That’s what I was wondering. Did these psychos “decide to remove” their kids from the school or were they presented with a “You are not following the agreed up on policies. We’ve given you many, many chances to follow the policies and you’ve ignored them. So, this last one time if we have any indication you aren’t following the agreed upon policies then your kids are not welcome here any longer.”
Then either they admitted they weren’t, refused to commit to the following the policies or the school waited till the next news cycle, saw them not following and were all, “Thing 1, Thing 2, Thing 3… You are FIRED!”
WHAT!?
They have children?
OMFG! Three of them, you say… brrrr!
Well, this behaviour isn’t surprising in the least. I just wonder who is going to have custody of the little darlings if/when Mommy & Daddy go to prison.
Sad to say, but we we draw the list of all of little miss thing’s & pasty prick’s crimes against humanity, exposing their children, other children & educators to a deadly pandemic probably won’t crack the top 50.
It’s not (just) about the money, which is where “longtime parent” becomes even more important.
You certainly can’t operate a school without money, and admin knows that; but (both out of practicality and because of the somewhat traditionalist bent these schools tend to have or aspire to) they know that you also can’t operate a school without a student body, some really committed parents, ideally a solid reputation in the area you hope to draw future students from, etc.
That’s the real problem for Jarvanka in this case: it sounds like a substantial portion of the parents were against what they were doing; which meant that coddling them would have required admin to tell a major slice of their committed parents that, yeah, they were cool with them and their children potentially dying in order to please one family.
That’s a tough sell. A school community tends not to be immune to mercenary interests, squeezing a few inadequate scions through the admissions process, maybe agreeing that boys from good families sure will be boys sometimes; that’s definitely on the table; but outright telling a major chunk of the parents who are most worth hanging on to that they don’t matter and can shove off? I doubt that is on the table; the school has its future to think about.
Even in the really sordid cases of one student being thrown under the bus in favor of another(eg. most stories involving student athletes, sexual violence, and an astonishingly compromised disciplinary process); it’s generally the case that there is a substantial chunk of the school community, often a substantial majority, being catered to by making those decisions.
