Discover NVCA Insider -From A Concerned NVCA Parent: A Visual Journey Through Our School

This page documents observable actions, communications, and oversight decisions by the Head of School during the events that led to our daughter’s removal from NVCA. The purpose is not to speculate about intent or assign personal motive, but to evaluate executive leadership conduct, interpretive choices, and process through the lens of student safeguarding, proportionality, and Christian educational governance.

This review is based on:

• Written communications authored or affirmed by the Head of School
• His role in confirming and finalizing the unenrollment decision
• Interpretation of parental communications
• The absence of documented student misconduct
• The absence of direct engagement with the student or offered evidence
• Executive responsibility for fairness, accuracy, and safeguarding oversight

At no point did Mr. Schoenleb accuse our daughter of misconduct, dishonesty, or violation of school rules.

• Confirmation of an irreversible decision without independent inquiry
• Selective interpretation of parental communications
• Absence of executive-level safeguarding review
• Reliance on retrospective justifications
• Finality emphasized over dialogue, restoration, or investigation

As Head of School, Mr. Schoenleb held ultimate responsibility for institutional oversight, tone, and accountability. His confirmation of the unenrollment decision constituted the final administrative action and effectively foreclosed further review or appeal.

This role carries heightened responsibility when decisions involve the removal of a minor who has not been accused of wrongdoing.

Mr. Schoenleb affirmed that the decision regarding our daughter’s enrollment had been prayerfully considered and stood by the outcome communicated by the Principal.

Despite repeated efforts by our family to provide additional context, documentation, and evidence—including offering to share an audio recording of a classroom interaction in which our daughter repeatedly asked to leave and requested parental presence—there is no indication that this information was reviewed or weighed prior to confirmation of the decision.

No written communication reflects that Mr. Schoenleb:

• Interviewed the student
• Requested clarification directly from parents
• Reviewed offered evidence related to safeguarding concerns
• Conducted independent inquiry before confirming the outcome

The confirmation of unenrollment resulted in immediate and irreversible removal from our daughter’s school community without transitional options, restorative pathways, or consideration of her medical or emotional condition.

At no point did Mr. Schoenleb request to speak with her directly, inquire into her well-being, or articulate how her best interests were considered in the final determination.

Mr. Schoenleb was informed that:

• A minor had been isolated in a classroom
• The minor repeatedly asked to leave
• The minor repeatedly requested parental presence
• An audio recording of the interaction was available for review

There is no indication that this evidence was requested or evaluated prior to confirmation of unenrollment.

When safeguarding concerns are raised, executive leadership is typically expected to function as a final layer of protection. Confirming an outcome without reviewing offered evidence raises concerns about whether safeguarding implications were meaningfully assessed.

In a written communication authored several days after key conversations, Mr. Schoenleb characterized parental statements as acknowledgments of inappropriate conduct and framed attempts at de-escalation, apology where appropriate, and proposals for restorative paths forward as justification for withdrawal.

Contextual explanations, safeguarding concerns, and offers of evidence were not reflected in that characterization.

Good-faith parental efforts focused on reconciliation and student protection were later reframed to support a decision that had already been reached.

Justifications articulated by Mr. Schoenleb were provided after the unenrollment decision had already been communicated.

These justifications relied in part on:

• Historical disclosures accepted at admission
• Parental statements made after withdrawal

No evidence suggests these factors were raised as determinative concerns prior to the decision.

While delegation to administrative leadership is appropriate, executive confirmation without independent verification risks transforming administrative escalation into irreversible outcome without sufficient review.

Head-of-school leadership in Christian education is often expected to model:

• Careful listening
• Humility in interpretation
• Protection of the vulnerable
• Truth-seeking before finality
• Restoration before exclusion

Reflection Question:

Does confirming an irreversible outcome without personally engaging the student, reviewing offered evidence, or reassessing safeguarding concerns reflect the pastoral and executive leadership parents expect in a Christ-centered school?

Taken together, the actions and communications documented here raise concerns regarding:

• Accuracy and completeness of interpretation
• Timing of justification
• Executive-level safeguarding oversight
• Reliance on deference rather than independent inquiry
• Alignment between stated values and applied process

While reasonable leaders may differ in judgment, the absence of independent review and the reframing of good-faith parental communication to support a predetermined outcome warrant careful reflection and review—particularly where the consequences were borne entirely by a minor never accused of wrongdoing.

This page documents observable actions, communications, and oversight decisions by the Head of School during the events that led to our daughter’s removal from NVCA. The purpose is not to speculate about intent or assign personal motive, but to evaluate executive leadership conduct, interpretive choices, and process through the lens of student safeguarding, proportionality, and Christian educational governance.

This review is based on:

• Written communications authored or affirmed by the Head of School
• His role in confirming and finalizing the unenrollment decision
• Interpretation of parental communications
• The absence of documented student misconduct
• The absence of direct engagement with the student or offered evidence
• Executive responsibility for fairness, accuracy, and safeguarding oversight

At no point did Mr. Schoenleb accuse our daughter of misconduct, dishonesty, or violation of school rules.

• Confirmation of an irreversible decision without independent inquiry
• Selective interpretation of parental communications
• Absence of executive-level safeguarding review
• Reliance on retrospective justifications
• Finality emphasized over dialogue, restoration, or investigation

As Head of School, Mr. Schoenleb held ultimate responsibility for institutional oversight, tone, and accountability. His confirmation of the unenrollment decision constituted the final administrative action and effectively foreclosed further review or appeal.

This role carries heightened responsibility when decisions involve the removal of a minor who has not been accused of wrongdoing.

Mr. Schoenleb affirmed that the decision regarding our daughter’s enrollment had been prayerfully considered and stood by the outcome communicated by the Principal.

Despite repeated efforts by our family to provide additional context, documentation, and evidence—including offering to share an audio recording of a classroom interaction in which our daughter repeatedly asked to leave and requested parental presence—there is no indication that this information was reviewed or weighed prior to confirmation of the decision.

No written communication reflects that Mr. Schoenleb:

• Interviewed the student
• Requested clarification directly from parents
• Reviewed offered evidence related to safeguarding concerns
• Conducted independent inquiry before confirming the outcome

The confirmation of unenrollment resulted in immediate and irreversible removal from our daughter’s school community without transitional options, restorative pathways, or consideration of her medical or emotional condition.

At no point did Mr. Schoenleb request to speak with her directly, inquire into her well-being, or articulate how her best interests were considered in the final determination.

Mr. Schoenleb was informed that:

• A minor had been isolated in a classroom
• The minor repeatedly asked to leave
• The minor repeatedly requested parental presence
• An audio recording of the interaction was available for review

There is no indication that this evidence was requested or evaluated prior to confirmation of unenrollment.

When safeguarding concerns are raised, executive leadership is typically expected to function as a final layer of protection. Confirming an outcome without reviewing offered evidence raises concerns about whether safeguarding implications were meaningfully assessed.

In a written communication authored several days after key conversations, Mr. Schoenleb characterized parental statements as acknowledgments of inappropriate conduct and framed attempts at de-escalation, apology where appropriate, and proposals for restorative paths forward as justification for withdrawal.

Contextual explanations, safeguarding concerns, and offers of evidence were not reflected in that characterization.

Good-faith parental efforts focused on reconciliation and student protection were later reframed to support a decision that had already been reached.

Justifications articulated by Mr. Schoenleb were provided after the unenrollment decision had already been communicated.

These justifications relied in part on:

• Historical disclosures accepted at admission
• Parental statements made after withdrawal

No evidence suggests these factors were raised as determinative concerns prior to the decision.

While delegation to administrative leadership is appropriate, executive confirmation without independent verification risks transforming administrative escalation into irreversible outcome without sufficient review.

Head-of-school leadership in Christian education is often expected to model:

• Careful listening
• Humility in interpretation
• Protection of the vulnerable
• Truth-seeking before finality
• Restoration before exclusion

Reflection Question:

Does confirming an irreversible outcome without personally engaging the student, reviewing offered evidence, or reassessing safeguarding concerns reflect the pastoral and executive leadership parents expect in a Christ-centered school?

Taken together, the actions and communications documented here raise concerns regarding:

• Accuracy and completeness of interpretation
• Timing of justification
• Executive-level safeguarding oversight
• Reliance on deference rather than independent inquiry
• Alignment between stated values and applied process

While reasonable leaders may differ in judgment, the absence of independent review and the reframing of good-faith parental communication to support a predetermined outcome warrant careful reflection and review—particularly where the consequences were borne entirely by a minor never accused of wrongdoing.

This assessment reflects parental observations and opinions based on contemporaneous records and direct experience. It does not allege criminal conduct. We welcome correction of any material factual error.