The Sixth “C” is Crisis: The Coded Racism & Regression of Strategic Initiatives at Castilleja School

We are a collective of diverse faculty members across various departments, programs, and administrative teams at Castilleja School. Given our deep commitment to our students and the broader community, we believe it is our duty to voice our concerns and share our perspectives around the troubling decisions made over the past month at Castilleja.

Of school days dear? Or school days we fear?

Typically, we would take our issues to the (now former) Head of School Nanci Kauffman and the Assistant Head of School for Curriculum and Community. However, recent events have seen these individuals removed from our community, leaving us bereft of trusted leadership. Our Assistant Head in particular was a voice in our Leadership Team who was a beacon for employees of color, consistently supporting their well-being and professional growth. She was the leader who genuinely saw them, acknowledged their contributions, and affirmed their value within the institution.

The absence of her leadership has left a void, and we believe it is our responsibility to ensure that our voices, and the issues we care deeply about, continue to be heard. Currently, amid an atmosphere of unsettling change, an unprecedented dip in morale, and pervasive fear, we feel it is both fruitless and unsafe to relay this content to the Board and current leadership. In fact, some of us have tried, and we feel we have been left with no other choice.

There are significant changes underway at Castilleja. However, beneath the surface, there is something much more sinister taking place. In this statement, we will cover:

• The Board’s announcement that Nanci Kauffman had “stepped down” as Head of School and the inconsistencies that emerged from that All Hands Meeting on September 7, 2023
• The real reason behind Nanci’s removal as Head of School and the racism that underlies the Board’s decision and communication around it
• How the disappearance of our Assistant Head of School for Curriculum and Community and the suspension of the ICA Experiential Learning program signal a reversal of our strategic plan for Teaching & Learning Antiracism, eliminating what students, faculty, and alumni advocated for in 2020
• How the Board’s and new leadership’s decisions have failed to live up to our school’s Mission, Values, & Strategic Plan and set a concerning and shameful example of leadership for our students

On Thursday, September 7, an email from the Assistant to the Head of School summoned all faculty members for an All Hands Meeting at 3:45 pm that same day. Here, the Board of Trustees delivered the shocking news that Nanci Kauffman, who had served the Castilleja community for almost 25 years and was Head of School for 13, had “stepped down” to make room for “new leadership”. As we sat in the meeting, many of us read the official letter from the Board as well as one that Nanci herself sent, wondering why, if she had truly made the decision to step down, she was not present at this meeting to share the news herself.

Anyone who has worked with Nanci knows that she is not one to simply quit or turn her back on our students. Her years of relentless negotiations with the City of Palo Alto to secure approval for Castilleja’s construction plans are testament to this. Many of the faculty & staff we have spoken to, regardless of their personal opinion of Nanci, found it very unlikely that she would have chosen to, as the Board put it, “step down” a mere two weeks into the school year. This abrupt decision would undoubtedly have significant ramifications for the employees and students, who were always Nanci’s foremost priority.

Mixed Messages & Timelines

Throughout the meeting, the Board delivered a series of ambiguous talking points, which only led to more questions and frustration from the audience. Their patronizing approach left many of us feeling as though they assumed we could not read between the lines. When the floor opened for questions, one faculty member raised valid concerns about the abrupt nature of this decision, given that we had just begun the school year two weeks prior and this was a monumental shift that was sure to have a ripple effect throughout our community. This person asked to learn more about the timing of the decision and “what tensions led to it.”

Up until that point, the Board had maintained that this was a “recent” and “mutual” decision, made in collaboration with Nanci. But when faced with this question about the timeline, they responded:

“We have been working on this for a while now, and out of respect for Nanci we won’t comment on specifics.”

This clearly raises inconsistencies: if this was a recent and collaborative decision, in what ways had they been “working on [it] for a while” and why couldn’t more context be provided, particularly from the Board or Nanci herself, to clarify the situation?

This response did not come as a surprise to some of us, however, who were aware that the Board had been considering this move for weeks. Around the start of the school year in late August, select employees were contacted by the Board to meet with a consultant they had hired. Here is an excerpt from that email message:

I am reaching out to a small group of faculty and administration, after having received the results of last spring’s Employee Survey, which revealed widely-held concerns about the culture and direction of the school. The Board is focused on finding solutions to certain challenges the school is facing, including faculty turnover and student attrition, that have the potential to impact Castilleja’s ongoing and future success. Of course, this work will take time. The Board does not have ready answers, nor the depth of expertise needed to address these issues, and we are also committed to honoring our role as Trustees, separated from the day-to-day operations of the school. Therefore, we have retained the services of a highly experienced consultant who will support and advise the Board. Our aim is to better understand the issues that have arisen, their causes and how we can help Castilleja get back on track.

With this added context, it was clear to those of us who were privy to the Board’s actions that they were attempting to justify their decision to remove Nanci as Head of School. If they had indeed been considering this “for a while,” then the sudden engagement of a consultant less than two weeks prior to Nanci’s dismissal raises even more eyebrows. Their hurried decisions, culminating in Nanci’s sudden “departure,” appeared both ill-conceived and irresponsible and have only further intensified our concerns about the Board’s capacity to make sound decisions aligned with our Mission and values.

A Loss of Direction

The primary concerns voiced by the Board during the All Hands Meeting, and in the email to selected faculty invited to engage with their consultant, revolved around the “direction” of the school and the “loss” of several faculty members. Those of us present on campus last school year recognize the complex connection between these two elements. Indeed, the faculty attrition rate last year was notably high, as it also was at many peer schools including Nueva, Menlo, and Crystal Springs. Just as in any institution, individuals at Castilleja pursued different opportunities for various and complex reasons.

Last school year, we saw faculty members retire, relocate for personal reasons, commence pre-arranged graduate & professional programs, or make a change given the anticipated (and subsequently canceled) campus move. However, in explaining Nanci’s “departure” and the hiring of a consultant, the Board conveniently omitted these reasons and avoided taking responsibility for some key issues, especially the botched campus relocation project. Instead, they gave undue weight to specific feedback from a subset of faculty, who chose to share their grievances with the school’s “direction” openly and rather inappropriately with students, parents, and other stakeholders in our community throughout last year and even after their departure. While this faction of the faculty was not reticent about their dissatisfaction with the evolving “culture and direction” of Castilleja, it is important to note that their views are not universally shared.

This begs the question, whose voices are valued by the Board?

And does the Board recognize that being uncomfortable and upset with the “direction of the school” ultimately means not being aligned with our Mission & Strategic Plan?

These faculty, who often portrayed themselves as socially conscious but passive allies, expressed discontent with Academic Leadership’s shift towards equitable grading practices, such as Standards-Based Teaching & Learning (SBTL), as well as our updated curricular framework and experiential learning initiative. These pedagogical practices, grounded in rigorous and comprehensive research, have gained prominence in independent school education, as evidenced by publications and professional development programs from esteemed bodies like the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS). In fact, a decade has passed since the Spring 2013 issue of Independent School magazine, which put experiential education on the map, and since then our peer schools have far surpassed us in their approach to this best practice in education. But at Castilleja, it seems that lip service can be given to embracing equity, inclusion, and progressive education, until these principles challenge the outdated classroom norms and structures long upheld at Castilleja.

So yes, we did see more faculty than usual make the choice to leave last year. Perhaps more than usual left for their misalignment with the progressive direction of the school. Is that a loss? That depends on who you choose to listen to.

Make Castilleja Great Again?

During the All Hands Meeting, the Board repeatedly mentioned “going back” to a former Castilleja. These recurring themes of “returning to what makes Castilleja great” and “understanding the Castilleja way” are symptoms of coded racism within our institution. There is a clear lack of interest to understand the value of SBTL and Experiential Learning in ensuring an equitable and enriching educational experience for our students. This apathy is juxtaposed with a dismissal of these innovative practices, all under the guise of preserving the so-called “Castilleja way”.

Our 6–12 Curricular Framework, which is the foundation of our Experiential Learning initiative, and SBTL are key pillars of the student experience as outlined in our Strategic Plan for Teaching & Learning Antiracism (see the first and fifth bullet points). Within our school community, the leaders of these changes are our Assistant Head of School for Curriculum & Community and Head of Upper School. It is also important to note that these leaders are the only Black and Brown members of the Leadership Team and Academic Leadership.

Disgruntled former employees commenting on the “leadership style” of these two specific individuals is an expression of racial bias. The valuing of “old” voices over new ones is not only disrespectful but incongruent with the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion that our school claims to uphold. The Board’s continued emphasis on the “loss” of former faculty neglects the remarkable expertise and invaluable contributions of our newer faculty members. A significant number of new faculty are educators of color, hired as part of a conscious effort to increase faculty diversity, an initiative championed by the very leaders in question. Many, if not most, of the faculty and staff who chose to join Castilleja this school year did so because they were on board with the changes that these leaders shepherded. One new faculty member shares:

“[These leaders] were brutally honest with many of us in our interviews, and it’s because of, not in spite of, this that we chose to come and join the community. A lot of these last minute changes have really let us down.”

Nanci also supported these leaders and their transformative initiatives, and under her leadership, the school was moving in a direction that aligned with our Strategic Plan. However, it now seems that the advancements we have made — a culmination of persistent advocacy by students, faculty, and alumni since 2020 — are on the brink of being undone.

The removal of Nanci Kauffman as Head of School has not been the only significant change that has unsettled our community in the past month. If the Board’s goal in removing Nanci was to restore Castilleja to its “former glory” and boost morale on campus, then they would be disturbed to encounter the climate of tension, turbulence, and mistrust permeating the administration, faculty, staff, and student body following their recent decisions.

After the All Hands Meeting on September 7, a drop-in session was held on Monday, September 11 where members of the Board addressed faculty concerns. The faculty who attended asked multiple questions around what plans the Board had for the school moving forward. Again, these questions were met with vague and unhelpful responses. When a faculty member specifically questioned the potential impact on the school’s DEIJ initiatives and programs, the Board offered the following response:

“We remain committed to DEIJ [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice]. The new leadership may make changes to the academic program but there is no plan to dismantle the DEIJ work.”

Their response underscores a fundamental disconnect: the Board treats DEIJ as a separate, peripheral entity to the academic program. They clearly misunderstand what the DEIJ work at Castilleja (and other independent schools) looks like and how DEIJ should be woven into all that we do as a school. This misalignment is evident in the recent changes to the academic program that have followed Nanci’s removal, which starkly contradict the Board’s so-called “commitment” to DEIJ.

Empty Promises & Offices

Like many independent schools in 2020, in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, Castilleja faced intense scrutiny and pressure from students, faculty, and alumni, pushing the school administration to uphold our commitment to DEIJ and take concrete steps to advance Antiracism work. One major advancement that grew out of this work was a new role on the Leadership Team: the Assistant Head of School for Curriculum and Community. Nanci Kauffman presented the role to the Board in 2020 and after a nationwide search, Castilleja welcomed a leader in the 21–22 school year who would bring a wealth of experience leading academic programs and DEIJ initiatives in independent schools for over a decade.

Our Assistant Head of Curriculum & Community, the first Black woman to serve in Castilleja’s Academic Leadership, was entrusted with upholding and reinforcing our community’s commitment to DEIJ & Antiracism within our academic program. Central to this was the development of a cornerstone of our Strategic Plan: a 6–12 Curricular Framework that would integrate our Interdisciplinary Content Areas (ICAs) and Leadership & Antiracism competencies throughout the curriculum. Over two years, this framework was built with feedback and collaboration from a broad cross-section of Castilleja stakeholders. Moving into the current academic year, a dedicated team of 14 educators was established to drive the implementation of this framework, realized in part through an ICA & Experiential Learning program. All of these advancements were approved and directed by our Head of School at the time, Nanci Kauffman.

Following Nanci’s unexpected “departure” on September 7, we have witnessed an unsettling unraveling and regression in our post-2020 progress in Antiracism & DEIJ, beginning with the conspicuous absence of our Assistant Head of School. During the week of September 11, several individuals under the supervision of our Assistant Head found their scheduled meetings suddenly canceled. A week later, the Leadership Team vaguely informed us that she was “on leave.” Yet, only days after, many witnessed her name being scrubbed off her office door. As of this week, her office has been completely cleaned out. Still, there has been a striking silence from both the Leadership Team and the Board regarding the whereabouts and status of our Assistant Head, a prominent advocate for DEIJ and Antiracism at our institution.

Silence Speaks Volumes

On September 19, our Associate Head of School for Finance and Operations (and current Acting Head as announced by the Board on September 7), announced the suspension of our ICA & Experiential Learning program happening on select Wednesday afternoons throughout the school year.

Communications to our community have framed the ICA & Experiential Learning program as if it were an afterthought rather than a meticulous plan. This misrepresentation belittles the efforts of our colleagues on the ICA Leadership Team, which comprises faculty across various departments/programs with extensive experience in experiential learning both at and beyond Castilleja. They have been transparent about their approach, sharing their program architecture with students, families, and other faculty. They have mapped out extensive curricula, coordinated with community partners and organizations, managed budgets, scheduling, logistics, and more. However, before any significant formal feedback could be gathered, the program was prematurely cut, one day before the first official session, which was scheduled for September 20. This degree of scrutiny is not directed towards traditional academic classes, leading us to question why this program, a product of our Strategic Plan, is being questioned and eliminated before it even has a chance to come to fruition.

As the entire community read about these major changes in an email from our Acting Head, the ICA Leads received the news firsthand in a meeting with the Leadership Team (minus the Assistant Head who was supposedly “on leave”). Throughout this meeting, admin assured the ICA Leadership Team that building in more support to deepen and expand the experiential learning program was still a priority of the school moving forward. They committed to providing more time, resources, and a leadership structure that would support the collective work of the ICA Team. Yet, this commitment was markedly absent from the email sent to students and families. This omission communicates a lack of trust in the abilities of the ICA Team and implies that the program is disposable.

The purpose of the 6–12 Curricular Framework & ICA Program is to provide every student with consistent opportunities throughout their Castilleja journey to engage with a robust, interdisciplinary academic program grounded in experiential learning principles. This curriculum is expansive, audacious, innovative, and equips our community with the skills that our modern world demands. Instead of highlighting this effort, the letter to the community only briefly mentioned how teachers have designed experiential learning for students in the past. While this is true of some teachers, the purpose of having a framework is to ensure an equitable and systemic integration of these pedagogical practices so that all students can access and experience them.

The Student (and Faculty) Experience

A primary reason provided by the Leadership Team for the program’s suspension was feedback concerning the schedule from students. However, in the absence of a formal survey, how was this feedback collected? Was the decision grounded in research, or was it influenced by isolated anecdotes? One would expect that a significant shift in the rotation calendar and daily bell schedule occurring just one month into the school year would be supported by compelling data. If they were only paying attention to anecdotes, why weren’t they listening to the students and parents who shared how much they appreciated the schedule? Why didn’t they consider those who expressed how the schedule supported their mental wellbeing and gave them the time and space to more meaningfully engage with their coursework and school activities?

The surprising announcement about reverting to a previous version of the schedule left many in a state of confusion. Along with the experiential learning afternoons being cut, the Acting Head shared that there would be reductions in Community Time, which includes time for socioemotional learning, academic enrichment, student leadership, DEIJ and global programming, community engagement, and other crucial facets of the student experience. The Board was quoted in a recent article in our student newspaper Counterpoint stating:

“Our goal is for no change in the student experience to result from the head stepping down.”

In light of the developments since September 7, this statement rings hollow — ironically, Counterpoint is one of the several student-led organizations that stands to lose valuable meeting time due to this sudden schedule revision. This senseless decision has left students reeling, feeling sidelined without a platform to share genuine feedback, despite being cited as a catalyst for the change. Some students even took matters into their own hands, creating and sending surveys to peers to gather input on the current schedule, the ICA program, and Community Time priorities. The administration was swift to dismiss these student-initiated efforts, promising a more “official” survey to come on September 27, a mere day ahead of unveiling a schedule draft to staff. This timeline suggests the survey might be more about ticking a box than sincerely listening to student perspectives.

Some students had expressed that although they knew some “teachers were happy” about the schedule “changing back” since it meant more classroom minutes, they themselves were excited for the ICA program and appreciated the current schedule. This demonstrates not only how students have been frustrated by the lack of communication but also the glaring unprofessionalism exhibited by some of our faculty who have openly expressed doubts and frustrations with the ICA program “taking away” instructional time. Their fixed mindsets view the balance between experiential learning and traditional classroom time as a zero sum game, unable to envision the potential of an interdisciplinary curricular framework that transcends the conventional classroom setting. Regrettably, this “zero-sum” mindset appears to dominate the current narrative, limiting the potential for a more inclusive conversation that values multiple perspectives.

The abrupt shift in schedule is not only disruptive to students and families but also disregards the effort teachers have invested in preparing their courses. Faculty have been given only one afternoon, on October 4, to revise their courses to fit a new schedule, released less than a week prior. In a recent letter to faculty, the Acting Head shared a hope that the revised schedule, which closely resembles our 22–23 schedule, provides “the gift of continuity and stability.” However, this fails to account for new staff and faculty who lack that past context. Instead of experiencing “continuity” or “stability,” they are burdened with added demands from school leaders that already devalue their presence. It is incredibly disrespectful to change the schedule multiple weeks into the year and foolish to think such a change would be received as a “gift”. This decision once again caters to a vocal minority advocating for outdated schedules and practices, which do not support the wellbeing of our students.

Women Learning, Women Leading

A decade from now, students won’t remember how many minutes of math they had or didn’t have. Instead, they will remember the environment they learned in and the leadership that shaped their experience. Students will remember how a series of decisions, made at the top, rocked the foundations of their learning environment.

Is this the model of leadership we want for our students? The current decisions made by our Board and new leadership tell our students a troubling narrative: if they take risks, innovate, or lead with courage and conscience, they risk being sidelined or silenced.

But there is still a window of opportunity. We can rewrite this narrative.

Moving forward, we must prioritize a vision that not only addresses the present impact of these decisions but also paves the way for a future that truly embodies the principles that we stand for as an institution. To genuinely reflect our commitment to our students and core values, we as a collective demand the following actions from the Castilleja Board of Trustees and current Leadership Team:

1. Be transparent around the circumstances surrounding the absence of our Assistant Head of School for Curriculum and Community and confirm that she will continue to be part of the Leadership Team.
2. Establish a DEIJ Committee that includes diverse community representatives with a demonstrated commitment to our Antiracist & DEIJ work. This committee should play an integral role in the selection of both the Interim Head of School and the long-term Head of School.
3. Conduct a comprehensive review of student, faculty, and staff feedback on the recent unilateral and abrupt decisions regarding the removal of Nanci Kauffman, ICA program, and schedule change.
4. Discontinue the contract with the recently hired consultant and redirect those funds towards initiatives that align with our school’s values & Strategic Plan.
5. Clearly define the Board’s scope of influence over school operations and audit their decision-making practices, particularly regarding their involvement in recent events.

If the Board and Leadership Team are genuinely committed to our Mission & values of DEIJ, their actions must echo these ideals. Our students deserve better; they deserve to look up to principled, visionary, consistent, and compassionate leaders with a sense of purpose to change the world.