The article in todays Herald Sun about Burwood Heights has certainly generated heated discussion and controversy. FIRIS always welcomes robust discussion from both sides, and the comments in this article only reinforce just how contentious an issue SRI is. It is doing a rather nice job of dividing not only the students, but the general public at large. This controversy will not go away any time soon. Regardless of peoples views, SRI is most certainly the great divider, and one that sends passions soaring. The new government will have to wade their way through this mess, and attempt to turn down the heat, but there remain several unanswered questions about this case. * Why was this trespass order issued with NO attempt at counselling or conciliation? A verbal warning in the playground in August about SRI discussions with other parents was the ONLY warning given to Alex by Esther Wood. There should have been attempts to meet with the mother. Esther Wood should have (at least) attempted to formally discuss, negotiate or solve this issue. Instead she issued the trespass order on the first instance. A serious action such as this should only be used as the absolute last resort. * When FIRIS first saw the Statement of Values that came into place in Victorian primary schools in 2014, we were concerned it might be an issue for parents agitating against SRI. We consulted with our legal advisers, who had doubts that it would ever actually be exercised in a real school setting. With the benefit of hindsight you might enjoy reviewing that document on the Department of Education page (link below). Whilst you are there, check out the FAQ for parents document and look at the standard procedure for schools to reach agreement with troublesome parents. This is not the kind of roadmap for seeking agreement that the Herald Sun has reported. education.vic.gov.au/.../safecommunities.aspx * Alex, one of the parents who had expressed concern about the way in which SRI was run at the school, and the only one willing to go public, lodged a formal complaint with the DEECD on 12 August after intimidation by Principal Wood: Then on Tuesday, 5th August, the principal approached me on school grounds after I dropped off my son and said I am receiving staff and parent complaints about you. I asked if she could be more specific and she replied They are feeling threatened and intimidated by you. When I said I dont know what you are talking about, she said it is about SRI and it has to stop otherwise Ill be putting a trespassing order against you which means you wont be able to enter the school grounds. The trespass notice was issued by Esther Wood over three months later and made no mention of SRI. The DEECD took over three months to respond to Alexs complaint about Esther Woods intimidating behaviour, failed to address her concerns about said behaviour, and then immediately took the principals side a week (not three months) after the threatened retaliatory trespass notice was issued. If Principal Wood felt she already had grounds to threaten Alex with a trespass order over 3 months ago on 5 August, then why are Alexs first alleged breaches of school policy dated from only one month ago, which is two months after she had lodged her complaint about Principal Wood’s threatening behaviour? Alex had a reasonable expectation of her complaint being dealt with impartially and professionally; instead it was handed to the regional office which has shown a propensity to be exceptionally uncritical of Principal Wood’s repeated policy breaches. FIRIS does not condone threatening behaviour towards schools by parents - not do we condone the unfair treatment of those parents who have the courage to stand up to the system when something is wrong. But there are clearly a lot of unanswered questions regarding this case. FIRIS will write to the DEECD to have these points clarified.
Posted on: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 00:25:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015