Chronicle Editorial: School district officials improperly intervene to help two candidates in school board election. [Updated May 19]

A letter from the superintendent and the school board president, sent out two hours before a candidate forum, was the latest in a series of unfair tactics that have marked the campaign.

School board president Ana Teague and district superintendent Stephen Walker.

Beginning just a day after Allison Samuels and Leslie Pollak declared their candidacies for two open seats on the Croton-Harmon Board of Education, the Chronicle began recording reports that some in the community—including some supporters of their rival candidates, Theo Oshiro and Will Begeny—were mischaracterizing the political views of the two women. While we did not go into detail in an April 1 editorial calling for a “clean and honest” election, the smears consisted of claims that Samuels and Pollak were secret Trump supporters or MAGAs, even though they are both registered Democrats and there is no evidence whatsoever that they are closet right-wingers.

About a month later, the misinformation campaign suddenly intensified, with claims spread on social media and word of mouth that Samuels and Pollak might be, or actually were, associated with the lawsuit filed against the district by the right-wing group Defending Education (formerly known as Parents Defending Education, or PDE.) The Chronicle’s Commentary on this new development was met with some pushback by supporters of Oshiro and Begeny, including some individuals who have been directly involved themselves in the misinformation campaign against Samuels and Pollak.

The Chronicle does not endorse candidates nor take sides in elections. In fact, we believe that all four candidates are fully qualified for seats on the school board, even if each brings different skills and experiences, and, to a certain extent, different perspectives to the election campaign. We see no basic differences in the values the four contenders bring to the table, despite the smears. As for why the campaign has become so contentious, we will have some things to say about that below.

But while we think the smears and misinformation being spread about two of the candidates are very unfortunate, they could be considered part of the rough and tumble of politics. Indeed, some conservative and moderate supporters of Samuels and Pollak have, we think, greatly exaggerated the alleged “danger” to the community and its children allegedly posed by Oshiro and Begeny and their commitment to DEI policies and programs (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.)

It is true that many conservatives in the school district are supporting Samuels and Pollak for that reason, even though they know that the two women are political liberals themselves and even though Samuels and Pollak have explicitly stated that they support the basic goals of DEI. One might say that many conservatives here have decided to hold their noses and vote for Samuels and Pollak, despite having no illusions that the two share their politics.

(The Chronicle itself has editorialized against members of our community joining the Trump administration’s attack on the nation’s schools and its threats of withholding federal funding if they do not end DEI programs.)

Given all of this context, many members of the community were shocked to see, exactly two hours before the May 14 candidate forum was set to begin, the distribution of a letter by school superintendent Stephen Walker and school board president Ana Teague that directly intervened in the election campaign.

The letter, not very subtly, came to the aid of Oshiro and Begeny in the guise of supposedly setting the record straight about statements that had been made by their opponents. We believe that publication of this letter was unethical and improper, and we will explain why.

A recording of the May 14 candidate forum.

We have posted the entire letter at the bottom of this editorial, but we want to focus here on the main offending passage. After several paragraphs describing what Walker and Teague believe has been a policy and practice of inclusivity and responsiveness to the needs and concerns of children and their parents, they state the following:

“As a school district, we continue to be proactive in our actions to ensure that our students feel safe in our schools, have trusted adults, and know that we have clear, comprehensive policies in place that protect all of our students. This work happens every day in our schools, and while we have not previously communicated directly about it, we are choosing to do so now because of ongoing examples of misinformation that we have seen regarding this topic in our community on social media and other online platforms, as recently as today.”

We have talked to many members of the community who believe that there is little doubt the reference to “other online platforms, as recently as today” refers to an interview the Chronicle conducted with Samuels and Pollak and which was published that very morning. The interview was very wide-ranging, but included sharp criticisms by the pair that the district has often not been responsive to parent concerns, and in particular had not been adequately responsive to the concerns of both Jewish and non-Jewish parents about incidents of antisemitism in the schools.

(The interview came hard on the heels of a Commentary by the Chronicle about a letter in The Gazette from local Jewish and Christian clergy that directly criticized the school district for failing to adopt a definition of antisemitism; the clergy letter ended with a tacit endorsement of Samuels and Pollak.)

Moreover, in context, it seems clear that the intent of the entire letter from Walker and Teague, despite its length, was to take issue with statements made by Samuels and Pollak during the election campaign.

So what is wrong with what Walker and Teague did? Clearly, the question of how responsive the district has been to parent concerns, including the concerns of Jewish parents, is an issue in the campaign. Indeed, Samuels and Pollak raised it during the May 14 candidate forum, and they have raised it from the beginning of this election cycle. School district officials are free to personally disagree with these contentions, but they are not free to put those disagreements into an official school district letter sent out to parents and others in the district, nor are they free to officially brand the claims of opposition candidates as “misinformation.”

To do so is to use their official positions to put their thumbs on the scales and to violate the official neutrality they should adhere to, no matter what their personal loyalties or preferences in the election. While we would argue that what Walker and Teague did was unethical, we have no opinion on whether what they did was illegal, despite a New York State law that could conceivably be relevant to that question.

Their action was all the more remarkable because the candidate forum, which was scrupulously fair to both sides of campaign, represented a formal recognition that Samuels and Pollak have a right to run for school board positions that is equal to that of their opponents, including Oshiro, who is an incumbent (Begeny is widely recognized as the heir apparent to outgoing board member Josh Diamond, who is not running for re-election.)

So why did this happen? We have some thoughts.

Left to right: Allison Samuels, Leslie Pollak, Will Begeny, Theo Oshiro.

What would lead school district officials to engage in what we think was clearly improper and unethical behavior in the campaign? And what has led some supporters of Oshiro and Begeny to engage in a smear campaign against their opponents?

We think it very likely that school district officials were stung by the letter from Jewish and Christian clergy in The Gazette, which bluntly criticized the district and argued strongly that they were not taking the question of antisemitism seriously. That letter, as we mentioned above, ended with what was at the very least a tacit endorsement of Samuels and Pollak.

But if it were true that Samuels and Pollak were right-wing supporters of PDE, or agreed with Trump’s executive orders threatening school districts that refuse to dismantle DEI programs, all of this might be understandable. There would be true political and moral principles at play, and it might be absolutely correct that the battle be joined. But this is not the case. And as we stated above, all four candidates are fully qualified to be board members; all four bring significant experience to the job, even if those experiences differ to some extent for each individual.

While the Chronicle does not endorse candidates, we do think it is healthy for any governmental body to absorb new blood, as it were, and even fresh ideas. This is the first contested school board election for several years, and we think the community should welcome it, even if voters in the district have their favored candidates and will make their choices known on Election Day, May 20.

To put it frankly, the smear campaigns, and the improper actions by Walker and Teague, smack of a form of tribal politics, in which certain individuals and groups in our community have formed power blocks that go beyond the actual principles and positions of the two “sides” in this campaign. These tribes are bound by social ties, a certain history among their members, and—always a feature of tribalism—a passionate conviction that only members of the tribes are on the right path and possess the true wisdom.

The irony here is that there is every reason to believe that Samuels and Pollak, if elected, might be just as strong advocates of basic DEI principles than anyone currently serving on the school board. We take them at their word when they say, in their interview with the Chronicle and elsewhere, that they are not just concerned about Jewish students, but about the safety and well-being of all children in our schools.

And there is another irony: After more than a year of discussions in a subcommittee and the full board, the district has failed to adopt a DEI policy that is supposedly in close to final draft form.

Why is that? As far as we are aware, the district and the board have not made it clear. We have asked about it ourselves, but gotten no answers. We have heard speculation that the district has decided to table the policy for now so as not to make it a target of Trump administration retribution, especially given that the district is currently the recipient of more than $1 million in federal funds. But there could be other reasons.

Has lack of a challenge from contending candidates allowed the school board to sometimes favor abstract discussion and debate at its meetings rather than bold actions, that is, to grow soft for lack of competing perspectives and ideas? Maybe. It would certainly not be the first time that has happened to a governmental body.

Whoever wins the two board seats next Tuesday, the election campaign—as dirty as it has been at times—has been, overall, a healthy exercise. Let’s hope that when it is over, the district will be in an even stronger position to do what is best for our kids.

Community Letter - May 14, 2025

Posted by Croton-Harmon Union Free School District on Wednesday, May 14 at 5:00 PM in Croton-Harmon Union Free School District, 01: The Tiger Community, Administrators, CHUFSD Board of Education

May 14, 2025

Dear Croton-Harmon Community,

The greatness of the Croton-Harmon Schools is evident when we see every student inspired in their learning, discovering their passions through work that evokes curiosity, and engaging in significant conversations about complex and relevant topics. In Croton-Harmon, we know that these moments can only take place when students feel safe in school, in every way, and as a result, we not only prioritize that well-being among our students, we also regularly ask them about it. As we shared with the community at a Board of Education meeting earlier this year, here are some of those results:

• Beginning in the Spring of 2024, our school district has surveyed our students at PVC and CHHS on multiple occasions to gain their perspective on how they feel in our schools.

• That anonymous survey asks students to offer their assessment on a range of prompts, including whether they feel emotionally safe in our schools, and whether they feel like they have a sense of belonging in our schools.

  • More than 95% of PVC and CHHS students agreed with the statement “I feel emotionally safe in school.”

  • Over 96% of our students across both schools agreed with the statement “At school, I feel like I belong.”

  • These responses put PVC and CHHS well above the national averages.

We are grateful and proud that our students report that in their daily lives in school, they feel emotionally safe and that they belong. These responses from our students validate the incredible work that is done every day in our schools, yet we also recognize that we live in challenging times, which can disproportionately impact certain groups. While we take into account what happens in the world and the reactions it can spur in us as adults, we need to ensure that we are focused on the lived experiences of our students in our schools every day, as they share with us through opportunities like the survey summarized above.

When our community expresses opinions or concerns about world events and makes requests of our schools, we have consistently listened, engaged, and learned through discussions, email communication, webinars, and even attending meetings in community spaces and homes. We have also come together as a Board of Education and leadership team, and have connected with other school districts to see how they respond to similar requests. Our school district remains committed to enforcing our policies as they apply to all groups and individuals (Policy 0100; Policy 0115; Policy 5300), rather than making a statement or policy applicable to one specific group or individual.

As a school district, we continue to be proactive in our actions to ensure that our students feel safe in our schools, have trusted adults, and know that we have clear, comprehensive policies in place that protect all of our students. This work happens every day in our schools, and while we have not previously communicated directly about it, we are choosing to do so now because of ongoing examples of misinformation that we have seen regarding this topic in our community on social media and other online platforms, as recently as today.

As a community, we have the opportunity to support the incredible work of our schools in creating safe and affirming environments for our students. We believe that this is a time to work to elevate and uplift every young person in our community, and we believe that this critical work is best done together. But when we collaborate together, as a school district and a community, we must do so from a shared set of understandings and facts, and not conjecture or misinformation, just as we teach our Tiger students to do in our classrooms every day. So as we move forward, let’s be guided by a shared belief in the potential of “What School Can Be” for all students, and how we can continue that trajectory, together.

With Tiger Pride,

Stephen Walker, Superintendent of Schools

Ana Teague, President, Board of Education

Update May 19: A petition has now been launched calling for the resignation of school board president Ana Teague.

Update: The petition was closed after garnering three signatures. We will update as necessary.

********************************************************************************************************

To share this post, or to share The Croton Chronicle, please click on these links.

Comments policy: No personal attacks, please be polite and respectful.