Residents press Goochland school board over equity policy repeal, superintendent firing

At the Goochland County School Board’s regular meeting, multiple residents used the public‑comment period to criticize recent board actions and to demand clarity about the district’s direction and use of student information.

The speakers focused on three recurring themes: the board’s repeal of the district equity policy, the abrupt removal of the prior superintendent and the public’s access to and protection of student records. Christina Page, a District 2 resident and mother of a Goochland Middle School student, opened the sequence and asked the board to “please articulate your vision,” saying recent actions had left many residents “confused, concerned, and deeply distrustful.”

Several speakers singled out the superintendent’s removal and its cost to taxpayers. Jen (Jennifer) Strozier, District 3, said the board’s removal of the previous superintendent was “a cost to taxpayers of $250,000” and argued the dismissal followed efforts by board members to obtain confidential student records. Zach Reese, a District 5 resident, described the severance as “nearly $200,000” and called the firing “a stain on our county’s reputation.”

Other commenters defended the equity policy and sought clarity about its repeal. Wendy Hobbs, District 2, said equity differs from nondiscrimination and warned that removing an equity framework risks leaving historically underserved students without needed, targeted supports. Dr. Mita Potts, a former teacher and researcher, reminded the board and audience about the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), saying, “that legitimate educational interest does not include a student’s private medical or gender information,” and urged the board to consult legal counsel before seeking records.

Voices across the ideological spectrum addressed the board. Ross Berry criticized clergy who had publicly supported equity in an earlier meeting and praised the board’s decision to remove the prior superintendent. Other residents, including David Hagen and Jane Polk, urged civility and support for teachers. Student and staff recognitions that followed the public comments were referenced by the superintendent as evidence of broad, ongoing work in the division.

Board members responded at several points. The chair read the district’s public‑comment policy and explained the three‑minute time limit. One board member publicly disputed claims that she had participated in an off‑site meeting she had not attended, saying, “I was not there. I never told her that I was there. I wasn't there. That is a flat out lie.” Superintendent Dr. Armstrong later summarized recent student and staff achievements and noted the board would follow up administratively where appropriate.

Why it matters: speakers framed the dispute as one about trust, student privacy and whether district policy should explicitly target disparities. Those issues inform budget priorities, personnel decisions and community relationships going into the summer months.

Ending: The board received the public comments without taking immediate policy action on equity or the other items raised; members said they would follow up through administrative channels when appropriate.