NEW MESSAGE FROM DAVID BODDY

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
daska
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: UK

Postby daska » Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:57 pm

afitz wrote: I made a pact with myself that I would never speak ill of the school....not the case for so many bitter people on this site look at all these malcontents and people with minds out of control slinging mud like there is no tomorrow


Anthony,

why did you feel you had to make this pact with yourself? and why should your feeling that SES was no longer the place for you be your issue and not SES's as well? are you less equal because you're gay? should I have been less equal because I am female? should we pupils at the day schools have been less equal because we were children?

I still know people within SES and some of them I love dearly and I'm quite happy to supply endless cups of tea when they come to visit. But should I love SES or defend it's mistakes just because it does some things well and has some lovely people in it? History demonstrates time and time again that 'a person' can be intelligent, sensible, empathetic but circumstances, received truth and the need for peer approval can influence groups of 'people' to be cruel, vicious and stupid. And IMO it would be wrong to never speak ill when ill has been done - a lie by omission - it would result in crimes never being prosecuted and history being falsified, which you could say is sort of like well erm what's happed to some of us... ?

Daska

BTW, to save you looking through all the posts for my agenda, I have a life but that's only because at 11 I was too inept to succeed in killing myself when SES doctrine conspired with real life events to make it unbearable. I reckon it's quite a nice life too. And I'm not in favour of forcing the day schools to close. :-)

afitz
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: London

letting go....

Postby afitz » Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:48 pm

here here !

afitz
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: London

ok

Postby afitz » Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:54 pm

Point taken and I would say that there is certainly a distinction between how an adult attending school can detach from its influence compared with a child, who is clearly more impressionable and any negative effects may be more lasting- but the schools are good places now, so many parents on here speak of the quality and the fact that they go against the flow of educational rhetoric and plump for better practice.

dan
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:39 pm

Postby dan » Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:32 pm

Afitz wrote:
but the schools are good places now, so many parents on here speak of the quality and the fact that they go against the flow of educational rhetoric and plump for better practice.


I have not noticed a great many parents speaking of the quality.

What do you mean by 'educational rhetoric'? Do you mean the educational research done in many universities which aims to improve teaching practice and therefore help pupils? Do you think ignoring this research and other mainstream teaching methods is a safe and responsible thing for a school to do, especially one with a past like St Vedast-St James?

I should think the SES childrens schools would be safer places if they did not attempt 'to go against the flow' and took a little more advice from external education professionals.
Dan

User avatar
erikdr
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:14 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Teaching methods

Postby erikdr » Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:49 pm

Do you think ignoring this research and other mainstream teaching methods is a safe and responsible thing for a school to do, especially one with a past like St Vedast-St James?


Hmmm... I can only vote for Platoschool (the Dutch clone, but the first one in SES realm to have succesful legal prosecution... :evilbat: ) to help Anthony.

Yes and no, again.
In terms of the teaching technique (without corporal punishment, please) - a school like St. James could learn more from mainstream.
But in terms of the usual educational rhetoric, the 'reasoning behind the technique' and especially the model of life that a normal kids school demonstrates: I'd really appreciate St. James staying with what it preaches now.
Spirituality is something to be learned in quite a different way than the 'normal' life model. And so I'd prefer a school with some religious/spiritual background much more than a standard one. No special preference for the SES style (after the improvements), could also be e.g. a Waldorf school or a new-age one one based on Buddhism.
With folded palms,

<Erik>

daska
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: UK

Postby daska » Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:39 pm

Wasn't Paul Moss, the head of the junior schools, formerly the deputy head at Westminster? (correct me if I'm wrong please) As far as I have been able to tell, he is well loved by all the children in the junior schools and respected and admired by all the parents. He has certainly earned my respect and I could, if it were appropriate here, name others to support this view.

There is still a very SES attitude to family and gender roles that can lead to misunderstandings on a personal level. e.g. a head in the sand belief that fathers must be a good thing regardless... though this is not school policy and they will restrict an absent parent's access if necessary. (Just try getting past Margaret Colwell!) I suspect that attitudes such as this can be traced directly to the SES teachings. The junior boys do do cookery but the junior girls still have to curtsey which is not a sight I enjoy. Parents who's children have had coaching with the special needs teacher cannot praise her highly enough for what she has achieved. The gym teacher is also very popular and doubles as a clown for parties. And the food is nice (yes, really!).

I suppose my point is to show that the schools are a lot more professional than they used to be and have some very good qualities but retain some very unimpressive traditions as well.

I cannot comment on the senior schools.

afitz
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: London

Perhaps best practice at junior level

Postby afitz » Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:54 pm

They have some very good approaches that go against the flow (I speak as a qualified teacher myself) at Junior level - i.e. not teaching or using ICT and waiting until secondary level. The over-reliance on ICT clearly affects students creativity and laziness in research and experiencing the world and encourages a reliance on spell checkers so spelling is not learnt properly. There is also evidence that the fresh start at secondary school means that those new to ICT make faster progress as it is new and they are not jaded by it. As far as teaching French is concerned (my subject) I certainly had some reservations about SES methods - it appeared that they taught the students about Napoleon alot of the time instead of the language. Also what I found methodologically unsatisfactory were traditional vocabulary tests whereby students would be given 100 very unappealing words to learn that they were never likely to need when shopping in a bakery, for example. Seemed very dry and irrelevant to me. So I guess the junior school appeals most and lets hope the language teaching is improving....................

Thanks for your thoughts and feedback

Anthony :fadein:

daska
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: UK

Postby daska » Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:14 pm

I don't agree with the school's approach for ICT. children with coordination difficulties can benefit greatly from the judicious use of PCs, gameboys etc along with physical exercises to hone their physical skills and communication. And who says ICT teaching should be via word processing programs with spell checkers. you can teach binary code using bits of coloured card and hiding behind tables playing sneaky beaky games. Of course too much of anything is bad but throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't exactly good practice either. (jfi, anyone here wanting an interesting introduction to programming for their kids or themselves could do worse than check out www.squeak.org)

language teaching was always crap and I'm not aware of them doing any (even vaguely) modern languages in the junior school, only sanskrit.

grimep
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:47 pm

Re: Teaching methods

Postby grimep » Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:19 pm

erikdr wrote:
Spirituality is something to be learned in quite a different way than the 'normal' life model. And so I'd prefer a school with some religious/spiritual background much more than a standard one.



So you are saying you think it is a good thing for schools to try and teach pupils to be "spiritual"? There are enough self-deluded airheads in this world already without schools manufacturing more of them.

User avatar
erikdr
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:14 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Teaching methods

Postby erikdr » Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:32 am

So you are saying you think it is a good thing for schools to try and teach pupils to be "spiritual"? There are enough self-deluded airheads in this world already without schools manufacturing more of them.


Sorry to hear that, apparently due to your experiences with SES, you've become kind of anti-religious or anti-spiritual. At least when it comes to infusing spirituality in schooling. (Of course, driven by parents who themselves believe in spirituality being better than materialism.)

Well, there's not much I can say against that then. My life-long experience is that materialist (as opposed to truly spiritual) people whom I meet are far more dangerous than the percentage of holyness-claimers who unfortunately have become self-deluded airheads and sometimes even founded/joined cults.
And that's why I still go for spirituality, it's worth fighting for. Giving up, and just working for a 'scientific' approach of life, is worse in my opinion.

Moreover: if you just battle SES and St.James with arguments which basically apply (in your opinion) to all kinds of religion/spirituality, you go wrong. Just like Hounan/Hogg describe meditation in a way that ANY kind of meditation or even longer prayers would amount to brainwashing.

Not just would you miss the point in batlling SES, but you would also have them joined in their defense by the Xtian churches and whatever more humans call themselves religious. It's like shooting with a cannon on some bad trees, destroying the whole forest or invoking defenses for the forest unfortunately also protecting the bad trees.
Much better, IMHO, would be to use a scalpet. And battle the SES for being (at times) derailed religion, a cult, etc. etc. Whilst admitting that in general spirituality CAN be good for large groups of people...

All the best in your path to finding Truth,
With folded palms,



<Erik>

jojo
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:44 am

Re: Teaching methods

Postby jojo » Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:47 am

erikdr wrote:
Spirituality is something to be learned in quite a different way than the 'normal' life model. And so I'd prefer a school with some religious/spiritual background much more than a standard one.


While I agree with the value of having some kind of spiritual background against the backdrop of the predominantly materialist and commercialist society we all live in, I think you are missing the point with SES day schools.
We are not talking about a healthy balanced introduction to more spiritual matters within the framework of a broad education, at St James we had the SES brand of spirituality rammed down our throats on a daily basis to the exclusion of 'normal life'. Their attempts to replace any hint of individuality and free expression and basically try to control every aspect of our existence (both at school and outside) meant the whole experience in fact was far removed from anything spiritual and I understand why many ex pupils now have a deep suspicion of anything religious / spiritual.

User avatar
erikdr
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:14 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Teaching methods

Postby erikdr » Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:44 am

Hi jojo,

I think you are missing the point with SES day schools.
We are not talking about a healthy balanced introduction to more spiritual matters within the framework of a broad education, at St James we had the SES brand of spirituality rammed down our throats on a daily basis to the exclusion of 'normal' life.


Well maybe and maybe not. I was fully admitting that cultish behaviour and inflated airheads are negative things, and not part of the spirituality which I am looking for.

The debate on what a 'a healthy balanced introduction to more spiritual matters' should consist of will not easily be resolved. What I sense is that the present-day St.James is far more aware of the limitations of cultish acting than the one of Debenham's time, and if they practice what they preach then they deserve a chance.
I myself, having attended the youth groups intensively in my early twenties, are very grateful for some actions of 'ramming discipline down my throat' because it helped to overcome my own limitations and inflexibilities. At that moment I might not always have valued the spiritual dimension of it but looking back I do so. For some ex-students or current students, sometimes experiences and opinions might need the same relativity...

All the best,
With folded palms,



<Erik>

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Re: Teaching methods

Postby a different guest » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:14 pm

erikdr wrote: My life-long experience is that materialist (as opposed to truly spiritual) people whom I meet
,


You seem of very limited experience erikdr. So there are only two types of people? spiritual or material? for example - Ever heard of idealogys like secular humanist? I know people who are not religious at all who are more "christian" in their outlook towards their fellow man than many people who claim to be Christian.

Spirituality has NOTHING to do with it. There is a notion called "humanity".

Personally I don't think religion/spirituality has ANY place in an academic institution - that is a private matter for the home/church and has nothing to do with academic learning.

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Teaching methods

Postby anti_ses » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:50 pm

a different guest wrote:Personally I don't think religion/spirituality has ANY place in an academic institution - that is a private matter for the home/church and has nothing to do with academic learning.

I think you've just pointed out the essential difference between schools with a religious/spiritual basis and those without. I personally think a school should be much more than an academic institution - it should teach core values such as self-discipline, manners, generosity, etc. I cannot see many schools giving Saturday detentions to pupils eating junk food on journeys to and from school. The "academic" aspect of such schools is usually only a quarter of the story: they aim, or claim to aim, to develop the spiritual, mental, emotional and physical aspects of a human being. St James and other religious/spiritual schools are a bit more than "academic institutions" and I am certain if you explain to such schools that you only want your child to get good grades, then perhaps you will be informed that other more "academic" institutions will be more to your liking.

User avatar
erikdr
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:14 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Teaching methods

Postby erikdr » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:59 pm

ER>My life-long experience is that materialist (as opposed to truly
ER> spiritual) people whom I meet
You seem of very limited experience erikdr. So there are only two types of people? spiritual or material?


Does seem so to be less a matter of different/limited experience than of limited interpretation in that experience. I may analyse things to be simpler than you - what's wrong with that?

Of course there are 4,000,000,000+ 'types' of people, but the main struggle inside each of them I perceive as between unselfishness and selfishness. Or, if you like, spiritual and materialist. Not directly being linked to religion - e.g. some humanists can be far more truly altruist/unselfish than some people calling themselves Xtian. And yes, true humanity exist - and for me is equated with true inner spirituality.

Personally I don't think religion/spirituality has ANY place in an academic institution - that is a private matter for the home/church and has nothing to do with academic learning.


Personally I see a big difference between education and academic learning. Academic learning is about those things that can be perceived as objective. Religion/spirituality is about things which are basically subjective, including the unselfishness-versus-selfishness dimension.

So whilst academic learning is an important element in education, MY conviction is that it's not complete. And whether your opinion is that the remainder needs to happen inside home/church or inside part of the education system - well that's a personal opinion. In the UK like in Holland 'private' schools like St. James and former Platoschool are allowed which combine academic and religion; government checks the minimum level of academic qualities. Here in Holland these schools account for about 40-50% of the overall community!
With folded palms,



<Erik>


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests