At a Glance — Sharon's Letter, the School's Response, and the Documented Record
This page places Sharon Byerly's April 14, 2026 letter alongside TSIS Director Christine Wicker's April 23, 2026 response, with references to the documented record. The goal is not to tell the reader what to think, but to make it easy to see what was said, what was answered, and what evidence exists.
1.Who raised concerns
Sharon identifies herself as a TSIS alumna (1999–2008) and former teacher (2013–2016, 2023–2025). She served on the child safety team, personally received student disclosures, and helped compile the 11-page findings document submitted through the school's safeguarding procedures.
Christine refers to Sharon as “a former employee.”
Sharon's roles at TSIS span nearly two decades as both student and staff. She was a member of the child safety team that produced the formal findings document in September 2024.
2.Were concerns raised through proper channels?
Sharon describes raising concerns through the child safety team, to administration directly, and through the formal findings document. After leaving in January 2025, the Byerlys continued through private channels, including placing Cru and IMB on formal legal notice in February 2026.
Christine states: “They did not feel heard or valued. In spite of our effort to reach out to them, we are sorry that we weren't able to have genuine conversations to address their hurt.”
The child safety team compiled an 11-page report from 4 teachers and 7 students and submitted it to administration per school procedures (Sept. 24, 2024). That report was altered by administration — reduced from 11 pages to approximately 1.5, with one of four findings removed, the high-risk behaviors section stripped, and accountability recommendations replaced with affirmations. Joe was told he was “trying to destroy the school.” Students were told he was “delusional.” Cru's legal counsel responded to the formal notice with procedural questions. IMB disclaimed responsibility. Brian Isaac and Teri Owen received a full list of Hans' interference in the child safety process on December 18th. Teri responded by saying “Thank you for sending this!” Joe attempted to whistleblow within the system of Tien Shan, and these concerns were never followed up on by board members.
See: When Safeguarding Fails — Part 1, Part 2, Part 3; We Were Not Silent.
3.The grooming admission
Sharon writes that Cecily Bader “admitted, in front of school leadership, to engaging in what she described as ‘a lot of’ grooming behavior” during the first child safety meeting. Nothing came from that admission despite two principals being present.
Christine writes that the teacher's “intention in talking about grooming behaviors, was out of a concern that her actions could be perceived by others as grooming, and wanting to ensure that our school training would help other teachers to be able to distinguish between mentoring/discipleship and grooming.”
On August 29, 2024, during a Child Safety Team meeting following all-staff safeguarding training, Cecily voluntarily referenced a PowerPoint slide from that training and told the team she recognized herself in “a lot” of the behaviors listed. She was visibly emotional. This occurred without prompting, in a formal safeguarding context, with school leadership present. Separately, Cecily confided to a student that she recognized she engages in many child safety red-flag behaviors — and in the same conversation stated the school does not need child safety policies because no one would ever harm a student.
4.Cecily's role as a child safety advocate
Not specifically addressed. Sharon focuses on the admission and subsequent behavior.
Christine credits Cecily as “a strong advocate for the formation of a Child Safety Team” who “stressed the need for a school counselor.”
Cecily did support the CST and a school counselor. However, she pushed back against a proposed policy requiring teachers to use school-sanctioned, archived messaging platforms for student communication. The 11-page findings document later identified “ongoing daily communication with students outside school-sanctioned messaging platforms, including at inappropriate times” as a high-risk behavior. The policy she opposed would have created oversight directly relevant to her own documented conduct.
5.Personal struggles shared with students
Sharon writes that students came forward to report Cecily had “discussed her ongoing personal struggles with pornography in classroom settings” in at least two co-ed classes — Class of 2025 (11th grade health) and Class of 2027 (8th grade health) — without administrative or parental knowledge or consent.
Christine writes: “The statement about her ongoing personal struggles is false.”
Additional student reports received in November 2024 included concerns about personal sexual history shared in co-ed classes of minors. By December 2024, students provided further detail that Cecily had described engaging in personal sexual behavior related to the pornography she referenced. At the April 7, 2025 parent meeting, parents confirmed they had not been informed — one stated: “I'm getting bits and pieces from my kids that I didn't even know.” Director Hans Fung referenced Cecily sharing accounts of addiction “with parents' permission”; subsequent conversations with parents indicated permission had not been granted.
6.What the child safety team found
Sharon describes an 11-page report compiled from accounts of four teachers and seven students, submitted through proper safeguarding procedures. She states the administration altered the findings before communicating them to Cecily — presenting them in “vague and incomplete terms, without clarity, without specificity, and without a defined path forward.”
Not directly addressed.
Christine states: “We believe that the final outcome was valid. We affirm the teacher to be a safe and valued teacher at our school.”
The September 24, 2024 report documented behavioral patterns (isolation, favoritism, dependent dynamics), boundary concerns (extended physical contact, students in her lap, exclusivity), and high-risk behaviors (unsanctioned messaging, inappropriate personal sharing). In October 2024, administration revised the report: one finding removed, high-risk behaviors section stripped, specificity reduced, tone shifted toward affirmation, length reduced to approximately 1.5 pages. This represents a 25% reduction in formal findings and the removal of the entire evidence layer.
7.Child safety training and updated policy
Sharon describes the 2018 policy as inadequate and notes that the systems meant to protect students were “no longer functioning in that way.”
Christine states that all principals, the HR manager, the board chairman, and herself attended Child Safety training. She references an updated Child Safety Handbook and a chart in the Teacher Handbook.
A comparison of the 2018 policy (5 pages) and the 2025 handbook (33 pages, 7 appendices) shows the addition of a standing CST, response team protocols, a category system, whistleblower protections, conflict of interest provisions, and communication guidelines — none of which existed in 2018. At the April 7, 2025 parent meeting, the CST Lead acknowledged: “We didn't really have rigorous guidelines... we were operating off of our old child safety policy... it wasn't updated since 2018.” However, structural concerns remain: the Director retains decisive control in serious cases, the Board has almost no defined oversight role, independent investigation is discretionary, and the grooming definition remains narrower than CSPN's standard.
8.“The final outcome was valid”
Sharon does not reference a specific “final outcome.” She describes a process that failed at every stage — from altered findings, to lack of parent notification, to board-level interference.
Christine writes: “We believe that the final outcome was valid. We affirm the teacher to be a safe and valued teacher at our school.”
A third-party investigation confirmed findings including inappropriate physical contact, behavior consistent with grooming-related concerns, and failures in supervision. The board conducted its own separate review, upheld some findings but rejected the grooming characterization, stating the teacher's “attention came from a positive place of helping students grow closer to Jesus” and that “the board rejects the notion that Miss Bader's actions resemble child grooming.” The third-party investigator subsequently indicated she would not be willing to work with TSIS in that capacity again — attributed to the board's decision to set aside aspects of her investigation.
9.Organizational support
Sharon states that Cru and IMB were placed on formal legal notice in February 2026. She describes their responses as “vague at best” and notes they “neglected to take responsibility.”
Christine writes: “Multiple organizations have inquired about this situation in response to the whistle blower, however, they also recognize TSIS to be a safe school and continue to support Tien Shan.”
Cru's counsel responded to the legal notice with procedural questions without engaging the substance. IMB disclaimed responsibility, stating the teacher was not their employee. On a December 5, 2024 call, CRU itself acknowledged it “will not be able to interview students and staff” — meaning it was structurally unable to conduct the kind of review needed to assess school safety. No organization has been named, and no findings have been shared publicly. At least one organization has paused its partnership with TSIS within the last week.
10.Board member involvement
Sharon writes that “Jonathan McDonald, acting in his role as a board member, manipulated aspects of the child safety process and discredited the persons and work of the child safety team.”
Christine writes: “He recused himself and was not involved in the board proceedings.”
On December 4, 2024, board members including Jonathan McDonald and Chris DeGarmo were described as strongly opposed to the suspension decision. These reactions occurred without their having read the full suspension documentation. CST members reported verbal pressure directed at those involved in the suspension decision. Christine's response addresses participation in board proceedings but does not address influence over the child safety process prior to any formal recusal.
11.Leadership conduct during the process
Sharon describes being called “woke” for taking student concerns seriously. She describes Joe being told he was “trying to destroy the school” and students being told he was “delusional.” She writes that “the focus shifted to discrediting the people raising” concerns.
Not addressed.
On November 15, 2024, following a leadership meeting about the situation, Director Hans Fung physically confronted Joe in the auditorium — gripping his arm to the point of pain, taking hold of and lifting him by his jacket lapel, and stating: “You look terrible. You need to get some sleep” and “I can't even talk to you. You have no compassion.” This occurred in a space where students and staff were present.
12.Communication with parents
Sharon writes that when students disclosed Cecily's classroom discussions, the child safety team's “immediate instinct was to communicate transparently with families.” She states: “That communication was never sent, because the administration did not support it.”
Not addressed.
As of January 3, 2025, communication to parents had still not occurred. An internal message to the CST states: “We gave her some time to think it over, and that's what we've been waiting on.” At the April 7, 2025 parent meeting — months later — parents confirmed they had received almost no information. One parent stated: “This touching thing, I never heard of that until now.” Another: “I'm getting bits and pieces from my kids that I didn't even know.” Under the 2018 policy, parent communication was solely at the Director's discretion. The 2025 handbook now assigns this responsibility to the CST.
What Sharon's letter raised that the response did not address
The following concerns from Sharon's letter received no response in Christine's email:
- The 11-page findings document being altered by administration
- Joe being told he was “trying to destroy the school”
- Students being told Joe was “delusional”
- Sharon being pressured to doubt her husband
- Staff members saying they had “given up fighting” leadership
- The child safety team's recommendation for parent communication being overridden
- The characterization of concerns as coming from people who were “woke” or “jealous”
- The physical confrontation between Director Hans Fung and Joe Byerly
- The overall pattern of retaliation against those who raised concerns
A note on reading this. Sharon's letter describes a pattern. Christine's email addresses selected points within it. The documented record — published across this site with dates, sources, and corroborating detail — provides the context for both.
We encourage the community to read all three: Sharon's letter, the school's response, and the timeline series.