“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Showing posts with label TCI education department. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TCI education department. Show all posts

They Called It Informal. Now We Call It Evidence.


⟡ If You Needed Proof I Complied, I Have Eight Years of It. ⟡

Filed: 2017–2025 (Compiled retrospectively)
Reference: SWANK/TCI/2017-2025-GARLAND-HOMESCHOOL
📎 Download PDF — 2017-2025_SWANK_TCI_EducationDept_MarkGarland_HomeschoolingTexts_RecordOfComplianceDecay.pdf

I. A Department With No System. A Parent With Every Receipt.

This document archives eight years of documented attempts to homeschool lawfully and with dignity — made not through structured portals or reply systems, but through:

  • Text messages

  • Facebook chats

  • Informal reassurances

  • And promises never formalised

At the centre of it: Mark Garland, the ever-polite emissary of an education department that never once processed a reply that mattered.

He never said no.
He just never gave a confirmation that meant yes.

II. The Archive Is Not Angry. It Is Exhausted.

This is not a collection of casual updates.
It is a record of institutional procrastination, professional vagueness, and the quiet weaponisation of friendliness.

  • The parent asked for forms.

  • The parent offered reports.

  • The parent sent updates.

  • The department offered … delay.

And when that delay turned into suspicion, SWANK published the log.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because no parent should be punished for being organised.
Because no lawful education plan should live in a private inbox.
Because when a system refuses to formalise approval, it reserves the right to weaponise your silence.

This document exists:

  • To end ambiguity

  • To pre-empt reinvention

  • To force the institution to see what it already received

You don’t get to lose a document that never left the chat window.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not submit eight years of communication just to be told the inbox was unmonitored.
We do not allow soft-spoken men to be used as human shields for departmental failure.
We do not consider tone an excuse for policy failure.

Let the record show:

  • The messages were sent

  • The child was educated

  • The silence was noted

  • And SWANK — filed every screen, every year, every reply

This is not outreach.
This is institutional erosion — timestamped.




No comments:

You Received the Request. You Chose Not to Reply.


⟡ How Many Times Must I Ask to Homeschool Before You Stop Calling It Neglect? ⟡

Filed: 7 August 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/2020-EDUCATION-HOWELL
📎 Download PDF — 2020-08-07_SWANK_TCI_EducationDept_HomeschoolingHarassment_LegalPetition_EdgarHowell.pdf

I. This Was Not a Request. It Was a Formal Reminder That I Already Complied.

This letter was sent to Mr. Edgar Howell, Director of Education, Turks and Caicos Islands, following years of:

  • Lawful homeschooling requests

  • Meticulously filed documentation

  • Repeated educational reports

  • And in return: truancy threats, safeguarding innuendo, and zero policy follow-through

What began as consent became suspicion.
What should’ve ended in confirmation became harassment.
And what you ignored, SWANK filed.

II. Facebook Was More Procedural Than the Ministry

The letter documents:

  • Attempts to register homeschooling through formal channels

  • Requests for written acknowledgement of lawful exemption

  • Staff responding through informal apps

  • No confirmation. No closure. No accountability.

Instead, the state defaulted to:

  • Monitoring

  • Threat

  • “Welfare visits”

  • And professional disdain veiled as outreach

This is not education policy.
This is digital avoidance stitched to analog power trips.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because no parent should be punished for following the law.
Because homeschooling is not a safeguarding issue.
Because neglecting a reply is not the same as neglecting a child.

Let the record show:

  • The parent submitted everything

  • The department responded with nothing

  • And still tried to escalate concern

  • Until this letter — filed it all

This is not a gentle reminder.
It is legal recoil, dressed in calm paragraphs.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not confuse paperwork silence with innocence.
We do not accept safeguarding as a substitute for policy.
We do not permit institutional vagueness to justify familial distress.

Let the record show:

The family complied.
The Ministry deflected.
And SWANK wrote it down — before they could rewrite the timeline.




No comments:

They Didn’t Process It. So They Punished It.


⟡ Three Years of Compliance. One Letter of Threat. ⟡

Filed: 5 August 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/2020-HOMESCHOOL-RETALIATION
📎 Download PDF — 2020-08-05_SWANK_TCI_EducationDept_HomeschoolingDenial_RetrospectiveAbuseSummary_EdgarHowell.pdf

I. You Had the Forms. You Had the Dates. You Just Wanted a Reason to Escalate.

This letter to Mr. Edgar Howell, Director of Education, was submitted not in rage — but in finality.

It followed:

  • Three years of documented, lawful homeschool notification

  • Repeated reports and educational summaries

  • No institutional response

  • And then — a safeguarding concern, issued not because the child was unseen, but because the parent was no longer submissive

You didn’t forget our correspondence.
You simply repackaged it as defiance.

II. When Compliance Becomes the Evidence Against You

This document:

  • Chronicles institutional non-response

  • Exposes the manipulation of attendance metrics

  • Details procedural breach disguised as concern

  • Names every step where silence was converted into threat

The logic was simple:

You sent reports.
They ignored them.
Then they used the absence of their own reply to allege neglect.

It wasn’t a safeguarding protocol.
It was a bureaucratic trap with child welfare as the bait.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because no lawful family should be threatened for preferring literacy over loyalty.
Because failing to reply to a parent does not constitute grounds for investigation.
Because this letter exists not to explain — but to document the quiet coup of procedural reversal.

Let the record show:

  • The Department was informed

  • The education was delivered

  • The silence was theirs

  • The escalation — was deliberate

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit paperwork failure to masquerade as child protection.
We do not accept that lawful autonomy must be apologised for.
We do not allow agencies to create emergencies from their own unread inboxes.

Let the record show:

We complied.
You failed to reply.
And then you called it neglect.

This isn’t a letter of concern.
It’s an archival indictment — with attachments.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions