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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.