by: Kellie Washington
Five days ago, I sent a letter to Superintendent Matt Haas and the Albemarle County School Board regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the pain it caused for many students and families in our community. To date, I have received no response — not a word from Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS) leadership.
That silence is not just disappointing. It is revealing.
It confirms what many parents like myself have felt for years: that Albemarle County Public Schools do not care about all of their students, only about the ones who fit a certain narrative. Half of the families in this district — thousands of us — are ignored, dismissed, or treated as if our concerns don’t matter. We are invisible unless our views align with what leadership wants to promote.
I have serious concerns about sending my children to a school system where I do not feel safe, where people like myself are openly despised, and where leaders seem indifferent to the idea of people like me being killed. That is a terrifying reality to acknowledge, but it is the truth.
The indifference we have endured over the past several years is unreal. Parents have spoken up time and again, yet the school board and superintendent never seem to listen. They do not appear to care about our children. They care about advancing their own careers and their own agendas, not about creating schools where every student is truly valued.
I would have published their response here if they had given one. But they did not. Their silence is the response.
So I am calling on all parents to take a hard look at this district and ask themselves: is this where you want to send your children? Is this the environment you want them shaped by — one of hostility, indifference, and exclusion?
Because until ACPS leadership proves otherwise, they are showing us exactly who they are.
The Hass administration’s failure to respond to so serious a letter concerning the assassination of Charlie Kirk is an administrative oversight, no-It is a silence with meaning. Let’s analyze this absence of reply on three levels, proceeding logically but also acknowledging the weight of moral responsibility. (1) In the scriptures, it is written: “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). Likewise, Deuteronomy 6 commands that adults diligently teach God’s truths to their children, when they sit at home and when they walk by the way. The role of the adult is not optional—it is a divine discharge of duty. If the institutions entrusted with the education of children neglect entire families, and therefore the belief system of thise families—if they communicate by silence that certain students and their parents are unwelcome—then they abdicate this God-given duty. The result is not neutrality, but hostility. For to remain silent when the vulnerable suffer is to condone the suffering. From a biblical perspective, this constitutes moral failure. (2)
The American founders were unambiguous about the role of education. John Adams wrote that “liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.” Thomas Jefferson argued for universal education so that citizens could guard against tyranny. The objective was not indoctrination, but preparation for self-government. When the current leadership ignores dissenting parents, it undermines this foundational vision. Schools were meant to be laboratories of liberty, not engines of conformity. To alienate a large portion of those families within the school system is to betray the very principles upon which our Constitutional Republic was established. In the founders’ view, such behavior is incompatible with a free society. (3) Let’s now analyze the matter from the most pragmatic perspective: the taxpayer. Parents and county citizens are not merely customers of the school system; they are its employers. Their taxes pay salaries, construct facilities, and fund programs. In a just arrangement, the employees must remain accountable to those who provide the resources.
When employees—namely, school officials—cease to listen to their employers, the balance of power is inverted. Silence becomes not just neutrality, but rather flat out insubordination. This produces systemic risk. For if public institutions can disregard the voice of the people, then they cease to be public in any meaningful sense. They become autonomous bureaucracies, accountable only to themselves—a condition history shows is unsustainable and dangerous.
The conclusion is simple: adults are divinely and civically charged with the duty to protect and instruct children. ACPS leadership has ignored pleas from parents regarding a matter of both violence and grief. This silence signals dereliction of duty—morally, constitutionally, and fiduciary. Therefore, parents are justified in considering the challenge put forth by Kellie Washington that seeks to question whether this institution is capable of fulfilling its most essential function. Until ACPS leadership demonstrates active care for all students and families, discernment dictates that their silence be interpreted not as neutrality, but as tacit exclusion. It is therefore most illogical to continue to entrust one’s children to a system that communicates hostility or indifference toward their very existence and those personal values they hold. Parents are at the point that they are now compelled to soberly and somberly evaluate whether continuing in such an environment is consistent with their duty—before God, before the Republic, and before the taxpayers’ trust—to protect and nurture their children. The school board’s silence speaks. It says, “We do not acknowledge you.” The rational response is to hear what they have said, and act accordingly.
Check out Community Christian Academy at http://www.cca-va.org where parents having school choice is a core value.
Please attend Board of Supervisors’ Meetings and Plan Your 3 Minutes Wisely. Bring multiple speakers with you!