📚 SWANK Dispatch: When Approval to Homeschool Is Weaponised Against You
🗓️ 5 August 2020
Filed Under: homeschool sabotage, administrative gaslighting, social worker overreach, truancy threats, institutional memory failure, medical abuse, policy denial, bureaucratic cruelty
“I was approved. I submitted everything. But they kept moving the goalpost.”
— A Mother in Compliance, Not Complicit
In this dispatch dated 5 August 2020, Polly Chromatic finally directs her words to the actual Director of Education, Edgar Howell, after three years of being bounced between Mark Garland, Mr. Kennedy, and the Department of Social Development — all of whom demanded documentation, received it, and still continued to threaten her family with unlawful action.
What she asked for was simple.
What she received was state-fuelled trauma.
🗂️ I. Homeschool Policy? She Asked in 2017.
Polly’s BA and MA degrees were submitted.
She submitted her curriculum every year since 2017.
She had verbal approval from Mark Garland, who confirmed it in writing.
Yet in 2020, she’s told:
“You spoke to the wrong person.”
No policy was ever provided.
But truancy threats were. Repeatedly.
🚨 II. Institutional Harassment in Lieu of Lawful Process
Let us catalogue:
• May 2017: Her sons were sexually assaulted during a forced examination by a doctor in front of 9 adults — under the orders of Social Development
• March 2020: Her home was entered against her will and against COVID Emergency Powers
• August 2020: Her fence was dismantled and her children were forcibly taken for a vaccination check (they were vaccinated)
No reports. No charges. No apologies. Just more visits.
⚖️ III. The Complaint Became the Crime
When she contacted the Complaints Commission, she was told:
“You’re not approved to homeschool and they may take your children.”
Thus, the very act of filing a complaint resurrected a false allegation she had resolved three years earlier — a tactic as coercive as it is cruel.
📎 Final Request, Made Clear:
“Please provide me with written approval to homeschool along with the policy and procedures that I need to follow.”
What she deserves: a written policy.
What she demands: lawful treatment.
What she gets: recycled threats dressed as safeguarding.