Letters
5th of June 2009, 1:55pm
From: Angel Garden
Subject: rights and responsibilities
Date: 5 June 2009 1:55:18 pm GMT+12:00
To: Mark Thornton
Cc: Sean
Dear Mark
We would like you to consider the behaviour of the school in regard to bullying in the context of the real-world and the law, not the tiny inward-looking world of the Steiner school, where you ask a colleague of the same system to evaluate your responses to, for example, accusations of stealing that filtered in from another school to distress and taunt a student, a student who has a right to pursue education without fear of harassment or assault. This colleague may have found your approach 'proper and professional', but I'm sure that others may see a connection between your failure to respond to my question as to the distinction you are making between dealing with it 'properly' and dealing with it 'hastily'?" which I asked the other day, and the incident with the axe.
Specifically we note that by leaving [R] and [...] alone together, out of sight of any adult, as happened yesterday, and given his history at the school, the long litany of complaints even that we have recorded, about this particular child (let alone those from others - whether official or unofficial), and his specific recent harassment of [R], puts you in contravention of a number of clauses in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by New Zealand in 1993.
Article 3 of this document contains the following points:-
1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be of primary consideration.
3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care and protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff as well as competent supervision.
And Article 19 contains this:-
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the chid from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment, or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care or parent(s), legal guardian(s), or any other person who has care of the child.
We now call upon you to explain how being left in that situation was in the 'best interests' of our child. We also call upon you to explain how what happened yesterday fits in with point 3. above
You may also be opening yourselves to actions under law for injury.
While we are aware that, in New Zealand law, no cases involving compensation for physical injury between peers are allowed due to the introduction of ACC and related legislation, if there is a psychological damage that occurs along with the physical, such cases may be allowed in law.
You are also opening yourselves to claims for exemplary (or punitive) damages, such that the behaviour of peers is flagrantly and outrageously careless as to justify an award by way of punishment. In such a case a school's lack of care would have to show a significant disregard for a student's safety. I refer you in this regard, to the fact that the teacher was nowhere near the children when [...] was wielding the axe, and yet the school was in a position to know clearly that he was likely to take deleterious action towards [R] as we were still awaiting the very slow 'processing' of the last complaint!
Obviously there is also a minefield here legally in terms of criminal liability under Health and Safety Law:-
For example, it may be possible to prosecute a school where teachers and administrators are aware of bullying behaviour but take no remedial action, all employers have a legal duty to ensure that no action or inaction by one of their employees harms another person.
It is your duty to provide a safe educational environment where students can pursue their education, free from fear of harassment and assault. Any school that takes inadequate steps to eliminate anti-social behaviour may be held to be negligent.
The recent review of disciplinary procedures notwithstanding, there is no transparent set of consequences for anti-social, harrassing or violent behaviour that is clear to all, parents, teachers, students and management. So, although everybody knows that [...] was stood-down for a day last term, nobody knows why, or when his behaviour will incur the same effect again.
We note that two children have left this class within the last month and this is yet further evidence of the failure of your inward-looking and inadequate systems. Unfortunately it must be observed that there is plenty of material here to provoke a thorough investigation by the proper authorities.
sincerely
Angel Garden and Steve Paris