Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and advocates criticize proposed assembly and class-rank policy changes at VBCPS public comment
Summary
Speakers at the public comment period urged the board to preserve student voice and oppose proposed revisions that would require preapproval for student assemblies, objected to eliminating class rank from transcripts, and criticized perceived inequities favoring certain gifted programs.
During public comment at the Virginia Beach City Public Schools meeting on Dec. 11, community members sharply criticized proposed policy changes related to student assemblies and class rank and raised concerns about equity for gifted programs.
Heather Seipp, president of the Virginia Beach Education Association, urged the board to prioritize staff and retention while the public commenters focused on student rights. One commenter warned that revisions to policy 5‑40 (student assemblies) and an anticipated policy 5‑39 would replace long‑standing language protecting spontaneous student gatherings with an application and approval process, effectively requiring adult permission for student expression.
"The revised version from Miss Weems eliminates that entirely. It requires preapproval for any student led assembly," a public commenter said during remarks, arguing the change would silence student activism.
Other speakers criticized the Office of the gifted school (referred to in testimony as ODS) for receiving disproportionate funding and course opportunities. Kim Mayo said neighborhood middle schools lack the world-language and high‑school credit options available to ODS students and asked why tax dollars appear to favor one program over others.
Another public commenter called on the board to formalize procedures for activity sponsors, alleging sponsors can influence elections and scholarship awards without transparent criteria and recommending verifiable ballots and formal application procedures for scholarships.
The board pulled policy 5‑29 (class rank) and policy 5‑40 (student‑led assemblies) back to the Policy Review Committee for further consideration during the agenda adoption process, a procedural step acknowledged by Chair Brown and Vice Chair Weems.
The public comment period ended after a series of speakers urged the board to preserve student voice and ensure fair, transparent procedures for extracurricular awards and gifted program access.
