill calling for an undue burden to be placed on teachers who are already over-burdened. Should the bill be enacted, teachers would be required to provide alternative materials and activities if a student's parents object to "sexually explicit" material (as defined by the Board) that a teacher intends to use in a course. As such, a teacher might have to develop multiple alternatives for any set of such materials in a course. I have not yet heard of any example of materials being used in state schools that would meet a commonly accepted definition of "sexually explicit." Some examples have been cited in the press as objectionable according to some people. But from what I can discern, no examples have been cited for which examples of similar stories might not be found in a daily newspaper or on television news. Rather try to suppress legitimate educational materials, I suggest that our students will be better educated and equipped for life if their classes can use a wide range of materials for the students to think critically and to think beyond their own individual spheres.

Between 25 and 30 years ago, a Stafford-based religious group puffed themselves up by accusing Disney of injecting pornographic material into their animated films. The minister performing the wedding in Little Mermaid getting an erection. Simba laying down in a dust cloud that spells S-E-X in The Lion King. Aladdin in that movie saying "Good teenagers take off your clothes." All of these required dedicated and repeated watching to find microseconds of offensive material that no one else can see, or would even look for. That's the kind of thing you get when you say people should look for pornographic material in their children's instructional materials. There are responsible and professional committees of people who search for the best in age-appropriate material to introduce students to new ideas and situations. Books build empathy, help young people articulate concepts they understand but don't have the words for, maybe even help them understand themselves, and certainly show them the great potentials of their native language. Allowing the loudest people to deny that enrichment is the first step to emotional illiteracy, and that's what this bill aims to do. Please oppose HB1009.

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to Bill 1009 on sexually explicit instructional material. This authoritarian legislation robs each locality the opportunity to establish its own method for dealing with sensitive content that works best for their own students, teachers, and parents. Establishing a state-wide law for this will no doubt negatively impact books by marginalized authors and make it so students are confined to a greatly diminished perspective in their reading materials. Our world is filled with complexity. One way to deal with that complexity is by simply reading about the world around you so that one may better understand it. This legislation seems to believe that limiting viewpoints in literature due to their potential for profanity, uncomfortable themes, or so-called "sexually explicit" content will keep our students safe from ever having to deal with them. In fact, it inhibits the chance for the next generation to process and understand the following: -That gender identity operates on a spectrum and those who fall outside of the male/female binary or who do not identify with their birth-assigned gender deserve to see themselves represented and accepted just as much as anyone else does. -That it is beneficial for an individual to read a book with an opposing viewpoint, or to identify with a character who may have a different background or perspective from their own. -That those who may have been through a traumatic experience or have been a victim of abuse would undoubtedly benefit from reading about a character that has been through similar circumstances, allowing the reader to see themselves represented and in turn validating and legitimizing their own experience. I attended public school in Spotsylvania County for all of my lower education add I am incredibly concerned with the recent rhetoric used by Spotsylvania School Board members Rabih Abuismail and Kirk Twigg. These individuals both suggested that certain titles (which they did not read) in school libraries (not even part of any curriculum but simply there as a resource) should be burned. Simply put, these individuals do not have the best interest of their students or community in mind and should resign immediately. I can assure you that my public school experience was enlightened by the encouragement of teachers who understood their curriculum and identified texts that allowed me to develop a love of reading, critical thinking skills, and empathy. Some of those books could easily be flagged and due to the vague nature of this bill. It is my belief that the passage of this legislation from the state will result in the unnecessary removal of worthy materials due to its top-down "one size fits all" approach. Please do not go down the slippery slope of censorship. Leave it up to the individual school system to determine what works best for their students and their families.

Respectfully writing AGAINST this bill. As both a parent and as a professional librarian, I trust in my fellow librarians and teachers to provide a wide range of suitable content that will support both my child and others for their academic, social, and emotional growth. There are already processes and procedures in place should a parent have concerns with a specific book or other material. Do not place another layer of bureaucracy on this. This bill would have a chilling effect on teachers and librarians and a detrimental impact on our students and communities. "Labeling of books and material (by policy or law) is a form of censorship, and places the weight of responsibility wrongly on teachers to judge what different parents may deem “sexually explicit.” Legal definitions of the term “sexually explicit” have been intended to prohibit criminal conduct, not reading. We do believe in parents’ rights to oversee what their children read; we don’t believe some parents should unilaterally decide for others. The bill can create a chilling effect for educators, who may avoid having students read challenging and important works because of a single passage or two that could be defined as “sexually explicit” by someone." Many of the book challenges target marginalized voices - thus a student who is a racial minority may not easily find themselves represented in the literature. This is problematic for a lot of reasons. And I want my child, who is White, to be exposed to a wide range of voices and backgrounds, to build his empathy and understanding. Children need challenging books to be able to interact with difficult concepts in a safe space; "removing books deemed “sexually explicit” (such as The Color Purple or Speak,) denies students an important opportunity to identify sexual assault. Through the Bibliotherapy that exposure to these materials provides, students are given language to address the criminal behaviors they’ve experienced that would otherwise remain hidden." Please do not pass this bill. Thank you for your time.

As a parent of children in Virginia public schools and a children's librarian in a Virginia public library, I oppose HB 1009. If passed, this bill would create incentives for teachers to self-censor in their selection of materials for their classes rather than selecting the best books for their curricula. It would have a chilling effect on students' freedom to read. Some parents would gladly label as "sexually explicit" any book with LGBT+ characters. We've recently seen the critically acclaimed Maus, a fictionalized graphic memoir of the Holocaust written by a Holocaust survived, labeled "sexually explicit" on the thinnest of pretexts and banned in a Tennessee school district. No parent has the right to decide what other people's children should be allowed to read. The selection of books for classroom use should be left to education experts, not a vocal minority of parents or those who use "parents' rights" as cover for their desire to push marginalized voices out of classrooms and out of the public discourse. I urge Virginia's legislators to stand against the rising tide of censorship and the systematic exclusion of marginalized voices in this country.

I am writing in opposition for all three of these bills - HB1007, HB1009, HB1032. First, these bills are redundant and there is no need for all three of them. School public libraries should be staffed by licensed school librarians with advanced degrees in library science. They are trained to select materials that are age appropriate, and that address their specific school community. Every child has the right to choose from books that represent them as well as give them a perspective of other people's lives and worlds. My daughter, who graduated from Virginia Tech with honors in Engineering, never chose books with blond hair, blue-eyed girls like her. When she brought books home from the school library, it was my responsibility to read and discuss books with her. I believe that her early exposure to diverse books helped her become the successful, productive person she is. The other concern with these bills is that the term "sexually explicit" or "certain public school library materials" are both extremely vague. Who gets to decide what these terms mean in each school district? I believe that if these bills are passed, it is an overreach of the state government into school board business. These bills will also create the need for additional staffing to notify parents and to identify books which meet these vague terms or to censor them and remove them from the library. As we all know, schools are facing an unprecedented staffing shortage, and school staff, including librarians, are being asked to do a lot right now to cover these shortages. There is no extra time to undertake such an enormous task. Also, hiring new staff to review books, would put a financial strain on school districts. We know that no one likes unfunded mandates from the state. I know the focus in this administration is about parent choice in education. As a parent, I have the right to select my children’s exposure to books, movies, games, the internet. However, I do not have the right to do the same for other children. These bills essentially are giving a select group of parents’ choice, while ignoring other parents the right to choose what they think is best for their child and family. These bills are about censorship. Following Texas' book banning is not what Virginia wants or needs.

The avenues of learning are numerous. Being adequately informed is an essential element of freedom. Libraries throughout history have served as a reservoir of means to meet these issues. Today's libraries are equal to the task; however, this status is delicate. In any threatened society throughout history, the first element of freedom to be challenged is access to information. Let this not happen in the Commonwealth of Virginia in 2022.

I am writing in opposition to this bill. The term "sexually explicit" is too vague to be useful. I stand with the American Medical Association; the American Academy of Pediatrics; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; the American Public Health Association; the Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine); the American School Health Association and the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine in my support of comprehensive sex education. Research has found that comprehensive sexual education improves a myriad of outcomes and many studies have found that sex ed does not result in higher sexual risk-taking.

Opposing the ban of any literature is crucial to the social-emotional development of children of all ages. Exposure to themes that can be difficult to swallow or that challenge morality must be explored in a safe space by children so that they can form a better understanding of these concepts and right and wrong. Understanding and identifying racism, sexism, sexual assault, and other tough topics forms a foundation of awareness that these issues exist in the real world and children will be confronted with them at some point. Banning literature that involves these topics would be an error because it shelters children and does not help them prepare to enter the real world outside of school. These books help prepare children in a safe way. The discussion of these books and tough topics helps children put a name to complicated issues and emotions that occur and allows children to discuss their thoughts and feelings in a safe environment. As a survivor of sexual assault, I was only able to identify what happened to me because I had the awareness of such trauma, learned through reading literature and having discussions about it with my teachers and friends. School and libraries are safe spaces for children to explore all topics with trusted adults. We need to provide them with support so they can develop into fully functional adults. Please reconsider passing bill HB 1009. The positive development of our children depends on it.

This proposed bill, and bills like it, terrify me. As someone who works with children every day and who has nothing but their well being at heart, I cannot speak loudly enough about the harm that censoring learning causes. Parents need to learn how to trust that teacher's know what they are doing. The biggest with this bill is that parents can then dictate what THEY deem sexually explicit. So, if you have parent who is against the LGBTQA community, they can use this bill to demand that material not be taught. I'm sorry, but that is WRONG. We cannot allow our own political or religious views to color what our children learn.

“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without Freedom of Speech.” - Benjamin Franklin These bills are vague, unnecessary, and potentially massively harmful. Teachers have enough tightropes to walk on, and are underpaid and underappreciated to boot. They've stepped up massively during this pandemic, and this is what we think they need from their legislature? This censoring of freedom of spiritual and intellectual inquiry is harmful, and while potentially coming from a good place morally, is fundamentally wrong-headed. What happens when children grow up and are confronted with these or any other challenging concepts in the wild of their everyday lives? They'll be all the more blindsided by it, and will be more vulnerable to bad actors acting in bad faith. Not allowing exploration of these or any other concepts into the classroom, where a healthy discussion can occur guided by capable professionals, will hamper the development of young minds. Young minds can gain wisdom by discussing these concepts in a safe setting, and can prepare them to decide for themselves how they'd like to live. These bills, in their current iterations, would do children harm in their efforts to protect them. The first amendment is fundamental to American political and intellectual life. Bills that seek to limit it do not belong in our laws. "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion." - Thomas Jefferson

A huge part of protecting children, is giving them the tools they need to be able to communicate sexual assault, sexual harassment, abuse, sexual identity, and to recognize when they are being preyed upon. Whether we like it, media is the way of the world and children are being influenced by it everyday. This influence includes the ability to see themselves within characters and stores. This bill sets a standard that I, as a librarian, believe is dangerous. It is sending the message to children that things that happen to them are explicit and sexual, and instead of being addressed, they should be suppressed. It is giving more power to abusers by suppressing the stories of survivors. It is sending the message that they are less than, especially when exploring something as complex as sexual identity. The rate of suicide in teens is already exponentially high, and it becomes even higher in LGBTQ+ youth. In a perfect world, all parents would be having these discussions with their children, but the fact of the matter is they are not. This fact is further proven by the support behind this bill. This bill represents a group of parents who would rather their child be abused and quiet than be able to recognize that abuse and speak out. How can we expect children to have the correct words to talk about their bodies when we don't allow them to read or learn about it? How can we expect children to report abuse when they don't know what abuse looks like? There is a reason why sexual abuse is less reported in schools, churches, and homes, because children are going to listen to authority figures. This is made worse when they have nothing to compare that abuse to. I am all for protecting children, but part of protecting them is giving them the tools to protect themselves when their parents are not around. It is unrealistic to believe that parents should have a had in every part of their child's life. Furthermore, slapping a label on a book and pulling it from a shelf is censorship, which goes against the foundation of our democracy. Children are citizens of this country, as are educators, and they have the right to learn and teach, which boundaries set upon them as strict as these. There are already rules in place to prevent age inappropriate books to get into the hands of elementary age students, based on stipulations placed on school libraries, they do not need more placed on them by the government. If we want to continue to be a free Commonwealth, we need to vote against this bill. Our democracy depends on it.

I am writing to express my concerns about some of the language and sentiments contained in HB1009. Requiring teachers to determine what every parent or child in their classes may deem "sexually explicit" seems to be overly burdensome and may cause them to shy away from content that could enrich their students' education and/or understanding of sensitive subjects such as sexual abuse, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. I am a parent of two school aged children and take the responsibility upon myself to engage with them and their teachers about the content they are taught in school. I am fine with allowing parents to request alternative materials, if they decide that they are uncomfortable with something that is being used by teachers. However, to require that teachers should preemptively warn parents about potentially "sexually explicit" content and then produce alternative materials in all such cases seems to be asking too much of already overburdened and underpaid educators. Such requirements, while often coming from a place of good intentions, can easily become a slippery slope that leads to the restriction of a wide range of language, subject matter, etc. that was not originally intended. Let teachers teach, let parents parent, and don't impose bills to tell either of them how to do it.

This bill will amount to nothing more than overreaching censorship on the part of people with axes to grind and hatred for viewpoints with which they disagree. The phrase "sexually explicit" as used in this bill is so vague that anyone can object to just about anything they want, and that is very obviously driving this bill; the authors want anything remotely suggestive of anything beyond their strict and regressive values kept in the dark. Under this bill, so much is in danger. Virginia cannot let this bill pass. It will lead to misunderstanding, grief, fear, hatred, and a new generation of children growing up out of touch with their own bodies and identities. It is the most disgusting, hateful kind of bill out there because of what is at the core of it: mandated ignorance.

Putting the onus on teachers to predict what each individual parent could consider covered by such a subjective term as "sexual content" is unfair and disrespectful to the teachers and the schools who have the best interests of all students at their core. Materials selected to be used in schools have already been vetted and met schools' selection policies. Parents are welcome and invited to work with teachers individually to express concern about their individual child. They are not adversaries. This bill creates an adversarial set up, which is not helpful for parents OR teachers. Parents should talk to their own children and keep interest in what is happening with their particular child. Teachers teach.

The language in this bill is too vague to be useful and it also actually endangers children. Allowing local boards to define what is "sexually explicit" may seem useful in allowing autonomy to localities, but it invites all sorts of absurd interpretations. If any school board majority decides that "genitals" or any proper scientific terms for them are sexually explicit, then not only do students need permission to learn about human sexuality (a legitimate educational subject that with appropriate modification can be taught to a child of any age), but they would also need permission to learn about where common animals in farm and nature come from. Furthermore, children who do not learn appropriately about sexuality are more at risk of abuse because that is where concepts like "consent" and "bad touch" are often taught.

I am writing in opposition to this bill. Firstly, the definition of "sexually explicit" can vary widely depending on the opinions of the viewer. If some parents are allowed to set standards for what is sexually explicit, it will take away the rights of parents who disagree. If parents are concerned about what their child is reading, they can discuss the content with their student, read the book themselves, and discuss it with the teacher or other parents. There's no reason for the government to get involved in dictating what can and can't be taught, based on some vague and undefined morality. Don't legislate morality, do not pass this bill.

I strongly oppose HB 1009 because it will censor instructional materials. The phrase "sexually explicit" is intentionally vague and open to interpretation, which will lead to books and materials being banned in a moral panic. Parents have the right to manage their own children, but the censorship in this bill would lead to a small number of parents having the ability to remove materials they don't like and limit what other people's children have access to.

This bill will undercut the ability of teachers to perform their jobs to the best of their abilities. There is no other reason required to oppose it. Children are exposed to sexually explicit content in all aspects of life. Banning it from schools lest a parent have a fainting fit will not somehow purify society. Solid, science-based instruction can provide a child with better tools to deal with the reality around them. Parents should be providing those tools, but as they won't or can't, that leaves the burden on teachers. So let them teach!

Labeling of books and material (by policy or law) is a form of censorship, and places the weight of responsibility wrongly on teachers to judge what different parents may deem “sexually explicit.” Legal definitions of the term “sexually explicit” have been intended to prohibit criminal conduct, not reading. We do believe in parents’ rights to oversee what their children read; we don’t believe some parents should unilaterally decide for others. The bill can create a chilling effect for educators, who may avoid having students read challenging and important works because of a single passage or two that could be defined as “sexually explicit” by someone. Parents, students, and teachers can work together when disagreements arise to best choose what is appropriate for individual students. Using the legislative system bypasses local policies and initiatives and amounts to the state attempting to dictate for others, removing all “offensive materials” as defined by individual parents relying on the state. Book challenges and laws often target authors of color and representatives of other marginalized groups, and are stories including such characters. Six books on the American Library Association’s 2020 Top 10 Most Challenged list were written by authors of color. Increasingly, challenges target material dealing with racial inequality and LGBTQIA+ issues.

Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing citizens the opportunity to comment. It is not necessary to create legislation requiring teachers to notify parents in advance of their intent to use a book with "sexually explicit material." Legal definitions of the term “sexually explicit” have been intended to prohibit criminal conduct, not reading. Parents already have the opportunity to request alternative reading assignments for their children. Such legislation can have a chilling effect on educators, and cause them not to assign difficult, but important reading material--wrongly requiring teachers to judge what different parents may deem “sexually explicit.” Increasingly, challenges target material dealing with racial inequality and LGBTQIA+ issues. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has often been challenged in the past and has (rightly) not provoked calls for legislation because students are expected to understand that the often triggering use of "the n-word" in the book does not prevent it from being an important work of literature. Why should a book like Toni Morrison's "Beloved" suddenly require legislation for the entire state because one parent found some passages objectionable? Sincerely, Keith Weimer

Note: the last word "Censorship" was inadvertently omitted from my original post. The Commonwealth and local school districts SHOULD dictate guidelines regarding what materials are and are not appropriate for inclusion in public school curriculum and libraries. As parents, our primary charge, is to guide the proper and wholesome formation of our children's hearts and minds. Our children SHOULD be protected from harmful content in public schools. And parents Should be included in the selection, monitoring and oversight of such materials. Parents may choose to take their children to a public library, bookstore or amazon and provide any book/content the whish their children to read. With exceptions for the classics of literature which have stood the test of time and provide useful context for universal themes; material which is or contains (1) is sexually or morally indecent, obscene, or grossly offensive; or (2) may be reasonably interpreted to encourage or lead to an inappropriate relationship SHOULD NOT be available to public school students. "...it is not good for children to be constantly exposed to the sexual violence in our popular culture. Protecting children seems to me logically, legally, and rather easily differentiated from CENSORSHIP ." - Molly Ivins

The Commonwealth and local school districts SHOULD dictate guidelines regarding what materials are and are not appropriate for inclusion in public school curriculum and libraries. As parents, our primary charge, is to guide the proper and wholesome formation of our children's hearts and minds. Our children SHOULD be protected from harmful content in public schools. And parents Should be included in the selection, monitoring and oversight of such materials. Parents may choose to take their children to a public library, bookstore or amazon and provide any book/content the whish their children to read. With exceptions for the classics of literature which have stood the test of time and provide useful context for universal themes; material which is or contains (1) is sexually or morally indecent, obscene, or grossly offensive; or (2) may be reasonably interpreted to encourage or lead to an inappropriate relationship SHOULD NOT be available to public school students. "...it is not good for children to be constantly exposed to the sexual violence in our popular culture. Protecting children seems to me logically, legally, and rather easily differentiated from ." - Molly Ivins

These latest bills introduced by LaRock, Freitas and Durant are ridiculous to the point of embarrassment and deserving of as little consideration as possible. To that end, I'll keep my comment intentionally brief. School systems can and should dictate student safety. School systems can and should control access to "Sexually explicit" reading material in schools. School systems can and should teach our children about things that are divisive, despite Dave LaRock's feigned fragility. Guns should, of course, not be anywhere in the vicinity of a school, a School Board meeting, a church, an airport, a restaurant, a shoe store, etc. What kind of absurdity is this bill?

These bills are OPPOSED by the Virginia Education Association and myself, a public school teacher in Fairfax County.

HB 1007 &HB1009.... It is time for the General Assembly to pass legislation that prevents Sexually explicit instructional material in our classroom; Board of Education to establish policy. Schools are failing our students. Some of this stuff is as bad as porn!!! We do not need this trash fed to our children.

I am fundamentally opposed to policing of literature and teaching materials - let the teachers teach. Education is not about making sure all are comfortable, but exposing students to ideas, concepts, and situations that may challenge their thinking. This is how they grow as individuals!

To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB 1034. As a public high school school teacher and parent of two young children (ages 5 and 2) in Virginia, I have serious concerns that this bill will wind up doing more harm than good for the children of our state. I have worked in two different public school systems in Virginia over 13 years, and I have seen first hand how beneficial counseling services can be to a wide variety of students. If parents are allowed to prohibit their students from accessing counseling services in the school, these students may be cut off from not only critical mental health support, but but also the academic, career, and community support that school counselors and mental health team members provide. All members of a school mental health team must undergo rigorous education before obtaining their licenses, and as such they should be trusted as the professionals they are to provide only services that they deem necessary for students well-being. I strongly urge you to let the trained mental health professionals do their jobs. Don't make students get tied in the mire of adult squibbles. Thank you, Sara Watkins Mother Teacher Concerned Virginia Citizen

To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB HB1032. As a public high school school teacher and parent of two young children (ages 5 and 2) in Virginia, I have serious concerns that this bill will wind up doing more harm than good for the children of our state. As VA Senator Peterson said on January 27 of this year, regarding a similar bill, "I don't think we should be involved in micromanaging school libraries...The problem is that you’re going to sweep up books that you don’t intend to sweep up" (Matthew Barakat, abcnews.go.com). I strongly urge you to leave the books in the libraries for the kids. They deserve to have the opportunity to decide with their own parents and personal support systems what books to read. Thank you, Sara Watkins Mother Teacher Concerned Virginia Citizen

To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB 1034. As a public high school school teacher and parent of two young children (ages 5 and 2) in Virginia, I have serious concerns that this bill will wind up doing more harm than good for the children of our state. I have worked in two different public school systems in Virginia over 13 years, and I have seen first hand how beneficial counseling services can be to a wide variety of students. If parents are allowed to prohibit their students from accessing counseling services in the school, these students may be cut off from not only critical mental health support, but but also the academic, career, and community support that school counselors and mental health team members provide. All members of a school mental health team must undergo rigorous education before obtaining their licenses, and as such they should be trusted as the professionals they are to provide only services that they deem necessary for students well-being. I strongly urge you to let the trained mental health professionals do their jobs. Don't make students get tied in the mire of adult squibbles. Thank you, Sara Watkins Mother Teacher Concerned Virginia Citizen

To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB HB1032. As a public high school school teacher and parent of two young children (ages 5 and 2) in Virginia, I have serious concerns that this bill will wind up doing more harm than good for the children of our state. As VA Senator Peterson said on January 27 of this year, regarding a similar bill, "I don't think we should be involved in micromanaging school libraries...The problem is that you’re going to sweep up books that you don’t intend to sweep up" (Matthew Barakat, abcnews.go.com). I strongly urge you to leave the books in the libraries for the kids. They deserve to have the opportunity to decide with their own parents and personal support systems what books to read. Thank you, Sara Watkins Mother Teacher Concerned Virginia Citizen

I am writing regarding HB 1226 and the corresponding requirement that tenured professors are required "to personally teach students enrolled at the institution for at least 12 hours per week during any fall, winter, or spring semester, quarter, or other academic term and in a live, in-person format." As a professor, teaching four courses each semester in an in-person format would impact my program, students, and institution in multiple ways. I highlight three below First, as for the IN-PERSON format: Students complete courses synchronously, asynchronously, and in hybrid formats taught by tenured faculty. Requiring in-person formats severely limits students' access to having tenured faculty teach them in alternative formats. If HB 1226 were to take effect, many university students at all levels (undergraduate, graduate, doctoral) would need to be taught by adjunct faculty in those three formats. Such a move is an adverse impact on students because it limits their receiving instruction from tenured faculty. Second, as for the 12 HOURS per week: For tenured faculty who now have federal, state, and / or private foundation grants, the research or other work for which they received those grants (e.g., financial support for students) would be seriously compromised if they were required to teach 12 hours per week. Additionally, there are other university responsibilities and services that tenured faculty provide which are, at times, in place of teaching one course. The whole of this is that there would be serious decline in the responsibilities and services for that program / institution, which subsequently impacts the quality of and affordable teaching experiences currently provided to students. Third, as for the 12 HOURS per week: Teaching 12 hours in-person per week impacts the research and scholarship tenured faculty are expected to conduct. Thus, if HB 1226 were to take effect, there would be an extensive decline in research and scholarship. To that end, some universities that currently have R1 status and similarly impressive reputations (including teaching) may lose that ranking if such an effect were to occur. Consequently, the state of VA stands to minimize or eliminate those national scholarly reputations and honors which it currently enjoys.

Firstly, I'm flabbergasted by House Bill 1226, written by Rep. Davis. It reads: Each tenured professor employed at a public institution of higher education shall personally teach 15 students enrolled at the institution for at least 12 hours per week during any fall, winter, or spring semester, quarter, or other academic term and in a live, in-person format. I am a full-time associate professor and can't see any benefit or advantage to this Bill. The wording is also unclear to me. Assuming it is 12 hours per week of teaching (as opposed to students enrolled for 12 hours), it raises the question: Are those credit hours or actual measures of time? If it's the former, I assume it means a professor should have a course load of 4 3-credit classes? Also, in regards to the semester or term, it is absolutely impractical: it is impossible for any professor to muster 12 credit hours a week during a one month winter intersession! Then there is the "live, in-person format": Where's the practicality in that? I teach classes online on a regular basis and it allows the department to teach a greater amount of students than a regular classroom, and without the expense of using facilities. It also allows students to more easily attend summer classes, since they can do that from home. If this bill is intended to benefit colleges and universities, the in-person demand (even aside from the current pandemic) is wholly impractical. There's more money to be made through effective online teaching. Finally, this bill doesn't address the need for tenured faculty to have research hours, so they can continue to excel in their fields. That can make the difference between Virginia colleges and universities having tenure of note compared to universities in other states, and ultimately hurt us in national rankings. Beside that, it doesn't consider the enormous strain we professors have been through via the pandemic, where we're often overworked and overloaded to begin with, and must juggle more than full course loads with faculty and other university obligations. Overall, I don't feel the state government should place these demands on universities: it begins a very uncomfortable path towards government interference that will get in the way of educational growth and freedoms for the faculty, and it completely fails to establish reasonable or realistic parameters.

To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB 1034. As a public high school school teacher and parent of two young children (ages 5 and 2) in Virginia, I have serious concerns that this bill will wind up doing more harm than good for the children of our state. I have worked in two different public school systems in Virginia over 13 years, and I have seen first hand how beneficial counseling services can be to a wide variety of students. If parents are allowed to prohibit their students from accessing counseling services in the school, these students may be cut off from not only critical mental health support, but but also the academic, career, and community support that school counselors and mental health team members provide. All members of a school mental health team must undergo rigorous education before obtaining their licenses, and as such they should be trusted as the professionals they are to provide only services that they deem necessary for students well-being. I strongly urge you to let the trained mental health professionals do their jobs. Don't make students get tied in the mire of adult squibbles. Thank you, Sara Watkins Mother Teacher Concerned Virginia Citizen

To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB HB1032. As a public high school school teacher and parent of two young children (ages 5 and 2) in Virginia, I have serious concerns that this bill will wind up doing more harm than good for the children of our state. As VA Senator Peterson said on January 27 of this year, regarding a similar bill, "I don't think we should be involved in micromanaging school libraries...The problem is that you’re going to sweep up books that you don’t intend to sweep up" (Matthew Barakat, abcnews.go.com). I strongly urge you to leave the books in the libraries for the kids. They deserve to have the opportunity to decide with their own parents and personal support systems what books to read. Thank you, Sara Watkins Mother Teacher Concerned Virginia Citizen

The 12 hour teaching requirement for tenured professors is literally impossible. It shows that the person(s) writing the bill have no insight on how higher education functions: In general, tenured professors divide their time in Research and Teaching! This will render all higher educational institutions in Virginia as community colleges with no research component.

While I'm not researh focused, I understand the importance of my tenure track colleagues. If VA wants to be a leader in higher education, it needs to let tenure track faculty pursue reseearch. Mandating 12 hours of teaching/week cuts into that and only hurts VA schools competitiveness

I am a tenured professor at UVA, working in colonial history. It takes me 3-5 hours to prepare lecture notes, slides, and activities for each hour that I'm in the classroom. I meet individually with students to discuss ideas for papers/final projects. All in all, teaching 6 credits a semester takes about 20-25 hours a week. According to my contract, teaching is supposed to be 20-40% of my job. I am primarily research faculty. I direct an NSF-NEH taxpayer funded project on language revitalization among Maya communities in Mexico and Guatemala. Our team has 5 student researchers at UVA, 4 of whom are first-generation college students at UVA and all of whom are Latina/o/x. My work with them and our Indigenous partners in Mexico and Guatemala takes another 20 hours/week. Additionally, I also write books and articles on colonial history. My first book won awards from the American Historical Association, Conference on Latin American History, and Modern Language Association. In addition to my research and teaching, I also perform critical service to the university and profession. One of those projects involves co-chairing a presidential committee with a citizen of the Monacan Indian Nation, on whose territory UVA stands. We have worked with the 11 recognized Tribes of Virginia to consult on the removal of a statue that memorializes Native American genocide. After removing it last summer, we are now building programs to improve admissions and access to higher education for Native American youth (current pilot program has 9 students in grades 8-11 from the Monacan Nation), an elder-in-residence program to promote two-way exchanges of knowledge, and a permanent speaker series in the Democracy Initiative, featuring the histories and perspectives of Virginia's Indigenous people. This project takes another 10-15 hours/week because of the related committees I sit on, including an advisory committee in the UVA Library to develop a policy about preserving and regulating access of racist materials in the university archives and a first-ammendment task force to balance free speech and respectful use of the former statue space. Outside of work, I have a crazy 2-year old and another kid on the way. As you can see from the summary above, I am already working about 50-60 hours a week, often with limited or no childcare during COVID. Suggesting that tenured faculty teach 12 credit hours a week represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what we do as researchers, how long it takes to prepare course materials to really engage students, and our work in community-engaged projects.

University faculty have multiple responsibilities in addition to teaching classes that include advising, research, running degree programs, community partnerships, collaboration with companies, etc. Having a proscriptive, blanket policy dictating the teaching aspect of a faculy member's responsibilities does not accurately capture the totality of their role in a university.

I am not sure if the true focus of this bill is the 12-hours of instruction per week, or the in-person format, and the proposed language doesn't clarify this. As an assistant professor in the arts, teaching 12 hours a week is untenable, when considered in light of the vast range of duties the job requires. For every hour spent in the classroom, I typically spend 3-4 hours on preparation, grading, in office hours and extra sessions with students (this alone would bring the total teaching time to 36-48 hours per week). In addition, the proposal does not acknowledge other teaching duties which, in my case, include: preparing and coaching students for departmental productions, attending student-run shows and performances, observing graduate students, serving on thesis committees, auditioning new students for incoming classes, and conducting 10-20 hours of student assessments per semester so that feedback can be provided during every year of our programs (which is required by our accrediting body, the National Association of Schools of Theatre). At VCU, I am also required to conduct research that will break ground in my field and elevate the profile of the department, and to offer service to the department, the school, the university, the community, and my profession. Research is essential for tenure and promotion, but our salary increases are also tied to merit, which hinges on being able to conduct research and publish. Currently, I am working on a book, am the Reviews Editor for an international journal, serve as the Archivist for an international organization, conduct research to coach plays at local professional theatre companies, volunteer with the Virginia High School Drama League, am on the committee rewriting our MFA program, and am preparing for two conference presentations this summer. All of the above work must happen during the time when I am not teaching, and most of it is already happening at night, on the weekends, and during the summer, when I am off-contract, meaning there is little-to-no downtime, even between semesters. My department currently has only three tenured faculty members, and employs more adjunct instructors than term or tenure-track faculty. To enact this bill would place a heavy burden on those who are already overworked. I urge you to vote against it, and eagerly await the results of the study from SCHEV. Thank you for your time.

I hope that this measure is voted down. As a full tenured professor with a Ph.D., I am a published author, philosopher, researcher and expert. I serve on state boards, I engage in research that informs scientific best practices and policy implementation. Many full tenured professors are women, who have family responsibilities as wives, mothers, and caregivers. To expect a full tenured professor to teach four classes each semester, and engage in these other important tasks that uplift humanity is not only disrespectful, it shows the ignorance of lawmakers about higher education. Vote this law down.

I have taught for >30 years in higher education – at four US universities and at three universities abroad. I am currently a tenured, full professor at VCU. I think that HB1226 shows complete ignorance of the workload required of tenured faculty at universities in that it proposes a minimum of 12 contact hours of teaching. I enjoy my job enormously and love teaching my students; however, I have no time to teach 12 contact hours per week since my current workload requires WELL over a 40 hour/week workload. Furthermore, I think the workload I describe below is fairly typical of others full professors in other universities. This semester, I am teaching two classes. One is combine lecture/lab class (4 contact hours, plus 1.5 hours set up, .75 hour take down, and 2 hours research/preparation to teach each week – and since there are 20 students at it is a 500-level class, some 5 hours of grading assessments each week) and the other is a lecture class that I have never taught before (3 contact hours with 26 students, plus 3 hours preparation and 3 hours grading assessments each week). Add to that at least an hour of answering students queries by email/class, and 2 in-person office hours per week. I also run a research lab, which consumes ca. 16 hours of my time each week, I also serve as a consultant for a state agency (ca. 5-10 hours per week), which benefits the university financially and in community relations; often, this requires me to testify in criminal courts, both state and federal. I also teach workshops for outside groups, which benefits my department financially and in terms of community relations as well. I serve on two department committees (ca. 1 hour/week), must attend department meetings (45 minutes/week), and serve on 2-3 university-level committees (ca. 2 hours/week). I also regularly serve as a reviewer for government funded grants, manuscripts submitted to professional journals, as a judge student essay and presentation competitions for two different professional organizations, as a judge for local high school science fairs, as a board member of a professional organization, and do a fair bit of pro bono consulting for NGO’s. I am expected to apply for grants (very time consuming) and to publish ca. 4-5 professional peer-reviewed journal articles per year (very time consuming). In order to maintain my professional certification in my field, I must attend workshops in my field and continue to do casework as well. Every week, I maintain contact and write references for jobs and graduate schools for many current and former students. Given the above, which is excellent use of my time and adds up to a work week that assuredly does not end at 40 hours, HB1226 proposes an absurd requirement. Exactly what parts of my workload beyond teaching should be scrapped in order to mandate that I provide 12 contact hours of teaching? My students benefit greatly from the other job-related things I do – my research, my professional and community contacts, etc. – as these ultimately provide them with job and further educational opportunities. Please, kill this bill.

I strongly oppose this bill. If enacted, tenured faculty would no longer having time to do research, write books, advise PhD students, advise undergraduate research projects, work on community outreach, serve as journal editors, referee papers, run labs, apply for grants (which support the universities), or serve as chairs, deans, or center directors. It would result in the best faculty leaving the state, thus bringing down the quality of the state university system. Thomas Jefferson recognized the importance of top quality edu. Let us not ruin his legacy.

Comments Document

To whom it may concern, Dear Committee, I am currently a full professor of Mathematics and the founder and director of the Center for Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (CMAI) at George Mason University Virginia. You may find details about me on my website (https://math.gmu.edu/~hantil/). I read the proposed bill last night and I am highly concerned that the proposed bill will threaten the US national security. The bill does not take into account that a significant portion of my research profile is research, publishing journal articles, advising PhD students and postdoctoral researchers. I am currently advising 7 PhD students and 2 postdocs. My research is funded by the National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and Department of Energy. With the proposed heavy teaching load, it is impossible to carry out the ongoing research program. After reading the bill, my first impression was to think about leaving the state of Virginia and move to a different state. I strongly believe that many researchers and professors will do the same if this bill passes. Best, Prof. Harbir Antil P.S. I am attaching a copy of my CV here so that you are aware of our research program and threat this bill bill is posing to this program.

I’m a full professor of mathematics at George Mason University. I am strongly opposed this bill. The bill would ruin higher education in the state of Virginia, by turning all our universities into something not much different from high schools for older students. Tenured faculty currently teach approximately 6 hours per week. With course preparation, office hours, grading, course management, student management and other administrative aspects of teaching, we typically spend 20 hours a week to support those 6 hours of teaching. The rest of our time is spent on research, mentoring under grads and graduate students, and many aspects of university admin such as program development. Increasing our teaching load will cause faculty to flee as quickly as you can bet an eye,. Research would come to a halt, even for faculty who do not seek jobs elsewhere . No further graduate programs would exist, for mentoring requires research faculty. Within a year; the ranking of Virginian schools would plummet, and fewer students will want to attend. If a university doesn’t stand for the preservation and creation of valuable human knowledge, then what is for? Community colleges may meet the needs of students who learn at an introductory level. Universities need faculty with research jobs. The effort not to pay for research is short-sited, as our investment now has long term benefits. These benefits include the value to those who are educated in VA universities, and whi subsequently invest in a career/make a company and pay taxes in Virginia. This bill will make Virginia less competitive, and less excellent. Our schools are ranked top in the world, and tied with the very best of public universities in the US. We will lose that status if this bill passes. Instead Virginia will experience the kind of brain drain that most of Europe has experienced. The best students and faculty would leave our remaining skeletal programs , leaving our universities to rot.

This bill would severely curtail opportunities for diverse educational modalities and place an undue burden on non-tenured and contingent faculty to meet online teaching needs. Many universities rely on online courses for commuter students, summer courses, graduate courses, and for faculty who must teach from a distance. Limiting tenured faculty to live, in person teaching also reduces the opportunities for equal access for some students with disabilities. This bill is a knee-jerk reaction to necessary modalities during a pandemic that will have far reaching, and perhaps unintended, financial consequences for public universities. I urge you to vote no.

We have several fully online programs in our department. These programs are very successful. We created online pathways a long time before the pandemic. Students find it convenient to take classes in a flexible manner. Requiring classes to be taught in person only would be detrimental to the students in these programs. Not all students learn by listening to a lecture. In fact, most students learn by "doing". This follows the theory of constructivism, a long-held pedagogical theory. Online courses facilitate learning by providing opportunities for students to learn by "doing". I don't know how we could require students to sit in a classroom and listen to someone speak at them for 3 hours. This is not how students learn. Online programs are rigorous and have thoughtfully designed learning outcomes. Our students graduate and obtain excellent jobs. They very much appreciate the flexibility that online courses offer. Online courses require an extraordinary amount of time to design and require more time to teach than face-to-face courses. I encourage the decision-makers to research the benefits associated with online learning and how online programs are significantly increasing enrollment and tuition dollars in Virginia and across the nation.

My name is David Carchedi. I am an associate professor at George Mason, with tenure. This bill is absurd on two fronts. First and foremost, many faculty members do not teach 12 hours per week. A typical course at George Mason is 1:15, and meets twice a week. Most tenured faculty teach two courses per semester, which would amount to 5 hours of in class teaching per week. Many research-oriented faculty teach even less than this. To even conceive of a bill to mandate over twice as much teaching per week, is laughable, but to actually bring such a bill to the floor is both appalling and terrifying. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the higher educational system. Secondly, to mandate that this be done in person, as opposed to online, or in any other format, is clearly nothing more than a political move. It's also unnecessary. Most classes are already in person, and most professors are just as anxious as anyone else to get on with normal life and be on campus again. It also shows a complete lack of flexibility if, heaven forbid, a new variant of Covid19 spreads and the numbers go back up again. Frankly, this bill is a waste of House of Delegate's time. I implore you to toss it in the garbage, where it belongs.

This decision should not be codified, but should remain with individual higher education institutions. People have the freedom and the right to choose what is best for them as individuals, as long as they are not directly harming themselves or others in society. Institutions of higher education should retain this same autonomy when deciding what is best for their students, employees, and communities. Higher education institutions should have the right to seek increased online offerings that could potentially make them more competitive in the higher education marketplace. As with all things, the market will work itself out naturally without much interference, and higher education is within that market. Students who want more face to face instruction will go to universities that offer it and vice versa. Government intervention has already caused many issues within the higher education landscape. We should not seek to add to these issues with more government input.

This decision should not be codified, but should remain with higher education institutions. People should have the freedom to choose what is best for them as individuals, as long as they are not directly harming themselves or others in society. Institutions of higher education should retain this same autonomy when deciding what is best for their students, employees, and communities. Some faculty members have immunocompromised persons in their care or are immunocompromised themselves, so this ruling would be harmful to them and to their families. Additionally, higher education institutions should have the right to seek increased online offerings that could potentially make them more competitive in the higher education marketplace. As with all things, the market will work itself out naturally without interference, and higher education is within that market. Students who want more face to face instruction will go to universities that offer it and vice versa. Government intervention has already caused many issues within the higher education landscape. We should not seek to add to these issues with more government input.

Bill HB1226 appears to have no basis in the reality of a professor's workload expectation at a research intensive university. I am a tenured research math professor at VCU with teaching, research, and service responsibilities. I am paid to teach 6-8 hours a semester in the classroom but this is only 40% of my workload. Then 40% is research and 20% is service which consists of curriculum development, assessment, student mentoring, and other roles that advance the missions of the university. Our faculty that do teach 12 hours a semester have no research responsibilities and as such it is considered a full time teaching load. Every hour in the classroom amounts to another 1-3 hours outside the classroom. If every faculty member were required to teach 12 hours, all research and the "free" service that makes the university run would cease -- or, faculty would leave for institutions that would pay for their research time. This would be even more pronounced in engineering, medicine, and heavily research dependent fields. This path would be unsustainable and counter to the mission of VCU and all other research institutions including UVA and Virginia Tech. I am not in support of this bill and believe it to be not based an accurate representation of how universities function.

I respectfully advise the House to vote against this bill. While it may seem like common sense, it is counterproductive because it impacts grant-funded research opportunities. For instance, tenured professor, often the most experienced grant writers and researchers, are unable to commit to the hours of research that large grants require. This will lower the university’s prestige, research output, and student desirability which will negatively impact VA’s reputation and bottom line.

This legislation seems horribly at odds with the long-held Republican belief that government should stay out of people's lives, especially at the local level. Accreditation organizations such as SCHEV and SACSCOC already police VA's colleges for academic integrity, and legislation like this is likely to run afoul of the policies and procedures governed by the those agencies. There are also a number of other problems with this bill. While there are several colleges in VA that require faculty to teach 12 hours per semester (a 4/4 load), there are many that don't (UVA, V Tech, GMU). These research-focused universities have 2/2 loads, and faculty are required to do a great deal of research in addition to their teaching duties. If professors at UVA--some of the best professors in the US--are suddenly required to teach a 4/4 load, they will leave the state, and the university will have great difficulty in attracting the best academics in their fields. VA will immediately lose its standing as one of the best places for higher learning in the US. This bill also prevents colleges from granting to faculty course releases to accommodate their work in other areas (research, committee work, administrative work). And by eliminating the possibility of online learning, colleges will be less able to adapt to emergency situations such as the COVID epidemic. SCHEV already has rules for how online learning requires students and faculty to do the same kind and amount of work they would do in a regular classroom. I strongly encourage the House of Delegates to reject this bill.

It is completely unrealistic to expect tenured professors to teach 12 hours per week in an in person format or otherwise because of attendant responsibilities which include among others, office hours for students, exam preparation, grading, student mentoring, grant writing, letter of recommendation writing for students, departmental, college and university committee activities and meetings, and research for those at research universities). The bill reflects a glaring lack of knowledge concerning the responsibilities of tenured faculty members.

The text of HB1226 seems simple and straight-forward. In that, it clearly demonstrates that the bill’s author lacks clear understanding of the nature of higher education. I am a researcher; however, I find my greater purpose in teaching and love my work with students. I teach classes, I work with students on their own research projects and idea development. For every hour I spend in class, I estimate that I spend six hours outside of class speaking with students and corresponding with them over emails. Such engagement is clearly teaching and, according to many observers, the best kind of teaching—individual attention. Many of my colleagues keep logs of the time they spend with students outside of class. I do not do that and find it demeaning that as an educator, I should orient myself to ‘billable hours” as does an attorney or a physician working in corporate medicine In addition to my on-campus office hours, I provide my students with my home telephone number and give them a 12 hour per day, seven day per week window in which they can call me for help with their classes if I am not in class or working in my office. Imposing the unnecessary requirement in this bill upon university faculty suggests that the bill’s authors believe that we are disengaged from our students. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill focusses on a superficial metric and should be defeated. In the long run, it will punish highly engaged faculty by switching the focus of our work from students to clock hours.

I've worked at George Mason University for most of my professional life. It's been a rewarding experience. I've published five books (so far), won three book awards, and contributed to national and international conversations about social inequality, family life, human sexuality, crime and punishment, and other questions of public interest. I've also sent undergraduates on to grad school, where they've studied law, anthropology, sociology, and other subjects. I'm pretty sure that we University professors have not been very good about communicating what we do, so let me try to describe something of the rhythm of my work here. On any given week, I spend a full day, sometimes more, prepping for classes. Nobody likes a professor who comes in without having reread the texts and having composed some incisive thoughts about them. I spend another day in classes and office hours. If I've prepared well, my classes are lively. If I haven't, they're not. Office hours give students a chance to seek mentoring and I try not to be stingy with my time. I spend another day reading students' work. In my case, these are mostly graduate students, and I provide them with line-by-line feedback on their essays, field statements, dissertation proposals, and dissertations. Many will go on to publish their essays and dissertations. Various kinds of service commitments consume a good portion of the fourth day. These activities include work on program and university committees, including the program admissions committee and executive committee. Part of this day invariably involves curricular development, mostly my own courses, mostly in our own unit -- but sometimes in courses or programs shared with other units. I then spend days five and six doing research, writing, editing, and publishing. This is supposed to represent a third of my work, but the only way I can make that happen is to work a six-day week. (I might also schedule Zoom meetings with students on my weekend because that's when we could find a mutually acceptable time.) I try to rest one day a week. It doesn't always happen. I'm often up late at night because the sorts of activities I've just described invariably exceed an eight hour day. I end with an observation: I like live, face-to-face classes. But there is a place for online courses -- and many students need them to meet their requirements.

I am writing about HB1226, which would require 12 hours per week of in-person teaching. Since in college courses every hour of in-person teaching requires an additional 3-4 hours of preparation/grading/student meetings outside of class, this would add up to a weekly workload of 36-48 hours just doing the teaching, with no time for any research, committee, admin, or anything else. This might be fine if teaching was all that tenured faculty were expected to do. But (speaking as a tenure-track GMU biology professor) it is literally in our job contracts, as well as in the federal grants that a lot of us currently have with NSF, NIH and the US military, that we must also do a substantial amount of research, often half or more of our work hours. In my case I am involved in a U.S. Navy military research contract as well two major NSF grants, and GMU has signed contracts with federal government to that effect, requiring me to devote about half my time to research up through 2025. HB1226 would immediately halt hundreds of millions of dollars of federal grant revenue that currently flow to the VA state university system since no faculty member would be able to do research during the fall or spring semesters. Not least, it would also deprive VA students of virtually all the research opportunities that they currently have. Finally, asking faculty to halt all research would cripple their careers; most STEM faculty would immediately seek jobs in other states (I would leave right away; I already work 60 hour workweeks as it is, so there's no way I could add additional classes). Additionally, the requirement for in-person teaching is bizarre. First off, we're already back to in-person teaching anyway (GMU went back to in-person this semester). But secondly, long before the pandemic ever hit, we were always doing some classes remotely - they are called "distance-learning classes" - and we were doing that on purpose, in order to allow VA residents in distant towns to advance their education without having to move hundreds of miles away from their homes. For example GMU has always offered a remote class in human anatomy & physiology, so that VA residents throughout the state can prepare for nursing school from wherever they happen to reside. As another example, right now I teach one class in-person but my other class is taught virtually so that it can be attended by students who are based in at the Front Royal or Fairfax campuses (while I personally am at the Manassas campus of GMU). I would be happy to teach it in person but not all the students can come to Manassas. Having a few distance learning sections gives students more options. It is not the legislature's role to decide the exact balance of research vs. teaching that a given faculty member should have. It's also not the legislature's role to ban a perfectly good teaching option, distance learning, that we've been using successfully for more than a decade now to reach all of Virginia's residents. The pandemic's already ending and teaching has literally just gone back to normal; the bill is pointless. These decisions are best left to the individual colleges and universities. In conclusion, HB1226 would cripple all the VA universities, reduce options for students, cost VA hundreds of millions in federal grant revenue, and drive a large chunk of science & engineering faculty to leave Virginia. Is that really the way to improve Virginia education and serve Virginia residents?

I am very unclear on the content of this bill. As part of my official duties I oversee a laboratory. Does this count as part of my 12 hours? Also, what if this research involves meetings over zoom due to constraints on student travel? I have one student who is doing computational research because he does not have a car and getting to Manassas is difficult. Does this mentorship not count even though we are working on an important research project? This bill needs far more clear instructions or to be pulled out of committee and scraped entirely.

The proposed bill is a disaster in the making. No sabbaticals of any kind? No release time of ANY kind for research? Incredibly valuable and productive research grants would have to be cancelled and refunded. Tenured ADMINISTRATIVE faculty would ALSO have to teach a 12 hour load under the bill. Release time for incredibly time-consuming committee work would also be eliminated. Doesn't the State have more important and pressing issues to address?

The proposed bill would seriously impact recruitment of quality faculty, especially since it provides no flexibility for sabbatical research, leave for fellowships like the Fulbright, or course reductions for those serving as directors of programs, directors of grants, or as department and division chairs. Institutions of higher education always spell out the normal workload for faculty, but it is best left to deans and other academic officers to grant exceptions when a faculty member is engaged in activities essential to the institution's mission. That includes scholarly research and activity, since all four year institutions require faculty to be current and engaged in their field, as do accrediting organizations like SACS-COC, since this is a fundamental precondition of good teaching. I taught for almost 30 years at Longwood University and never once saw a professor get a sabbatical or a reduced teaching load for spurious or frivolous reasons. The normal workload for me and my colleagues was close to 60 hours a week, or more if there were chair or other added duties involved. There are slackers in every occupation, but I saw none in the teaching faculty when I was at Longwood. Quite the opposite. I also believe that that institutions need flexibility in their guidelines for how instruction is to be delivered. I was forced to go on-line by the COVID crisis in my last semester and like nearly all my colleagues, found it a deeply unsatisfying experience. However, I know professors who successfully integrate on-line learning with in-person instruction in 'hybrid' courses, not as a way to avoid the classroom but in order to promote active learning outside the classroom. As with course load, it is important for deans and other administrators to be left with the flexibility to determine instances where this is appropriate. Faculty and administrators can be trusted to always have a strong preference for in-person learning. It is the reason they go into higher education in the first place. Once candidates for faculty positions find out that Virginia has rigid rules about course load and methods of instruction, the best ones will go elsewhere, since they are the ones who can. Others will leave when the opportunity arises. I have been involved in many job searches and can assure you that it is no longer quite the buyer's market it once was. If Virginia wants to be in the top tier in higher education, the proposed bill will make that task much more difficult.

Tenured professor should not necessarily mandate to teach 12 live in person contact hours per week every week, every semester. Depending on the institution, tenured professor also are expected to carry out high profile research, train graduate and undergraduate students, and providing service to the Dept and the University. Tenured professors became tenured because of their excellence in research and teaching, not just teaching. Teaching 12 hours a week, every week, every semester live and in person could be achieve ONLY if that was the only thing the person does. Teaching 12 hours in person means requires investing all the rest of the working time to interacting with the students after class, preparing the class, correcting tests and assignments. It is just not compatible with any research or training of students for research. And this is not what a tenured professor is supposed to be doing - just full time teaching in person live and nothing else. Someone proposing this does not understand what the job and the position is about.

This bill seeks to predetermine how faculty teach their classes, without a clear understanding of how faculty teach their classes with the best interests of the students in mind. Nor does it have any clear indication of how this affects research, which is also in the best interests of students. What does this mean for sabbaticals? What does this mean for summer sessions? All of these formats, remember, or about the best interests of students. They serve students, not faculty. This is government interfering into something it doesn't quite understand, presuming it is doing something that it isn't actually doing. This bill will harm students more than it will faculty.

This is really not possible. The load at big state universities would be crippling to research.

I’m writing to express my opposition to HB 1226. This bill would shrink the enrollments, shutter fully-online programs, and consequently diminish revenues at public institutions across the Commonwealth, and it would limit access to public higher education for all Virginians, especially those in rural and underserved areas. The bill would have a net negative impact on the economic health of the Commonwealth. Faculty research makes universities into financial powerhouses that bring large numbers of high-paying, professional jobs to cities like Blacksburg, Charlottesville, Fairfax, and Richmond. But faculty research is only possible if faculty aren’t tasked with teaching loads disproportionate to these outcomes. While I’d imagine this bill might seem penny wise to its supporters, it's certainly pound foolish. Virginia's public universities are in competition with the most high-powered institutions across the country and the world for recruitment and retention of top faculty talent. Big-government resolutions like this would severely damage their ability to compete in this marketplace. To avoid degrading the standing of Virginia’s world-class public universities, to avoid seeing our best faculty leave for greener pastures, and to prevent a downstream exodus of small businesses, startups, and good-paying jobs out of the Commonwealth, I encourage you to reject this bill.

Dear Delegate Davis, I am one of your constituents who is a tenured professor. I do teach 12-hours a week and in-person, but I can't imagine why this bill is necessary. My university is perfectly capable of making the decision about how my courses are taught, and should have the flexibility to reassign courses and or deliver modes according to our students' needs. My department and my university can also manage my own needs as a professor. My husband is terminally ill, and we need my job to pay for healthcare. While I do not now need to teach virtually, (and frankly hope to never have to), given that his condition will worsen, I may at some point need the flexibility to teach virtually so I can keep my job, and continue to do the work I love even after he is gone. I also wonder how my colleagues at research institutions will feel about the bill, as it is normal for them to spend far more hours on their discipline, and to teach fewer classes. Or even how my colleagues at our teaching university feel about not being able to t4ach classes that can reach students all over Virginia, to help them further their educations, without taking an overload. (Their 12-hours in person, plus an additional on line class.) This bill will restrict education to those who can afford to attend in person. That is not the vote you want on your record. In short, this ill-advised bill seems to meddle in personnel decisions that are best left at the local level. I'm disappointed that the House has even proposed this. Let our students decide what kind of education is best for them, and let them vote with their feet. I would be happy to discuss this further, so feel free to contact me. And I vote. Yours, A. Renee Gutiérrez, PhD a.renee.gutierrez@gmail.com 434-392-3066

This bill does not fit the needs of all institutions, especially those that are rural. Summer courses, for example, are needed, but few institutions can support having students on campus year round (keeping the dining hall open, for example), and few students can afford to live on campus or in a rural area (where jobs are scarce) all summer just to attend classes in person. This Bill would effectively kill summer programs. This doesn't fit the needs of all programs, either. Project based classes can be highly successful in a hybrid or online format. This Bill would also hurt the quality of low-residency programs, like many graduate programs, too. What's more, putting undue burden on non-Tenure Track faculty is unethical and exploitative, and this Bill would effectively force non-tenure Track Faculty to cover the online and hybrid needs that all colleges have. More and more students want online options, but while traditional universities resist that as much as possible, there comes a point when we have to explore all of our options or else we will lose all of our students to for-profit universities, which takes away tuition dollars from the state.

The state government should play no role in determining individual job descriptions and workloads of individual employees. Faculty members have a deep hierarchy of supervisors who determine workloads and evaluate performance already, including department chairs, deans, provosts, and other administrators. If the state wants to streamline education, they should reduce funding for higher education administrators, and reduce the bureaucratic rules that require hiring thise administrators.

Members of the House Higher Education Subcommittee, I am currently a tenured associate professor in the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University. I am writing to describe to you how passage of a bill to require me to teach 12 hrs/wk of an in-person class would severely limit my ability to contribute to the learning community in which I teach AND to the select research community in which Mason now resides as a Research 1 institution. I am just one example of the problems with this bill. There are two points that I would like to make. The first is that being in a classroom and providing direct instruction is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of teaching. There is also preparing for instruction, advising students, providing feedback, and providing mentoring opportunities. So creating a required number of hours to provide direct instruction without recognizing the other time necessary does not address the entire picture. That is, not for quality teaching. The second point is that there are many other responsibilities to the job. If required to provide 12 direct hours of teaching per week and to spend additional hours for the preparation and additional activities required for teaching, I would not have the hours to spend: 1. observing and interacting with/supporting teachers in local schools 2. observing and providing feedback for teacher interns 3. providing oversight and direction for the VDOE Training and Technical Assistance Center (TTAC) for our region for which I am the Principal Investigator 4. mentoring and developing doctoral level students on three separate Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Doctoral Leadership grants in which I participate (nor would I be able to write additional grants for these funding sources) 5. conduct research on effective instructional practices to further the field and improve outcomes for students with disabilities (and seek funding to offset the costs of my salary and projects to George Mason and Virginia) 6. disseminate new knowledge to the field through presentations at conferences and writing articles for publication 7. serve as a leader in the field as a treasurer or president-elect of a national professional organization. Again, I am only one example but I believe it is important for you to have specific examples when making policy. I love what I do and spend many hours in excess of the typical 40 hour work week every week. While I understand the need to have faculty, especially experienced faculty who have developed national reputations, in classrooms with students, I would argue that setting a specific number of hours for that direct teaching each week is neither helpful nor productive in maintaining the standards of excellence and national reputation that Virginia's institutes of higher education have achieved. I would respectfully ask the committee to reconsider the bill and its purposes and determine a better way to help institutions balance teaching and the development of new knowledge.

I write to express my disapproval of HB 1226 and its implications for higher education. Specifically, I urge the committee not to pass this bill, which, in its current form, outlines an inflexible set of expectations for university faculty at state institutions. As we have seen with COVID, there will be times when universities and other state institutions of higher learning will need to pivot to online teaching in certain situations (such as a public health crisis). I am a university professor and I think in-person teaching is the best form of education. With that said, having a law on the books that requires professors to teach in person for a regularly and inflexibly prescribed number of hours does no one any service. Additionally, the implications of this bill may detract from the ability of faculty to take research sabbaticals--periodic leave from teaching responsibilities that enable vital research activities that not only advance the cause of inquiry in the intellectual community, but reinvigorate and updated teaching curricula. As a constituent, I therefore urge the legislative body to vote against this bill, HB 1226.

This bill will dramatically reduce the science contribution of Virginia professors and drive away most talented professors, as well as deprived students the opportunity to participate in cutting-edge R&D by their professors. 12-hour teaching is a 4-4 course load that requires 40 hours of preparation in general. If implemented, professors will have to steal family time to work over hours. Research will be stopped and further downgrade the innovation, creativity, and engagement of students in cutting-edge research for better preparing their future career. It will be a disaster for both professors and students, and the commonwealth's future. The teaching load should be kept to the individual schools to decide since they understand best their innovation, teaching, and training needs.

The bill needs clarification. With the increasing use of online and remote technologies, there is a different understanding of what " in person" means. If I have an appointment with my doctor, and he and I are online, we are " in person, " face to face, at the same time. This is the meaning of synchronous. This is in person. This also applies when I meet my class twice a week in a synchronous, same time in person setting. Online in an asynchronous fashion is not in person because you are not in the same time period. This needs clarification. What is the intent of this bill? Do you mean 12 hours or 12 credit hours? Big difference. Poorly written bill which will lead to much confusion. Is this bill targeting tenured professors? Need to rethink and rewrite this bill if you move it forward. Keep in mind that there are accommodations that people can have that allow them to work remotely. How does this bill uniformly require people to be in person physically.

If you want to require each tenured professor at a public institution of higher education to personally teach students for at least 12 hours per week during any term, you will likely have a very difficult time attracting faculty to some of Virginia's finest and oldest public universities. At some of the research-heavy institutions around the state, faculty teach less than 12 hours per week because they have won national grants to do their own research, research with students, or even professional development. Not only does this bring national attention and prestige to Virginia's public universities, but it also brings some of the most qualified and best faculty. In addition, this bill would deny the possibility of any type of sabbatical or teaching leave, which would also detract stellar faculty from coming to teach at Virginia's public universities. Not only would the institutions be impacted with the loss of these faculty, but students would also lose out on the opportunity of working in labs or on research projects with faculty, who couldn't take teaching leave in order to work on prestigious, nationally or university funded projects as a result of this bill. Publication is also a requirement of achieving tenure, even at a teaching-focused university like Longwood. At Longwood, we already teach 12 credits a term, but to not have crucial teaching leave in the second year or sabbaticals, there would be virtually no possibility of faculty achieving tenure because the teaching and service requirements are so demanding. In order to realistically expect faculty to achieve tenure or to serve in major university roles (such as dean, provost, etc.), teaching leave must be possible. You can, thus, imagine that the consequences of this would be enormous and very damaging at a larger research-focused university where the publication requirements are much more demanding for tenure. While I value of in person learning and prefer it, I recognize that there are some circumstances where online teaching suffices or works better for recruiting students to take classes. This is especially the case for summer or winter intersession courses. Frankly, many courses wouldn't fill without an online option, which would also hurt students who wouldn't have this option to take summer or winter courses. Additionally, while the CDC's isolation requirements stand for exposure or a positive COVID-19 test, online teaching is also a good temporary solution for continuing classes while a faculty member is isolating or recovering from COVID-19. To simply not offer any option of continuing classes in exceptional circumstances is doing a disservice to students. I am against this bill because it would hurt Virginia's public institutions as a whole, as well as faculty, and most importantly, students.

This bill will be a detriment to higher learning in Virginia. Requiring all tenured professors to teach 12 hours a semester, which is the equivalent of a 4:4 load - or 4 classes each semester - is ridiculous, especially at an R-1 institution. Most R-1 institutions only require tenured professors to teach 1 class a year. Most of us work 70-80 hours per week, dividing time between teaching and mentoring, research (writing grants, admin, doing research, writing results), and service to the department, university, and academic institutions. This requirement would ultimately mean a substantial reduction in the amount of external funding that would come into public universities in VA, as professors would not have time to write or complete grants. This bill would also lead to the loss of tenured faculty, as anyone that is tenured at an R-1 institution would not stand for having to teach a 4:4 load and would leave the state for other institutions that do not have that requirement. In summary, this bill is proposed by a person or group that has no idea what tenured professors actually do, and most likely think that all they do is teach. This uneducated viewpoint has led to this ridiculous bill that would eviscerate the ability of tenured professors to do research, the ability of universities in Virginia to hire new faculty, and retain the faculty which we have.

HB1226 operates from a willful misunderstanding of how Virginia's higher ed institutions function. Tenured faculty are already required to teach a certain number of credit hours on top of research and service obligations. This bill represents a massive overreach of legislative authority and an attempt to micro-manage the work of Virginia's higher ed faculty. Further, it creates additional hoops for disabled faculty and/or faculty with childcare and family responsibilities to jump through in order to do their jobs. Please vote down this bill.

The requirement that tenured professors teach at least 12 hours per week, in-person, for each semester is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of how modern universities and colleges work. The largest universities in Virginia are research universities and professors in those institutions are expected to dedicate a significant amount of time to their research. These institutions bring in hundreds of millions of dollars each year to the Commonwealth. This would not be possible if these professors were teaching 12 hours per week. Additionally, all universities also require service, such as serving as the chair of a department or leading an institute dedicated to improving teaching skills. These positions are often filled by tenure professors. Once again, if those professors are required to teach 12 hours per week, they would not be able to fill these roles. Finally, taking away the option to teach virtually, whether it be in the case of a dangerous situation (e.g. weather) or to provide someone with a new baby the ability to teach from home, makes absolutely no sense. I agree that most teaching should be done in-person but to require all teaching to be done in-person is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Public research universities are meant to develop new knowledge vis-à-vis research that is for the public good. Especially during this time of disinformation, high-quality trustworthy research is more important than ever. This is a time in history when we ought to be even more focused on ensuring the citizens of our great state of Virginia have access to credible research—with much of this evidence traditionally being produced in public research one (R-1) universities. Increasing teaching loads of tenured professors at state universities of Virginia will severely curtail the breadth and depth of research faculty are able to produce. Specifically, with increased teaching responsibilities, tenured faculty at R-1, research intensive universities will have less time to contribute to the development of new scientific knowledge regarding some of the most complex issues of our time, to benefit the constituents of Virginia. Research that is conducted by faculty at Virginia universities has important implications for Virginians—as one example of this, faculty at George Mason University have a number of on-going research programs to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Grants are an important aspect of the research enterprise and funding for universities. However, if tenured faculty are responsible for teaching additional credits, faculty will have less time to write and submit grants, and will be less competitive for grant funding as more of grant budgets will need to be allotted to “buying” faculty time rather than to research endeavors. Finally, without the necessary structures to ensure a portion of tenured faculty time be dedicated to research, faculty will be less likely to conduct robust research, and in turn, their teaching will also suffer. Evidenced-based practices developed by research conducted by tenured faculty at universities inform best practices for teaching. Curtailing research conducted at public state universities will indeed negatively impact the education students in the classroom, and will provide limited opportunities to create the next generation of scholars to ensure evidence-based decision-making rather than perpetuation of disinformation.

HB 1226 should be voted down for several reasons: 1) tenured professors at public institutions of higher education perform multiple roles. Teaching typically equates to 40% of workload and engaging in research (40%) and service to the university, profession and nation (20%) rounds out the effort. Changing the hours of teaching in the classroom to 12 hours/week would kill any research and service production at our institutions. 2) R1 institutions produce research of consequence to the nation and world. This bill would make it impossible for VA public universities from maintaining that R1 designation -- this would have significant consequences of our ability to generate external research funding. 3) With some 54% of external funding dollars going back to the institution through indirects, reductions in research production would significantly reduce the funding researchers bring to the university and the state. Tenured professors who teach 2 courses per semester spend 6 hours in the class on average. Yet we spend at least that much time if not more preparing for class, grading assignments, and mentoring students. Those two courses equate to 2 days worth of effort minimally. Doubling class time to 12 hours in person would make it impossible for faculty to conduct research and manage external funding obligations. This bill must be reconsidered and voted down.

This proposed legislation would greatly harm public higher education institutions by limiting the amount of scholarship completed on important issues for the Commonwealth, including issues related to sustainable environmental initiatives, business and entrepreneurial endeavors, and supporting teachers in their work with youth...to only name three. As well, online education has shown to be effective for supporting students and eliminating that option would also harm students and universities. Please vote against moving this legislation forward.

HB 1226 would essentially make state universities very unfriendly to tenured faculty who conduct research and cause mass exodus of our best and most eminent tenured faculty. It would essentially require tenured faculty to forego research as 12 credits per semester (what we call a 4:4 load) is considered to completely saturate a faculty member's time. We hire term professors whose only responsibility is teaching and they have a 4:4 load so your are asking tenured faculty to stop doing research. This could have very profound effects on our ability to attract new faculty and our best tenured faculty would leave to go to schools with a more reasonable expectation of teaching. Tenured faculty at state universities have three responsibilities: teaching, research and service. The typical formula is 40% teaching, 40% research and 20% service. This is similar to what is found at other major universities throughout the US. Also to be considered is the articulation between research and teaching. We want our students to receive state--of-the-art knowledge of current techniques and findings and perhaps work in a research lab under a tenured professor. This gives them valuable training and credentials for their chosen profession. GMU has had a very successful program incorporating undergraduates in research active professor's labs. This would become difficult if faculty got no time for research which is what is being proposed. Also, graduate students need to work with research active faculty to turn out quality theses and dissertations. At GMU there is currently a 2:2 teaching load for research active tenured and tenure track faculty. This allows faculty to be active in their research and continue to publish in the peer-reviewed literature and obtain grants which benefit the their research as well as the university and the commonwealth. If this bill were approved, I predict there would be mass exodus of the best and most active tenured professors and the standing of our state universities would drop precipitously. Our current model of 2:2 load for tenured professors with consideration given to extra service and large grants administered by each university as it sees fit is the best model. I don't think that the General Assembly should try to legislate and dictate teaching loads at state universities. This would result in a precipitous drop in our standing in the national and international academic area and frankly make it impossible for us to hire new tenure track faculty. As a professor at one one our state universities for the past 40 years, I would suggest that the sponsor of this bill does not understand the dire implications of this proposal for our state universities especially for the students. I hope that you will vote AGAINST HB 1226.

As a tenured faculty member at George Mason University, I am concerned that the proposed bill (HB1226) would be harmful not only for the research productivity and scholarly contributions of tenured faculty, but also the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Imposing a 12-credit hour mandate on teaching hours would effectively remove faculty from any research activities or writing of deliverables to inform policy and advance knowledge that leads to scientific innovations that benefit all citizens in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Therefore, I am opposed to the proposed bill (HB1226) which would have many negative impacts for the Commonwealth.

House Education - Higher Education Subcommittee Committee Chair: Freitas, Nicholas J., and Committee Members Subject: HB 1226 Higher educational institutions; tenured professors, in-person teaching. HB 1226 is concerning not so much to faculty as it is to students. The majority of students at the community college level are no longer enrolling or desiring to take classes on-campus face-to-face live. The community college population are busy working adults and parents who often struggle with multiple layers of issues that create barriers that would otherwise keep them from an education unless it was offered virtually. If full-time faculty are required to teach the majority of their courses on-campus this limits enrollment and demand for those courses, and it places the sole responsibility on adjunct faculty who often are not equipped and do not have the time to devote to students who are struggling academically or otherwise to ensure success. Full-time faculty in the VCCS have worked tirelessly during the pandemic to learn, improve, and provide the best virtual education to students along with creating ways to ensure we have ongoing, positive relationships with students to help them be successful learners. This is now the format that students feel the most successful and are demanding especially in particular disciplines. Virtual learning allows us to remain competitive in the marketplace and meet the needs and demands of students. HB 1226 will create barriers that limit opportunity and success for a large group of students who need to gain an education to further career opportunities. I ask you to please consider the needs of students and not put limits on full-time faculty. We are committed to providing the best education to students regardless of learning format. Respectfully Submitted, Teresa Conour, M.Ed., MA Associate Professor Education/Early Childhood Germanna Community College tconour@germanna.edu 540-645-2636

This bill seems to have no idea how a university is run, or how classes are administered. It is misguided and would severely damage higher education in Virginia. This would lead to an immediate exodus and VA students would soon have to follow to states, and these extremely negative effects would echo for generations. What ever problem this is trying to fix, it is a confident idiot's low-effort attempt at doing so.

This bill represents egregious overreach and micro-management of higher education by people who have no expertise in university teaching. It betrays a complete lack of knowledge about how higher education works. Many if not most tenured professors do fewer than 12 hours per week of classroom teaching because they have administrative and professional responsibilities that consume much of their time. Many courses taught by tenured professors are designed for remote learning in order to reach students who cannot commute to campus. If this bill were enforced, Virginia would lose its most respected and prestigious faculty to universities that do not micro-manage their faculty. Students would go elsewhere because we would lose our best teachers. This bill would destroy Virginia's top-notch university system, relegating us to the bottom tier of universities.

My apologies for a second response. I am still very concerned with this bill for many reasons. There is the research money the institutions will lose, and faculty who will leave due to the increased load as there are expectations beyond teaching for tenured faculty. At any rate, I believe the bill needs some clarification in wording: Is 12 hours in the classroom (in person) mean 12 clock hours, which translates to 12 credits (that doesn't count time outside of teaching -correcting and one one one time) or is it 6 credits of class. Does in person include zoom or other technological interactions? How do graduate assistants factor into this? Please clarify these concerns, if the bill proceeds. Although my first recommendation is to vote no on this bill. Thank you,

As many of these comments point out, this bill is misinformed. Perhaps the representative who submitted it should have taken the time to do some serious research? Tenured professors are required to teach, do research, and engage in service at their home institutions. Original research is time-consuming, but it also drives economic, technological and cultural advancement. Preparing thoughtful and effective university-level classes also takes a tremendous amount of time; the time spent in the classroom is the tip of the iceberg with regards to how university professors divide their time and resources. Face time without the careful preparation of the most up-to-date materials based on original research does not benefit students. Students benefit from the ways in which professors model research, inquiry and the development of knowledge. There few professional or scientific fields out there that do not require some kind of research on a regular, if not a daily, basis.

A typical full time teaching load for a tenured professor conducting no or limited research is 4 3-credit hour courses per semester; this equates to 12 contact hours per week for a fully in-person class, and less if *any* of the classes have an online component. For research active faculty (the engine that drives an R1 institution), this teaching load is reduced to 1 or 2 3-credit hour courses per semester, i.e., 3 or 6 contact hours per week, and less if any of the classes have an online component. To require 12 in-person teaching hours per week for tenured faculty will: (a) prevent *any* online teaching, which is an emerging and necessary capability of higher education to augment in-person learning, (b) prevent any research activities by tenured faculty, as loads are currently designed to balance teaching, research, and service, (c) drive research activities to research-only faculty, removing the well-established valuable connection between teaching and research, and (d) discourage researchers from entering higher education, at least in the Commonwealth.

I am very concerned about HB 1226, which is requiring tenured professors to teach in person 12 hours a semester each year. Tenured professors bring in millions of dollars to help support public institutions and requiring them to teach this many credits would not allow them to pursue their research, which means less money for the institutions and less advancement of knowledge and science in the field. Please do not pass this bill.

HB 1226 Higher educational institutions; tenured professors, in-person teaching. Delegate Davis, Students receiving an education in the Commonwealth of Virginia deserve the delicate attention of not being reduced to an ordinance that removes the individualized programmatic concerns of various learning requirements that stipulate diversity according to populations, majors, and associated professorial services. A blanketed bill removes the necessary flexibility Universities and Colleges possess to deliver the quality specific majors need to deliver the richness associated with each discipline. The scholarship and service that provides current and meticulous knowledge and research would be absent without the ability to engage in the same processes that elevated professors to acquire their tenure status. The acquisition of tenure does not complete the process of research and it should not stagnate students to yesterdays engaged research. Please consider the unnecessary and non-productive restrictions this bill would impose on Universities and colleges.

This bill demonstrates a misunderstanding of what professors do with their time. Our job contracts generally state that we must teach, research, and provide administrative service to our institution. The balance among these activities varies according to the individual, and their present assignment. Those who are doing significant administrative work--leading a division of a department, or a department, or a school, etc.--usually have much less time to devote to teaching and research, but these assignments rotate regularly. And vice versa for the other two areas of activity. As in any business, this flexibility in work flow is designed to allow both the institution and the individual worker to flourish. But if the underlying concern is that "tenured" faculty members are not spending enough time on the job--don't worry. ("Tenured" comes from your bill, but institutions generally employ many people who are not tenured but still teach, research, and administer. This stipulation shows another misunderstanding of institutions of higher education, which are quite complex.) I am a tenured professor, and I can assure you that I spend a maximum number of hours per day--every day, not just the workdays--doing my job, and doing it as well as possible. The Faculty Senate conducted a university-wide survey at UVa in 2007, I believe, and I seem to remember that I calculated spending 70 hours per week doing my job. And most other faculty members reported similar amounts of time on the job. It is a crushing workload, for relatively little pay. We make this sacrifice because we believe in our mission, which is to serve our students, the Commonwealth, and the world-at-large in the acquisition of knowledge and bolstering of humanity in all respects.

This proposal exhibits significant misunderstandings about the way higher ed operates, especially since universities have put so much funding into developing online programs (pre-pandemic). Additionally, the assumption that those external the the academy should set arbitrary limits for teaching time is in appropriate, and frankly, insulting. Faculty go to great lengths to be experts in their fields, and the university system offers them plenty of incentive and evaluation on their craft.

I am worried that this bill will inadvertently limit VA's economic and technological growth moving forward. Many tenured faculty members of public VA universities are primarily focused on research endeavors that dovetail into new companies, fuel VA's prominence as an educational hub, and attract additional research companies to set up in VA. Ultimately, forcing every faculty member to participate in 12 hours of in-person student teaching each week, will kill VA's ability to keep up with the rest of the country's research and development at higher educational facilities, reduce VA's ability to grow their public universities, and drive away good researchers and educators to other parts of the country.

HB 1226 does not reflect the reality of academia in the 2020s. Many academic programs are entirely online, making it impossible for tenured professors to comply with a requirement to teach in person for 12 hours a week. It is also unclear to me how the figure of 12 hours a week was arrived at. 12 hours of teaching time per week would be approximately 4 courses, which does not allow any time for grant-funded research activity.

Public university-based research and online learning are both valuable assets and this bill would have a significant negative impact on them both. The provisions of HB1226 would result in a huge reduction in research funding and externally funded research activity, which is currently flourishing in our universities. Typically full time, tenure track faculty bring large grants to universities to conduct their research and this funding "buys out" some of their teaching load. Grant funding not only covers a portion of their salary, but also brings in funds to cover university overhead costs, which can amount to more than 50% of the total grant. Also, our universities are offering highly ranked asynchronous online courses that bring tuition dollars to the commonwealth from both in state and out of state students, including international students. This bill would result in the loss of this important and valuable activity.

In keeping up with the changing times, I believe tenured faculty should be able to have a choice. They should be able to teach fully online, face to face, or a combination of the two.

This is a foolish and uninformed bill. Faculty who are tenured have demonstrated strong research skills. These skills have been facilitated by limiting weekly teaching hours to 3-6 hours per week, thus GIVING THESE SCHOLARS the time and focus to produce the necessary research that universities and the public require and demand. There are AMAZING teaching professors who provide EXCELLENT learning opportunities for the students in all programs who are UNABLE to pursue the scholarship opportunities that tenure provides. It is tone deaf to what students need (great teaching professors) and what high-end research requires (established scholars who can pursue cutting edge research agendas, having earned tenure) Tenured professors work hard. Untenured professors work hard. Teaching professors work hard. That is the consistent thread that connects them. But they often do different yet necessary jobs. Those jobs collectively add up to the value of any given department. Simply having tenured professors teaching a 4/4 teaching load as some sort of arbitrary requirement would reduce their research output and limit student access to excellent teaching professors. It also assumes that 4/4 is the normal teaching load in contracts that also heavily stress RESEARCH and SERVICE besides teaching. Finally, having legislators make the rules on what faculty should do in all state university departments from Art History to Zoology is fundamentally flawed. By their job requirements, department chairs, deans, and faculty are EXPERTS in their field. Legislators have NO IDEA what these jobs require and should never have this kind of input. Shall they be telling medical school professors to limit how many clinic hours or how many patients they should see so they can teach more credit hours? This is so very misguided and foolish.

How is this proposal expected to be remotely compatible with expected teaching loads for tenured faculty across other parts of the country? And how will this allow other critical faculty roles such as research (which adds up to 6-8 hours per day easily including scientific writing, reviewing, presenting, refereeing and so on). Research is a critical part of many academics. After all, 48% of US basic research is carried out in higher ed institutions, and 57% of Nobel prize winners are affiliated with US universities. In an era of intense international competition, can we really afford to lose our scientific edge, especially in basic research that is the foundation of tomorrow's technology?

Furthermore, the competition for the finest faculty in the country is REAL! When other universities in the nation require their tenured professors to teach 6-9 hours per semester, why would any but the most desperate take a position at a Virginia institution. Of course, the private universities won't be held to the same hours requirement, so those schools will become superior and the public institutions will become second or third tier schools for those not in the upper class. But that's probably part of Davis's overall plan!

HB1226 provides proof that those who have proposed this bill have little to no idea how universities function nor why the U.S. has some of the best institutions of higher education in the world. Teaching 12 contact hours per week would make it virtually impossible for professors, tenured or otherwise, to do ANY research or produce any scholarly products. Not only would this severely impact the body of knowledge of all disciplines, it would actually negatively affect professor's ability to teach their students the most current information, skills, and industry standards. The 12 hour per week requirement is simply absurd and indicates the prioritizing of short term financial gains over the long term well being of the institutions and the students they serve.

I am a full professor at Mason, an institution to which I have devoted 26 years of my life. I was surprised to read about this bill, which will make mandatory to teach 12 hours per week on campus. I understand we all want to go back to "normal," but for our students, many years before the pandemic, "normal" was to learn online. A considerable number of GMU students work and have families, and there is no way for them to finish their degrees without taking classes online. These students deserve the same education as the students who can afford to live on campus or drive to college every day. But if we just allow term faculty, untenured faculty or adjuncts to teach online, the quality of the education of our online students will be different to the ones who have the luxury to attend classes on campus. Tenured professors are needed both in class and in the online teaching environment. They engage students in the discipline and recruit them for new classes in their departments. Teaching online demands way more work and effort than teaching face-to-face. We can't require term faculty, who usually earn 30%-50% percent less than a tenured faculty, to teach courses that are more demanding and stressful. Moreover, students taking classes online are usually more negative in their evaluations of instruction (it is proven that students with a positive learning experience are less likely to respond to the online evaluations of teaching). Term faculty and pre-tenured faculty can't risk having low evaluation rates that could affect their promotion and/or their salaries. Pre-tenured faculty need to get to know their students and feel comfortable teaching. That's something that should be accomplished in the classroom during the first years of their appointments. Once they are granted tenure, it will be the time to embark in online teaching. I hope you will reconsider your proposal and allow departments and colleges to decide who is best suited to teach online and assign courses accordingly. If VA colleges stops offering a variety of quality online courses, I am afraid we will lose enrollments to other institutions outside the Commonwealth. Thank you for your attention

Dear Delegates: I am writing to urge you to vote against HB1226, which would require tenured faculty to teach 12 hours of courses in a live, in-person format. First, this bill would undermine the research capabilities of our universities, as most tenured faculty currrently teach for 6 hours each week (a workload of 20 hours after accounting for lesson planning, office hours, feedback, and other teaching responsibilities) and spend an additional 20+ hours (or more realisitically, 30-40+ hours for many tenured faculty) conducting research, advising students, etc. This bill would effectively make all tenured faculty fully instructional, and would leave no time in our workloads for scholarship and other university work. This would diminish the prestige of Virginia's universities, would inhibit our ability to do research, and would have a huge negative financial impact on our institutions since we would no longer be able to devote time to grant-funded research that also contributes to each university's bottom line. Second, this bill undermines our efforts to provide an accessible education to all Virginians who want to earn a 4-year degree. At George Mason University in particular, we have a large population of students who are working on their degree while also working a full-time job, caring for children or other family members, are unable to live geographically close to campus, or who have other constraints. Because of this, we provide a significant proportion of synchronous and asynchronous online courses to make an excellent education accessible for these students and for others who prefer online courses for a variety of reasons. If all tenured faculty are required to teach in-person, we would no longer be able to offer these online courses, and thousands of Virginians would lose the opportunity to earn a college degree. Sincerely, Melissa Broeckelman-Post, Ph.D. Chair of the Faculty Senate George Mason University

Those who prepared this bill are either grossly misinformed about how higher ed is taught, or they are trying to subversively kill higher ed in the state. Anyone remotely informed knows that regular courses at the university level meet for no more than three hours a week in person, will significant prep time on behalf of instructors and students outside of class. Maybe a physical ed class or other practicum might conceivably meet for 12 hours a week, but otherwise, the writers of the bill may have been thinking about middle school. Get serious please and don't play with our lives. Sincerely, a tenured and highly valued associate professor at UVA. And in case you didn't know, research and service (administrative work, advising, committees) make up two thirds of our job.

Vote no on HB 1226. Higher Ed needs flexibility to determine appropriate course offerings. Experts in their respective field should determine how to best deliver course content. College is not a one size fits all endeavor. Passing this bill will activate the “law of unintended consequences”.

I am writing to express strong opposition to HB 1226 for the following reasons: The bill is embarrassing. It lacks a basic understanding of the roles and obligations of a tenured professor. This bill would damage the competitiveness of Virginia to attract and retain nationally and globally recognized leaders and experts in their respective fields. Tenured professors have preexisting contracts specifying the time spent on teaching, research, and institutional service based on many factors including the amount of federal and state research funding they obtain which benefit individual institutions across Virginia (through overhead). The bill is in direct opposition to the increase in demand for online instruction. Online courses provide flexibility to students most at risk of not graduating; and reach a larger demographic of students, such as working professionals continuing their education. Expanding online instruction has become a priority for many top institutions around Virginia and the country because it also addresses the enrollment cliff many institutions, including those in Virginia, are currently confronting. HB 1226 is shortsighted and uninformed at best and, at worst, will cause economic damage to the state of Virginia and compromise the integrity of higher education at colleges and universities across the state.

To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB 1034. As a public high school school teacher and parent of two young children (ages 5 and 2) in Virginia, I have serious concerns that this bill will wind up doing more harm than good for the children of our state. I have worked in two different public school systems in Virginia over 13 years, and I have seen first hand how beneficial counseling services can be to a wide variety of students. If parents are allowed to prohibit their students from accessing counseling services in the school, these students may be cut off from not only critical mental health support, but but also the academic, career, and community support that school counselors and mental health team members provide. All members of a school mental health team must undergo rigorous education before obtaining their licenses, and as such they should be trusted as the professionals they are to provide only services that they deem necessary for students well-being. I strongly urge you to let the trained mental health professionals do their jobs. Don't make students get tied in the mire of adult squibbles. Thank you, Sara Watkins Mother Teacher Concerned Virginia Citizen

To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB HB1032. As a public high school school teacher and parent of two young children (ages 5 and 2) in Virginia, I have serious concerns that this bill will wind up doing more harm than good for the children of our state. As VA Senator Peterson said on January 27 of this year, regarding a similar bill, "I don't think we should be involved in micromanaging school libraries...The problem is that you’re going to sweep up books that you don’t intend to sweep up" (Matthew Barakat, abcnews.go.com). I strongly urge you to leave the books in the libraries for the kids. They deserve to have the opportunity to decide with their own parents and personal support systems what books to read. Thank you, Sara Watkins Mother Teacher Concerned Virginia Citizen

I am a public school teacher in Fairfax County and I urge you to vote no on HB 1272. Local school boards must retain the authority to make operational decisions in partnership with health authorities to address the ever-changing landscape of COVID risks within their district. We are in the 3rd school year impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We cannot legislate public health decisions when we don’t know what the future of the pandemic will bring. While everyone, including school staff, wants to be back to normal and to eventually be able to scale back mitigation measures, we have to leave these decisions up to local districts under the guidance of the CDC and local health authorities. Please vote no on this bill.

I am writing to ask you to oppose HB 1272. SB 1303, a bi-partisan bill that passed last year with overwhelming support, has been very successful. Under SB 1303, schools have been open and safe during the Covid-19 pandemic. Schools accomplished this by following CDC guidance, as they are required to do by this law. I am very concerned that HB 1272 would remove these critical parts of SB 1303: • The requirement that schools follow CDC guidance to the maximum extent practicable; • The direction to School Boards to set their own parameters for the provision of in-person instruction; • The allowance for schools to temporarily shift to virtual instruction when Covid cases are at a high level; • The option to offer a virtual learning program to students who elect it; • Allowing teachers to teach virtually during isolation, quarantine or as an ADA accommodation, and have that count as in-person instruction. My three children are enrolled in public school in Virginia. They need universal mask requirements to attend in-person school safely, as recommended by the CDC, not just one-way masking which is not protective enough, particularly in crowded schools where physical distancing is not possible. Lifting masking requirements would cause the virus to spread more, causing more classes or schools to have to isolate/quarantine/shut down. It would also endanger the immunocompromised, the elderly, and children who have yet to have a chance to be vaccinated. It would also cause increased community spread of the virus, possibly causing our healthcare system to become overwhelmed. Please do not support HB 1272 in current form. School Boards must retain the authority that they currently have under SB 1303 to protect all students, teachers, staff and families, including those who are more vulnerable to Covid-19. Add back the critical parts that were removed and most importantly, include the requirement that school divisions follow CDC guidance to the maximum extent practicable. Follow the science. Now is not the time to remove safely masking requirements.

The impact of this bill on students with disabilities will be tremendous. Being more at risk, this population will disproportionately be impacted by other students or staff not masking to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Just as I trust legislators to legislate, I trust public health officials and epidemiologists to make decisions about public behavior. Leave the medical recommendations to the medical experts. Allow local school boards to keep masking in place for all students.

Comments Document

Students with disabilities have been disproportionately impacted throughout the pandemic, as supported by the findings of the federal Dept. of Education. Please see the attached letter from Fairfax County Special Education PTA detailing our concerns regarding HB 1272 and the negative impact it would have on students with disabilities.

Many students with disabilities are at higher risk for severe illness from Covid-19 due to their disabilities and underlying medical conditions. In-person instruction is the most integrated, beneficial, and appropriate setting for most students with disabilities. These students need schools to follow CDC mitigation strategies so they can safely access in-person school, alongside their non-disabled peers. The return to in-person instruction during the 2021-22 school year has been very successful under the framework the General Assembly enacted last year with SB 1303 because SB 1303 requires schools to offer in-person instruction in a manner in which it adheres, to the maximum extent practicable, to any currently applicable mitigation strategies for early childhood care and education programs and elementary and secondary schools to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 that have been provided by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Under SB 1303, schools in Virginia have, for the most part, remained open with minimal levels of in-school transmission, even as the Omicron variant swept through our communities. Students with and without disabilities have all been able to learn safely in schools that are following CDC guidance. This is a remarkable achievement, for which the General Assembly should be congratulated. HB 1272 would undo all of that. By allowing families to opt out of mask mandates, you put the health and lives of students with disabilities AND staff with disabilities and their families at risk.

Comments Document

Please see the attached letter from Arlington Special Education PTA communicating our concerns with HB 1272, particularly the negative impact of this bill on students with disabilities.

Comments Document

Please see the attached letter from Arlington Special Education PTA communicating our concerns about HB 1272.

Delegate Batten apparently thinks that school systems viewed remote learning as some kind of opportunity to ditch their responsibility to teach. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's easy to look back and say, "COVID wasn't as big a deal as the medical establishment claimed," even though it was and policies such as remote learning potentially saved the lives of thousands of Virginia children. It wasn't easy on teachers, either. In the scramble to find ways to most effectively instruct their students, teachers had to learn multiple software packages and talk their students through them. They had to come up with new lessons and spend hours of additional time creating visual and interactive teaching moments. They also had to carve out space in their own homes and in many cases buy new equipment like lights and sound equipment to make those lessons work. If this legislation goes through, it mandates that children be present in schools even if another variant or pandemic worse than that we've experienced comes along. Don't tie the hands of the medical and education communities who are trying to do their best to balance safety and learning. And certainly don't use this disruptive time to play games with our children's lives. Please oppose HB1272.

To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB 1034. As a public high school school teacher and parent of two young children (ages 5 and 2) in Virginia, I have serious concerns that this bill will wind up doing more harm than good for the children of our state. I have worked in two different public school systems in Virginia over 13 years, and I have seen first hand how beneficial counseling services can be to a wide variety of students. If parents are allowed to prohibit their students from accessing counseling services in the school, these students may be cut off from not only critical mental health support, but but also the academic, career, and community support that school counselors and mental health team members provide. All members of a school mental health team must undergo rigorous education before obtaining their licenses, and as such they should be trusted as the professionals they are to provide only services that they deem necessary for students well-being. I strongly urge you to let the trained mental health professionals do their jobs. Don't make students get tied in the mire of adult squibbles. Thank you, Sara Watkins Mother Teacher Concerned Virginia Citizen

To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB HB1032. As a public high school school teacher and parent of two young children (ages 5 and 2) in Virginia, I have serious concerns that this bill will wind up doing more harm than good for the children of our state. As VA Senator Peterson said on January 27 of this year, regarding a similar bill, "I don't think we should be involved in micromanaging school libraries...The problem is that you’re going to sweep up books that you don’t intend to sweep up" (Matthew Barakat, abcnews.go.com). I strongly urge you to leave the books in the libraries for the kids. They deserve to have the opportunity to decide with their own parents and personal support systems what books to read. Thank you, Sara Watkins Mother Teacher Concerned Virginia Citizen

As President of VASN, I am coming forth to represent our entire membership, which consists of 500+ School Nurses throughout all of the State Superintendent’s eight regions in Virginia. We are in unanimous support of SB 704 and ask for your support by voting in favor of it on Tuesday. This bill will produce data which is urgently needed to determine continuous quality improvement in school health services across Virginia schools. It will allow for better implementation of professional development and can help determine where staff may be needed in. Currently, this data is already being collected in all schools. VASN knows this to be true, because it is done by the school clinic. In 2019, when it was only optional, 92 of 132 school districts were already choosing to send this very data to VDOE. With that, please note that there is no fiscal impact related to SB704 because it is already being done. If the only school nurse organization in the Commonwealth is asking you to push forth a bill that would bring us more work… then it must be very important to us, especially with Covid already on our hands. BUT… That is just not the case though. This is not more work. We are simply asking you to mandate the collection of data that already exists. Thank you, on behalf of the School Nurses in Virginia. Angela Moore, VASN President VASN would like to give their support in favor of HB1328 (Delaney) and SB737 (Boysko) because it aligns with previously passed laws which mandate epinephrine in schools. K-12 already has the stock epinephrine, and this will just include the EXS3, which has seen a huge expansion since the previous bill was passed. Thank you for expanding the availability of epinephrine to our ECSE students by voting yes. It is the equitable vote to make. Angela Moore, VASN President VASN also supports HB215 and SB62 with a very STRONG recommendation to add a School Nurse who is Nationally Certified to each of the two committees. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any such committee to make recommendations and/or pass along reports without the insight and expertise of a School Nurse. School Nurses are the most appropriate healthcare providers to answer questions regarding school related procedures, trainings, healthcare plans, emergency action plans, levels of training for staff, classroom and other school environments, documentation, and the like, when it comes to the health and safety of school children. It would behoove you to include a nationally certified School Nurse on both of these committees if they should pass, to best represent the school environment and to speak on behalf of school children. Thank you for your consideration. Angela Moore, VASN President SB161 VASN would also like to offer its support of SB161 and its willingness to provide assistance in developing guidelines on policies to inform and educate coaches and athletes. This will be beneficial to a magnitude of students throughout the Commonwealth and is geared toward optimizing the health and safety of our students, so VASN is in support. Please vote yes on SB161, for our students. Thank you. Angela Moore, VASN President

I SUPPORT HB 1328. I OPPOSE HB 344, 787, and 1009.

Please support this important bill. My own daughter has been on a school field trip where her teacher did not bring her epi-pen from the clinic, and my daughter had an alergic reaction. We need to make sure that epi-pens are always available, especially since new allergies can develop at any time. I myself had a life threatenign allergic reaction at college.

Tenured faculty are already stretched thin and underpaid for the far more than 40 hours per week most pour into their jobs. Increasing teaching loads on tenured faculty would likely lead highly impactful faculty to leave academia for industry to double or quadruple their pay for less hours of work. Tenured faculty lead amazing research and advise and support undergraduate and graduate students as well as advise industry and policy in their fields all primarily for the betterment of society. I think the time needed to be amazing in the classroom and the already incredibly heavy load outside the classroom is vastly misunderstood and undervalued. Please don’t drive good people away from academia.