MANCHESTER, NH  December 8, 2025–The recently released, long in coming, report from the Manchester School District‘s “investigation” into McLaughlin Middle School teacher Jennifer Doucette‘s use of the Wheel of Power and Privilege (The Wheel) in her 8th grade English classes, reveals not just Doucette’s disturbing behavior and the consequences to students, but also the district’s duplicity on the use of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) materials in the schools.

As I read and re-re-re-read the “Formal investigative report regarding:  The Use of Unauthorized Instructional Materials,” I struggled with how to share it with you because what’s wrong with it and what it exposes is overwhelming.

To start, the material herein has to be considered against both the district’s use of so called “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” materials and its repeated denials that it’s used/using them, notably following President Donald J. Trump‘s Executive Order banning their use and the subsequent Dear Colleague letter from the federal Department of Education issuing directives to local school districts about their use, among other practices, such as allowing boys to use restrooms and locker rooms, and play on sports teams, for girls, which Manchester’s policy on Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students clearly violates.

The report’s introduction reads as follows:

This report includes information derived from an investigation into the unauthorized use of staff instructional materials from a training on Diversity (sic) Equity and Inclusion (DEI) that was sponsored by Great Schools Partnership.  Specifically, it was alleged that an 8th Grade English/Language Arts Teacher at McLaughlin Middle School (Teacher) gave students a packet of materials that included a section entitled Cultural Fluency 2.0 Microaggressions.  In this packet, on the page following the Surface, Snorkel, Scuba exercise, was a page that included the Wheel of Power and Privilege.

Banfield

That introduction actually makes a striking admission and that is this:  The district is, in fact, using DEI materials to train staff.  That is a violation of President Trump’s executive order and a violation of the terms set forth in the Dear Colleague letter from the Department of Education.  As Ann Marie Banfield, an esteemed advocate for parental rights and academic excellence in our state, noted in a letter to Mayor Jay Ruais, among others, this lesson likely violated state and federal law.  Banfield received no response to her letter or any of the questions it raised.  (We note that while a federal court temporarily enjoined the administration from enforcing the terms of the Dear Colleague letter on April 25, 2025, the materials in question were used to train teachers in February and March.)

By the way, you should know that the Great Schools Partnership (GSP) is a radically woke, leftist organization that defines “educational equity as ensuring just outcomes for each student, raising marginalized voices, and challenging the imbalance of power and privilege.”  It promotes “Anti-racist, inclusive, and equitable practices, policies, and cultures that create conditions for everyone to have a strong sense of belonging.”  Manchester Proud brought them to the district in 2019 because of its “diversity.”  I voted against engaging their services, despite Manchester Proud’s initially bankrolling it, because their objective was clearly not academic excellence but in the political indoctrination that comes with the cultural Marxism they peddle.

In the Preliminary Facts section of the report, the district claims that “the complaint that gave rise to this investigation was first brought to the attention of the administration on May 1, 2025.”  How can that be when the Union Leader first reported the story on April 27; a story in which the district said it “was aware” of the issue?  Two days later, Girard at Large sent a Right to Know request asking for a variety of materials associated with the controversy, to which Superintendent Jennifer Chmiel responded in about an hour.  Why would the district say it became aware of the complaint four days after it was front page news?

 

Ruais: Ignored letter

Interestingly, the Preliminary Facts section of the report, which appears to have been written by McLaughlin Principal Kelly Williams, asserts that “In response to this complaint, the Superintendent of Schools (sic) and Human Resources (sic) were immediately notified, and the decision was made to launch an official investigation into this matter.”  It’s unclear what “immediate” means in light of the timeline of events that proves the district was aware of it several days before the report claims it was.

Also in the Preliminary Facts section, the district said The Wheel was used “as a wrap up to the district approved holocaust (sic) unit.”  This begs many important questions, including:

  • Why is the Holocaust being taught in an 8th grade English class?
  • On what planet is a lesson on “microaggressions,” which are offenses committed by white and or straight people who ask non-white people things like where they’re from, or non-straight people about their sexuality, a fitting end to a lesson on the Holocaust, which was the intentional slaughter of millions of people based solely on their religion and creed, and those who attempted to protect them?
  • What did Doucette teach about the Holocaust that makes using this material an appropriate capstone to the lesson?  Since disgraced Memorial High School history teacher Jason Paige, whose curriculum included World War II, told his classes that slain conservative leader Charlie Kirk was “a Nazi,” among other vile slurs, it’s a question that has to be answered.

Chmiel

One of the documents obtained by our Right to Know request was the “pacing guide” for the middle school English Language Arts curriculum.  The Holocaust isn’t the only eyebrow raising topic in the pacing guides.  If this is “English Language Arts,” what are they doing in social studies classes?

As the district would only make a physical copy of the teacher textbook for the 8th grade class available by appointment, claiming it could not share the actual curriculum because it was copyrighted, I was not able to review the material.  Therefore, I cannot comment on the actual content of the lessons.  That said, given the dismal performance of Manchester’s students on New Hampshire’s standardized tests, where roughly 75% of our middle school students are considered not proficient in reading and writing, one would think there’d be more of a focus in an English class on the fundamentals of that all important work.

The district admits that The Wheel was in Doucette’s classroom, contained within the Cultural Fluency: Microaggressions 2.0 teacher training packets Doucette presented in March.  “As a precaution,” the report said the “leftover” packets were removed from the classroom.  A precaution?  Is this an admission that the material was inappropriate and harmful to students or was the precaution about ensuring nobody else outside of the classroom saw the material?  In asking that question, we remember this outrageous notice sent to staff from Amadou Hamady Sy, the district’s Executive Director of Student Engagement, Outcomes and Success.  Makes one wonder about other materials the district’s used to train teachers.

Note well that before the aforementioned executive order and Dear Colleague letter, Sy was the Executive Director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Justice.  The district did not respond to our inquiries about whether it posted this “new position” or just gave it to Sy, which, if it were a fundamentally different position from the one he originally had, would have required it being posted for potential applicants once created by the district.  Not for nothing, here’s the Chief Equity Officer job description and here’s the description of the job they slid him into after that position was allegedly eliminated.  Aside from the removal of obvious references to DEI, the job remains essentially the same.

Williams

In the Investigation Process section, the report discloses that Williams was “assigned to investigate this matter” and Erin Murphy was “assigned as process observers (sic) in this matter.”  Sources tell Girard at Large that Murphy, who was a network director in the district office, left the district in May, after using sick time, making it impossible for her to have overseen a 7 month long investigation that started around the time she left and continued until November 28.  Curiously, her LinkedIn page says she left the district in November, 2024.

During that 7 months, Williams interviewed just five students and Doucette, who, incidentally, is never named in the report, which is odd given that she was identified by aggrieved parents in the Union Leader article referenced above on April 27.

From the summary of interviews, we learn that Doucette is a “train the trainer educator” that worked with the GSP to train district staff in this material.  She attended a session in February to learn how to present Cultural Fluency:  Microaggressions 2.0; the material that she brought into her classrooms.  She presented the material during a professional development day on March 18; underscoring that the district actively used DEI materials, also known as Critical Race Theory (CRT) or “Cultural Marxism,” which separates people into different groups based on characteristics such as race, color, creed, ethnicity, origin or religion.  The groups range from the powerful (oppressors) to the powerless (oppressed).  Everybody is somewhere on the oppressor/oppressed scale, with Whites always in the oppressor category and non-whites always in the oppressed category.  Once labeled, one is always and only identified by the group characteristic, never considered as an individual.  One is never allowed to leave the group or defy its label.

Doucette said she thought the Cultural Fluency: Microaggressions 2.0 would be a good “mini lesson” on the day before April vacation began and also to close out the Holocaust lesson because “it became apparent that there were a lot of sayings and slurs being used every day by students who don’t necessarily know the origin or meaning of the sayings.”  Since the materials don’t actually address the origins or meanings of any actual slurs, the stated rationale for using this material is doubtful.  The report provides no elaboration on her reasoning and does nothing to question it.  The alleged slurs are not identified.

Percent of students scoring at grade level. Click to enlarge

The student interviews revealed many contradictions with students saying both that she led the lesson in the classroom and said doing The Wheel was optional; that they were asked to do the “Surface, Snorkel, Scuba” sheets but not The Wheel, which was the very next page; that they were encouraged to do the wheel to see where they placed on it if they wanted to.

Apparently, videos about The Wheel or microaggressions (not clear from the interviews) were shown.

A student said Doucette “went through” The Wheel with them and told them to fill it out.  Another student said they got “a slide show.”  (Was it the one she gave to the teachers for professional development?  Was it the “video” others said they saw?  Was it something else?)  That same student said The Wheel was given as an activity…that “a white male looks more powerful” (The intended outcome of this lesson, by the way.) and that they were “told to fill it out.”

Some students said she didn’t care if they took them home, other said she didn’t say anything about it.  There was general agreement that she said she wasn’t going to review or grade them if they turned them in.  Of course, none of the unidentified students were critical of the lesson; one was “confused” about why parents were complaining, some said it opened their eyes to realities they hadn’t thought about before.

Before we get to the report’s laughable conclusions, we should get into this “Surface, Snorkel, Scuba” lesson.  The report treats this as if it was somehow less of a problem than The Wheel.  Indeed, Doucette herself says that’s all she told students to do, though 2 students said otherwise, which was not addressed by the report.  In light of her teaching on microaggressions, she wanted them to “reflect” on the following questions:

  • Amadou Hamady Sy

    Surface

    • What are some of the most visible aspects to your identity? (e.g., race, gender, age, visible disabilities)
    • How do these aspects impact how you are perceived by others?
    • What assumption might people make about you based solely on these visible traits?
  • Snorkel
    • What are some aspects of your identity that are not immediately obvious but are relatively easy to share?. (e.g., hobbies, interests, cultural background)
    • How do these aspects contribute to your overall identity and how you see yourself?
    • How might these aspects influence your interactions with others?
  • Scuba
    • what are some deeply personal aspects of your identity that are significant to your core being and values? (e.g., personal experiences, traumas, deeply held beliefs)
    • how do these aspects shape your worldview and how you navigate the world?
    • How might these aspects impact your relationships with others?
  • Overall Reflection
    • What are some key insights or realizations you gained about yourself through this exploration?
    • How might these insights impact how you interact with others and build relationships within your school community (students, colleagues, families)?

(All emphasis in the original.)

Murphy LinkedIn info. Click to enlarge

Clearly, this is designed to get people to identify themselves first and foremost by their immutable characteristics and sort themselves into groups defined by those characteristics.  While the Wheel is a natural follow on to this exercise, this exercise provides context for each participant’s place on the power spectrum identified by their place on The Wheel.  Whites are more powerful/privileged than non-Whites, straights more than non-straight, Christians more than non-Christians, men more than women, etc…Once students identify their traits, The Wheel identifies their “place” in society and it does so based solely on the Surface characteristics.

The Findings section concludes Doucette used “unapproved curriculum materials and exposed students to materials that were not designed for students.”  It neither addressed why it was appropriate for use with the teaching staff nor the point of the training if it was inappropriate for use in the classroom.  In other words, why are teachers being trained in something they aren’t supposed to use in class?  Emphasizing this question is a finding that “The district did not have permission to use these or share these materials with students.”  Permission from whom and why not?

The Findings don’t address the inconsistencies in testimony about whether or not The Wheel was required or voluntary, nor did it share any conclusion about Doucette’s use of videos or slideshows on microaggressions.  The report reveals that approximately 60 students in three classes were exposed to the material but that Doucette’s fourth class was not because it was a “self contained” class that had an alternate assignment.  That assignment was not disclosed.

As an aside, the language in the report makes it appear as if Doucette only teaches 4 classes per day.  How can that be in a district that claims it is struggling to meet student needs due to underfunding?  Middle school teachers, by contract, are supposed to teach 5 classes per day.  Is she?  If not, why not?  If she were teaching a 5th class, wouldn’t that help minimize staff costs as the district tries to keep class sizes down?  How many other teachers are only teaching half the day?

Paige: He taught about the Holocaust, too…

The district dragged this investigation out for 7 months.  Based on the contents of the report, one can’t help but wonder why and note that any attempt to address it prior to the election was met with “no comment” because it was a “personnel matter.”  Citing that same “personnel matter” rationale, the district refuses to say what, if any, disciplinary action was taken against the teacher for using these materials in violation of district policies.  The district continues to insist that use of these materials to train teachers is consistent with state and federal law.  Doucette remained in the classroom throughout this prolonged investigation.  Did she continue to use what she taught in her professional development classes without the written materials?

Girard at Large asked Superintendent Chmiel why this report took 7 months to produce.  We received an unsigned email from “communications@mansd.org” saying:  “A full investigation was completed by the district. This is a personnel matter and therefore we will have no further comment on the incident.”  The district also failed to respond to inquiries about how the use of this material was “in full compliance with all lawful mandates and directives regarding the use of DEI materials” and ignored our request to know who was replying anonymously to our questions of the superintendent.