Jock's Place - education policy - Comments

Not sure they'd have to buy

Jock — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:10:01 +0000

Not sure they'd have to buy the assets, would they. Here at Brookes a few years ago we founded a non-charitable operating company for activities that are commercial, but it operates seamlessly out of the same premises. They could then pay a rent to the charity equal to the amount that a. needs spending on the assets from time to time and b. the pot that they currently hand out as bursaries. The charitable "arm" would then only be operating to help people in "necessitous circumstances" afford to attend the school run as a non-charitable business.

How do they stop being a charity?

Richard Gadsden — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:18:45 +0000

Their assets are charitable assets, so they'd have to create a commercial business, somehow find enough money to buy the assets (school buildings and the like) from the charity - at a fair price, mind you - and then operate as a business. Meanwhile there is then an education charity with a load of cash...

This is why they have to abide by whatever rules the government says.

Having been...

Jock — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:58:36 +0000

...at one myself, and on a scholarship to boot, I remember only too well the scare stories that the independent schools as a "movement" told us about Labour's plans (in the early eighties) for charitable status, so it would not entirely surprise me to find that the same is happening now. But the numbers belie the scale of the problem they claim they may face. It's as nothing to the efforts made to turn around my old school when it dropped from nearly 500 pupils to closer to 300 and which has now more than ever before.

New Charities regulations

Edis — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:17:36 +0000

When the new act was before Parliament an undertaking was made that no then-existing charities would be struck off when the new guidelines came into force. This has I believe been the advice given to enquirers by the Charities Commission since the new act came into force.

Consequently existing schools should be OK - if previous undertakings are honoured. It is new foundations that could suffer. Of course my interpretation may be wrong, or present ministers may be of a different mind...

I see what you are getting at...

Jock — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:28:36 +0000

...but you know, I think politics is as inherently evil and irredeemable as you seem to think religion is and yet I'm still here working from within. I am a trenchant critic ofmany of the policies and teachings of Rome because I am a living example that they are wrong on some things. It's kind of like being in the EU but wanting to radically reform it. Yes, it's an uphill struggle - all the moreso after 2000 years of corporate corruption of the core message. There again, I do think I am in a far better position than someone who has never been part of that institution to criticize it meaningfully.

At the more general level, the faith versus reason debate, I don't think it is particularly liberal to infer that someone with faith is somehow intellectually or emotionally deficient because they do have faith, which seems to be the tenor of your assertion that it constitutes harm to teach people about faith.

It was quite a divine revelation though - especially in his hunt uniform with the tight white breeches...:)

Hmm.. you wrote, "Anyway, I

Charlotte Gore — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 08:48:25 +0000

Hmm.. you wrote, "Anyway, I think the point is that I don't think it's done me any harm. In fact it may have made it easier for me to understand what I was doing when avowing myself an atheist to have a grounding in what I was deciding not to believe in."
This really is the basic problem with religions having access to children as far as I'm concerned. It turns it into an 'opt out' rather than an 'opt in' as an adult, and the state is a willing participant.
From my point of view, the fact that they 'got you in the end' does constitute harm - it demonstrates quite clearly how faith schooling normalises and de-sensitises children towards organised religion. What is the likelihood that you would have had your profound religious experience (I'm assuming that you had one of those 'divine revelation' moments or something similar) that caused you to become a Catholic after 10 years of atheism if you'd not had a faith-sponsored education and had heavy exposure to the rituals, customs and dogma as a child - if they'd not been familiar and comforting to you as an adult because of the memories from growing up?
What are the odds that you would have picked that particular religion if it wasn't for the education you had?
Obviously I can't prove causality - I have a reasonable amount of familiarity with Christianity myself just through television and other sources, but on the balance of probabilities it does seem difficult to imagine someone less familiar with Christianity having one of those 'divine revelation' moments that trigger spontaneous conversions or relapses into faith, or at least it's hard to imagine someone interpreting such an experience in the way that you did.
Of course I start from the basis that anything that keeps organised religions recruiting and alive is inherently a bad thing, so my opinion about the rights and wrongs of the state endorsing this practice is very hard. Still, being realistic, I have very little hope that we'll ever achieve separation of state and religion even in the UK.

I'm sure lots of groups are

Jock — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:06:31 +0000

I'm sure lots of groups are doing things in their own right. My real suggestion was to bring this all together with the £2m/£20m split of academy sponsor/government money to launch it as an "institution" in its own right - the Oxford University Virtual Academy for Gifted Children or something. Rather than, institutionally, poo-pooing the government's advances, they could have an opportunity to turn it around with a new idea. Only Oxford and Cambridge probably could/ought to do it I suspect, though others could participate.

The History Faculty at

Bernard — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:55:58 +0000

The History Faculty at Oxford has been experimenting with this sort of thing (although I won't put the URL up here, as it is for sixth formers not random blog-readers). The idea has plenty of potential, I think.

Equally in my case private

Jock — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 10:51:21 +0000

Equally in my case private schooling was a mixed blessing - in Kenya aged 8 I was doing maths and languages that I would not cover again until my O level year as they let me push on as fast as I was able, then returning to the UK this stultified as even the private school system was quite reluctant (perhaps especially in a boarding school) to allow people to get too far out of their age cohort. In retropect it would have been extremely difficult to fit in had I done Common Eantrance at nine or ten years old which was what Kenya was pushing me towards.

Who knows - maybe the

Jock — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 10:46:37 +0000

Who knows - maybe the Director of Development for one of Oxford's colleges will read this and suggest it? Stephen?

I know I had a huge

Tristan — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 10:24:00 +0000

I know I had a huge advantage from attending a private school (which my parents struggled to send me to, I might add - just to assuage the usual accusations, from certain sectors, of being a rich toff). There was an ethos of learning for its own sake, not because government set targets.

I came across many people from state schools applying for Oxbridge on open days and things, and they had a distinct disadvantage due to the teaching in their school, and sometimes an attitude of 'its no good, you're from a state school, no point in applying' and inverse-snobbery from teachers.

I think the virtual academy sounds like a great idea. I'm sure that there are people in Oxbridge who'd love to have this sort of system - many are concerned by the lack of state school pupils and applicants and many are also concerned with wider education beyond the Universities.

Another reason for reluctance in sponsoring Academies is the fact that it would give the government more power over aspects of the Universities. I know many in Cambridge are growing increasingly dissatisfied with government intervention in higher education.

I have resent my email

paulus — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 08:49:51 +0000

I have resent my email through your "contact form". If you still don't receive it try emailing me. There is a link on my profile on my blog.

Good luck

Paul

Richard...

Jock — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 20:04:57 +0000

...maybe. I suspect there's something in that. But that's just it isn't it, just how do people gain a perception of what is happening in those "worst places" other than through the media coverage. I know here in Oxford people do down the likes of Blackbird Leys, and feel justified in doing so when they see the odd, very odd, violent incident reported there, reported in the local press. But I doubt in reality there's any more crime per head there than elsewhere in the city. It doesn't stop people talking as if Blackbird Leys is a hell on earth!

Hi Paul

Jock — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:43:54 +0000

...actually I didn't receive a message from you - am I right in assuminng you mean you sent it using my "contact form"? If so I've worked out why, and now am left wondering how many more messages I've missed - it was being sent to a non-existent e-mail address which has now been rectified. I just had a look at the article on media and terrorist hype, which is far better written - more considered and better researched - than anything I write! But it makes absolute sense to me.

Effect of the press

paulus — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 17:59:00 +0000

You were kind enough to put a very flattering note on my blog post about Rhys Jones's sad death. I hope you have received my e-mail thanking you. I put it on your main web site. I don't know if you have seen an earlier post of mine about the way in which the press and politicians whip up hysteria. It is relevant to what you say here and it may be of interest: http://www.thinkhard.org/2007/08/the-terrorist-a.html As I read more of your blog I find myself agreeing with much you have to say.