Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the board who hired the pervert needs to be investigated.

If that was their only responsibility, why did they choose a criminal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JC was allowed to be alone with kids for meetings at Beauvoir as outplacement director even though they had assured parents they were putting safety measures in place to avoid issues after Toth. Teachers and staff were not to be allowed alone with students anymore yet JC was allowed with students for outplacement meetings. The buck must stop somewhere - where were Governing Board members during these times? Where does the buck stop? Seriously asking.

This is false. The outplacement meetings were with the parents. Kids were not involved. JC would discuss the kids with their teachers. This makes total sense since the teachers spend hours every day with these kids.

He met with some students alone. Whether he should have or should not have may be the question.

Seems like we don’t have agreement on the facts.

Your facts are incorrect and not facts - you sound like a complete ass for taking such a stance assuming you would actually know what happened for his entire tenure at the school. I know for certain he met in his office with at least a few students alone. Your insistence on saying he did not - as if you would be certain that 80 plus kids a year for multiple yeas (hundreds of kids) never were alone with him in his office is ridiculous. I will believe the people who actually were there over you.

For what purpose would he/did he meet with students alone at Beauvoir? It's not like 3rd graders are in charge of their own application process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/03/style/weddings-celebrations-cecilia-calvo-james-carroll.html

He's been involved with schools since 2002

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the board who hired the pervert needs to be investigated.

If that was their only responsibility, why did they choose a criminal?

Er, perhaps because the criminal had no criminal record? More to the point, he was well-known to the board and had a solid track record over a decade at nearby schools. By what they knew then, it was a safe, unassailable hire.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the board who hired the pervert needs to be investigated.

If that was their only responsibility, why did they choose a criminal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Our school doesn't allow parents on the board until their last kid graduates.

This is how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Our school doesn't allow parents on the board until their last kid graduates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JC was allowed to be alone with kids for meetings at Beauvoir as outplacement director even though they had assured parents they were putting safety measures in place to avoid issues after Toth. Teachers and staff were not to be allowed alone with students anymore yet JC was allowed with students for outplacement meetings. The buck must stop somewhere - where were Governing Board members during these times? Where does the buck stop? Seriously asking.

This is false. The outplacement meetings were with the parents. Kids were not involved. JC would discuss the kids with their teachers. This makes total sense since the teachers spend hours every day with these kids.

He met with some students alone. Whether he should have or should not have may be the question.

Seems like we don’t have agreement on the facts.

Your facts are incorrect and not facts - you sound like a complete ass for taking such a stance assuming you would actually know what happened for his entire tenure at the school. I know for certain he met in his office with at least a few students alone. Your insistence on saying he did not - as if you would be certain that 80 plus kids a year for multiple yeas (hundreds of kids) never were alone with him in his office is ridiculous. I will believe the people who actually were there over you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JC was allowed to be alone with kids for meetings at Beauvoir as outplacement director even though they had assured parents they were putting safety measures in place to avoid issues after Toth. Teachers and staff were not to be allowed alone with students anymore yet JC was allowed with students for outplacement meetings. The buck must stop somewhere - where were Governing Board members during these times? Where does the buck stop? Seriously asking.

This is false. The outplacement meetings were with the parents. Kids were not involved. JC would discuss the kids with their teachers. This makes total sense since the teachers spend hours every day with these kids.

He met with some students alone. Whether he should have or should not have may be the question.

Seems like we don’t have agreement on the facts.

Your facts are incorrect and not facts - you sound like a complete ass for taking such a stance assuming you would actually know what happened for his entire tenure at the school. I know for certain he met in his office with at least a few students alone. Your insistence on saying he did not - as if you would be certain that 80 plus kids a year for multiple yeas (hundreds of kids) never were alone with him in his office is ridiculous. I will believe the people who actually were there over you.

For what purpose would he/did he meet with students alone at Beauvoir? It's not like 3rd graders are in charge of their own application process.

Are you dense? Seriously? Obviously he should not have been meeting with them alone and had no real reason to do so but clearly he did a lot of things that can not be justified as reasonable or normal. You are clearly invested in something here (not sure what it is?) but you are not invested in seeking out the truth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JC was allowed to be alone with kids for meetings at Beauvoir as outplacement director even though they had assured parents they were putting safety measures in place to avoid issues after Toth. Teachers and staff were not to be allowed alone with students anymore yet JC was allowed with students for outplacement meetings. The buck must stop somewhere - where were Governing Board members during these times? Where does the buck stop? Seriously asking.

This is false. The outplacement meetings were with the parents. Kids were not involved. JC would discuss the kids with their teachers. This makes total sense since the teachers spend hours every day with these kids.

He met with some students alone. Whether he should have or should not have may be the question.

Seems like we don’t have agreement on the facts.

Your facts are incorrect and not facts - you sound like a complete ass for taking such a stance assuming you would actually know what happened for his entire tenure at the school. I know for certain he met in his office with at least a few students alone. Your insistence on saying he did not - as if you would be certain that 80 plus kids a year for multiple yeas (hundreds of kids) never were alone with him in his office is ridiculous. I will believe the people who actually were there over you.

For what purpose would he/did he meet with students alone at Beauvoir? It's not like 3rd graders are in charge of their own application process.

Anonymous wrote:For examples of what I'd consider a red flag (again not an earlier poster but figured page 110 was time to wade in :p) having worked in law and social work:

- unmonitored (cctv etc.) time alone with students
- unusually close relationships w/ certain students (could suggest grooming)
- any kind of retaliation regarding complaints (investigation would uncover this, as would corresponding data of parents that complained and their outplacement success (obviously if they were PIA annoying that undercuts data but still would be interesting to know))
- staff retention (by gender as well, was he hiring say male teachers who left suddenly?)
- any proposed school initiatives where he'd be able to have more alone time with children
- any sexualizing or oddly adult (I.e. treating a child as if they were much older even if not explicit) remarks about certain students
- reasons why he left previous schools (there is a lot of case law about school liability re letters of recommendation if any sexual misconduct so most schools now give blanket remarks about employment dates but would be worth looking at previous employers)
- seeking out personal details unrelated to child's education in parental conversations (could be used in grooming, e.g., favorite toys)

Again a lot of this is generalized and there is a lot of information not known. I sincerely hope he was just digital but in most cases pedophilia increases over time in terms of actions so worth it to be thorough, careful, and assume the worst but hope for the best.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JC was allowed to be alone with kids for meetings at Beauvoir as outplacement director even though they had assured parents they were putting safety measures in place to avoid issues after Toth. Teachers and staff were not to be allowed alone with students anymore yet JC was allowed with students for outplacement meetings. The buck must stop somewhere - where were Governing Board members during these times? Where does the buck stop? Seriously asking.

This is false. The outplacement meetings were with the parents. Kids were not involved. JC would discuss the kids with their teachers. This makes total sense since the teachers spend hours every day with these kids.

He met with some students alone. Whether he should have or should not have may be the question.

Seems like we don’t have agreement on the facts.

Your facts are incorrect and not facts - you sound like a complete ass for taking such a stance assuming you would actually know what happened for his entire tenure at the school. I know for certain he met in his office with at least a few students alone. Your insistence on saying he did not - as if you would be certain that 80 plus kids a year for multiple yeas (hundreds of kids) never were alone with him in his office is ridiculous. I will believe the people who actually were there over you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JC was allowed to be alone with kids for meetings at Beauvoir as outplacement director even though they had assured parents they were putting safety measures in place to avoid issues after Toth. Teachers and staff were not to be allowed alone with students anymore yet JC was allowed with students for outplacement meetings. The buck must stop somewhere - where were Governing Board members during these times? Where does the buck stop? Seriously asking.

This is false. The outplacement meetings were with the parents. Kids were not involved. JC would discuss the kids with their teachers. This makes total sense since the teachers spend hours every day with these kids.

He met with some students alone. Whether he should have or should not have may be the question.

Seems like we don’t have agreement on the facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JC was allowed to be alone with kids for meetings at Beauvoir as outplacement director even though they had assured parents they were putting safety measures in place to avoid issues after Toth. Teachers and staff were not to be allowed alone with students anymore yet JC was allowed with students for outplacement meetings. The buck must stop somewhere - where were Governing Board members during these times? Where does the buck stop? Seriously asking.

This is false. The outplacement meetings were with the parents. Kids were not involved. JC would discuss the kids with their teachers. This makes total sense since the teachers spend hours every day with these kids.

He met with some students alone. Whether he should have or should not have may be the question.