“a safe, peaceful and natural learning haven"

We heard back a week ago from the offices of the Director of the Human Rights Tribunal with the news that the Titirangi Rudolf Steiner School have finally agreed to attend mediation with us.  To our knowledge this is the first time ever that a Steiner/Waldorf school has mediated with Human Rights. 

The school’s letter of response was interesting for several reasons which we believe to be in the public interest.

 “We note that you state that the Director has indicated that he believes the complainants prima facie claim.”

In fact the school boasted about the prima facie claim in the press, i.e. that the children were expelled because they were our children, and for no reason relating to themselves at all.  

As predicted right back at the beginning, it is the ‘special character’ of the school that necessitated this action.  The letter went on:  

“This we understand but would add that, because of the special character of the education offered at the school, as set out in the school’s Parent Handbook, we seek a strong, supportive relationship with all parents so that we may meet the needs of the children.  Without this relationship, we are unable to meet the needs of the children.”

In New Zealand this reference to ‘special character’, doesn’t only refer to the fact that it’s a Steiner school but to a category of schools that came into being in the Schools Integration Act of 1989. 

In a somewhat similar manner to the controversial Free School model currently being introduced in the UK, this category of schools receive state funding but retain certain privileges based on their ‘special character’.  

Although the Titirangi Rudolf Steiner School is a private school, this special character, a very familiar concept to Kiwis, is common to all Steiner Schools in New Zealand whether public (state-integrated), or private.

The inclusion of ‘special character’ makes the meeting with the Commission even more interesting as it will be raising the question as to whether the special character of a Steiner school, which resides in its Anthroposophical basis, is more significant than Human Rights.

So if special character is the reason the school needs to seek strong supportive relationships with all parents, what important function does that relationship serve?  The fact that the phrase “meet the needs of the children” is repeated twice indicates that this will likely be the justification for having expelled our kids. 

Is Mark Thornton, manager of the Titirangi Rudolf Steiner School and the person holding the most portfolios in The Federation of Rudolf Steiner Waldorf Schools in New Zealand, saying that our children - and other bullied ones, like the kids who left immediately before ours were expelled - couldn’t have their needs met because this would have prevented the school from meeting the needs of other children?

Mark Thornton’s response went on: 

“We therefore treat all families equally in seeking to discern (discriminate) whether or not we can work in such a fashion with the children’s parents. Whilst the treatment is the same for all, the outcome can vary.”

When you read sentences like this it becomes clear why Steiner schools are apparently so successful.  It is pure genius to actually suggest to the Director of a Human Rights Tribunal that a Steiner school, due to its special character,  needs to be allowed to ‘discriminate’, in order to meet the needs of the children.  Amazing, a truly awesome piece of writing.

But more jaw-dropping even than such a plea is the last sentence;

“Finally, we wish to make clear that the youngest child, [...], was never enrolled at the school or the Early Childhood Centre, also run by Rudolf Steiner Schools (Titirangi) Trust.”

A school apparently seeking a “strong, supportive relationship with parents”, doesn’t see any irony in this statement that our youngest daughter’s regular and formal attendance at the play-group was of no significance whatsoever.

It’s sad to think that the nasty case of intestinal-worms she picked up from the play-group (the only early years setting she ever attended) lasted so much longer than the “strong, supportive relationship” which was simply tossed aside, even without the Trustees’ knowledge, when the notorious bullying came into too sharp a focus.

In reality of course, we were all there, another family that was part of the community, with Steve and I working at the school also, as the evidence shows.

We look forward to meeting the school’s representatives at mediation.