The 1996 report

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:10 am

Wow - that was really interesting to read. It certainly just furthers my assurance that my understanding of how things are run there are correct.

User avatar
bonsai
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:08 am
Location: London

Postby bonsai » Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:14 am

Free Thinker wrote:Wow - that was really interesting to read. It certainly just furthers my assurance that my understanding of how things are run there are correct.


I agree FT

This report has been vindication for me as to just how much the SES and St James have buried their heads in the sand and are prepared to blindly following their own self righteous and arrogant convictions. And vindication that they have known about plenty of the issues highlighted here despite protestations that what has been said here is the first they have heard.

I had entirely forgotten also about the "needs basis" for teachers' remuneration. If that doesn't smack of manipulation and cult behaviour I don't know what does.

I particularly like the appendix 5 where he describes the ideal St James student. It was something that was always known but very rarely said. St James and the SES have always been trying to create their own self sufficient community.

Bonsai

User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:04 pm

I had never heard of a "needs based" system. So that means that the teachers are paid based on what the school "feels" that they 'need" in terms of salary and benefits?

User avatar
bonsai
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:08 am
Location: London

Postby bonsai » Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:13 am

Free Thinker wrote:I had never heard of a "needs based" system. So that means that the teachers are paid based on what the school "feels" that they 'need" in terms of salary and benefits?


The point is that the teachers would claim not to receive a salary, more that their needs were catered for. To what level of need is entirely unclear. Certainly at least three teachers all used to reside in Eccleston Square, when the senior boys were there. This included Broadwith and the Hipshon family.

Bonsai

User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:52 am

I'm a bit unfamiliar with the locations of the schools. Does that mean the teachers were living on school property?

I grew up living in one of the School's (Big S stands for SES) properties but we paid rent and my parents didn't work for the school or anything.

User avatar
bonsai
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:08 am
Location: London

Postby bonsai » Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:34 am

Free Thinker wrote:I grew up living in one of the School's (Big S stands for SES) properties but we paid rent and my parents didn't work for the school or anything.


Yes Eccleston Square was the Senior Boys school property until 1996. I have no idea whether the teachers living there paid rent or not.

Bonsai

emmalu9
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:07 pm
Location: London

Postby emmalu9 » Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:01 pm

This is a fascinating thread, many thanks to M Goldschmied for making these materials available, and to Snowman and Daska for pointing them out. I am amazed there are not more responses to the report and letter by now...

I had left the girls school by the time the report was written and luckily never experienced the foundation group pressure, although I felt unable to leave my evening group whilst I remained at St James. I preferred to concentrate on the positives and continue going than have a confrontational conversation about leaving group. Good things about group evenings included: hanging around after school relatively unmonitored and flirting with boys, racing around the garden at Chepstow playing "it", stealing biscuits from cupboards in the girls changing room at Chepstow, throwing wet tissue to the loo celings at all ses properties (!) and of course snoozing during the boring sitting-down bit.

I remember a physics report I once received mentioned that my homework was appalling and the teacher wondered if it had anything to do with the fact that physics homework fell on my group night. It surely did but neither my teacher nor parents actually thought to do anything about it, strangely enough they were all in the ses.

Alban
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Postby Alban » Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:46 pm

bonsai wrote:...The point is that the teachers would claim not to receive a salary, more that their needs were catered for.


Yes, and not only financial needs, it seems!

A

sugarloaf
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:40 am

Postby sugarloaf » Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:46 pm

Can anyone who is currently in the SES enlighten us as to what effect - if any - the release of Marcos report has had?

As it covers a period up to not that long ago, and clearly implicates the SES and Lambie himself in gross mismanagement and irregular practices where the St james schools are concerned, I imagine he's not too happy about it.

Is there any discussion within the organisation, or is it being ignored as is the usual SES strategy when anything unpleasant is uncovered?

In a 'normal' organisation I imagine the leadership would be falling over themselves to explain their position on it.... !???

User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:45 am

Well, I was still in the SoPP in 1996 and I hadn't heard anything about the problems at St. James or the report. I was a young adult at the time but my mother hadn't either, and she was a senior member. So I dare say they managed to keep it pretty much under wraps.

User avatar
ET
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:49 am
Location: Gloucestershire
Contact:

Postby ET » Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:37 pm

Finally read the report yesterday, and it certainly makes interesting reading. Certain parts I found completely amazing - like the fact that teachers' salaries were evaluated according to need! No wonder many of them were so screwed up, having to live close to the poverty line whilst holding down a full time, highly demanding job at the same time as full time SES commitments. Although there will never be an adequate excuse for what they did to us all, this is at least some kind of possible reason.

Another interesting section is the one about exactly what role the governors had in the day to day running of the schools - basically no role whatsoever. So much for the SES claiming not to run the schools in any way.

I must say I was impressed by Marco Goldschmeid's bravery in writing this highly critical report in the first place - surely the governors cannot have expected something so damning of the way the schools were being run at the time. Well done him for standing up to them, and proving that at least one of the governors was trying to do his job properly.

I too wonder if anything has been done since the report. It would seem that at least some of the teachers in the senior schools are now non-SES members - something which was strongly called for in the report. However, one of the more staggering points made was that because the SES "philosophy" lessons were not part of the curriculum then those classes were not inspected by the Independent Schools Inspectorate. If this is true, then it renders the schools' argument that their inspection reports are glowing (and therefore everything is fine) completely pointless, at least as far as our claims of indoctrination and brainwashing go. I also wonder whether the non-SES teachers are teaching the "philosophy" lessons, or whether those are left to SES-member teachers only.

Incidentally, there is one point in the report I would like to have qualified by Mr. Goldschmeid or anyone who knows anything about the report.

In the section about the Foundation Ceremony on p.25:

"The headmaster of the Senior boys admits he rates boys according to Foundation Group entry. A boy who does not take the ceremony and attend SES is likely to be made head prefect, whatever other qualities he has." (my emphases)

Is this correct? Or should it read "...is less likely to be made head prefect,..."

I just want to know where the headmaster of the Senior Boys (presumably Boddy) was coming from at the time - pro or anti boys who were in the Foundation Group.

On a less serious note, my sister and I were both reduced to fits of giggles when we read on p.19 about the "Hindu feel", as when I first read it out to her we both were left wondering what this "Hindu feel" was - some kind of strange Indian massage technique perhaps? It took us both a few seconds to realise what it actually meant! I know, duh, but it was late and we were very hot!

:lol:
Pupil at St James Girl's School from 1979-1989, from age 4-14. Parents ex-members of SES.

Snowman
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:31 am
Location: London

Postby Snowman » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:30 am

ET wrote:"The headmaster of the Senior boys admits he rates boys according to Foundation Group entry. A boy who does not take the ceremony and attend SES is likely to be made head prefect, whatever other qualities he has." (my emphases)

Is this correct? Or should it read "...is less likely to be made head prefect,..."

I just want to know where the headmaster of the Senior Boys (presumably Boddy) was coming from at the time - pro or anti boys who were in the Foundation Group.


Hi ET

I think that you have spotted an error and you are probably correct that it should read "...less likely to be made head prefect."

Debenham was headmaster at the time and from my experience this was true. As a member of the Foundation group you were considered to be on the correct path, a potential Leader of the new renaissance through the SES - a notion that so obsessed Debenham.

I joined the foundation group for a variety of reasons and one of them was that I truly wanted to be a part of the new renaissance. In reality it was nothing more than the fantasies of a few old men embarking on a huge ego-voyage; the irony of which is beautifully poetic, though probably lost on them.

It's funny how these things that seemed so normal at the time seem so pathetically preposterous now. When the bubble of delusion bursts it is at first frightening and then, in time, becomes amusing. This transition was confusing, humbling, maddening and left me with extremely low confidence and self-esteem. But now 12 years on I am able to understand it better, accomodate the experience and be at peace with it.

There are still many people who deserve apologies from me for the treatment I gave them borne of my arrogance and certanty that I was more enlightened and aware because of my SES/St James education. So I guess that humility has played a huge part in my journey to reconciliation within myself and that was never taught at St James or the SES; the obsession with hierarchy and classification as demonstrated by Debenham and MacLaren devalued humility.

Free
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:30 pm

Postby Free » Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:23 pm

<delete>
Last edited by Free on Wed Oct 05, 2011 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

stiltrubld
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:26 pm

Re: The 1996 report

Postby stiltrubld » Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:09 am

I have read some of Marco Goldschmied's 1996 report and am deeply concerned about some of the issues in it. In particular where he states that:

‘There appear to be a number of covert categories of St. James pupil. Covert inasmuch as they are “hidden" in the minds of teachers, headteachers and senior SES personnel. What makes the issue intractable is that almost all the people in authority in SES and St. James would deny that any such classification exists. As matters stand St. James is much closer to a sect than to the open and fully "independent" school that its name and prospectus imply. This cannot be changed until all holders of the idea a) Acknowledge its existence and b) Undergo a process of purification to remove the divisions that it causes.’ Appendix 5, p45

Full report can be found at: http://reference.ses-forums.org/?p=201

stiltrubld
SES: 1990 - 2009 London (Female)


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest