Regardless of whether or not the school will be found liable for the suicide (not likely) they should, in fact become clearer about what kind of school they are.

It sounds like, because this article is out there now, it will be harder for parents to be in denial about the fact that it's a rigorous school for neurotypical children and that once a child is diagnosed with dyslexia, they will need to look elsewhere.

Preliminarily, I find it very odd that the NYT allowed someone whose child attended St Ann's to write this article. It's also interesting that, while disclosing that the child attended for about six years, it doesn't say whether the child graduated from St Ann's. For all we know, the author's child was also counseled out. Please note: I have no knowledge of this. I just think that given the size of the NYT's staff it's weird that someone whose child attended the school was chosen to write the article.

I feel very sorry for the family, but, that said, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that they will win this lawsuit. It will be very difficult to establish that the refusal to allow Ellis to enroll 3 months earlier was the proximate cause of his suicide. Even if that's established, in and of itself, that's not enough to find the school liable.

It's possible that St Ann's will make a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and it will be granted. But if that is denied, and discovery is permitted the family may not be happy with what comes out. It's going to be open season on how mom and dad parented this kid. I'll be stunned if the school doesn't have a thick file to CYA.

Much of our sympathy for the family revolves around the fact that the school emailed mom that the family would not be getting a re-enrollment contract for Ellis in February. I doubt this came out of the blue. What if the school had been telling the parents for years that it didn't think it was a good place for Ellis,but it would limp along for elementary school, but the kind of supports he was getting just weren't going to be enough for high school. What if the school told the parents that after 8th grade he would have to go elsewhere and offered to help find another school, but the parents just refused to listen. So mom asked for the contract and the school decided to put it in writing this time--you aren't getting a contract.

There could have a bit of a mutual white lie here. Other schools might ask if Ellis had been asked to withdraw. If the answer was no that might make it easier to find another placement.

I'm also curious as to whether St Ann's has any insurance that may apply here. If so, it may well be the attorneys retained by the insurance company who will defend the case. St Ann's isn't going to say anything that might give the insurer the right to refuse to pay for the defense.

Again, my heart goes out to the family. I'm sure St Ann's could have done better, but I don't think there's sufficient basis to find it liable for the suicide.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's how counseling-out goes down when you have a ND kid in a private school--and believe me they counsel out kids yearly and usually have it planned--  they call the family to tell them verbally in late November or December giving them the holiday break to process it. They rarely put it in writing --putting instead copious internal CYA notes in writing to the file, in emails, documenting all the meetings. Then in Feb when contracts go live, theirs won't be there- they’ll call again. They never will say " we don't support autism and dyslexia"--instead they will point to loads of issues that are specific to the kid's learning style and navigation of the social environment. They need the message to be blurry (and the data on the kid they want out , to be extensive) so they can pick and choose who they like. Autistic but the family is powerful or loaded? Maybe! Dyslexic but the kid uses a lot of support services up and is on financial aid? Maybe not..

When enrollment is down, these kids get carried,  year after year after year— and when enrollment is up, they bite the bullet and counsel them out decisively. So parents get constant mixed messages, and when the time comes to say goodbye, whether intentionally or not, the blame is placed squarely on the kid “ they can not support” and on the kid’s inability to "meet the expectations of the environment". They will always blame the kid -in subtle ways and in soft warm thoughtful tones.

It is insidious and very much enrollment driven, donation driven and diversity driven--schools are much more comfortable counseling out white kids as there is less liability. Prior discussions of problems with the kid years back are a somewhat irrelevant pattern once the contract is offered. Contracts speak much louder than meetings. Signed contracts come with serious ethical but not legal obligations to support students and families in healthy kind ways. The dilemma for schools is that they do "sort-of" know that the process of pressuring kids and families to leave ( which includes a lot of passive aggressive criticism of parenting styles, detailed deconstruction of the kid’s flaws, intense observation and documentation of any little aberrant behavior and learning lapse ) causes severe emotional harm and creates a psychologically unsafe environment-but what can they do?.. it’s a litigious world - they’re  protecting themselves —and I am sure St Anne’s is ready for this lawsuit with a big fat horrible file on a well meaning bright but dead …child.

One DC Big3 school determined a high school student had to repeat a year, because the student had so much chemotherapy he had to miss a considerable amount of school. The parents agreed with that. Then the school determined that the student could not go to a school dance with his classmates who’d been his classmates since a young age after a year of fighting cancer. The child was unnecessarily devastated.

Are the schools there to serve students or students to serve schools? And who at the school is this all serving?

Did the child repeat sophomore year and the dance was a Junior-Senior dance? I could understand the child’s disappointment in this scenario but it would make sense to me.

How could anyone even think this?

+1. Yes... what? You think a private school shouldn't make an exception in these circumstances? It's not a zero sum game, it's not an older kid playing on a younger team or getting some competitive advantage, it's not a precedent that would become overwhelming going forward, it's not... anything. Like I literally can't think of a reason you wouldn't make an exception for adding one kid with an incredibly tough life to a HS dance. WTAF. How would they feel if he wasn't alive the next year? Oops?

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.

Not necessarily. What makes you think that? This case will be dismissed.

They will care about the bad press. Lots of rich parents now worried that St Ann's could do this to their kid. One thing this thread is ignoring is how much St. Ann's cultivates it's rep as *open* to neurodivergence/different forms of intelligence. The no grades thing persists through high school, so it's not like he was suddenly going to fail out. It's hard to know the truth from this article, but if the kid's parents were actually like "we'd be totally fine with him going to CIA or an arts school" then the school really had little to lose by keeping him enrolled if he wasn't disruptive in class (and that is really the missing piece of info here -- if he wasn't disruptive in class, this whole thing seems like an overreaction; if he was disruptive in class, this is all much more explicable/understandable). You can tell that St. Ann's was already in damage control mode when they did their own internal evaluation, discovered they didn't have enough support staff, etc. They initiated all of that because this episode made them look bad and people were already talking about it in the NYC private school world.

I grew up in NYC and knew lots of kids at St. Ann's. One family who was close family friends of ours were wealthy & connected via the husband's job (legal field), but not old money/socially connected. They had a talented older daughter who the school wanted to keep (who went to an Ivy and who has become a huge success/is very well known in her field) and a son with a LD/ADHD. They tried to soft counsel son out repeatedly and parents resisted. The school never fully pulled the trigger on forcing him out -- I think because they wanted to keep the daughter & because they didn't want to mess with a prominent lawyer -- but pushed the hardest between 8th & 9th. Kid stayed and ended up at a T10 SLAC. I don't think the parents think they made a mistake; the factual circumstances are extremely similar. I can absolutely see why a family wants to keep their kid with his friends at his older sibling's school when they think he will do well enough for them.

Anonymous wrote:For the PPs harping on how "appalling" and "unconscionable" it was to break the news in February, the parents' lawsuit (which is linked in the NYT story) says that that communication was initiated by the mom, not by the school. She emailed asking their thoughts about the next year. Which suggests that the family already understood that his future at the school was not assured. Perhaps a more nuanced picture of the situation would come out if this ever goes to court.

I can understand why a grieving family would want to find someone or something to blame for an unimaginable tragedy. But fixating on the school seems unhealthy. I have friends with kids who struggled with suicidal ideation when they were teenagers. It's excruciating for everyone involved, even when it doesn't end in a worst-case scenario. And sadly there are often no simple causes or fixes.

Wait, the bolded makes the school’s actions even worse, not better, if it’s true. She had to chase them to find out for sure that his enrollment contract wouldn’t be renewed in February?? If that is true — and I agree we do not know all fact here — but if it is in fact true, and there was no letter or email or anything prior to her chasing them, that is absolutely horrifying.

I actually think the sunlight of a lawsuit is a good thing here. Let the facts come out. If the school sent a notification of non-enrollment the summer before, it will be shown in the lawsuit.

For the PPs harping on how "appalling" and "unconscionable" it was to break the news in February, the parents' lawsuit (which is linked in the NYT story) says that that communication was initiated by the mom, not by the school. She emailed asking their thoughts about the next year. Which suggests that the family already understood that his future at the school was not assured. Perhaps a more nuanced picture of the situation would come out if this ever goes to court.

I can understand why a grieving family would want to find someone or something to blame for an unimaginable tragedy. But fixating on the school seems unhealthy. I have friends with kids who struggled with suicidal ideation when they were teenagers. It's excruciating for everyone involved, even when it doesn't end in a worst-case scenario. And sadly there are often no simple causes or fixes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally would not keep my child at a school that told me it cannot meet his needs.

It’s not at all clear the school said anything so direct to the family.

It was very clear in the article.

No, it wasn’t. And in any event, the school kept renewing enrollment. That’s as big an endorsement of “you belong here” that you can get.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I already answered this, you just don't agree, which is fine. Also, because based on my experience, it is recommended by the neuropsych. You don't just get one eval that is accurate and up to date for the remainder of a child's life.


And your experience should be everyone’s? Got it.

Can I guarantee that their neuropsych was not an outlier or negligent. No. However, as to what standard practice is, google is your friend.

I don’t use Google for medical assessments and I don’t presume my experience is representative of everyone’s, and that doctors that may do something different than my individual experience are “outliers” or “negligent,” so unfortunately I will just have to remain unconvinced by you. I also read the actual words of the article, not something I’m super positive must be true in my own head even if not referenced at all in the article.

The parents used a neuropsych evaluator who was recommended by the school. I mean, there was already a bit of a conflict of interest there (in favor of the school) and the evaluator told the parents that he should remain in St Anne's with supports. And, TBH, I'm going to take the word of the trained pediatric psychological evaluator over the word of the lower school headmaster who is just looking to make his own life easier and maybe open up a seat for a wealthy family.

I don't trust administrators, and neither should you. They have their own cut-throat set of incentives that often do not align with what's best for your family.

Read what you wrote. You are going to insist your child stay at a school that is telling you they cannot meet your child's needs. Dyslexia needs lots of support early on. Clearly you don't have a child with challenges or you'd know that your comments are the absolute worst thing you can do for your child.

DP. I have a child with severe dyslexia and if the neuropsych recommended staying, and the school is wishy-washy and is not giving clear guidance, I would stay too.

It is not at all clear based on the article that the school ever crisply and clearly stated that they could not meet the child’s needs. And, they kept on offering the child a spot, year after year. Meanwhile the neuropsych recommended staying.

It makes sense to me and seems like a rational decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally would not keep my child at a school that told me it cannot meet his needs.

It’s not at all clear the school said anything so direct to the family.

It was very clear in the article.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I already answered this, you just don't agree, which is fine. Also, because based on my experience, it is recommended by the neuropsych. You don't just get one eval that is accurate and up to date for the remainder of a child's life.


And your experience should be everyone’s? Got it.

Can I guarantee that their neuropsych was not an outlier or negligent. No. However, as to what standard practice is, google is your friend.

I don’t use Google for medical assessments and I don’t presume my experience is representative of everyone’s, and that doctors that may do something different than my individual experience are “outliers” or “negligent,” so unfortunately I will just have to remain unconvinced by you. I also read the actual words of the article, not something I’m super positive must be true in my own head even if not referenced at all in the article.

The parents used a neuropsych evaluator who was recommended by the school. I mean, there was already a bit of a conflict of interest there (in favor of the school) and the evaluator told the parents that he should remain in St Anne's with supports. And, TBH, I'm going to take the word of the trained pediatric psychological evaluator over the word of the lower school headmaster who is just looking to make his own life easier and maybe open up a seat for a wealthy family.

I don't trust administrators, and neither should you. They have their own cut-throat set of incentives that often do not align with what's best for your family.

Read what you wrote. You are going to insist your child stay at a school that is telling you they cannot meet your child's needs. Dyslexia needs lots of support early on. Clearly you don't have a child with challenges or you'd know that your comments are the absolute worst thing you can do for your child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I already answered this, you just don't agree, which is fine. Also, because based on my experience, it is recommended by the neuropsych. You don't just get one eval that is accurate and up to date for the remainder of a child's life.


And your experience should be everyone’s? Got it.

Can I guarantee that their neuropsych was not an outlier or negligent. No. However, as to what standard practice is, google is your friend.

I don’t use Google for medical assessments and I don’t presume my experience is representative of everyone’s, and that doctors that may do something different than my individual experience are “outliers” or “negligent,” so unfortunately I will just have to remain unconvinced by you. I also read the actual words of the article, not something I’m super positive must be true in my own head even if not referenced at all in the article.

The parents used a neuropsych evaluator who was recommended by the school. I mean, there was already a bit of a conflict of interest there (in favor of the school) and the evaluator told the parents that he should remain in St Anne's with supports. And, TBH, I'm going to take the word of the trained pediatric psychological evaluator over the word of the lower school headmaster who is just looking to make his own life easier and maybe open up a seat for a wealthy family.

I don't trust administrators, and neither should you. They have their own cut-throat set of incentives that often do not align with what's best for your family.

Okay? So the parents did exactly what the school asked of them. I have no idea what your point is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I already answered this, you just don't agree, which is fine. Also, because based on my experience, it is recommended by the neuropsych. You don't just get one eval that is accurate and up to date for the remainder of a child's life.


And your experience should be everyone’s? Got it.

Can I guarantee that their neuropsych was not an outlier or negligent. No. However, as to what standard practice is, google is your friend.

I don’t use Google for medical assessments and I don’t presume my experience is representative of everyone’s, and that doctors that may do something different than my individual experience are “outliers” or “negligent,” so unfortunately I will just have to remain unconvinced by you. I also read the actual words of the article, not something I’m super positive must be true in my own head even if not referenced at all in the article.

The parents used a neuropsych evaluator who was recommended by the school. I mean, there was already a bit of a conflict of interest there (in favor of the school) and the evaluator told the parents that he should remain in St Anne's with supports. And, TBH, I'm going to take the word of the trained pediatric psychological evaluator over the word of the lower school headmaster who is just looking to make his own life easier and maybe open up a seat for a wealthy family.

I don't trust administrators, and neither should you. They have their own cut-throat set of incentives that often do not align with what's best for your family.

The school also loves to brag about Lena Dunham, who also has her share of mental health challenges. The parents wanted him to be a well-adjusted baker or artist with good friends and not to make his metal health issues worse. Good job St Ann’s

Anonymous wrote:

I already answered this, you just don't agree, which is fine. Also, because based on my experience, it is recommended by the neuropsych. You don't just get one eval that is accurate and up to date for the remainder of a child's life.


And your experience should be everyone’s? Got it.

Can I guarantee that their neuropsych was not an outlier or negligent. No. However, as to what standard practice is, google is your friend.

I don’t use Google for medical assessments and I don’t presume my experience is representative of everyone’s, and that doctors that may do something different than my individual experience are “outliers” or “negligent,” so unfortunately I will just have to remain unconvinced by you. I also read the actual words of the article, not something I’m super positive must be true in my own head even if not referenced at all in the article.

I already answered this, you just don't agree, which is fine. Also, because based on my experience, it is recommended by the neuropsych. You don't just get one eval that is accurate and up to date for the remainder of a child's life.


And your experience should be everyone’s? Got it.

Can I guarantee that their neuropsych was not an outlier or negligent. No. However, as to what standard practice is, google is your friend.