Anonymous wrote:This seems like a tragic case of misplaced grief. The school is damned if they do/don’t. If they kept him on and he starts failing all classes he’s obviously going to struggle mentally as well. I think the parents feel massive guilt and need to find someone to blame. It’s a tragic situation but I dont think a school can be expected to convert itself to one that caters to special needs because of a single student. There are multiple privates that support kids with learning disabilities that he could have thrived at.

It is St Ann’s. They don’t give grades.

Anonymous wrote:

We do know that the school sent the decline to enroll in February, which is too late to transfer elsewhere

I am in full agreement that they should have let the family know of the decline earlier, so that they could apply to privates specializing in kids with disabilities, if private is what they wanted. However, it is not accurate to say it was "too late to transfer elsewhere." Public school, which the vast majority of children in the US attend, and is legally required to provide accommodations, is always an option.

Oh come on. In order to get accommodations in public school districts, you need an IEP. And those take months and months, and usually by February are done for services for the following year. The PP was correctly summarizing the situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't really know what the school did or didn't do. They would be limited in what they can say about an individual student under any circumstances and once the parents filed suit, there's no way the school will say anything outside a courtroom. Maybe the annual reports included positive *and* negative feedback? Maybe the school gave additional signals about HS not being a good fit for the kid? Maybe not, but the reader has literally no way to know.

By definition, the piece only includes the parents' side of the story. And they have no incentive to offer any information that might undercut their case. Which btw is why it seems quite weird for the NYT to do a deep dive on the case, especially written by a former parent at the school.

We do know that the school sent the decline to enroll in February, which is too late to transfer elsewhere. That is a fact which makes the school look very bad.

I feel very bad for the parents and understand why they are devastated, but it sounds like the school had been telling them for 5 years that he was not a good fit and that he should go elsewhere because they could not help him.

If there had been a solid letter declining re-enrollment in (say) August, the reporter would have seen it. This mushy “we aren’t sure this is the best fit but we will keep taking your money and promoting your child to the next grade” is not the same thing as a clear letter declining re-enrollment.

I will change my opinion if it comes out that the school clearly and crispy communicated the year before that there would be no re-enrollment. But as the facts stand now, the school is very much in the wrong here.

Having an option is really not the thing. Of course you can go public but a kid in private all his life suddenly kicked out of school is horrible. Again this happened at a local DMV school and said kid was about to go to public after all the humiliation and did not go well. The strange thing is you have schools where you would think experts would know better but can be cold with certain students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please summarize what exactly happened? Thank you in advance.

Ellis Lariviere, a 13 year old, 8th grade student, committed suicide in May 2021, roughly 3 months after leaving/being counseled out/dismissed from St. Ann's.

Ellis' academic difficulties surfaced in 2nd grade, St. Ann's recommended an evaluation, and immediately into his 3rd grade year, the school/HOS suggested that Ellis' parents look into other schools to meet his needs (ADD and dyslexia diagnosis) because St. Ann's could not. Ellis was allowed to return for 4th grade and maintained enrollment, based on the advice of the neuropsychologist/evaluator.

Fast forward five years, Ellis is counseled out/denied a 9th grade seat, was devastated to be out of the school, and subsequently took his own life.

As of April 2023, the parents are suing the school for their son's death because they believe the school’s policies directly led to their son’s death. Ellis' grandfather, chairman of a major real estate developer, has also joined forces. The HOS resigned at the end of the 22-23 school year.

Why was he he denied enrollment? Was he haring / disturbing other kids? Did he fail out?

According to the article, "Ellis had never been asked to repeat a class or been disciplined for behavioral issues. There was no grading structure in which he had failed. His midyear reports from eighth grade note his problems with writing and organization, but also his progress, and they praise him for his creative thinking and contributions to his classes."

So we don't know the actual reason he was kicked out? (Not be offered to come back to the school you've attended for many years is the same imo as being kicked out)

Correct, we don't. I think they finally put their foot down on what they felt was best? The parents may have felt he wouldn't be served anywhere else, wouldn't be accepted anywhere else, didn't want to deal with the application process? Staying for another 5 years is extreme. There was so much time to gradually wean him away from the school and get him excited for other avenues. But again, we dont know all the intricacies. They probably believed they knew their son best.

I think parents tend to get caught up in that trope. Yes, we may know our children best, but the school/HOS knows the school best and when they say you should go, it's time to go. Let go of your love/obsession with whatever hang-up you have to stay. They know better than anyone what is/may be coming down the pipeline. I've seen this before.

….

The school f#cked up big time by not living up to its stated values. The parents screwed up by insisting they stay in Brooklyn and deal with cut-throat NYC schools instead of moving to Connecticut or Westchester to find a more relaxed environment for their kids.

Does the school state that they are a special needs school that can probide support for ASD and dyslexic children? If not, there was not a failure of “living up to its stated values.”

We do know that the school sent the decline to enroll in February, which is too late to transfer elsewhere

I am in full agreement that they should have let the family know of the decline earlier, so that they could apply to privates specializing in kids with disabilities, if private is what they wanted. However, it is not accurate to say it was "too late to transfer elsewhere." Public school, which the vast majority of children in the US attend, and is legally required to provide accommodations, is always an option.

*21-22SY
*20-21SY

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't really know what the school did or didn't do. They would be limited in what they can say about an individual student under any circumstances and once the parents filed suit, there's no way the school will say anything outside a courtroom. Maybe the annual reports included positive *and* negative feedback? Maybe the school gave additional signals about HS not being a good fit for the kid? Maybe not, but the reader has literally no way to know.

By definition, the piece only includes the parents' side of the story. And they have no incentive to offer any information that might undercut their case. Which btw is why it seems quite weird for the NYT to do a deep dive on the case, especially written by a former parent at the school.

We do know that the school sent the decline to enroll in February, which is too late to transfer elsewhere. That is a fact which makes the school look very bad.

I feel very bad for the parents and understand why they are devastated, but it sounds like the school had been telling them for 5 years that he was not a good fit and that he should go elsewhere because they could not help him.

I agree.

I am curious why the school didn't tell the parents they would absolutely not allow him to enroll for the 22-23SY at the start of the 21-22SY like they did when he was in 3rd grade?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't really know what the school did or didn't do. They would be limited in what they can say about an individual student under any circumstances and once the parents filed suit, there's no way the school will say anything outside a courtroom. Maybe the annual reports included positive *and* negative feedback? Maybe the school gave additional signals about HS not being a good fit for the kid? Maybe not, but the reader has literally no way to know.

By definition, the piece only includes the parents' side of the story. And they have no incentive to offer any information that might undercut their case. Which btw is why it seems quite weird for the NYT to do a deep dive on the case, especially written by a former parent at the school.

We do know that the school sent the decline to enroll in February, which is too late to transfer elsewhere. That is a fact which makes the school look very bad.

I feel very bad for the parents and understand why they are devastated, but it sounds like the school had been telling them for 5 years that he was not a good fit and that he should go elsewhere because they could not help him.

Anonymous wrote:We don't really know what the school did or didn't do. They would be limited in what they can say about an individual student under any circumstances and once the parents filed suit, there's no way the school will say anything outside a courtroom. Maybe the annual reports included positive *and* negative feedback? Maybe the school gave additional signals about HS not being a good fit for the kid? Maybe not, but the reader has literally no way to know.

By definition, the piece only includes the parents' side of the story. And they have no incentive to offer any information that might undercut their case. Which btw is why it seems quite weird for the NYT to do a deep dive on the case, especially written by a former parent at the school.

We do know that the school sent the decline to enroll in February, which is too late to transfer elsewhere. That is a fact which makes the school look very bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't see how the school is at fault. Just another sad instance of choosing image over meeting a kids needs. Paying for a school doesn't mean it's good for a child. No idea of how a lawsuit will bring peace.

The school will think twice before doing this again. Dyslexia is not that hard to accommodate. We know severaal kids with this condition.

Well at that age (8th grade) the feeling of losing your friends / fitting in can be devastating. I think we all forget that mentality as we age.
(Note: I am not suggesting the school is at fault or liable (don't know)).

This happened recently in DMV and no I am not giving name of school but said school will hopefully think more kinder. Some of these schools put kids out for a variety of reasons and don’t realize or don’t care about consequences including for students who were classmates. This St Ann’s case is really upsetting because the kid didn’t get in trouble. There are so many ways to accommodate dyslexia now including even taping notes or teacher provided notes and additional testing methods. As mentioned this school doesn’t have letter grades and is supposed to be christian. It is all very sad and hopefully more schools will take notice. I give his parents credit for shining light because it is so easy to just sit quietly in grief.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please summarize what exactly happened? Thank you in advance.

Ellis Lariviere, a 13 year old, 8th grade student, committed suicide in May 2021, roughly 3 months after leaving/being counseled out/dismissed from St. Ann's.

Ellis' academic difficulties surfaced in 2nd grade, St. Ann's recommended an evaluation, and immediately into his 3rd grade year, the school/HOS suggested that Ellis' parents look into other schools to meet his needs (ADD and dyslexia diagnosis) because St. Ann's could not. Ellis was allowed to return for 4th grade and maintained enrollment, based on the advice of the neuropsychologist/evaluator.

Fast forward five years, Ellis is counseled out/denied a 9th grade seat, was devastated to be out of the school, and subsequently took his own life.

As of April 2023, the parents are suing the school for their son's death because they believe the school’s policies directly led to their son’s death. Ellis' grandfather, chairman of a major real estate developer, has also joined forces. The HOS resigned at the end of the 22-23 school year.

Why was he he denied enrollment? Was he haring / disturbing other kids? Did he fail out?

According to the article, "Ellis had never been asked to repeat a class or been disciplined for behavioral issues. There was no grading structure in which he had failed. His midyear reports from eighth grade note his problems with writing and organization, but also his progress, and they praise him for his creative thinking and contributions to his classes."

So we don't know the actual reason he was kicked out? (Not be offered to come back to the school you've attended for many years is the same imo as being kicked out)

Correct, we don't. I think they finally put their foot down on what they felt was best? The parents may have felt he wouldn't be served anywhere else, wouldn't be accepted anywhere else, didn't want to deal with the application process? Staying for another 5 years is extreme. There was so much time to gradually wean him away from the school and get him excited for other avenues. But again, we dont know all the intricacies. They probably believed they knew their son best.

I think parents tend to get caught up in that trope. Yes, we may know our children best, but the school/HOS knows the school best and when they say you should go, it's time to go. Let go of your love/obsession with whatever hang-up you have to stay. They know better than anyone what is/may be coming down the pipeline. I've seen this before.

Parents stated that they wanted to keep their son in the school because older brother went there, the boy had all his friends there, and he wouldn't be able to handle the rough & tumble of NYC public schools. I get it - this kid would've been eaten alive in a NYC public school, even if they are legally obligated to provide therapy services. The parents were paying out-of-pocket for therapies, were willing to pay for more therapies in-school. Money wasn't an issue for this family.

A kid with ASD and dyslexia needs stability, routine, and familiarity. The family believed they had a K-12 solution for their kid, given St Ann's reputation and own marketing material as an artsy touchy-feely school for children who are more into the arts or literature than STEM gunning.

The school f#cked up big time by not living up to its stated values. The parents screwed up by insisting they stay in Brooklyn and deal with cut-throat NYC schools instead of moving to Connecticut or Westchester to find a more relaxed environment for their kids.

We don't really know what the school did or didn't do. They would be limited in what they can say about an individual student under any circumstances and once the parents filed suit, there's no way the school will say anything outside a courtroom. Maybe the annual reports included positive *and* negative feedback? Maybe the school gave additional signals about HS not being a good fit for the kid? Maybe not, but the reader has literally no way to know.

By definition, the piece only includes the parents' side of the story. And they have no incentive to offer any information that might undercut their case. Which btw is why it seems quite weird for the NYT to do a deep dive on the case, especially written by a former parent at the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please summarize what exactly happened? Thank you in advance.

Ellis Lariviere, a 13 year old, 8th grade student, committed suicide in May 2021, roughly 3 months after leaving/being counseled out/dismissed from St. Ann's.

Ellis' academic difficulties surfaced in 2nd grade, St. Ann's recommended an evaluation, and immediately into his 3rd grade year, the school/HOS suggested that Ellis' parents look into other schools to meet his needs (ADD and dyslexia diagnosis) because St. Ann's could not. Ellis was allowed to return for 4th grade and maintained enrollment, based on the advice of the neuropsychologist/evaluator.

Fast forward five years, Ellis is counseled out/denied a 9th grade seat, was devastated to be out of the school, and subsequently took his own life.

As of April 2023, the parents are suing the school for their son's death because they believe the school’s policies directly led to their son’s death. Ellis' grandfather, chairman of a major real estate developer, has also joined forces. The HOS resigned at the end of the 22-23 school year.

Why was he he denied enrollment? Was he haring / disturbing other kids? Did he fail out?

According to the article, "Ellis had never been asked to repeat a class or been disciplined for behavioral issues. There was no grading structure in which he had failed. His midyear reports from eighth grade note his problems with writing and organization, but also his progress, and they praise him for his creative thinking and contributions to his classes."

So we don't know the actual reason he was kicked out? (Not be offered to come back to the school you've attended for many years is the same imo as being kicked out)

Correct, we don't. I think they finally put their foot down on what they felt was best? The parents may have felt he wouldn't be served anywhere else, wouldn't be accepted anywhere else, didn't want to deal with the application process? Staying for another 5 years is extreme. There was so much time to gradually wean him away from the school and get him excited for other avenues. But again, we dont know all the intricacies. They probably believed they knew their son best.

I think parents tend to get caught up in that trope. Yes, we may know our children best, but the school/HOS knows the school best and when they say you should go, it's time to go. Let go of your love/obsession with whatever hang-up you have to stay. They know better than anyone what is/may be coming down the pipeline. I've seen this before.

Anonymous wrote:I read the article. Sounds like the school tried to counsel him out from around age eight.

The question is why did the parents keep the kids in a school that clearly wasn’t equipped or willing to deal with his learning disabilities? Could they not get him in anywhere, maybe?

But yes, top privates generally will counsel your kid out if she or he cannot perform. If you can’t deal with that, send your kid to a k thru 8 instead of a k thru 12. Because it’s hard to tell whether a four year old will be able to handle a super rigorous high school. So some kids need to change schools.

But that's the rub - St Ann's is not a super rigorous high school. It's a preening artsy school with no grades, lots of DEI content, NYC trust fund parents & their spawn, etc. And this kid was supposedly a talented artist, per his teacher's reviews.

The school blew it. The parents were not properly reading the tea leaves. The kid should not have been left alone that year.