List of affilated schools

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
Misty

Postby Misty » Sun Mar 14, 2004 12:44 am

I'm not sure if you have studies any classical epics or not.Perhaps my idea of class can be explaind by what I have experienced: just reading the Aenied I have found that it makes all the other books i have read even the great writers of today nothing compared to Virgil.

Who would look twice at reading classical myths and lisening to Mozart's great works if they had the option? The media does well promiting modern music of today... as well as the book. Just because the school teaches you about Greek myths does not stop one from reading other fictional books which are enjoyable, Including Harry Potter.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:25 am

Guest wrote:
May I ask what is the purpose for your research... im quite intriguied...


Certainly you may!

I believe the SES (and its various manifestations under various names in various countries) to be a dangerous and destructive cult masquerading as a school of philosophy. My own experience of physical and mental abuse in an SES-run boys? school, my observing of the physical and mental abuse of other pupils at the same school, and the many disturbing accounts that I have come across of victims of this cult, have all contributed to my belief that, unless it has radically altered its methods, this organisation should most definitely not be entrusted with the task of educating impressionable young people. The purpose of my research is to ascertain the extent of the SES cult?s involvement in educating children and whether their methods are much more enlightened than they used to be.

I must admit that quotations such as the following from the website of the Abraham Lincoln School in New York (http://www.abrahamlincolnschool.org/herald/00fall.htm) do not fill me with confidence!

At the Lower School Assembly, Mrs. Solowey asked what qualities could be seen in a photograph of Mr. MacLaren. With delight they offered "kindness," "truth" and "bliss." The threefold promise was then recited by the children, reaffirming their commitment to be truthful and live according to the fine laws of the Creation, the cornerstone of their education. The story of the lion who was raised with sheep, which the children know and love, was retold and they were reminded of the "real lion" that lies within each of us. In order to wake up to that, access to a "real lion," who reminds us of who we truly are, is needed. Mr. MacLaren is that "real lion" to anyone who knew him and all those who hear of him through their teachers.

a different guest

Postby a different guest » Mon Mar 15, 2004 1:11 am

Misty wrote:Who would look twice at reading classical myths and lisening to Mozart's great works if they had the option? The media does well promiting modern music of today... as well as the book. Just because the school teaches you about Greek myths does not stop one from reading other fictional books which are enjoyable, Including Harry Potter.


Well it does stop you in the sense that you seem to think that anything modern is not as good as Virgil or Mozart. And then ones asks others that are products of the SES and, funnily enough, they TOO think there is nothing modern as good as Virgil or Mozart. You may be "free" to enjoy Harry Potter, but what constitures excellence as already been defined for you. You have made no "choice" at all.

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Mar 15, 2004 8:09 pm

a different guest wrote:
Well it does stop you in the sense that you seem to think that anything modern is not as good as Virgil or Mozart. And then ones asks others that are products of the SES and, funnily enough, they TOO think there is nothing modern as good as Virgil or Mozart. You may be "free" to enjoy Harry Potter, but what constitures excellence as already been defined for you. You have made no "choice" at all.


You assume that I think there is nothing modern as good as Motzart, as I don't really listen to Mozart at all, I prefere the Jay-Z and the Beyonce type of music. Raghav, Futardo, RDB, B2K, Tupac, jaysean, Richi rich... the list is endless.....However Mozart is in itself totally different. Classical is not my faviourite genre of music, no matter how scietifically proven it is to say how clever it makes your child if you listen to Morzart while the baby is in ur womb. Or how plants grow better when you play classical music in a greenhouse.

You also assume that the SES made my choise up for me that because they too prefere Virgil, so do I. Well let's get this straight. I am not a member of the SES. I don't think I ever will be. As far I know they do not study Virgil, and when I wrote "compared to Virgil, other writers seems nothing", I wrote it from my own experience. The national board of exams, has put Virgil, as well as Homer and other greek writers on thier Classical civilisation sylabus, this, I am sure, is not in anyway influenced by the SES. It's a shame they are only on this slyabus, as I feel eveyone who does not read the works of these great writers are missing out.

I again repeat I was not in the primary school, and so I was not taught greek myths by teachers just for fun. When I was introduced to greek myths it was for my public exams.

Antises

Postby Antises » Mon Mar 15, 2004 10:14 pm

I second the views of the previous "Guest" - admiration of classics is not at all an SES trait. Studying classics has many merits, including an improved knowledge of the English language through study of Greek and Latin, greater understanding of our culture and society, and the ability to think logically which is recognized by employers. To claim that classics are not pertinent shows an unjustifiable level of ignorance. For example, I find it amazing how Tacitus, through his ironic writings on life under Nero, more vividly portrays the essence behind modern society than many writers of today. It is surprising how even time has not changed the way in which humans fundamentally think (e.g. the weapons might change but the mind behind human conflict is the same). That may seem an extraordinary statement to make, but I have concluded this from my own experience due to the study of classics, not from anything I have been told. I am not a member of the SES; indeed, I oppose it, but for reasons very different to the ones expressed thus far in these forums.

Antises.

P.S. In the spirit of the previous post, my current playlist includes: Alicia Keys, Asha & Lata, B21, Eva Cassidy, Norah Jones, Rishi Rich Project, TLC, Usher - the remix of Furtado's "Powerless" (ft. Josh) to which I am now listening sounds hilarious!

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Mar 15, 2004 10:24 pm

YEs yes Powerless!!!!!! Nelly Futardo ft Josh... it's better than the original version!

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Mon Mar 15, 2004 10:30 pm

Guest wrote:
However Mozart is in itself totally different. Classical is not my faviourite genre of music, no matter how scietifically proven it is to say how clever it makes your child if you listen to Morzart while the baby is in ur womb. Or how plants grow better when you play classical music in a greenhouse.



I'd like to point out that it is not scientifically proven that playing Mozart to an unborn (or already born) child makes that child any more intelligent. Neither is it scientifically proven that Mozart helps plants grow better. This is a popular myth promoted by the media's irresponsible reporting of some very badly-designed and badly-controlled studies. For sceptical information on this, I recommend this article (http://www.skepdic.com/mozart.html) from the excellent Skeptic's Dictionary.


BTW, I'm actually quite a fan of Mozart!

a different guest

Postby a different guest » Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:48 am

Anonymous wrote:. The national board of exams, has put Virgil, as well as Homer and other greek writers on thier Classical civilisation sylabus, .


Which makes perfect sense for senior students studying a course called "classical civilisation" - but the discussion had been about PRIMARY SCHOOLS.

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Mar 16, 2004 9:08 pm

a different guest wrote:
Anonymous wrote:. The national board of exams, has put Virgil, as well as Homer and other greek writers on thier Classical civilisation sylabus, .


Which makes perfect sense for senior students studying a course called "classical civilisation" - but the discussion had been about PRIMARY SCHOOLS.


and MY POINT was about why I like VIRGIL. As you claimed I did not CHOOSE to like him. MY POINT was you assmed WRONG.

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Mar 16, 2004 9:08 pm

*assumed

the annoyed

Postby the annoyed » Tue Mar 16, 2004 9:29 pm

There is nothing wrong about teaching children greek myths! Some of you go on about it as though it's the worst thing in the world... puuurrrrleaseee! If you don't want your child learning about greek myths don't send them to a school which teaches Greek Myths! For all we care prevent them from doing anything to do with classics!

a different guest

Postby a different guest » Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:43 am

Greek myths of themselves are not the problem. You miss the point. The myths are just indicitive of the narrowness of the curriculum. By concentrating on what the SES considers "fine" they are not exposing kids to the wide range of texts that they will need to be able to decipher as adults. Even primary school children should be exposed to a wide range of writing - learning to understand why certains types of writing are written the way they are etc.

The schools are also outdated in their teaching of hand writing. Teaching kids stick and ball first, and then moving them onto cursive script. Kids who learn print first will "revert" to print writing when under stress. But writing "print" is much slower than running writing - speed and neatness of writing can be vital in later years when sitting external exams. Teach a kid a cursive font from the very beginning - and the problem is solved.

Why in Australian schools are they teaching ancient Eurpean civilisations as their history curriculum to primary kids? It has no pertinance whatsover! They do teach some Australian history (as required to get state funding to fit in with state curriculum standards) but they only teach WHITE australian history.

Why teach Sanskrit? Schools in Australian all teach second languages that are commonly spoken here by migrants. Learning another culture's language helps you to understand that culture. This is vitally important in a country that is as multicultural that Australia is.

And as for studying Shakespeare - do the "fine" examples of work that they study include the plays with the fart and belch jokes?

the annoyed

Postby the annoyed » Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:17 pm

Corrent me if I'm wrong, but what 5 year old is going to be interested in what style a certian so and so writer writes? When I was that young, I was only actually interested in the story, who cares about the writer, who cares how he wrote a certian sentence, who cares what type of story it was, as long as the story was good I would be listeing, I suppose my concentratoin span was not so great at that age, or perhaps one would call me ignorant...??

I suppose in a way the schools are trying to keep the great stories of the dead alive, especially now when they are becoming so forgotten, I see no problem with that.

As for the hand writing system, I assure you that those who I know who have been in the junior school, do not print write especially under exam pressure!

Sanskrit is known to be the oldest language of the world. It also abounds with a lot of the philosophy and theology related views. The vedas were also written is Sanskrit. The Mahabharata being the longest epic ever written is too in Sankrit. The Vedas reflect upon many different levels of the society "Sanskrit perfectly depicted (and continues to depict) the social order of the day and offers clues to historical developments within the Society. The language has been used effectively describe the virtuous and the not so virtuous qualities of great men, women, kings and queens, the philosophers and Saints of the country." Even though one might not be interested in the vedas, having a GCSE in sanskrit is very impressive to universities aswell as employers. Latin and Classical Greek are also quite respected, however Sansrit is rare and so it seems more impressive. Studying one ancient language, even though it was on a basic level, still helps me today even!... learning the names of the different body parts to an understanding of an unrecognisible english word.

Much about different cultures can be learnt through R.E, or just observing the people around you!

The senior school is much more varried by the simple fact that one is able to handle so many different subjects when older.

a different guest

Postby a different guest » Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:48 pm

the annoyed wrote:Corrent me if I'm wrong, but what 5 year old is going to be interested in what style a certian so and so writer writes?

As for the hand writing system, I assure you that those who I know who have been in the junior school, do not print write especially under exam pressure!

Latin and Classical Greek are also quite respected, however Sansrit is rare and so it seems more impressive.

Much about different cultures can be learnt through R.E, or just observing the people around you!

.

1)
You don't understand what I am saying - I am not talking just fiction here. I am talking about being exposed to a wide variety of writing - fiction, newspaper articles, opinion writing, business writing, report writing etc etc. This gives the student an understanding of different ways written text is used and aids in critical thinking.

2) the few people "you know" is hardly statistically valid.

3) Not here they aren't - no one gives a rats

4) Language and intermingling is a far greater key to understanding a different culture than "observing" from some sort of ivory tower.

Misty

Postby Misty » Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:25 pm

I guess it depends upon what you like urself. People usually tend to laugh into the faces of those that study Sanskrit, others think quite highly of it.

It's like me, laughing at all those that study French, I despise it, only by the pure fact that I am RUBBISH at it.

Looking at it logically: Ancient languages are good.

Looking at it culture wise: Modern languages are good.

I guess we need a healthy balance. Am I wrong?


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest