Does a school have a duty to exercise reasonable care to control the conduct of known child molesters?

Further, "[a school, which] is required by law to take ... custody of [a student] under circumstances such as to deprive the [student] of his normal power of self-protection or to subject him to association with persons likely to harm him[, such as known child molesters], is under a duty to exercise reasonable care [so] as to control the conduct of [child molesters] ... to prevent them from intentionally harming the [student] ... if the [school] [] (a) knows or has reason to know that [it] has the ability to control the conduct of the [molesters], and [] (b) knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control." (Rest.2d Torts, 320, p. 130.) "Comment a to 320 remarks that the rule is applicable, inter alia, to 'teachers or other persons in charge of a public school.' Id. at 130. Comment b to 320 clarifies that the foregoing is true because '[t]he circumstances under which the custody of another is taken and maintained may be such as to deprive him [or her] ... of the protection of someone who, if present, would be under a duty to protect him [or her]....' Id. at 130-31. Because 'a child[,] while in school[,] is deprived of the protection of his [or her] parents or guardian,' 'the actor who takes custody ... of [the] child is properly required to give him [or her] the protection [of] which the custody or the manner in which it is taken has deprived him [or her].' Id. at 131." ( Doe Parents No. 1 v. State, Dept. of Educ., supra, 58 P.3d at p. 590.) And "a schoolmaster who knows that a group of older boys are in the habit of bullying the younger pupils to an extent likely to do them actual harm, is not only required to interfere when he sees the bullying going on, but also to be reasonably vigilant in his supervision of his pupils so as to ascertain when such conduct is about to occur." (Rest.2d Torts, 320, com. d, pp. 131-132.)