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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes—exactly. Imagine being so naive that you think just because YOU aren’t aware of any red flags, that none could possibly exist. Do you think parents deserve as much assurance as possible that their children weren’t abused (e.g. an investigation)? Do you think current and future parents deserve assurance that the school follows up on problems? (Again, an investigation) Without these assurances, who would send their child there?

Soooo, basically what you’re saying is there were red flags that a child molester was working there? Um, no. No red flags like that

We're saying that it's premature to assume that there were no red flags. And that not doing an investigation to find out is irresponsible.

They notified the parent community that a third party investigation has begun as well as given them access to an email to share any information. No one said they weren’t investigating the situation.

And no one said that they weren't doing the right thing. It's good that the school doesn't have the attitude of some of the posters here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes—exactly. Imagine being so naive that you think just because YOU aren’t aware of any red flags, that none could possibly exist. Do you think parents deserve as much assurance as possible that their children weren’t abused (e.g. an investigation)? Do you think current and future parents deserve assurance that the school follows up on problems? (Again, an investigation) Without these assurances, who would send their child there?

Imagine being so naive as to not realize just because a HOS hasn't been arrested yet, that they won't be next week. How do you know that your school, or any other school, has a head or principal that is engaging in criminal online activity? Without these assurances, who would send their child to any school?

Point being, NCRC 2 weeks ago looked no different than any other school. You can keep trying to assail the school, or all private schools, for some cultural flaw or compliance negligence, but the fact is that you can never be sure that no "red flags" are being missed or dismissed at any other school. Unless you are God and have perfect knowledge....

we know from many examples that institutions can do a better or worse job about preventing abuse and other issues. That’s the whole point of regular trainings, internal controls, ensuring that nobody will be penalized for raising complaints of any sort.

Its like talking to a wall here. Nothing the school could have done to prevent this. It could happen at your school, too.

how do you know that? There’s literally no way you can know that.

[Anonymous]

An institution can’t move forward in a situation like this without examining, investigating, etc. That’s just a fact—whether it’s a school, a corporation, a govt agency. I’m the poster who has repeatedly said that the (perceived) power JC wielded with parents vis-à-vis getting kids into kindergarten was a bad thing. Don’t forget, the board at NCRC is always made up largely of current parents…parents who saw JC as their ticket to a great kindergarten. This power imbalance (or perceived power imbalance) with the HOS should not be replicated as the school moves forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes—exactly. Imagine being so naive that you think just because YOU aren’t aware of any red flags, that none could possibly exist. Do you think parents deserve as much assurance as possible that their children weren’t abused (e.g. an investigation)? Do you think current and future parents deserve assurance that the school follows up on problems? (Again, an investigation) Without these assurances, who would send their child there?

Imagine being so naive as to not realize just because a HOS hasn't been arrested yet, that they won't be next week. How do you know that your school, or any other school, has a head or principal that is engaging in criminal online activity? Without these assurances, who would send their child to any school?

Point being, NCRC 2 weeks ago looked no different than any other school. You can keep trying to assail the school, or all private schools, for some cultural flaw or compliance negligence, but the fact is that you can never be sure that no "red flags" are being missed or dismissed at any other school. Unless you are God and have perfect knowledge....

we know from many examples that institutions can do a better or worse job about preventing abuse and other issues. That’s the whole point of regular trainings, internal controls, ensuring that nobody will be penalized for raising complaints of any sort.

Its like talking to a wall here. Nothing the school could have done to prevent this. It could happen at your school, too.

how do you know that? There’s literally no way you can know that.

Know what? You actually think a someone said, ‘hmm, I think we may have someone here accessing child porn’. You think that was raised and parents were like, ‘ok, gotta to go to work’.
It can happen at your school, too. Welcome to a world where evil people exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An institution can’t move forward in a situation like this without examining, investigating, etc. That’s just a fact—whether it’s a school, a corporation, a govt agency. I’m the poster who has repeatedly said that the (perceived) power JC wielded with parents vis-à-vis getting kids into kindergarten was a bad thing. Don’t forget, the board at NCRC is always made up largely of current parents…parents who saw JC as their ticket to a great kindergarten. This power imbalance (or perceived power imbalance) with the HOS should not be replicated as the school moves forward.

No parent is going to be exchange molesting their kid to get into a good kindergarten. You have completely lost your mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes—exactly. Imagine being so naive that you think just because YOU aren’t aware of any red flags, that none could possibly exist. Do you think parents deserve as much assurance as possible that their children weren’t abused (e.g. an investigation)? Do you think current and future parents deserve assurance that the school follows up on problems? (Again, an investigation) Without these assurances, who would send their child there?

Imagine being so naive as to not realize just because a HOS hasn't been arrested yet, that they won't be next week. How do you know that your school, or any other school, has a head or principal that is engaging in criminal online activity? Without these assurances, who would send their child to any school?

Point being, NCRC 2 weeks ago looked no different than any other school. You can keep trying to assail the school, or all private schools, for some cultural flaw or compliance negligence, but the fact is that you can never be sure that no "red flags" are being missed or dismissed at any other school. Unless you are God and have perfect knowledge....

we know from many examples that institutions can do a better or worse job about preventing abuse and other issues. That’s the whole point of regular trainings, internal controls, ensuring that nobody will be penalized for raising complaints of any sort.

Its like talking to a wall here. Nothing the school could have done to prevent this. It could happen at your school, too.

how do you know that? There’s literally no way you can know that.

Know what? You actually think a someone said, ‘hmm, I think we may have someone here accessing child porn’. You think that was raised and parents were like, ‘ok, gotta to go to work’.
It can happen at your school, too. Welcome to a world where evil people exist.

Red flags and lessons learned are much more subtle than that. I hope the school is smarter about things than you are.

[Anonymous]

speaking to this power imbalance... i wouldn't want to be at a school where you can't bring stuff up with the head or school/ "rock the boat" or it feels as though your kids' future opportunities will be jeopardized. then when issues arise parents won't feel comfortable addressing them when needed for fear of retaliation. a lot of the "feeder" preschools are like this (we know from experience). parents will put up with sub-optimal stuff for a few years just for the sake of getting their kid into an elite k-12 and tell themselves it's worth it. no one wants to bring stuff up and be the "problem family" and therefore things go unaddressed and start to fester. these schools know they have power and control over the parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes—exactly. Imagine being so naive that you think just because YOU aren’t aware of any red flags, that none could possibly exist. Do you think parents deserve as much assurance as possible that their children weren’t abused (e.g. an investigation)? Do you think current and future parents deserve assurance that the school follows up on problems? (Again, an investigation) Without these assurances, who would send their child there?

Imagine being so naive as to not realize just because a HOS hasn't been arrested yet, that they won't be next week. How do you know that your school, or any other school, has a head or principal that is engaging in criminal online activity? Without these assurances, who would send their child to any school?

Point being, NCRC 2 weeks ago looked no different than any other school. You can keep trying to assail the school, or all private schools, for some cultural flaw or compliance negligence, but the fact is that you can never be sure that no "red flags" are being missed or dismissed at any other school. Unless you are God and have perfect knowledge....

we know from many examples that institutions can do a better or worse job about preventing abuse and other issues. That’s the whole point of regular trainings, internal controls, ensuring that nobody will be penalized for raising complaints of any sort.

Its like talking to a wall here. Nothing the school could have done to prevent this. It could happen at your school, too.

how do you know that? There’s literally no way you can know that.

Know what? You actually think a someone said, ‘hmm, I think we may have someone here accessing child porn’. You think that was raised and parents were like, ‘ok, gotta to go to work’.
It can happen at your school, too. Welcome to a world where evil people exist.

Red flags and lessons learned are much more subtle than that. I hope the school is smarter about things than you are.

um, ok. You haven’t given one example of a supposed red flag, missed. You’re just spewing nonsense for 11 pages

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An institution can’t move forward in a situation like this without examining, investigating, etc. That’s just a fact—whether it’s a school, a corporation, a govt agency. I’m the poster who has repeatedly said that the (perceived) power JC wielded with parents vis-à-vis getting kids into kindergarten was a bad thing. Don’t forget, the board at NCRC is always made up largely of current parents…parents who saw JC as their ticket to a great kindergarten. This power imbalance (or perceived power imbalance) with the HOS should not be replicated as the school moves forward.

This is 100% part of the problem. - Long time NCRC parent

[Anonymous]

The board traditionally includes former parents too as well as one or two trustees who do not have children who ever went to the school.

The characterization of a dynamic where the head of school wields power over parents (or the 3/4 of families whose kids apply to private schools) because he or she gives guidance and communicates with schools during the ongoing school application process is just wrong. Ongoing schools ultimately do as they wish and decide for themselves which applicants they will accept. The decision is not up to the head of a preschool.

There is so much misinformation and hysteria on this thread. I feel like I’m reading The Crucible. If you are a current or former NCRC family or are thinking of applying for next year, who not ask these questions of the school, and not an anonymous, unreliable forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The board traditionally includes former parents too as well as one or two trustees who do not have children who ever went to the school.

The characterization of a dynamic where the head of school wields power over parents (or the 3/4 of families whose kids apply to private schools) because he or she gives guidance and communicates with schools during the ongoing school application process is just wrong. Ongoing schools ultimately do as they wish and decide for themselves which applicants they will accept. The decision is not up to the head of a preschool.

There is so much misinformation and hysteria on this thread. I feel like I’m reading The Crucible. If you are a current or former NCRC family or are thinking of applying for next year, who not ask these questions of the school, and not an anonymous, unreliable forum.

You’re saying the HOS has no influence on exmissions?

Since you’re an insider, can you detail the NCRC child safeguarding policies and practices, and more generally, how the school creates an atmosphere where complaints can be raised without fear of retaliation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The board traditionally includes former parents too as well as one or two trustees who do not have children who ever went to the school.

The characterization of a dynamic where the head of school wields power over parents (or the 3/4 of families whose kids apply to private schools) because he or she gives guidance and communicates with schools during the ongoing school application process is just wrong. Ongoing schools ultimately do as they wish and decide for themselves which applicants they will accept. The decision is not up to the head of a preschool.

There is so much misinformation and hysteria on this thread. I feel like I’m reading The Crucible. If you are a current or former NCRC family or are thinking of applying for next year, who not ask these questions of the school, and not an anonymous, unreliable forum.

You’re saying the HOS has no influence on exmissions?

Since you’re an insider, can you detail the NCRC child safeguarding policies and practices, and more generally, how the school creates an atmosphere where complaints can be raised without fear of retaliation?

Once again, do you just like avoiding questions. What complaints would have kept Jc from doing what he did. Nobody knew so complaining about child going outside without a coat, would of been ignored? What complaints are you thinking of that might have helped here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The board traditionally includes former parents too as well as one or two trustees who do not have children who ever went to the school.

The characterization of a dynamic where the head of school wields power over parents (or the 3/4 of families whose kids apply to private schools) because he or she gives guidance and communicates with schools during the ongoing school application process is just wrong. Ongoing schools ultimately do as they wish and decide for themselves which applicants they will accept. The decision is not up to the head of a preschool.

There is so much misinformation and hysteria on this thread. I feel like I’m reading The Crucible. If you are a current or former NCRC family or are thinking of applying for next year, who not ask these questions of the school, and not an anonymous, unreliable forum.

You’re saying the HOS has no influence on exmissions?

Since you’re an insider, can you detail the NCRC child safeguarding policies and practices, and more generally, how the school creates an atmosphere where complaints can be raised without fear of retaliation?

Once again, do you just like avoiding questions. What complaints would have kept Jc from doing what he did. Nobody knew so complaining about child going outside without a coat, would have been ignored? What complaints are you thinking of that might have helped here?

nobody knows. That’s the point of the investigation.

Are you denying that organizations need child safeguarding policies and protections for people who raise complaints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The board traditionally includes former parents too as well as one or two trustees who do not have children who ever went to the school.

The characterization of a dynamic where the head of school wields power over parents (or the 3/4 of families whose kids apply to private schools) because he or she gives guidance and communicates with schools during the ongoing school application process is just wrong. Ongoing schools ultimately do as they wish and decide for themselves which applicants they will accept. The decision is not up to the head of a preschool.

There is so much misinformation and hysteria on this thread. I feel like I’m reading The Crucible. If you are a current or former NCRC family or are thinking of applying for next year, who not ask these questions of the school, and not an anonymous, unreliable forum.

Oh okay. So was I imagining it when James would ask each family to share with him their #1 school so he could go lobby on the family’s behalf at the school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The board traditionally includes former parents too as well as one or two trustees who do not have children who ever went to the school.

The characterization of a dynamic where the head of school wields power over parents (or the 3/4 of families whose kids apply to private schools) because he or she gives guidance and communicates with schools during the ongoing school application process is just wrong. Ongoing schools ultimately do as they wish and decide for themselves which applicants they will accept. The decision is not up to the head of a preschool.

There is so much misinformation and hysteria on this thread. I feel like I’m reading The Crucible. If you are a current or former NCRC family or are thinking of applying for next year, who not ask these questions of the school, and not an anonymous, unreliable forum.

Oh okay. So was I imagining it when James would ask each family to share with him their #1 school so he could go lobby on the family’s behalf at the school?

Of course a HOS tries to advocate on behalf of families. But the decision rests with the elementary schools, not the preschool head. Sometimes the elementaries listen, sometimes they don't.

And there are plenty of people in every NCRC class for whom advocacy to ongoing schools is irrelevant -- those with older siblings already at a target school, those going public, those moving away, etc. No "power imbalance" there.

Meanwhile, do you think people only choose NCRC for exmissions? Maybe a few do. Most don't.

Finally, who do really thinks holds the power -- the employee hired (and possibly fired) by the board or the people paying $$$?