In November 2009 The International Forum for Waldorf/Steiner Schools, formerly known as the Hague Circle, ratified a document which it described as a:

“description of the main characteristics of Waldorf Education.  These characteristics are basics and can be completed by specific attributes of each country. ... These criterias are meant for inspiration and orientation.”

Under the heading “Guidelines of Waldorf Pedagogy” it says that Waldorf pedagogy 

“takes cultural diversity into consideration and is committed to general, human ethical principles (cf. U.N. General Agreement on Human Rights, December 10, 1948, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, December 13, 2008).”

The signee for New Zealand was Sue Simpson.

In spite of this document however, when the school was invited to take part in mediation by the Human Rights Commission last year, the offer was declined on the grounds that:

“The school doesn’t consider it has in any way breached the Human Rights Act.  It feels strongly that it has conducted itself fairly and civilly with Ms Garden and Mr Paris regarding the enrolment of their daughters.”

Following our recent meeting with the Human Rights Tribunal in Auckland however, we received this letter stating that the Director of the Tribunal does consider both that the act may have been breached and that it may still be possible to resolve the matter through mediation.  Consequently another invitation has now been sent to the school.

Here is an excerpt from the Director’s letter of the 21st of February 2012

“The Director has not yet finalised his decision about whether to provide representation to Mr Paris and Ms Garden (as litigation guardians of their daughters).  However he has advised that he regards them as having a prima facie claim under section 57 HRA, on the grounds of family status.  The School’s communications to Mr Paris and Ms Garden in June 2009 make it clear that the reason why [R, Z and K] were excluded from the school was the behaviour of their parents, not any conduct on the part of the girls.  It therefore appears that the School excluded the girls as pupils by reason of their family status i.e. being a relative of a particular person”

And that is entirely correct. In fact, the school has several times denied expelling the children at all, on precisely the grounds that it was us they wanted to get rid of.  

The desire to remove us only came about because we had to continually request that they follow their own procedures on discipline and bullying as the lengthy correspondence between ourselves and the school shows. 

The Tribunal’s letter concludes that  “the school is to advise no later than COB 16 March 2012 ”

If the school does not reply by then the Director will assume that;

“you have no wish to take part in the process and the Director will then proceed to finalise his decision about representation without further notice to you.”