Virginia’s largest public school district is facing renewed questions about its spending priorities after Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) spent an estimated $25,849 to send senior administrators to a DEI leadership conference while the district faces a $29 million budget shortfall and schools absorb reductions.
Through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, IW Features learned that the district sponsored 15 administrators to attend the Leaders Developing Leaders Summit, organized by the Men of Color in Educational Leadership (MCEL) network. The conference was held June 29 through July 1 at the Baltimore Marriott Waterfront in Baltimore, Maryland.
The attendees included four assistant superintendents, 10 executive principals, and a staff attorney:
- Megan Vroman, Assistant Superintendent
- Ray Lonnett, Assistant Superintendent
- Rebecca Baenig, Assistant Superintendent
- Rhonda Honoré, Assistant Superintendent
- Jamie Lane, Executive Principal
- Margaret Barnes, Executive Principal
- Brendan Menuey, Executive Principal
- Jesse Kraft, Executive Principal
- Adam Erbrecht, Executive Principal
- Gordon Stokes, Executive Principal
- April Cage, Executive Principal
- Jovon Rogers, Executive Principal
- Lyndsay Trout, Executive Principal
- Kim Greer, Executive Principal
- Kendall Bynum, Staff Attorney
According to emails obtained through FOIA, FCPS paid the $499 early bird registration fee for 16 attendees, 15 of whom ultimately attended.
Based on records obtained through FOIA, publicly posted hotel rates, and FCPS’s applicable meal allowance, IW Features estimates the district-sponsored trip costs approximately $25,849.
Estimated Cost of Conference for FCPS
| Expense | Per Person | 15 Attendees |
| Hotel: 3 nights × $250 | $750 | $11,250 |
| Hotel taxes: 11.5% | $86 | $1,290 |
| Conference registration x 16 | $499 | $7,984 |
| Transit expenses x 15 | $100 | $1,500 |
| Meals: $85 × 3 days | $255 | $3,825 |
| Total | $1,690 | $25,849 |
IW Features is still waiting for all of the receipts detailing conference expenses and will update estimates accordingly.
The conference was organized by MCEL, whose public materials focus on recruiting, supporting, and advancing men of color in educational leadership.
According to its website, the hosting organization consists of “male leaders of color serving across a wide range of organizations, from school to system leaders, traditional, nontraditional, post-secondary and private instruction.”
MCEL’s vision is to create “a transformed educational ecosystem” in which “leaders of color and their allies have the infrastructure, resources and support to create transformative learning spaces.” Its X account further states that the organization seeks “to challenge and disrupt the prevailing wisdom around opportunity for all students.”
The organization also says its goal is to increase the number of men of color in leadership positions and provide them with professional development and support.
Private organizations are free to pursue their missions and host professional development conferences. The question for Fairfax County taxpayers is different: What measurable benefit did FCPS receive from spending public money to send senior administrators to this event, and was that expenditure justified given the district’s financial circumstances?
IW Features requested comment from the FCPS Media Relations Office, asking: “What were the attendees’ roles, and what specific benefits or outcomes does FCPS expect from their participation given the district’s current budget constraints?”
As of publication, the district has not responded.
The estimated $25,849 expenditure on the conference is equivalent to about 41% of the annual starting salary of an FCPS teacher with a bachelor’s degree, which is approximately $63,599 under the FY2027 salary scale.
The comparison does not mean the conference funds could simply have been converted into a teaching position. Personnel costs and professional development expenditures are not interchangeable in that manner.
It does, however, illustrate the scale of the expenditure at a time when FCPS is asking schools and employees to absorb reductions, and when FCPS continues to confront academic challenges.
The district’s 2025–2026 Standards of Learning (SOL) results, for example, show substantial numbers of students failing to meet applicable standards across multiple subjects, particularly the most vulnerable students.
Failure Rate of FCPS SOLs 2025-2026
| Subject | All Students | Economically Disadvantaged |
| English Reading | 21% | 39% |
| Math | 22% | 38% |
| Science | 25% | 42% |
In other words, roughly four out of 10 economically disadvantaged students are not meeting the applicable reading, math, or science standards. And yet FCPS thought it was appropriate to pay for several senior administrators to attend an MCEL session titled, “Who Has the Principal’s Back?” The conference is not the only example of FCPS directing discretionary resources toward senior administrators. For example, the district is also subsidizing doctoral degrees for approximately 20 senior administrators and executive principals.
Advanced education and professional development can have legitimate value for school and district leaders. But those expenditures raise the same broader question: How does FCPS determine which administrative investments should be funded when schools are being asked to operate with fewer resources?
Over the past two years, district leaders eliminated 275 teaching positions, increased student-to-teacher staffing ratios, and reduced school reserve funds.
These spending priorities are arguably having a direct impact on FCPS students’ learning. For example, despite the fact that many parents believe the district’s heavy reliance on classroom technology has contributed to declining academic performance, the school board delayed purchasing physical elementary school textbooks this year.
Instead, on June 26, the Fairfax County School Board voted to extend a contract for digital social studies materials serving approximately 15,000 fourth-grade students. Board members cited the budget shortfall—even though the proposed Fiscal Year 2027 budget is $197 million larger than the previous year’s—as the reason physical textbooks would not be purchased for the upcoming school year.
Public school budgets are ultimately statements of priorities. FCPS leaders have repeatedly asked parents, teachers, and schools to accept difficult reductions because resources are limited. Those reductions include fewer teaching positions, higher student-to-teacher staffing ratios, reduced school reserves, and delayed instructional materials.
Against that backdrop, spending nearly $26,000 to send 15 senior administrators to an out-of-state leadership conference deserves a straightforward explanation.
FCPS should be able to demonstrate what it expected to gain from the expenditure, what measurable outcomes resulted, and how the decision was weighed against competing needs in classrooms.
For taxpayers, the question is simple: When resources are limited, are FCPS’s spending decisions putting students first?
