Dear Assistant Superintendent Dr. Michelle Madera;
We write with grave concern regarding a pattern of conduct that has caused serious harm to students, families, and public trust within Cambridge Public Schools. What occurred at Peabody Elementary School was not isolated, accidental, or unforeseeable. It reflects a broader pattern of leadership failure, inadequate intervention, and institutional self-protection that has too often left families unheard, unsupported, and vulnerable to further harm after raising serious concerns in good faith.
Our review of your handling of incidents across other schools revealed a recurring pattern of responses that caused harm to students and families while further undermining public trust in the district. We write now because your lack of urgency and inadequate action allowed harmful conditions to persist.
This pattern is reflected in multiple matters, including multiple concerns of toxic culture at Graham and Parks, mental health and discrimination concerns at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School, discrimination at Fletcher Maynard, violence by educators against students at Peabody, Baldwin and Cambridgeport, and racism at Peabody, Morse and Tobin. In each instance, your response demonstrated indifference, insufficient action, and an apparent failure to address serious harm with the promptness and seriousness required. Instead, these matters appear to have been minimized, disregarded, or otherwise handled in a manner that obscured their seriousness rather than confronting them transparently and effectively.
Rather than responding with transparency and accountability, your actions appeared directed toward protecting the institution, thereby further exposing its inequities and systemic failures. Had those matters been addressed appropriately, much of what later occurred at Peabody could likely have been prevented.
Against that backdrop, we turn to the numerous incidents at Peabody Elementary School, many of which were known to you, yet were not addressed appropriately or resolved with the seriousness, diligence, and collaboration families were entitled to expect.
We raise serious concerns regarding a pattern of discrimination, exclusion, inequitable treatment, and retaliation affecting families at Peabody Elementary School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. These concerns are not limited to a single incident or disagreement. Rather, they reflect a broader and deeply troubling pattern in which families who raised concerns about inequity, accessibility, racism, bullying, and student well-being were dismissed, marginalized, or targeted, while more privileged and institutionally favored forms of family engagement were promoted and supported.
Some may regard it as naive for us to hope for a response grounded in compassion rather than concealment. We nevertheless continue to believe that your obligations require more than institutional self-protection. They require integrity, accountability, and a willingness to do what is right, even when doing so is inconvenient for those in power.
Discriminatory Exclusion From Family Engagement
One of the clearest examples involves the Peabody Bike Bus, an initiative created by a caregiver and aggressively promoted by the school and district through email communications and social media. Multiple families raised concerns that the initiative created obvious and harmful inequities within the school community. The cost of obtaining a bicycle and related equipment is simply beyond the reach of many households in what is, in reality, a Title I school community. The resulting exclusion was foreseeable. Some students were effectively left out, concerns about bullying emerged, and divisions within the school community deepened.
Families attempted to address these concerns constructively. A member of the school community met with Principal Abdel Sepulveda-Sanchez and proposed a bicycle drive as a practical way to reduce barriers to participation. That proposal was dismissed. Other reasonable solutions to address additional barriers, such as the Bike Bus starting location, were also rejected. These included creating multiple starting points for families living in other parts of the city, one of which a caregiver volunteered to lead from their own neighborhood.
In other words, families identified a problem, proposed workable solutions, and sought to make the initiative more inclusive. Those efforts were ignored, dismissed, and in some cases met with hostile personal attacks by school administration.
The same pattern was evident in other aspects of family engagement. When families raised concerns about barriers to participating in Friends of Peabody meetings, including concerns related to meeting format and accessibility, those concerns were likewise ignored. Additionally, a caregiver who met all stated qualifications for a position as classroom parent was mocked and laughed at, apparently because of a protected characteristic, when she asked the classroom teacher a question about the role.
Rather than advocating for this caregiver, addressing the discriminatory conduct occurring in the room, or even making clear that she belonged and had every right to serve as classroom parent, Friends of Peabody, as the group leading the space, failed to intervene. The contrast between Friends of Peabody’s stated commitment to “amplifying unheard voices, community learning, and self-reflection” and its actual treatment of these families is stark. Families who raised legitimate concerns and actively wanted to participate were marginalized and excluded, and that exclusion continues to this day.
Retaliation and Hostility Toward Families Who Organized
Rather than abandon their efforts to support and give back to the school community, some of these families formed an independent group to continue the work that needed to be done. In doing so, they extended considerable grace to Friends of Peabody and to Peabody’s administrators, choosing not to respond to exclusion with retaliation, but instead continuing to serve the broader school community.
They did so only after countless attempts to join existing groups and after repeatedly finding doors closed to them because they were perceived as not fitting the preferred mold, in other words, as not being a “cultural fit.” They were further subjected to mockery and harassment despite satisfying stated requirements, including passing CORI checks.
These caregivers, through their new group, went on to provide mutual aid through food and clothing distribution, legal support for immigrant families, and other forms of direct assistance, including the Bike Drive, often at personal financial expense. Their efforts expanded access to critical resources and demonstrated a significant commitment to community care.
Yet the response in forming this group were met by Principal Abdel Sepulveda-Sanchez with personal attacks, targeted smears, and conduct that appeared, at least in part, to reflect gender-based animus. Existing caregiver groups, including Friends of Peabody, composed of families with greater privilege did not reach out in gratitude or support for that work. The new group reached out to Friends of Peabody to collaborate on social media. Rather than accepting that invitation and working together in support of the school community, Friends of Peabody allegedly chose to delete their account, sending the message that they were unwilling to collaborate with the new group even going to the extent of shutting off a primary source of communication to the school community instead of collaborating. The new group did everything right to help the school community, but instead of being welcomed, they were vilified.
Acknowledging their labor would have required acknowledging the existence of those very problems, a step the school appeared unwilling to take. Instead, a pattern emerged in which the emotional and unpaid labor of marginalized caregivers was ignored, minimized, or vilified rather than respected as an effort to expose and address underlying inequities. Dr. Madera, you should be ashamed for your actions for allowing this to happen and to continue to happen to our most dedicated families.
Cambridge Public Schools has repeatedly spoken about barriers to parental involvement and the importance of family engagement. Those statements ring hollow when parents who attempt to engage in good faith, especially those working to address inequities the school itself failed to confront, are dismissed, undermined, and at times personally attacked
The double standard is difficult to ignore. More privileged families appear to have been permitted to organize school-supported initiatives and hold meetings in formats that excluded others, while families with less privilege were denied comparable support and subjected to hostility when they attempted to build more inclusive alternatives. Families who organized a bicycle drive or mutual aid initiative were not provided the same institutional support, visibility, or communication assistance that other parent-led efforts received.
This pattern sends a deeply troubling message: exclusion is tolerated when it comes from those with greater privilege, while advocacy and mutual aid are treated as threatening when they come from families with less institutional power.
Efforts to Discredit and Silence Caregivers
There are additional serious concerns regarding targeted harassment, retaliation, and deliberate efforts to discredit parents who raised concerns about inequity and discrimination.
In one instance, a parent who had already been subjected to severe and troubling well documented targeted harassment by Principal Abdel Sepulveda-Sanchez made an online post about white privilege. That post was unrelated to the school and predated the family’s involvement with Peabody. After what appeared to be a deliberate effort by the principal to gather information about the parent, he became aware of the post. When prejudiced individuals subsequently targeted the parent, Principal Abdel Sepulveda-Sanchez allegedly attempted to weaponize those attacks to undermine her credibility, appearing to search for any information that could be used against her regardless of its relevance, context, or substance.
Dr. Michelle Madera, you were copied on the relevant email in which Principal Abdel Sepulveda-Sanchez acknowledged this conduct, yet no meaningful intervention followed. You were also copied on emails in which families volunteered to help create an inclusive committee at another school, and rather than supporting that effort, you imposed unnecessary barriers.
Your inaction in the face of known discriminatory, retaliatory, and exclusionary conduct raises serious concerns regarding your failure to fulfill your responsibilities and your apparent tolerance of practices that silence, marginalize, and disadvantage families who advocate for equity and accountability.
These incidents reflect a broader pattern of retaliation, targeted harassment, disparate treatment, and deliberate indifference to discrimination and exclusion. They also raise serious concerns that district leadership failed to take appropriate corrective action and instead permitted an environment in which families who speak up are undermined, excluded, and treated as adversaries rather than stakeholders entitled to equal access, dignity, and protection from retaliation.
To be clear, calling out racism is not an attack, and speaking openly about structural inequality and white privilege is not misconduct. The caregiver should not have been targeted, discredited, or left unsupported by Cambridge Public School administrators for naming a reality that many families understand through lived experience. Nor should she have been subjected to what appears to have been an invasive effort by Principal Abdel Sepulveda-Sanchez to uncover derogatory or discrediting information after she raised concerns about unlawful conduct at the school, an issue serious enough to warrant its own separate discussion.
Failure to Respond Appropriately to Reports of Racism
There are also serious concerns regarding the handling of reports of racism. A young student reported racism to the school social worker, Maya Cameron-Shia. Rather than responding with appropriate seriousness, gratitude, and support, the social worker, together with Principal Abdel Sepulveda-Sanchez, appeared to minimize the report by claiming confusion about the form of racism being described. When the child persisted, the social worker reportedly became frustrated and sent an email to the parent stating that the child should not report racism directly and that such concerns should instead be reported by the parent.
At the time of the incident, there appears to have been no written Cambridge Public Schools protocol prohibiting a student from directly reporting racism. The caregiver, acting in good faith and seeking to be helpful, offered, in writing, to provide educational resources regarding the specific form of racism involved, but that offer was ignored.
The family also requested that this ethnic group be recognized in the same manner as other ethnic groups within the school community. According to the family, that request was met not with support or constructive engagement, but with threats and personal attacks directed at the caregiver. To date, the family has seen no indication that the school ever sought or requested the relevant evidence in their possession, raising serious questions about whether the matter was investigated thoroughly, impartially, or in good faith. The ethnic group remains excluded from school recognition and broader inclusion efforts.
One reason racism persists at Peabody is that protecting the school’s image as inclusive and harmonious often appears to take priority over the lived experiences of those who face racism. The problem is evident when school employees create confusion by claiming they “misheard,” criticizing how something was reported even when no clear reporting process exists, or minimizing what was clearly said or done.
Failure to Address Bullying and Rejection of Constructive Student-Led Solutions
Concerns regarding bullying follow a similar pattern. During the Spring 2025 semester, multiple protests took place outside Peabody in response to bullying concerns raised by students and families that went unresolved. In that context, one student proposed to Principal Abdel Sepulveda-Sanchez the creation of a student-based organization that would meet to engage in anti-bullying work and other age-appropriate student-led initiatives.
The proposal was constructive, thoughtful, and developmentally appropriate. It included ideas such as creating anti-bullying posters for display throughout the school, learning about bullying and its effects, and engaging peers in conversations about how to create a safer school environment. Such an initiative had the potential not only to promote safety and inclusion, but also to help students develop research, communication, collaboration, and public speaking skills.
The student further proposed that, although it was his idea and he would help create it, the organization operate without a designated leader so that all participating students would have an equal opportunity to contribute and no one student would hold disproportionate power over the others. A caregiver with decades of relevant professional experience also volunteered to serve as a mentor to support the students’ efforts.
Despite the constructive and student-centered nature of the proposal, it was rejected immediately by Principal Abdel Sepulveda-Sanchez, without discussion and without any apparent effort to explore how the initiative might be implemented in a manner consistent with school policy. That decision foreclosed a proactive and educational effort by students to address bullying in their own school community. As student writers at The Register Forum observed in discussing racial disparities in CRLS clubs, activities that require institutional support often end up favoring more privileged students while excluding others from participation and leadership. We are observing similar inequities at Peabody Elementary School. Had the student who proposed this initiative been more privileged, past practice suggests it would not have been dismissed so quickly or at all.
These incidents do not reflect isolated misunderstandings or unfortunate lapses in judgment. They reflect a repeated and unmistakable pattern. Families raised concerns about inequity, racism, bullying, exclusion, and harm to children. Those concerns were minimized, dismissed, or ignored. Families proposed practical solutions. Those solutions were rejected. Families organized to fill gaps and support the school community. They were met with hostility, retaliation, or efforts to discredit them. This is not family engagement. It is the suppression of family engagement when it challenges institutional power.
Notice of Ongoing Harm
If Cambridge Public Schools declines to take corrective action in response to this record, it will reinforce the conclusion that the district has chosen institutional self-protection over its stated obligations to students and families. At that point, the issue will no longer be whether the district was aware of the harm, but whether it chose, despite that knowledge, not to intervene, just as it failed to intervene when school officials echoed and amplified prejudiced individuals’ attacks against a parent.
How many more mothers must be discredited by Principal Abdel Sepulveda-Sanchez through this well-worn pattern of misogyny and branded “crazy,” “mentally unstable,”“liars,” “too sensitive,” or “vindictive” for raising concerns in good faith before the district acknowledges that this, too, is part of the harm?
How many more family groups will be forced to form and operate independently to confront inequity, expand access, and provide direct support to the school community before the district offers the recognition and gratitude their labor has long deserved, even when acknowledging that labor also means acknowledging the very problems they have been working to solve?
Must privileged community members undertake this work before it is finally acknowledged, thereby exposing the class bias that governs whose labor is validated and whose labor is ignored, punished, or vilified? And how much longer will those who assume responsibilities abandoned by leadership and existing family groups face punishment instead of support?
These are documented patterns of behavior that raise serious concerns regarding the safety and emotional well-being of children and families at Peabody Elementary School.
Families at Peabody Elementary School deserve more than statements of principle. They deserve concrete action, accountability, and a school environment in which all students and caregivers are treated with fairness, dignity, and respect.
Why This Matter Is Public
We are making this matter public because many families first attempted to address these concerns quietly and respectfully through private conversations, only to be met behind closed doors with gaslighting, anger, hostility, and threats. These families were subjected to character attacks, intimidation, and the twisting of their words by Principal Abdel Sepulveda-Sanchez.
In one incident, Julie Sizer, Principal of Ridge Avenue Upper School, voluntarily participated in a meeting concerning a Peabody student who was violently attacked by an educator because of the student’s support for Palestine, an attack the family understood as Islamophobic. The educator reportedly admitted to the conduct, and, according to those present, Ms. Sizer engaged in behavior the family experienced as coordinated intimidation during a meeting in which the caregiver was outnumbered seven to one. You were well aware of this planned, coordinated intimidation directed at the family of a victim of violence, yet you failed to intervene.
We have no choice but to make this matter public. When families who step forward to organize and support the school community are vilified rather than supported, and when even good deeds such as creating a bicycle drive are dismissed and the organizers subjected to gender-based attacks, transparency becomes the only remaining option. Public accountability becomes unavoidable when repeated good-faith attempts to resolve concerns privately are met with dismissal, hostility, threats, intimidation, or retaliation.
Requested Corrective Action
The school should acknowledge and formally recognize the efforts of the most marginalized parents, including those who organized bicycle drives in support of the already approved Bike Bus, and should communicate those efforts to the broader school community so that more children in need may gain access to bicycles. Subjecting caregivers to gender-based disparagement, hostility, or attack in response to such efforts is unacceptable and inconsistent with the school’s obligations to provide an equitable and nondiscriminatory environment. Where caregivers are motivated to support the school community, particularly in circumstances where existing caregiver groups have operated in exclusionary ways, the appropriate response is inclusion, respect, and collaboration rather than marginalization or retaliation. Families who stepped up to help the school community should have been supported, not mistreated. Shame on you for making their efforts harder.
We would welcome a school community in which every parent who wishes to serve as a room parent, and who meets the stated requirements, is welcomed with open arms. We would also welcome a community in which a caregiver who raises legitimate concerns about accessibility is not shut out, but instead invited, if they wish, to help lead the work of making that space more inclusive. In this instance, such an initiative was proposed by a caregiver who had been excluded, and that proposal was ignored by the school and by you.
We would welcome a school community in which children who report racism are treated as credible and their concerns are met with seriousness, care, and appropriate action. We would likewise welcome a community in which, when a family explains that representation matters to their child, the school responds with openness and respect. Where a family has shared that displaying their flag alongside the many already exhibited, and including stories and traditions from their culture, would help their child feel more included, the school should either honor that request or, at minimum, invite the family to contribute the flag and share their cultural traditions. All children should see themselves reflected in their school. All children should feel safe, welcomed, and valued there. It is a small request, but it could mean a great deal to a child but Peabody were not even willing to do the bare minimum under your watch.
We would also welcome a school community in which families who raise legal concerns are not subjected to targeted harassment, invasive scrutiny, or retaliatory efforts to discredit them, including deep internet searches by school administrators or outreach to individuals in their networks, even across national borders, in an apparent effort to gather damaging information about them. Any such conduct raises serious concerns regarding retaliation, discriminatory treatment, abuse of authority, and unlawful interference with families’ protected right to advocate for their children and to raise concerns without fear of intimidation or reprisal.
These are not aspirational ideals; they are baseline legal obligations. A public school system is obligated to provide equal access, respond appropriately to complaints of discrimination, harassment, violence, and disability-related barriers, and refrain from retaliation against students and caregivers who engage in protected advocacy. Conduct that punishes, intimidates, discredits, excludes, or targets families for asserting such concerns may give rise to serious concerns under anti-discrimination law, anti-retaliation protections, disability-access obligations, and basic constitutional and civil-rights principles governing public institutions.
Sincerely,
Cambridge Students for Justice
Cambridge Students for Justice 