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.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a private school parent (and not a fan of 'elite' pricey schools) but in this case, I don't know how you blame the school. Admission to kindergarten can't be made a commitment to keep a kid forever, no matter what. Losing a young child to suicide must be hell on earth, but the parents are clearly looking for someone to blame and have the resources to channel their grief into the legal system. The story is told almost entirely from their perspective, and still it doesn't make a very good case that the school is responsible.

I also thought it was weird that the author of the NYT piece had sent his kid to the same school, and that this fact was randomly inserted midway through the piece (instead of a disclaimer at the top.) Seems like a pretty obvious conflict of interest.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there are a lot of interesting questions about what private schools owe their students? ethically, and the ways in which their rhetoric and reality are not aligned.

That said I thought the article was pretty irresponsible. It was heartbreaking and I get why they ran it, but I don’t think it was the right call.

The school blew it on the article. Just blew it so badly that I can’t even believe it. How could a school so rich be so bad at PR? It’s shocking.

What are you talking about ?

The article is not a school public relations (PR) piece.

Elite schools are not a substitute for professional counseling by a certified, licensed therapist.

My impression is that the parents were in denial and failed to get the proper, needed counseling for their son and now want to blame the son's suicide on a school that he left 3 months before. The parent's probably thought that the prestigious school would settle rather than endure bad publicity. It looks like the parents are at fault, not the school.

Anonymous wrote:Did anybody catch the fact the article was written by a former parent of a St Ann’s student? I found that weird, considering the article casts the school in a negative light.

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

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

No, that's not the case. My sister was counseled out (not forced to leave, but repeatedly suggested that she try another school) from a different NYC private because she had high functioning autism. She wasn't bothering anyone, and her grades in all classes except math were As and Bs (she had Cs in math, not failing). But she wasn't making friends, and the school said it felt it was unable to help her connect socially, and that she should try elsewhere. The reality is that these schools are exclusive and can pick who they want to attend. Surprisingly, a low-key Catholic school wound up being a better fit for her socially, even though we were barely religious.


Maybe it was through prayer that she was helped.

Anonymous wrote:

Look, this is an exclusive school. The parents are making a choice of sending their kids to an exclusive school. So, who do they think the school is going to exclude and what makes them sure it's not going to be their child? I am always curious as to how people answer these questions for themselves.



I mean, I think their point would be that once you admit a student, then the assumption would be that the student is included/not excluded, unless the student does something egregious (physically harming, bullying, academic dishonesty). It’s hard to get behind excluding a child who is just being himself and causing no harm.

No, that's not the case. My sister was counseled out (not forced to leave, but repeatedly suggested that she try another school) from a different NYC private because she had high functioning autism. She wasn't bothering anyone, and her grades in all classes except math were As and Bs (she had Cs in math, not failing). But she wasn't making friends, and the school said it felt it was unable to help her connect socially, and that she should try elsewhere. The reality is that these schools are exclusive and can pick who they want to attend. Surprisingly, a low-key Catholic school wound up being a better fit for her socially, even though we were barely religious.

Look, this is an exclusive school. The parents are making a choice of sending their kids to an exclusive school. So, who do they think the school is going to exclude and what makes them sure it's not going to be their child? I am always curious as to how people answer these questions for themselves.



I mean, I think their point would be that once you admit a student, then the assumption would be that the student is included/not excluded, unless the student does something egregious (physically harming, bullying, academic dishonesty). It’s hard to get behind excluding a child who is just being himself and causing no harm.