Neary Investigation Audit Update – My Southborough

Above: A parent’s comment at last week’s school board meeting raises questions about the accuracy of the findings reported by the board’s investigators (image from presentation)

Last week, the Southborough School Committee held a special meeting for a presentation by the consultant hired last year to “review” the school’s investigation into racially motivated incidents in a Neary classroom.

The presentation was largely positive, praising the NSBORO superintendent and civil rights coordinator for quickly initiating and properly conducting an investigation based on findings of a teacher’s use of a racial slur and a sham slave auction in a 5th grade classroom in April had carried out by students at the beginning of the year.

This statement was undermined by public comment at the end of the meeting. According to the parent of a student in the classroom, the facts presented did not accurately reflect what happened last spring.

Andrea Hamilton’s comments raise the possibility that the audit relied too heavily on information from the administrators whose investigations they were investigating. She asked if auditors had contacted the students’ parents to find out what happened.

Last spring, parents called for a new investigation by an independent party. Instead, the school committee hired investigators to determine whether the investigation was conducted properly. According to chairwoman Chelsea Malinowski, the scope was limited to topics that fall within the committee’s limited remit.

Comprehensive Investigations and Consulting (CIC) partners said they were specifically tasked with assessing whether schools:

• Have documented investigation policies and/or procedures
• have followed these policies and/or procedures
• conducted a timely investigation and response
• communicated effectively to affected families and the school community as a whole

You should also dDocument a timeline for investigation and response. This was outlined in the report to the School Committee, but was not outlined in the presentation for privacy reasons.*

CIC found that the schools had appropriate policies in place that were consistent with those of most schools. The three particularly relevant ones were:

• Civil Rights Nondiscrimination Policy A-180
• Teaching on Controversial Issues – I-120
• Bullying Prevention and Intervention Policy – ​​A-150

The bullying policy referred to a third incident in which the teacher allegedly “singled out” a student for complaining about the use of the slur.

Consultants Dan Bennet and John Benzan apparently found that the government’s only lapses in compliance with procedures were the mishandling of the January “auction.”

They repeatedly cited Principal Kathleen Valenti’s “failure” to closely follow the district’s civil rights policies when she learned of the auction in January.

According to CIC, while Valenti took prompt action, he did not contact the district’s civil rights coordinator or initiate a formal investigation as required under A-180. They stated that she mistakenly believed it was an affair she could handle herself.

Their key recommendations focused on making policies and responsibilities clearer and linking this to training. They believed that with these corrections, the district could prevent a repeat of a misstep by an employee who does not know the steps to follow after filing a complaint.

Based on their experiences with other investigations, there are certain common terms that are helpful to include and define (e.g., complaint, hostile environment, protected class, target/victim).

However, CIC suggested that Valenti took the right action after learning about the second incident. They also asserted that the Civil Rights Coordinator and Superintendent responded to both the racial slurs and the auction incidents by promptly launching an investigation within days of learning of the incidents and taking the appropriate steps outlined in the policy. This also included appropriate documentation of the investigation and all communication.

Although the investigation took a few days longer than outlined in the guidelines, this was considered appropriate given the number of people that needed to be interviewed during the process. Based on the results of the investigation, a disciplinary decision (dismissal of the teacher) was quickly made and communicated.

CIC’s Benzan praised the administration and school committee for the “extraordinary” actions taken to acknowledge and respond to the civil rights issue rather than taking a defensive stance as many schools do. These actions included hiring staff, proactively creating a formal action plan before awaiting audit results, and taking steps in the plan such as hiring a director of equity, belonging, and community engagement.

But CIC’s perception of events did not match the memories Hamiltion shared in public comments at the end of the meeting.

She noted that the summary of communication with parents did not take into account the initial telephone calls from Valenti and the teacher on May 1, before the investigation began. She said that in those calls, parents were given incorrect and incomplete information about the incidents.

She also claimed that it was only the third incident that gave rise to the investigation:

I think it is important to note that at the time the superintendent became aware of the offending, no investigation had been launched.

She explained that she knew this because of her participation in a series of meetings with Superintendent Gregory Martineau and Civil Rights Coordinator, Ms. Heather Richards. She said when parents repeatedly asked why the investigation was taking so long, they were told:

Neither of the first two incidents was serious enough to warrant an investigation. And that it was only when retaliation against a student occurred that an investigation was necessary.

Hamilton also noted that she emailed the school committee asking if parents would be contacted as part of the investigation. She never heard anything back:

I know I wasn’t interviewed, and I don’t know any parents who were interviewed. So I don’t know where all this information comes from. Again, it feels like there were some big mistakes. Again, I struggle a bit with the belief and confidence that this body is capable of exercising control over itself.

The audience for the meeting was very small. But Hamilton wasn’t the only community member there to express his anger in public comments. Two other women spoke up.

Last spring, a petition called for Valenti to be fired and Martineau suspended. CIC clarified that they have not been mandated to reinvestigate or comment on any disciplinary actions the schools have taken or should take.

The School Committee has stated that the performance and discipline of school staff is not within its purview. For this reason, their comment policies prohibit public commenters from complaining about specific school employees.

That made it difficult for residents upset with Martineau’s handling of Valenti’s discipline to post comments. The committee is responsible for Martineau’s performance. (And just gave him an exemplary performance review and their full support at their June meeting.)

Resident Nicole Pinckney weighed in on what the appropriate disciplinary action should be for Valenti if he did not follow the guidelines after the auction. She followed:

As a long-time leader, regardless of written policies, shouldn’t the principal have known that a racially motivated complaint, whether formal or informal, should have been escalated immediately? We shouldn’t have to annotate every branch of the tree of possibilities to ensure that our principal is making the right decisions in every single situation to keep our students safe.

Pinckney was reminded of the comment policy and followed:

Then I guess my next question is how the superintendent carries out his duties. How do we assess how appropriate this decision was?

Resident Jill Dixon followed. She thanked the school committee for their great work and the CIC and then said:

While I refer to the school principal, I think this is definitely the responsibility of the superintendent and therefore the school board.

Dixon made it clear to her disgust that Valenti is still in her job and in the audience that night.

Because it is the Committee’s policy not to engage in dialogue with public commenters, no responses were provided.

You can read the CIC’s “Inquiry and Assessment Presentation” from the meeting here. You can also view the School Committee’s action plan and progress here. And you can watch the October 17th meeting here on the Southborough Access Media website. (You can also find the schedule for broadcasting on the State Access channel.)

During the meeting, Malinowski told the audience that policy changes must be implemented by the Northborough, Southborough and Regional policy subcommittees. This is to ensure that shared district staff must follow the same steps for each city/school.**

Malinowski also noted concerns that had been raised about whether the school had too many special needs students in one classroom. She said the school board conducted a special needs review, which was reported at its September meeting. By this she apparently meant the state examination that takes place every three years. You can find that here. You can watch the discussion here.

*CIC’s Dan Bennett and John Benzan explained to the audience that the timeline would reveal information about staff and/or students that should not be made public.

**It should be noted that in accordance with state law, policy changes are not made quickly. The subcommittee’s recommendations will be presented to the joint school committees for first reading. At this time, committee members may ask questions and provide feedback (which may result in the subcommittee making further changes). This is followed by a comment phase in which the public can also provide feedback. A vote will only take place after it returns to the joint committees for second reading.