Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
We are writing with regard to RMF’s call for Carla London’s resignation.
This letter is a response to the ongoing lack of engagement following the
arrest of Ms. Kandas Holmes-Barnes’ daughter in January of this year.
While we remain firm in asking for her resignation, we want to comment
on the responses we have received from Dr. Stiepleman and London since
late Spring of this year.
To date, Dr. Stiepleman’s email responses are rhetorical, overly bureaucratic and deflective.
The district’s Sept. 20 response to Ms. Holmes-Barnes May 2, 2019 complaint declares itself
not in violation of the district’s AC Policy. Unfortunately, this sparse record was released
without the corresponding investigative report or even a summary of key findings. This
example extends our belief that CPS is not authentically committed to equity, restorative
justice or advocacy for all children. In our view, CPS could release its investigative report, but
lacks the political will and courage to do so.
Second, we object to Ms. London’s May 16, 2019 claim via email:
“I’m sure you know, there is always additional information of which people are
not aware and I am not at liberty to share with you at this time. It is always
disheartening to me to hear a narrative being written with only limited
information. I am happy to sit down with you at any time, but can only discuss
my interactions with the family in their presence.”
Ms. London could have responded substantively without intimating that there was confidential
information about the family that she needed to avoid divulging. Hell, she could have
reiterated the district’s commitment to restorative justice and acknowledged that there is
continued work to be done at a minimum. She could have apologized for errors in judgment
that resulted in a child’s wrongful arrest.
Third, Ms. London erased the material and emotional trauma this student has been caused by
Smithton Middle School and now the district. She describes the treatment of the student--as
told to RMF as a “narrative” -- recasting the student’s experience as a story and one that has
elements of fiction. She is “disheartened” that we do not know the entire set of facts because
sure, as we are reasonable people, we would agree that this student is somehow responsible
for the behavior of the adults around her. We are supposed to trust the mythical omniscience
and goodness of CPS. Ms. London’s deflection marked a child and her experience as
disposable. Her lack of advocacy negated a child’s trauma, and marginalized the child’s sense
of humanity, value and competence. We reject Ms. London’s assumptions and conjecture as
not only embarrassing but irrelevant. RMF finds it shameful that she insists on presenting a
mythical narrative of a benevolent and excellent CPS -- despite worsening disparities.
Finally one of our RMF colleagues has twice witnessed Ms. London marginalize a student who
has been damaged by CPS -- once during a phone conversation and then in an IEP meeting,
Ms. London engaged in this same kind of deflection and disposal of a young life. Ms. London
told our colleague that there were things about this family that she wasn’t at liberty to share,
but “these things” would undoubtedly change our colleague’s understanding of the situation if
she knew them. In an IEP meeting, when a parent and our colleague questioned the decision to
call the police on a dis-regulated 10 year old son, both were dismissed and told they didn’t
know all the relevant facts. Instead, she insisted that summoning the police supported the
district’s desire to promote positive interactions between law enforcement and children of
color. Apparently, being handcuffed and arrested for being a dis-regulated child counts as a
positive police encounter.
This way of constructing a “narrative” around a child is not an example of valuing their
humanity. This erasure of their innocence and vulnerability with a distorted image of CPS as
an awesome place for children is well above the reality many of its students face. We have
grave doubts about Ms. London’s ability or commitment to advocate for our most vulnerable
students.