After heated public comment, Norfolk school board votes not to sign DOE DEI certification then directs superintendent to sign revised wording

During the board’s business meeting, the Norfolk School Board voted in two separate, consequential motions related to federal Department of Education (USDOE) paperwork and recent federal guidance on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).

First, following extended public comment and member debate, the board voted to reject signing the USDOE certification as provided by the department (a motion to “not sign” the DOE form). The board later approved a second, separate motion directing the superintendent to sign a revised version of the two-sentence certification paragraph that the board’s lawyer proposed; the revised wording conditions the board’s certification on compliance “to the extent [it] comply[es] with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States.”

Why it matters: The USDOE form and related guidance are tied to continued receipt of certain federal funds. Board members cited a tension between upholding civil‑rights protections and avoiding federal language they and members of the public described as overbroad. Board members and many public speakers framed the decisions as matters of local control, civil‑rights commitments, and the practical effect on federal funding.

Public comment and board debate: Eleven public speakers addressed the board during the citizen comment period. Teachers, union leaders, parents and principals spoke almost entirely in favor of preserving DEI work and protecting federal funding; several urged the board not to sign a certificate they characterized as a roll‑back of inclusion. Representative public remarks included: - Marianna White, teacher and Education Association of Norfolk (EAN) member: “I plead with you to stand up for DEI and for all of our children.” - Nicholas Green, teacher, parent and EAN organizer: “Will we not be able to recognize Black History Month, Women’s History Month, Native American History Month? Will we be able to teach the truth about slavery, Jim Crow and the civil rights movement?” - James Parker, EAN president: “Allowing national leaders to hold our schools hostage is a travesty.” - Candace Driver, principal: described how Equity and Excellence Learning Center (EELC) funding expanded enrichment and invited board members to a May 15 program at Plummer Bernard Young. Several other speakers — residents and school staff — urged the board to resist the federal push and to protect local programs and the diversity of Norfolk schools.

Board actions and votes: Two formal board actions on DEI-related paperwork were recorded.

Votes at a glance: 1) Motion: Reject the USDOE certification (direction that the superintendent not sign the certification as provided) - Mover: Board Member Inge - Second: Board Member Thomas - Outcome: Approved (motion carried after roll-call voting and discussion) - Recorded yes votes (as stated on the record): Bassin (yes), Buffalo (yes), Inge (yes after clarifying a verbal correction), Thomas (yes), Calo/Chair Takalajero (yes). Recorded no votes: Paulson (no). Several board members’ roll-call remarks were confused on the record; the clerk recorded the motion as approved.

2) Motion: Direct the superintendent to sign a revised version of the DOE certification (adds limiting language referencing Title VI and constitutional and state-court interpretation) - Mover: Board member (identified on the record as moving to direct the superintendent to sign a revised certification) - Second: Board Member Paulson - Outcome: Approved (motion carried on roll call) - Recorded roll‑call excerpts on the record: Bassin (aye), Buffalo (aye), Inge (no), Thomas (no), Chair Takalajero (yes). The motion was recorded as approved; the revised certification was to be placed into a Word document identical in format to the DOE form and returned to the Virginia Department of Education for filing.

Clarifying context from the meeting: Board members discussed the financial implications and legal risk. One member raised that refusing the DOE wording could jeopardize approximately $60,600,000 in federal funds (a figure cited during debate); another member said the board’s duty is to “do no harm” and weigh risks to students. The legal language added in the board‑approved revision narrows the certification by explicitly anchoring the board’s promise of compliance to Title VI and to court interpretations.

Administration next steps: Board members directed the superintendent to execute the approved revised certification on or before the federal filing deadline (the administration indicated a deadline for submission to the Virginia Department of Education was imminent). The final signed document was to be posted to the board’s public agenda system after execution and submitted to the state for filing with the USDOE.

Ending: The votes closed a contentious public debate balancing local policy preferences, legal compliance, and potential budget risk. Board members and staff agreed the revised certification would be posted publicly after execution to give the community the final text and the administration’s filing timeline.