Students, staff and residents urge Malden School Committee to reverse non‑renewal of Malden High principal

Hundreds of community members spoke during a prolonged public‑comment period at the Malden School Committee meeting on Dec. 8, pressing the committee to reverse a decision not to extend Malden High School Principal Chris Mastrangelo’s contract.

Thomas Conte, a founding member of the Malden Youth Council, told the committee the non‑renewal was “a great injustice” and warned it would undermine trust among future students and voters. Chris Giordano, a math teacher and department leader, said he was “disgusted and disappointed” that the administration declined to extend Mastrangelo’s contract without explanation and that abrupt personnel moves undermine staff and family confidence.

Speakers across generations—students, teachers, parents and alumni—delivered similar appeals. Rick Tivnan, a social studies teacher, presented an open letter with more than 700 signatures and asked Superintendent Sippel to reconsider and offer a one‑year contract extension so Mastrangelo could retire on his own timetable. Student speakers described a walkout of nearly 500 participants earlier in the day as a clear expression of community sentiment.

Those who addressed the committee repeatedly framed their requests around stability and transparency. Rebecca Griffith Allen, a PACE and transition teacher and vice president of the Malden Education Association, described the non‑renewal as “shockingly opaque” and urged the committee to delay any final personnel action to allow a transparent transition. Several speakers said they feared the message the decision sends about the district’s treatment of long‑serving educators.

Committee members did not take a public vote on the contract during the meeting. The superintendent and other district officials acknowledged they are in close communication with parents and advocates elsewhere in the agenda, but no new public action reversing the non‑renewal was announced during the Dec. 8 session.

The community’s comments clustered around three requests: an explanation for the timing and process behind the non‑renewal, a one‑year extension to allow a dignified retirement, and clearer communication from district leadership going forward. Several speakers tied the issue to broader concerns about transparency and staff morale in the district.

The committee moved on after the public comment period and later convened an executive session for closed‑door personnel matters. The next scheduled meeting is Jan. 12, 2026; community members said they will continue to press committee members for a public response before then.