Kindergarten teacher enrolled her two children at Smyth Road despite being a Massachusetts resident

Lied about residence

MANCHESTER, NH April 13, 2026–Despite being a legal permanent resident of Leominster, Massachusetts, the children of Krystie Steele, a kindergarten teacher at Smyth Road Elementary School, have gone to school with her for the past six years.  The enrollments cost taxpayers at least $167,000 and potentially forced students who actually lived within Smyth’s attendance district to attend other schools as the district bused multiple children out of Smyth to lower class sizes.

On March 11, Girard at Large sent an email to Superintendent Jennifer Chmiel regarding allegations of Steele’s impropriety.  Prior to sending the email, Girard at Large had learned that Steele’s son had attended Smyth Road from kindergarten through fourth grade.  Sources confirm he did not return to the district last Fall for fifth grade at Hillside Middle School.  In addition, Steele’s daughter is currently enrolled in the third grade at Smyth Road and has been enrolled there since kindergarten.  We also learned that one of the children was receiving special education services through an Individual Education Plan (IEP).

In sharing those details with Chmiel, we inquired about whether their attendance had been approved by the board and what tuition agreement was in place to pay for their presence in the schools.  We also asked for copies of the polices covering such matters.

Two days later, at 1:01 PM, Chmiel replied:

Good evening
Thank you for sharing your report.  We will take a look at what you have shared.
Jenn

A week after our initial inquiry and five days since Chmiel said “we will take a look,” we asked for an update, writing:

So, it’s been a week since I sent this and 5 days since you said you’d take a look.  What have you found?

Chmiel: Tried to bury the report

Nearly three hours later, we received this anonymous reply from “communications@mansd.org:”

Good Afternoon,

We are still investigating the circumstances included in your email from March 11, 2026.  We have been unable to locate any records that are responsive to your request. As you are likely aware, personal school records of pupils are exempt from production under the right to know law.  I nonetheless appreciate you sharing this information with us.

These brush offs, “unable to locate any records that are responsive to your request” and personal school records being “exempt from production,” were immediately met with this reply:

What’s not exempt from production is any action of the board to allow a non-resident to attend the schools or the tuition payments they make.  Are you denying the information I sent to you is accurate?

No reply was received.

Girard at Large confirmed that district office personnel visited the school after our initial inquiry and spoke with Steele and Principal Jennifer Briggs.  According to multiple sources, both claimed Steele was living with her mother in Manchester.  In consultation with the sources who originally brought this information to our attention, we searched city records for properties owned by Steele’s mother, or anyone with her maiden name, Carignan, to determine what address, if any, Steele could plausibly be using to justify enrolling her children at Smyth Road.  Our search turned up a property on Normand St., which is south of Candia Road and well outside Smyth Road’s boundaries.  Steele is in the owner history as Krystie Fleming, her name from her first marriage.  She bought the property in 2011 and sold it in 2015 to Robert Carignan.  In November 2023, it was transferred to the Carignan Family Revocable Trust of 2023.

Briggs: What did she know and when did she know it?

This information necessarily implicates others in Steele’s scheme to fraudulently enroll her children at Smyth Road, including Principal Briggs.  District Policy 509 Admission of Resident Students, which has been on the books since 2001, requires parents to provide a child’s birth certificate and two proofs of residence as part of the registration process.  The acceptable forms of proof listed in the policy include a:

  • utility bill indicating legal residence (i.e. phone, cable, electricity, water)
  • lease agreement or rent receipt indicating landlord’s address and phone number
  • official letters from organizations such as the Manchester Housing Authority (Must be original letter on letterhead and signed by organization’s representative.)
  • or documentation of homeownership in the city of Manchester.

The policy goes on to say:

A student’s home school will be determined by their home address as listed on the two proofs of residency. A Court order or other official documentation may be required for guardianship. An exception may be made by following BOSC Policy Students 105.1: Homeless Students.  Class size limits at time of enrollment may results in students being assigned to another school within the district.  (Emphasis added.)

In addition, the policy also grants the superintendent or their designee:

…the right to grant special permission for attendance at schools other than those considered to be the home school of the student.

Special permission may be granted for reasons including, but not limited to special education students, hardship cases (childcare arrangements are not considered hardship cases), or other extenuating circumstances as determined by the administrator. The administration further reserves the right to limit special exceptions based on class sizes and overall school enrollment.

Children who register for school after the beginning of the school year, insisting upon entering a particular school based on their processed residence, shall be allowed to register, and be given a ten-day grace period to produce proof of residence. In such instances, a signed and notarized statement of residence must be submitted.”  (Emphasis in the original.)

Inasmuch principals are expected to review registrations at their schools, it is appropriate to ask what Briggs knew and when she knew it or what documents, if any, she required Steele to produce in registering her children.  Because we found no property records associated with Steele or her family found within Smyth road’s boundaries we conclude that district policy either disallowed the enrollment or required an exception, which the district has not been identified, let along produced.

We gave fair warning

Having heard nothing from the district since March 18, despite multiple entreaties on the Girard at Large TV Show, Girard at Large sent another email to Chmiel on April 9.  In it, we laid out the evidence we had about Steele’s residence and noted the anonymous email user’s failure to provide other requested information.  We also asked what Chmiel had done to investigate the claims and what information had been obtained through that process.  We advised this article would be published on Monday (April 13) and provided one last opportunity to offer comment.

About 90 minutes later, we received the following from the anonymous person behind “communications@mansd.org:”

Rich,
We have just completed the review of your concerns. We will provide a response tomorrow. Thank you for your patience.

Sources familiar with the “investigation” said that officials from the district offices were dispatched by Chmiel to the school following the receipt of our email at 1:48 PM on April 9 and that nothing more than a cursory inquiry had been made after receiving the original allegation on March 11.

On their way out the door at 4:35 PM on April 10, the district, again, despite another request to know the identity of the person corresponding on Chmiel’s behalf, anonymously sent the following email to Girard at Large:

Rich,

Here is the information the District can share.

Talk to the hand: District staff refuses to identify itself in emails

The person you referred to is an employee of the District and was a legal resident of the City of Manchester at the time of her employment. When the employee enrolled her first child, she was living in Manchester Monday through Friday. The employee’s mother resides in the City of Manchester. Her home is presently in a trust and the employee is reportedly a beneficiary of that trust.

At the time the employee enrolled her first child, it is apparent that there was confusion at the building level related to the employee’s residency and/or eligibility status. The employee’s children should not have been allowed to enroll in the Manchester School District because technically the employee was not, and is not, a legal resident of the City of Manchester.

The employee has been directed to disenroll her child or pay tuition in accordance with the District’s policies and procedures. The District’s policies and procedures are located on the District’s website and are accessible by the public. The building principals have been instructed to consult with the District office if there is any confusion regarding a parent’s residency and/or eligibility status.

Thank you for forwarding the relevant information to the District office.

This statement prompted us to reply with several questions that have yet to be answered, including:

  • What restitution will be paid the district for educating children who should not have been enrolled by a teacher who should’ve known the policies? I understand the policies are on the school districts website. I also understand that there are literally hundreds of them. Would you be so kind as to point me in the direction of the relevant ones?
  • Is the district asserting that this confusion or lack of knowledge persisted over a period of at least five years?
  • Will there be any action taken against the teacher or the principal for the improper enrollment of her children at her school?

The district’s reply also begs multiple other questions, among them:

  • How long ago was she employed by the district?
  • According to property records in Leominster, MA, she’s owned her home there since 2017.  What does the district have as her official address and how long has it had it?
  • Did people at the “building level” contact HR to gain clarity on her official residence?
  • When did the employee cease to become a resident of Manchester?
  • Is the district withholding Massachusetts state income tax from her pay, which according to publicly available sources was nearly $80,000 in 2024?  If so, for how long?
  • What, exactly, was the “confusion” about her residency?
    • She drives to school daily in a car with Massachusetts plates, and has for years.
    • Policy 509, quoted above, is clear on what is required to prove residency.  What was used to gain approval from Briggs?
      • Note:  NONE of the properties found in the name of Steele’s mother or the family trust is within Smyth’s district boundaries.  Should not the matter have been referred to the superintendent for an exception?  What about that policy creates confusion?
    • According to our research, the trust in question is for a property on Normand St., which has been in a trust only since November 2023.  Steele enrolled her son at Smyth Rd. in the fall of 2020, more than 3 years before the trust was established.  How do they account for this discrepancy?
  • Will the district allow her to pay tuition to maintain her daughter’s enrollment or will it follow Policy 511, Admission and Tuition of Nonresident Students, which requires board approval to enroll nonresident students?  Will the tuition be for the entire school year or its remainder?  Will past years’ tuition be assessed and collected as a condition of continued enrollment?  Will that process be public?  (It should be.)  What recommendations will the administration make to the board?

Impact-There are victims of these wrongful enrollments

click to enlarge

As noted, these wrongful enrollments are not without their consequences.  Girard at Large reviewed Smyth Road’s  cost per pupil as reported on the NH Department of Education’s Web site from the time Steele enrolled her son in kindergarten to the present.  (Note, these numbers do not include federal funding received by the school, including emergency COVID funds, nor do they include items the state excludes from the per pupil cost calculations, such as transportation and debt service.  Also, because the current fiscal year numbers won’t be available until after the fiscal year closes, we’ve used the 2024-2025 per pupil cost for the current school year.).  Using these figures, educating Steele’s children cost Manchester taxpayers at least $167,420.  We are unable to calculate the extra costs associated with educating Steele’s son, who we confirmed received Special Education services through an IEP.

As noted above, transportation costs are not included in the state’s per pupil cost figures but the enrollment of Steele’s children may have increased district transportation costs as several Smyth students have been bused to other elementary schools as a result of the district’s class size policy.  Starting in the Fall of 2022, Chmiel referred to Smyth, among other schools, as “pressure points,” because enrollments exceeded class size policy limits.  A staffing report presented to the Board of School Committee at its meeting of October 11, 2022 showed all three of Smyth’s kindergarten classes with 23 students, three over the policy limit of 20.  Steele’s daughter was enrolled in Smyth’s kindergarten that year, likely forcing an actual Smyth student to be bused to another school to bring class sizes in line with the policy.  That report showed there were 15 excess students at Smyth, as per the policy.

According to documents presented to the Board of School Committee on October 14, 2025, 15 students who lived within Smyth Road’s boundaries were bused to other elementary schools.   Are these the same 15 from 2022?  Are they different?  Were any of them displaced by Steele’s children?  If so, what’s the cost to the district to transport those children over the years and what’s the social cost to those children for having to attend a school outside of their neighborhood?  Did parents volunteer to have their children bused to another school or were they required by the district?  Who lost out because Steele’s children were in the school and what was the impact on them and their families?

Click to enlarge

Was any child deprived of special education services because they were provided to Steele’s son?  According to state records, Steele is certified in both Early Childhood Education and Special Education.  Did she use her knowledge of special education or her position as a teacher to get her son preferential treatment?  It should be noted that district policy requires all special education costs to be paid in full by the home district of any nonresident student allowed to attend Manchester schools.  The home district must also do the required assessments and is responsible for the services needed. Did she enroll him at Smyth, her school, so as to have control over his educational services?

That the district saw fit to announce that it has instructed principals to “to consult with the District office if there is any confusion regarding a parent’s residency and/or eligibility status” raises the question as to whether Steele’s is an isolated case or indicative of a larger problem.  If building principals are turning a blind eye toward these policies, it would appear that the district either doesn’t have or is choosing not to use information it has on its employees to ensure that only eligible students are enrolled in district schools.  Moreover, because of the district’s demonstrated refusal or inability to conclude investigations in a competent, transparent or timely manner, (NB: Jason Paige, Jennifer Doucette, Michael Gott and Glenn Turgeon), it is reasonable to question if it is interested in correcting behaviors that negatively impact students and taxpayers.