The email Chameleons Montessori didn't want you to see.

There's been a flurry of irate and defensive responses from a number of commentators on the blog ever since I changed the setting to allow anonymous comments. Disappointingly, many have in fact been anonymous which somewhat undermines the credibility of those criticisms. Even more telling is that rather than actually address any of the many very substantive points and criticisms that have been made on this blog a good few of the comments are nothing more than personal attacks on my character and integrity.

To be frank, I'm not all that hurt on a personal level by such petty snipes but I am rather disappointed that we can't actually engage in a real, adult debate.

I've also been accused of not providing any evidence or facts as pertains specifically to the school.

I'll begin to add more on that score over the next few days. I was one of 3 or 4 parents who actually received the first email (addressed to all parents at Chameleons Montessori) and while I was initially quite taken aback it did spur me on to do some research of my own.

You can read the whole email in a pdf file by simply double clicking here.

I am of the opinion that certain information, that some parents now feel is very significant to them in deciding whether they felt their children were safe at Chameleons, was withheld from them. This email from TATIB, and addressed to us as a group, was in fact not passed on.

I was a little surprised that the response from Mr Brandon Bailes didn't address the allegations in the email regarding possible health risks to our children but instead expressed the need to defend the schools reputation. The question that followed, "Has every parent been notified?" may be open to interpretation, and I don't doubt it will be, but considering that very few parents did subsequently get to see this email one is left wondering what was meant by that.

TATIB was then asked to direct further correspondence via Dave D'Aguire, who designated himself a representative of the Parent Committee and promised to pass on any relevant information. Evidently everything TATIB offered was regarded as not being relevant.

I quote from the schools email to TATIB, 16 March 2010, which was also sent to all parents.
"We would appreciate if you could also address all of your future correspondence to me alone and I will ensure that it gets distributed to all parties concerned."

Apparently most of you were not concerned. How could you be if you knew nothing about this?

I'll leave you to decide whether that decision, made on your behalf, was correct. You may also wonder about that Parent Committee....I didn't know we had one.

It's also recently been suggested that, among various other feeble attempts at character assassination, I am operating out of some sinister and personal agenda to destroy the school.

I would ask every parent affected by this crisis to consider the following.

We now know that at least as early as March last year this issue was brought to the attention of the school. It was only on the 27 April this year that the first meeting took place to address the matter. This was as a direct result of my stated intention, to Emma, to remove my son from the school. I've detailed all this previously and at length here.

That the school finally asked various concerned parents to form an Environmental Committee to look into the matter is a small step in the right direction. However, I would respectfully point out that most of you would still be in the dark regarding this issue and you would not have any ongoing investigation at all were it not for my "sinister motives". Perhaps at this point a simple thank you would be nice...rather than these vicious and snide remarks some have felt justified in hurling at me.

The first meeting was, in my opinion not as open nor receptive to "inconvenient" information as I would have hoped. My views on this meeting can be found here'

As to whether you think the Environmental Committee can be impartial and unbiased or in fact has any real expertise that renders it capable of making suitable recommendations regarding such a complex matter, I leave to you.

As to my own expertise, which as been called into question, I would say that an ability to read, understand and reason logically is a good start. But if my opinions are so weak and inconsequential then I wonder why my opponents are so intent on trying to discredit me personally and not concentrating on the points I raise.

The bulk of the facts on this blog are either accounts of events we have personally experienced or I cite other authorities. I make no apology for expressing my own views here. It was made abundantly clear to me, at the meeting of the 27 April, that my opinion was not a welcome one. In addition, I feel that the school's subsequent actions to try and deal with the matter are hopelessly inadequate and 5 years too late.

I will take this opportunity to ask, for the umpteenth time, for any evidence of the various investigations the school claims to have undertaken in the last year as were referenced countless times. Show us what you did to ensure our children were safe.....and don't dare to suggest that because we knew it was a working farm we must accept that there may be risks. That argument is too absurd to even begin to take seriously.

I'll be posting an in depth analysis of Prof. London's comments on the matter shortly. His opinion is quite clear and he goes to some trouble to make sure his point was heard.