Family Life Education Curriculum Canceled in Fairfax

At its meeting on March 13, 2025, the Fairfax County School Board surprised the community when it terminated the controversial Family Life Education Curriculum Advisory Committee as a School Board advisor group. This move seemed to come out of the blue. It was not announced in advance and barely discussed at the meeting. The purpose of the committee was briefly explained in neutral terms. The motion sponsor claims that FLECAC is an anomaly, as other curriculum-related committees (concerning social studies and math) are under FCPS Superintendent’s aegis rather than the Board. It was stated that the purpose of the motion was to align FLECAC’s work with other curriculum-related advisory committees.

Fairfax Schools Monitor and others initially praised the move with reservations. FLECAC is no more!!! FLECAC is no more!!! The committee had planned to introduce controversial and anti-scientific gender identity instruction in grades 3 and below. The committee’s termination in March meant that the proposals would not be implemented in the current school term. This was a clear plus. In addition, we felt that the new advisory committee created by the Superintendent in the future could not be more ideologically biased than FLECAC.

The Board’s actions were a deliberate deception. It was really to keep FLECAC or its successor advisory group out of the public eye by holding its meetings in secret, without any public participation. Laura Bryant Hanford of Fairfax County did some research and found out the truth. She discovered that the proposal for realigning FLECAC had been developed by the Board’s Public Engagement Committee. Its members had revealed their intentions at a February 11 meeting. SeeL.B. Hanford, ” Fairfax County doubles down on keeping secrets from parents,” Daily Signal April 29, 2025.

The Public Engagement Committee, one of many committees within the School Board, is comprised of members from all over the country. Its current members are Marcia St. John Cumming, Sandy Anderson Melanie Meren Ilryong Moon and Ryan McElveen. They hold their meetings in public, but they are often held at work hours and few people attend. The meetings are recorded, and Ms. Hanford discovered the video of the Public Engagement Committee meeting held on February 11, 2014, on YouTube ( CLICK HERE). The Board members were candid in revealing the behind their proposal to realign FLECAC’s formality. Meetings of the School Board’s citizen advisory committees must be public. However, advisory groups that advise the Superintendent may not allow citizen participation. Fairfax Schools Monitor has been reporting on the FLECAC meeting this year. We were often the only ones present. It was decided that the scrutiny would be undesirable. The Public Engagement Committee’s proposal was based on a desire for secrecy.

On the YouTube video, the relevant part of the meeting on February 11 begins at 1:00:00. Board member Sandy Anderson moved that FLECAC be converted from an advisory board to the Board into a curriculum review under the Superintendent. Ms. Anderson said that the committee was formed to:

“Give [FLECAC] space to talk about what should go in the curriculum, without intense public scrutiny. (Especially for this topic). “I will reiterate my concern about the students who are on this Committee, and that I want to ensure that they are protected moving forward. The fact that it is an advisory committee to the Board forces it into a public forum, instead of giving it the space. …, After that, the Board will talk about the curriculum without focusing on the appointees or the students.”

Melanie Meren, a board member of the organization, backed up this reasoning: “I agree that it receives outsized attention and gets pretty ugly. That’s not fair to anyone who volunteers their time.”

Ms. Anderson stressed that the proposal was more about form than substance. She assured the other members of the committee that there would be no real change except for the fact that the proceedings would remain secret. The Board would continue to appoint members of the advisory committee, and not the Superintendent. The committee’s functionality would remain unchanged. The Board would vote on the recommendations of the committee, and not the Superintendent. Ms. Anderson said that “everything will act in the same manner”.

The Family Engagement Committee’s stated purpose is to “plan strategies, topics and timelines related to Board/community dialog and to coordinate physical logistical aspects related to the Board’s outreach to stakeholders.” In this case, however, it was acting more as a Public Dis-Engagement Committee than as an organization attempting to improve such engagement.

The School Board members continued to deceive the public when they discussed the matter at their meeting on 13th March. Ms. Anderson characterized the proposal as an easy, no-brainer pro forma change. It was nothing substantive, but merely a formality to determine who would be the committee’s chairperson. She did not repeat what she said at the Public Engagement Committee: that the main purpose of the proposal was to keep the committee secret. Other members of the Board also refused to admit that they were wrong. The discussion seemed to be well-planned and brief. No one questioned the need to spend time in a Board Meeting to examine a proposal with alleged no substance. The proposal was passed by 11-1 after a brief discussion. Mateo Dunne was the only dissenter. He did not explain his objection. Ricardy Anderson, a Board member who concluded the show in cynicism, said: “Our work has to be clear and transparent to the public.” “I’m happy we were able do that tonight with this measure.”

Discussion

When the Board voted on the 13th of March, transparency and clarity for the public was the last thing that the Board thought about. The Board’s primary concern was deception.

Many public officials prefer to work in secrecy. It may be in their best interest, but not in the public’s. We have laws that require public meetings to be open.

Both the “engagement” committee of the School Board and the entire School Board believe that they can avoid legal requirements if FLECAC, or its successor, is designated as a curriculum committee reporting to Superintendent, rather than an advisory committee for the Board. This article does not address whether this is legal. It may be necessary to litigate the issue. Two things are clear: first, the Board prefers to keep the public out of the loop about sex deliberations, until they become a fact. Secondly, it has no qualms about lying about its intentions, when it fears the consequences of being honest.

Why are so many people distrustful of their government? Fairfax County School Board’s recent actions are a good example.

Please share this article with others. Encourage them to sign up to receive notifications of new posts on this website.

‘