A documented chronology of what our family reported, what we asked for, and the written responses we received.
At the January 8 meeting, we presented our child's account. He said that during Latin class he stretched out his feet, the teacher kicked his foot, and after he said “ow,” the teacher responded, “Stick out your feet again and I'll show you ow.” He also reported that later the teacher lifted him and pushed his hands onto the desk and his back into the chair. This section reflects our child's account as presented to the school; the records do not establish the exact date of the classroom incident.
We told the Principal that our son had reported physical contact and verbal intimidation that caused discomfort and embarrassment. We kept him out of Latin while asking to meet, understand the school's expectations around physical interaction, and discuss how a safe and respectful learning environment would be ensured.
We brought five written questions about the physical contact, safety, dignity, discipline, and what would change going forward. Our handwritten notes record an answer to the final question as: “To you don't intend to change your style of teaching.” Notes written from memory after the meeting also record the teacher saying, “I've always taught this way” and “I have 20 years of experience.”
Our post-meeting notes record the Principal saying, among other things, “We can't commit to specific boundaries like that” and “We'll trust the teacher to use his professional judgment.” They also record a Board member saying, “If my son had been kicked by a teacher, I would ask what he did.” These statements are identified in our chronology as our recorded meeting notes, not as written correspondence from the school.
Our follow-up requested no physical contact with our child, no threatening or intimidating language, a calm professional tone, intervention if peers mocked or targeted him, no retaliation, a temporary private check-in, and administrative oversight. We wrote that our child would return to the two classes once those boundaries were in place.
“To come alongside the school in a spirit of trust and grace…”
or
“To agree that this is not possible and to part ways.”
The Board Chair wrote that partnership required children to make a real effort to follow the school's code of conduct and parents to support teachers when their children receive correction. The email also said the other option was a “parting of ways” and offered a pro-rated tuition refund if we chose to withdraw.
According to my record of a private conversation with the Principal, I was told to take the children home and that I could not bring them back unless “trust teacher” was acknowledged. I asked for that requirement in writing; I do not have a written communication from the Principal containing those words.
My wife wrote that we understood discipline and correction were part of growth and did not expect our son to be exempt from them. She asked that correction preserve his dignity and happen calmly and without physical contact, while expressing hope that he could continue at the school.
The Board Chair wrote that a future meeting would address both parental support and “the child's effort at disciplined conduct,” and stated: “In the meantime, we will not be able to receive your children at the school.”
On January 28, our children began attending another school.
The six-page chronology includes the child's statement presented at the meeting, the January 6 email, meeting questions and notes, the January 9 safety-boundary request, the Board Chair's written response, and the later correspondence. Family identifiers are redacted.
Parents may interpret these records differently. Our purpose is to make our family's experience and the supporting chronology available, rather than asking readers to rely on a slogan or a summary alone.
The school experience will have its own discussion thread on X. That link will be added here once the thread is published.
X DISCUSSION — COMING SOON