Part 2 - School culture is not written in mission statements.
This series begins where a recent LinkedIn reflection left off — on the quiet ways culture is learned, reinforced, and revealed in schools. Leadership protection, daily behaviour, and fairness under pressure matter far more than polished words on paper.
How the story unfolds
Parimala is my sister‑in‑law. Her brother Bala married a school teacher. Around 1999, Bala and his wife purchased a house. In 2003, they sought help to renovate it and turned to Parimala’s parents. At that time, Parimala and her mother Pachy already owned a fully paid house. To assist, Parimala’s parents transferred their house to Bala's wife so she could obtain a government loan — with the clear understanding that once the loan was repaid, the property would be returned to Parimala and her mother.
It is important to note that Parimala and her mother received no consideration for this transfer. The government loan was used entirely by Bala and his wife to renovate their own home and settle personal debts.
When the loan was finally repaid, Bala's wife claimed ownership of the house and even attempted to sell it. To protect their rights, Parimala and her mother lodged a caveat. Although Bala's wife managed to remove the first caveat, a second was filed and remains valid until 2028.
Litigation followed. The teacher contested the caveat, but after multiple affidavits and case managements, the High Court of Shah Alam upheld the plaintiffs’ position. In 2023, the Court ordered the teacher to pay RM3,000 to Parimala and her mother. To this day, she has not complied.
Such conduct is unbecoming of a teacher and sets a poor example for her students. I reported the matter to her headmistress. While we had several telephone conversations, none of my emails received a formal reply, nor was any written explanation provided about what transpired between the headmistress and the teacher.
Culture written in silence
What makes this case more troubling is not only the teacher’s refusal to honour a High Court order, but the silence of her institution. When a headmistress avoids written accountability and shields a teacher from consequence, it signals what behaviour leadership is willing to protect. Culture in schools is not written in mission statements; it is written in these silences, in the protection of misconduct, and in the absence of fairness. The gap between public declarations of values and the private reinforcement of impunity is precisely how institutional decline begins.
Institutional decline begins quietly
The refusal to comply with a High Court order is not just about one teacher’s conduct. It becomes a mirror of the system when leadership chooses silence. A headmistress who avoids written accountability, who shields misconduct rather than confronts it, teaches her staff and students a lesson far louder than any mission statement.
This is how culture is formed: not in the polished words of vision documents, but in the daily choices of what is ignored, what is protected, and what is excused. When fairness is absent and accountability is deferred, decline sets in. It does not announce itself with poor strategy or failed policies; it creeps in through silence, protection, and the widening gap between public values and private behaviour.
The case is not an isolated dispute over property. It is a case study in how schools — through leadership behaviour — signal what kind of culture they are willing to tolerate. And when misconduct is tolerated, it becomes normalized.
Comments
1. Teacher had assumed her position is an indication of her "higher" qualifications and "intelligence" but her actions put paid to those symptoms
2. Headmistress' position is "1. it's a personal matter, 2. I represent the school, education department and therefore the government, 3. Therefore I shall stay silent and not get involved (ostrich head-in-sand mentality)"
On point 1: Exactly. A teacher’s position should reflect character and integrity first — not just qualifications on paper. When someone in that role chooses to defy a High Court order over a clear family arrangement (where no consideration was even given), it reveals far more about their actual values than any academic credential ever could. Students learn from what we do, not just what we teach in class.
On point 2: This is the core of what I’m highlighting in this series. The “it’s a personal matter, so I stay silent” stance might feel safe in the short term, but when the person involved is a serving teacher whose conduct has been examined and ruled on by the court, that silence carries weight. It signals to the entire school community what kind of behaviour is tolerated and protected.
Leadership in education isn’t just about managing academics or representing the system — it’s about modelling accountability. Hiding behind “I represent the government” while avoiding any written engagement or follow-through sends the opposite message. Students aren’t blind; they see when adults in authority choose convenience and protection over principle. That’s precisely how institutional culture is shaped — in these quiet decisions and convenient silences.
This isn’t about dragging individuals. It’s about asking whether our schools are serious about the values they claim to instill: integrity, fairness, and responsibility. When leadership defaults to an ostrich approach on matters that touch professional ethics, the whole system loses credibility.
Appreciate your sharp observations. These patterns matter more than we sometimes admit.