Main

March 27, 2008

Idiotic response to a positive proposal

Five Chinese Crackers covers the tabloid response to the recent NUT faith education proposal. I did start writing a piece after reading the Guardian's write-up of it, by which account it seems to be a reasonable and moderate proposal, but didn't read the Express's website or the Mail's coverage. The Spew not only used the headline "Koran to be taught in schools", as if it were going to be taught in all schools to everyone, but they titled their on-line "Have Your Say" page on the subject "Should imams teach our children?" and accompanied it with a scarily-lit picture of Abu Hamza.

Continue reading "Idiotic response to a positive proposal" »

March 5, 2008

It's not just Jersey

Over the past couple of weeks, a scandal has emerged of a serious culture of child abuse at a major children's home on Jersey, Haut de la Garenne, which was closed several years ago and, until a body was discovered there two weeks ago, functioned as the island's youth hostel. Jersey is an island off the coast of France, part of a group of self-governing mini-states which are British Crown dependencies or "bailiwicks", which are British protectorates in foreign policy terms but are outside the European Union, have their own laws, and are tax havens. (The Isle of Man is another such entity.) Jersey has a population of just over 90,000, and the home would have "looked after" a large proportion of the children who were "in care" on the island when it was open.

Continue reading "It's not just Jersey" »

January 23, 2008

Monbiot on public school damage

Only class war on public schools can rid us of this unhinged ruling class - Guardian Unlimited

George Monbiot wrote this article in yesterday's Guardian, outlining the damage that boarding schools, especially boarding prep schools do to kids, who eventually become the British élite:

British private schools create a class culture of a kind unknown in the rest of Europe. The extreme case is the boarding prep school, which separates children from their parents at the age of eight in order to shape them into members of a detached elite. In his book The Making of Them, the psychotherapist Nick Duffell shows how these artificial orphans survive the loss of their families by dissociating themselves from their feelings of love. Survival involves "an extreme hardening of normal human softness, a severe cutting off from emotions and sensitivity". Unable to attach themselves to people (intimate relationships with other children are discouraged by a morbid fear of homosexuality), they are encouraged instead to invest their natural loyalties in the institution.

This made them extremely effective colonial servants: if their commander ordered it, they could organise a massacre without a moment's hesitation (witness the detachment of the officers who oversaw the suppression of the Mau Mau, as quoted in Caroline Elkins's book, Britain's Gulag). It also meant that the lower orders at home could be put down without the least concern for the results. For many years, Britain has been governed by damaged people.

I went through this system myself, and I know I will spend the rest of my life fighting its effects. But one of the useful skills it has given me is an ability to recognise it in others. I can spot another early boarder at 200 metres: you can see and smell the damage dripping from them like sweat. The Conservative cabinets were stuffed with them: even in John Major's "classless" government, 16 of the 20 male members of the 1993 cabinet had been to public school; 12 had boarded. ... They recognise each other, fear the unshaped people of the state system and, often without being aware that they are doing it, pass on their privileges to people like themselves.

The system is protected by silence. Because private schools have been so effective in moulding a child's character, an attack on the school becomes an attack on all those who have passed through it. Its most abject victims become its fiercest defenders. How many times have I heard emotionally stunted people proclaim "it never did me any harm".

I also went to boarding school, and I remember acutely the distress of the first few days and the stress of most of the rest of the period. I certainly agree that boarding prep schools are damaging to children, who need their family around them, the love of their parents and siblings, if they have them, and not to be sleeping in a dorm full of ten other kids. However, this is not the only reason why the "public" boarding school system produces many who fiercely defend it. After all, people do not get into major universities and high-paying jobs only by doing well at these schools; they get there mainly by virtue of staying the course.

What adults who remember school usually remember best is the last few years, and in the last few years the "discipline" and abuse is much less and the privileges much more. They may well be allowed out more, allowed to socialise with adults more, and allowed more personal space, than they were as 11-year-olds, let alone prep-schoolers. More importantly, they may well have become prefects. This usually means being able to inflict petty inconveniences on younger pupils, or just those out of the loop, but in some schools prefects are allowed to issue orders to staff as well. At university, I met the former head boy of the Royal Hospital School in Suffolk, who told me that he had used this privilege once (and had to inform the teacher in question that this was in the rule book). In past generations, prefects were able to issue beatings to younger pupils, and there is still a system of younger pupils acting as servants to senior ones.

So, it's not surprising that somebody who remembers a time when he could lord it over younger pupils thinks it did them no harm, even if the first couple of years was unpleasant.

January 16, 2008

Segregation and apartheid ... in the UK?

Recently it's become fashionable for people concerned about the state of our country to talk of something called segregation. Trevor Phillips, in a famous speech in 2005, which touched off the phony debate on multiculturalism, told us that we were "sleepwalking into segregation". The day before yesterday, Dr Anthony Seldon, a biographer of our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who also happens to be the headmaster of a famous "public school" (meaning an elite private school), alleged that schools like his perpetrate some sort of educational "apartheid" in a speech to a headteachers' conference, and this includes state-run grammar schools, which still exist in a few places like Kent.

Continue reading "Segregation and apartheid ... in the UK?" »

November 13, 2007

Another girl victimised over religious dress

BBC NEWS: 'Bangle' pupil is excluded again

This is a report about a Sikh girl, aged 14, who has been excluded from school in south Wales for insisting on wearing the kara, or bangle, which is mandated in the Sikh religion. The school she goes to, Aberdare Girls', also bans headscarves. (Something similar happened to my sister when she started school; the school would not allow her to wear her Baptism bracelet, which had to be cut off as it could not be removed any other way.)

Is it not about time these people were put in their place? They are there to teach, and to get young people through exams so they can get into other institutions and into jobs. Schools are not private charitable foundations staffed by volunteers; they are institutions funded by public money, staffed by functionaries, and often governed by local "worthies" who just want another entry on their CV. Why on earth should they have the right to pick and choose who they teach, as long as people aren't beating each other up or smashing the place up?

And it is a lie that refusing children the right to wear obvious signs of religion ensures equality, much as it is not true that enforcing a uniform does that. Anyone who has ever been to school know that kids are very well able to identify other kids' differences; where they live and how they talk are a pretty good sign that a kid is a "snob", kids can be singled out if they don't want to mix or don't care for what everyone else likes, and as for religion, it is a constant of human civilisation. That's not going to change because people are prevented from obeying whatever parts of their religion that demand showing signs of it. Is it not time that people just got used to it? Take this girl back into the school as she obviously wants to go - I'm sure you've got plenty who don't - and do the job you're paid for!

November 12, 2007

Shocking

BBC NEWS: Former head sentenced for cruelty

This loathsome creature, who ran a dumping ground, I mean special school, for children with special needs in Norfolk - not a million miles from the place I went to - has got away with a suspended sentence (that is, he will have to do the sentence only if he gets into trouble within the next two years, which is unlikely as he is ill and dying) for abusing them in the 1970s and 1980s. This abuse included being forced to eat their own vomit, to fight each other for the entertainment of other pupils and staff, and to destroy the birthday presents they had received.

Why is it that the courts, when dealing with decrepit old child abusers, show them more mercy than they ever showed the children they mistreated? This is the same scandal as happened with Sister Alphonso (Marie Docherty), a Catholic nun who was convicted of assaulting several children in her care but still walked free from court in 2000 because of her age (only 58!) and illness. Such people, including this man and this one, should be sent to jail, and if they die in jail because they got away with it for long enough, so be it.

November 11, 2007

The Kesgrave Hall sex scandal

Technorati Tags: ,

Every so often I do a Google search for the name of my old school, Kesgrave Hall. (Even before Google came online, I used to search for it using other search engines like Infoseek back in the mid-1990s.) The first thing I found out was that the building had been taken over by a timber company called KDM, which had turned the old dining hall into a "high-tech" timber trading hall (you can find some more pictures of the place here, mostly posted by an old boy). Then they moved on, and the building itself was taken over by the Ryes School, a special needs institution based near Sudbury. Then they moved on (because the education department decided it was too big for purpose), the building went up for sale and adverts appeared in Country Life among other places, and this year it got sold to the Milsom's restaurant chain, which own a number of posh restaurants and small hotels in Essex. They intend to call the new place "Milsom's at Kesgrave Hall", which to me has a similar ring to "the Factory Lane Ritz", the latter being the site of the rubbish tip in my old home town of Croydon.

As for the school, this week I found out something quite different, not about the building as such but about the school: a man was tried, and then convicted, this week for sexually abusing someone there. The man, just in case the newspaper's website pulls the story, is one Alan Stancliffe, aged 68, from Pontefract in Yorkshire, who already had several other convictions dating from 1982 and 1999 for sexual abuse at Kesgrave. Admittedly this happened in the late 1970s, a decade before I arrived, but I found it somewhat disturbing but not altogether surprising.

Continue reading "The Kesgrave Hall sex scandal" »

October 21, 2007

Defending written Arabic

New Statesman - The talking cure

This is a review by Samir el-Youssef, a regular in the New Statesman, attacking a new book entitled Why Are the Arabs Not Free? by Moustapha Safouan (a slim volume at only 128 pages), which seems to blame the problem of repressive Arab world politics on the fact that the language of the educated people, standard written Arabic, is inaccessible to the masses:

The disparity between written and spoken Arabic is so great that talking to an audience is often a discouraging test for Arab writers. To use the vernacular, one would probably have to avoid sophisticated arguments and deep thoughts. But to talk in standard (written) language is to risk sounding pompous and rhetorical - and, worst of all, to fail to reach those who have had no school education. Given the high level of illiteracy in the Arab world, this means losing the attention of a great proportion of the public.

The dilemma is particularly daunting for those of us bilingual Arab writers who, through writing in English or French, have become used to the idea of written and spoken language being the same. The Franco-Egyptian writer Moustapha Safouan's solution to the problem is a call for writers to abandon standard Arabic and use the spoken dialects instead. Safouan claims that writing in rarefied standard Arabic is a major cause of the absence of freedom and democracy in the Arab world. He calls this the "politics of writing" - written language is the privilege of the elite, the educated few who are faithfully in the service of their paymasters: the despotic Arab rulers and their political regimes.

However, the reviewer has no time for Moustapha Safouan's proposal:

Arguing for writing in Arabic dialect, Safouan makes many refutable claims. He claims standard Arabic is a dead language - so how do we explain the fact that poets such as the Syrian Nizar Qabbani and the Palestinian Mahmoud Darwish, both elegant writers of standard Arabic, have been read and recited by millions of people across the Arab world? His claim that Arab rulers prevent the use of dialects is also absurd: many poets of the vernacular were and have been pampered by Arab regimes; the Egyptian Salah Jaheen was a star during the Nasser era, the Iraqi Muzafer al-Nouab has been a most welcome guest at the court of leaders such as Muammar Gaddafi and the late Hafez al-Assad.

Safouan's call for writing in dialect is familiar and has long been discredited; apart from using it in the performing and popular arts, attempts to write in spoken Arabic have proven to be a miserable failure. Above all, standard Arabic has for decades served as a potent means of political dissent for Arab opposition movements and individuals. Thousands of writers and journalists have been prosecuted in the Arab world not because they tried to write in the spoken language but because of what they have tried to say in, quite often, an eloquent standard Arabic.

Given that the peoples of Europe mostly speak derivatives of Latin, German or Norse and Slavonic which are far more divergent from each other than the various dialects of spoken Arabic are from each other or from written Arabic, and that all these languages have spoken variants which are distinct from the written (Geordie and Scots from written English, for example), and yet our politics (at least right now) are generally liberal and democratic, I do not see how abolishing standard Arabic could contribute to anything but the disconnection of Arabs from different parts of the Arab world from each other. I'm not familiar with this Moustapha Safouan and don't know what his attitudes to religion are, but proper Arabic is a vital key to maintaining access to Islamic knowledge. Surely the key to fostering understanding among Arabs is improving education, not dumbing-down their language.

August 2, 2007

Differing standards?

BBC NEWS: Abuse conviction concerns raised

This story is about a man who had been in court as an expert prosecution witness in the trial of two staff members at a school for disturbed teenagers in Ayrshire (Scotland), but was not called to give evidence after voicing his dissatisfaction with some of the prosecution's evidence. The men in question may or not be guilty, but this paragraph is particularly telling:

He claimed the staff at Kerelaw were judged by standards of behaviour which did not apply in the 1980s and 90s, when the abuse was supposed to have happened.

Back then the idea of the short, sharp shock was in favour. This would have included restraint techniques which would not be acceptable today.

I was in a special boarding school (Kesgrave Hall in Suffolk, not Kerelaw) from 1989 to 1993, which is the time period under discussion. Corporal punishment in schools had been made illegal in 1987, but at my school, physical violence was common. Older boys, including prefects, dished it out with impunity, sometimes in public, and some of the staff members were foul-mouthed, surly and sometimes physically abusive as well. I remember a care worker issuing public foul-mouthed rants and threatening to "beat the shit out of" someone if he caught them spreading rumours about him.

Throwing kids round rooms was not socially acceptable in the late 1980s and 1990s. These people did it because they thought they could get away with it - and they did. I don't know about the situation at Kerelaw, but the picture fits perfectly with what I know.

July 18, 2007

Silver Bling Thing

Ministry of Truth » Silver Bling Thing

Until I read the above blog article, I was planning to write an entry about how I supported Lydia Playfoot's campaign to be able to wear a silver ring to school, as part of one of those no-sex-before-marriage campaigns the Evangelical churches are fond of. While I have my reservations about the SRT and about all those campaigns, I don't see why wearing a ring to school should be a reason why a girl should be suspended or expelled - uniform or no. I'm also a long-standing opponent of uniforms themselves, because they are often uncomfortable, they make kids stand out to pupils of other schools, because they are expensive, because the claims made for them (like masking social divisions) don't stand up (as if you can't identify a child's social class by where they live and how they talk), and because they exist solely for historical reasons, and several countries (including Canada and much of Europe) do perfectly well without them.

But it turns out that this isn't a righteous rebellion against the tyranny of school uniforms at all, but what seems to be a publicity stunt. The girl's mother is actually the SRT's UK company secretary, and her father is their Parents' Programme Directory, and both work with SRT UK's managing director, Andy Robinson, who is also handling media enquiries in conjunction with a Bournemouth-based PR company. (Lydia Playfoot lost her case on Monday.)

June 24, 2007

Who said evolutionists are liars?

New Statesman - Time Out with Nick Cohen: Steve Jones

Nick Cohen interviews Steve Jones, professor of biology at University College, London (the same professor who did the anti-Creationism speech at Hay on Wye last year, which I commented on here). Cohen looks like an ideal interviewer for Steve Jones, because they share the same attitude of lofty derision for religion. Towards the end, he comes up with this pathetic straw man argument against his Muslim students who don't agree with him about evolution:

Creationism, once an unthinkable mental deformation for educated men and women, is flourishing among his Muslim students, who are forbidden from accepting the basic premises of their subject. When the publishers of a Turkish edition of Almost Like a Whale flew him out, he was astonished when they told him that the Islamic government saw evolutionary theory as a challenge to its rule, and introduced him to his bodyguards. I ask how he copes with students who come to university with closed minds. "At the end of the course I ask, 'Was I lying to you about chromosome structure?' and they say no. Then I say, 'Was I lying to you about cell structure?' and they say no. So I ask why on earth they think I'm lying to them about evolution, and of course they can't answer, because they're not allowed to."

I can't speak for all Muslim biology students at UCL or anywhere else, but I'm sure most of them don't think he's actually lying to them about evolution - just that he believes something that's wrong. Of course, we'll believe straightforward facts such as chromosome or cell structure, because their existence is demonstrable with the use of the eye and common scientific instruments. This is not the case with evolution; isn't the difference rather obvious?

June 12, 2007

Imam training and terrorism

'Imams are not the solution to terrorism' - Education Guardian

An article which appeared in today's Guardian Education supplement, featuring an interview with Shaikh Ibrahim Mogra, on why government funding for imam training may have no real effect on fighting terrorism:

"The problem is not imams and their countries of origin," says Mogra. "The tiny proportion of extremists usually have nothing to do with imams. Anyway, there is no guarantee that just because an imam is trained in the UK, he won't suddenly flip. Likewise, foreign imams are not necessarily extremists. The majority of imams are trained in the UK and in the next 20 years 90% will be British graduates. But there will always be a need for an expert from abroad." Mona Siddiqui, professor of Islamic studies at the University of Glasgow, says it is wrong to assume imams are the buffer between extreme Islam and secular education. "People who are involved in extremism will not usually involve their imam," she says. "Imams are not the solution to the problem of terrorism."

June 7, 2007

"Cultural separatism" and the Islamic studies conference

Islamophobia Watch - David Cameron accuses Muslims of 'cultural separatism'

David Cameron gave this speech at a conference on "Islam and Muslims in the World Today", hosted in London by Cambridge university earlier this week, an event also attended by Dominic Grieve, by Conservative party vice-chair Sayeeda Warsi, by Tony Blair and by the mufti of Egypt, Ali Gomaa. He began by telling everyone how successful Britain had been in the past in integrating minorities, notably the Ugandan Asians and the Jews in the early 20th century, and how the UK never had the violence between the Protestants and Catholics as happened on the continent. (More: Tariq Nelson.)

Continue reading ""Cultural separatism" and the Islamic studies conference" »

March 25, 2007

Times: rotting in failed schools

Minette Marrin: Sentenced to rot in their failed schools (Sunday TImes)

A case against another of this government's stupid recent ideas: keeping kids in school until they're 18. Theoretically, this is supposed to include the option of apprenticeship or training. In reality, for most kids it will mean two more years of school:

Bright schoolchildren and their teachers often talk of the relief they feel when the Asbo set leaves school at 16, so they can get on with their A-level classes in relative peace and quiet. Forcing class-wreckers to stay around would damage still further the chances of those children who want to study. The same applies to sending unwilling teenagers to colleges; they will undermine them. As for workplace training, the government has been making ambitious promises about apprenticeships for 10 years; why does it expect, suddenly, to be able to fulfil them now?

The same premise, of course, was used to justify refusing unemployment benefit to 16- and 17-year-olds under the Major government; they were supposed to go on Youth Training Schemes, but there simply were not enough of them. Ruining further education for decent kids and their teachers by keeping the riff-raff in when they want to be somewhere else is unconscionable. Perhaps in a few years' time if the present bunch are still in power, they will ruin universities the same way.

"Shaikh" Abdullah Faisal quoted Imam Abu Hanifa as saying that if you force someone to learn religious knowledge (or perhaps any knowledge) against their will, you are torturing them. In this day and age, if you force the unwilling and unreceptive to stay in education, you are not only torturing them, but everyone else as well. I have long been in favour of reducing emphasis on secondary education (even lowering the leaving age) in favour of adult education for people who decide to go back into training or education when they are more mature and know what they want from life. This way, you can keep the schools, above a certain level, for people who actually want to be there and can get something out of it.

February 22, 2007

Rebuttal to Daily Spew and response to Harry's Place

Five Chinese Crackers: More bullsh*t from the Express

Thanks to Osama Saeed, a comprehensive rebuttal of the garbage on the front page of yesterday's Daily Spew regarding the MCB's report (PDF) about how British Muslim pupils might be better served by the schools paid for out of their parents' taxes. As Osama notes, the BNP web site doesn't even bother to comment when linking to the Spew's article.

Continue reading "Rebuttal to Daily Spew and response to Harry's Place" »