When Safeguarding Fails

January 15, 2025Staff Communication on Process and Restrictions

A communication* was sent to staff regarding the situation involving Cecily.

In this message:

• Cecily was described as a “valued colleague, friend, teacher, coach, and mentor”
• She was said to be on leave for not fully complying with the Code of Conduct
• Staff were told no criminal laws had been broken

A general process for handling concerns was outlined:

• Information gathering
• Report development
• Time for behavioral correction
• Ongoing monitoring

Staff were instructed:

• Not to discuss the situation
• To redirect student questions to designated personnel

Implications

• The communication prioritized reassurance, while leaving key safeguarding details unspecified
• Safeguarding concerns were not transparently addressed
• Internal discussion was explicitly restricted

January 27, 2025Child Safety Team Paused

The Child Safety Team (CST) was formally paused by administration.

In this communication*:

• The CST was described as having addressed multiple concerns
• The pause was framed as necessary to refine policies and procedures
• The decision was attributed in part to the urgency and volume of recent cases

During this period:

• Safeguarding concerns were redirected to school principals
• The CST no longer functioned as the central response body

Implications

• A dedicated safeguarding structure was suspended during an active period of concern
• Responsibility shifted back to administrative leadership
• The centralized safeguarding response was effectively removed

March 6, 2025Board Findings and Pathway to Return

A joint communication* from administration and the board was sent to the school community.

Leadership acknowledged:

• Missteps in communication, process clarity, and procedures

The board subcommittee concluded:

• A breach of the Code of Conduct had occurred
• There was no child abuse

The board recommended:

• Cecily be allowed to return in a limited role
• Her return be contingent on specified conditions
• She serve under administrative probation

The communication emphasized:

• Reconciliation and restoration
• Confidence that the school remained safe

Implications

• Behavioral concerns were formally acknowledged
• Their classification was narrowly defined
• A structured pathway for return was established

March 19, 2025Board Findings Presented to Staff

During a staff meeting, the board’s findings were read aloud, including the conclusion that the behavior did not constitute grooming.

As the findings were communicated, internal understanding remained inconsistent.

Messages* exchanged between staff during the meeting documented real-time reactions.

Staff reported:

• Uncertainty about whether decisions had been finalized
• Lack of clarity on who held decision-making authority
• Concern about discussion of return despite unresolved questions

Additional observations included:

• Students were being addressed about the situation
• An apology from the staff member was being shared through administrative channels

Secondhand reports indicated:

• Instances of student confusion and discomfort following communication

Implications

• No unified understanding among staff
• Communication to students proceeded despite internal ambiguity
• Partial acknowledgment of conduct without full clarity

March 19, 2025Apology Delivered to Students

Students were gathered for a structured presentation in which an apology* from Cecily was read aloud by a close friend and teammate.

Leadership acknowledged student emotions, including:

“confusion, uncertainty, sadness, loss, anger, resentment, betrayal, and distrust”

Students were told the community desired:

“closure, transparency, re-connection and restoration”

Responsibility was also broadened:

“we ALL... have an active and passive role in creating and maintaining a safe space”

Administration acknowledged process failures, including:

• Lack of clear communication
• Lack of transparent procedures

The apology focused on relational harm:

“my actions and words caused people to feel... uncomfortable, and hurt”“There are ways that I acted that impacted you in ways that I was unaware of”

Language consistently framed harm as perception:

“might have felt”“could have made you feel”

This framing positioned the impact as subjective, rather than addressing the underlying conduct.

Intent was emphasized:

“it has never been my intention to hurt or exclude anyone”

The apology did not reference:

• Specific behaviors or incidents
• Power dynamics
• Safeguarding policies or findings

Following the apology, students were discouraged from discussing the situation:

“Fire goes out without wood, and quarrels disappear when gossip stops.”

Implications

• Harm was framed in relational rather than safeguarding terms
• Responsibility was partially diffused across the community
• Communication emphasized unity while discouraging discussion
• No additional clarity was provided on underlying findings

March 21, 2025Director Acknowledges Process Gaps

In a direct message exchange*, Hans Fung clarified how the situation had been handled internally.

He confirmed that he did not conduct the investigation due to a conflict of interest involving a board-affiliated individual, and that responsibility was transferred to the board chair in coordination with the Child Safety Team.

He also indicated that Cecily remained in Kazakhstan and continued attending school-related activities during this period.

In addressing that decision, he stated:

“Since she expressed a desire to work things out and abide by the administration’s decision, the business office did not cancel her work visa... she is still technically on staff at Tien Shan.”

He also acknowledged:

“Yes, we should have canceled her visa, but we did not anticipate her returning after Christmas.”

March 22, 2025Final Student Disclosure Regarding Classroom Content

A student requested to meet and shared concerns* about prior classroom discussions.

In that conversation, the student described how references to personal struggles and addiction were communicated in a way that did not clearly frame those experiences as being fully in the past. Instead, the student understood them as ongoing, or “better than they were before,” rather than resolved.

The student expressed that this distinction mattered.

They described the impact of hearing this type of content from a teacher—not simply as information, but as something that affected how they processed those topics personally. The student indicated that the way it was communicated created confusion and had a lasting negative impact on their life.

This report was not presented as a single isolated concern, but as part of a broader pattern of student experiences related to classroom content and personal disclosure.

March 25, 2025Sabbatical with Continued Community Access

A follow-up communication* outlined Cecily’s status.

Administration determined:

• She would take a sabbatical for the remainder of the school year
• Additional time was needed for her to meet expectations

However, she was permitted to:

• Attend school events
• Participate in on- and off-campus activities
• Be present at student-related functions

She would not:

• Hold a teaching assignment

Implications

• Formal teaching duties were removed
• Continued access to student environments was permitted
• Restrictions did not fully eliminate proximity to the student community

April 7, 2025Parent Meeting and Re-framing of Findings

A meeting* was held with parents of high school students in which school leadership presented the outcome of the board’s internal review.

At the outset, leadership acknowledged breakdowns in communication:

“we haven’t done a good job... in terms of bringing you clear information”

Administration confirmed:

“There was sufficient corroboration... that Miss Bader did engage in unhealthy touch on multiple occasions.”

The board concluded:

• There was a breach of the Code of Conduct
• There was no child or sexual abuse

The allegation of grooming was rejected on the basis of intent:

“She never did so with ill intent in an attempt to groom a student.”

This conclusion was further framed as:

“Miss Bader’s attention came from a positive place of helping students grow closer to Jesus.”

Leadership emphasized that disagreement stemmed from differing definitions of grooming, including a narrower definition tied to:

“intentional manipulation... to initiate or maintain sexual abuse”

Parents were reassured:

“As a school, we don’t think she’s a danger to your child.”

Behavior was further contextualized:

“What she did... would be acceptable... in a friend-to-friend relationship, but were inappropriate between a teacher and a student.”

During the discussion, future consequences were explicitly raised:

“If we fire Cecily, she will never ever work in a school again.”

At multiple points, emphasis was placed on:

• Intent over observable behavior
• Context and interpretation
• Unity, reconciliation, and restoration

Parents raised concerns regarding:

• The number of students and staff who had reported concerns
• The lack of clarity around specific actions
• The impact on students who had come forward

One parent noted:

“we’re talking about multiple... students... and also several adults that were concerned”

Leadership indicated:

• Reporting students were not known at the administrative level due to confidentiality
• Students would be encouraged toward conversation and reconciliation

Some parents expressed concern about expectations placed on students, including whether minors should be asked to engage directly with a teacher in such circumstances.

Implications

• Documented behaviors were acknowledged and corroborated
• Their classification was limited through an intent-based framework
• Definitions were actively re-framed to support that conclusion
• Potential career consequences were explicitly considered in decision-making context
• Parents were reassured regarding safety despite acknowledged violations
• The cumulative scope of reports was not fully detailed in the presentation
• Tension emerged between institutional framing and parent concerns regarding student impact and protection

The result was a confirmed pattern of boundary violations presented within a framework that minimized their safeguarding classification.

Closing

This timeline is presented to document what occurred and how it was handled, with the goal of providing a clear and accurate record.

Readers are encouraged to draw their own conclusions based on the record presented.