Don't forget to visit The Waldorf Review for more up-to-date school reviews and news stories.
Showing posts with label Waldorf criticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Waldorf criticism. Show all posts

Monday, July 14, 2014

Green Meadow Waldorf School Sex Scandals Revealed


The results of the investigation are in!

Here's the school's apology.



Page 5 describes them letting yet ANOTHER child abuser move on to another school.  They are HIDING the name of the abuser, the faculty member who knew about the abuse, and the school he was moved to (almost certainly another Waldorf school in California).  Page 6 describes yet ANOTHER teacher in  possession of child pornography - who had a "problem" with child pornography and took pictures of his students in swimwear.  Again, Green Meadow is hiding (redacting) the name of the teacher.  Eugene Schwartz!  Why?  The unnamed child pornographer is barred from Green Meadow property.  No mention of other Waldorf school environments.  He is being protected!  Schwartz roams freely at ANY Waldorf school.

The information I have struck out above was inaccurate.  The school did indeed publish the names of the abusers but the newspaper redacted those names (not the school). 

http://www.gmws.org/uploaded/What's_Happening_Now/Green_Meadow_Community_Letter_-_July_2014.pdf

Alexandra's WIDELY KNOWN and sometimes CRIMINAL actions included inappropriate long and forceful hugging and frontal rubbing of women to the point of his visible arousal.   

Can we agree Green Meadow Waldorf School is a cesspool and that their teachers and administrators are lying cowards? 

Multiple teachers hid or overlooked John Alexandra's pedophilia and abuse of power at this school for DECADES! Alexandra's involvement in and contributions to Anthroposophy are significant.  He's a very big deal in the Waldorf movement.  
Teachers allowed this to happen.  "Mr. Alexandra was a prominent member of the community and in a position of authority.  Therefore his child victims were even less likely to come forward."  The article goes on to say adults "observed his inappropriate behavior yet encouraged students to maintain a relationship with him."

Which teachers were there during this time - besides the ones named in the report?

Well, for one, our good friend Harlan Gilbert - http://www.gmws.org/page.cfm?p=473  relentless editor of the Wikipedia articles and author of Waldorf books - and his wife http://www.gmws.org/page.cfm?p=472 both worked there during the time Alexandra was there.  Any chance they hadn't heard rumors about him?  Or the teacher who molested a child on a camping trip?  Or the teacher who collected child pornography along with swimsuit photos of his students?  Their children attended this school while these predators were on the loose.  Are they outraged?  Or does Mr. Gilbert continue - even in light of these revelations - to do his job as a cult missionary and thwart any attempts at critical content of Waldorf on Wikipedia articles?

As I looked at the pictures of other teachers on their website, I couldn't help but wonder who knew about Alexandra's activities and said nothing.  Some have been at the school for a very long time - and in the Threefold community as well.  Is it just a huge cult environment?

Who else do we know from this school - someone who was around during the time Alexandra was molesting children?  Why our other good friend, Eugene Schwartz!  You know... this guy... THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY COLLECTOR



The guy who mocks parents who complain when their child is bullied.  He and Green Meadow are discussed in this thread post Yahoo! Groups

The most disturbing part of this news story (to me) is the following sentence in the second paragraph (I've added my emphasis):

"The findings, revealed in a damning report by a private investigative firm hired by Green Meadow, also accuse two other teachers of sex crimes — one of possessing child porn and another of assaulting a girl on a school-sponsored trip. It says the school failed to act when complaints of teachers' alleged criminal behavior surfaced.  It says the school FAILED TO ACT when complaints of teachers' alleged criminal behavior surfaced.
In the case of John Alexandra, the alleged serial offender, the school's lack of response enabled his predatory behavior, the report finds.
'Allowing Mr. Alexandra to freely roam Threefold property resulted in giving him essentially unrestricted access to students and faculty members, and thereby enabled him to continue to victimize others,' investigators said."

"FAILED TO ACT" - Where have we heard that before?  Oh yeah, almost every critical review I've documented (over 600 now) suggests the parent approached the school first - and the school *failed to act* on their complaints.  Hey, they're all just hysterical parents - no reason to look at possible problems with the school, right? 

This applies even if action is required by the law:  http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/2010/03/highland-hall-breaking-mandated.html

Failing to act is essentially letting karma work itself out.  THAT'S what we're talking about here... it's the VERY SAME principle that Eugene Schwartz promotes when he suggests children's play should run out its course.  http://thewaldorfreview.blogspot.com/2014/06/why-waldorf-bullies.html
Bully and victim have a karmic role to play.  If it's a child's karma to be bullied, or molested, or raped by their teacher - or, as Steiner suggests, even to have a van overturn on them - too bad!!!  Much stronger forces are at work here.  Parents need to know that this is a BASIC principle of Anthroposophy!  Teachers will not interfere - even while they are watching your child being harmed!  EVEN if your child is being molested by a fellow teacher.  They will FAIL TO ACT because that's what karma (Anthroposophy) insists they must do.  It's CRIMINAL!
Green Meadow certainly seems to demonstrate regularly they entertain the very worst Waldorf has to offer within their community.  Parents should be warned.  Do you think maybe Wikipedia might mention something about it?


BTW, same school and the Chestnut Ridge community was involved in this story:


So, is Green Meadow a one-off case?  That's what we thought about another VERY similar case in 2009.

Excerpts are here: https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/extremity
The entire story is here:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/no-class-act-20090710-dg2v.html?page=-1
"As an English teacher with a penchant for romantic poetry, Roger Graham knows how to write a love letter. But in 2001 when he began writing to one of his 16-year-old female students, the married Graham, in his fifties, may have penned the final chapter for the Newcastle Waldorf School, a Rudolf Steiner school he helped establish in the early 1980s."Dearest heart! Most beloved, heart of my heart!" he wrote to the girl, then in the same class as his daughter. "I yearn for your lips and arms … "
Graham wrote to "my luminous goddess" some 20 times over the next six months, during which they began a physical relationship, hugging and kissing before, during and after school.
"He touched my chest a few times and often squeezed my bottom," she wrote in a 2006 report to the NSW Ombudsman. They went to dinner together, and occasionally met after school at Newcastle's Dixon Beach, where Graham took the girl "up to the bushy hillside and was on top of me, kissing".
She wrote: "Perhaps the whole thing was a turn-on for him. Certainly he seemed to take more risks as time went on."
The relationship was discovered in May 2001, and Graham was stood down on full pay. Even then, he continued to write to the girl, his letters passed on by the school's co-founder and senior teacher, Keitha Montefiore.
In 2003 Graham was re-employed as a consultant to the school, but the position was terminated in 2006.
"Now, slowly but surely, Roger has started to appear around the school again," says Deb Wood, a parent of a former student. "There has been a push to get him back into the school, because they regard him as a guru. Staff members even approached the girl and her mother to see if they would not kick up a stink about Roger coming back."
For Wood it was the last straw. "I withdrew my daughter late last year, after it became apparent to me that none of the teachers, male or female, saw the inappropriateness of Roger having a relationship with an adolescent student."
Graham's re-emergence is the latest in a long line of controversies at the 140-student school, including the sexual grooming of students by male and female teachers in the mid-2000s and allegations of emotional and physical abuse dating back to the early 1990s.
In 1995 eight children and several parents made statements to the child protection and investigation unit of Newcastle Police, alleging seven teachers shook, choked, hit and kicked students as young as seven. A teacher also reportedly pushed a boy through a classroom window, breaking his arm.
The school - the recipient last year of $800,000 in state and federal funding - has since been the subject of complaints to the Department of Community Services, the NSW Ombudsman, the Association of Independent Schools, the Board of Studies and politicians.
...
"They espouse all these beautiful things about 'the kingdom of childhood' and the creative and expressive side of the education," says Maria Larratt, who withdrew her son Leo in June 2006. "But after a while you start to notice some strange things about the way the place is run."
...
Several teachers have gone on to marry former students, who in turn became teachers at the school. "The whole place is incredibly incestuous and parochial," says the former board member.
...
Called the College of Students, the practice has led to an unusual level of fraternisation between students and teachers. In 2006 a female teacher was dismissed, allegedly for inappropriate contact with two male year 12 students. That same year, a male teacher resigned, reportedly after a physical altercation with a student.
Of most concern perhaps has been the school's history of unorthodox discipline - what a Newcastle DOCS officer described in a 1995 letter to the school as a "concerning pattern of [the] use of physical force". The letter queried the school's solicitor, Bruce Hansen, about the use of "milkshakes", together with teachers pushing, throttling and kicking children, and quoted a girl, 8, claiming "nearly all of the teachers tell you that if you tell your mum you get more of it tomorrow".
There is far more in the article please read the whole thing.  http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/no-class-act-20090710-dg2v.html?page=-1

Then there's this: http://www.waldorfcritics.org/articles/Sex%20abuse%20cases-%20Wladorf%20school%20suspends%20teacher.html

 The parents at the Waldorf school --- where the 67-year-old had worked as an English teacher at different grade levels since 2000 until his arrest --- were deeply concerned. "Since his arrest, there is nothing else to talk about," says one father as he stood amid the construction debris and insulation material that the parents --- on their own initiative and despite the holidays --- needed for the renovation of the orange-colored main building. They had collected more than 400,000 Euros [$580,000 US] in donations for the remodeling and new construction of a kitchen and a multi-purpose room. Everyone here is mum about the teacher. The parents just refer to the statement of the school administration. Among his colleagues on Saturday, the news was getting around slowly at first. "I just can't imagine it!" said a female teacher who only found out by querying the Tagesspiegel [Daily Mirror] about the case. "It's such a mystery to me!" The school has around 430 students and 35 teachers. In light of the existing case, doubts have been raised about the requirements for associations where adults work with young people --- better to check in advance as already required by sports clubs. "Wherever there is a lot of working with children, then police certifications must be required," said CDU-politician Peter Trapp to the Tagesspiegel.


Here's an excerpt from another very sad story about a Waldorf school that failed to act:

http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/2012/05/abused-and-bullied-by-teacher-ages-7-12.html

Now I am not upset anymore with the ten year old boy, who was hitting girls on the butts. He being an immature ten year old boy who needed an adult to sit him down and explain why that kind of behavior is not okay. I am livid and furious and outraged about how a grown man could sink so low as to sexually harass a ten year old girl and allow and condone that kind of behavior. I know that when teachers go to school to become teachers they are taught about education law and when congress passes a new law or the Supreme Court rules on a law regarding education teachers are made aware of it. Title IX was passed in 1972, nine years before I was born and twenty years before the incident. The Minnesota state statute says all schools even private much have a sexual harassment policy, and this statute was passed in 1989. I know that Mr. M knew what sexual harassment was and that it was against the law in the 1991-1992 school years. However,after I was sexually harassed he turned around and violated my civil rights and sexually harassed me and taught every single student in that classroom that sexual harassment was okay. As a woman, a feminist, and a future lawyer it disgusts me and boggles my mind. I've heard that a lot of times Waldorf schools ignore civil rights laws and it's wrong. 

http://news.sonomaportal.com/2010/02/11/former-valley-teacher-arrested-on-molest\ation-charges/
"A former teacher in Sonoma Valley was jailed Thursday on three counts of childmolestation. Patrick Lilley, 52, was arrested after an investigation revealed hehad sexually abused two pre-teenaged students approximately two years ago.
Lilley was booked into Monterey County Jail with a bail of $300,000 and isawaiting extradition to Sonoma County, reported Sergeant Cecile Focha. According to staff at Monterey Bay Charter School in Pacific Grove, Lilley was employed there as a first-grade teacher at the time of his arrest; this was his firstyear at that school. Lilley had started at Woodland Star School in Sonoma Valley in September of 2004, teaching first grade. He moved along with that class through the fourth grade until June of 2008, when, according the May 2008 school newsletter, he left the area "to live closer to his sister."

Transferred from one Waldorf Charter to another.

What we thought was completely unbelievable is turning out to be completely excusable in Waldorf environments.

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Highland Hall - Raising Killer Bees on Campus

Friday, September 6, 2013


Where the bees SHOULDN'T BE!

Highland Hall has employed someone on campus to raise bees...
Not honey bees... African bees!  While I'm certain this man is well-meaning, anyone who has read my blog knows that idiots are abundant in Waldorf environments.  From the article linked above:

“These honey bees have African genes, which means they’ll swarm to defend themselves if they feel in danger. You have to approach the hives calmly and carefully,” he explains softly as he sprays smoke into several wooden boxes before peeking inside. “I inspect the hives every few weeks to make sure they are ok.”

Notice, the guy is wearing a protective suit... head to toe with head gear, gloves and so forth.  Safety first.  I happen to know Highland Hall... and I can tell you the lower school playground (1st - 3rd grade) is on the other side of the wooden fence where the bee hives are.  

http://www.webpronews.com/30000-killer-bees-attack-couple-kill-horses-2013-07  "A Texas couple was attacked by what is being described as a swarm of 30,000 killer bees. "  July 29, 2013
Two dead horses, five dead hens, and their owner with a couple hundred bee stings — that’s the end result of a recent bee attack in Texas. The bees in question initiated the attack on Kristen Beauregard and her animals shortly after she had finished exercising the two horses on Wednesday afternoon — according to Beauregard, the attack was completely unprovoked, her and her animals were nowhere near the hive at the time.
Texas has been making national headlines since early June, when a 62-year-old farmer from the Waco area was fatally attacked by a swarm of 40,000 killer bees after he disrupted a hive near an old chicken coop. The expert charged with removing the nest told area reporters that although the sub-species is still rare, he had spotted at least fives hives in the last month.
And the strange bee incidents keep coming:
  • A woman in Pasadena nearly died on June 18 after bumping into a hive while mowing her lawn,
  • In Arlington, a couple was severely injured on July 27 as they unsuccessfully attempted to save their two miniature horses from roughly 30,000 killer bees,
  • A Cypress family discovered mores than 100,000 honey bees living in a front yard tree,
  • In north Houston on Aug. 1, a dog named Ace was killed by a swarm while an elderly person was sent to the hospital. Days later, hundreds of thousands of bees were removed from a nearby oak tree, along with 250 pounds of honey.
The family of a Texas man attacked and killed by a huge swarm of Africanized killer bees said Larry Goodwin suffered more than 3,000 stings and collapsed as he was apparently trying to reach a hydrant to wash off the bees.
Bees were attacking workers near discarded trailers and trucks at the scrapyard. It all started when 75-year-old Ramon Figueroa Rascon was helping to clean up trash and debris. Little did he know when he moved an old tire, he would disturb a bee hive underneath.

Nogales Fire Dept. Division Chief Gerry Castro said, "We received a call that several people were being attacked by bees."
 
But firefighters had a battle on their hands because these were not just any ordinary bees -- they were Africanized "killer" bees.
PFLUGERVILLE, Texas -- A 40-year-old warehouse worker has been stung more than 300 times after accidentally disturbing a massive colony of Africanized bees in Central Texas.
Some experts don’t like the term “killer bees,” as it evokes B-horror movies about giant ants, marauding tomatoes, or blobs that ate things. But honestly, what else does one call the africanized honeybee? After all, they swarm and kill.

I'm certain Highland Hall's irresponsibility with regard to the safety of children comes as no big surprise to many of us. Sure, the world needs bees... but there's a place for everything. Raising African "killer" bees has its place. But no reasonable person would suggest that place is on a campus full of children. The articles above show these bees can attack without provocation or warning. With the playground just over the wall, it's amazing there hasn't been news of an attack yet. Clearly, it's only a matter of time before a child or group of children are harmed.




Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, June 18, 2012

El Rio Waldorf School Charter Administrator - Ed Eadon

Here's an intimate "behind-the-scenes" peek at an email I sent to Highland Hall board of directors member Tony Blake.  The background is, Highland Hall (Ed Eadon) had been using the expulsion and threats of expulsion of my kids to cause them emotional distress.  They expelled my daughter shortly before school started in the fall.  My daughter was thrilled by this initially... but, her mother went to work on her, frightening her about the horrors of public school, and eventually, my daughter called me - hysterical to go back to Highland Hall.  Ed Eadon seized this as an opportunity to make me "comply" with Highland Hall's Communication Protocol - and believed he could use the children's attorney to pressure me.  It appears the children's attorney only gave Ed the option of expelling all of my kids (rather than make me comply with the Protocol).  Ed used this as a further threat.  My recourse was the following email exchange with the board member.


Hi Tony,
I promise you I'm not trying to start trouble but you invited me to contact you directly with concerns.  It appears one has popped up already regarding Ed Eadon.  I will acknowledge up front that Ed and I have had our differences but that doesn't change the circumstances.  I spoke with Maura Swanson yesterday and she related to me a conversation she had with Ed Eadon, and apparently Lisa Profumo was in on the call.  Ed related to Maura, a parent no longer involved in the 6th grade class, the circumstances by which my daughter, was re-admitted to Highland Hall.  As if that weren't bad enough, he fabricated a lot of what he told Maura.  It is absolutely inappropriate for Ed or anyone representing the school to publicise this information and I am extremely concerned that such nonsense will find its way to my children's ears as information contained in court orders are not to be shared with my children.  The last thing Highland Hall needs now is another issue festering and gossiping to parents, especially by the head administrator is going to be an issue.  Ed can't seem to leave my private life and my children's private lives out of school politics. 
The parent handbook states that the communications protocol is to be followed by administrators as well as parents.  Why is Ed communicating (miscommunicating) my situation to other parents?  Please Tony, let's put some caulk in this crack before the dam bursts again.  I assure you that I won't take this any further than this letter but I need your assurance that this activity will stop immediately.
Thank you Tony.
Tony Blake wrote:

Pete
I've been out of town and unable to deal with a lot of the e-mail I get.  I understand your response and your specific issue.  Unfortuately I can't take the time to discuss this with you via e-mai.  It's far too time consuming for me to spend an hour (as it took for my last response) composing an e-mail.  I'm going to have to ask that if you have any problems with Ed or the communications issue in the future to call me and we can discuss it on the phone.  I can accomplish a lot more in a ten or twenty minute call than in an hour writing e-mail.

That said, I want to address just two points here.  One, yes, the letter you got gave the school leeway in allowing it to change its protocol in the future.  This is not directed only at you Pete.   The school needs the flexibility to make adjustments to this protocol on an ongoing basis.  (And FYI it's only been in print for the first time this year and despite your impression that it's been in place for years, has never been this comprehensive). So I'm sure you can realize the foolishness of an organization to say that a document stipulating  guidelines is in concrete.  So don't take it personally.  It applies  to everyone.  I see it as a courtesy to let you know the school may from time to time change it's protocol.  Otherwise if they did, it without your knowing they had that right, you'd really be outraged. 
Also, I can see how you take issue with the comment (I haven't seen the letter yet, and yes you can fax it to 818-xxxxxxx) "regarding any communications having to do with Highland Hall."  I asked about this and found out that they ran this by the attorney who said this was a legal position the school could take.  In fact I found out from the attorney, that a private school can ask a family to leave for any reason and even no reason.  So while I understand it's an additional stipulation to what you agreed to, the school apparently felt they didn't want a current parent going on the web and putting out negativity about it.  Frankly, I can understand that.  Would you want someone who worked for your company publicly dispensing negative information about it?
Look, here's the bottom line as I see it.  If you are going to make yourself the self appointed "web consultant" for prospective parents for Highland Hall (as you imply when you say you receive inquiries from prospective parents) I can assure you that you will continue to maintain an adversarial relationship with the vast majority of people at the school.  Now that may be fine with you, but know that as Board President I cannot support your taking it upon yourself to be the sole web advisor to prospective parents.  Just between you and me, I suspect the opinion you give is hardly impartial or objective.  And unless you suggest to these folks that they speak to someone in addition to you, say like me or an Elinor Reid or a Vicky Waldorf, then what I'm going to assume is that you're giving prospective parents a one-sided very negative impression of the school.  If I'm wrong, let me know.  If I'm right, don't expect a lot of support from me.  I'm here to try to improve the way things work and create a stronger organization.  And if someone is publicly dispensing one sided negative information about the organization, that's in direct conflict with what I'm trying to accomplish.
If you want to continue this discussion, please call me.  Evenings are best after 7:30 although I'm out at meetings from time to time so we may play phone tag from time to time.
Tony
 
Hi Tony,
I will call you if you insist, but it is difficult for me to accept telephonic communications as a reasonable substitute for emails because there is no record of what was said and, of course with email there is.  We could save a lot of time, perhaps, arguing over who said what and when if we continue by email and of course there isn't the telephone-tag problem.  Again, I will call you from now on but I want to answer a few points below and I will fax you the letter I received.
With regard to the communications protocol, FYI, it is not new this year nor is it revised or more comprehensive this year than last year but, as far as I can determine, it is exactly identical to last year's communications protocol (check both parent handbooks - pages 16 and 17).  I am not concerned with the school's right to change the communications protocol as it applies to the school, but rather with the statement that they have the sole discression to interpret it as they see fit and, consequently, expel my kids.  And, of course, the implication that any mention anywhere of Highland Hall might be covered by the protocol. 

With regard to the expulsion of my kids, I agree the school can at any time expel them.  What I object to is the school's stated premise that I am causing this to happen by my critical public review of Waldorf education and that this public review is somehow covered in the communications protocol.  Your business example indicates to me that you have never been involved in the business world - you cannot find a company where employees aren't critical of management.  If I had an employee that dispensed negative information about my company, the first thing I would want to know is if that information is true.  If it was true, I would look for and address the problems within my company, not within the employee.
I'm not the self-appointed web representative for Highland Hall.  People seek me out.  If they want to hear only the PR, they will look elsewhere.  They seek me out because they know I have had my share of problems with Highland Hall.  The way Highland Hall deals with me in resolving these problems reflects on my opinion of Highland Hall, to be sure.  I can't help it if Highland Hall doesn't like that I speak with other parents, or makes assumptions about what I might say.  Are you suggesting that I should just tell prospective parents that because I'm a parent, I'm not allowed to speak freely about Highland Hall?  I wonder how that statement might be received by prospective parents.
Again, FYI, I represent Highland Hall much better than I should considering what they have put me through over the years.  Deep down I know that Highland Hall's basic problems are administrative and that people like Ed, who has no respect for parents, tend to self-destruct.  I've read enough Steiner to know where this attitude comes from.  In that regard, I can see some light at the end of a very long tunnel and please trust me when I say that I believe there is hope for Highland Hall.  I didn't create the problems here. 
Between you and me, I don't think Highland Hall gives an objective view of itself to parents either.  Nonetheless, you are absolutely wrong about your assessment that I am providing a service of negative one-sided reports.  I have recommended Highland Hall to parents who have high school age children.  I believe the high school is managable and despite some problematic treatment of certain subjects, and some dogmatic teachers, it is generally good as long as parents are willing to consider supplementing their children's education.  Parents who contact me often indicate which class their children might attend.  I sometimes recommend the lower grades if the class teacher is a good one - yes, sorry, I'm the one who gets to decide this.  If I can't wholeheartedly recommend the class, I always suggest they contact parents from the class they would be attending - and I provide them with contact information.  I also suggest they stand outside the school and ask random parents what they think of the school or suggest they attend a faire and mingle a bit - this is random and they are as likely to talk to me as they are to Elinore Reid.  As you have recommended, I have provided contact information of board members they might talk to - not necessarily Vicky Waldorf.  I also recommend they visit the SJU list, Anthroposophy Tomorrow, and OpenWaldorf web sites - if you have other web sources you would like me to provide to them I'd be happy to do so.  I don't send them to PLANS. 
Tony, there really are two sides to the Waldorf education story.  Many parents research it and find out it isn't for them.  Some parents try it for a few years and have a bad experience that changes their mind.  Everyone has a right to know both sides before choosing this for their children.  Parents who have already discovered the other side contact me.  I am absolutely honest about what has transpired and what I represent (unlike Highland Hall - and you might want to ask Lisa Profumo about the 1st grade parent meeting in which she represented to new parents that Highland Hall has never had safety problems). 
Highland Hall has the opportunity to deal with me respectfully or to continue to treat me and many other parents in the way they have for the past several years.    I have repeatedly asked to be heard on the issues of reform and I'd much rather deal with Highland Hall to accomplish this than the general public.  I admit that to some extent, this determines how and if I recommend Highland Hall to parents.
But if you think I'm unfairly representing Highland Hall, let me suggest this to you.  I am mindful that a prospective parent could decide to relate what I have said to Highland Hall.  Indeed, anyone from Highland Hall could email me and pretend to be a prospective parent (and believe me, I've also kept this in mind all along).  If you think I am spreading untruthful information about Highland Hall, or a one-sided story, why don't you pretend to be someone else and contact me - before making a lot of assumptions about what I might be saying or doing. 
If you *really* want to improve the way things work, then know that I could never harm Highland Hall more than Highland Hall harms itself through it's own posture of suppressing the truth and suggesting (as contained in the letter that I will fax to you) that they can rebuild trust by limiting communications by me or anyone else.  To go back to your business analogy, it is like GM firing the whistleblowers and settling with victims out of court instead of correcting the real problem of leaky gas tanks.  Once their behavior is exposed to the public, it's difficult to develop trust.  Highland Hall's behavior needs to change before you will improve the way things work Tony.  I'd love to have nothing to complain about but the people who find it necessary to threaten me with letters like the one in question will ensure that I always do. 
Pete

Subject:
Calking the Crack
From:
Pete Karaiskos
Date:
Sun, 19 Sep 2004 10:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
To:
Tony Blake

Hi Tony,
I think we're going to need more caulk.  I spoke with Ed Eadon yesterday (Saturday).  He indicated that the school decided to let Maura Swanson know the detailed circumstances of my daughter's reenrollment because Maura's own child had been denied reenrollment and they wanted to head off any problems that might present.  I pointed out to Mr. Eadon that he has frequently proven himself to be quite capable of withholding information and that he should have encouraged Ms. Swanson to contact either Angela or me if she wanted to find out the details.  He agreed that this should have been done and apologized.  Then he further offered that Angela has been making rather public the conditions of {daughter}'s reenrollment - conditions that I was not aware of and haven't agreed to - and that this is why he felt he could share this information publicly.
As if this isn't distressing enough, it turns out, based on my conversation with Mr. Eadon,  that there is apparently a letter on its way to me from the college that details a new set of conditions NOT contained in the court order, and conditions I have not agreed to, that I have to meet in order to keep my children at Highland Hall.  I explained to Mr. Eadon that we had an agreement that {daughter} would be reenrolled and that I would adhere to the school's communications protocol per the court order.  Mr. Eadon then got somewhat heated (as is his nature I'm sure you know) and claimed that he had spoken with the school lawyer and that the lawyer had assured him that the school could, in fact, expel all three of my children "for any reason or for NO reason" (Mr. Eadon's words) and that I would have to conform to the NEW conditions or all three children would be expelled.  Mr. Eadon, again, had no reason to offer this information or make these threats other than to personally attack me.  If a letter was forthcoming, he should have let it arrive and we could have dealt with it then.  He could have (rather uncharacteristically) kept his mouth shut but he chose to exhibit his everpresent control issues.
You can, I'm sure, imagine how difficult and disruptive this action by the school would be for the children and how it would impact their lives.  {Daughter} especially would be devastated by this and I feel certain this would be viewed as the school's fault for admitting her under a false set of conditions.   After all these kids have been through at this school, and after all I have been through with this school as a parent, year after year and crisis after crisis, it is unimaginable for me to comply with a gag order in order to ensure that my kids will remain at Highland Hall and I am sure I made that clear in our phone conversation.  This was, indeed, why you suggested I speak directly to you if a problem arose.  I will adhere to the communication protocol as I agreed to but I also insist on having the same rights as any other parent.  I thought we agreed to start fresh and work positively.
I'm not inclined to continue this pissing contest with Ed or Christine or anyone else at the school.  All I want, and I made this clear to you, is for my kids to have a good, peaceful year.  Ed has now twice gone out of his way to rub salt in old wounds and to take what would have been a positive situation this year and turn it sour.  He is not going to beat me into submission and he needs to know this - by trying he is only making things worse and exposing the school to more criticism or other action.  The best course of action would be to bury the hatchet, not to continue chopping.  Please, Tony, PLEASE - talk with him and ask him to stop this childish nonsense so we can just move on.
One last note... I am aware that Maura is also having problems with Mr. Eadon.  I want to assure you that this is not some conspiritorial effort to overthrow Ed or to do him damage.  Ed is his own worst enemy.  He could have simply acknowledged what I was saying in our telephone conversation and left it at that.  It is his need to be combative, controlling and punishing (perhaps these stem from his military background) that has now caused two cracks that require attention.  We need to stop making disgruntled parents out of people who just want a good education for their kids. 
Thanks for listening,
Pete Karaiskos
Subject: Re: Calking the Crack
From: rudykazootie
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: Pete Karaiskos

Pete
I just received your e-mail.  Let me address this one paragraph at a time.
I asked you to call Ed specifically so that he could apologize for revealing information inappropriately to another parent about your situation.  You indicate he in fact did apologize for revealing it and that was all that I intended to accomplish. 
His informing you about Angela talking openly about the court order is apparently true from what I've heard from others on campus.   I understand how this is distressing for you, but I think it's important that you know this, so you don't think it's Ed's talking to Maura that has caused this information to be known by others.  I also hope you recognize that this is an issue that no one at the school can control.  That is between you and Angela.
To your statement: "Then he (Ed) further offered that Angela has been making rather public the conditions of {daughter's} reenrollment - conditions that I was not aware of and haven't agreed to -"   I'm not sure what your complaint is here.  Is it about Angela making public the conditions, or the conditions themselves?  If the former, like I said, that's a personal issue between you and her.  If it's the latter, I address it futher on.
Now to the letter that you learned was "forthcoming."  Again, I want to keep the points clear.  You claim there is a "new set of conditions not contained in the court order."  So to my understanding the court order indicated that in order for {daughter} to remain at Highland Hall you would be required to follow the communication protocol.  That's not a new condition that I can see.  Is there some other condition you're speaking of?
If your statement "a new set of conditons not contained in the court order that I have not agreed to" means the issue that your other two children could be asked to leave if you do not follow communications protocol, I see that as a broadened "consequence."  It's not a new condition of behavior being asked of you.
So to be clear, the conditions that you must meet are the same.  It's the consequence that I see as having been broadened.  And honestly, this decision is not within my area of responsibility.  Although, having checked with the lawyer, apparently it is legal.  However, that doesn't excuse Ed's heated behavior.
As I see it, Ed apologized for inappropriately revealing information to Maura which is what I had asked.  Then he informed you of a letter that was on its way.  When you say "Mr. Eadon, again, had no reason to offer this information..." frankly, I don't see anything wrong with informing a parent of a forthcoming letter.   In fact, some parents would complain if they weren't informed during a phone conversation.  However, if Ed's behavior, as you state, came across as a threat or an attack rather than simply as matter of fact information, then I agree, his behavior was inappropriate.  And I'll speak with him about that.
But one thing is coming very clear to me as I'm watching this interplay unfold between you and him.   I can see where people's emotions (on both sides) start to cloud the accuracy of the issue and eventually lead to huge communication breakdowns.   
For example, your statement: " {daughter} especially would be devastated by this and I feel certain this would be viewed as the school's fault for admitting her under a false set of conditions" is in my opinion, spinning things far and away from the truth.  There is no  false set of conditions.  We spoke in our original call about what the conditions were.  That you agree to follow a communication protocol.  You agreed and that hasn't changed.  This is a critical point to me in staying accurate.  I see nothing more being asked of you than what was originally agreed to.   So if you agreed these conditions, (which have not changed), and intend to comply, I don't foresee any more problems for your family. 
Which is why your statement "it is unimaginable for me to comply with a gag order in order to ensure that my kids will remain at Highland Hall" is so confusing to me.  How can you expect me to believe you when you tell me you intend to comply with the court order, (by following communication protocol,) which you told me in our phone call, and then make that statement?  What is the truth, Pete?  Are you intending to comply, or are you intending to violate it?  Perhaps herein lies the root of your outrage.   
To summarize: As I understand it, you're upset about hearing the broadened consequences to the condition that you follow communication protocol.  (That's understandable).   And when Ed informed you of the new information, you got upset at the style in which he did it.  Also understandable.  (I know you're also upset that he even told you about it as opposed to finding it out in a letter, but as I've said, I see nothing inappropriate about that.)  And, it would appear from the statement I quoted, that you are upset about what you call a "gag order" and that you believe it's unimaginable that you could comply.  Which I can only interpret to mean that you expect to be unable to comply and therefore expect to trigger the aforesaid consequences.  (Please know that I will find it difficult to assist you in the future if indeed you decide to violate the court order.)
Considering that I asked you to call Ed to clear up a problem once before and that led to another communication breakdown between the two of you, I hesitate to have you two speak again.  It seems you ignite each other's fuses. 
I will speak with him about his style regarding how you felt he was making threats and how you felt attacked.  It's not how a parent should be treated, under any circumstances. 
Tony
Subject:
Re: Calking the Crack
From:
Pete Karaiskos
Date:
Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: Tony Blake

Thanks for responding Tony.
>Now to the letter that you learned was "forthcoming."  Again, I want to keep the points clear.  You claim there is a "new set of conditions not contained in the court order."  So to my understanding the court order indicated that in order for {daughter} to remain at Highland Hall you would be required to follow the communication protocol.  That's not a new condition that I can see.  Is there some other condition you're speaking of?<
Here is wherein lies the problem and I have just now received the letter that confirms my concerns.  The school has issued a letter dated September 16th that states: "It is impossible to imagine all conceivable issues that may arise; therefore we reserve the right to interpret or change the communications protocol in its sole discretion.  If we determine that you are not following our procedures, we will cancel the enrollment of all of your children."  This is what I am objecting to.  The communications protocol as published and outlined is what I agreed to.  I did not agree to comply with some moving target that the school will change as necessary to keep me quiet.
>For example, your statement: " {daughter} especially would be devastated by this and I feel certain this would be viewed as the school's fault for admitting her under a false set of conditions" is in my opinion, spinning things far and away from the truth. 
There is no  false set of conditions.  We spoke in our original call about what the conditions were.  That you agree to follow a communication protocol.  You agreed and that hasn't changed.  This is a critical point to me in staying accurate.  I see nothing more being asked of you than what was originally agreed to.   So if you agreed these conditions, (which have not changed), and intend to comply, I don't foresee any more problems for your family.  <
Do you see now, from the statement that the conditions I agreed to are, at the school's discretion, subject to change?  I agreed to follow the communications protocol and I will adhere to this agreement.  Changing the communications protocol is changing the conditions.
>Which is why your statement "it is unimaginable for me to comply with a gag order in order to ensure that my kids will remain at Highland Hall" is so confusing to me.  How can you expect me to believe you when you tell me you intend to comply with the court order, (by following communication protocol,) which you told me in our phone call, and then make that statement?  What is the truth, Pete?  Are you intending to comply, or are you intending to violate it?  Perhaps herein lies the root of your outrage.  <
The truth is exactly as I have stated it.  I intend to comply with the communications protocol as it was written when I signed it.  I have no problem with this.  It is, however, the school's intention, as per the letter they sent me, to suddenly expand or alter the conditions of the communications protocol which has been in place for years and was just published in this year's parent handbook.  This, indeed, is the roof of my outrage.  I signed the court order, the conditions of the communications protocol were set, and now they are intending to change them.  In fact, in the same letter they state "Because of the court order requiring you to follow the communications protocol, the College asked the Board's Executive Committee to review the College's decision regarding {daughter}.  She was allowed to return with the understanding that you will follow the communication protocol as published in the Parent Handbook with regard to any communication having to do with Highland Hall.  This is not part of the communications protocol and in fact it is known to the school that I participate in open forums about Waldorf education and also that I receive inquiries from prospective parents directly about Highland Hall.  These types of communications are not at all relevant to or covered by the communications protocol which applies to communications regarding problems with teachers. 
>(Please know that I will find it difficult to assist you in the future if indeed you decide to violate the court order.)<
Tony, I really appreciate that you have assisted me thus far.  Again, I am not going to violate the court order - it was a stipulated order, not something the court ordered me to do against my will - I agreed to it and it became an order.  I am objecting to the school altering what I have agreed to and attempting to convince me that this is in fact what I agreed to as is evidenced by the above-quoted statement that is definitely not contained in the communications protocol.  This kind of stuff is what makes me angry at the school. 
>Considering that I asked you to call Ed to clear up a problem once before and that led to another communication breakdown between the two of you, I hesitate to have you two speak again.  It seems you ignite each other's fuses.  <
I would be quite happy never to speak with Ed again.  As I have stated, he has control issues that I am not willing to comply with and his childish attitude coupled with his anger is something I can do without.  I made an agreement with you and with the court and I am sticking to it.  In all the years I have been at this school, I have never not lived up to an agreement.  I have never lied about anything and I have kept confidences I have agreed to keep.  If the school expels my children because they don't like what I am doing outside the agreement, I will deal with that if and when it happens. 
Thanks Tony - I know you think I am making something out of nothing.  Please, I encourage you to secure a copy of the September 16th letter to me and explain to me why you think it was necessary.  I would be happy to fax you my copy.
Warm regards,
Pete


Here's the letter

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)