Melrose Cares: Open Community Dialogue




Click here to report offensive or inappropriate posts.



Schools & School Committee
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
US DOE Office of Civil Rights Findings Document, January 2016

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, REGION I

5 POST OFFICE SQUARE. 8TH FLOOR
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109-3921

Re: OCR Complaint No. 01-14-1259
Melrose Public Schools

This letter is to inform you that the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights [OCR), has completed its investigation of the above-referenced complaint that was filed against the Melrose Public Schools (District) alleging discrimination on the basis of race.

The complaint alleged that during 2013-2014 school year, a teacher at the Melrose Veteran's Memorial Middle School made derogatory remarks to one of her assigned students, directed at the student's race. The complaint further alleged that the District failed to adequately respond to reports and/or complaints about the remarks, and the District's lack of response continued to subject students to a racially hostile environment. As stated below, OCR's investigation finds that the District violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), which the District has agreed to resolve by implementing the enclosed resolution agreement.

OCR is responsible for enforcing Title VI, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.. and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 100, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (the Department). The District is a recipient of financial assistance from the Department. Therefore, OCR has jurisdictional authority to investigate this complaint under Title VI.

OCR investigated the following legal issue:

• Whether the District subjected a student or students to a racially hostile environment and, if so, whether the District failed to appropriately respond, in violation of 34 C.F.R. Sections 100.3(a), (b)(l), and (b)(2).

In its investigation, OCR reviewed information provided by all Complainants regarding the allegation, as well as information provided by the District, including: the District's nondiscrimination policies and procedures; complaints related to harassment based on race and/or national origin received by the School during the 2013-2014 school year; detailed information regarding the response to, and outcome of, any investigations into these complaints; and detailed materials from trainings related to discrimination and harassment based on race provided to District employees. In addition, OCR staff interviewed the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity (METCO) Director, Assistant Principal, Teacher, and other District staff. OCR also conducted interviews with the Complainants, the Student and his parent, and two community members.

Factual Background

The Student, who is African American, attended the School during the 2013-2014 school year under the METCO program. The District's enrollment is 83% white. The Teacher, who is white, was an employee of the District.

OCR's investigation established that shortly before lunch on April 1, 2014, the Student and his class were working on individual research projects in the School library, when students congregated by the library doors in anticipation of the end of the period. The Student and a few of his friends stepped into the hallway and, when the Teacher called for them to return to the library, the Student and his friends complied. The Student informed OCR he was the only African American in the group. According to the Student, when he reentered the library, he was "fooling around" and said in a high-pitched voice, "Coming Ms. [Teacher]."He stated that the Teacher responded, "Do you talk to your mother like that?" The Student stated that when he answered "sometimes," the Teacher told him she did not believe him, and mimicked his remark. The Student reported that the Teacher then stated to him, "[Student], are you coming back to the plantation?" or "Come back to the plantation." A District staff member (Witness 1] in the vicinity, who stated she could not hear the Student, corroborated that the Teacher said to the Student, "Is that how you speak to your mother?" followed by, "What are we, going back to the plantation?" The Student and Witness 1 reported that other students in the room heard the remark, which occurred shortly before the bell rang, and students departed discussing the incident.

The Student and a classmate reported to the Principal and Assistant Principal during lunch that the Teacher had stated to the Student "come back to the plantation," or words to that effect. The Principal and Assistant Principal spoke with a third student who confirmed that the Teacher had used the word "plantation." The Principal and Assistant Principal met with the Teacher in the Principal's office approximately an hour after the Student reported the incident. During this meeting, and subsequent inquiries, the Teacher stated that she could not recall exactly what she had said, but acknowledged she made a statement to the Student to the effect of "don't talk to me like you're on a plantation." Neither the Principal nor the Assistant Principal documented the students' reports, or the Teacher's account of the incident during the meeting.

The Teacher indicated to the Principal and Assistant Principal that she would apologize to the Student, and the District promptly held a meeting with both administrators present, together with the Student and Teacher. The Teacher apologized for any misunderstanding that may have upset the Student, and she also told the Student that he should not feel subservient to her or demean himself, and described the Student's "coming, [Teacher]" comment as akin to a remark that a "slave" would make to a "master." The Student also apologized for being disrespectful. The District did not provide any evidence to suggest that the District documented the meeting. The Student's parent stated that the Principal called her the day of the incident to inform her that that an incident involving her son had occurred, and that it was resolved. The Student's parent stated that she did not learn about the details of the library incident or meeting, including the nature of the Teacher's comments, until the Student came home from school that afternoon.

The Superintendent stated that she became aware of the Teacher's remark on April 2, 2014, when she was copied on an email to the Principal from another parent, whose child had witnessed the incident, asking what action was being taken to address the Teacher's comment. OCR found that at least three additional parents sent emails to the District after the incident expressing concerns regarding the Teacher's conduct, including one parent whose child was in the Teacher's class. The Superintendent informed the parents that the District was handling the matter appropriately, and was unable to disclose any other information. Other parents contacted or wrote to members of the School Committee and the Melrose Mayor with their concerns about the incident. On April 3, 2014, the Principal issued a written reprimand to the Teacher, which stated the remark was inappropriate and subjected the Student to "public humiliation." The reprimand instructed the Teacher to take certain required steps to address her behavior.

On April 8, 2014, the Student's parent filed a written complaint with the Principal alleging that the Teacher's statements during the incident and the subsequent meeting with the Principal, Assistant Principal, Teacher and Student were "inappropriate" and "racial." In her complaint, the Student's parent contested the District's representation of the Teacher's remark, as opposed to the wording recalled by the Student, and also requested the Student be moved from the Teacher's class.

On April 9, 2014, the Superintendent responded to the Student's parent by email, stating that the District is taking "this incident seriously" and that "all acts of intolerance are unacceptable." The Superintendent also explained that although she could not discuss personnel matters, the District was concurrently pursuing three courses of action with regard to the incident: (1) the District's system of discipline for a teacher who "does and/or says something questionable"; (2) the new educator evaluator system; and (3) an internal civil rights investigation. The Superintendent also wrote that she was willing to meet with the Student's parent. She stated she had already met with city officials to discuss concerns about "deeper underlying issues" that needed to be addressed by the District and community. The Student's parent responded by email and reiterated her request to move the Student from the Teacher's class. The Student's parent stated that she received no response, and OCR found no evidence to suggest that the District responded to her request. The Student's parent also reported to OCR that while she initially accepted the District's offer to meet with her, she ultimately decided not to do so.

The District informed OCR that during the 2013-2014 school year, although the middle school handbook contained a grievance procedure applicable to complaints based on race, the District applied a separate, more detailed grievance procedure
that also addressed race complaints, contained in the high school handbook. The Procedure identified the Assistant Superintendent as the Civil Rights Officer for Title VI. The Procedure encouraged "parents and other adults" to report "any concerns about possible discrimination or harassment of students or employees," and stated that all reports would be investigated promptly and impartially, to be completed within about 25 school days, with an extension granted if necessary. The Procedure stated that the Civil Rights Officer would provide written notice of the outcome of the investigation to both the complainant and the individual accused of the discriminatory conduct.

On April 9, 2014, in response to the complaint filed by the Student's parent, the Assistant Superintendent began interviewing witnesses, including the Principal, Assistant Principal, Teacher and Student. During the course of the District's investigation, the Assistant Principal was asked to provide information concerning whether the Student had any "prior behavioral incidents." Witness 1, who was the only adult identified during OCR's investigation as having witnessed the Teacher's remark, was not interviewed. OCR found that the Principal was present during the Student's interview and, while the Student informed the Assistant Superintendent during the interview that other students heard the Teacher's remarks in the library, the District took no further action to identify or interview any additional student witnesses to the incident. OCR also found no evidence that the District took any interim actions to offer the Student support pending the outcome of the investigation, such as changing his class, checking-in with him, or providing any necessary counseling.

On April 14, 2014, the Student's parent instructed the Student to go to the guidance office instead of history class because it appeared the Teacher was continuing to teach his class. The Student's parent informed the Principal via email that the Student would not be attending the Teacher's class. That same day, the District placed the Teacher on paid administrative leave, and she was informed that she could not be in school at least until the end of the investigation.

OCR found that the incident was publicized in an online community news article, which included comments by a city official concerning the incident, and was the subject of discussion and commentary in the community. The Student and the Student's parent informed OCR that as a result, various individuals, including some outside the school community, approached them to inquire about what had occurred.

On April 28, 2014, the Assistant Superintendent issued a decision and an outcome letter to the Student's parent ("Outcome Letter"), with copies to the Teacher and Principal. The Outcome Letter stated that the District did not establish what the Teacher said, only that there was a "consistent recollection that the word 'plantation' was spoken by the Teacher to the Student." The Outcome Letter indicated the Teacher responded to the Student's initial remark because he made it in a "mimicking tone of voice." The District concluded that because her "use of a racially insensitive term" to an African American student was an "isolated remark," it was not sufficient to create a hostile environment. The letter stated, however, that the Teacher failed to provide a "safe environment that is conducive to learning" by her conduct.

The Outcome Letter issued to the Student's parent concluded with several recommendations, one of which addressed the Student, specifically that "the administration check in with [the Student] on a weekly basis to determine whether he continues to feel safe within his learning environment, and does not believe that he has been subjected to any retaliatory action as the result of the incident and the subsequent investigation." The Outcome Letter recommended addressing the Teacher's conduct and a perceived need for "cultural proficiency" in the District, by the following: having District administration "consider whether [the Teacher] should be subject to disciplinary action in connection with the use of a racially insensitive term"; conducting training on racial and cultural awareness for the Teacher; and, conducting training on conducting thorough investigations for administrators involved in investigating incidents of harassment, discrimination and bullying.

The District informed OCR that it treated the recommendations as mandatory. The District provided documentation confirming that the Teacher received training during the summer of 2015 as recommended in the Outcome Letter. However, OCR did not find any evidence indicating that the Student received weekly "check ins" with any District staff. The District reported that it took additional actions beyond those enumerated in the outcome letter, including that the Teacher was found to be "non-proficient in the area of professional culture" on her evaluation, and that she received mentoring on improvement in professional judgment and engagement with students. In addition, the District reported that the Teacher was placed on extended leave for the remainder of the year, and was involuntarily transferred to the District's high school for the 2014-2015.

The District informed OCR that it planned to ensure that none of the students who had witnessed the incident, including the Student, would be assigned to the Teacher's class in high school. Specifically, the Teacher would be assigned tenth and eleventh grade classes for the 2014-2015 school year, and eleventh grade classes only for the 2015-2016 school year. The Student's parent stated that she did not become aware of this plan until around January 2015, when she made a formal request for records to the District. OCR did not find any evidence to indicate that the District informed any parents of potentially affected students of the plan. OCR subsequently learned that the Teacher retired after the 2014- 2015 school year.

Legal Analysis

Harassment of students on the basis of race, color, or national origin is a form of discrimination prohibited by Title VI and its implementing regulation. Harassing conduct can include verbal, written, graphic, physical or other conduct by an employee, a student, or a third party, as well as conduct that is physically threatening, harmful or humiliating. Harassment can create a hostile environment if it is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive to interfere with or deny a student's participation in, or receipt of benefits, services or opportunities in, the recipient's program.

To establish a violation of Title VI under the hostile environment theory, OCR must find that: (1) a racially hostile environment existed; (2) the recipient had actual or constructive notice of the racially hostile environment; and (3) the recipient failed to respond adequately to redress the racially hostile environment. To determine whether a racially hostile environment exists, the racially-based conduct must be severe, pervasive or persistent. Where the conduct is not sufficiently severe to create a hostile environment, the offending conduct must be more than a casual or isolated incident and must be repeated, continuous, and prolonged. If OCR determines that the harassment was so severe, persistent or pervasive that it would have adversely affected the participation in some aspect of the recipient's educational program by a reasonable person of the same race as the victim and in similar circumstances, OCR will find that a hostile environment existed.

Whether conduct creates a racially hostile environment must be determined from the totality of the circumstances, with particular attention to certain factors including the context, nature, scope, frequency, duration, and location of the conduct. In making this determination, OCR takes into account the relevant particularized characteristics and circumstances of the victim. OCR's analysis incorporates the age, intelligence, and experience of a reasonable person under like circumstances and takes into account the developmental differences in maturity and perception due to age. In addition, the identity, number, and relationships of the individuals involved will also be considered by OCR on a case-by-case basis.

OCR found that the Student was subject to a hostile environment based on race. First, the terminology used by the Teacher in the library to describe the conduct by the Student, who is African American—in making reference to the Student and going "back to the plantation"—involved a clear, racially charged term. OCR determined that the motivation for the Teacher's comment was based on the Student's race. Moreover, the Teacher's comment to the Student occurred during academic programming in the School library, and in the course of her fulfilling her authoritative role as a classroom teacher, who was responsible for providing the students educational services and addressing student behavior. Additionally, the Teacher publicly singled out the Student from a group in which he was the only African American student in front of his peers, who, as eighth graders, are relatively young, less mature and generally more impressionable than older students or adults.

OCR determined that the Teacher's historical reference to slavery, in attempting to correct the Student's conduct, was stigmatizing and, as stated in the District's written reprimand, "humiliating" to the Student. The District acknowledged that the Teacher's conduct was racially "insensitive," but maintained it was only an isolated remark, and as such, did not create a racially hostile environment. OCR notes that a single, isolated incident, if sufficiently severe, can give rise to a hostile environment. Moreover, in assessing all of the circumstances in this case, OCR found that during the meeting after the incident, the Teacher again used racially-based language when she sought to explain to the Student, without a parent or representative present, the correctness of her comment in the library by stating that the Student had spoken to her as a "slave" to a "master." Although the District did not address the comments at the meeting as racially-based, OCR found the Teacher's additional remarks and conduct directed at the Student, who was expected to respect and abide by his Teacher's expectations, constituted an additional incident of harassment that contributed to the racially-charged environment encountered by the Student. Finally, OCR found that the District's failure to appropriately address the matter prolonged media attention and community concern, and therefore, perpetuated the effects of the Teacher's conduct on the Student.

In considering the totality of the above-described circumstances regarding the Teacher's conduct, including her role, the Student's age and maturity, the relationship of the parties, and overall impact that the events had on the Student, OCR determined that the Teacher's conduct was sufficiently severe so as to create a racially hostile environment for the Student.

As stated above, once a recipient under Title VI has notice of a racially hostile environment, the recipient has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to redress it. Thus, if OCR finds that the recipient took responsive action, OCR will evaluate the appropriateness of the responsive action by examining reasonableness, timeliness, and effectiveness. The appropriate response to a racially hostile environment must be tailored to fully redress the specific problems experienced at the institution as a result of the harassment. A recipient must take immediate and appropriate steps to investigate what has occurred and steps reasonably calculated to end any harassment, eliminate a hostile environment if one has been created, and prevent the harassment from recurring. The recipient is also responsible for taking steps to remedy the effects of the harassment on any student who was harassed.

OCR determined that while the Student provided the District notice by reporting the incident promptly, the District's response was inadequate in several respects. First, the District failed to conduct an appropriate investigation. During lunch, the District received initial reports concerning the incident from the Student and another student that differed from the Teacher's subsequent account, none of which were documented. The District then responded by holding a meeting between the Student and Teacher, and did not give the Student an opportunity to provide additional information or further respond without the Teacher present. In addition, the District did not interview the District staff person, or obtain full accounts from the other students, who witnessed the incident. Moreover, at the meeting, the Teacher used racially-based language a second time, in the presence of the two administrators; however, the District also did not document the content of the meeting, nor did it recognize the Teacher's conduct as potentially harassing. OCR also found that the District's inquiries during its investigation of the incident included both the Student's prior behavioral history and his "disrespectful" conduct prior to the Teacher's remark, and did not fully examine the Teacher's conduct and its impact on the Student (or, potentially, other students). OCR further determined that the District did not take any interim measures during its investigation to address the continuing effects of the incident on the Student, or take remedial measures after the District completed its investigation. In fact, the Student was not moved from the Teacher's class until the Student's parent affirmatively removed him, and the District failed to initiate the "weekly check-in" meetings mentioned in the Outcome Letter as the sole individual remedy for the Student.

OCR further found that the District did not inform parents who reported concerns about the Teacher's conduct, in or around April 2014, of the outcome of the investigation. OCR found that the parents who contacted the Superintendent about the Teacher's conduct being racially discriminatory, and/or the District's response to the incident, included parents of two students in the Teacher's class, one of whom witnessed the incident. OCR also found that the District did not inform the Student's parent or any other parents of affected students about the District's plan to ensure that students who witnessed the incident would not be assigned to the Teacher during high school.

In sum, OCR finds that the District did not sufficiently respond to the hostile environment experienced by the Student in terms of investigating the matter, and eliminating and remedying the effects of the hostile environment on the Student and other potentially affected students. Thus, OCR finds that the District had actual notice of racial harassment; the harassment created a racially hostile environment for the Student; and, the District failed to take adequate action to redress that environment.

Conclusion

Based on its investigation, OCR finds that the District did not comply with its obligations under Title VI with regard to the complaint allegation. The District has agreed to take the steps in the enclosed Agreement. OCR will monitor the District's implementation of the Agreement until, when fully implemented, the Agreement addresses all of OCR's Title VI compliance concerns.

With regard to the Agreement, OCR has agreed to modify certain timelines in Items 2 and 19, the completion of which is dependent, in part, on the issuance of this letter. Accordingl

Re: US DOE Office of Civil Rights Findings Document, January 2016

Conclusion

Based on its investigation, OCR finds that the District did not comply with its obligations under Title VI with regard to the complaint allegation. The District has agreed to take the steps in the enclosed Agreement. OCR will monitor the District's implementation of the Agreement until, when fully implemented, the Agreement addresses all of OCR's Title VI compliance concerns. ...

OCR found that the Student was subject to a hostile environment based on race. First, the terminology used by the Teacher in the library to describe the conduct by the Student, who is African American—in making reference to the Student and going "back to the plantation"—involved a clear, racially charged term. OCR determined that the motivation for the Teacher's comment was based on the Student's race. Moreover, the Teacher's comment to the Student occurred during academic programming in the School library, and in the course of her fulfilling her authoritative role as a classroom teacher, who was responsible for providing the students educational services and addressing student behavior. Additionally, the Teacher publicly singled out the Student from a group in which he was the only African American student in front of his peers, who, as eighth graders, are relatively young, less mature and generally more impressionable than older students or adults.

OCR determined that the Teacher's historical reference to slavery, in attempting to correct the Student's conduct, was stigmatizing and, as stated in the District's written reprimand, "humiliating" to the Student. The District acknowledged that the Teacher's conduct was racially "insensitive," but maintained it was only an isolated remark, and as such, did not create a racially hostile environment. OCR notes that a single, isolated incident, if sufficiently severe, can give rise to a hostile environment. Moreover, in assessing all of the circumstances in this case, OCR found that during the meeting after the incident, the Teacher again used racially-based language when she sought to explain to the Student, without a parent or representative present, the correctness of her comment in the library by stating that the Student had spoken to her as a "slave" to a "master." Although the District did not address the comments at the meeting as racially-based, OCR found the Teacher's additional remarks and conduct directed at the Student, who was expected to respect and abide by his Teacher's expectations, constituted an additional incident of harassment that contributed to the racially-charged environment encountered by the Student. Finally, OCR found that the District's failure to appropriately address the matter prolonged media attention and community concern, and therefore, perpetuated the effects of the Teacher's conduct on the Student.

In considering the totality of the above-described circumstances regarding the Teacher's conduct, including her role, the Student's age and maturity, the relationship of the parties, and overall impact that the events had on the Student, OCR determined that the Teacher's conduct was sufficiently severe so as to create a racially hostile environment for the Student.

Re: US DOE Office of Civil Rights Findings Document, January 2016

This is attorney Colleen Murphy's superb letter to the Melrose Free Press in 2016 that so thoroughly and aptly sums up what is still the situation in the Melrose Public Schools and political situation:


from Colleen Murphy to Melrose Free Press:

On October 15, 2015 the Melrose Free Press published a letter to the Editor that I wrote to them, as an article entitled “Evaluations of superintendent were lacking.” In that letter I expressed concerns about the Melrose School Committee Members’ annual evaluation of Superintendent Cyndy Taymore. I found that, with the exception of then School Committee Member Carrie Kourkoumelis, the School Committee Members’ evaluations of Superintendent Taymore were largely superficial and were uniformly shocking in their failure to even mention the very real, systemic issues that have plagued the Melrose School System during Ms. Taymore’s tenure. In particular, no School Committee Member other than Ms. Kourkoumelis mentioned, in their evaluation of Superintendent Taymore:

• The decline in college matriculation rates. As Ms. Kourkoumelis pointed out in her evaluation, in 2005-6, 95.9% of Melrose High School graduates attended either 4-year or 2-year colleges. By 2013-14 that number had plummeted to 88.3%. And while the number of students attending college overall is declining, the number attending 2-year schools has increased dramatically. In 2005 just 11.4% of students attending college were attending 2-year schools; by 2009 that number almost doubled to 21%.
• The decline of the Horace Mann Elementary School to MCAS Level 3 status (Horace Mann has recently been elevated to Level 2, but it is not clear why that happened. Although the School District issued a press release lauding its efforts to elevate the school, the press release acknowledges that, in a letter to Superintendent Taymore, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (the “DOE”) explained that Horace Mann was elevated to Level 2 because the DOE “received an appeal from another district on behalf of its Level 3 focus school that led us to reexamine and revise our focus school exit criteria.” I suspect that the press release is purposely vague. At any rate, it is not clear to me whether the School District did anything at all to contribute to the elevation of Horace Mann.) Because the MCAS assigns districts the level of their lowest performing school, for the period during which Horace Mann was a Level 3 School, Melrose was a Level 3 district (along with area schools including Chelsea, Malden and Everett; Stoneham and Wakefield were then and are now Level 2 districts).
• SAT and ACT scores that, as Ms. Kourkoumelis put it in her evaluation, “are below or near the state mean, which is inconsistent with our community demographics.”

Most shockingly, no School Committee Member other than Ms. Kourkoumelis mentioned in their evaluation what Ms. Kourkoumelis referred to as the “multiple investigations currently undertaken by the United States Office for Civil Rights.” Given what we know now about those investigations (particularly the incident concerning a racist remark made to a student by a teacher, which the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) determined violated the student’s civil rights), that bears repeating, with emphasis: no School Committee Member other than Ms. Kourkoumelis even mentioned in their evaluation of Superintendent Taymore the fact that two separate OCR investigations were pending against the Melrose School System, even though there is absolutely no doubt that they all knew about the investigations.

Given my view that Ms. Kourkoumelis was the only Member of the School Committee to take the time to submit a thoughtful, substantive evaluation of Superintendent Taymore, I was devastated to learn of her resignation from the School Committee. Devastated, but not surprised. I read enough in the newspapers and watched enough School Committee meetings to know that the other School Committee Members routinely marginalized and even bullied Ms. Kourkoumelis for her attempts to hold Ms. Taymore and her administration accountable for the decline of the School System.

In my letter I also lamented, in Ms. Kourkoumelis’ words, that the “fact that so many in our administration do not admit that we are doing poorly prevents us from being able to contemplate the real changes that could actually benefit students and lead to improvements” and shared my own experience with that unfortunate reality. And that, really, is the crux of the matter. It is one thing to fail – everyone does from time to time – but it is quite another to refuse to admit failure, particularly when that refusal will obstruct any attempts to correct the problem. This administration’s chronic refusal to admit failure and propensity to deflect and obfuscate have hastened the decline of the School System. And the School Committee has aided and abetted the administration by not holding it and Superintendent Taymore accountable. As Ms. Kourkoumelis put it in announcing her resignation, “the self-congratulatory culture of this School Committee perpetuates harm, shields those responsible, and impedes necessary change.”

Which brings me to the letter published in the Free Press on March 24, 2016 from Christina and Gabe Gagliano and others which purports to be a call for the community to come together in “the midst of the real challenges facing Melrose and our public schools.” In reality, it is an admonition to anyone who dares speak out against the Superintendent or the School System. A few observations:

• The authors state that a “vocal handful of residents have been calling for the superintendent to resign.” It is a common tactic in attempting to suppress dissent to minimize the number of dissenters – Richard Nixon famously used this tactic when he spoke of the “Silent Majority” in comparison to the alleged vocal minority. In my experience – and I have had many, many dozens of conversations with parents whose children attend or attended the Melrose School System – there is widespread dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. Although not all of the dissatisfied parents are calling for the Superintendent to resign, many of them (over 500 families) are voting with their feet by sending their children out of the District. And please remember authors, as you attempt to diminish and marginalize those who hold views that differ from your own, that it is much, much easier for you to speak out in favor of the administration than it is for people to speak out against it.
• The authors attempt to shame people who are speaking out against Superintendent Taymore and the School System by touting the authors’ own alleged “informed and productive” contributions to the School System. The implication that critics’ contributions are somehow not “informed and productive” is not only unbelievably insulting but also incredibly counterproductive. Someone (not Thomas Jefferson, though the quote is widely attributed to him), once said “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” And in the words of Howard Zinn “one of the great mistakes made in discussing patriotism – a very common mistake – is to think that patriotism means support for your government. . . . obedience to government certainly is not a form of patriotism.” Albert Einstein said that “blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Authors, blind allegiance to Superintendent Taymore and the School System will get us nowhere. It is abundantly clear that Superintendent Taymore and her administration will never admit their mistakes and therefore never learn from them. So it is imperative that others take them to task whenever necessary and your suggestions to the contrary are truly disheartening.
• The authors devote the majority of their letter to a lengthy recitation of Ms. Taymore’s “accomplishments,” including “new principals at nearly every school in the district.” I do not purport to be an educator, but it is incomprehensible to me that any competent educator would view the seemingly constant turnover at the highest levels of the administration, including at the principal level, to be anything close to an “accomplishment.”
• Finally, in a truly impressive use of the passive, the authors note that “our community continues to process the aftermath of a racial discrimination incident at the middle school and the subsequent investigation by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.” The wording implies that the community (and perhaps by extension Superintendent Taymore and the administration) are somehow the victims here. Nothing could be further from the truth, at least as to Superintendent Taymore and the administration. I invite the authors to read the OCR’s findings, if they have not already done so. I did. Here’s what I learned, and what the authors fail to mention: in addition to finding that the teacher who made racist remarks violated the student’s civil rights, the OCR also found that the School District’s inadequate response to the incident and failure to protect the student in the aftermath of the incident further violated the student’s civil rights. The OCR criticized the School District’s insufficient response to the “hostile environment experienced by the student in terms of investigating the matter, and eliminating and remedying the effects of the hostile environment on the student and other potentially affected students.” The OCR also found that the District “had actual notice of racial harassment; the harassment created a racially hostile environment for the student; and the District failed to take adequate action to address that environment.” I encourage anyone interested in this issue to read the OCR’s findings, which summarize the many ways the School District failed this student, and by extension, all of our students. Suffice it to say, the School District did absolutely everything wrong, and we will likely be paying for that for years to come. That falls squarely on Superintendent Taymore’s shoulders.

The authors end their letter with a plea for “productive action,” again implying that what they choose to do is productive and what others choose to do is not. They call for the “elimination of unsubstantiated claims” and for people who are critical of the Superintendent to “get informed,” again implying that they are informed and anyone who is critical of the Superintendent is not. They call for “less vitriol;” but the real vitriol is their unbelievably arrogant position that they know what is best for Melrose and the rest of us should just shut our mouths and let them lead us. Apparently, freedom of speech has been suspended in Melrose.

“See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil,” may work for monkeys; not so much for a school system or a community. As far as I know, for now, at least, we still live in America. So I’ll take Benjamin Franklin’s view over those of the authors: “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” I therefore must respectfully decline the authors’ invitation to keep silent in the face of the ongoing turmoil in the School System. I join Ms. Kourkoumelis (and the “vocal handful of residents”) in calling for the immediate resignation of Superintendent Taymore and I also call for the resignation of all of the School Committee Members who have turned a blind eye to the systemic issues the School System continues to face. You all are as much to blame for the current state of affairs as is the Superintendent. In calling for these resignations I fully acknowledge that the School System has made some gains lately, including last year’s PARCC scores which are far superior to historic MCAS scores. But that is too little too late and does not excuse the Superintendent’s behavior during her tenure, particularly her handling of the OCR debacle. As for the three new School Committee Members, I call on you to remember your campaign promises to “share the outrage” and “speak truth to power.” Remember that, as Gandhi said, “silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly.”

I will undoubtedly be labelled by many a “Melrose-hater,” a label that is apparently indiscriminately applied to anyone here in Melrose who dares to question anything about the School System or local government. But I am speaking out in the hope (perhaps misplaced) that the community can still come together to effectively advocate for change in the School System. James Baldwin said it best: “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”

There is much, much more I could say, but I’ll let George Carlin have the last word on the subject: “I do this real [stupid] thing and it’s called thinking. And apparently I’m not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions.”

Finally, I owe Ms. Kourkoumelis a huge apology. Although I greatly admired and appreciated the work you did on the School Committee I did not do nearly enough to support you. I never reached out to thank you, never showed up at a School Committee meeting to protest the other School Committee Members’ shameful treatment of you and never even wrote a letter to the other School Committee Members in support of you (the authors were right about that much, at least; I did not get as involved as I should have). I was wrong to stay silent for so long and so, in some sense, I bear the blame for the state of the Melrose Public School System as much as do the Superintendent and your former colleagues. And for that I am truly sorry.

Re: US DOE Office of Civil Rights Findings Document, January 2016

Thinking before you speak or do something. It's about knowing that every day, the choices we make can and will affect our lives. It's about being accountable for our choices in life. We have the right to make our decisions every day, and every day is a new day. But will the school committee make good decisions and the superintendent Cyndy Taymore?