On May 7, 2012, the following letter, edited here to use pseudonyms to mask identities, was sent out via individual email to each city and school official. It was a “shot heard round the city”.
Prior to this email, Ms “Smith” had successfully portrayed herself to be an effective, innovative, and caring administrator, all the while waging a reign of terror against students and teachers.
To the Principal, Superintendent of Schools, the Mayor, and Members of the School Committee
Our daughter “Nancy” has had some difficulties as a student, including being bullied by other students, experiencing great sadness, lacking motivation, and getting poor grades. She has never behaved badly or violated school rules.
She is on an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) with academic, social and emotional support and goals. As part of her IEP, she has utilized counseling, including and especially important, an outside counselor, Frank, who comes into the school to see Nancy and other students. She has known Frank for almost two years and they have a warm and supportive relationship.
Thanks to the provisions of her IEP, her counseling, and her teachers, Nancy’s mood, school work and grades have improved dramatically. At her IEP meeting on 3/15, and parent – teacher conference on 4/26, attended by me and her father, every single one of her teachers recognized her significant improvement and praised her. There was not a single complaint about Nancy, her behavior, or her access to counseling.
On Tuesday, 5/1, Nancy was having a hard day. Her grandmother, with whom she had a warm and loving relationship, had recently passed away, and Nancy, in addition to her other difficulties, is grieving for her grandmother and is having a hard time processing her loss.
She was in the hall, in between classes, walking another student to class, when the Sophomore Housemaster, Ms Smith, stopped her and told her to “get to class”. Nancy, thinking that the other student needed her support, walked him to class, which she should not have done, because it did make her late to her class. This single mistake led to the mess I am about to describe.
Unfortunately for Nancy, she again ran into Ms Smith who grew visibly angry, told Nancy to get herself to class and then said to her “you won’t see Frank anymore.” Nancy started weeping. Ms Smith then said that she would call Nancy’s parents to speak about Nancy’s poor behavior and a suspension from school. Nancy felt like she was being emotionally attacked.
Nancy, still weeping, tried to go to Frank who was nearby, to process her upset, but Ms Smith yelled that she was not to go there. At no time did Ms Smith ask Nancy what was going on, what she needed, and why she was so upset. There was no kindness or caring.
Frank heard Nancy weeping and saw her run into a stairwell. He could see that she needed help, so he went after her and took her to see her Adjustment Counselor, who was not available.
He then took her to the principal, “Mr. Andrews” and Nancy explained what was happening. The principal, seeing her upset, brought her to another Adjustment Counselor. During their walk, Nancy, distraught, told Mr. Andrews, that Ms Smith said that she will “never see her counselor Frank again”. Mr. Andrews told Nancy that she can see Frank whenever she needs to. It does not seem that Mr. Andrews then spoke to Ms Smith to stop her from being mean to Nancy because things only got worse, much worse.
Nancy spoke with the adjustment counselor who to helped her to calm herself down. She then went to lunch. In the cafeteria, Ms. Smith came up to the table where Nancy was sitting with her friends, and stated that she needed to talk to Nancy right away. Ms Smith told Nancy that she was calling Nancy’s parents to come get her out of school. Nancy was being suspended.
Nancy became upset again, asked why this was happening, and told Ms Smith that she wanted to go to class so that she would not fall behind in her work. She got no reply. Not understanding why this was happening Nancy became more upset, crying and shaking, with some swear words coming out of her mouth, like “this sucks”, not directed at Ms Smith.
Ms Smith showed no kindness or concern for Nancy. Ms. Smith said to another teacher, who just happened to be walking by, “look how she is behaving”, trying to humiliate Nancy. Ms Smith told the teacher that Nancy was making a scene, and that Ms Smith would not tolerate anyone making a scene in her school. First she emotionally batters Nancy, and then she complains about Nancy crying? Isn’t this called, “blaming the victim”?
Ms Smith’s administrative secretary called Nancy’s father, and stated that Nancy needed to go home because she was skipping classes, was wandering the halls and had to be spoken to twice by Ms. Smith.
Ms. Smith told Nancy’s father that Nancy was being suspended because Ms Smith had to speak to Nancy three times (the number grows) about wandering the halls, and she said that Nancy had dropped the “F” bomb. Ms. Smith told Nancy’s father that she likes to run a quiet and stable environment and that Nancy was disrupting other students. There would have to be a meeting. Why was Ms Smith exaggerating everything, blaming Nancy for getting upset, and implying that Nancy was a misbehaving girl?
We heard afterwards that Ms Smith sent an email to all of Nancy’s teachers. The email contained false and outrageous charges, that Nancy had behavior problems including excessive wandering, avoiding class, hanging out in the Art Wing, making a young, male instructor very uncomfortable, and manipulating the pass process many times throughout the school day. Ms Smith never seemed to notice or to care that it was Ms Smith’s own actions that caused Nancy to become upset, nor did she seem to care about whether what she was saying about Nancy was true. Ms Smith has a reputation for exaggerating the misdeeds of students to justify more harsh punishment.
Ms Smith claimed in the email that Nancy needed strict academic and behavioral guidelines, which she does not, and proposed restrictions that, in fact, violated Nancy’s successful IEP and undermined the support Nancy has received. She stated that Nancy would not be given any more passes other than from her office, also a violation of Nancy’s IEP.
We came on time for the 10am meeting the next morning. Ms Smith, arriving 15 minutes late with two other administrative personnel, started to repeat her mean spirited and false charges. We, her parents, were able to rebut every one of them except for the simple fact that Nancy should have not walked the other student to class, making herself late to class. Nancy did not wander excessively, did not avoid class, did not hang out excessively in the Art Wing (she has back-to-back art classes), there was no young male instructor who was uncomfortable, Nancy did not abuse her counseling right, and she had encountered Ms Smith two times, not three. The people who receive this email should request to see Ms Smith’s emails.
On each item, when confronted with the facts of Nancy’s good conduct and school improvement, Ms Smith retreated, withdrew the charge, and apologized, stating for example that she did not realize Nancy had back-to-back classes in the art area. She also withdrew her allegation about the Art teacher, and everything else on the list. Where had she gotten these accusations? Why did she make up a set of lies and exaggerations and pay no attention to Nancy’s needs and accomplishments?
As the meeting progressed and she was forced to apologize, Ms Smith became visibly upset, and finally, when told that some of Nancy’s success stemmed from the warm and helpful relationship she had formed with her outside counselor, Ms Smith turned beet red in the face, looked like she was about to explode, and started shaking so violently that another administrator inquired “are you OK”. Why was Ms Smith so upset to learn that Nancy was doing well, had received support from Frank, and was not guilty of the things she was charged with? Does Ms Smith care at all about Nancy and other students?
Ms Smith then said to Nancy, emphatically, “we need to know what triggers your anxiety and when”. I, her mother, told Ms Smith that if Nancy could do that she would have the cure to anxiety and nobody would have it. Everyone in the room laughed, except Ms Smith.
Then, Ms Smith took her fist, pushed it to her cheek, and said, “I have anxiety at these meetings, because you don’t know what you are getting into, I have anxiety too”. This whole exchange was surprising to us, because we thought that she would be glad to find out that Nancy was not guilty of any of the charges. Instead she seemed to be having her own anxiety attack because Nancy was doing well. Ms Smith then stated that she was going to change the suspension to an administrative leave, as if she was doing Nancy, who had just been attacked, bullied, and lost a day of school, a favor.
Ms Smith promised that Nancy would have a laminated permanent pass for counseling by the end of the day, Wednesday, and Nancy’s access to counseling would not be impeded (which as of this date has not received the pass). We left the meeting very upset that we and Nancy had to go through this experience of unjust and unfounded accusations, but we were glad that her rights and reputation had been restored. Doesn’t Ms Smith have an actual job to do instead of bullying and traumatizing vulnerable students?
We left the building thinking that the sorry episode was finished. Nancy was upset, but would be OK. Then, we heard that Ms Smith sent another email to school staff, which completely misrepresented what had just occurred in the meeting and what had been promised to us.
This email made it seem like there had been a real problem with Nancy which Ms Smith had solved. There was no problem except Ms Smith herself. She made it sound like the accusations had been true, and she limited Nancy’s access to counseling to scheduled appointments or when her adjustment counselor, often unavailable because she also teaches a class, was available. To get counseling any other time, Nancy had to ask permission through Ms Smith’s office. Should the bullied victim of someone who tried to limit her counseling need permission from the very person who did so?
We have heard from other parents that these behaviors on the part of Ms Smith are not unusual, that they have been reported many times to her supervisor, and that nothing has been done about them. Isn’t there a new and important policy about bullying? Does the school system, knowing this behavior is happening, accept the liability if a vulnerable student commits suicide or self-harm after being insulted and made to feel bad by Ms Smith?
We wonder how a school system that claims to be taking action to prevent bullying can allow a powerful administrator to accost students in the hall, accuse them of things the students did not do, suspend the students from the building, overstate and exaggerate student behaviors, violate students’ IEP, upset parents, and waste staff time. Do you understand why this kind of behavior might cause some students to drop out of school?
Nancy no longer feels safe meeting, talking to, or being talked to by Ms Smith, who has proven to be mean and not trustworthy with the safety and well being of our daughter.
We ask that Nancy be allowed the same access to counseling that she had prior to this incident, without going through Ms Smith or any other Housemaster’s office.
We ask that Ms Smith, who by the way, tells students that she is the “second most powerful person in the high school”, no longer be Nancy’s Housemaster, and that Ms Smith no longer talk to or about Nancy.
We ask that the recipients of this communication investigate Ms Smith’s behavior by investigating this incident and by talking with other parents and school staff.
We request that a written apology be sent to us and to all of Ms Smith’s email recipients for what she has said and implied about our daughter.
Nancy has not even received the pass she was promised. We look forward to hearing from you what you are doing about this matter. We would prefer not to have to go to the State Board of Education or the media.
Sincerely, Nancy’s parents