In answer to the question raised by the motives of people who have posted on the site: I am not interested in revenge or trying to bring down some havoc on the school. I did leave the school a very angry person and it took several years to be able to move beyond this, and I am very grateful to subsequent teachers at a FE college that allowed me to gain the academic qualifications needed to go on to University where my politics tutors encouraged debate, argument and active questions. I have not thought of St James for many years and when it comes up in conversation it is to demonstrate the danger of conformity and uniform thinking.
But the realities of what went on need to be acknowledged, recognised and understood. Not least because a number of children were damaged and have had difficulty in their adult lives. This fact alone deserves proper attention, reflection and redress.
To understand how the school has changed we need to look at how it has evolved. It was set up in the 70' s, a time of great social change and education was a key area of experimentation. A number of alternative styles of schooling were being developed and implemented. The parents of many of the children at St James/St Vedast thought that they were giving the greatest possible gift - an opportunity to be introduced to and immersed in the philosophy and practices that had brought meaning and sense to their own lives.
The days schools were started on a shoe-string with few resources and barely financially sustainable. The classes took place in the same place as the evening courses and so few traces of the school could be visible. Now there are buildings designed for school use, evidence on the walls of the students work, modern facilities such as science labs etc. Back then there were no games, toys, charts and pictures on the wall. No elementary reading material, no library. Nowadays it would be unthinkable to attempt to establish a school without the most basic of equipment and resources.
The main element in the school - in fact the whole raison d' etre was the ideological themes brought in from the SES. So the fixed point in the curriculum were vedic philosophy, sanskrit, meditation, behaviour patterns - particularly gender roles - as prescribed by the SES. Everything else was a later addition, to be fitted around these fixed points. I imagine that the key principles used by the current teachers in developing the school timetable are the lessons and courses needed to meet exam requirements, national curriculum guidelines etc. I would hope that the SES elements are now the add-in parts and not the other way round.
Sociological and psychological studies shows us that almost every individual is capable of acts of petty abuse, cruelty, physical violence and torture. Most famously there were the experiments at Standord University but only this week a study was published in the New Scientist in reference to how the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib prison could take place. (see link below).
For such abberant behaviour to emerge, several core aspects are needed
A strongly cohesive social population (the overwhelming majority of parents and teachers were members of SES), social acceptability of small offences which can lead to de-sensitisation and establish the normality of more extreme behaviour. The influence of authority figures such as the head teachers and SES leaders as well as peer pressure will have contributed to the atmosphere and climate in the school and set the permissable boundaries. Another important factor is a sense of stress or threat from external factors. Within SES and the day schools there seemed to be a strong sense that the external world would not accept their philosophy and would seek to undermine it. There were also constant financial pressures. This contributed towards a fortress mentality inside the schools and led to the permanent suspicion of a conspiracy to undermine the system. It is laughable now, but teachers used to state - quite without irony - that a range of behaviours from 'gossip' (meant talking among the children), wearing trousers, spending time with children from other schools etc were ' evil' and deliberate and wilful acts designed to bring down the school.
I would argue that all of these elements were clearly in place in the environment of the early days of the school but are not the same now. The current children and teachers are more heterogenous and not just drawn from the SES community, corporal punishment has been outlawed and there is an understanding of children's rights and strong public debate about the appropriateness of smacking and discipline. The head teachers have changed, the schools are well established and face few external threats or stresses.
But individuals who disagreed with the process will, over the years, have been marginalised and excluded. It would be useful to hear if there were any protests lodged by teachers about what they saw going on and why some teachers left. Other people who were active in the abusive behaviour are still in post, but because the social context has changed... perhaps no longer act in this way.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/041126/12/f7ea1.html