Definition

Main Entry: me·di·a·tion

Pronunciation: \ˌmē-dē-ˈā-shən\

Function: noun

Date: 14th century

: the act or process of mediating; especially:
intervention between conflicting parties to promote reconciliation, settlement, or compromise

Over the last few months, we’ve been involved in a process with the Human Rights Commission.  It’s called “dispute resolution”.  

The HRC looked at what happened to our family and recognised a potential form of illegal discrimination under the Human Rights Act.  They offered to mediate, which means they offered to intervene between us and the school as per the definition above to promote “reconciliation, settlement, or compromise”.

The school were approached by the HRC and the offer was made.  They were given a really long time to make up their minds about whether or not to allow this international organisation to help them to reconcile, settle and make compromise with us, on the basis of perceived possible illegal discrimination.

After all this time, the school have decided that “no”, they do not wish to take up the HRC’s offer.  They do not believe there was any discrimination in their action of expelling three children because their parents attempted to follow the school’s stated policy on bullying which the school wasn’t managing to uphold.

We are relieved that they’ve finally managed to come to a decision and we suspect that it hasn’t been as easy as that simple ‘no’ might suggest.

After all, they’ve got to be pretty sure of their ground, since the refusal of the offer of mediation by the HRC opens the door for us to put the case in front of the Human Rights Tribunal.

The reason they said no is largely because of our commitment to being public. During the initial phase of communication with the HRC Mark Thornton wanted to know what we might want out of mediation and we informed the school that, having not talked about it yet, we could only start from where we where the last time we had any contact, which involved a public apology.

The attractive thing about dispute resolution for an institution in a similar position to the school, is that it does usually allow such parties to seek reconciliation privately.  Unfortunately for the Titirangi Rudolf Steiner School, this situation is already fairly public and has been for nearly two years now.

It’s a bit crass to need to point this out, but this position of ours was a response to what was asked for which was where we were at now before mediation.  The whole point of mediation as it was explained to us, and doubtless also to Mr Mark Thornton, was to ascertain the current positions of the two parties and then try and hammer out a compromise.  In our case this involved a clear statement to remain confidential about what occurred in mediation, which we obviously saw as a major compromise to start with. This is also the reason why we haven’t posted for a while.

In actual fact, much as last time at the ‘secret’ meeting with the Trustees, it seems that the school was not prepared to enter into mediation unless the outcome was decided beforehand.  This seems to show either that they don’t understand the nature of compromise at all (for which there is sadly plenty of evidence), or that they are simply not prepared to consider it.  i.e. they are always right and it cannot be any other way - ever.

Looking at it more pragmatically, they must reckon that since we’re committed to being public whatever, they might as well risk legal action (which they promised would never happen), rather than just admit that they made a terrible mistake and do the right thing by the children who they claim to care so much about.

So why are we so committed to being public? 

Well one reason is that, looking back to the beginning of this documentary journey, publicity was literally the only tool we had to try and correct this injustice, and as we said then, the positive publicity of this school admitting and trying to rectify their mistake, would be a good resolution and great publicity actually for the Steiner movement which does have an international reputation for being intransigent.

This view was of course based on the belief that none of us is perfect, that we can all make mistakes, and that forgiveness is always possible.  Unfortunately, the Titirangi Rudolf Steiner School seems not to agree which must be why they have no need to understand or embrace the concept of compromise.

But there is a more important reason to be public.   

We’ll not be spilling any beans if we say that this is not the only communication we’ve had from the school recently.  We know that there have been serious concerns about bullying at the school as we’ve had both spoken and written communications about them - from parents. 

People approach us with information, about the bullying and more importantly the school’s preference to keep it, rather than address it.  

Sometimes people even thank us for bothering to point out just how arrogant this school is prepared to be over the welfare of the children to whom they promise a ‘safe and natural learning haven’ in their pretty publicity.

Because many people have found, as we did, that it’s not true.  

Unfortunately once your child has been hurt by a school’s failure to live up to it’s lofty ideals, it’s simply too late - the damage is done.

Publicity contains one purpose inside another.  In sharing the information about what happened to our family, others may be alerted and at the same time, our family’s misfortune at least serves some purpose, rather than just being a sad private implosion.

And in reality neither the school, nor us, know exactly how many families have been forewarned, saving children from being scarred and their parents from the guilt of having taken the Titirangi Rudolf Steiner School at their word.