Manassas board holds implicit-bias training, agrees to deeper follow-up

The Manassas City School Board on March 11 held an implicit-bias training led by an external presenter identified in the transcript as Dr. Eric (later referred to as Dr. Brent), who guided board members through exercises designed to surface unconscious assumptions and how they affect school decisions.

The trainer opened with ground rules for a ‘‘safe, brave space’’ and asked participants to consider how life experiences shape choices. He led a visible ‘‘walk’’ or iceberg exercise asking participants to step forward or back for items such as parental education, access to transportation, experiences with police, or hunger. The point, he said, was to make ‘‘the invisible visible’’ when it comes to students’ needs.

Board members linked the exercise to classroom practice and resource allocation, arguing that ‘‘every single child’’ sometimes requires different levels of support. A board participant said the activity underscored the district’s responsibility to identify and provide for students who need more resources so they can ‘‘maximize their potential.’’

The trainer warned that implicit bias often surfaces when people are exhausted, distracted or under time pressure and urged the board to slow decision-making and ‘‘focus on facts, evidence’’ when evaluating staff and policy. He described many types of bias and gave a rapid-response color-word exercise to demonstrate how automatic associations influence judgment.

Members discussed concrete implications for hiring and interview panels. One board member recounted people being passed over for positions and said panels should be trained and continually retrained so that schools hire ‘‘highly qualified’’ candidates rather than seeking an ill-defined cultural fit. The trainer and several members recommended structured interview processes and broader panel composition as ways to reduce systemic barriers.

The board asked the trainer for a longer ‘‘deeper dive’’ session and discussed scheduling for additional work sessions or a retreat. The trainer said he was available for follow-up training but indicated specific date constraints; participants agreed to share possible dates and a menu of topics for a future session.

The training closed with board members emphasizing relationship-building, clearer processes and ongoing professional development as steps to reduce bias in district decisions. The board did not take formal policy action at the meeting; members instead authorized follow-up planning with the presenter and staff.

Next steps: staff and members will coordinate schedules and topic menus for a proposed board-development session or retreat and the trainer will supply availability and suggested formats.