Head of School at National Child Research Center (NCRC) - Arrest warrant issued

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/protecting-children-from-sexual-abuse/202305/educator-sexual-misconduct-remains-prevalent-in

Sex abuse in schools is unfortunately common and mostly perpetrated by men.

But remember women can abuse kids in other ways (physical, verbal, emotional)

No, it is not common. Even one case of it is too much but as horrible as it is, it is thankfully not “common” in schools. It is much more common for kids to be sexually abused at their home or the perpetrators home than at school or anywhere else.

Educators are some of the most cherished members of our community. Arguably they play one of the most pivotal roles in our children’s lives, educating them in fundamental skills and promoting their social and emotional growth and well-being. However, in recent years there has also been increased media attention on cases of educator sexual misconduct. Sadly, these are not isolated incidents, as it is estimated that about 10 percent of students will experience educator sexual misconduct by the time they graduate high school.

A new large-scale, multistate survey of recent high school graduates about the nature and scope of educator sexual misconduct in Grades K-12 conducted by our lab found that almost 20 years after the publication of the Shakeshaft report, educator sexual misconduct remains rampant. Of the 6632 participants, 11.7 percent reported having experienced at least one form of educator sexual misconduct during grades K-12.

Similar to past research, we found that:

Most perpetrators were teachers (63.4 percent) or coaches/gym teachers (19.7 percent).
Most perpetrators were male (89.1 percent).
The majority of those who experienced educator sexual misconduct were female (72 percent), and in high school at the time, they experienced sexual misconduct.
Sexual grooming behaviors such as giving the student gifts, food, money, jewelry, and special attention were often reported.
There were low rates of reporting, and few reports resulted in the disciplinary action of the educator.

All of that is horrible but 10% isn’t “common.”

Wow, yes it is, SMH

You’re talking 10% of kids over their entire school career. Not 10% every day or every year. So no, it luckily isn’t common.

omg! 1 in 10 for such a severe event is absolutely very common. wow wow wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure what the obsession is over BVR (and even allegations against STA and NCS) on this thread and not a single mention of Concord Hill. It’s clear there are posters with a grip against the Cathedral schools. This man hasn’t been on the close since 2008 and no allegations of misconduct have been made about made against him during that time. Why is it more likely to have happened at BVR and not CH?

He created the discord account while at bvr. That info is 3 days old so we have no idea the damage done while he was there. But it’s likely not great. He was at CH for only 1 year and was interviewing mid year. And well the creepy Toth 3rd grade connection at bvr. And the working relationship he continued to have with bvr while at ncrc too- when he left CH he was done.

He was at bvr for 10 years, ncrc since 2018. While at ncrc since 2018 he was talking, meeting with and visiting with bvr constantly. CH connection def not great but the bvr and ncrc damage seems so much worse.

I doubt he had access to kids at BVR though after he left. He may have used his computer there which is gross but if he was there it would have been to meet with admissions people.

He worked at BVR until 2016.

There is no evidence in the affidavit that he ever used his computer at Beauvoir (though obviously he did when he worked there). Beauvoir is only mentioned one time in the affidavit and that is in connection to the school's address being used on his AT&T mobile phone account.

He did work there though until 2016 as he was the outplacement director for us.

I understand. But the affidavit does not cover any activities from that time period. Posters keep suggesting that he engaged in his nefarious activities at Beauvoir. He may have, but there has been no evidence of that so far.

I certainly hope not as I just found out he was meeting with kids alone as outplacement director despite the previous head saying teachers and staff were NOT allowed alone with kids as a safety measure post Toth…..

He was outplacement director for my kids at Beauvoir.

I will add we had no red flags about him at all. We love Beauvoir and are not looking to blame them or anyone. He kept up a very British professional manner and I would not have guessed any of it.

British-ness lets a lot of people get away with a lot of stuff.

Former parent who interacted with him at NCRC - I thought he was cold and strange, and had an odd gut feeling about him; I avoided the whole outplacement process with him and didn't want to be beholden to him; he was an odd man; not to the extent that I would have expected any of this to come out - but I will say my "gut" was telling me to stay away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone thinking that a known predator didn’t abuse children when he had the opportunity is delusional. Educate yourselves.

It is possible he did not ever touch children and that his activities were limited to only be online or elsewhere. Someone or a kid would’ve said something by now.

Seriously, please educate yourself.
Or are you the troll on this thread spewing misinformation?

You are not nice. I am not a troll. I am a parent to kids at a school he was at and we talk to our kids openly and often about this sort of thing and they would have told us if something happened. I am hoping that is the case for all. Bug off. Btw You’re the one with the misinformation there are many online predators that do not take their actions in person thankfully… I am hoping for all this was one of those cases.

Jeff posted about this earlier, but there is some basis for hoping/believing this to be the case. In the affidavit, the UC agent asks if he has carried out any of these acts in real life and he says no, would be great, but no.

I posted this earlier, hoping/believing this to be the case as well and I was attacked by so many people on this board saying that I was minimizing the crime. And somehow being selfish for not wanting my kids to be the ones who had been touched by this monster. I said the same thing, and I was attacked for hoping that it was only an online activity, and that somehow I was ignorant and not understanding that abuse was still happening to innocent victims because of his online activity.

there’s zero basis to believe he never did any of this in person. and the schools apparently aren’t actively trying to find out and are trying to push the narrative that it was “just” looking at CSAM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
To 14:15, As long as we prioritize being nice over the safety of children, predators will continue to abuse children. Nice parents and nice children is part of the profile of what they look for, people who would never report to the police until they had absolute proof of abuse. By then, it’s too late, people. The children have already been abused and traumatized.

You need to be on high alert for any slight ‘creepy’ or ‘off’ behavior. Get educated. Do whatever it takes for him to know you prioritize your child’s safety over being nice.

You are absolutely right! I am a former parent at NCRC, and I can tell you that people keep their children in a bubble that doesn’t exist. Everyone is so nice, and the world feels like Disney. On top of that, while the school has a strong focus on social-emotional learning, any time a parent raises a concern, it’s dismissed almost immediately. I’m talking about issues like annoying behavior between kids, concerns about new students’ behavior, or even teachers hugging children (WTF?).

It also seems like NCRC tries to calm parents’ emotions over the last scandal, almost to the point of dismissal. Nobody has been violent or anything, but when parents express worries, it’s met with responses like, ‘No, no, please stay calm,’ even when nobody is yelling. It’s so hypocritical—they teach kids to express themselves through social-emotional learning, but when parents try to voice concerns, they’re brushed off. It’s a mess!

People there are overly nice, it is kind of a protection. How to be critical to someone who is so nice. Parents have to wake up.

Agree 100000% -- and there needs to be a new "therapist/counselor" who is arms-length from James Carroll, who can look at this situation with clear eyes. The current counselor should step down for a year long sabbatical, as she is too close to this situation and should herself seek help. Need an outsider to come in, help process this without denial, and offer screenings for kids if their parents want to do it. Being overly nice, telling people to be quiet, or not talk about it with their children, is tantamount to asking everyone to put their head in the sand - or - "DON'T LOOK UP!" style gaslighting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to normalize or preempt the ask. I’ve always been too nervous to ask if the door is closed when my DD gets invited to the male counselor’s office for lunch. Too nervous to ask if the male teacher at preschool changed my DD’s clothes after an accident.

I never had reason to believe there was a problem but I wished I just knew the norms and that the (private) school was straight with me from the onset. Send out their policies so no one has to fear judgment or retribution for asking.

This is exactly why I wouldn’t have my preschool child with an unknown male individual.

Parents who think it’s great, you have plenty of opportunities these days. Go at it, and hope for the best.

Statistically, you’re more likely to have someone from your family or inner circle abuse your child rather than at school.

Of course, because they have much more opportunity to be alone with the child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how people lose complete perspective in this area. It’s horrible this happened and everyone can agree on that, including NCRC, but to act like it’s this rampant problem with males in preschools isn’t true.
We have 3000 preschools in metro area, and lots of guys work at these schools. One or two cases, as evil as they were, does not mean that males shouldn’t work with children.
It’s not a common thing here, so get a grip, people.

The point is that the severity of and individual incident of sexual abuse is very high, even if uncommon. And certain institutions facilitate it - namely, ones that serve children and especially if they have a culture of hierarchy, secrecy, and placing protection of the institution reputation above other values; and do not have clear policies in place to make the risk of abuse outweigh the risk of a ding on the school’s reputation. This means that a high profile preschool or elementary school is absolutely the type of at-risk environment where abuse can happen. And yes we know that males are much more likely to be offenders.

So this means that if you send your child to a high profile institution with a lot of make caretakers … you should be wary if the school has a board that tightly controls the image and also if “cults of personality” seem to abound (“Mr Larlo is SO WONDERFUL! A little awkward with adults but so great with the kids …”)

Once again, chances are way higher that someone in your family or inner circle will abuse your child than a teacher at school.

Once again we are talking about abuse at school.

The point is that acting like it’s some big problem with males working with kids which lots of stated here and realize that as horrible as this was that eliminating the male educators from your child’s life amonst this hysteria here, and basically avoiding men in the field when odds are that it’s still not as common as with people that are in your family or close friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how people lose complete perspective in this area. It’s horrible this happened and everyone can agree on that, including NCRC, but to act like it’s this rampant problem with males in preschools isn’t true.
We have 3000 preschools in metro area, and lots of guys work at these schools. One or two cases, as evil as they were, does not mean that males shouldn’t work with children.
It’s not a common thing here, so get a grip, people.

The point is that the severity of and individual incident of sexual abuse is very high, even if uncommon. And certain institutions facilitate it - namely, ones that serve children and especially if they have a culture of hierarchy, secrecy, and placing protection of the institution reputation above other values; and do not have clear policies in place to make the risk of abuse outweigh the risk of a ding on the school’s reputation. This means that a high profile preschool or elementary school is absolutely the type of at-risk environment where abuse can happen. And yes we know that males are much more likely to be offenders.

So this means that if you send your child to a high profile institution with a lot of make caretakers … you should be wary if the school has a board that tightly controls the image and also if “cults of personality” seem to abound (“Mr Larlo is SO WONDERFUL! A little awkward with adults but so great with the kids …”)

Once again, chances are way higher that someone in your family or inner circle will abuse your child than a teacher at school.

Once again we are talking about abuse at school.

The point is that acting like it’s some big problem with males working with kids which lots of stated here and realize that as horrible as this was that eliminating the male educators from your child’s life amonst this hysteria here, and basically avoiding men in the field when odds are that it’s still not as common as with people that are in your family or close friends.

… who are also men btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how people lose complete perspective in this area. It’s horrible this happened and everyone can agree on that, including NCRC, but to act like it’s this rampant problem with males in preschools isn’t true.
We have 3000 preschools in metro area, and lots of guys work at these schools. One or two cases, as evil as they were, does not mean that males shouldn’t work with children.
It’s not a common thing here, so get a grip, people.

The point is that the severity of and individual incident of sexual abuse is very high, even if uncommon. And certain institutions facilitate it - namely, ones that serve children and especially if they have a culture of hierarchy, secrecy, and placing protection of the institution reputation above other values; and do not have clear policies in place to make the risk of abuse outweigh the risk of a ding on the school’s reputation. This means that a high profile preschool or elementary school is absolutely the type of at-risk environment where abuse can happen. And yes we know that males are much more likely to be offenders.

So this means that if you send your child to a high profile institution with a lot of make caretakers … you should be wary if the school has a board that tightly controls the image and also if “cults of personality” seem to abound (“Mr Larlo is SO WONDERFUL! A little awkward with adults but so great with the kids …”)

Once again, chances are way higher that someone in your family or inner circle will abuse your child than a teacher at school.

Once again we are talking about abuse at school.

The point is that acting like it’s some big problem with males working with kids which lots of stated here and realize that as horrible as this was that eliminating the male educators from your child’s life amonst this hysteria here, and basically avoiding men in the field when odds are that it’s still not as common as with people that are in your family or close friends.

… who are also men btw.

Maybe you missed the part in this thread that females have been caught with high school boys quite a bit, as well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure what the obsession is over BVR (and even allegations against STA and NCS) on this thread and not a single mention of Concord Hill. It’s clear there are posters with a grip against the Cathedral schools. This man hasn’t been on the close since 2008 and no allegations of misconduct have been made about made against him during that time. Why is it more likely to have happened at BVR and not CH?

He created the discord account while at bvr. That info is 3 days old so we have no idea the damage done while he was there. But it’s likely not great. He was at CH for only 1 year and was interviewing mid year. And well the creepy Toth 3rd grade connection at bvr. And the working relationship he continued to have with bvr while at ncrc too- when he left CH he was done.

He was at bvr for 10 years, ncrc since 2018. While at ncrc since 2018 he was talking, meeting with and visiting with bvr constantly. CH connection def not great but the bvr and ncrc damage seems so much worse.

I doubt he had access to kids at BVR though after he left. He may have used his computer there which is gross but if he was there it would have been to meet with admissions people.

He worked at BVR until 2016.

There is no evidence in the affidavit that he ever used his computer at Beauvoir (though obviously he did when he worked there). Beauvoir is only mentioned one time in the affidavit and that is in connection to the school's address being used on his AT&T mobile phone account.

He did work there though until 2016 as he was the outplacement director for us.

I understand. But the affidavit does not cover any activities from that time period. Posters keep suggesting that he engaged in his nefarious activities at Beauvoir. He may have, but there has been no evidence of that so far.

I certainly hope not as I just found out he was meeting with kids alone as outplacement director despite the previous head saying teachers and staff were NOT allowed alone with kids as a safety measure post Toth…..

He was outplacement director for my kids at Beauvoir.

I will add we had no red flags about him at all. We love Beauvoir and are not looking to blame them or anyone. He kept up a very British professional manner and I would not have guessed any of it.

British-ness lets a lot of people get away with a lot of stuff.

What does that mean? Do you mean that people will attribute any unexpected or ‘different’ behaviours to cultural differences?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone thinking that a known predator didn’t abuse children when he had the opportunity is delusional. Educate yourselves.

It is possible he did not ever touch children and that his activities were limited to only be online or elsewhere. Someone or a kid would’ve said something by now.

Seriously, please educate yourself.
Or are you the troll on this thread spewing misinformation?

You are not nice. I am not a troll. I am a parent to kids at a school he was at and we talk to our kids openly and often about this sort of thing and they would have told us if something happened. I am hoping that is the case for all. Bug off. Btw You’re the one with the misinformation there are many online predators that do not take their actions in person thankfully… I am hoping for all this was one of those cases.

Jeff posted about this earlier, but there is some basis for hoping/believing this to be the case. In the affidavit, the UC agent asks if he has carried out any of these acts in real life and he says no, would be great, but no.

I posted this earlier, hoping/believing this to be the case as well and I was attacked by so many people on this board saying that I was minimizing the crime. And somehow being selfish for not wanting my kids to be the ones who had been touched by this monster. I said the same thing, and I was attacked for hoping that it was only an online activity, and that somehow I was ignorant and not understanding that abuse was still happening to innocent victims because of his online activity.

there’s zero basis to believe he never did any of this in person. and the schools apparently aren’t actively trying to find out and are trying to push the narrative that it was “just” looking at CSAM.

The schools should be aggressively looking for any and all possible abuse, that is indisputable and they have handled this terribly. But there is not ZERO basis to consider that it may have been limited to online when he did not take the bragging rights of having abused in real life when asked by the UC who he thought was another pedo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how people lose complete perspective in this area. It’s horrible this happened and everyone can agree on that, including NCRC, but to act like it’s this rampant problem with males in preschools isn’t true.
We have 3000 preschools in metro area, and lots of guys work at these schools. One or two cases, as evil as they were, does not mean that males shouldn’t work with children.
It’s not a common thing here, so get a grip, people.

One or two? You have no idea about what you are talking about.

What do you plan on doing when your child goes to Elementary school and lots of guys work there?

I make sure I chose a school that either never had this problem, or did but manage it perfectly fine and have a reputation to not put things under the rug. And I make sure they have a good policy, no hugs with teachers, nobody alone with a child…

Never that you know of. The school could either have had zero issues, which is what you see, or the school could have covered up every single one to make it invisible and it would appear the same to you. The latter is what my school did. It wasn’t that there was less abuse or no abuse, it was that it was covered up so well every single time.

THIS. Never voice any potential abuse to the school. You’ll REGRET it. Always go straight to the POLICE to report your concerns. They’ll decide how to proceed.

I guess this is why NCRC still hasn't commented on how to navigate the potential that our children are victims?

In all seriousness - why would NCRC parents need this spelled out them? It should be obvious.

The HOS is an extreme pervert.

He had access to your child in some capacity.

A logical next step is to start the difficult process of determining if your child was abused.

This is best handled by a pediatrician or the police, not the school who has little to no interest in abuse being uncovered. I don’t see what their role is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
To 14:15, As long as we prioritize being nice over the safety of children, predators will continue to abuse children. Nice parents and nice children is part of the profile of what they look for, people who would never report to the police until they had absolute proof of abuse. By then, it’s too late, people. The children have already been abused and traumatized.

You need to be on high alert for any slight ‘creepy’ or ‘off’ behavior. Get educated. Do whatever it takes for him to know you prioritize your child’s safety over being nice.

You are absolutely right! I am a former parent at NCRC, and I can tell you that people keep their children in a bubble that doesn’t exist. Everyone is so nice, and the world feels like Disney. On top of that, while the school has a strong focus on social-emotional learning, any time a parent raises a concern, it’s dismissed almost immediately. I’m talking about issues like annoying behavior between kids, concerns about new students’ behavior, or even teachers hugging children (WTF?).

It also seems like NCRC tries to calm parents’ emotions over the last scandal, almost to the point of dismissal. Nobody has been violent or anything, but when parents express worries, it’s met with responses like, ‘No, no, please stay calm,’ even when nobody is yelling. It’s so hypocritical—they teach kids to express themselves through social-emotional learning, but when parents try to voice concerns, they’re brushed off. It’s a mess!

People there are overly nice, it is kind of a protection. How to be critical to someone who is so nice. Parents have to wake up.

Agree 100000% -- and there needs to be a new "therapist/counselor" who is arms-length from James Carroll, who can look at this situation with clear eyes. The current counselor should step down for a year long sabbatical, as she is too close to this situation and should herself seek help. Need an outsider to come in, help process this without denial, and offer screenings for kids if their parents want to do it. Being overly nice, telling people to be quiet, or not talk about it with their children, is tantamount to asking everyone to put their head in the sand - or - "DON'T LOOK UP!" style gaslighting.

Just to be clear, parents should not be talking about this with their kids, and NCRC should absolutely not be hiring someone to talk to kids, because it's really easy to end up with witness statements thrown out due to leading questions.

If a parent has any concern, they should talk to law enforcement. If someone needs to talk to a child, it should be someone who has professional expertise in this area, and who is know to law enforcement, and probably selected by or works for law enforcement. That is not gaslighting that's protecting children.

[Anonymous]

This is crazy. I read the statute and the complaint, and I don't think the behavior detailed in the complaint fits the statute. I'm sure it must violate child exploitation laws, but the statute cited doesn't seem to cover adults encouraging other adults to abuse children. Am I missing something? I hope he's behind bars for the rest of his life, so please don't misinterpret what I'm saying. And I know the FBI may find evidence of other things. I'm just talking about what was needed to get the arrest warrant.
-A lawyer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone thinking that a known predator didn’t abuse children when he had the opportunity is delusional. Educate yourselves.

It is possible he did not ever touch children and that his activities were limited to only be online or elsewhere. Someone or a kid would’ve said something by now.

Seriously, please educate yourself.
Or are you the troll on this thread spewing misinformation?

You are not nice. I am not a troll. I am a parent to kids at a school he was at and we talk to our kids openly and often about this sort of thing and they would have told us if something happened. I am hoping that is the case for all. Bug off. Btw You’re the one with the misinformation there are many online predators that do not take their actions in person thankfully… I am hoping for all this was one of those cases.

Jeff posted about this earlier, but there is some basis for hoping/believing this to be the case. In the affidavit, the UC agent asks if he has carried out any of these acts in real life and he says no, would be great, but no.

I posted this earlier, hoping/believing this to be the case as well and I was attacked by so many people on this board saying that I was minimizing the crime. And somehow being selfish for not wanting my kids to be the ones who had been touched by this monster. I said the same thing, and I was attacked for hoping that it was only an online activity, and that somehow I was ignorant and not understanding that abuse was still happening to innocent victims because of his online activity.

there’s zero basis to believe he never did any of this in person. and the schools apparently aren’t actively trying to find out and are trying to push the narrative that it was “just” looking at CSAM.

The schools should be aggressively looking for any and all possible abuse, that is indisputable and they have handled this terribly. But there is not ZERO basis to consider that it may have been limited to online when he did not take the bragging rights of having abused in real life when asked by the UC who he thought was another pedo.

Law enforcement should be looking for any and all possible abuse. The schools need to step back and let law enforcement do their job. They should absolutely not be investigating on their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy how people lose complete perspective in this area. It’s horrible this happened and everyone can agree on that, including NCRC, but to act like it’s this rampant problem with males in preschools isn’t true.
We have 3000 preschools in metro area, and lots of guys work at these schools. One or two cases, as evil as they were, does not mean that males shouldn’t work with children.
It’s not a common thing here, so get a grip, people.

One or two? You have no idea about what you are talking about.

What do you plan on doing when your child goes to Elementary school and lots of guys work there?

I make sure I chose a school that either never had this problem, or did but manage it perfectly fine and have a reputation to not put things under the rug. And I make sure they have a good policy, no hugs with teachers, nobody alone with a child…

Never that you know of. The school could either have had zero issues, which is what you see, or the school could have covered up every single one to make it invisible and it would appear the same to you. The latter is what my school did. It wasn’t that there was less abuse or no abuse, it was that it was covered up so well every single time.

THIS. Never voice any potential abuse to the school. You’ll REGRET it. Always go straight to the POLICE to report your concerns. They’ll decide how to proceed.

I guess this is why NCRC still hasn't commented on how to navigate the potential that our children are victims?

In all seriousness - why would NCRC parents need this spelled out them? It should be obvious.

The HOS is an extreme pervert.

He had access to your child in some capacity.

A logical next step is to start the difficult process of determining if your child was abused.

This is best handled by a pediatrician or the police, not the school who has little to no interest in abuse being uncovered. I don’t see what their role is.

DP. Hopefully an outside counselor will be available to all students there to do screenings. Maybe an outside counselor NOT found by NCRC but they pay the cost or something like that? I would think he had little interaction with the kids alone as the HOS. Wishful thinking maybe but that would be my thoughts that he was not given many opportunities. I would assume the teachers there would be asked if he ever was alone with kids and if so when and where and in what capacity and go from there...