Letter illustrates a sense of fear and conflict permeating Graham & Parks over principal
Graham & Parks students enter the school in Cambridge’s Neighborhood 9 on Feb. 7. (Photo: Marc Levy)
At a school divided over leadership and direction, one of the most public affirmations of support for Graham & Parks principal Kathleen Smith is being called misleading, and it has emerged as an exemplar of the fear and conflict that have set in around the school.
Smith has been accused by some school parents of creating a toxic environment and reversing the school’s 50-year tradition of project-based curriculum since arrival at Graham & Parks in 2022. Smith left the Newton Public School district in 2019 after an internal investigation there found that she had created a “toxic work environment.”
In the run-up to Smith’s contract ending July 30 and a potential contract renewal by March 31, some parents urged an investigation of her practices, and the district said Feb. 7 that an “an impartial external review” of allegations against Smith is underway. Though a deadline implied by the automatic contract renewal is coming fast, district director of communications Sujata Wycoff on Thursday and Monday declined to offer an update. “The district has no further comment regarding the review” or on contractual matters related to personnel, she said.
Parents who do not trust district leadership have asked the School Committee to step in, and a group called the G&P Caregiver Coalition wrote to the committee March 4 to give further warning of “poor leadership” by Smith. They cited a $315,000 settlement in 2016 to a Newton teacher who complained of retaliation for a disability. Those documents have been reviewed by Cambridge Day.
“Smith’s abusive leadership practices risk not only driving away our beloved G&P teachers, but also exposing the district to expensive litigation,” the coalition wrote.
A petition expressing concern about Smith was signed by 130 parents, estimated to be about a third of the total at a school of 370 kids in grades K-5. Wycoff has called the group “small yet vocal,” while a public letter sent to Cambridge Day and posted Jan. 31 said “there is a large majority of teachers and parents who are supportive of the principal.”
The letter sent by school council co-chair Christian Henry suggested the school’s leadership was aligned with Smith, but the extent was put in doubt quickly, along with the letter’s legitimacy.
Who are the signers?
The Henry letter supported Smith as “our esteemed principal” and criticized “attempts to discredit Smith’s efforts” as scaring students. The original email from Henry to which the letter was attached identified it as being from “from the Graham & Parks School Council,” though the file was named “G&P Parent Representative Letter.” Cambridge Day confirmed that the Graham & Parks School Council webpage was live and its members were identifiable, and Henry was contacted by phone for further confirmation that the letter was legitimate. The letter was posted, signed by the “Graham & Parks School Council” as suggested.
Complaints and questions arrived quickly. On Feb.1, some school council members and other parents made clear that the generic signature was misleading – and that the council webpage readers would consult for more information was out of date. The letter was updated online by Cambridge Day with a change in signature, now showing it was from the school council parent representatives only.
Yet there were still problems: Not all parents identified as being council representatives supported the letter, and the outdated council webpage named people who were not involved.
Henry was contacted Feb. 6 by Cambridge Day with the concerns and a suggestion, considering the out-of-date webpage, to “just have the letter signed by people at G&P and say who they are (i.e., parent council member) rather than a label.” Henry was asked to help identify the signers.
While apologizing for the misunderstanding, Henry said by email the same day that “in the last few days, some school council parent representatives have received emails from people who they do not know that they perceive as threatening or bullying. The district is aware of those interactions and has replied to the senders – people in the school community – to stop with the tone.” He asked that the names of the parent representatives not be published “in your reporting for their own sense of well-being.”
The response from Cambridge Day was almost immediate that that would be fine so long as the school council website was updated.
Five days later, there had been no change to the website or word from Henry. On Feb. 11, the letter was updated by the Cambridge Day to clarify that “it is no longer clear that the letter came from anyone except Henry.”
“Volunteers” in an elected position
A school council includes representatives from among parents-guardians-caregivers; principal and staff; students; and the community. The size of a council can vary, but it must have “parity” – an equal numbers of parents-guardians-caregivers and principal and staff.
According to state law, the councils are municipal agencies, which means the educators and caregivers elected by their peers are considered public officials.
All current parent representatives on the council began their terms last fall, but not in an election. An Oct. 3 newsletter from the school’s family liaison, Lauren Morse, linked to “the five parents and caregivers who have volunteered” for their 2023-2024 position on the council. A link from the emailed newsletter brought readers to a Google document that said “this year, we have five candidates for five available spots, so everyone here will get in.”
Nominations for spots on the council are now beginning in April, with elections in May, as per handbook guidelines.
The person who submitted the letter, Henry, seems barred from being a member – but not according to the district administration.
According to the Cambridge Public School District’s school council handbook, parents representatives can serve consecutive two-year terms only twice. Council minutes show Henry has been on the council for five and a half years, exceeding term limits by a year and a half.
The explanation by Wycoff is that the latest School Council Handbook is the first to set term limits and “represents a reset for the election process.”
The handbook was adopted June 20, and Henry was accepted as a council “volunteer” more than three months later. By Wycoff’s explanation, instead of being a year and a half over his term limits, Henry could continue serving for at least another two years starting in the spring.
The previous council handbook from spring of 2022 had the same term limits, though. That version was introduced June 21, 2022, by superintendent Victoria Greer as “the first CPS School Council Handbook,” created by the Family Engagement Office in collaboration with a working group of caregivers and staff, and due for updates every couple of years with feedback from the community. The language identical from one version to the next.
A series of website changes
School councils are to be “representative advisory groups that collaborate in advising the principal in planning for and implementing a school’s improvement.” The school district’s council handbook holds that a main goal of the council is “transparency in engagement with the community.”
Parent critics say the school falls short on that standard, and it isn’t just Henry seeking anonymity for council members.
After going without updates potentially back to Dec. 5, 2022 – which meant the wrong members were identified when community members looked in February – the G&P school council website got an incomplete update: Looking on Feb. 15, one name was cut from the ranks of parent-caregiver members. The page was obviously wrong, as Raquel Furtado was still identified on the page as assistant principal despite being replaced by John Okie. He is an interim principal, but that interim status wasn’t identified in communications or on the school website until Monday, after the district was asked about the oversight by Cambridge Day.
On a version of the page found over the weekend, there is finally a full roster of names, including parent members, but Okie is left off and no assistant principal is identified as had been the norm.
For an extended time between those changes, the page had been left entirely blank except for a note that there was a “G&P school council email (coming soon).” That was a violation of laws outlined in the district handbook that “representatives’ contact information (school-sponsored email address at minimum) must be available on the school’s website, in printed materials about the School Council and on meeting reminders, as well as any other place where school council information is shared.”
Raymond Porch, the district’s director of family and community engagement, said in a Feb. 15 letter shared with Cambridge Day that the district was breaking with its own handbook approved less than nine months earlier by removing parent members email addresses: “Caregivers have expressed concerns about messaging they feel uncomfortable receiving in their personal emails. Given the challenges in email communications communicated to my office, we will NOT force folks to list their personal email addresses at this time,” Porch said. “Nor do we support making those members step down for not doing so.”
The website now gives school-sponsored email addresses for the parent members.
Climate of fear
Just as school council members were unidentified for a time out of fear, parents and caregivers who formed the G&P Caregiver Coalition are staying anonymous. Members of the group say they worry about personal retaliation from the school for speaking out publicly.
Over the past week, some parents pointed to a 5:30 p.m. Thursday council meeting as an example of why: The district has identified it as being held in part to go into a closed-door session to discuss “litigation strategy” about an Open Meeting Law complaint filed by a parent, Anna Shin.
Shin said she filed the complaint to get the council to post missing meeting minutes, providing access as required by state law.
Nine of 12 missing meeting minutes have been posted since she filed her complaints March 1 with the state, Shin said Friday, although the school and district have been doing it without notice to her and she knows only because “I’ve been hovering over the portal.”
The reasons for the closed-door session are unclear if the district is following the law. Members of the coalition (which does not include Shin) see the use of Shin’s name as an implied threat of a lawsuit against her.
“I’m not concerned about it,” Shin said, but she agreed it could be perceived as a “scare tactic.”
On Monday, Wycoff said that the district “is not seeking legal action against the parent” and that Shin was identified by name only as a formality in explaining the purpose of the closed-door session vote. That was interpreted as an effort to comply with the Open Meeting Law, which calls for a meeting to give “as much detail about the purpose of the executive session as possible without compromising the purpose for which it is called,” Wycoff said. “In this instance, the parent, as complainant, was identified.”
This post was updated March 13, 2024, to correct that Open Meeting Law requires access to meeting minutes, not that they be posted, though district bodies do post meeting minutes. It was updated March 15, 2024, to link to the spring 2022 version of the district’s school council handbook.
If my kid’s school wasn’t in crisis, it would be almost funny to watch district leadership jettisoning their own guidelines the instant those guidelines become inconvenient to a toxic principal and the parent who wants to brag to the world that he “esteems” her. As it is, it’s not so funny — and it’s a sideshow to the real issue, which is that teachers in the school are facing abuse and retaliation from a principal who was hired despite a documented record of toxicity.
I’m the parent who filed the OML complaint as well as the complaint with DESE.
Although it is not illegal to name the complainant, it is apparent to me that including my name in the agenda that’s sent to the school community as well as in the official Notice, and on our council meeting page in the portal, while using the wrong purpose of discussing “litigation strategy” to justify a closed-door session, would be a way to intimidate me from attending the council meeting and deter me from taking the next step of the complaint process.
The school council is required to meet and review my complaint and respond in writing within 14 business days from the date of filing. That means they must respond to me addressing the OML violations and file it with the Attorney General (AG).
As the complainant, if I am not satisfied with their response, I have the option to file, with supporting documentation, my complaint with the AG Division of Open Government, and they will review it and determine if any investigation is warranted and may impose penalties if they find the violations were intentional, which I alleged.
You can find all this information and more in the OML website:
https://www.mass.gov/the-open-meeting-law
Although naming me is not illegal, it is also not required. They too had the option.
It failed to intimidate me, but what other message does it send to the rest of the school community? To the critics of Principal Smith? You tell me.
Due to the persistent efforts of a resolute parent, the school budget is now on the agenda, something Prin. Smith has withheld from the school community. We have a right to see that budget and participate in the decision-making process. She doesn’t want that.
Last year, she cut the salaries in the budget to fire many of our assistant teachers/paraprofessionals and allocated those funds to I don’t know what. The teachers/paras didn’t get advance notice nor did the parents. If she had done what was required by law, she most certainly would have gotten pushback from teachers and parents. She didn’t want that, so she went around us.
So this budget item on the agenda is our opportunity to give voice to what matters to us, teachers and parents. With this DESE complaint looming and a parent’s threat to obtain the budget via Public Records request, Prin. Smith had no options except to comply.
This is our chance to push for what’s right for our school, for our teachers, for our kids. We should not pass on this opportunity, which is our right, to give voice to our values.
“What is the council’s role in the school budget?
The law specifies that the school council “shall assist [the principal] …. in the review of the annual school budget.” This language refers to the school building budget, not to the district budget. “Review” means that the council and the principal read through documents that describe the budget in order to understand the implications for items in the school improvement plan that will be developed by the council. In many communities, the school budget is prepared by mid-year in order to allow for negotiation with other municipal agencies, i.e., finance committee, city council, town meeting. A council’s review of the budget, therefore, enables it to predict better which improvement projects that require funding could be implemented in the next school year under a budget that was constructed in the previous fall. Also, in school districts that encourage building-based budget planning, a school’s improvement plan objectives developed in any given year can guide the development of the school’s budget in the next year. In these cases, the council’s review of the budget helps in the implementation of the previous year’s school improvement plan.”
https://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/advisory/schoolcouncils/part2d.html
While I love an anonymous group of aggrieved parents of indeterminate number acting as judge, jury, and executioner, the district allowing the investigation to play out (and not commenting on an ongoing investigation) is very much the right thing to do.
I will also note a careful reading of this article to remove the bent of anonymous sources would reflect:
1) there is no evidence of anything untoward going on with Henry serving on the council, as the term limits were only established last year (and explicitly started the clock for everyone this year)
2) the school/school council has acted swiftly to update the webpage and add meeting minutes in response to the recent Open Meetings complaint
3) allegations of a lack of transparency ring flat when these meetings are public with hybrid options for participation (it should also be noted in response to criticism, Principal Smith asked the district to allow open comments at the meetings rather than require them to relate to the agenda)
I hope to one day read the perspective from some parents who believe in due process and maybe even those parents who have just a little grace for how challenging public education/administration is in the wake of the pandemic.
There is no district requirement that public comment be limited to agenda items. If someone chose to limit it that way, it was definitely a choice.
“Non-Representative attendees should have a clear understanding that they have the right to ask questions and make comments during the meetings. Each meeting must include time for public comment.” [p7]
Non-reps can ask reps to put something on the agenda ahead of time, but nowhere does it say *only* the agenda must be discussed. My kid’s council [not G&P] welcomes questions/comments on each agenda item, and keeps an ‘other business’ item at the end where any topic can be brought up… and they did not have to seek approval from the district.
Is that you, Mr. Henry? The commenter who faults a group of ~45 caregivers for wanting to stay anonymous due to real fear of retaliation by Principal Smith (against us and/or our children) but then who hides in anonymity too?
I’m not going to respond to everything you’ve said, whoever you are, because so much of it is irrelevant (all schools have to make meetings hybrid, it’s district policy). But I will respond to items 1 and 2.
1. Mr. Henry blatantly MISREPRESENTED the signatories of his letter to Cambridge Day. He’s a dishonest man. He’s extremely privileged and sends his older child to a private middle school that touts its low student-to-teacher ratio, while standing by a Principal who has reduced classroom staff (both on her own volition and in following Dr. Greer’s preference for prioritizing administrative positions over classroom educators). Do public school kids not deserve the same high quality education that families who can afford private school tuition expect for their kids?
Of course families like mine deserve the best possible education for our kids even if we can’t afford to pay hefty private school tuitions. And that’s what I am fighting for, as part of the Coalition.
Mr. Henry has made several parents feel belittled and dismissed, and has accused them of being anti-equity, when he apparently has just woken up to the decades long reality of deep and structural inequities in our school system. So he has been dishonest and insulting and actively shut down meaningful conversation about what it actually means to try to close performance gaps. And guess what? Reducing teacher-to-student ratios is a key factor here. And our school is going in the opposite direction, with Mr. Henry’s support.
I won’t stand for being lectured by a wealthy man about what it means to fight for positive change in our broken education system.
Nor will I vote for a man who defends a principal who refused for weeks, after multiple caregiver attempts before any complaints were filed, to update School Council meeting minutes, to update the outdated School Council website (the District participated here and also tried to skirt district and state policy, hence the formal complaints) or to even share our school budget. And these are her more minor infractions.
The biggest scandal of all is that some of our teachers are being abused by Principal Smith. Does Mr. Henry care? Doesn’t seem like he does, given all of the evidence that’s been put in front of him.
Protect teachers. Give them the resources they need. Our kids’ education depends on these simple but apparently radical fundamentals in Cambridge, MA.
I will assume that was said in sarcasm, but to be clear I am not Christian Henry. I have never had a meaningful conversation with Henry. I don’t see where his kid attends middle school as particularly relevant to the current discussion about G&P.
And yes, for the time being I would prefer to remain an anonymous commenter. I don’t see any benefit to identifying myself if this forum. If anyone would like to meet and have a civil discussion, I would be more than happy to.
I have seen no evidence that Principal Smith laid off assistants/paras in order to hire more administrators (or reallocate that money in any way). Frankly, I’ve seen no evidence that individual principals have this power at all.
Allocations from CPSD are based on head count and need. The drastic drop in para/assistant support was (as has been communicated several times) due to two side effects of the pandemic: the end of the close partnership with Lesley (something that is trying to be restored) and the loss of Covid relief money that allowed for extra hiring once schools reopened. That money has not been reallocated, it’s been spent. Both the specific school budget does not show increased school admin positions, nor do the last two district budgets.
And let me be clear. If the current investigations show that the allegations of abuse or creating a toxic work environment have merit, the district should take action. But the coalition does not appear to care about due process and seems to prefer the court of public opinion.
I applaud people standing up for their kids and the teachers at G&P. But the current inflammatory rhetoric isn’t helping the school. It does not appear to be broadening the support for the original goals (some of which I agreed with, though felt like district/DESE policies should be taken up with CPSD and the school committee rather than Smith). Instead, it’s making caregivers and parents who support/oppose Smith dig in their heels.
What inflammatory rhetoric are you referring to? It’s apparent to me and many others that Christian Henry’s letter caused a lot of division and anger and mis/disinformation to spread in our community and yet he continues to go around spreading his message that Principal Smith’s critics are “anti-equity” and just a bunch of privileged loud disrupters who are resistant to change.
So whose inflammatory rhetoric are you referring to?
Given the way Mr. Henry has continued to spread this harmful and false narrative, I do think his privilege is relevant.
That said, I’m pretty tired of the way the district has created this culture of shaming and silencing critics based on their perceived privilege (sometimes real, sometimes not), so Mr. Henry is really just using that playbook (as is Principal Smith) to silence those of us who are actually deeply committed to improving our school and district (and some of us are far less privileged that Mr. Henry himself).
You’re right that the district is in part to blame for the reduction of classroom staff/paraprofessional positions. However, Principal Smith also reassigned paras breaking up longstanding teaching teams, while also refusing to use SIP funds as has been done in the. past to keep more paras in our building.
Team teaching is an art. It is both hard and wonderful. Breaking up longstanding teaching teams, and leaving a teacher without any classroom assistance who always had it in the past, is a major shift in a very busy and difficult year when our elementary school teachers are implementing both a new math and ELA curriculum.
It’s beyond unreasonable, what both Principal Smith and the district is putting on our teachers right now. And these decisions directly undermine the needs of our students.
Finally, the explanations for why the paras were reassigned and not funded as in the past have shifted many times. We’ve heard Principal Smith claim that she won’t use SIP funds this way, that she’s not allowed to (false), that she believes paras create “dependent learners” (also false) and that there wasn’t enough interest to revive the Lesley intern program (also false).
Oh, and caregivers have been taking the district/DESE policy violations up with the District. The district has shown that they don’t care, because this district doesn’t actually value community input nor transparency. Filing complaints has literally been the only way to try to restore some basic democratic practices to our School Council, and we still have a long way to go.
The negligent hiring of Principal Smith is a reflection of our broken education system and very dysfunctional district. She cannot and will not bring our school together, her aim is to divide and conquer, just as she did in Newton. She is unfit to lead. And Dr. Greer has proven that she cannot be trusted to lead our school or district out of the present crisis.
I agree labeling caregivers anti-equity lacks nuance and is unhelpful. But splitting up long-standing teaching pairs makes sense if there are not enough assistants to cover the classes with the highest need. And it certainly is within the remit of the principal’s authority and is not in and of itself evidence of retaliation or a toxic work environment. The school has finite resources to serve all of its students. And this is likely to get even more challenging if the city budget tightens as forecasted in the coming years. All principals are going to have to make tough decisions.
As for inflammatory language, just in this comment thread “abuse” of teachers (no specifics). Apocalyptic pronouncements litter the caregiver letter. Meanwhile without due process, they called for Smith’s job. And the fiction that there’s an unnamed, “qualified” interim candidate (not currently employed), seems particularly panglossian. Why would that candidate not have applied for the original opening? If they had ties to the school a “boilerplate” job description wouldn’t matter.
The caregivers blamed Smith for not violating district/DESE policy (re minimum math and literacy time, which negatively impacted times for recess and lunch). Originally they accused her of silencing teachers, then avoiding accountability when she gave floor to teachers at a principal’s coffee (eventually settling on that these teachers were either puppets or part of the “in-group”). Charitably, these are big asks if a new principal and often move the goalposts or directly contradict previous complaints.
And just to reiterate: there’s an external investigation. If Smith is “dividing and conquering”, it’s more appropriate to have a third party investigate than the district (which has vested interests).
SIP funds totaled $90k for G&P this year. Even one additional para would have come at significant cost to professional development (I don’t know the cost of benefits and experience and education would impact salary). Maybe that would be worthwhile, but with current large curriculum changes and district-wide goals (again, reasonable minds can differ around whether an additional para/teaching assistant or SEL PD is more valuable, but the district goals clearly emphasize the latter), it’s not unreasonable to prioritize items that were included.
All this is to say, the district clearly has significant issues around HR and community engagement (see more recent CD story). Smith herself acknowledges they need to increase parent/caregiver engagement and has taken real steps trying to improve that (more open comments at meetings for one).
Filing complaints when she or the district fall short is makes sense. But very publicly calling for her immediate removal is not a small step. It would be disruptive to the operation of the school, and would likely make hiring a replacement even more challenging. And ultimately, all parents have to realize that it’s impossible to run a school and keep everyone happy.
But I think we’re all repeating ourselves enough at this point, we should agree to disagree.
gandp-parent: I would like to take you up on your offer to have a civil discussion about the school climate at G&P. Instead of posting my number to a public forum, I’ll be at Simon’s cafe this coming Thursday from 8:30 to 10:00 doing work on a silver thinkpad. Come by and let’s have a civil discussion about solutions for the crisis in our school.
gandp-parent your comments are eerily similar to those we’ve heard from Mr. Henry, who is very close to Dr. Smith, whose narrative I hear you repeating here. Like Mr. Henry, you seem inclined to talk past the points that Smith’s many critics have been making for months. Most disturbing, to me anyhow, is the way Smith’s supporters (I don’t know many, really just Mr. Henry at this point, and whoever you are) respond so callously to the credible accusations of workplace abuse creating a toxic environment rooted in fear and mistrust that is, whether you want to admit it or not, creating a poor learning environment for kids. Here’s a definition of workplace bullying/abuse that’s absolutely relevant to the situation at G&P right now (and is exactly what Smith did in Newton): https://workplacebullying.org
What some educators at Graham & Parks say about Kathleen Smith (as reported in the caregiver letter you seem to know well):
“Tense and toxic working environment.”
“It feels as though Kathleen retaliates against the teachers she doesn’t like.”
“I no longer feel safe attending any meetings alone with Kathleen.”
“It is clear that Kathleen has a negative view of G&P.”
“I have a feeling that I can’t trust anyone as some people talk to Kathleen about other staff members.”
Her “actions, or inactions, have shown that she was disingenuous and misleading.”
“Different people are treated differently for the same thing depending on your status with Kathleen.”
What Newton’s Human Resources investigation reported about Kathleen Smith:
“Toxic environment”
“Employees were in fear for their positions”
“Fearful of being alone with her”
“Very negative … it was clear that she didn’t like many at Underwood.” “Created a climate of people talking about one another”
“Unnecessarily negative, frequently resorts to bullying, and is often dishonest”
“Clearly identified ‘In-group’ and ‘Out-group'”
The parallels are undeniable, damning, and demonstrate that our school is suffering under current leadership.
I’ll do my best to be at Simon’s Thursday morning.
gandp-parent – Turns out I have to be at a kid’s event til 9:30. Will head over after and if you can make it, great. Will bring an open mind, til around noon.