BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
A judge said Thursday that she will weigh in on a challenge to a Palo Alto school board candidate’s qualifications as a math teacher — but the challenge faces an uphill battle.
The case is between parent Virginia Noh and candidate Linda Henigin.
Noh has alleged Henigin isn’t qualified to teach math as a standalone subject, yet she listed herself as a math teacher on the ballot.
“It gives her a level of credibility that’s unwarranted,” Noh said in an interview.
But Noh’s lawsuit, which she filed herself, had a few issues, Judge Helen Williams said in an order Thursday.
For example, Noh should’ve sued the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters to challenge the ballot designation, not Henigin, Williams said.
Noh also didn’t submit any evidence to show that Henigin’s description on the ballot is false, Williams said.
Because of the problems with Noh’s filing, Williams scheduled a case management conference on Tuesday afternoon, not a hearing on the merits of the lawsuit.
Friday (Aug. 28) is the ballot printing deadline, but Noh said Williams can override the deadline.
Henigin hasn’t returned a request for comment since Wednesday, nor has she responded in court.
Henigin described herself on the ballot as “math teacher/mother.” She works as a classroom aide at Duveneck Elementary School.
Henigin has a “multiple subject” credential that allows her to teach a combination of 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 standalone subjects like math, according to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
Henigin is running against Avery Wang, described as a “research scientist/parent,” and John Craig, a “parent/operations executive.”
There are only two seats available in the election, so two of the three candidates will be elected.
Noh supports 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 honest, especially in a race for school board, that you’re not lying about your educational qualifications.”
Henigin isn’t really even an elementary teacher who is in charge of a class, she’s an “instructional aide.” She’s not currently employed as a math teacher or any other kind of full-time teacher. I also think it’s great to have people like Wang who are outside the educational establishment on the board to serve as a bridge to the world of work which most kids will have to transition to. No doubt he’s competent in higher math and understands the need to give kids more awareness of STEM subjects where much of the work is for people who aspire to attend college. Unfortunately, it appears Henigin is going to get away with the BS.
Linda has worked as a math intervention teacher for many years at Duveneck.
As a teacher or as an aide? Her only visible appointment is as a 1-2 hour a day classroom aide, which does not require a teaching certificate.
What she did for many years is irrelevant. Elections Code 13107(a) says, “(3) No more than three words designating either the current principal professions, vocations, or occupations of the candidate, or the principal professions, vocations, or occupations of the candidate during the calendar year immediately preceding the filing of nomination documents.”
Due to the judge’s lack of alacrity, Henigin’s questionable candidate title will appear on the ballot.
The judge told the plaintiff 1) serve the Registrar of Voters as a defendant, and 2) come up with evidence that Henigin isn’t a “math teacher”. Maybe Noh can do that before the hearing on Tuesday. If not, don’t blame the judge.
I think the distinction being considered here is important, and it goes beyond semantics.
There is nothing wrong with having a multiple-subject teaching credential or with having experience teaching or supporting students in math. But there is a meaningful difference between that and describing yourself on a school board ballot as a “math teacher.”
A multiple-subject credential allows an educator to teach multiple subjects within the same classroom, while teaching math as a standalone subject requires a single-subject credential. The distinction exists for a reason: subject-specific teaching requires specific preparation and authorization.
That matters even more in a school board election. Voters reasonably use ballot designations to understand a candidate’s professional background and qualifications. “Math teacher/mother” communicates something considerably more specific than “educator,” “former teacher,” “classroom aide,” or “multiple-subject credential holder.” It can lead voters to believe the candidate has professional experience teaching mathematics as a specialized subject when that is not what her credential authorizes.
This isn’t about minimizing the value of classroom aides or multiple-subject teachers. Both are important roles. It’s about accurately describing one’s qualifications—particularly when the designation is being used to establish credibility on a school board, where decisions about mathematics instruction and curriculum are central responsibilities.
If we expect candidates to be truthful and precise about their professional backgrounds, the same standard should apply to everyone, regardless of which side of an issue they are on.
She’s been an Elementary math resource teacher, substitute teacher and classroom aide. She has a Master of Science in Education with a double major in Elementary and Special Education.
Just because she’s working as a classroom aide doesn’t mean she doesn’t have prior experience and education.
She’s an elementary school math tutor. She could also be an elementary school reading tutor, just like a school volunteer. Only she’s getting paid. Almost anybody could do what she does, including high school students.
Ms. Henigin had several honest titles to choose from: instructional aide, math resource teacher, or math interventionist. Instead, she stretched her experience and picked a more authoritative-sounding title to misrepresent her qualifications and mislead voters on the ballot.
Please admit the fact: “math teacher” reads as the classroom subject specialist role — the one requiring a single subject credential — not the resource/support role she actually held.
“had several honest titles to choose from” – you are 100% correct. This was a deliberate decision, most likely aided by the prior two-time board president, who also claimed math qualifications to water down PAUSD math for years, so we are now behind neighboring districts.
This is totally politically motivated by Noh.
And inept – just like the attempt to recall a school board member.
Disgusting.
Wait, isn’t the process of running for office “political”? Are you saying a candidate can say anything they want and if you criticize them it’s “political”?
In the United States, we citizens have still have the right to debate the statements and qualifications of candidates in elections. But robust debates are part of a healthy democracy.
At this point Linda’s campaign has been very controversial. She has been found promoting her campaign using PAUSD resources. It’s not a secret that she has the support of prior board members who have run this district to the ground both academically and financially. While the prior board members are actively supporting her campaign and made huge contributions, Linda is not showing their endorsements on her website since she knows they are toxic in the community and most likely to hurt her
A stinky rose by any other name is still a stinky rose.
An instructional aide who fancies herself a teacher with board aspirations so she can continue to pull the wool over eyes.
A stinky rose indeed!
Putrid
Daily Post, thank you for the accurate story. It’s a shame that the other paper in town tried to ignore this matter, hoping it would go away, and when it didn’t, wrote a “nothing to see here, folks” story. Once again, the Post shines by giving people the actual facts and not taking sides.
The other paper remains in the pocket of the prior board leadership.
Linda would be an extension of the group that worked for years to water down everyone else’s opportunities, while they paid for outside help and called in favors to ensure their own children made it to the top colleges.
This is all petty. She teaches Math.
As I recall the “mean girls”* of Palo Alto politics were nothing but petty. And it looks like all of them are supporting Henigin.
*As a reminder, the mean girls are:
Councilwoman Julie Lythcott-Haims
Former school board President Jennifer DiBrienza
Nicole Chiu-Wang
Nana Chancellor