Letter to Dr. Sherrod from Jules Dervaes
Copyright © Jules Dervaes
February 24, 1986
Dear Dr. Sherrod,
Thank you for the conference time last Wednesday. I appreciated that opportunity to talk to you in some depth regarding Anais and her classes at Imperial Schools. I’ve had a chance now to think more concerning what was said during that meeting.
It would seem imperative that Imperial Schools have a clearly stated educational philosophy in order to define the “track being run on” and, thereby, assist parents, children, and faculty alike to gauge progress accordingly. This first priority would insure that any changes made would be real, long lasting, and to the benefit of all involved. Additionally, it would help parents, who wish to enroll their children, to decide on the basis of knowing exactly what Imperial “stands for.”
Although dress, attendance, homework, and other regulations certainly need to be addressed (and should not be disregarded in the least), these are really outward signs of the need for an inward change. There is a necessity to look deeply into the total academic environment. By this, I don’t mean that teachers be highly “credentialed,” because credentials by themselves don’t mean a thing except that one has passed so many courses. Yet teachers should be dedicated, hard working, oriented to excellence, and pursuing the goal of developing all the students at all levels to their full potential.
You did mention that time is needed. While that can always be true, time can be an enemy by hindering the basic, deep changes that require immediate action. Going slow is “good” when you don’t really know where you are going. But if you know what’s right, then, by all means, “full speed ahead.”
During our conversation you mentioned that these problems came because you compromised on the entrance rules, and allowed Anais and Dannielle to attend when maybe they shouldn’t have been admitted. That really puzzled me because these two students haven’t really been the instigators of what’s wrong with the school. That, I believe, is misdirecting the issue. There was something fundamentally wrong which surfaced, at this time, through their cases. They were the cause of the surfacing of the problem; but they were IN NO WAY the cause of the problem. There is a great, real difference.
Thank you for letting me share these additional thoughts with you. Maybe, some more discussions can be forthcoming. In the meantime, I wish you all the best with the work ahead. And, thanks very much for your concern.
In Christian love,
Jules Dervaes