St. John' School of Alberta, child welfare investigation, 19 Jan 1990

by TED SHAW, Manager, Child Welfare, LEDUC DISTRICT OFFICE, Province of Alberta (Canada) Family and Social Services

Context: In general charges are stayed (dropped) when the crown feels that they can not win the case. This can happen for a variety of reasons: The individual has dropped the complaint; The evidence is of doubtful quality; The case is trivial compared to other cases that the crown has to deal with; the case is not worth the controversy. To my knowledge, Mr. Shaw did not further follow-up on this.

Disclaimer: I have worked for or with Saint John's school since the mid-'70s -- S. G. Botsford ^^

• • Additional Context: Staff at St.John's School of Alberta continually minimize the effect their abuse had on the students of the school. While their religion believes it is ok to discipline in this manner, the UN does not. This also conveniently leaves out the misrepresentations made by the school in regard to their discipline; made to parents of prospective new students, in order to enroll said, students. They were very meticulous at documenting each "event", they should be made to produce these documents. It should also be noted that, on a daily basis, the principal (at the time of this relation, Steve Simmons) Had 10+ children lined up outside his office every recess, for swatting; for such major offenses as homework incompletion, or talking out of turn. Again, we had to sign, so there is a paper trail. It needs to also be noted that IF this complaint was as frivolous a Mr. Botsford intimates, then there would be no reason to write about it.

(Disclaimer: I was one of the students they enjoyed hitting daily. From '94 - '98, when they stopped because I was 18 and it would be assault.) ^^

(Quoted from the 19 January 1990 report, number 90024-0173 Alberta Family and Social Services)

Curious to know how many of these teachers are still alive... and why... Probably forgot unruly children become adults.

(Disclaimer) I know the truth.. I was there.

TITLE OF ISSUE: St. John's Anglican School, abusive discipline complaint

BRIEF ISSUE DESCRIPTION:

Complaint received from former student that discipline at St. John's school is done with a three foot long board and often results in bruising. Only male teachers are permitted to "swat" boys, and detailed records are kept. Child Welfare Act defines acts which cause bruising as physical abuse. St John's School is a private high school, southwest of Edmonton, with about 130 students and 30 staff.

RECOMMENDED RESPONSE:

As a result of a complaint, an investigation by my staff was recently undertaken into the discipline practice at St. John's School. Circumstances which arose in the course of that investigation required referral to the R.C.M.P. No further comment can be made at this time as the matter is with the R.C.M.P.

BASIC BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

It has been common knowledge that St. John's School has used physical punishment of students since its inception approximately twenty years ago. Previous complaints of a similar nature were received by Wetaskiwin D.O. prior to 1983, when the school was in that office area. Since opening of the Leduc office in 1983, no complaints have been received.

In this investigation school staff identified that punishment by swatting was the standard discipline for all offenses major and minor, of school rules. Swatting is done with "Official #1", a piece of 1" by 4" lumber approximately 3 feet long, administered to the buttocks. School policy is in place identifying the number of swats to be applied for specific offences, and a record of the incident is recorded and signed by the staff member, and later entered into a computer record on a child by child basis.

One of the children identified in the complaint had a large bruise "SEC. 17" in keeping with the dimensions of the official stick. This, as a probable criminal assault was reported to the police who have investigated and confiscated the stick as evidence. The rationale for making limited comment in the "Recommended Response" section of this document is that a police investigation is now in progress, and any explicit comment could interfere with that legal investigation. The individual identified by the student as administering the discipline has not yet been charged.

Other students interviewed alleged that at various times they had received punishment that resulted in bruising, but only one other had a minor bruise which was old and could not clearly be identified as a result of the disciplinary procedure.

Of significant concern was the fact that several of these students had received swats on more than 20 occasions, the child with the bruise had received "SEC. 17" swats (max seven at a single time) since September. Other disciplinary procedures which do not require physical striking of the children were not in evidence. Children appear to be more frequently swatted in the first year or two in enrollment, older children appear to have accepted the regime. Notably, all of the eight children interviewed were in the first two years. Older children, particularly the grade 11 and 12's are placed in charge of the younger in various crews operating in the school. The children interviewed alleged that these older children often punch them while they are in charge, but they do not dare to report this to staff for fear of possible consequences the older children may impose.

When the R.C.M.P. were advised they indicated concerns that 6 children who ran from this place recently may have done so to avoid abuse "SEC. 17" Names of these runaways have been provided by the police to us, we will be investigating further.

Our intention in the larger issue of the corporal punishment policy is to encourage the school to institute non-physical disciplinary measures such as those used in department facilities. However, the police have requested we meet with themselves and the Crown Prosecutor's Office next week (date undetermined) in order to consider whether legal measures may be considered by the police with respect to the policy issue.

Parents of the children interviewed have been advised of the interviews and of the nature of the discipline received by their child. Some feel this is appropriate, some are concerned and will be in contact with the school themselves.

PREPARED BY:
TED SHAW
Manager, Child Welfare
LEDUC DISTRICT OFFICE

TELEPHONE: 986-9932

MANAGER RESPONSIBLE: Dennis Bell, Regional Director, Edmonton Region

DATE FORWARDED: 22 January, 1990.

CATEGORY OF URGENCY: b

CARBON COPIES: Dennis Bell, Celeste Grad, Bernd Walter, Don Alexander, Ted Shaw"

Quoted from the 14 November 1990 letter from St. John's school of Alberta to The Honourable Ken Rostad Attorney general of Alberta

Saint John's school of Alberta
rural route 5,
Stony Plain,
Alberta TOE 2G0

Telephone Edmonton: (403) 429-4140
Warburg: (403) 848-2881
Fax: (403) 848-2395

[stamped RECEIVED NOV 14 1990 Office of the minister of Family and Social Services handnoted SS-C.W.]

The Honourable Mr. Ken Rostad Attorney General of Alberta Room 423, Legislature Building Edmonton, AB

Dear Mr Rostad:

On October 1, 1990 I wrote you a letter dealing with “SEC. 17”

“SEC. 17”

I received a letter from Mr. David Marriott, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for the Wetaskiwin area on October 19, 1990 concerning the letter I had send originally to you. I enclose a copy of that letter. As you can tell, Mr. Marriott has not explained to me why “SEC. 17” , but has gone on to explain what a stay of proceedings is.

I appreciate Mr. Marriott's explanation, but the real purpose of my letter, then and now, is to “SEC. 17”

“SEC. 17”

I look forward to your reply to this matter.

Yours truly,

“SEC. 17”

cc The Minister of Social Services
The Honourable Mr. John Oldring
The M.L.A. for Drayton Valley
Mr. Tom Therber