Will Chameleons Montessori finally admit the truth?

Recently, all parents of children presently attending the Chameleons Montessori school, at Nitida wine farm in Durbanville, were sent an email, 9 June 2010, that attempted to reassure everyone all was under control and appropriate steps were being taken to ensure the school continued survival.

A number of claims are made in this email which many of us, including some of the teachers themselves, would strongly dispute. I’ll address each of them in turn in days to come. For now, though, I want to focus on one specific allegation because it serves to demonstrate very clearly the sort of “less then honest” tactics that we’re becoming all too familiar with in trying to get at the truth of this sorry affair.

I quote the following from this school email;

"Accusations of staff being 'gagged' and 'threatened' by the school abounded in certain circles and in some cases a significant level of panic began to set in."

In a private email (dated 26 may 2010) from myself to Mr Brandon Bailes I wrote the following;

"That teachers were threatened with legal action should any parent leave citing spray drift concerns seems even more bizarre, and evidence of a culture of intimidation and denial of the reality of the situation. "

Brendon assured me that as a representative of the EHC (Environmental Health Committee ) he would investigate this allegation further. He did so by bringing my email to the attention of Emma and Claire at the next EHC meeting on 27 May

The school (I assume Emma and Claire, as they are the owners) responds to this comment thus:

"The school went on to state that Ford’s comment with regard to staff being threatened with legal action should a parent remove their child citing vine spraying as the reason is completely unfounded and untrue. The school has no idea where such a sentiment stems from."

I am aware of a grievance letter that details these threats that the teachers felt were implied. This matter was dealt with by a Human Resources consultant on behalf of the school in January. Naturally, I was surprised that the school would respond as they did, claiming the allegation was “completely unfounded and untrue“ and that the school had “no idea where such a sentiment stems from."

I was also quite surprised that the school chose to publish my email to Brendon in the minutes of the meeting that was sent to all parents….along with their denial of the allegation I had made. I was hoping we might resolve this matter privately as I felt that it was a very serious issue that brought the schools integrity into question. The school chose to make the matter public and to deny all knowledge of what I was referring to. They made further attempts to discredit me in the follow up email to parents dated 9 June and mentioned previously by writing the following;

" Despite the EHC spending hours answering all the questions raised by the blog’s front person - none of this has been accurately reflected (if at all) in the blog. The site continues to evade the truth and publish flagrant exaggerations and misinterpretations. "

I will detail the various questions that I've posed and how they have been addressed. Some of these issues have already been reported on this blog and where appropriate I have expressed my difference of opinion. This tactic of trying to question the integrity of any critic of the schools spraying policy appears to be a fairly routine response. I will be detailing a number of these attempts at slander in a separate post. It's unfortunate that the school stoops to such underhand methods to brush aside unwanted comment, criticism and questioning and to continue to imply that their critics are somehow "morally suspect".

At this stage I want to say how much I appreciate Brendon's efforts to remain impartial and his continued willingness to engage with me to attempt to resolve this apparent contradiction. We both recognise that no sustainable progress can be made while questions remain regarding the truthfulness of certain claims made by the school.
I expressed my dissatisfaction with the school’s denial, to Brendon, and went into some detail regarding what I knew. He assured me he would probe the matter further. He was as good as his word and was eventually, actually, shown the grievance letter I alluded to.

He told me, in a private email, that he had read it and confirmed that what I had suggested regarding allegations of teachers feeling threatened was indeed detailed in this letter.

It was then explained to me that the schools response at this stage was that unless I was prepared to prove that I had a copy of this letter and to say who had given it to me the matter would not be discussed any further.
In addition, the teachers were questioned by Emma and Claire about “who was leaking information to Ford”. The teachers have stated that neither of them gave me a copy of the letter, this is perfectly true. Neither did I collude with them in writing the grievance letter back in January. I only became aware of the matter in March.

Personally, I find it troubling that rather than acknowledging the fact that they have been misleading parents over their knowledge of these allegations they choose instead to try and put pressure on the teachers not to reveal the truth. Of course, if anyone has any doubts about how the teachers really feel they’ve been treated I suppose you could simply ask them.

In private conversation with Brendon, he and I agreed that the school could not continue to deny all knowledge of this matter while we both , not to mention the teachers themselves, knew the truth.

At the latest EHC meeting (17 June) Brendon again raised the issue and he assured me, when we spoke yesterday (Friday, 18 June), that the school would be issuing a full correction regarding their denials. He suggested I’d be pleased with this acknowledgement. I sincerely hope so and look forward to reading this “confession” sometime this week.

Update: Sunday 20 June 2010

I received an email a little while ago, from the school, most of it irrelevant fluff but this bone of contention regarding my allegation that teachers were threatened etc and the school's denial of any knowledge thereof was alluded to. I quote from the email;

"Yesterday morning we held a meeting with Brendon Bailes, Chairperson of the newly formed PTA and Wayne Campbell, Vice Chairperson of the PTA. One of the items discussed was the school’s position on items that you had raised with Brendon.

The school welcomes your input into the work of the Environmental Health Committee and appreciates any information that you may have to share that would shed light on the vine spraying issue. The school will however not enter into discussion on internal matters with you, and will continue to follow recognised internal procedures for such matters."

They refuse to acknowledge what Brendon has already confirmed in his emails to me...how awkward...for them! They made the matter public, called my integrity into question and now, when they are shown to be covering up the truth, they refuse to discuss the matter any further.

I'm a bit disappointed at this utter lack of moral courage the school continues to display but I take comfort in the sure knowledge the truth will out.....eventually.

Update: 24 June 2010

One of the parents who is still considered worthy of being kept informed forwarded me a copy of the latest EHC meeting minutes, today. The issue of the teachers having felt threatened was finally acknowledged.

I quote from the minutes;

"Emma and Claire went on to report that they had also consulted with Joanne and Abi-Gail as to whether they had received threats of law suits from the school should any parent remove their children from the school citing vineyard spraying. Joanne and Abi-Gail referred back to January when they issued the school with a grievance letter regarding a meeting held with Emma, Claire and a member of the business steering committee. In the grievance raised, the Directress’ said that they felt threatened by the way in which they had been addressed. This grievance was addressed through the appropriate internal procedures. An independent HR consultant was brought in to resolve the issues raised by the directress’. In this process Emma and Claire clarified with the Directress’ that this was not their intention and that the school would in no way presume to threaten the Directress’ in any way. With the assistance of the HR consultant everyone agreed that they felt that the issues raised had been resolved and clarified. Emma and Claire were therefore under the impression that the matter had been resolved via this process (in early February). No further mention of such issues was raised by the Directress’ again. When Ford Hallam recently raised the issue that Directress’ had been threatened with law suits from the school, Emma and Claire did not make the association of this to the above Grievance and therefore made the statement below (as stated in the minutes of the EHC dated 27 May 2010).
“The school went on to state that Ford’s comment with regard to staff being threatened with legal action should a parent remove their child citing vine spraying as the reason is completely unfounded and untrue. The school has no idea where such a sentiment stems from."
"

So there you have it. Yes, teachers did feel as though they'd been threatened. The "member of the BSC" referred to was Dave D'Aguiar by the way. I mention this because I take the view that his attitude and behaviour in this whole matter regarding the spraying has been extremely inappropriate. This is something I'll elaborate on in later posts.

Personally, I find "the school's" claim that they didn't make a connection between my allegation and the grievance complaint to be very dubious, to say the least.

I wonder if the school will now send out an email to all parents correction the impression they created, that there was no foundation for the allegation. Will the school now admit that I was not misinformed and that the school (inexplicably) "didn't make the connection" to a serious grievance complaint made by the teachers in January that details precisely what I alluded to?

The matter of the "white, sticky residue" was also brought up. It was reported that both the teachers confirmed that they'd reported their concerns over this, towards the end of last year, to Emma and Claire. I quote again from the minutes;

"Emma and Claire said that they do not have any recollection of being given such information"

This I find extremely worrying. It suggests, that at a time when one teacher is experiencing serious health problems that her doctor diagnosed as being due to "an external irritant" in the lungs, the school seems to have forgotten the other teachers concerns over a visible spray residue in the actual school building. It would appear that yet again they "didn't make the connection".