Letters

2nd of April 2009

From: Angel Garden

Subject: violence at school

Date: 2 April 2009 8:37:27 pm GMT+13:00

To: Mark Thornton, Susanne Cole

Dear Mark and Susanne

Further to my discussion with you, Mark about physical violence in school yesterday, i have been thinking about it further and have decided to take up the suggestion of calling a meeting to discuss the issue of bullying with school and parents.

Because i don't understand the structure of the school well-enough, i am laying it in front of you two as I can't remember the suggestions for how to manage that without putting myself up as the protagonist.

As I have mentioned to you both, I am completely unwilling to put myself in line for personal flack from angry parents on the basis that this is in any way 'my' issue, or gripe with them.  In our view it is a failing of the school that we have to worry every day that our little girl is still being hurt and learning how to hurt others, especially in an environment with such lofty ideals.

I trust that you will know how to organise any meetings necessary to bring the parents and teachers together so that we can begin to work together with a will to create peace.  For the moment then,  I would like to set out our current position on the matter.

At the moment we are making really difficult decisions in terms of our immigration and housing at such an economically difficult time, we must reassure ourselves that Titirangi Steiner School will do absolutely everything possible to create the safe space that is claimed in the publicity I have just been typing up.  And it is urgent that we feel this reassurance now, not in some uncertain future, and so we have reached the conclusion that we will have to give that assurance ourselves so that we know that we are investing in a peaceful environment.

Whilst recognising that steps have been taken, after talking to Mark yesterday i have been left with the understanding that there will not be zero tolerance of physical violence in the school, but that the consensual mark of how much is acceptable should move.  This does not give us the reassurance we are seeking.  it also raises questions about how to arrive at that consensual mark.

[A paragraph has been left out here about a mistaken incident involving a new boy at the school. This has been cleared up with his parents]

The small reassurances and steps to stop tolerating violence, the knowledge that a child who is repeatedly violent every day had been excluded from school for even one day, created in us a relief that maybe we could in truth enjoy the fact that our children attend the school and that we could all settle into the community.

But when consequences are not consistent, and physical attacks continue on a daily basis, that is difficult.

However, due to economics again, we are forced to think about making a substantial commitment to place, since if we sell our UK property, there is no bank to put the money in, and we desperately need to put roots down, and get into better housing.

Therefore, once we have purchased a house in this area, we will not have the choice to keep thinking, shall we stay here?

Mark, you made the point to me yesterday that if parents do not like aspects of the school, they can be fickle and take the children out as you asserted we would do it we were not satisfied with the outcome of any consensual line drawing.

You also pointed out to me that there are likely to be more parents who think the levels of violent behaviour in the school are not really a problem, and it could be cynically argued that this has some sway in which position the school will take, since if those parents (who are likely to be the ones who's children have unfortunately not developed necessary self-control,) all take their children out of school,  then that will be a substantial financial loss to the school. (As well as a substantial lack of bullying.)

Whatever the motive for avoiding the central fact that all acts of physical violence, intentionally hurting others, need to be met with consistent and firm consequences, there is no way we would put the physical safety of our child at risk to mitigate financial loss to any other party.  It is unthinkable that any school, even one so dependent on fees, would conduct itself thus, and it would take a more cynical person than i to suggest such a thing.

But please do not mistakenly believe that we will, as others apparently already have, simply take our daughter out of the school as the only possible minority response.

Once we have committed to being here and being part of this community, we will not get up and leave because we are in a minority who think that it is entirely unacceptable to tolerate any physical violence whatsoever among the children.  Neither will we sit idly by and watch boundaries ebb and flow, and attacks come and go.

What we will do is use any and every means at our disposal to ensure that the school is, or does become the safe place it claims to be, where children are not being schooled in roughness, meanness and physical attack.  In committing to the school, we find we have to give ourselves the reassurance we require, and commit also to making sure that the school is a safe place for all children. Rather than taking [R] out of the school therefore, we will seek to have a greater presence in it,  starting with ourselves coming in to  monitor behaviour at play-time as we did before.

Last time we did this, we fell foul of the apparent fact that this agreement was not explicit to both of you.  Although that was entirely out of our control, it was levelled back at us as a reason that we should not be in the school all day, and that maybe we should not have made the agreement with you Susanne. I even heard the sentence 'if it's not working out for [R]...'  from you, Mark, which was entirely undermining of our trust as parents who had made this agreement with the school.  On this occasion we are writing to both of you so there will be no such misunderstanding as if appears that these boundaries also are somewhat permeable.

Nevertheless we will insist that we must be present at school during times when children have the opportunity to be out of sight of a teacher, if we feel that there is a possibility that our child might be 'poked', or 'punched', or 'pushed' or any other form of physical attack.  We believe our child has a right to be thus protected from harm at school, not just a moral right, but a legal one as well.

As it stands, we do currently feel this today, as [R] came home today and yesterday reporting having been repeatedly 'poked very hard' by [...] and although the girls all apparently chased him and did it back, this is in no way a good outcome and makes us only more determined to keep the watchful eye on [R] that will fully allow her to take full and proper advantage of the Steiner curriculum, which does not include assault.

I understand that you may feel that we are unaware of exactly what steps you have taken over specific incidents, and if so, that is because I don't know how to find out.  There seems to be an attitude that we should 'trust' that it is being dealt with, but we do not currently have that trust, and there is no good reason why we should.

In the absence of a totally transparent and explicit strategy to rid the class of this systemic violence, we feel the need, as concerned parents to keep our own watch at those times when our child may be out of sight of an adult.

If we are prevented from doing this then we will take whatever next step seems logical to both safeguard her position at the school and her personal safety, even if that means talking to other agencies and authorities.  In any case, if we are constantly needing to disrupt our family life to be in school in this way, then it is obvious that whatever sanctions there are in place are not working and that therefore the children are not protected from being hurt, and so we will be needing to refer the matter anyway, because we need to earn money at some stage.

We will not be bullied into colluding with a certain 'lesser' amount of physical violence in school and will demonstrate to our daughter at all times, that the pen is mightier than the sword, that she should tell (she was on Tuesday told 'not to tell tales' by the Eurythmy teacher, when she told about being 'poked'), and we will demonstrate how to seek the help of authority if and when necessary.  We have told [R] how unhappy we are with the situation and that if we choose to stay and fight for her place at the school, that it might become difficult for us, so she can be prepared, and she is keen for us to do that work because she wants to go to Titirangi Steiner Shool.

We cannot accept arguments about subtlety of touch, or 'where do you draw the line?'.  If [R] goes to school without a hat, she stays on the deck all day.  It is a rule.  The school and the parents have no problem with it.  The line must be drawn and drawn clearly.  It is simply unacceptable to intentionally hurt others.  The rules must be made and adhered to, or the children are not safe.

Children who aren't mature enough to understand the idea of 'no hurting', are not mature enough to be given gradations of acceptable rough touch, ranging from joshing, or tackling to something nebulously approaching hitting.  They need cold turkey, and so do the children who are getting "beaten up".  This is not my language, it is the way the children talk.

According to [R], although there is more telling by the children, there is also more covert stuff going on which is not being seen - while obvious attacks have not in fact stopped either.  This does not help with your assertion yesterday Mark that you will come down heavily 'if you see it'.  It doesn't hurt any less to be 'poked' or 'pinched', just because an adult isn't watching and then you have to 'tell' and then you get flack of the other children as [R] did yesterday when i witnessed two children attacking others.

We really appreciate the efforts that have been made to change this tendency and direction for the children in class 3 and 4 and I  have been clear about that to you Susanne, but it is not going to work unless the boundaries are really clear and the consequences  are absolutely consistent, very firm, and unless the system is transparent. At present we do not have faith that they are and so we are in the position of having to reassure ourselves.

The above represents our current position.

We take up our responsibility to be part of the solution and I look forward to your views on how we should all proceed.

Best wishes

Angel and Steve