Letters

17th of June 2009, 10:30am

To the Trustees

We have yesterday written to the College further requesting dialogue on our dismissal and the important issues we have raised within the school.  In our letter we acknowledged that they have found our communication methods difficult and stated our intention to allow them to point the way forward into meaningful dialogue, hopefully professionally mediated.

Whilst not wanting to prejudice this initiative, important matters have come to our attention, that we feel it necessary to inform you of in relation to both our own situation and the issues of violent behaviour within the school.

We heard yesterday that further violence erupted in Class 3/4, such that [...] was pulled by the ankles from behind by [...], while [...] was standing on a chair, causing him to smash his face and injure his jaw.  The report we heard included mention that he was bleeding, but obviously we cannot corroborate that.  We need to draw your attention to this because it is obviously the real issue, the one we have unsuccessfully been trying to properly raise in the school, and the real and only possible reason why [R] should possibly partially excuse herself from attending that class.

Instead our whole family having been summarily ousted, with no warning, we now need to mention the school’s stated reason for so dumping us.

The reason given is an apparent insurmountable difference in ‘philosophy’ regarding behaviour such as that mentioned above.  The only ‘philosophy’ we have stated is that such unnacceptable hurting should not be tolerated in the school.

Further, parents at the school have been told that this insurmountable difference was our absolute inflexibility regarding Zero Tolerance.  Yesterday, on our request, Kay Ingamells, an enthusiastic proponent of socially inclusive initiative and a knowledgeable, well respected professional, wrote to the school confirming that we had invited her to attend the meeting we were all due to have and instead of which we (and our three children), were unjustly kicked out.

This is proof positive that the stated reasons for our dismissal are factually incorrect, i.e. that they do not exist, and our invitation to Kay to attend was mentioned freely to management and trust members well before our turfing out.  It is also proof that the issues we were raising, namely inappropriate and dangerous intentional hurting, continue unabated.

In our conversations with parents, there have been several who have stated that they are reconsidering their own commitment to the school, finding recent school actions confidence-sapping.

More than a week has now passed since we were evicted under threat of arrest. and we have heard nothing whatsoever from the school.  We have three children at home all day in our tiny house where we are self-employed, our visa limiting our work options, for the moment.  Therefore our ability to earn money has been and is being severely compromised since we had no warning of this action by the school.

As far as enrolling our children in other schools, this also is complicated by the fact that we are soon to be moving, complications about enrollment zones, and the fact that [R]’s mental health needs to be considered before she is forced to go to yet another school, when she and we chose to send our children to the Steiner school.

As you can see from the above, there are no solid reasons why the children should not be there, apart from the continuing violence.

While we acknowledge that our response to this illogical, unfair and damaging action was equally dramatic, we do feel that all reasonable people would conclude that it is the action/inaction of the school itself that is the main problem, if the chronology is accurately reported.

While we not like to speculate that the school actually has a philosophy of protecting the violent behaviour, we must say that we do not understand the agenda that would so act in such a crucial situation, thus causing further suffering to yet more children, both ours, and those who are, have been, and will be hurt at school.

What we can say, and ask you to consider listening to your own moral compass, and sense of duty to the children, is that although our increasing assertiveness has caused such rejection, we were only trying to help.

Assertiveness is not usually a problem unless there are hidden agendas, and where such hidden agendas are running concerning children, social services usually eventually have a part to play.

Our own moral sense, which we are working to separate from our sense of outrage and hurt, tells us, as it has done all along, that it is wrong for anybody to watch children getting hurt and do nothing.

We do hope that your own sense of right and wrong will guide you to exercise your duties most responsibly.  As of this moment we have not taken these issues anywhere, neither press, not agencies, nor even seeking legal advice.

We note that when it came to kicking us out, the school was able to mobilise itself very fast, between a Thursday meeting with you, and some time the following morning and we cannot understand why, if there is a will to put right these matters, there should be any delay when it is further hurting the children. 

Again without wishing to compromise our real intention to listen to the point of view of the CoT, we cannot hold the welfare of children hostage to the delicate sensibilities of adults who have/had care of them.

Given all of the above, we would find another weekend of such uncertainty very hard to bear, not only personally, but as responsible adults with prejudicial knowledge regarding the welfare of children.

Yours most sincerely

Angel Garden and Steve Paris