Full Story of Abuse at Oak Hill Montessori

This is the full story of the abuse of our child at Oak Hill Montessori Community school, at the hands of Emily Bowar, and the protection of said child abuser by Executive Director Shirley Volk, and the process leading toward where we are, today.

 On February 26th, 2024, I was informed that my daughter had fallen in the mud at school, and was refusing to change clothes. This information was conveyed to me by my nephew, Christopher [REDACTED], who is an employee at the school. His intent was to let me know that [REDACTED] was having a “bad day” and just to let me know what I might be dealing with after pickup. No one else at the school contacted us to inform us of this situation.

This made me wonder, “Why had no one else contacted me to let me know what was happening?”

I went to the school, and picked her up early (about an hour before normal dismissal), as I happened to already be in the neighborhood after testifying at a MN Senate committee hearing.

Later that week, on Friday, March 1, we had our regularly scheduled conferences with her teacher, Emily Bowar. At this conference, Ms. Bowar noted that she believed [REDACTED] needed to be screened for autism and / or ADHD, and we were told that [REDACTED] was not progressing academically, or developmentally (socially and emotionally), and may not be promoted to the upper elementary classes next year, due to this.

 My wife and I were caught off guard, as we had previously discussed (what was described to us) as minor behavior issues, such as not wanting to stop what she was working on when it was time for a new lesson to be taught. But nothing that rose to any level of [REDACTED] needing to be screened for disorders, and talk of not being ready to move up to upper elementary. However, in the best interests of our daughter, we consented to the screening, and left the conference confused.

 According to school policy, any behavior issues that the teacher feels should lead to learning support should be discussed with the parents in a meeting to include the teacher and the Executive Director. Why was this meeting never scheduled? Why were we not informed of these issues until the last conference of her last year of lower elementary?

 Ms. Bowar also made reference to times she “has to send [REDACTED] out to the hallway.” The look on Ms. Bowar’s face, and her body language, suggested that she felt she had let slip information she did not intend to tell us. At first, I did not fully process the information, as I was more focused on this stunning revelation that there was a belief my daughter had a disorder.

 I reached out to another educator in her class room, Jolene Ebert, who I have had multiple discussions with, both about [REDACTED] and many topics not related to school. I asked her for her impressions of [REDACTED], if she agreed with the need for the screenings, and any other information she may be willing to share with us. That email was sent the same day as the conference. At the time of this writing, that email has yet to be answered.

 Why was someone with close contact with my daughter not responding to an email requesting information that could help solve these newly revealed issues?

 We fell back into our normal routines, dropping [REDACTED] off at school, and picking her up each day, until finally my confusion on the lack of email being returned led me to request a meeting with the Executive Director of the school, Ms. Shirley Volk. This request was made on March 6th, and Ms. Bowar was included on that request.

 Ms. Volk informed me that she was in training that Friday, and asked if we could delay until after the school’s Spring Break (which was the following week). I agreed, and we scheduled a meeting for March 20th to discuss the concerns we had with the request for getting [REDACTED] screened, as well as the lack of email response.

 I brought [REDACTED] to school on the 7th, and picked her up as normal. I had a conversation with [REDACTED], that night, however, and asked her about being sent into the hallway. She told me that it happened “a lot,” and that she, and other children, were told to “sit on the bench.” She also told me that when they are on “the bench,” there is a sign that tells everyone walking by that this child is in trouble / dysregulated and should not be engaged with. Other adults and students are chastised if they attempt to engage with her. This has been confirmed in subsequent discussions with Ms. Volk. [REDACTED] told me that she had spent “a long time” on the bench the day she fell in the mud, since she refused to change clothes.

 She also told me that being sent in the hallway, or to “the bench” made her “feel bad,” and like she was a “bad person.”

 Why were kids being sent into the hallway, alone, and put on public display during the discipline process, in direct violation of school policy? Why is hazing being used as a disciplinary process?

 On March 8th, I had strong doubts about bringing her to school. Her teacher publicly humiliating her did not seem appropriate, and my immediate instinct was to protect my child. However, I took a few deep breaths and thought, “it’s just one more day before the break, we can get through this.” I dropped her off at school, and drove home. The entire ride home, I was thinking to myself, “You are working to change state law to improve the mental health of kids, and you just dropped off your kid in a situation that feels dangerous. What is wrong with you?”

I pulled in the driveway at home, and immediately emailed three administration members that I know and trust. Rachelle Foster, Hannah Lundstrom, and Kristen Marsella. I knew Shirley was out at training that day, and I asked them if they could reach out and let her know I no longer felt our conversation could wait until the 20th. I walked inside, paced for a few minutes, and then emailed them again, requesting that they prepare [REDACTED] for me to return and pick her up. I no longer felt [REDACTED] was safe in the care of Ms. Bowar, and I now knew that it was better to remove her from that situation than to conform to the need for her to be at school.

Ms. Volk and I spoke later that day, and discussed the immediate concern I had about [REDACTED] being abused by being put on public display while being disciplined, and, in their words, “emotionally unregulated.”

 I explained what [REDACTED] had told me, and Ms. Volk told me that she had witnessed another staff member send a child to the hall earlier in the year. She told me she had discussed the matter with that staff member, initially, and later with the staff as a whole, and told them that sending kids to the hallway was “not acceptable” and “not what we do here.”

 We discussed the placement of “the bench” being directly next to an exit door, giving the kids, who have limited risk vs reward processing capability due to their age, and are now emotionally deregulated, access to immediately exit the building. We discussed how this could lead to a dangerous situation where the kids could leave the building into a typically cold Minnesota winter, potentially head to Hodgson Road, with a speed limit of 45 miles per hour, or head in any direction and potentially be exposed to any random adult that happened to be walking by.

 We also discussed that my background is in leadership positions, and that an overriding lesson in leadership is that we “praise in public, and correct in private.” Ms. Volk whole heartedly agreed with this assessment, and told me she would look into the matter.

 I then had another conversation with [REDACTED], giving her the chance to “let it all out,” in a way. I asked her if there was anything else that she didn’t like about school. She told me that her teacher frequently told the kids they could not attend recess if their school work was not done. I thought I had remembered the legislature and governor passing a bill that prohibited this action, so I looked it up. The Recess for All act was signed by the governor, and went into effect in August of 2023.

 I then emailed Ms. Volk to address that I still had concerns about the screening requested, my daughter being sent to the hallway alone, the lack of email response from staff, and now, as well, concerns about recess being denied to my daughter, and other students, in direct violation of state law. I also requested a copy of the recess detention log that the law requires to be kept, and made publicly available upon request. As of this writing, that log has not been provided to me.

 With Spring Break being the following week, it was, apparently, not possible to conduct her investigation, and the investigation took place the following week, beginning March 18th. I requested an update on March 19th, and Ms. Volk called me that afternoon. In a complete 180-degree turn, Ms. Volk now not only told me that she knew that kids were being sent to the hallway, but that she, herself, had sent kids to the hallway on multiple occasions.

 She now disagreed that kids should not be put on public display and that the location of the bench was not endangering students. I asked her why the sudden change of heart on these topics, and she did not have much of an answer to provide.

 What had changed between our March 8th conversation, and the conversation on March 19th? Had Ms. Volk lied to me, when she knew these actions were happening, and was taking these actions as well?

I asked about the lack of email response from staff members, and Ms. Volk told me that “non-licensed educators are not allowed to discuss students with parents unless a licensed educator is present.”

 When was this new policy put in place? Why was I allowed to discuss my children with other non-licensed educators in the building, multiple times, over the last three years if this was a school policy? Why is this policy not in the parent / student handbook?

 I also asked about the denial of recess, and Ms. Volk told me she had spoken to “the adults in the room” and could find no evidence to support this claim. In other words, she had asked the person / people being accused of breaking state law, and they said no, and that was that.

 Why did Ms. Volk not ask any of the kids if Ms. Bowar had denied recess to them?

 I reached out to another parent of student in [REDACTED]’s class, Jason [REDACTED], and asked him if he had heard of these discipline actions, such as being sent to the hallway and denial of recess. He had, and asked his daughter ([REDACTED]) about them, as well. She confirmed both. Mr. [REDACTED] emailed Ms. Volk to let her know of our conversation, but none of this seems to have changed her tact of only discussing the matter with the adults.

 I reached out to the head of the school board for Oak Hill, Lillyan Hoyos, and the contact listed for the authorizer of the school, David Peterson at MOCHA. I expressed my concerns about the issues, as well as the investigation. Both told me that they would wait for the investigation to conclude, before taking any action.

 Why did the people in charge of the two oversight groups for the school defer to Ms. Volk? Why was no independent action taken by either person? Did either person find it necessary to inform others in their organizations?

 On March 21, Ms. Volk emailed to request a meeting to discuss her findings. We scheduled that meeting for Monday the 25, with a backup plan for Tuesday the 26th in case a snow day was called (which it was). I reached out to Ms. Hoya and Mr. Peterson to invite them to said meeting, and noted that if they were not available, I would welcome someone else from their respective organizations. Mr. Peterson declined the invitation in an email to me letting me know he was too busy vacationing with his grandchildren to attend a meeting about the abuse of my child at a school he oversees. Ms. Hoya declined, stating she was on a work trip, but had “full confidence Shirley will convey her findings and work with [me] to reach a resolution.”

 Why did both first-step oversight organizations decline to attend, with no indication that either considered delegating this attendance to someone else in the organizations? Why were both organizations deferring to Ms. Volk when their role is to make sure she does her job?  

 In the interim, we did have [REDACTED] screened, by a doctor, for both autism and ADHD, which are the disorders that Ms. Bowar and Ms. Volk brought up as the causes of [REDACTED]’s behavior at school. Both screenings came back as negative.

 At the meeting on the 26th, Ms. Volk described her findings, and simply reiterated that she did not believe that putting kids on public display while being disciplined, or while emotionally deregulated was wrong, or that this action was emotionally abusive. She believes [REDACTED] is “safe” at the school, and in Ms. Bowar’s care.

 I asked numerous questions in this meeting, which I do have an audio recording of and am happy to provide to you. Ms. Volk denies that children are left alone during this process, despite agreeing that the children are alone under the dictionary definition of the word “alone.” She also seems to not understand what emotional abuse is, and when confronted with multiple scientific and academic sources describing actions such as sending kids to the hallway alone, and denial of recess, as emotional abuse she simply answers with things like “I admit we have some room to grow.” (I am happy to make the journal articles and resources I found available to you, as well.) When told that the signs / symptoms that Ms. Bowar states [REDACTED] shows also match up with the signs and symptoms of emotional abuse by her teacher, Ms. Volk had no response.

 In this conversation, I also asked Ms. Volk for [REDACTED]’s records, so we could see the documentation of behavioral problems and communications sent to us to discuss these issues, as required by school policy, and listed in the parent / student handbook. As of this writing, those records have not been made available to us.

The audio recording is very telling, and defies that Ms. Volk seems to be making up policy as she goes, rather than using the policies in place to determine what actions should be taken. At one point, she argues that the teachers of the lower elementary level can redefine the word “alone” to fit their needs. She also is wildly unaware of the policies the school has, the pedagogy of the school (using the argument that she is “new” to the school), or state laws regarding recess. She takes guesses at explanations for these behaviors, rather than having actual answers. Ms. Volk comes off as incredibly unprepared for the seriousness of the situation. She does confirm details from the previous conversations, as well.

 Why does the Executive Director not have a firm grasp on the pedagogy of the school? Why does she not know the policies of the school? Why is a publicly funded school allowing a teacher and Executive Director to make up policies without approval of the board?

 Through all of this, [REDACTED] has not been at school, as Ms. Volk has, repeatedly, denied the simple request that [REDACTED] be moved to the other lower elementary classroom while we sort out the other issues. These absences have now led to a retaliatory action of threatening to unenroll [REDACTED] from Oak Hill as of April 10th, in direct violation of Minnesota Statute Section 260E.7.  I have informed Ms. Volk that [REDACTED] would return to school, immediately, if not left in the care of Ms. Bowar. Ms. Volk’s response has been that we need to meet to discuss “interventions and strategies to have [REDACTED] finish the year in Emily’s classroom,” and now, of course, to threaten to unenroll her from the school.

Why is such a simple request not immediately granted, with just a few weeks of school left? Why can we not put the best interests of the child ahead of the need to “win” the argument? Why are retaliatory actions taking place?