BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
A Palo Alto school board candidate has been accused of lying about her credentials on the ballot.
Classroom aide Linda Henigin isn’t qualified to teach math as a standalone subject, yet she listed herself as a math teacher on the ballot, parent Virginia Noh said in a lawsuit filed on Tuesday.
“It gives her a level of credibility that’s unwarranted,” Noh said in an interview yesterday.
Noh said Henigin has a “multiple subject” teaching credential, which allows her to teach all subjects to the same classroom up to eighth grade. That includes elementary school classrooms and middle school core classes. Teachers are required to get a “single subject” credential to teach specific subjects like math, according to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
Noh is trying to get a judge to hear her case by tomorrow’s deadline for the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters to change what’s printed on the ballot.
She wants a judge to remove Henigin from the ballot.
Henigin hasn’t returned a request for comment.
Nor has she responded in court to Noh. She described herself on the ballot as “math teacher/mother.”
Math is a major issue
Henigin is running against Avery Wang, a “re-search scientist/parent,” and John Craig, a “parent/ operations executive.”
Noh is supporting Wang. She said math has been a big issue in Palo Alto, and Wang is immersed in the topic. He’s advocated for allowing students to get ahead in math and sued the district for allegedly holding his son back.
“While he’s not a math teacher, that is his specialty.” Noh said. “And I think it’s important that you be hon-est, especially in a race for school board, that you’re not lying about your educational qualifications.”
Focus on students
Henigin works as an aide at Duveneck Elementary School. She has encouraged the board to focus on students who aren’t reaching their potential, not parents complaining that academics should be more rigorous.
Henigin said general education classrooms should be the “default placement” for all students at a May 2025 meeting. She campaigned for candidate Nicole Chiu-Wang in 2022 and 2024. Noh was board member Rowena Chiu’s 2024 campaign manager.
Chiu and Henigin clashed during and after a contentious board meeting on Jan. 21, 2025, about whether the district should require students to take Ethnic Studies.
Chiu was skeptical of the mandate, and Henigin was supportive.
“As uncomfortable as folks here feel talking about power, our children are hungry for this conversation,” Henigin said at the time.
[Post removed — Terms of Use violations. Comment exceeds our 250-word limit. Comment includes multiple quotes we are unable to verify. Commenter is welcome to express their opinion if they want to try again.]
The district should hire Hinigin and tell her to teach the multivariable calculus class at Paly. She’ll immediately want to switch to ethnic studies. Wait, you said you were a math teacher.
Isn’t Linda Henigin the same school board candidate who just got into trouble for abusing school resources to promote her campaign? And now she’s lying about whether she’s a math teacher with a CA math credential? Two strikes, folks…..
If this is true, this is a deliberate attempt to mislead the voters of Palo Alto. She has never hidden her opposition to offering opportunities in Math. She is all for holding back kids, so that kids who are behind would feel better. Doesn’t improve in any ways performance of kids who are at least a grade or two behind but makes them feel good. She feels that pretending to be Math teacher would make her in some way an expert in the field and set her apart from her opposition
I’m not a lawyer or judge, so I can’t speak to the legality of her misleading ballot designation.
From a political strategy point of view, it makes total sense why Linda Henigin would position herself as a “math teacher.” She is trying to take votes from Avery Wang, who has tirelessly advocated for math in the district. I think Palo Alto voters are more sophisticated than that, but it was worth a try!
Let’s see what the so-called math teacher thinks about math.
At the March 14th and 28th, 2023 board meeting, she spoke out in favor of delaning middle school math.
At the February 2, 2021 board meeting, she implied that kids of color have different strengths and the system needs to change to accommodate them. This is wildly insulting and untrue.
All of this is readily available to be viewed at the YouTube recordings from those dates. Just ctrl F Linda in the YouTube transcripts and you’ll find it.
I am a lawyer. This complaint is going nowhere. It’s a publicity stunt to inflame the extremist PAUSD parents who don’t care about the rest of the kids who need help.
“I am a lawyer” — nice credential flex. But caring about credential accuracy is “elitist”? Also, a law degree is about as elite as it gets. Can’t have it both ways.
Would you mind sharing a few examples of parents who do not care for rest of the kids. Does advocating for your own kids mean you are taking away opportunities from others. This narrative has been pushed for so long that no one feels it is absurd argument
It’s hard to get a judge to take any action at all and kicking a candidate off the ballot is a lot to ask. But striking the single word “math” off of her occupation could be justified because she doesn’t have that credential.
Her name is Linda Henigin. It’s right there in the article and you folks can’t even spell the name correctly. I’m not surprised you don’t know the facts. She has been an instructor in interventional math in a Palo Alto School for years. The fact that you want her to teach multivariable calculus, demonstrates you have no concern at all for the majority of kids who will never take a multivariable calculus class. This complaint and the ignorant posts in support of it perfectly encapsulate the problem with this extremist segment of PAUSD. They are only concerned about the most elite level kids (because their little Johnny is going to Harvard — sorry, not likely folks), and have no regard whatsoever for the rest of the kids. Linda’s apparently not a “real math teacher” because she’s only helping the rest of the kids who struggle with math. This tells you everything you need to know about this group and their candidates. And everything you need to know about LInda: she cares about all of the kids.
I have no desire to spell her name correctly, ambulance chaser.
And there’s the rub. I had one of those “elite-level kids” – your word, not mine – who was bored out of their gourd by grade 7. He had the whole lesson down in the first 10 minutes and spent the rest of every period staring out the window. If he was ever stressed, it wasn’t from pressure, it was from boredom and frustration. No, he wasn’t the majority — but he was hardly the only one.
I don’t know Linda Henigin and where she stands on this issue. But I do know there are a number of very vocal people in this town who swear themselves blue they care about all kids, but when it comes to my kid, no, they do not care. They say they do, but their real actions show they don’t. They fact is they value some kids, but they do not value others.
Some of our most prominent school board members fit this description. At least Shounak Dharap is honest about it; others aren’t.
I’m looking for school board members who really DO want to teach all kids, those both ahead and behind the median. I have heard one of the candidates speak, and I believe him when he says he is one of these, and I intend to vote for him. The others, including Ms Henigin, I will wait to hear more.
You make good points. Also, it is not illegal to teach a specific level of math with a multiple subject credential, especially if the teacher has experience and a talent for it. This all sounds like a witch hunt intended to disqualify a competing candidate. We have few enough good math teachers as it is. Let’s value those teachers who can teach math!
Has she been an instructor? She is listed as a classroom aide, which is a support role. She may be qualified to be a teacher but not clear she had that role in Palo Alto.
You’re a lawyer — an elite credential by any measure — yet you call parents who want good colleges for their kids “extremists.” That’s not principled, that’s just picking who’s allowed ambition.
Your comment stokes division, not dialogue. What evidence do you have that Avery Wang and John Craig don’t care about other kids? Have you read their platform? Nothing in it says they only care about top students — that’s your claim, not theirs. Their actual focus: real oversight of district operations, fiscal responsibility, addressing lawsuits and settlements, equal opportunity, special education, and working closely with parents on student mental health.
Were any resources taken away from the not so high performing kids to serve the better performing kids. All I heard was that the school needs to hold back the better performing kids so that others may not feel bad.
“And everything you need to know about LInda: she cares about all of the kids”, except the ones who really want to take multivariable calculus.
Beyond the procedural arguments, it seems like the most relevant thing is: has she ever actually taught math classes?
If she’s taught math classes for 10 years, then it seems reasonable to tell people she’s a “math teacher” despite any certification irregularities.
If she’s never actually taught math classes, then it seems like a falsehood, even if she’s technically touched on arithmetic in the course of other interactions.
Even worse, she was spotted just yesterday driving down Embarcadero at 30mph. Has she no shame!
It is very simple: we should have advanced classes for kids who want to excel, and supportive classes for kids who struggle. Karl, stop using victimhood language and claiming that parents who want their children to excel are extremists. What a ridiculous statement. These parents pay high property taxes so their children can be challenged and grow. If other students cannot keep up, they should be placed in less demanding classes. Karl, life is not always fair, and not everyone possesses the same talent in every subject.
I just did what many of us have done – and ran this through Chatgpt.
Looks. like Linda misrepresented her title….
Here is what Chat said…
There’s a substantial difference between:
“I work with elementary students on math intervention”
and
“I am a math teacher.”
And there is an even bigger difference between those statements and being a credentialed secondary mathematics teacher.
My bottom line
Based on the records I can find:
Linda Henigin has a genuine history as an educator. She taught elementary school in New Jersey, has a master’s in education, and appears to have worked with elementary students in math intervention at PAUSD.
However, her documented PAUSD employment history is overwhelmingly as an “Instructional Aide,” not as a certificated PAUSD math teacher.
And I have not found public evidence that she holds a California single-subject mathematics credential.
So if your question is “Is Linda Henigin actually a math teacher at PAUSD?”, my answer based on the public record would be:
Not in the conventional sense of a credentialed, classroom math teacher. She appears to be an instructional aide who performs math-intervention work with elementary students.
Her campaign itself now describes her more broadly as a “PAUSD teacher”, which is technically a different claim from saying she is a “PAUSD math teacher.”
Linda Henigin is an incredibly worthy candidate for school board. I agree with the statement by Karl Kramer that these accusations are awful and misleading to the voters. She cares about all of the kids in the district, and she enjoys the support of a wide range of former school board members and experienced, wise members of the Palo Alto community. I have lived here since 1965, and I’ve seen (with horror) the ugly shenanigans of various community members, including some on the school board. Linda will bring a breath of fresh perspective and sound experience. More than ever, I support her.
You are absolutely correct that she enjoys the support of former board members who have ruined the school over the years. Linda knows that they are toxic and is not showing any of their endorsements on her website, even though Linda is going to follow their policies and have received campaign contributions from them
For what it’s worth, it looks like she’s been endorsed by none of the current board members, only 1 from the last 10 years, and four from the last 20 (three of which were one-termers). Also no one from the city council, past or present. It’s not a great batting average if you think about it.
They support her behind the scenes and are very much part of her campaign. Just go head and look at her campaign contributions and they are some of the top contributors. Linda just doesn’t want to show that on her website because the community knows how harmful they were.
The obvious person here is Jennifer DiBrienza, who along with her spouse has donated $1000 to Henigin, but is not listed as an endorser. Especially for a new candidate, their well known supporters tell you something about what to expect if they are elected. Is Henigin trying to hide her support from DiBrienza? Are there others?
Not true. There’s a yard sign in front of Jesse Ladomirak’s house in support of her.
Not surprising that Ladomirak would support her. But Ladomirak is not listed on Henigins website, nor DiBrienza. Why not? You would expect Henigin would feature these recent school board supporters, vs ones from 10 or 20 years ago. It feels like she is trying to keep it quiet.
The real concern for many community members has been the lack of trust and transparency that has become so prevalent over the last decade.
There doesn’t really seem to be an issue with a longer job title, so why “math teacher” instead of the accurate job title of “math instructional assistant” or “math IA”?
It just doesn’t buy her much credibility with respect to transparency and trust building.
Only in Palo Alto would they make such a big deal out of this, especially when it relates to “math.” If you don’t like her, don’t vote for her.
Again, not the point.
Linda Henigin has served as both an aide and substitute teacher, and my children have had direct experience with her. Based on that experience, I have serious concerns about her suitability for a position on a nonpartisan board.
Linda has expressed views about education and achievement that I believe are quite extreme, particularly the idea that students should be kept at a similar academic level rather than allowing children who are capable and motivated to advance beyond their peers. I find that philosophy deeply troubling. Schools should encourage students to work hard, pursue excellence, and reach their individual potential, not limit achievement in the interest of ensuring uniform outcomes.
A nonpartisan board requires members who can put ideology aside and support the needs of students with a wide range of abilities, ambitions, and educational needs. Based on mine and my family’s direct experience with her, I don’t think she is a suitable board candidate.
Henigan, again, is deliberately trying to take unfair advantage in this election by attempting to advertise for student volunteers on the district website and by characterizing herself as a math teacher when almost any person who passed middle school math could teach the level of math she’s taught. We have some key issues regarding the teaching of math in the district and I think she’s on the wrong side. She’s on the wrong side of mandatory ethnic studies, also.
Linda Henigin would send emails to our Duveneck Elementary School parents; she is as far left as they come. She wanted to attract homeless to Palo Alto. Please do not vote for her, she will ruin Palo Alto with her radical beliefs.
She supports underdogs but Palo Alto is a city of achievers. We need to support those who live in Santa Clara County, not those who live in East Palo Alto in San Mateo County. Time to end the Tinsley program of 1986 since our schools are now overpopulated. The Tinsley program allowing students to attend PAUSD started when our student numbers were too low but now there are enough Palo Alto students to fill our schools.
So Karl Kramer says that favoring de-laning makes you an extremist. We can’t have discussions about issues anymore without guys like that calling us names. I’d like to hear how the three candidates view laning in math. I think every parent would want to know where they stand before voting. But Kramer says that by merely mentioning it, we’re extremists. Let’s have some civility in this race. Serious issues will face the next board including budget challenges and name-calling doesn’t help.
She teaches math to morons.
I am an Avery Wang and John Craig’s supporter. Your comment is demeaning and insulting. Whatever your opinion of Linda may be, there is no reason to insult her works and the students she works with.
This is very sad. Another Linda Henigin supporter resorting to baiting.
Picture this: you’ve invited the grandparents to your child’s talent show. Walking across campus, you run into your child’s instructional aide — the one who’s helped with math assignments all year. You like her, and want to introduce her to the grandparents. Would you say, “This is your grandson’s math teacher”? Probably not — you’d say “instructional aide” or “teaching assistant.”
That instinct is legally correct, too. A “math teacher” requires a single subject credential — Linda Henigin holds a multiple subject credential, which authorizes running a self-contained classroom. But there is no reported record that she’s ever actually held that role. Her documented title has always been instructional aide. It seems Linda made two leaps to call herself a “math teacher”: first a credential gap and second a role she’s never held.
[Comment removed — Terms of Use violation. Stay on topic.]
I hear that the Henigin campaign (read: Jennifer DiBrienza) has a new approach — instead of calling Henigin a “teacher”, they’re going to switch to the term “educator.”
Unlike teacher, which has an actual definition, educator can mean anything. Like I trained my dog, so therefore I can call myself an “educator”.
Let her keep the “teacher” title. By voting time, everybody will know it’s a lie. If the judge removes it from the ballot, it will be forgotten about she will talk about something else.