For years, Jericho’s PTA has presented itself as a volunteer-driven partner to the district, a group of parents united around enrichment programs, community events, and fundraising. But as internal communications, board minutes, and district documents show, the organization has evolved into something far more powerful: a private political and institutional network with direct influence over elections, committees, and administrative decisions.

It starts innocently enough: annual PTA membership drives, pushed through ParentSquare and flyers that encourage every parent to “join.” Those memberships that create school-wide rosters of parent contact information are then used to form text chains, group chats, and private lists. Initially, these chats coordinate trips, events, and fundraisers. But as election season approaches, the same lists become tools for political messaging.

Parents in multiple buildings have reported that those group chats shift tone in spring: “reminders” appear about who’s running, endorsements circulate privately, and coordinated “get out the vote” messages go out in the days before board elections. These communications rarely come from official PTA channels, but they originate from the same membership rosters and the same data that parents were told would be used for school engagement, not campaigning.

Under the New York State PTA Resource Guide, that kind of activity is explicitly prohibited. Membership data and communication channels collected under PTA authority cannot be repurposed for political activity. And yet, it happens every year in Jericho.

The overlap between PTA leadership and the Board of Education isn’t incidental; it’s structural.

Over the past decade, a clear pipeline has formed between the Jericho PTA Council and the Board of Education. PTA Council presidents and officers routinely transition into board seats, carrying the same networks, loyalties, and access that elevated them within the PTA.

District records show that Levy and Citron even served together as trustees, illustrating how PTA leadership frequently merges into the governing body it’s supposed to engage with from the outside.

This revolving door has turned the PTA into more than a parent-teacher liaison; it’s a political training ground and access channel. Once inside the board, those same leaders retain deep ties to the PTA structure — ensuring influence flows both ways.

The problem extends beyond elections. The district’s own 2025–26 District-Wide Safety and Emergency Management Plan lists “Parent Organization” members as part of the official District Safety Team — a legally required body that advises on security procedures, drills, and emergency response.

On paper, these are supposed to be broad parent representatives. In practice, “Parent Organization” is district shorthand for the PTA. The seats are filled by the same insiders who already run the council, preside over membership drives, and maintain political networks. No open applications, no public call for volunteers — just automatic access for those within the PTA circle.

That kind of administrative laziness isn’t trivial. It embeds a private, membership-based group into an official state-mandated safety committee — one that meets with administrators, reviews confidential protocols, and influences operational policy. It gives PTA insiders institutional legitimacy and access that ordinary parents simply don’t have.

When the PTA controls both the parent communication ecosystem and the gateway to district-level committees, it stops being a “partner” organization and becomes an informal branch of the administration. PTA leaders can promote certain board candidates, then sit across the table from those same officials on advisory teams, wielding inside information and access that ordinary parents will never have.

That dynamic fosters an unhealthy ecosystem: criticism is discouraged, independence disappears, and public committees become echo chambers. Parents outside the PTA orbit have little visibility into how these appointments are made, who’s serving, or how recommendations are shaped.

Despite these clear boundaries, the same individuals continue to operate across the PTA, advisory committees, and the board itself — blurring the line between civic engagement and coordinated political control.

What’s deeply embedded in Jericho isn’t simply volunteer enthusiasm, it’s institutional capture. The PTA has positioned itself not just as a partner to the district but as an unofficial gatekeeper of influence: managing communications, shaping public opinion, populating official committees, and producing the next generation of board members.

The result is a school system where access depends on allegiance, where a small group of “approved” parents hold disproportionate sway, and where community oversight is replaced by a closed circle of influence operating behind the banner of “parent involvement.”

The evidence from public records, policy manuals, and district rosters leaves no room for doubt. What’s continuing to happen is not collaboration. It’s control.