As today’s article in the Aucklander says, we have now received information about what the Government is planning to do, and more importantly as it turns out not planning to do, about reforming the Law relating to Private Schools in New Zealand.  

Below are some of the answers that have come from the office of Heather Roy, who has responsibility for Special Education including Private Schools.

It will be of no surprise that the recommendations offering schools manoeuvrability in instances where their practises may be called into question, and offering them all sorts of avenues such as warnings, rights of appeal, explain, etc., before suffering serious sanctions, have all been taken up.

(These by the way are all the things that our children were denied at the Titirangi Rudolf Steiner School.  All the information pertaining to the shocking events at this school last year are available to anyone on this site.  Mr Thornton’s assertion to the Press that our “intrusions were too frequent” are laughable given the contract we made with the teacher, and the fact that we were actually working there as a pledge.  I was on the marketing team and Steve was the Janitor.  Here’s a link to an email regarding marketing issues between myself and Mark. The school may say anything, but they have told the Privacy Commission that they cannot remember the events that were apparently unprecedented in the 27 years of the school’s existence!)

Even having expected scant regard to be given to the recommendations regarding the welfare of children, the responses given below really do beggar belief.  

Not one of the recommendations, already presented by the Law Commission as constituting ‘light-handed’ legislation, has been taken up.  That’s right.  Not one of them.  Why not?  Well according to the office of Heather Roy, “no evidence exists” that there are any problems at any private school in matters such as protection of children’s welfare, expulsion procedures, operating under democratic principles or having sound management practises.

Oh really?

The Bill will go to Select Committee over the next few months.  Then it is entirely possible that the gaps in the law that our children (amongst how many others?) have fallen through, will be enshrined in a new law for the foreseeable future.

Perhaps, in the light of their evident determination to leave the welfare of children at Private Schools to chance, and entirely unprotected under the Education Act, the Government will now look favourably on the suggestion of a compulsory Disclaimer  - to make sure that parents know what they are getting themselves into.

What possible valid reason could there be not to?  And the more light-handed the legislation turns out to be, the more reason there is to have such a Disclaimer.

We contend that people generally expect something called a “school” to operate along democratic lines and to look after the children entrusted into their care.  If there is to be no actual requirement that a private schools should do so, then surely, parents should definitely know this before kissing their trusting children goodbye in the morning.

The Private School movement is all about choice, and choice is indeed the word that is most often used as the reason for having light-handed legislation for Private Schools.  But without information, choice is totally meaningless - it is just a word.

Clearly, in service of choice, information is key - that is what choice means, that you are aware of alternatives and that you make a selection from them.  If you don’t know that your children are losing all their legal protections when they walk through the door, you cannot be said to be in a position of choice about it, and this is totally contradictory to the whole rationale behind having a different law at all - Private School’s whole difference lies in the ability to choose.

To keep all the ability to choose to yourself as a business and not to allow it to those who become your clients, is not legal business practise in any business.  It is simply not fair trading and more especially in an situation where there is a Fiduciary relationship, where people are acting in loco parentis, or have some power relationship that could be abused.  

Private schools?  Who cares?  Isn’t is just rich kids who’s parents can keep the School Board in line with the threat of private legal action, or putting them on the telly?  Well no, some private schools are small and relatively poor, and in reality, one traumatised child is pretty much like another.

Anyway, the Minister is mistaken.  Evidence does exist and we have been most remiss in not making personally sure that she knows about it.

We will remedy that now.

SOME RESPONSES OF HEATHER ROY’S OFFICE TO THE LAW COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE LAW ON PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

Law Commission Recommendation 14

"It should be a criterion that the school provide a safe and supportive environment that includes policies and procedures that make provision for the welfare of students"

Government’s Answer

“No, because the requirement to develop written policies and procedures would impose an unnecessary cost on private schools.  No evidence exists to suggest that private schools are not providing a safe and supportive environment.”

Law Commission Recommendation 17

"It should be a criterion that the school have sound governance and management structures and practices", if not why not?

Government’s Answer

No, because no evidence exists that there are problems with the governance and management structures and practices of private schools.

Law Commission Recommendation 28

"The Act should set out the following basic procedural requirements that schools must adhere to after suspending and before expelling or excluding a student;  When a student has been suspended, the student's parents should have the right to request that the suspension be lifted or varied, and to make submissions in support of their request.  Before expelling or excluding a student, schools should be required to:  Give adequate notice of the proposed expulsion or exclusion to the student and his or her parents: and provide the student and his or her parents with a reasonable opportunity to attend and be heard at a meeting"

Government’s Answer

No.  Cabinet agreed that legislating for these requirements would be unnecessary because natural justice and contract law already cover this area.

Law Commission Recommendation 29

"Details of a school's disciplinary procedures should be required to be available upon request and be provided to students and their parents when the students are facing suspension, exclusion or expulsion"

Government’s Answer

No, because no evidence exists to suggest that there are any problems with how private schools currently make disciplinary procedures available to students and parents.