FINAL REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF

MARIANAPOLIS PREPARATORY SCHOOL

Submitted By: Jeffrey C. Pingpank, Esq.

Leah M. Nollenberger, Esq.

COONEY, SCULLY AND DOWLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW

HARTFORD SQUARE NORTH TEN COLUMBUS BOULEVARD

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106-5109 (860) 527-1141

Facsimile (860) 247-5215

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ................................................................................................................................. 1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 12. Marianapolis Preparatory School ................................................................................ 23. Bullying Definitions and Statutes ................................................................................ 44. Responses to Bullying By Schools Generally ............................................................. 65. Teen suicide ................................................................................................................. 76. Marianapolis Culture ................................................................................................... 87. Preventing and Responding to Bullying at Marianapolis .......................................... 148. Mental Health at Marianapolis .................................................................................. 159. Connor Tronerud and Marianapolis .......................................................................... 15a. Connor’s only self-report of bullying. ....................................................................... 17b. Marianapolis’s Investigation and Response after Connor’s Report of Bullying ....... 17c. Additional Concern Raised by Connor’s mother in February 2017 .......................... 20d. Connor’s Sophomore Year at Marianapolis .............................................................. 21e. Conclusion Regarding the Response to Connor’s Report of Bullying and EventsThereafter .......................................................................................................................... 21 10. Recommendations. ................................................................................................. 22RESOURCES ................................................................................................................... 25 ADDENDUM ................................................................................................................... 26

Preface

This report was presented to the Board of Directors of The Trinity Foundation, Inc. d/b/a Marianapolis Preparatory School on February 12, 2018. Following the Board meeting, we were requested to make every reasonable effort, without sacrificing substantive content, to remove names of staff and minimize individualized identification of students interviewed or referenced in the report. This is the final report that has been redacted only to fulfill that request to protect staff and student privacy so it could be made available in its entirety for public distribution. This final report also includes an addendum to correct a factual inaccuracy and make an additional recommendation based on that correction.

1. Introduction

Connor Tronerud was a sophomore at Marianapolis Preparatory School, a private, Catholic school in Thompson, Connecticut, when he committed suicide on December 4, 2017. During the first two weeks following Connor’s death, the school was focused on celebrating his life, and handling the grief of the students and others in the Marianapolis school community. Following a private celebration of Connor’s life on Saturday, December 16, the school commenced an analysis of the events and a review of its processes and protocols. Accordingly, this office was retained to conduct such a review.

For those who seek simple solutions and simple answers, this report will come as a disappointment. The related issues of teen suicides and bullying are complex and solutions are not readily apparent. An attempt to find a single cause and a clear-cut villain would be oversimplifying a multifaceted problem. The purpose of this report is not to offer speculation as to why Connor committed suicide. Rather, the purpose is to identify the policies and procedures Marianapolis has in place to deal with bullying, how they were utilized in Connor’s and other cases, and to offer opinions as to what the school is doing well and how it could be improved.

In the course of our investigation we attempted to determine when there were instances where Connor felt he was “bullied.” We became aware of one instance that Connor reported in November 2016, a year before his suicide, in which old and new photos of him were apparently widely distributed and discussed through text messages. This report will examine what Marianapolis knew or should have known of any bullying of Connor, and how it reacted to what was known at the time. To do so, we have looked at the situation as it unfolded. We did not attempt to evaluate Marianapolis’ handling of the incident based on hindsight or based on a determination that there was or was not a link between the November 2016 incident and his suicide.

During the course of our investigation, we interviewed 26 administrators, faculty, staff and students. In order to identify students to interview, we consulted with faculty members or staff, not the administration. We asked them to identify students that they thought would provide us with open and honest responses. We consulted with Jo Ann Freiberg, Ph.D., an Education Consultant in School Climate, Restorative Practices,

2

Bullying and Character Education for the Connecticut Department of Education, and with several public and private school administrators. We met with Teresa Tronerud twice.

We contacted that Massachusetts District Attorney’s Office. We wanted to obtain a copy of the police report and to discuss what information they had developed in the course of their investigation. As it is an on-going investigation, the District Attorney declined to discuss the matter with us.

We were unable to review Connor’s phone. Our office did examine the school email accounts of Connor, students in Connor’s class, students outside Connor’s class who were identified as his friends or acquaintances, and faculty and staff. We were unable to access Connor’s social media accounts, nor those of his classmates.

2. Marianapolis Preparatory School

The school that became Marianapolis was first established in Illinois in 1926 as Marian Hills College by the Marian Fathers. It was relocated to Thompson, Connecticut in 1931. In 1948 it was renamed Marianapolis Preparatory School and became exclusively a prep school. In 2001, the Trinity Foundation, a group of parents, alumni and friends took over the governance of the school, although the Marianapolis Fathers maintain a presence there.

Today, Marianapolis remains an independent Catholic school. Its mission “is to educate students in the Catholic tradition of academic excellence with a commitment to an active faith in God and a dedication to building character with content, compassion and integrity.” One of its aims is “to affirm Catholic principles through ethical and moral values.”

One of the key attributes of Marianapolis that sets it apart from any public school is the presence of God. Whether by the publication of its mission statement and a cross in each classroom, monthly mass, use of the chapel for multiple functions, religion classes, or just everyday conversation, Catholic values and morals are omnipresent and set a level of expectation for the students.

While a Catholic school, Marianapolis admits students of any religion. It has an enrollment of approximately 400 students. In any given recent year, about 150-175 are boarding students, and the rest day students. This year there are 25 foreign countries and 7 states represented in the Marianapolis student body.

Students and their parents choose to apply to and attend Marianapolis; it is not their assigned high school. While the student body is diverse, they share the same essential values. The atmosphere at Marianapolis is unlike that of any public high school. Students come knowing the values of the school, the climate of the school and what is expected of them. Without exception, each student we interviewed remarked on the friendliness of the student body, and the absence of cliques. They talked about a strong

3

sense of a supportive community where students were welcoming. They remarked on the trust that they had with each other, including those in other years that they did not know well.

This is not to say that the school is perfect and that there is never any strife between students, such is unavoidable. We did find several incidents aside from Connor’s where there was inappropriate behavior by one student to another. However, the overall climate and culture of the institution influences the options that the school has in dealing with inappropriate student behavior.

The administrative structure of Marianapolis is somewhat different from the structure of a public school system. In a public board of education, the superintendent is in charge of the entire school system and is not particularly involved in the day-to-day events in any given school; the daily events at each school are left to its principal. At Marianapolis, the head of school is in overall charge of the school and does not have direct oversight of every day happenings in the school; rather, the dean of students and dean of academics share the responsibility of daily oversight. Because Marianapolis is much smaller than a public school system, the head of school is much more involved in day-to-day happenings at the school than a superintendent would be. However, to make him analogous to a principal is incorrect. He has many more duties, from development and fundraising, to capital improvements, to alumni relations, than a high school principal in a public school would have. The dean of students is more analogous to the position of school principal, and the head of school is more analogous to a superintendent.

Like so many schools, Marianapolis has incorporated technology into its teaching and for the communication of information to students and their parents. “Canvas” is a learning management system that has pages for each of the classes a student is taking in a given year. The class page is updated by faculty to reflect the lessons being taught and resources discussed in class. The students and parents are “enrolled” in the class page, which allows parents to access information about the lessons and their child’s grades as the class progresses. In the case of Marianapolis’s advisory system discussed below, the class deans can upload lessons to be taught so the whole class is being exposed to the same information.

Similarly, Marianapolis uses Teacher Dashboard (TED), a portal or access point for faculty into the Filemaker database the school uses to track students. A number of offices access Filemaker through a dedicated portal for their various contacts with students. Everyone who takes attendance has access to TED, as attendance is one of its primary functions. Faculty and staff also have the ability to record academic and behavioral data in TED, adding a dress code violation note or attendance issue, for example. Those making entries include faculty, coaches, and house/hall (dorm) parents. Staff who do not operate in an attendance capacity do not have direct access to TED, but can request through the dean of students that an entry be made.

4

3. Bullying Definitions and Statutes

In the past decade, there has been increased emphasis on the two related concepts of “bullying” and youth suicide. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) refer to them as two “public health problems,” and many, but not all, statistics note that there has been an increase in both in recent years.

The term “bullying” is often misused and overused. There is no universal statutory definition. Many, if not all, states now have bullying statutes. The definitions vary and few, if any, are identical. The definition in Connecticut has changed over time. It is therefore important to define exactly what we mean by “bullying.” In this report, bullying is referred to as repeated unwanted aggressive behavior; repeated unwanted behavior that is rude, demeaning or worse, and may involve a real or perceived power imbalance; or repeated overt acts by a student or group of students with the intent to ridicule, harass, humiliate or intimidate the other student.

The current Connecticut statute, Connecticut General Statute §10-222d, defines bullying as follows:

(1) “Bullying” means (A) the repeated use by one or more students of a written, oral or electronic communication, such as cyberbullying, directed at or referring to another student attending school in the same school district, or (B) a physical act or gesture by one or more students repeatedly directed at another student attending school in the same school district, that: (i) Causes physical or emotional harm to such student or damage to such student’s property, (ii) places such student in reasonable fear of harm to himself or herself, or of damage to his or her property, (iii) creates a hostile environment at school for such student, (iv) infringes on the rights of such student at school, or (v) substantially disrupts the education process or the orderly operation of a school. “Bullying” shall include, but not be limited to, a written, oral or electronic communication or physical act or gesture based on any actual or perceived differentiating characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, socioeconomic status, academic status, physical appearance, or mental, physical, developmental or sensory disability, or by association with an individual or group who has or is perceived to have one or more of such characteristics;

(2) “Cyberbullying” means any act of bullying through the use of the Internet, interactive and digital technologies, cellular

5

mobile telephone or other mobile electronic devices or any electronic communications.

The CDC describes bullying as “unwanted, aggressive behavior among school-aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time.”

The term clearly does not include any time two students get involved in a fight, or when two students call each other names, or tease each other. Instead, bullying refers to more serious and repeated conduct. (The requirement that it be repeated is often ignored by people who label conduct too quickly or imprecisely.)

Bullying behavior can be broken down into four general categories; direct contact that is physical; direct contact that is verbal; indirect contact, such as social exclusion and spreading unkind or mean rumors; and the newest, cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is unique in that the perpetrator can be anonymous and has the ability to harass the victim constantly, and is the most elusive bullying problem that society, parents, and schools currently face. While the impact of cyberbullying may at times be detectable, the act of cyberbullying usually is not. Cyberbullying is extremely difficult for a school to detect if it occurs on social media that is outside of the control or observation of a school. Most social media communication by students occurs on non-school-owned technology, and do not use a school’s servers.

The Connecticut statute in 2002 did not mention cyberbullying, and covered only acts on school grounds, on the bus or at a school-sponsored activity. It is the internet and social media that likely has had the most profound effect on bullying, as well as on socially unacceptable conduct. Cyberbullying is often an outgrowth of conduct that began in the more traditional fashions. Thus, while much more difficult to detect, cyberbullying is often not the first step.

Twelve years ago, bullying, although often hidden, was usually direct and confrontational. For the most part, the conduct of a person who engaged in bullying was obvious to at least a few people, and the intensity of the bullying was constrained by the need of some personal contact with the victim or others to engage in the bullying. The rise of social media has created a climate where people can instantaneously and continuously engage in bullying and can do so anonymously. Where once a recipient of bullying only had to deal with a few people, now the recipient may have to deal with dozens, if not more, and the anonymity that social media provides seems to have loosened the reins of self-restraint. As has been established in many different contexts, we have become a cruder, ruder society, and that unfortunately has become reflected in the social media that children engage in.

6

4. Responses to Bullying By Schools Generally

When first enacted in 2002, Connecticut’s statute looked at the intent of the person doing the bullying. At that time, bullying was defined as: “any overt acts by a student or a group of students directed against another student with the intent to ridicule, harass, humiliate or intimidate the other student while on school grounds, at a school-sponsored activity or on a school bus, which acts are repeated against the same student over time.” The current definition in Connecticut defines bullying in terms of impact on the person being bullied. Thus, conduct which would not have been defined as bullying years ago, because of lack of intent, may today be defined as bullying because of impact.

It is important to note that the Connecticut statutes on bullying are contained in the educational statutes, not in the criminal statutes. The educational statutes do not dictate how or whether “bullying” be punished. Instead, the statutes create certain obligations on public schools to adopt a particular set of plans and processes in order to prevent and limit bullying, and to deal with it when it occurs. The idea that bullying in most instances is analogous to a crime that must always be dealt with in a punitive or disciplinary manner ignores the fact that discipline may make the situation worse for all concerned, ignores the responsibility that schools have to all of their students, ignores the maturity level of the students involved, and fails to realize that seeking to restore relationships is often the best course of action.

As a private school, Marianapolis is not required to follow the Connecticut statutes surrounding bullying. However, through its Student Handbook, Faculty Handbook, Advisor Handbook, Resident Life Faculty Manual, and Opening of School faculty and student curriculums, Marianapolis complies with many of the procedural requirements of the bullying statutes, and has programs, most notably the advisory groups, that go far beyond statutory requirements. Public schools do not have the resources and climate that Marianapolis has, and thus have to turn to a more bureaucratic/formulaic process, while Marianapolis can turn to its small size to drive the individualization of the response.

There is no doubt that there is a general trend in society for more punitive steps to be taken against students who do wrong. While there are some students who deserve punishment based on their acts, we must remember that we are dealing with children of varying maturity levels, and that schools and society have an obligation to all students. A sentence in the school’s Mission Statement summarizes the situation: “At Marianapolis, students grow into mature, self-directed adults with vision and purpose.” The key word is “grow.” Those whose only response is to demand punishment in all instances fail to consider the full ramifications of their demand.

Many of us have families with multiple children. Many of our children have had close friends. Out of that group, there are few, if any, who could correctly claim that none of their children was ever mean to a sibling, or that none of their children ever got into a fight with a close friend. When such conduct occurred, there may have been some punishment, but certainly not to a level that would correspond to expulsion. More likely,

7

there was an attempt to reconcile, and to restore appropriate relations between the children. The answer was never to “suspend” or “expel” that child from the family.

There are three general ways that a school can deal with instances of bullying, two of which are acceptable. It can ignore the situation, which is unacceptable, it can engage in “restorative practices,” or it can discipline. Social science teaches us that it is better – for all concerned - to attempt to create or restore appropriate relationships rather than rely on punitive measures to change or regulate conduct, including in a school setting. Reliance on punishment to create appropriate behavior has been shown to be counter-productive. It can shame and stigmatize wrongdoers, much as too quick labeling of conduct as bullying can stigmatize the victim. For the wrongdoer, it pushes that person into a negative social subculture and does little, if anything, to change behavior. Punitive measures can often alienate the parents, particularly the parents of the person engaging in the inappropriate conduct, as they are no longer working in a cooperative manner with the school. Additionally, the punishment of a student who bullies can often result in backlash against the student who makes the charge, and can isolate that student.

As reflected in the Connecticut statutes on bullying, schools should be working on appropriate programs and techniques to establish an appropriate culture. The purpose of these practices is to build “social capital,” a network of relationships or connections between people where there is trust, understanding and shared values. This is done through a process that is referred to by some as “restorative practices.” These practices can be both prior to a negative event, and thus are geared to be preventative, or practices after an event, which are geared to be repairing in nature. (See “Defining Restorative,” Wachtel, 2012, International Institute for Restorative Practices.)

5. Teen suicide

Teen suicide is unfortunately an increasing problem. It is the second or third leading cause of death for individuals aged 5-19. As one study put it: "While progress has been made in this area, there is still much we do not know about what induces a young person to contemplate or commit suicide.” Bullying, Cyberbullying and Suicide, Archives of Suicide Research 14:206 2010.

While there is not a direct relationship between teen suicide and bullying, there is a link. The CDC notes that there can be negative psychological impacts on any child, involved in any way, with bullying. That includes children who are bullied, children who engage in bullying, and children who see bullying. The CDC notes that both youth who report frequently bullying others and youth who report being frequently bullied are at a greater risk for suicide-related behaviors than other youth. The group at the greatest risk is comprised of individuals who both bullied and were bullied.

Whenever a child who has been bullied commits suicide, there is a public outcry and demands that the children who perpetrated the bullying be punished. There is an

8

assumption that there is a direct relationship between being bullying and committing suicide. The CDC reports that it is not a simple causal relationship, noting:

Framing the discussion of the issue as bullying being a single, direct cause of suicide is not helpful and is potentially harmful because it could:

1. Perpetuate the false notion that suicide is a naturalresponse to being bullied which has the dangerous potential to normalize the response and thus create copycat behavior among youth.

2. Encourage sensationalized reporting and contradicts theRecommendations for Reporting on Suicide (http://reportingonsuicide.org) potentially encouraging copycat behavior that could lead to "suicide contagion."

3. Focus the response on blame and punishment whichmisdirects the attention from getting the needed support and treatment to those who are bullied as well as those who bully others.

4. Take attention away from other important risk factorsfor suicidal behavior that need to be addressed (e.g. substance abuse, mental illnesses, problems coping with disease/disability, family dysfunction, etc.)

The Relationship Between Bullying and Suicide: What We Know and What It Means For Schools, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC.

When looking at the relationship between bullying and teen suicide, the CDC describes both risk factors and protective factors. Risk factors can include emotional distress, exposure to violence, family conflict, relationship problems, lack of connectedness to school/sense of supportive school environment, alcohol and drug use, physical disabilities, learning differences and lack of access to resources/support. Protective factors include strong school connectedness, especially a strong connection between a faculty member or coach and a student, and family support. Id. The ultimate goal for all is to reduce risk factors and increase protective factors as much as possible.

6. Marianapolis Culture

Marianapolis takes a number of steps to create a climate and culture where bullying is discouraged, and to increase the protective factors within its sphere of control. It also has procedures in place to deal with bullying when it occurs. The creation of its climate and

9

culture begins with its Mission Statement. The inculcation of its values begins at the admission process.

The school’s mission:

is to educate students in the Catholic tradition of academic excellence with a commitment to an active faith in God and a dedication to building character with content, compassion and integrity.

Inclusive of all faiths, our community believes that spirituality is a foundation for compassionate, generous individuals. Marianapolis fosters among its students respect for others, appreciation of diversity, and service to all. Values-based education provides relevant, meaningful lessons that impact our students in and out of the classroom. We contemplate global issues with a moral context; we weigh fairness and values alongside traditional academic lessons. Here, young women and men extend themselves spiritually and intellectually throughout their daily lives. At Marianapolis, students grow into mature, self-directed adults with vision and purpose.

The student handbook identifies the school’s aims.

Aims and Purposes

• to encourage scholarship and mature character

• to develop critical and analytical thinking skills

• to build communicating and problem-solving skills

• to promote the love of learning and the higheststandards of academic achievement

• to foster aesthetic sensitivity and creativity

• to encourage the classical ideal of “mens sana, incorpore sana” (sound mind and body)

• to appreciate the value of cultural diversity

• to nurture active and intelligent citizenship in theworld

10

• to affirm Catholic principles through ethical andmoral values

There is a section on Community Expectations which states

PHILOSOPHY

The rules at Marianapolis are few, fair, and based upon commonly accepted principles of respect, decorum, and personal responsibility. Understanding and abiding by these rules is basic to the integrity and success of our community.

More than anything, our rules derive from and are dedicated to the maintenance of our creed: character, compassion, and integrity. Everything we do is in support of these three defining traits.

Marianapolis hopes and expects its students will learn to become more responsible as they grow older. While we will hold all students to the highest standards, the School appropriately expects more from our older students in terms of responsibility and accountability.

Students who are concerned about the decisions of another community member, or themselves, are encouraged to seek out the Dean of Students’ Office, the Nurse, or another trusted faculty member so that steps can be taken to ensure the safety of all members of our community.

Of note, there is a clear provision in the handbook that school rules apply continuously to Marianapolis students from the time they enter the school the first time, until the day of their graduation, including vacation periods or weekends. This provision is in contrast to the expulsion statutes governing public school students. The ability of a public school to discipline or expel a student for conduct outside of school time and school activity is limited. A public school can take action only if the conduct is seriously disruptive of the educational process. There is no such connection required at Marianapolis. Also of note is a provision that requires students who observe a violation to leave the scene immediately or else face expulsion.

At Marianapolis, any breach of school rules may, but not must, lead to expulsion. In the section entitled Major School Rules there is a rule prohibiting bullying and similar conduct, and a rule entitled “Unacceptable conduct.”

11

Abusive or Cruel Treatment of Another Student or Other Community Member

Threats, physical violence, bullying, hazing, baiting, sexual harassment, or any behavior which encroaches upon the personal rights of others will not be tolerated. If any activity makes another student feel uncomfortable, it should cease immediately or there is risk of disciplinary action. This includes not only face-to-face interactions, but also the use of social media and other technology.

Unacceptable Conduct

Students should understand that their behavior reflects not only upon them but also upon the Marianapolis community. All students must be aware of the obligations and responsibilities that accompany the privilege of membership in our school community. This includes but is not limited to their language, dress, demeanor, and decisions on and off campus.

A key task of the school is to indoctrinate new students in, and remind returning students of, the school culture. Beginning with the application and interview process, the climate and culture of Marianapolis is stressed. Most admission interviews include a discussion about following school rules. One student, a junior, remarked on how he was told at the time of his application that bullying would not be tolerated. Not every student we spoke to remembers being told that at the time of their interview, but many were in the 8th grade at the time they applied.

Once a student is admitted, the school meets with the student and their parents one-on-one to discuss what they can expect upon starting at Marianapolis. A discussion is had about the culture and rules at Marianapolis, and it is explained that the school prides itself on being a “campus of kindness.” During that meeting, the families are given the handbook and told that the family has an obligation to go through it with the student as the rules apply both on campus and off. Even new international students have these meetings, via Skype, to ensure all new students are aware of the culture and expectations at the school prior to their arrival. In order to best support all students, families are asked during this summer meeting whether there are any issues they wish to disclose, including mental health concerns, so the school can work with the family and have the opportunity to put systems in place for the student prior to their arrival. When this question is posed, students have already been admitted, and parents are explicitly told that their answer will not change the student’s status as accepted. The hope is that an honest response will allow the school and the student to be fully equipped for maximizing their time together.

12

Just before the beginning of each school year, new faculty members are brought in for orientation. They are taken through the mission and action presentation in which they are familiarized with Marianapolis’ mission, philosophy, and unconditional love practices. The school’s philosophy of unconditional love emphasizes and promotes respect within the school community by accepting the fullness of a student, even if the student thinks there is a part of him or herself that does not “fit in” to what they think Marianapolis represents or what a member of the student body typically is. New teachers are also provided with information about the team approach, and given a list of individuals they can go to if they have questions or concerns when dealing with students. Returning teachers are reminded of this during the opening of school meeting for all faculty and staff, and additional presentations are given for the peer leadership and wellness programs, and positive coaching alliance. They are given a refresher on mandated reporting and reminded that any teacher who has reasonable cause to suspect or believe that a child is being abused or neglected must report to the Department of Children and Families.

Students are brought in at the beginning of the school year in waves- first student leaders, then new boarding students, returning boarding students, new day students, and returning day students. Each group of students gets refreshed on the student handbook and philosophy about the climate and culture expected and enforced at Marianapolis. The goal of the Opening of School meetings is to make students feel comfortable and welcomed, valued, engaged, and as though they belong. There are specific orientation sessions including Culture and Getting Involved, Cultural Based Understanding, Cultural Identity, and Life at Marianapolis.

For the past two years, a group called the Positive Coaching Alliance has provided a workshop to Marianapolis’s athletic coaches and captains. For the coaches, the program emphasizes the positive values that sports can develop, rather than wins and losses, and on building program values. Captains get training on how they can facilitate this process.

During the school year, all students participate in advisory groups. To the best of the undersigneds’ knowledge, Marianapolis’s practice of “advisory groups” is not replicated in any public high school. Each advisory group contains around 9 to 12 students led by a faculty member. The groups meet twice a week, on Tuesdays and Fridays, for about 30 minutes, and the groups stay intact for the school year. The Marianapolis Advisor Handbook sets out the goals of advisory:

The primary goal of the advising system is to make caring and knowledgeable adults accessible to Marianapolis students, helping them to understand and to live the school’s mission statement and core values. In a small school such as Marianapolis, all students should be supported and educated as individuals…

13

An advisor provides adult perspective, direction and feedback for each student regarding issues, problems, or general questions that emerge, by meeting often, being available and willing to listen, and guiding the student toward both independence and a responsible sense of connection with peers and adults…

Monitoring Social Progress

The advisor is responsible for maintaining an awareness of the physical and emotional well-being of the advisee, as well as his or her development toward independence. This is most often accomplished by observing general attitude, including respect for large and small community expectations, sensitivity to others, and awareness of the larger community.

Advisory periods typically start with an opportunity for students to raise problems, then depending on the advisor, the group, and on the particular situation, what the groups do can vary. Upperclassmen we interviewed said that they were working on college selection and applications. Underclassmen said that at times they had “Ted Talks.” The faculty we met with said that it provided them with an opportunity to build relationships with students, and the group meetings provided them with an opportunity to observe the students and notice any changes in behavior. Having observed two advisory groups, it is clear that the faculty, perhaps unbeknownst to the students, use this time to make sure everyone is engaged and “checked on,” and the continuity of the group allows the advisors to follow up on earlier issues raised by students. Ms. Freiberg from the Connecticut State Department of Education has indicated that students do talk and share when they have special relationships with adults who know how to listen and fully understand that they have an obligation to make environment physically, emotionally and intellectually safe for each student. The advisory groups at Marianapolis provide an opportunity to create that special relationship.

In addition to advisory groups, freshmen participate in Peer Leadership, a year-long program facilitated by senior class student leaders to acclimate freshmen to the school. The seniors running Peer Leadership offer an additional layer of support and insight into the school and its culture. This program continues in sophomore year as Wellness, in which members of the junior class, along with adults, meet with the groups of sophomores. These programs offer the administration additional sets of eyes and ears to ensure the lower classmen are continuing the cultural tradition of inclusiveness at Marianapolis, and to help nip any potential problems, including bullying, in the bud. Additionally, the school has a representative from Internet Safety Solutions come in at regular intervals to discuss online use and safety with students.

In an effort to see how students are absorbing the teachings on culture, Marianapolis periodically has students participate in surveys. The first survey each year is two weeks

14

after the opening of school to get a sense of how students are feeling about the culture. In November 2017, a culture survey was sent to all of the student leaders in a way that they could respond anonymously. Informally, students are checked on during their weekly advisory meetings, and attend Campus Ministry.

7. Preventing and Responding to Bullying at Marianapolis

Much like proper hygiene and the use of sterile procedures can help reduce but not eliminate the chances of infection, appropriate practices and procedures can help reduce the prevalence of bullying and its severity, but they cannot eliminate bullying. As detailed above, Marianapolis relies heavily on creating a climate that discourages bullying and helps in the recovery. There are procedures in place to deal with bullying when it occurs.

When a student or their parent reports bullying to any teacher or faculty in the school, the complaint is directed to the dean of students. The dean speaks with the reporting student and/or their parents, and asks the student to fill out an Incident Report so a file can be started. The purpose of the Incident Report is to have the student, in his or her own words, describe what has happened. An investigation also starts, either overtly or covertly, into the behavior of the allegedly offending student(s). There are occasions where students or their parents reporting bullying ask that their name not be attached the complaint and not be mentioned to the student they are reporting. The failure of a student to file an Incident Report does not stop the school from dealing with the matter, but it can hinder its investigation.

During the course of our investigation, we were made aware of various reports of bullying and the school’s handling of same. Information was provided regarding discrete cases of bullying involving one or two students that were each subject to an investigation and consequences of varying degrees to the offenders. There were also investigations into various sports teams, boys’ and girls’, which were the subject of bullying complaints. In addition to giving consequences to individual students, there have been school and/or class meetings held following incidents that were concerning enough to the school administration that they were felt to be warranted. We were provided with information about reports of bullying other than Connor’s at the school in the last two years that resulted in such school or class-wide meetings. In March 2016, an email was received detailing concerns about the mental health of a group of students which led to training for the faculty. In November 2016 following a tumultuous national election and response, including on the school’s Twitter feed, an email was sent to the entire school reminding students to be kind to each other. In Spring 2017, Marianapolis put on a program for the entire student body in response to an incident with a group of students using inappropriate racial humor in a group chat. The involved students were subject to discipline, but the administration felt the issue was systemic enough that Community Conversations were held during group lunches facilitated by adults who were provided with talking points. In Fall 2017, a class year was brought together for a meeting about

15

expectations for their behavior following complaints about, and faculty witnessing, inappropriate conduct in common areas among the class. The incidents witnessed included kids tugging on others’ clothing, such as ties, inappropriate language and roughhousing. This meeting was entered into Canvas as an advisory meeting so parents were aware of it happening. In October 2017, a class year was brought to a meeting in the chapel about safety, care of self and others, and reminded about the availability of the counselor after some of the class’ members were learned to be engaging in at-risk behavior off campus. A letter was also sent home to families on these issues.

The Marianapolis Student Handbook details the various consequences for violating school rules, ranging from a TED note for minor violations to Dismissal for violation of a major school rule. Although the list of consequences is provided, the implementation of a consequence is discretionary, and there are multiple possible consequences for a given offense. For example, the Handbook states “A student may be suspended for violation of a major school rule or persistent failure to follow community expectations,” (emphasis added) not that a student will be suspended, and “Restriction” is also available if a student violates community expectations. As such, there is no rubric or flow chart in the Marianapolis Handbook for consequences. “Offense A” does not automatically yield a specific outcome. Rather, each violation of school rules, when and if known, are assessed individually based on the circumstances and those involved.

8. Mental Health at Marianapolis

Since the Fall of 2016, Marianapolis has had a counselor available to students on campus at regular intervals. This counselor offers short appointments to evaluate how the students seeing her are doing, and makes recommendations about whether or not they need additional services. Students have three avenues by which they can access the counselor, and the entire student body is made aware of this. Out of the 400 students at Marianapolis, approximately 50 have taken advantage of her presence on campus.

Marianapolis also celebrated Mental Health Awareness Week for the first time in October 2016 with programming for students around mental health and stress. During this week, mental health professionals came into the school for lunches with the students, and discussions were had around mental health. In the 2017-2018 school year, this was expanded to include a Mental Health Week in November, during which a counselor met with the freshman and sophomore classes, along with one Mental Health Monday each semester. These programs focus on stress relief activities for students during a class block to show them that they do not need an inordinate amount of time away from their studies for self-care.

9. Connor Tronerud and Marianapolis

The Tronerud family has a lengthy history with Marianapolis. Connor’s older brother attended and graduated from Marianapolis. Connor was involved in Marianapolis even

16

before he started school there, attending the summer camp on Marianapolis’ campus called Camp Stonewall.

Camp Stonewall is an overnight summer camp for students entering grades 2-10. It runs approximately 7 weeks each summer. Students can attend either a single week or multiple weeks. Connor was deeply attached to the camp. He apparently attended the camp every summer and stayed multiple weeks, if not the entire camp, each summer.

Connor also appeared deeply attached to Marianapolis. While a day student, he apparently stayed on campus beyond normal school hours. Day students are invited to stay in the dorms for a week or two each semester. Connor stayed just over 16 weeks in the dorms during his freshman year, including two weeks in December and 10 additional weeks after the November 2016 incident.

Connor was a freshman during the 2016-2017 school year. The Fall of that year was notable because of the Presidential election. Marianapolis had a twitter account where students and others, mostly alumni, could comment on the election. Using his own Twitter account, Connor got into a dispute with some individuals over the election in response to a Marianapolis tweet. In the exchange, it appears that Connor gave as good as he got, repeatedly berating individual users for their opinions that were in opposition to his own. On the evening of Thursday, November 10, the Assistant Dean sent an email to all students about the reaction to the election.

Please remember that Marianapolis is a community built on a dedication to developing compassion and integrity. Inspired by our Mission, Marianapolis students show respect for others, appreciation of diversity, and service to all.

Remember that all of us are entitled to our own opinions and that you disagree with an argument, not a person

Above all please remember that all of you deserve to be supported. Marianapolis, in Mission and practice, has been and will continue to be, a place where all students can grow and learn both in and out of the classroom.

Please continue to come see me, or any adult in your life, if there is anything that happens that challenges for you our values as a school.

At some point shortly thereafter, the school’s Twitter account was taken down.

17

a. Connor’s only self-report of bullying.

November 2016, just over a year before he committed suicide, was the only time that the undersigneds were able to uncover an instance when Connor reported being bullied. We can trace the school's reaction to that situation and its follow up.

There is a Director of Camp Stonewall, the summer camp on the Marianapolis campus. Camp Stonewall is a separate corporation but clearly affiliated with the school. As a separate corporation and not part of the school program, it tends to operate with a significant degree of independence from the school itself. The camp has its own Facebook page, separate and apart from the school’s, which contains photos of the campers taken at camp over the years. Thus, the page contained photos of Connor when he was younger.

On November 15, 2016, in the early evening, Connor emailed The Director:

I feel really stupid asking this, but is there any chance you could delete all the photos of me from the CSW Facebook? I know it’s probably overstepping my boundaries, but I’ve recently been bullied using the pictures and it makes me incredibly upset. I’d like this to stay in between you and me, nobody else needs to get involved, not my parents, not the school, nobody. If you could do this I could never repay you. Thank you so much for any help.

The Director responded the next day, stating;

Its [sic] never stupid to ask for support, so I really appreciate you reaching out to me! Removing photos of you is not impossible but definitely a big undertaking, and there are obviously some concerns around what’s going on to trigger that action. Are you free to talk with me today before you go home so we can talk specifics for what you need? Let me know what time I could catch a few minutes with you.

b. Marianapolis’s Investigation and Response after Connor’s Report ofBullying

After exchanging emails on November 15 and 16, Connor met with The Director. He told her that peers were taking photos of him from the summer camp – presumably photos from prior years – and circulating them via text message. He did not describe the contents of any texts, and did not show The Director any of the texts. Connor did not want his parents to know about it, as he was afraid that they would make a big deal of it, and he did not want to get the school involved. To The Director, he did not appear in crisis. He was not crying or distraught. The Director inferred that Connor thought that she

18

could quickly and quietly take the pictures down, without involving others and that then, the problem would go away.

The Director told us the faculty is taught they cannot promise students they will not to talk to appropriate adults. The Director said this to Connor. We interviewed four people about what happened the weeks after Connor reported being bullied: The Director, Teresa Tronerud, The Assistant Dean, and Connor’s advisor. As might be expected when recalling events that occurred a year earlier, the order of events and conversations as recalled by the four did not completely line up, but the essential facts were the same.

After Connor met with The Director, she contacted both Mrs. Tronerud and The Assistant Dean. The Assistant Dean of Students was informed of the incident and met with Connor on November 29, 2016, the first day back from the week-long Thanksgiving break that began after school ended on November 18. Connor did not want to talk to her about the issue. He stated that the people involved were his friends, both from Marianapolis and other schools, and they did not know that they were hurting his feelings. He did not share with her any of the texts or photos. The Assistant Dean pressed Connor for names of the students involved and he eventually gave her one name, that of a student. He stated that there were other students who were also heavily involved. The impression The Assistant Dean got was that these other students were also friends. She asked him to fill out an Incident Report and he refused. After meeting with Connor on November 29, The Assistant Dean sent an email to all the class year advisors that stated as follows:

It has come to my attention that there is a student, who is in all of your classes, that has been the subject of unwanted photos by another student who has been inappropriately sharing these photos with other classmates.

I do not know when these photos are being taken of the student, but we can control if they are happening at all in the classrooms. Please continue to be vigilant of cell phone or iPad use in the classrooms and make sure you note any inappropriate use to me as soon as possible.

Connor’s advisor also spoke with him about the incident. It was her impression that Connor was being bullied both with old photos from the Camp Stonewall Facebook page and by new photos students were taking on their cell phones during the school day. Apparently, there was a group of boys taking photos of each other at school and sending them in a group text during this time. Although seemingly unknown by the school at the time, Connor’s old camp pictures were not the only ones that were being circulated. We spoke to two members of his class who recalled old photos of themselves were circulated. One boy recounted being called over by a group of girls and being shown a photo of himself; he was not offended. Another girl set her old photo as the background on her cell phone.

19

The Assistant Dean also met with Mrs. Tronerud, apparently several times, immediately after Connor spoke to The Director. Mrs. Tronerud stated her suspicion that the photos were from one of five students who were in his class year. She believed that someone in the class who went to Camp Stonewall was taking the old pictures and spreading them throughout the class. Mrs. Tronerud reported that Connor was not himself at that time. When she drove him to school in the morning he was tucked up in a corner of the car. Until she heard about the photos, she thought that he was just a typical tired teen.

After one of their meetings, Mrs. Tronerud supplied The Assistant Dean with a two-page handwritten list of 21 phone numbers that Connor was apparently receiving text messages from. Written on the side of the side of the pages were the number of texts that he received each day, on November 10, 11, 14, 15 and 17. The numbers ranged from a high of 652 on November 10, to a low of 78 on November 15. There were names on the list purporting to identify the owners of the phone numbers. None of the handwritten notes included names of Marianapolis students, and many were unidentified. The Assistant Dean did check for the phone numbers of the key students. She does not recall how complete the data was that she checked, but she was not able to identify the phone number of the student whose name Connor gave. She recalls finding only four names affiliated with Marianapolis: two teachers and two students.

We also attempted to identify owners of the numbers through Marianapolis records and via a public records search available to attorneys through Westlaw. Of the 21 phone numbers on the handwritten list, we were able to find potential owners for 17 of them. Of those 17 identified owners, we also identified four affiliated with Marianapolis: two students and two staff members. Neither of the students’ numbers matched the names of those supplied to us as possibly being involved.

At this point, the administration knew that there were photos and presumably texts being circulated, but did not know the contents of those texts. The school also knew that Connor did not want to create a big furor out of the situation and did not want the students who were circulating the photos confronted. He represented that these people were his friends and did not know they were hurting his feelings. The phone numbers that were provided on the two-page list did not match the one name given by Connor as the originator of the photos, and no other identifiable students showed up with any great frequency on the list of phone numbers. Although the number of texts could be considered excessive, Connor did not exhibit any outward signs of significant distress, nor did he report being distressed to the multiple faculty members who talked to him about the issue.

The school had essentially three choices: do nothing, confront the particular students who were thought to be involved, or deal with the problem in a more circumspect manner. Connor did not want the particular students confronted. A confrontation with those students was not guaranteed to be successful, and could actually exacerbate the

20

problem. A more circumspect plan involving the entire class was discussed with Mrs. Tronerud and ultimately adopted.

As noted above, Marianapolis has a school wide advisory system wherein a small group of students is assigned to a given faculty member and they meet twice each week. The class year advisors were called together by The Assistant Dean and she told them, without mentioning any names, that some students were circulating photos of other students and it was causing concern. The advisors were instructed to talk about bullying with their groups. She provided specific advice to the advisor of the one child that Connor identified without naming the student. Additionally, the class deans put together an advisory lesson, posted on Canvas, about social media etiquette that was taught to the class through their advisories. As it was on Canvas, all of the class year students and parents had access to the lesson.

On December 15, Mrs. Tronerud emailed The Assistant Dean to check in. She wrote that Connor’s stay in the dorms from December 4-15 seemed to go well, and that he seemed to be in better spirits. Connor told her that things were going fine but she was not certain that he was totally open with her. The Assistant Dean responded that she had been working with the class year advisors and teachers to update her on the situation. She stated that Connor did not mention anything new happening, and she was also unsure whether or not anything was. The Assistant Dean had a small advisory group that was merged/often met with the one that Connor was in, so she often observed him and was able to ask him how he was doing in an unobtrusive way. The Assistant Dean told Mrs. Tronerud that she always saw him smiling and sitting with a large group of friends. Mrs. Tronerud responded that things did seem better and that she was glad to hear that he has been with large groups of students as he told her that when things were happening, he was just doing his own thing and eating by himself. The Assistant Dean stated that she would touch base with him after the Christmas holiday.

c. Additional Concern Raised by Connor’s mother in February 2017

In February 2017, Mrs. Tronerud sent emails to one of Connor’s teachers with whom he was close and his advisor because she was concerned “something” was still going on, though Connor denied being bullied when she asked him directly. Connor’s advisor had not noticed any change in him prior to receiving this email, and when she checked in with him he said he was okay. Connor did not say anything to the other teacher Mrs. Tronerud reported her concerns to, either. Of note, Mrs. Tronerud did not bring her concerns to the administration, though she had worked with The Assistant Dean in November and December 2016 after Connor’s report of bullying.

In the course of our interviews, we met with teachers that Connor had in his freshman year, as well as faculty and staff he was close to. Connor did not complain to anyone of any further bullying after November 2016, and no one was aware of any further unreported incidents of bullying. In particular, we spoke to two teachers who are close to both Connor and his family, and whom Mrs. Tronerud asked to keep an eye on Connor.

21

One reported that although his contact with Connor was limited in the second semester, Connor did not seem in distress during that time. The other reported that while he had conversations with Connor over many things second semester, Connor never talked about being bullied.

d. Connor’s Sophomore Year at Marianapolis

In August 2017, just before the start of school, Connor attended a party at the home of a classmate. He was playing Frisbee and running down a hill when he suffered a freak accident, tripping and breaking both his legs. As a result of his injuries, he was not able to attend school when his sophomore year started. The school and the Troneruds equipped his house so that he could attend school via Google Hangouts. He was fully visible to his teachers and submitted all of his homework via email. Students in his classes also helped him stay up to date with notes and assignments he missed for doctors’ appointments, and one of the sophomore class advisors put together a basket with contributions from all the sophomore advisories to send to Connor at home.

In mid-October, Connor came back to campus for Parents Weekend. He was on crutches at the time. He apparently was very excited to be on campus. Unfortunately, he was not well enough to return as a student at that time, so he continued to participate in classes online.

Marianapolis makes Halloween a campus event. Students put on costumes and attend class. At the time of Halloween, Connor was still home. He nonetheless put a sheet over himself as a ghost costume for his video participation in class.

From all accounts, Connor was looking forward to returning to school, and he pushed himself to get back earlier than originally anticipated. Connor returned to school on November 16. He physically was in class for two days before the week-long Thanksgiving break, and four days after Thanksgiving. No one reported any incidents during this time, or noticed any change in Connor’s demeanor, including his mother. He committed suicide at his house on Monday, December 4. His mother was away on business, and she sent an email to the school that morning stating there was a mix-up with his carpool such that he would be absent that day. Connor apparently left a very short note that did not reference Marianapolis, any students, bullying or other cause for his decision. He apparently wiped his Android phone clean.

e. Conclusion Regarding the Response to Connor’s Report of Bullying and Events Thereafter

The causes of suicide are complex. Suicides are almost always multi-factorial. There are any number of potential causes for Connor’s emotional state that led to his suicide. It was beyond the scope of this report to examine Connor’s mental health, and beyond the scope of this report to identify potential causes of his suicide. Any link, and the strength of any link, between the incident in November 2016 and his December 2017 suicide are

22

for others to make. Absent additional information, any attempt by the undersigneds to attribute the incident a year before his suicide as the sole, most significant, or even a major cause of his suicide would be reckless.

We uncovered no other instances of bullying involving Connor after November 2016. We uncovered no further incidents where Connor complained about bullying. We declined to examine everything that went on in Connor’s life between November 2016 and December 2017. Whatever troubles Connor may have had, he appeared to like Marianapolis. He stayed in the dorms on campus for 12 weeks after the November 2016 incident. By all accounts, he was looking forward to returning after he healed from his broken legs. If something happened upon his return, we are unaware of it.

An evaluation of Marianapolis’s course of conduct depends primarily on whether one believes that the only reasonable course of conduct is to identify and punish the perpetrators, or whether one believes that the favored course of dealing with issues of bullying is to first seek to repair relationships. To argue that punishment is the fallback response is to ignore developmental differentiations based on age. The response to student behavior that occurs in the Fall of a student’s freshman year may likely be different than the response to the same conduct if it occurs in a student’s senior year. Social science and many experts on bullying teach that repairing relationships is the preferred course. That is the course of action that was taken in response to Connor’s complaint. From all that Marianapolis could determine throughout the rest of Connor’s life, that course of action appeared to work as there were no further reports of bullying by or about him.

10. Recommendations.

We found the preventive steps that Marianapolis takes in regard to bullying to exceed any recognized standard of care. The advisory group system provides an excellent opportunity to monitor the students. It provides a unique opportunity to create a bond between a student and an adult that is essential in the defense against bullying. The school also provides a variety of educational and instructional opportunities for both students and faculty that address the school culture and the behavior expected while a member of the Marianapolis community. It also has a centralized and effective way to deal with instances of bullying or inappropriate behavior.

We did find that the tracking and recording of incidents of inappropriate student conduct – which includes more than just bullying – should be improved and formalized. We have become a data driven society and Marianapolis should improve its database by keeping better track of reports of bullying in order to identify patterns of bullying among students in the school. This tracking should also include information about disturbing or threatening behavior that does not meet the definition of bullying. At present, the school relies too much on institutional and individual memory. Data may provide a clearer record of trends and problems. Keeping statistics would also help enable the school to determine whether steps beyond those already taken – preventative, restorative and

23

punitive - are necessary. While there are files kept on certain specific incidents, there should be a more centralized recording of incidents and students involved, even if access to that information is restricted. This would provide a centralized, searchable, database to keep track as to the incidents when student A makes an allegation of bullying or inappropriate conduct, and a way to keep track of the times there is a concern about student B engaging in the inappropriate conduct. Whether in TED or in some other form, there should be a way to keep track of concerns or allegations, even if no decisions are reached as to whether the concerns or allegations are established and subject of consequences. This recommendation could be accomplished with something as simple as a spreadsheet that can be accessed by administrators, or incorporated into TED should the software allow.

Along with better tracking, a more formalized reporting system to the headmaster should be considered. Evaluating the proper role of the headmaster in this regard is difficult. The headmaster is not a superintendent of schools, but neither is he a principal. The headmaster need not, and should not, be involved in every incident involving a student, but he clearly should be involved enough to have knowledge of incidents and provide general oversight. It appears at present, because of the small size of the school and the close relationship between administrators, that he is apprised of most matters. Better formal reporting would increase his awareness of all matters.

In the course of our investigation, we did find several examples of inappropriate conduct among sports teams. The level of inappropriate conduct varied and most of the situations that we could confirm were dealt with in a reasonable manner. At the very least, they were all subject to thorough investigation and counseling of both the offenders and the victims. However, paying closer attention to sports teams as potential microcosms of bullying behavior would serve the school well in preventing further incidents. This could involve additional check-ins with the teams, or a reminder over the course of the season that students on sports teams are just as accountable to the school rules when they are participating in their sport as when they are participating in their education.

When it comes to the evidence that the school relies upon in investigating incidents, it is important to note that a school administration is not a court of law such that allegations need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for more significant consequences to be levied. It is also not always necessary to have hard evidence, such as screenshots or photos, to corroborate a report, and consequences can be warranted even without such proof.

While we have emphasized that restorative practices are preferred, there do come times when some sort of negative consequence short of expulsion is necessary. When determining the consequence, thought must be given to the impact of the consequence on the victim. Much like the burden of a changed assignment in cases of sexual harassment

24

in in the workplace should fall on the harasser, not the victim, the burden of consequence is a case of bullying should fall on the bully, not the victim.

Faculty and staff should be regularly reminded that the sharing of information is better than the withholding of information. Concerns about students, whether bullying or not, should be brought to the Dean of Students per protocol. In the instances of potential bullying, the Dean of Students can investigate, or at the very least add the information to the school tracking system as recommended above, in order to further keep track of patterns developing in the school.

We did not uncover any incidents where we felt that there was a failure to report abuse or neglect to the Department of Children and Families. We understand that one of the topics on the opening of school each year for teachers is a refresher on a teacher’s obligations as a mandated reporter. The bond that develops between a student and particular teacher does not obviate the need to report. Along a similar line, there should be training on the signs of distress that a student may exhibit, and a reminder to teachers of the reporting structure that they should follow if they see such signs.

While the small size of the school provides numerous opportunities for students to make known their concerns, we would recommend that a process be established to allow for anonymous reports of bullying or other student misconduct.

Lastly, we understand that the school is considering expanding its mental health/counseling program. We applaud that development.

Overall, we found that Marianapolis does an exceptional job at preventing and responding to bullying. Marianapolis is doing many things right, and our recommendations are simply a reflection of the things that could be done even better. It is clear that the staff at Marianapolis cares deeply about the school and its students, and the students seem to perceive that care and reflect it back. That bond of trust between the adults and students at Marianapolis goes far beyond the norm, and it should continue to be cultivated.

Respectfully submitted,

25

RESOURCES

• Connecticut General Statute §10-222d et seq.• “Defining Restorative,” Wachtel, 2012, International Institute for Restorative

Practiceso https://www.iirp.edu/what-we-do/what-is-restorative-practices/defining-

restorative• Bullying, Cyberbullying and Suicide, Archives of Suicide Research 14:206 2010• The Relationship Between Bullying and Suicide: What We Know and What It

Means For Schools, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDCo https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullying-suicide-translation-

final-a.pdf• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Bullying Research

o https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/bullyingresearch/index.html

26

ADDENDUM

After submitting our report, we were advised of a factual inaccuracy and have prepared this addendum to correct same.

On page 17 of the report, we wrote “Camp Stonewall is a separate corporation but clearly affiliated with the school. As a separate corporation and not part of the school program, it tends to operate with a significant degree of independence from the school itself.” In fact, Camp Stonewall is not a separate corporate entity, and is operated by the school.

In light of this new information, we will offer to the school the same recommendation we made to the Director of Camp Stonewall, namely that photographs on the camp’s Facebook page be limited to only the prior year of camp. We recommend that all photos from summer camp sessions prior to 2017 be removed and that each year the prior year’s photos be replaced (i.e., at the start of the 2018 sessions, the photos from 2017 will be removed).