SPinternational.org · Historical archive

Children and Abuse of Minors

This section documents accounts and source material concerning allegations of abuse, mistreatment, neglect and the exploitation of children and young people connected with Scientology and its affiliated organisations.

Records may concern the treatment of minors in organisational settings, access to education and healthcare, working conditions, safeguarding failures or other reported harms. Sources may include firsthand accounts, sworn statements, court records, official investigations and investigative reporting. Each entry will provide context about the source and any relevant legal findings.

Documented cases

Case records will appear here as source material is collected and reviewed.

← Return to the Abuses archive

Background

The account presented here was originally posted to the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup in June 1995 by M. Council. It contains a letter from an anonymous former employee who described working at one Applied Scholastics school in Florida.

The former employee said they had initially been looking for an alternative to the public school system. The school was presented as non-denominational and offered an individual, self-paced academic programme based on the study technology developed by L. Ron Hubbard.

The writer said they did not initially understand the connection between Hubbard’s educational methods and Scientology. Their account describes what they believed to be the presence of Scientology practices within the school, alongside concerns about student treatment, academic standards and the handling of students’ personal information.

The account relates to one school only. The writer specifically stated that they could not say whether their experience was typical of all Applied Scholastics schools.

Scientology Practices Within the School

The former employee challenged the school’s presentation as non-denominational. They alleged that practices associated with Scientology were part of everyday school operations.

These allegedly included:

• Knowledge Reports, referred to in the account as KRs, being kept on students.
• Admissions question-and-answer forms being retained in student files.
• Statistics charts and performance monitoring.
• Study courses and communication courses.
• Ethics policies and procedures.
• Written success stories and Friday graduation ceremonies.

The writer also described contact with representatives from Clearwater, who allegedly expressed concern that the school did not display a picture or bust of L. Ron Hubbard in reception and did not have enough Church of Scientology material on display.

The writer interpreted this as an indication that the organisation’s priorities extended beyond the school’s educational programme.

Emotional Intimidation and Treatment of Students

The letter describes an atmosphere in which students allegedly felt intimidated by the school’s executive director.

The former employee alleged that the director shouted at students, banged her fists on tables, stamped her feet and moved very close to students’ faces while reprimanding them. The writer said students would sometimes ask what mood the director was in before approaching her.

The account also describes a difference between the director’s alleged behaviour towards students and her manner when speaking with parents. According to the writer, she presented herself to parents as calm, caring and supportive, while students’ complaints about their experiences were not always believed.

The writer expressed concern about the effect this could have on trust between children and their parents, particularly when children tried to explain that something upsetting was happening at school.

Academic Standards and Manipulated Results

A substantial part of the account concerns the school’s academic programme and the way student progress was allegedly recorded.

The former employee questioned claims that Applied Scholastics study courses could resolve students’ learning difficulties. They said students continued to experience learning problems after completing the courses, despite the school’s reported claims of success.

The writer alleged that student statistics were inflated through activities that generated points and course completions without necessarily providing meaningful academic progress. Examples included drawing pictures and repeating simple drills, which were allegedly counted towards student performance figures.

The letter also describes an examination process in which students could repeatedly review incorrect answers and retake questions until they remembered the correct responses. The writer alleged that students could ultimately receive an A or B even after performing poorly on their initial test.

Further concerns were raised about the level of work being presented as high-school coursework. The former employee alleged that some students were using middle-school or younger-grade workbooks while receiving high-school course credits and grades on their transcripts.

The writer said some students experienced difficulties when returning to public schools. According to the account, some credits were not accepted, some students had to repeat grades, and others needed additional tutoring or had to obtain a GED.

Auditing and Personal Information

The former employee also alleged that the school’s director was an experienced auditor and sometimes engaged in processing with students or parents during private meetings.

According to the account, some students and parents came out of these meetings surprised by the personal information they had disclosed or by the direction the conversations had taken.

The follow-up correspondence raised further concerns about admissions forms and the retention of personal information. The source alleged that the forms contained questions resembling a security check rather than an ordinary academic assessment, and that answers were kept in student files.

The correspondence also described Knowledge Reports being retained for future reference. It alleged that some students later removed reports from their own files and those of friends after realising that the information was being kept.

Further Allegations in the Follow-Up Correspondence

In subsequent correspondence with M. Council, the anonymous source reportedly provided additional information about the school.

The follow-up material alleged that:

• Some equipment described as “learning accelerators” was allegedly used as an alternative name for E-Meters.
• Students were allegedly required to write success stories about courses and repeat them if the stories were not approved.
• One outdated chemistry textbook was allegedly used as the basis for three separate chemistry courses.
• Admissions forms allegedly collected personal information that was retained in student files.
• Some students who left the school were allegedly subjected to Fair Game tactics.

The correspondence also included allegations concerning the welfare of some children attending the school. The source described some children as hungry, dirty, inadequately clothed and affected by scabies. The correspondence stated that Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) had checked on some children.

No official inspection report, agency finding or outcome is included in the material supplied here. These child-welfare claims therefore remain allegations attributed to the anonymous source.

Retaliation and Fear of Speaking Out

The follow-up correspondence described concerns about possible retaliation against people who spoke publicly about the school.

The source said that former students and parents were frightened by threats they believed had been made against them. The correspondence also referred to concerns about Fair Game and the possibility of further retaliation.

The original material does not provide independent documentation establishing these allegations. They are included here as part of the source’s account.

A Wider Concern About Applied Scholastics

The former employee questioned the use of Hubbard’s study technology in an educational setting presented as secular. They argued that the methods did not deliver the results promised to students with learning difficulties and that the school’s reported performance figures did not necessarily reflect genuine academic achievement.

The writer also described regular direction from Los Angeles and oversight from Scientology-connected representatives. Their account raised questions about the relationship between Applied Scholastics’ educational activities and the wider Church of Scientology organisation.

The writer was careful to state that their experience came from one school and could not establish that every Applied Scholastics school operated in the same way.

The October 1995 Follow-Up

A further post by M. Council dated 20 October 1995 returned to the subject of learning difficulties and the school’s educational approach.

It repeated the source’s allegation that learning disabilities were treated as problems caused by “misunderstood words” and described concerns about students being behind academically when the school moved after approximately three years.

The post claimed that some students had to catch up when returning to high school, others were told they would need to repeat grades, and some obtained GED qualifications instead.

The October post also made further claims about the school’s operators moving to another location. Those claims are the poster’s assertions and are not independently substantiated by the material reproduced here.

Original Letter and Follow-Up Correspondence

The complete source material is available below. The PDF brings together the anonymous former employee’s June 1995 letter, the subsequent correspondence with the source, and the additional post dated 20 October 1995.

Source and Evidence Qualification

This archive entry is based on an anonymous former employee’s letter posted by M. Council in June 1995, follow-up correspondence attributed to the same source, and a further post dated 20 October 1995.

The material is not sworn testimony, a court judgment or an independently verified investigation. The identity of the former employee, the school, its location and the individuals involved were withheld in the original posting. The account relates to one school and cannot, on its own, establish that the same practices occurred throughout Applied Scholastics.

All descriptions of conduct, educational practices, child welfare concerns and retaliation are presented as allegations or recollections contained in the original material. No independent official findings or investigation records are included in the source supplied for this archive entry.