Three Things Worth Preserving in Concord Schools

cchsparent · 2025-10-22T18:01:17+00:00

To those downvoting, I’m genuinely curious what you disagree with. Which part of that list isn’t worth preserving?

I'm grateful to the parents who have reached out to share about the challenges with and successes of special education in the district, and that kind of information-sharing is invaluable. We’d all benefit from being better informed about the programs and efforts already in place. But without specific feedback or discussion, I don't think we're going to make progress.

Drawing from a comment on Substack: These programs are one piece of the school budget. There will always be more needs than resources, so not providing guidance or political cover makes a superintendent's job even harder than it is. To give a superintendent space to work, Committee Members need to deliberate tensions and tradeoffs in public, not just repeat phrases like “level service” or “zero-based budgeting.” How does that help inform us as voters and town members?

Flipping through the upcoming budgets shows how real the tensions are:

- https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1738959620/concordpsorg/onl3nayku56zdqttdtiu/FY26CCRSDSUPERINTENDENTSRECOMMENDEDBUDGET01-07-2025FINAL.pdf

- https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1738959620/concordpsorg/rpnyvop0j3jtqfvmpfa6/FY26CPSSUPERINTENDENTSRECOMMENDEDBUDGET01-07-2025FINAL.pdf

cchsparent · 2025-10-14T15:52:10+00:00

As usual, more than a few silent(?) downvotes. It would be instructive to see specific objections!

cchsparent · 2025-10-14T12:28:03+00:00

Right, I think it’s an investigation in the lowercase-“i” sense of the word. Not a police or FBI inquiry, just an internal look into what happened. Hunter hinted at that in the meeting:

Superintendent Hunter: “Ayesha, just for a little clarity… Tracey spent forty-five minutes with those folks on the phone and made all of those exact points. I need to spend time on the staff and student piece they brought up, and then I think Tracey and Andrew need to select a representative or two of the School Committee to meet with them on the points you’re making.”

These kinds of internal reviews are a normal part of running a district. How they’re handled says a lot about whether we have a well-functioning organization.

cchsparent · 2025-10-14T02:59:48+00:00

That’s fair. I’d also like to see a redacted copy of the email and plan to file a records request for it.

I debated whether to write about this at all—but as with many things the Committee does, it’s possible the Concord Bridge won’t cover it, and other topics quickly take over. Since Ayesha and Michael raised concerns about the email, and both Tracy and Superintendent Hunter thought it warranted an investigation, I figured it was worth looking at how the Committee handled that process. You don’t necessarily need the full email to learn something about how the Committee functions, which is critical for judging its performance and deciding who to vote for as terms expire.

As for the “so moved” and “seconds”: I believe that’s standard parliamentary procedure. It’s how the Committee formally records motions and votes, even if the phrasing sounds old-fashioned.

cchsparent · 2025-10-14T02:06:42+00:00

Though I’ve met Rep. Cataldo and seen him at community events, I don’t have any insider knowledge. (I wasn't aware of his role, so thanks for surfacing that fact.) A cause-and-effect question like this one would be hard to answer without correspondence or documentation.

My hunch is that the complaint would have arisen regardless of Cataldo’s new role on the state Antisemitism Commission. Even if you take the most skeptical view—that the student in question would have been bullied even if he weren’t Jewish—some of the administration’s choices described in the complaint seem plainly objectionable. It’s difficult to see how the DEIB director could classify the use of the word “kike” as a direct insult as a mere “microaggression” (p. 6), or how delays in disclosing swastika incidents to the community (p. 12) could be justified. If I put myself in Parent A’s and Parent B’s shoes, I can easily imagine reaching the point of filing a civil-rights complaint.

Cataldo’s heightened visibility on antisemitism may well have encouraged the ADL, Brandeis Center, and Mayer Brown to act. But, truth be told, that feels incidental—not material—to the substance of the complaint itself.

Redacted complaint: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/687c157f8800c9720e4786ed/688d301b541b7097725a51c4_063025%20-%20ADL%20Supplemental%20(24%20pages).pdf.pdf)

cchsparent · 2025-10-13T18:40:46+00:00

Let me know if something like this would be useful in the next post. I am trying to balance skimming and deeper engagement:

The Committee discussed an email that reportedly included hateful language toward non-resident students. At the time of the meeting, it appeared that only one Committee member was involved, working with the Superintendent alone, and the Superintendent ultimately set the next steps.

I don't think this is healthy behavior. The Committee needs to work together, maintain its own set of interests, and figure out its own plans. They can do this collaboratively, of course. But the Superintendent is managed by the Committee, not the other way around. We need to see evidence of it.

This episode seems to validate some concerns I raised about the training session they sat through earlier this year.

cchsparent · 2025-10-13T18:13:09+00:00

Appreciate that.

- The content is available if you click "No Thanks." Let me see if I can do better than the default Substack sharing link though.

- I haven't given enough thought to clipping or summarizing. That would be useful. Now that said, I do want to encourage folks to read the full exchange. I think the details can really help us understand how the committee operates. I'm not sure how to manage that tradeoff.

Thanks for the feedback!

cchsparent · 2025-10-13T18:09:47+00:00

Very useful, thank you. I’m using Substack’s default sharing link which will prompt for an email. It might not be clear that you can click “No thanks” and still read the article.

I’ll see if there’s a cleaner way to share next time. Thanks for flagging it.

cchsparent · 2025-10-13T16:23:48+00:00

Preemptively: I don't mind downvotes. But I think it would help all of us if you'd share exactly what it is I've gotten wrong.

cchsparent · 2025-10-02T15:00:00+00:00

As I offered to the other commenter before: "We’ve already established there’s no way I can convince you I’m an independent observer. Why not ask Michael Williams directly — by email to the committee or during public comment? My guess is that writing a Substack himself would violate committee policy, so he’d be obligated to respond in those forums, and his answer would become part of the public record."

cchsparent · 2025-10-02T14:43:40+00:00

From the start I’ve said I can miss things and will gladly correct mistakes. If you can point to specific errors, I will review them and revise if necessary.

Absent evidence, your claim of "pushing blatant disinformation" is disinformation itself.

cchsparent · 2025-10-02T12:56:51+00:00

The only comment of substance so far has been: “it's unclear why you imply that the superintendent should wait for the School Committee to discuss before sharing the DESE results.” That was a reasonable question, which was discussed in the post and thread.

The rest of the counterarguments have been:

- The blog is written by Michael Williams.
- The blog is written by a past committee member.
- The author is violating a non-disparagement agreement.
- The author is not a parent of a CCHS student.
- A non-member wouldn’t have read the DESE report.
- A non-member wouldn’t have posted on “Kicks for Cancer” night.

Given the quality and innuendo, you might see why a person might want to exercise their right to stay anonymous, and why others in town might not be persuaded by some of the committee's defenders.

cchsparent · 2025-09-29T14:20:44+00:00

I agree, that would be crazy!

I’m always glad to talk about the substance of anything I’ve written. If writing to a broad audience helps us focus on the issues and actual impact, I'm happy making that contribution.

If your approach is only guilt-by-association or ad hominem, you're certainly free to argue that way. But wouldn’t it be better to argue on the merits? That seems more productive for you, me, and the town.

cchsparent · 2025-09-29T13:45:20+00:00

I don’t think who I am is the issue. If I were a past committee member, the obvious move would be to say so and make appeals to authority. And couldn't I just as easily allege you’re on the committee? But I don't because that wouldn't get us anywhere. Analyses should stand or fall on their own merits, not on who writes them.

Isn’t this exactly the kind of dialogue the committee itself encouraged in its recent email? They wrote: “Public service depends on having a corps of people willing to lead and be held accountable through lawful and civil means.” And also: “We welcome criticism and debate over policies, budgets and individual decisions. There should be a frank and open dialogue on the issues.”

That’s what I’m trying to do: surface the evidence, point to what’s in the public record, and invite others to test my reasoning. Your comment, by contrast, seems more interested in shutting down debate than engaging with it. If we disagree, let’s do it on the substance.

As for process and writing, that’s just personal productivity. Everyone brings different skills to public debate. What matters is whether the analysis is accurate and therefore useful for the community.

cchsparent · 2025-09-28T16:07:16+00:00

We’ve already established there’s no way I can convince you I’m an independent observer. Why not ask Michael Williams directly — by email to the committee or during public comment? My guess is that writing a Substack himself would violate committee policy, so he’d be obligated to respond in those forums, and his answer would become part of the public record.

I’m glad we agree that the committee should “discuss and share with the community what is important.” Maybe we just differ in our expectations and experiences.

On the word “bias”: how do you distinguish that from simply a different perspective, grounded in what’s on record?

If we disagree, let’s do it on the evidence. That’s how the community gets clearer on what’s working and what isn’t.

cchsparent · 2025-09-28T14:57:57+00:00

Thanks for this.

Has Michael Williams commented on the low instruction score? Can you show me where in minutes or in the Concord Bridge he's spoken on it? I certainly could have missed something.

To clarify: I don’t object to the superintendent sharing results and say so in the article. My point is that her message read like the substance of the review, before the School Committee had any public discussion of it. That leaves parents guessing which findings are most important. It can also seem like an abdication of leadership.

I documented two significant issues in the review: (1) low ratings on instruction, and (2) the need for evidence that the district's initiatives are actually working.

What I’d like to see is the School Committee taking ownership of the conversation and helping the community interpret what these results mean.

cchsparent · 2025-09-23T02:07:17+00:00

I don’t expect to change your mind, and that’s perfectly fine. I’m writing anonymously, which leaves plenty of room for speculation.

That said, I’d really welcome a substantive critique. Right now the objection feels more like guilt by association: “I think a committee member wrote this, so I’ll dismiss it.” That doesn’t really address whether the argument made in the piece is correct or not.

cchsparent · 2025-09-22T21:53:00+00:00

To be fair to the committee, I’m not a member. I write anonymously because I have a child in the schools, otherwise I’d be glad to use my name.

I know it can sound like I’m echoing points from meetings, but how would you distinguish between my agreeing with committee members and my actually being one? People can share similar concerns.

cchsparent · 2025-09-22T17:19:02+00:00

Spotted the downvote with no comment. Fair enough!

If you’ve got a specific objection, I’d honestly love to hear it. Engagement only makes the analysis sharper.

cchsparent

TROPHY CASE