A while ago now I read an article in the education section of The Times in the run up to release of the Good University Guide and was shocked to read an incredibly biased critique of the Boarding School system. This may seem sad and ridiculous but I was so incensed I chose to write a response to the letters section of The Times, even though it was always going to be too long to be published. Unfortunately the article was in print and I cant provide a copy of it to go with my response. So underneath I am simply posting the letter I sent; I have been contemplating a proper piece on my experiences at Boarding School so this will provide a useful warm-up, as well as an illustration of the kind of Journalism I abhor.
"I am writing in response to Stephanie Marsh’s article concerning the ‘emotional fallout’ of boarding school. I am 21, a current University student, and I was a member of the boarding system from the age of 10. Marsh’s article was, in my opinion, propagandist and misleading.
The content of the articles focuses on the experiences of those who are now aged up to 67 and whilst I take nothing away from the fact that the old boarding system – then unregulated – was a brutal, sexually inappropriate and damaging experience for many of today’s adults I feel there was no effort made to distinguish between the experiences of Anthony, aged 67, and myself. If this was an article that made it explicitly clear it was a critique of a previous boarding system, then of course I would be in support of it but the problem comes in that Marsh made no attempt to make that distinction with any conviction. Her token attempts to make a distinction were spineless and, whilst allowing her the illusion of impartiality, instead allowed the reader to be swept along in a rush of anti-boarding propaganda that is no longer relevant to modern day children.
The article focuses on the distressing tales of those haunted by their experiences but offers no counter story from a former pupil whom has led a perfectly happy and balanced existence.
The section I have the most issue with, however, is the closing section, the section that will most likely stick in the reader’s mind the longest. In it was a detailed testament by John, John voices his opinion, stating, ‘that today’s 8 year olds can bring their teddies doesn’t matter a jot’, as if to assert that this is the only apparent difference. This type of hyperbole is acceptable from a man who is clearly affected by his previous experiences and thereby maintains such a prejudiced view but it is not acceptable from Marsh, who leaves this statement unchallenged without any validation and instead simply allows it to be the lasting image of a modern day boarding experience. Marsh offers little or no evidence of the measures put in place to ensure that what these ‘boarding school survivors’ suffered no longer continues. The token mention of such regulatory bodies as the ICS and Ofsted is again just that, token, and in doing so removes any level of impartiality from the article. For an article with such an anti-boarding agenda to be placed in a newspaper of The Times’ calibre – especially in an issue so closely linked to education, as it was, and therefore at a time in which parents will genuinely be reading with impressionable minds concerning their child’s future- I think it is wrong to publish something so one-sided.
As is probably more than obvious this article has angered me and although some may argue I am too young to possibly understand the effect my experiences may have on me in later life that does not excuse the fact that I now regard my school days as what my dad always assured me they would be – ‘the happiest days of my life’. I entered boarding at 10 and yes the article surrounds those as young as 7 but the point I have to make is that I was not entered into the boarding system as a result of my parents abandoning me, but instead I entered it through envy, envy of the excellent time all my friends who had been boarding since the age of seven had been having without me. Far from a sexually corrupt military camp, as Marsh portrays it, my boarding experience was almost as if I had entered into the world’s longest sleepover with my friends. The staff were not perverted ogres but kind people who took a genuine interest in both my development in education and as a person. Maybe I am an exception? But I think not because all the friends I have gained along the way, and who now stand with me as friends for life, have much the same outlook as I and I am sure would be as equally incensed by Marsh’s article.
As a boarding school graduate I myself can happily be labelled as biased and given the opportunity I will want my children to have the chance to go to boarding school as I did but that for me is the sticking point. My bias is a personal opinion, I am fully aware that boarding is not for everyone but I am also aware that for some it is a great experience that they will cherish for the rest of their lives. As with everything there are two sides to every story and it is in portraying this that I feel Marsh has failed. One should reserve your biases for personal opinion but in writing an article that may have a genuine affect on people’s opinions I think it is unacceptable to provide anything other than information that is impartial and genuinely useful rather than that which is unfounded and scaremongering."
I was lucky enough to go to a great school named Canford and the online prospectus of this, I think, is proof enough that times have well and truly changed.
No comments:
Post a Comment