Anonymous wrote:Innocent until proven guilty.

That applies to an individual facing criminal charges in the justice system, not a private school dealing with fallout from sexual assault allegations by a student.

So, you’re suggesting Gilman parents shouldn’t react and should just wait for the criminal case to end to decide what to do? That’s *not* reality in this type of situation!

Communication around the incident was severely lacking but a young male teacher in the middle school was allegedly fired for inappropriate behavior relating to students. Kids allegedly saw police walking him out and were banned from discussing or asking questions.

Anonymous wrote:The WIS incident referenced in previous posts involved a former Gilman teacher.

Wow … what happened exactly? You can say “allegedly” if needed.

The WIS incident referenced in previous posts involved a former Gilman teacher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A number of kids who would have been in this year’s graduating class left after middle school. I have to believe that this issue played a role. Certainly the kids all seem to believe it happened, which is telling.

That isn’t true.

What isn’t true? Kids didn’t leave after MS? They did but this issue wasn’t part of the reason? The kids don’t believe it happened?

There was no large or even medium wave of departures for any of the current high school classes or for the class of 2023. Maybe 1-5 kids normally depart after 8th grade (out of a class of 80 boys), either for academic reasons or athletics (there are other local schools that are more generous with merit scholarships for athletes). These classes all had normal rates of attrition. Each of these classes had the normal 30-40 new boys join them for freshman year.

I have not heard anyone doubt the boys who have come forward. The last thing the situation needs is people who come on anonymous message boards to make things up, which is what prior poster did.

You sound like an apologist for the situation. Stop.

I am not the person who wrote that, but I agree entirely; it matches my own observations. I am a member of the Gilman community reporting my own direct experiences. Are you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A number of kids who would have been in this year’s graduating class left after middle school. I have to believe that this issue played a role. Certainly the kids all seem to believe it happened, which is telling.

That isn’t true.

What isn’t true? Kids didn’t leave after MS? They did but this issue wasn’t part of the reason? The kids don’t believe it happened?

There was no large or even medium wave of departures for any of the current high school classes or for the class of 2023. Maybe 1-5 kids normally depart after 8th grade (out of a class of 80 boys), either for academic reasons or athletics (there are other local schools that are more generous with merit scholarships for athletes). These classes all had normal rates of attrition. Each of these classes had the normal 30-40 new boys join them for freshman year.

I have not heard anyone doubt the boys who have come forward. The last thing the situation needs is people who come on anonymous message boards to make things up, which is what prior poster did.

You sound like an apologist for the situation. Stop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A number of kids who would have been in this year’s graduating class left after middle school. I have to believe that this issue played a role. Certainly the kids all seem to believe it happened, which is telling.

That isn’t true.

What isn’t true? Kids didn’t leave after MS? They did but this issue wasn’t part of the reason? The kids don’t believe it happened?

There was no large or even medium wave of departures for any of the current high school classes or for the class of 2023. Maybe 1-5 kids normally depart after 8th grade (out of a class of 80 boys), either for academic reasons or athletics (there are other local schools that are more generous with merit scholarships for athletes). These classes all had normal rates of attrition. Each of these classes had the normal 30-40 new boys join them for freshman year.

I have not heard anyone doubt the boys who have come forward. The last thing the situation needs is people who come on anonymous message boards to make things up, which is what prior poster did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A number of kids who would have been in this year’s graduating class left after middle school. I have to believe that this issue played a role. Certainly the kids all seem to believe it happened, which is telling.

That isn’t true.

What isn’t true? Kids didn’t leave after MS? They did but this issue wasn’t part of the reason? The kids don’t believe it happened?

Seconding the other posters, can someone enlighten on what happened at WIS?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than average left for boarding school. And younger classes saw kids leaving for Loyola blakefield - and not for academic reasons.

Sorry my kids are at Gilman and this simply isn’t true.

Me too and I agree. Everyone I know believes the kid and is upset about, but I don’t know anyone who has left or has even considered leaving. It’s a terrible thing but Gilman as an institution has been a model I think. Just got an email a few weeks ago updating parents on their policy changes and I honestly can’t think of more they could do. They have definitely not taken this lightly.

Example - My son takes private lessons with a specials teacher at their house and this summer we had to sign a form (filed with Gilman admin) outlining the specific time and place and agreeing that the student and teacher would never be left alone in the house. If the teacher’s spouse isn’t home I have to stay on premises and wait until the lesson is over. It’s a pain but I understand why and appreciate the extra safety measures. Now if they ever find out that there was unapproved off-campus contact they will instantly know it’s fishy… before it was a normal thing and so did not raise suspicion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least Gilman didn’t try to cover up their case like WIS

What happened at WIS?

Everyone willing to criticize Gilman’s handling of this situation should find out what happened at WIS. Gilman could’ve taken a similar approach, chose not to, and is being punished for not doing everything possible to cover it up

What makes you think Gilman didn’t try to cover it up?

Didn’t a peer teacher show up in court to support the accused child predator?

No. A guidance counselor showed up. She is no longer employed by Gilman.

Anonymous wrote:More than average left for boarding school. And younger classes saw kids leaving for Loyola blakefield - and not for academic reasons.

Sorry my kids are at Gilman and this simply isn’t true.

What happened at WIS???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least Gilman didn’t try to cover up their case like WIS

What happened at WIS?

Everyone willing to criticize Gilman’s handling of this situation should find out what happened at WIS. Gilman could’ve taken a similar approach, chose not to, and is being punished for not doing everything possible to cover it up

What makes you think Gilman didn’t try to cover it up?

For one, all of the discussions being left on this board with all the WIS discussions, even on the Gilman thread being taken down. I’ll be surprised if these comments stay up

There IS such a thing as libel and slander. So I’d be careful. This is something I’d let be handled by the proper authorities and not dissect on the internet.

It’s not libel and slander to leave up that Feds were on campus.

Nope. I’m just saying this: you know nothing. You weren’t a victim. Right? And no one has come to you claiming to be a victim. Right? So why gossip about it? Do you really think that helps? Or are you just catty and bored?

There are real people and real lives involved on all sided here. Your titillation with the whole thing isn’t very nice.

It’s not gossipy, titillating or mean to say that this happens at schools that appear squeaky clean, that sometimes the schools appearing squeaky clean only appear that way, and the ones allowing the concerns to be discussed and updated are trying to do the right thing.

Blocking public discussion and updates suggests a massive cover up.