The following statement was drafted by a group of eight teachers representing both campuses, and was co-signed by 33 faculty members with a combined 303 years of experience teaching at Roeper with the intention of it being read at the January 27th meeting of the Roeper Board of Trustees. However, the Board did not allow the faculty to speak, and the statement went undelivered. Signatures have been removed because of the changed nature of the statement's presentation, but the sentiment holds:

"A quote by Mariann Hoag has been used often of late: “Take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of this place.” Today, we are gathering as a concerned group of faculty and staff to share our comments as our attempt at following Mariann’s call to action as best we can, and out of our love for this place we call The Roeper School.

In the 1981 Philosophy Statement, George and Annmarie stated that leadership at Roeper “is not based on the authority vested in the power on the top of the hierarchy but rather on the confidence of the community in the expertise and goodwill of the leaders. It requires the skills to establish open communication and respect in the constituency, as well as their legitimate participation in decision-making.”

We share this quote because the Roepers’ vision of leadership - one they viewed as integral to the educational mission of the school^[1] - is not taking place at Roeper today. There has been an erosion in the confidence of the staff “in the expertise and goodwill” of our Head of School. Christopher has failed to cultivate relationships within the school community, leading to a lack of expertise and understanding that the relationships created at Roeper – between staff, students and their families – is what makes us who we are, what sets us apart from our competition, and is the very thing that allows our students to be so successful at learning. We have not seen Christopher showing initiative in getting to know us and what we do in our classrooms; we have not seen him in the Commons or on the playground trying to get to know our students.

Instead, we have seen him walk past staff without greeting them or returning their greetings. We have seen him attend school events but not interact with faculty or students while there. We do not believe that our Head of School knows who we are, not only as employees, but as people. With this, and most troublingly, when Christopher’s unilateral decisions are challenged, we have been a witness to a dismissive tone and a raised voice with both staff and students. The “open communication and respect in the constituency” that the Roepers tasked leadership to develop as vital to the mission of the school feel currently nonexistent.

We understand that Roeper is in a tough place financially. We are a group of intelligent people who care deeply about this school and some of us have been here before. We would love to engage in the problem-solving process that George Roeper described as “sitting together on one side of the table and putting the problem on the other.”  But up to this point in time, we feel that we haven’t even been invited into the room, let alone to the table. We still feel in the dark regarding the details about our current challenges. We only have received blanket problem statements and figures that allude to "tough decisions that will need to be made.”  When Christopher presents a problem, it is usually followed by unilateral decisions and a demand for full support, even if we disagree. We acknowledge that Christopher’s background has made him skilled at identifying waste and maximizing for efficiency. However, his current methodology of implementing his plans do not align with our school’s philosophy of humanism and our mission’s values of collaborative decision-making and valuing relationships among all community members.

We fear that Christopher’s current proposal to restructure the Lower School program by increasing class size while cutting specialist positions reflects a perfect storm of the incompatibility of his leadership style with our mission and philosophy: firstly, the process leading to the decision did not at all involve the participatory approach that Annemarie described as “everyone who would be affected by a decision [having] the opportunity to be involved in the process which led to the final decision.” And most troublingly, the restructuring will completely alter our ability to fulfill the mission of the Lower School – increasing homeroom size by 7-9 students will impact the depth of relationships that students are able to cultivate with their teachers as well as limit the choices available to students in the program because of the lack of faculty able to offer them. Relationships with teachers and student choice are the defining points of our Lower School program that set us apart from other schools. While change may be necessary, we fear that Christopher implementing this restructuring plan will negatively affect retention rates and ultimately spell the beginning of the end of our beloved Lower School.

With political turmoil and totalitarianism on the rise in the world, it feels necessary to double-down on the incredible and unique philosophy that the Roepers identified as being an antidote to hierarchy and hatred. Now is the time that our school and its leadership most need to live up to our ideals. At this point, we are asking ourselves what kind of school do we want to be? Do we want to be a community that values control or collaboration? Do we value compliance or commitment? Fear or love? I think we all know the answer to these questions are the answers that we need to save our school during such trying times."

^[1] AMR 1986 Article: https://www.roeperschoolhistory.org/ideas/rr-shared-decision-making/

Since Christopher started at the school, he has done nothing to get to know the staff. He has no idea what goes on in my classroom. Every interaction with him is like walking on eggshells. Whenever I have questioned any decision, he immediately attacks me (this has been something I have witnessed with others). He makes no attempt to understand the views of others. He is defensive and refuses to allow input from others. When I have been given "choice" it has always been between options he dictates. It feels very much like I have been given "choice" simply so he can say that I picked this. The options are narrowly defined and allow no input from others. It does not seem to me like Christopher is a part of the community, rather he is running it from outside of the community (directly against the philosophy of Roeper).

When Christopher was hired, I was willing to meet him with an open mind and accept him as our new head of school, looking forward to a positive partnership between the educators, families, and administrators. We had minimal interaction aside from all-school meetings and assemblies, and I noticed early on that he wasn’t making an appearance by greeting families at drop-off or visiting classrooms, which I initially chalked up to working on getting settled in the new role and school, but this hasn’t improved in 2 years. Halfway through his first year, I have a strong memory of receiving an email sent to all faculty, publicly shaming us for not doing enough to recognize Black History Month, and pointing out the extra need for doing so (performatively) because of the racist lesson of the previous year. I remember the feeling of shame flooding me when I read the line specifically calling out my department while I knew for a fact what was said wasn’t true. I sat with this discomfort, trying to figure out how to correct this false narrative without coming across as defensive, performative, or like I was trying show off at the expense of my peers. I knew what my colleagues at the LS were doing in their classrooms because I was actively helping them with the research projects and selecting and sharing stories to celebrate Black History Month, as I’d done throughout the year with all of our cultural and heritage celebrations. As my colleagues started sending “reply all” emails, I saw even more how much was happening inside classrooms and just how incorrect and inappropriate Christopher’s assumptions/accusations had been. In speaking with colleagues, I learned he also hadn’t visited others’ classrooms, also hadn’t asked others questions, had jumped to conclusions and handled his misunderstanding by attacking instead of seeking to understand. This was the first glimpse I remember getting of him that made me feel unsafe. In conversation with a colleague (staff member in the Hill House) I learned that their department had already gotten used to receiving such emails from him. 

During all-school meetings, Christopher has delivered announcements and decisions that have come as surprises to faculty multiple times. One such example that comes to mind was when the announcement about changing to key cards instead of door codes was made. Teachers had many questions and concerns, which were met with what I now consider Christopher’s signature style of belittling and isolating dismissal, using a tone that suggests the question asker is out of line, alone in their concern, and frankly not very bright. I realize these are interpretations, but they are how it comes across to me and many others and while I will give a singular example, this is a strong pattern. A colleague asked about what happens when a student loses their card and was told they’d be charged a monetary replacement fee. She pushed back that this was going to happen often because we have a neurodiverse population for whom keeping track of belongings is a challenge, and that it would unfairly punish ADHD students. Her concern was dismissed as being insignificant and that she was wrong and it was only going to be an issue for her own child—which is absolutely not the case, though she gave her child as an example of one of many, many children in our school who lose things—as anyone who has spent time with these kids would know. 

When the teachers worked to realign the stages, I was excited this change had been approved after many years of effort and thoughtful consideration of child development. I voiced an initial concern about the plan of how to label the newly aligned stages, knowing that telling kids they weren’t “moving up” and would have the same numbered stage for a third year would be upsetting to many (if not all) second-year students and was told I was wrong. I learned from colleagues on the realignment committee that they’d also said the same thing long before the decision was announced. And then after the stage realignment meetings with parents, who voiced the same concern to Sarah Hermann, the decision was changed. This is an example of his unilateral decision making that dismisses the voices of people who best know and represent our kids.

The announcement of the stage realignment was made at our all-school faculty meeting, which we thought would be celebratory, until it was immediately followed by an announcement of changes to our long-held tradition of a 2-teacher model in the LS to single-teacher classrooms with 14 students, and a demand for immediate support of this plan when talking to families the following day. This decision was being made solely for financial reasons. Teachers were flabbergasted and as we started voicing concerns were met with the same belittling, defensive dismissal and demands that we just don’t talk to parents if we couldn’t say exactly what he wanted us to say, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the trust between faculty and families and how such a response from teachers would come across. We were told that faculty was going to be cut (and clarified that this is only teachers being laid off, no staff positions were being cut and we have not yet been told of any other changes to the budget). We were also falsely told that the change in the teaching model was decided upon with the help of teachers, only to later learn the task had been given to Meghan alone, who then advocated for being able to work on it with Cynthia and Paula, and that the model they decided upon and proposed to Christopher wasn’t what he then delivered to us.

We successfully were able to get Christopher to delay the second part of this change and allow us time as a faculty to come up with alternative solutions—but we were given less than 2 weeks, during the busy month of December, with not nearly enough information and parameters that left us no good options. Our options had to keep the higher student-teacher ratios and could be 2 teachers per class (28:2) or 1 teacher for a “half class,” in which the ratios would be even higher (up to 16:1). We decided upon the 2-teacher model, but also came up with many other ideas for increasing revenue without raising tuition and cutting costs without cutting teachers. We have not been allowed at the table to share ideas or work together to save our school.

After the December announcement and tension, the faculty began working on a letter to the Board or Directors and tried to get on the agenda to speak at the January board meeting, but were told no and to bring concerns up directly to him. Faculty at each campus met with their respective directors to voice concerns, which we were told were going to be shared with Christopher, one of which was questions about what his vision for the school is, as it has increasingly felt like it’s not the vision of the Roepers and many teachers wanted to know if this was still going to be the school we signed up to teach in. I am unaware of any outcomes of that meeting or the meeting Meghan had with him afterward.

Faculty showed up to the January board meeting and were not allowed to speak. Over 35 of us were in attendance. Christopher’s presentation to the board at that time was charts and graphs detailing Roeper’s financial distress and quotes suggesting that small class sizes are inconsequential. His budget was passed, with no input from teachers about the impact of these proposed changes on the ability of the school to meet the needs of our children and deliver the promised program.

As an aside, I have personally experienced walking past Christopher and saying “good morning” and then being outright ignored. I shared this with a colleague, concerned maybe I had somehow gotten on his bad side. She said the same thing had happened to her. I have since heard the same from two members of our parent community. While small talk social skills aren’t everyone’s strength, in a school about relationships it feels especially jarring to have a leader who doesn’t know or attempt to know us.

Decisions being made without input from the constituents they directly affect has become the norm, despite this not being how I’ve ever understood Roeper to work. Christopher has stated multiple times that he sees himself as better informed about giftedness than others in our community and history, including our founders, but has not shown an understanding of our population—perhaps conflating “high achievement” with giftedness and the complexities that so often present in our many 2e students. I understand his responsibility to balance the budget, I understand that sometimes difficult decisions have to be made. I do not understand how a school with a foundation of respect, relationships, community, and a strong, founder-initiated tradition of flattened hierarchy and shared decision making has become an environment where teachers are afraid to speak up, parents are kept in the dark, and our head of school has left so la y worried about the future of our beloved Roeper.

Many of us believe that Christopher is not invested in our community and that this lack of investment shows up in a variety of ways. It seems to undergird his methodology and approach, which feels like shortsighted quick fixes without careful consideration of our community — teachers, students, and families alike — or fidelity to our philosophy. 

Early on, it became clear to us that Christopher’s role was to make cuts and balance the budget. None of us oppose this necessary function. We thoroughly understand and support this effort. But of course there are many ways to handle this job, and the methods that Christopher has proposed strike us as problematic in numerous ways. At the core, many of us feel like his approach flies in the face of our philosophy. In time, what was first thought to be Christopher’s lack of knowledge of the philosophy has begun to feel like either a significant misunderstanding of it or even a hostility towards it. The philosophy often seems to be “in the way” of his plans…rather than at the heart and always out front of his decision making. One comment he made has never left me: “The philosophy is great, but you can’t pay the bills with ‘Roeper dollars.’” When he said this, I felt something that I had never felt at Roeper. It seemed dismissive…of the philosophy, the founders, and our mission. It also made me think that this person is at the wrong school. Tough decisions will always have to be made. But there is a Roeperian way to make them. Our founders knew this. Since that time, it has been really hard to sit through the many times that Christopher has made insulting comments about our founders and the history of our school. The process and lived experience of community is never clean and easy. At Roeper we expect “messy.” And we are allowed the space to discuss, disagree, and work toward consensus together. But, and I say this very honestly, I have never doubted the investment in the philosophy of any community member until now. 

Throughout the past three years, there have been numerous times that I have witnessed teachers being disrespected, devalued, and silenced. I, and others, have comforted students who have been unsettled by Christopher. And I have truly worried about the true cost of the cuts to faculty and program that Christopher has proposed. I am very fearful that his plan will only exacerbate our current budget shortfall and, in the process, we will find ourselves compromising the philosophy and our mission in ways both foreseen and unforeseen. It feels like we are moving ever closer to a true hierarchical structure and ever further away from the core reasons why we are all here.

We surveyed faculty about their experiences lately and asked them, “Do you have confidence in Christopher Federico’s leadership?”. Here are some of their answers: 

• Christopher said…he would work collaboratively with the community. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he either doesn't have the desire for this, or that he's not capable.
• lack of transparency in decision making.
• inability to have open and meaningful conversations.
• apparent lack of interest in anything specifically happening in our classrooms.
• absolutely no interest in meeting with us as a group and having a difficult adult conversation about our perspective.
• trust in Christopher is completely broken.
• I do not feel that I can believe any information, data, or reasoning that he presents verbally.
• I have heard him say different things to different audiences.
• consistently refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of decisions.
• worry that his vision for the school is misaligned with philosophy.
• Christopher is unwilling to listen to those below him.
• He has created more of a hierarchical structure, as opposed to the original Roeper philosophy which puts administrators, teachers and children at the same playing field.
• He uses underhanded insults to belittle educators
• He tries to keep information from us.
• does not trust families or teachers to do what is best for kids.
• has been an absent leader on campus
• Has never visited my classroom
• As a leader, Christopher has never tried to build community with staff, faculty, and students/families.
• Christopher in his three years has mainly belittled and dismiss faculty when trying to gain further understanding on a situation or question an idea he has had.
• He has lied or mislead faculty, the board and families with upcoming changes and has spun information to support his plan.
• The lack of community building, lack transparency and lack of simple human kindness have negativity impacting this school, staff/faculty morale.
• He “leads” brazenly, and not in a Roeperian way.
• He has not shown an understanding of Roeper and what Roeper teachers do on a daily basis.
• He does not communicate effectively and does not foster collaborative decision making.
• He has done nothing to build relationships.
• He is abrasive, deceitful and secretive.
• He treats teachers with disdain.
• He does not allow for opposing views to be heard.
• Does not ask for opinion to make informed decisions.
• Lack of participatory processes or transparency of process
• top-down and brigade-style management have eroded trust.
• Loss of temper and condescending, dismissive attitude with staff and students.
• The apparent lack of evaluation process is concerning.
• Trust is very important and that has been broken repeatedly.
• Christopher has been dismissive of faculty concerns and ideas to improve and/or maintain Roeper’s wellbeing.
• He has no commitment to Roeper’s “flattened hierarchy” and commitment to collaborative decision-making where everyone who is meaningfully affected by a decision has a voice in making that decision, regardless of place in the organization.
• He has been outright rude and unprofessional to me and my colleagues on multiple occasions.
• His decisions about staffing and budget, while perhaps necessary and urgent, are have been made in a non-Roeperian, non-collaborative, non-humanistic way that treats people as objects.
• I do not think he understands the way this community works — interdependently and collaboratively — and I do not believe he has any interest in learning.
• I think he sees his goal as “fixing,” or perhaps “civilizing,” Roeper and its messy uniqueness and making it something that looks neater and cleaner on from his birds’-eye view but is not actually better for our students, staff, faculty, or families.

April 2024, Electives are the heartbeat of the middle school program. However, since Christopher’s tenure, there has been growing concern that Roeper’s most essential value proposition: our commitment to nurturing gifted children through choice, curiosity, and unique courses may be at risk of being replaced by a more conventional college-prep structure. In faculty meetings and States of the School, Christopher has stated multiple times that we have too many teachers and not enough students to support a wide range of classes. This emphasis on numbers—particularly class sizes—has shifted the philosophy behind how we offer electives. It has introduced a sense of internal competition among departments, especially as courses are now routinely cut if they don’t immediately attract broad student interest. This practice directly conflicts with Roeper’s foundational beliefs. It sends a message to teachers that their offerings aren’t valued unless they appeal to the majority, and to students that their niche interests aren’t worth investing in. These cuts disproportionately impact humanities and arts electives, and don’t account for students who may switch courses mid-quarter, join late, or enroll in the future. Nor does it acknowledge the logistical challenges of limited physical space. Compounding these concerns, Christopher has referred to some courses as “basket weaving” when discussing registration---language that many find dismissive of arts and humanities and, to some, a microaggression that devalues creative disciplines. At a school like Roeper, where philosophy and people must come before numbers, this shift is troubling. The “fairy dust” that has allowed Roeper to thrive for 80 years cannot be measured by enrollment metrics alone. The Roeper School cannot thrive without leadership that deeply understands, protects, and advocates for our 1981 philosophy—including the fierce defense of electives. We urge the Board to reflect on whether current decisions support or undermine that vision.

• How do you plan to foster a diverse staff with layoffs and most of your BIPOC staff members leaving/retiring?
• How will my child access the same number of specials classes with fewer teachers on campus next year?
• I have heard from many families that they may not return next year. How will this impact my child’s experience of Roeper?
• With so many things shifting, I am afraid my child will lose the security of their friends and known teachers. How will the school deal with the social/emotional aspects of big changes for gifted learners?
• Will there be additional hires to deal with the emotional support needs that will come up for our gifted learners during changes to routine?
• How will my child be encouraged to lead in Stage V while dealing with the losses of their trusted teachers?
• How do you plan to introduce your changes at the Lower School to my child?
• What metrics of success have you set up to evaluate these changes that factor in our children's distress from the process?
• My child will be devastated to learn they will not see their teacher again. How are you preparing them for this loss?
• What measures are in place to foster a safe environment for the grieving that will take place on campus?
• I am worried about the lack of diversity represented by staff on campus. Without new hires, my child will have very few mentors of color to turn to. How are you working to keep true to our commitment to our DEIJ statement?
• My child is feeling very anxious about potentially having the same teacher for a third year. It feels to them like they’re failing to be promoted. How and when will you present stage realignment to LS students? How are you addressing this issue?
• We chose Roeper specifically for its social-justice mission. With the departure of two high-profile staff members of color and the suspension of DEIJ initiatives and policies nationwide, what steps are you taking to ensure DEIJ remains central to Roeper’s mission?
• With all the forthcoming changes, I am uncertain if Roeper will continue to suit my child’s unique needs. What are you doing to encourage retention and allay fears among current families?
• When will Ryder the therapy dog be made available to LS students?
• I recently watched Adolescence and Childhood 2.0. Why are you discontinuing the Computers special at this time?
• How will Roeper’s commitment to individualized learning happen in classrooms with more students and fewer teachers next year?
• With fewer specials and elective offerings, how will Roeper continue to emphasize student choice and student-directed learning?
• I’m seeing a shift towards core academic class priority and away from electives. The variety of electives are part of what makes Roeper a good fit for gifted kids and for my kid. We chose Roeper because it is challenging and collaborative, focused on inquiry not college prep (while of course naturally leading to amazing college outcomes). Will this continue to be the Roeper my child has access to?
• How will my M/US students fill their schedule with less elective offerings? They have not had as many choices recently and are unhappy with lost options.
• How will my child have the support from teachers they need when teachers have less time available (e.g., fewer open blocks)? Teachers at Roeper were very available for support outside of class, but they can’t be as much now.
• My child excels in the smaller social groupings and class sizes that we have been used to. How many of their class sizes will be larger now?
• If my student wants to explore a particular area of passion, in the past they would be able to find a teacher to help them set up their study. Is this still available to my child?
• How will changes to next year’s scheduling and teacher loss be communicated to my child? What emotional support will they receive?
• Why aren’t you discontinuing the use of cell phones like many schools?
• How will Roeper’s commitment to individualized learning happen in classrooms with more students and fewer teachers next year?
• Why can't my US student teach a class next year? Historically, this has been a huge opportunity for growth for students as leaders and academics. My Child was looking forward to exploring and sharing their passion.
• Are we still paying David Feldman’s salary? How much are we paying him? Why and how was that decision made? For how long do we have to pay his salary?
• The Roeper team name (Roughriders) has racist, White nationalist, and colonizing origins. What is your timetable for retiring it?
• Are you planning a capital campaign to remove the domes and build a new building?
• What would happen if the community went to the media with concerns about how this is being handled?