A relatively new and controversial principal whose contract is up for renewal at Cambridge’s Graham & Parks School is being investigated by the school district after complaints from the community and accounts of a “toxic work environment” at a previous workplace.
Fifty members of the Graham & Parks Caregiver Coalition turned to filing a public record requests that triggered the investigation into the school’s principal, Kathleen Smith. As the investigation reportedly began Monday, some are calling the district’s overall hiring practices into question and asking the School Committee to monitor the situation.
Smith was hired as the principal of the Graham & Parks elementary school in spring 2022, after longtime G&P teacher and administrator Claudie Jean-Baptiste stepped down as interim principal. The school at 44 Linnaean St., Neighborhood 9, opened in 1981 on Upton Street, formed out of the Cambridge Alternative Public School and more traditional Webster School. It now has approximately 370 students.
Coalition members, who said they did not want to reveal their names due for fear that Smith will retaliate against their children, said that caregivers gave Smith time to acclimate to Graham & Parks during her first year. Tensions surfaced in the fall of 2023 as many caregivers became increasingly concerned that her decisions did not serve the school’s mission and her leadership style was bad for educators, caregivers and students.
The coalition circulated a petition in late November signed by 116 caregivers asking Smith to “follow the democratic practices” at the “heart and soul” of G&P school culture, including transparent communication, community inclusion in decision-making and including caregiver and educator input in hiring decisions. It was sent to Smith and the School Committee on Dec. 4. Letters to Smith and to the committee about the lack of trust within the G&P community followed the next day and later grew to 130 signatures; Sujata Wycoff, the district’s director of communications, called the group “small yet vocal.”
Tensions increased that month when the coalition was told of issues during Smith’s prior employment at Newton Public Schools, leading the coalition to file a public records request about Smith’s time at its Underwood elementary school.
Among the papers the coalition received was a complaint filed in February 2019 by the president of the Newton Teachers Association on “behalf of many current and former teachers” at Underwood to then-district superintendent David Fleishman.
According to the complaint, the principal created an “intimidating and hostile work environment” at Underwood by engaging in a “pattern of severe, persistent and pervasive behavior” that interfered with and limited the ability of teachers and staff to do their jobs during the previous 15 months. Other documents described similar behavior as early as 2012.
The letter described harassment, intimidation and retaliation against “staff members who disagree with her,” including explicit or implicit threats, inappropriate language and “unequal and disparate treatment” that sowed division among staff members, leading to multiple staff resignations.
Based on these allegations, the Newton district conducted an internal investigation and in June 2019 determined that while there was no evidence of a “hostile working environment from a discriminatory perspective,” the principal had created a “toxic work environment.” It recommended new leadership for the school.
Smith was the principal of the Underwood school for eight years but left NPS within weeks of the report, accepting a principal position in the Lawrence Public Schools.
Trust decays, tensions rise
The coalition followed up with a second letter to the committee Jan. 2, referring to the Newton documents and requesting an investigation into the allegations against Smith. They asked that Smith be put on administrative leave until the investigation is complete as “many parents do not feel safe” because of Smith’s “track record of retaliation.”
The district was contacted Jan. 12 for information and comment from officials. Wycoff answered all questions with a flat statement: “The district does not comment on personnel matters.” A final call to welcome the administration’s point of view was placed Wednesday, when a message was left for Smith with an assistant.
On Wednesday, Wycoff sent an expanded statement:
The district has contracted with an impartial external review of all the concerns raised and allegations made by this small yet vocal group of parents. The district does not, has not and will not comment or respond to inquiries involving personnel matters. Following the completion of the confidential review, the matter will be addressed in a manner that aligns with the appropriate employment laws and district policies and procedures.
According to publicly available documents, Cambridge superintendent Victoria Greer replied to the coalition’s concerns Jan. 5 with assurances the district was conducting a “thorough review” of the situation, including engaging a law firm to review concerns “related to school climate and a toxic work environment” as well as “concerns raised regarding the hiring process for Dr. Smith.”
The coalitions’ concerns “will be a top priority in our upcoming discussions” and the district will “work diligently to ensure the safety and well-being” of the school community, and the district values the coalition’s “partnership in addressing this critical matter,” Greer wrote.
The coalition wrote to Greer on Jan. 12, grateful for the decision to investigate but expressing concerns that Smith remained as principal with authority for staff reviews. It cited the Newton schools’ finding that Smith had a “history of retaliation.” The coalition asked for assurances that staff would be protected, and for information on how the investigation is being conducted.
Other questions: the scope of the investigation, its timeline and whether the results will be considered during Smith’s contract review.
Greer replied Jan. 17, reiterating that the law firm was retained after consultation with the city solicitor and the investigation is underway. Greer wrote that while the district cannot comment on personnel matters, it was taking the coalition’s concerns seriously and “retaliation against individuals who participate or assist in any type of review or investigation” was prohibited.
Six days later the coalition, stating “lack of trust in the district’s ability to protect staff and teachers through the investigation” asked the School Committee to oversee the investigation, according to a post on a caregiver email group Jan. 23.
The Graham & Parks conflict follows controversy over the Cambridge Public Schools’ new chief strategy officer, a 25-year-old named Skyler Nash with little direct experience in a role earning more than $153,000 annually.
The gray zone
The Cambridge Education Association, the city’s teacher union, is a watchful bystander as the drama unfolds.
Association president Dan Monahan described the gray area when trust in a community is lost even though nothing illegal is alleged.
“Trust cannot be mediated, as it is not really a dispute,” Monahan said, adding that while the association is not obligated to act, a lack of trust is “deeply concerning.”
“I have heard from members who have experienced retaliation and retribution, and I have heard from members who have had positive experiences with the principal,” Monahan said. The lack of unanimity makes collective action hard.
“The district has launched an investigation at this point, so there is no need for a class-action complaint from the CEA,” Monahan said. He was taking a step back on the school’s situation, he said.
“I support the concept of an outside law firm, however, I am awaiting information from the superintendent about the scope and process before I can make any judgment about the efficacy of the investigation.”
Much of this article was written by a reporter who decided before publication that they didn’t want their name used.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
It’s hilarious to watch the district dismissing 130 parents who are willing to publicly attach their names to concerns about Kathleen Smith as a “small yet vocal” group. It’s a real display of the contempt and dismissiveness with which district leadership views families in this city. District leadership failed us all by either failing to uncover Dr. Smith’s record in Newton or by uncovering it and hiring her anyway. (I’m not sure which is worse, honestly.) Now it’s been dragged kicking and screaming into a response and still can’t resist being snide about the caregivers involved. Dr. Smith’s contract is up for renewal very soon, and district leadership is telegraphing that it will continue to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing the obvious thing and not renewing the contract of someone whose record should have prevented her from being hired in the first place and who has gone on to lose the trust of a significant fraction of the Graham & Parks community. Parents don’t lightly put their names to a petition criticizing a principal who has authority over their kids.
CEA President Monahan is quoted saying “I have heard from members who have experienced retaliation and retribution, and I have heard from members who have had positive experiences with the principal.” But is it acceptable to have a principal targeting any educators, let alone multiple educators, for retaliation and retribution? How can anyone say that stacks up evenly against educators who have had what should be the bare minimum of “positive experiences” with a principal? No one with any ability to respond to the situation should ever accept a principal abusing educators in that way.
Many thanks to Cambridge Day for this reporting.
No one should be surprised that the District is trying to cover up its own colossal error in hiring Principal Smith. Even now, the District leadership’s disregard for the community’s concerns is on full display, waving away the legitimate concerns raised by parents (and teachers) about Principal Smith as coming from a “small yet vocal group.” If the District had bothered to engage meaningfully with the G&P community about its long and growing list of concerns about Principal Smith, it would know that while the group is vocal, it is not small. In fact, as this article notes, 130 parents and caregivers (from a diverse range of cultural and ethnic backgrounds) signed a petition last year asking Principal Smith for a reasonable set of changes designed to restore democratic practices that she had stripped away (such as parent participation in hiring and discussions – simple discussions – regarding project-based learning and paraprofessionals). Instead of engaging with this large and, yes, vocal group of constituents, Principal Smith ignored the petition, as if wishing it will go away will make it so.
Sadly, the District is following the same playbook. Worse, they are doing so even after the G&P Community’s concerns were fully vindicated when they learned about Smith’s ouster from her previous school for creating a toxic work environment. It is deeply upsetting that instead of listening to the community’s concerns, the District responds by demonizing, downplaying, and dismissing the parents whose children they serve. Continuing to ignore the community – and insult them, as Wycoff did – will only make the community’s resistance stronger.
The only motivation parents in our community have is to make sure G&P is a safe, caring, and supporting environment for all children. That includes supporting our wonderful teachers, who have to work in an environment of distrust and contempt, which is the common thread between Underwood and G&P.
It is a shame that the District prefers to focus on pretending this problem doesn’t exist instead of repairing the tangible harm they have inflicted on our community.
The principal’s history was presented to CPSD on January 2nd (after a previous communication regarding caregiver concerns) and Dr. Greer stated on January 5th that a law firm was engaged. So why did it take a full month for the investigation to begin on February 5th? Did the district believe that no further harm would occur? Or did they use the past month as time to cover their own actions and attempt to rally supporters?
As a Graham & Parks parent, I am dismayed that there has been no communication from the district regarding this serious situation. Many of our recently elected School Committee members mentioned transparency during their campaigns. This School Committee was installed on 1/9/2024 and they are already failing us.
This article is a window onto a district that is headed in the wrong direction. Cambridge is lucky to be one of the richest public school districts in the nation–and it is a place with real diversity (economic, racial, linguistic). It has been and should be a model for inclusive, democratic, and child-centered education. We should have the best, mission-oriented leaders who are interested in empowering and collaborating with the best, mission-oriented educators. In fact, speaking as a Graham and Parks parent, we DO have some of the best, mission-oriented educators already in our school buildings. I wish I could say the same about our administrators.
Historically, Cambridge has done things which we know work to improve educational outcomes for every kid: we’ve empowered schools and school leaders to innovate pedagogically, we’ve encouraged different education models to flourish, we’ve prioritized community engagement and inclusion, we’ve invested in classrooms and the most precious human resources–our teachers.
But from where I sit, our district leadership seems to be moving away from these values. I see a district leadership that is more interested in standardization and administrative order than in democracy or flourishing. I see serial avoidance of serious community engagement and input instead of robust participatory engagement. I see people being hired through shoddy, opaque processes who will implement centralized policy rather than prioritizing the flourishing of school communities.
Principal Smith is an example of this pattern–the story of her hiring in spite of her record in Newton is extremely alarming, all the more so because she’s continued her toxic leadership at G&P. But I think her story is emblematic of a school district that’s lost its way. We have the resources to do the work of building a school district that builds equity and inclusion the hard way–through empowering school leaders and teachers to build thriving, trusting, and dynamic school communities that prioritize the flourishing of every human in the building. This is what we should expect from our district. Instead we get evasion, hostility to real community engagement, top-down directives, and the protection of people like Principal Smith who fit the central vision while doing real and lasting harm to their school communities.
This is a shame and we can and must do better.