Greenfields School: it's not looking good for Scientology

[Freeminds]

I had a wander over to the Department for Education website, to have a look at the league tables they publish, detailing the quality (or not) of instruction given at Greenfields School.

Greenfields School is an Applied Scholastics institution; the only one in the UK (AFAIK). It's located in East Grinstead, and exists to serve the needs of Scientology cultists, to whom East Grinstead is something of a Mecca, because of Stain Hill Manor.

The 'Study Tech' was created by LRH, and is based on a tradition of academic under-achievement that he started himself. But let's see what the government figures show, rather than the usual Scientology promotional material. (Raw data available here.)

First up, Greenfields is unusual in that it caters for children from 3-19. Most UK schools have a far narrower age range, requiring that children move on between distinct nursery, primary and secondary schools. But Greenfields will keep your kids in the only Applied Scholastics game in town... for anything up to sixteen years.

Next oddity... there are just one hundred pupils.

Scientology is, as we all know, expanding like never before. Straight up, vertical growth, just like that little guy on the soap box said. Right? Well, um... no. Despite this part of the UK being the cult hotbed (the Stain Hill Manor effect means that fully half of the UK's Scientology victims live in or near East Grinstead), there's just 100 children at the only Scientology school. (Scientology, millions of members in the UK? My arse.)

It's normal practice to split classes up, by year (age) but if this were done with Greenfields' 100 pupils, there'd be just six and a quarter in any given year. If you offer them options (German, History or Metalwork?) you'd have class groups so small that they'd vanish.

Moving on to look at the quality of education that a child can expect to get at the cult school, we see that for 2011, the key stat of "Percentage achieving 5+ A*-C GCSEs (or equivalent) including English and maths GCSEs" ... was 41%. By comparison, the pupils of the nearby Comprehensive school, Imberhorne Lane scored 70% in this stat. Their young people are quite simply better prepared to get jobs, or go on to study at university.

(When considering this, bear in mind that a Comprehensive school is generally nothing special. They don't get to pick and choose their pupils; it's just the place that anybody who lives in the catchment area can send their children. Snobbish people might say that comprehensives are something of a 'safety net', and don't perform as well as academies, technology colleges, faith schools and so on.)

Imberhorne Lane has 1,687 pupils registered, despite the narrower age range of 11-18. Clearly, Greenfields School - with just 100 pupils - is failing. The best news is that everybody knows it, and even some of the clams are sending their children elsewhere.

Seems to me that whenever you see the words "Hubbard" and "education", the word "fail" can't be far behind.

Let's not talk about the Greenfields teacher who got jailed for sex offenses in 1994 (OK, go on then, if you must...) It's the kids I feel sorry for. No wonder they end up being drafted into the Sea Org, after more than a decade of Hubbardian garbage presented as 'education'.

I'll end with a classic Scientology arrogance and fuckup story: Greenfields originally opened in Hammerwood in 1981... but it did so without planning permission, and the school was forced to move sites by the local authority.

Make it go right. Um.

Does anybody on ESMB have stories of their time at Greenfields they'd like to share?

[solo]

Note for info: there is another Scientology school - Walsh Manor School near Crowborough, which is for Sea Org children. It usually has less than 20 children. Of course, the numbers of children in the Sea Org have dwindled as members are no longer allowed to produce any, so yes, Greenfields School will be the main source of new recruits and they do not need any GCSE's to join the Sea Org.....

I noticed from the OFSTED report for Walsh Manor that the children are unusually well-behaved. I don't suppose the inspectors dug up any information about ethics conditions or amends projects being used to keep them in line. Sadly, the children will have been drilled to say all the right things to avoid a "pr flap" and to look as though all is well with them.

[RogerB]

Yes . . .

What a sad course of events for Greenfields.

In around 1978, maybe 1979, I contributed some Hundreds of Pounds British (money) to help establish it.

One of my God Children were among the first students. I forget the name of the lady (and she was a lady!) who founded the endeavor, but she was a qualified teacher and sane, and a class act.

The place began wonderfully . . . and then the CofS HAD to interfere, as it always does in any successful enterprise set up by $cn types, and take over or dominate its activities (even before WISE came into existence).

The moment the "church" put its ugly hand into the affairs of the show, it had problems.

One issue I do remember, was that the parents of my God child ran into "ethics difficulty" with the "church" . . . . now we are talking of a parent who had effectively run and carried out the UK Cof$ lobbying of Parliament caper for something like a couple of years as a GAS . . . this guy was a star and ace producer . . . . but he disagreed with some shit or other from "upper management" . . . so ethics trouble was the order of the day . . . . no matter that he'd spent serious personal money performing the Parliamentary lobby caper for some extended time. (He was also an OT3 completion, as was his wife, so not an inconsequential Being in the view of Cof$ hierarchy).

Guess what the first action performed by the Cof$ was vis a vis its great contributor?

It ordered my God son, the boy of our great contributor to the Cof$, to be removed from Greenfields (at age about 9-10) because of the "ethics" problems of the father!

The sons-of-bitches hit the kid because of some putative aggravation it had with the father!

Realize, at the time, Greenfields was not (dunno about now) part of the Cof$ . . . it was it's own thing but using LRH study principles!

This is so insane and evil as to be beyond belief! It totally disrupted the kid's school year . . . he had to find another school . . and what an impact on an innocent! Being told your parent is "not OK" and you have to suffer because of it.

Let me tell you . . . the Cof$ lost lots and LOTS of support and trust as a result of that particular incident . . . I know of 6 people (at least) who are out because of this particular incident.

Oh, yes, let it be remembered, it was our "charming" David Gaiman who came to tell the boy's parents they had to remove their son from Greenfields . . . it is to be noted that my friend and father of the boy, Marcus, reported to D. Gaiman, on his Parliamentary lobbying activities . . .which at the time time was done every week, at least, for a period of at least two years to my certain personally witnessed knowledge.

Of course CofS is too stupid to realize that it lost a LOT of support from good people due to this kind of caper . . . their idiot think is that they are "so powerful" they can dominate and make all subservient to them . . . . .

They have another big time lesson on that score coming

Pretty soon they will really realize you can't shit on people and get away with it . . .

In any event, on Greenfields . . . it was a wonderful opportunity where a very caring educationalist employing the best available of what Hubbard made available, was crushed, was taken over and the enterprise turned into a disaster zone by "know best artists."

RogerB

[Terril park]

Yes . . .

What a sad course of events for Greenfields.

In around 1978, maybe 1979, I contributed some Hundreds of Pounds British (money) to help establish it.

One of my God Children were among the first students. I forget the name of the lady (and she was a lady!) who founded the endeavor, but she was a qualified teacher and sane, and a class act.

The place began wonderfully . . . and then the CofS HAD to interfere, as it always does in any successful enterprise set up by $cn types, and take over or dominate its activities (even before WISE came into existence).

The moment the "church" put its ugly hand into the affairs of the show, it had problems.

One issue I do remember, was that the parents of my God child ran into "ethics difficulty" with the "church" . . . . now we are talking of a parent who had effectively run and carried out the UK Cof$ lobbying of Parliament caper for something like a couple of years as a GAS . . . this guy was a star and ace producer . . . . but he disagreed with some shit or other from "upper management" . . . so ethics trouble was the order of the day . . . . no matter that he'd spent serious personal money performing the Parliamentary lobby caper for some extended time. (He was also an OT3 completion, as was his wife, so not an inconsequential Being in the view of Cof$ hierarchy).

Guess what the first action performed by the Cof$ was vis a vis its great contributor?

It ordered my God son, the boy of our great contributor to the Cof$, to be removed from Greenfields (at age about 9-10) because of the "ethics" problems of the father!

The sons-of-bitches hit the kid because of some putative aggravation it had with the father!

Realize, at the time, Greenfields was not (dunno about now) part of the Cof$ . . . it was it's own thing but using LRH study principles!

This is so insane and evil as to be beyond belief! It totally disrupted the kid's school year . . . he had to find another school . . and what an impact on an innocent! Being told your parent is "not OK" and you have to suffer because of it.

Let me tell you . . . the Cof$ lost lots and LOTS of support and trust as a result of that particular incident . . . I know of 6 people (at least) who are out because of this particular incident.

Oh, yes, let it be remembered, it was our "charming" David Gaiman who came to tell the boy's parents they had to remove their son from Greenfields . . . it is to be noted that my friend and father of the boy, Marcus, reported to D. Gaiman, on his Parliamentary lobbying activities . . .which at the time time was done every week, at least, for a period of at least two years to my certain personally witnessed knowledge.

Of course CofS is too stupid to realize that it lost a LOT of support from good people due to this kind of caper . . . their idiot think is that they are "so powerful" they can dominate and make all subservient to them . . . . .

They have another big time lesson on that score coming

Pretty soon they will really realize you can't shit on people and get away with it . . .

In any event, on Greenfields . . . it was a wonderful opportunity where a very caring educationalist employing the best available of what Hubbard made available, was crushed, was taken over and the enterprise turned into a disaster zone by "know best artists."

RogerB

All you say is true.

Will get further date from one who had children there in earlier days.

[Boojuum]

Yes . . .

What a sad course of events for Greenfields.

In around 1978, maybe 1979, I contributed some Hundreds of Pounds British (money) to help establish it.

One of my God Children were among the first students. I forget the name of the lady (and she was a lady!) who founded the endeavor, but she was a qualified teacher and sane, and a class act.

The place began wonderfully . . . and then the CofS HAD to interfere, as it always does in any successful enterprise set up by $cn types, and take over or dominate its activities (even before WISE came into existence).

The moment the "church" put its ugly hand into the affairs of the show, it had problems.

One issue I do remember, was that the parents of my God child ran into "ethics difficulty" with the "church" . . . . now we are talking of a parent who had effectively run and carried out the UK Cof$ lobbying of Parliament caper for something like a couple of years as a GAS . . . this guy was a star and ace producer . . . . but he disagreed with some shit or other from "upper management" . . . so ethics trouble was the order of the day . . . . no matter that he'd spent serious personal money performing the Parliamentary lobby caper for some extended time. (He was also an OT3 completion, as was his wife, so not an inconsequential Being in the view of Cof$ hierarchy).

Guess what the first action performed by the Cof$ was vis a vis its great contributor?

It ordered my God son, the boy of our great contributor to the Cof$, to be removed from Greenfields (at age about 9-10) because of the "ethics" problems of the father!

The sons-of-bitches hit the kid because of some putative aggravation it had with the father!

Realize, at the time, Greenfields was not (dunno about now) part of the Cof$ . . . it was it's own thing but using LRH study principles!

This is so insane and evil as to be beyond belief! It totally disrupted the kid's school year . . . he had to find another school . . and what an impact on an innocent! Being told your parent is "not OK" and you have to suffer because of it.

Let me tell you . . . the Cof$ lost lots and LOTS of support and trust as a result of that particular incident . . . I know of 6 people (at least) who are out because of this particular incident.

Oh, yes, let it be remembered, it was our "charming" David Gaiman who came to tell the boy's parents they had to remove their son from Greenfields . . . it is to be noted that my friend and father of the boy, Marcus, reported to D. Gaiman, on his Parliamentary lobbying activities . . .which at the time time was done every week, at least, for a period of at least two years to my certain personally witnessed knowledge.

Of course CofS is too stupid to realize that it lost a LOT of support from good people due to this kind of caper . . . their idiot think is that they are "so powerful" they can dominate and make all subservient to them . . . . .

They have another big time lesson on that score coming

Pretty soon they will really realize you can't shit on people and get away with it . . .

In any event, on Greenfields . . . it was a wonderful opportunity where a very caring educationalist employing the best available of what Hubbard made available, was crushed, was taken over and the enterprise turned into a disaster zone by "know best artists."

RogerB

Great story RogerB! Says it all. Amazing how LRH had this bit of tech about the "Danger" formula and bypassing and the downfall of some country all because a senior had to bypass his juniors. The neat thing about Scientology, back pre-'82, or so, was the amount of new and interesting applications that people came up with. Lots of folks I met had dreams that Scientology was part of--music, teaching, science and the arts. A great deal of those dreams were semi-nutso but a lot of those Scienos had a lot of energy and the high energy level was the one thing that drew them in to the high energy of an org. And Scientology blew nearly every one of those folks right out the door by telling them what that couldn't do--ethics, comm evs, disconnections, mandatory attendance at events, police state tactics. And the dreamers left.

[Tom of Helatrobus]

Study tech has some neat components that have value. Critical thinking is not one of them, by the way. But the Scientologist put far too much emphasis on the "one size fits all" solution of looking up words, word clearing and demo kits. Of course is it typical arrogance of Scientologists to fail to incorporate other teaching/ learning techniques just because lrh didn't mention them.

[Gottabrain]

Study tech has some neat components that have value. Critical thinking is not one of them, by the way.... Of course is it typical arrogance of Scientologists to fail to incorporate other teaching/ learning techniques just because lrh didn't mention them.

Critical thinking is paramount.

Though I went to Catholic schools in the 60s & 70s, even Catholicism was addressed with critical thinking. In years 9-12, classes in Catholicism or Bible were not even mandatory, though they were offered as electives (your choice of classes after required basics).

"Women in Scripture" was one of the most enlightening, progressive and instructive courses in critical thinking I have taken in my life. The teacher gave us basic ideas of popular interpretations - from symbolic to literal - and we discussed our own conclusions, both positive and negative. We studied the time periods, we studied current women as role models and compared the cultures and expectations.

It was an eye-opener for me. Here a Catholic school was asking me to think critically of my own religion and teaching me how to do so.

Over the years, I've come across many of my fellow students from that school. We all felt that our education there - and most especially, the critical thinking, made us successful in life and able to overcome and survive any mistakes we made. Others from schools with less dedicated teachers did not fare as well. Suicides. Drug and alcohol addictions. Mental institutions. But none of my classmates met any of those horrible ends.

After leaving Scn, I fell back on that critical thinking. I am grateful to the nuns and teachers of that Catholic school, which is doing astounding well even today.

Any school that doesn't teach critical thinking has taken a vital survival tool from its youth - and leaves those children to go through life handicapped.

I hope Greenfield School closes soon. I wish all Scientology schools would - and any other religious or other institutions that would brainwash children into one prejudiced way of thinking instead of giving them a proper education and teaching them to think for themselves - preparing them for the world, life and a job - as a school is supposed to do.

[X-Member-Hooray]

Study tech has some neat components that have value. Critical thinking is not one of them, by the way. But the Scientologist put far too much emphasis on the "one size fits all" solution of looking up words, word clearing and demo kits. Of course is it typical arrogance of Scientologists to fail to incorporate other teaching/ learning techniques just because lrh didn't mention them.

Although I am not overly academic I think back to all those years of spending endless hours wading through the Dictionary, trying to comprehend every definition of so many words, which lead to more and more words. I dont think I ever found much benefit in this, although I appreciate having a slightly improved vocabulary. I really did not see any value in using demo kits. It was just moving about small objects. What sort of planet was I on to accept all this twaddle? If I had used a brain I could have gotten a PhD in the time I wasted on this garbage. I am interested to hear what others think of study tech.

Fortunately one thing I have ensured, is that my daughters have been brought up with proper analytical and problem solving skills and the ability to make wise decisions.

[RogerB]

Great story RogerB! Says it all. Amazing how LRH had this bit of tech about the "Danger" formula and bypassing and the downfall of some country all because a senior had to bypass his juniors. The neat thing about Scientology, back pre-'82, or so, was the amount of new and interesting applications that people came up with. Lots of folks I met had dreams that Scientology was part of--music, teaching, science and the arts. A great deal of those dreams were semi-nutso but a lot of those Scienos had a lot of energy and the high energy level was the one thing that drew them in to the high energy of an org. And Scientology blew nearly every one of those folks right out the door by telling them what that couldn't do--ethics, comm evs, disconnections, mandatory attendance at events, police state tactics. And the dreamers left.

Yep . . . all the "doers" have been wiped out, and all they have left are the "complyers" . . . . and complyers don't and can't come up with any bright ideas and they are typically poor producers to boot!

So, no coincidence Cof$ actual wanted stats are collapsed . . . the doers and producers have been driven off the lines.

That apart from the fact that the tech is in actuality incomplete and screwy. The further one goes with it, the greater the "overt product" produced.

R

[Axiom142]

Thanks for that story Roger, you really should write a book on your Scientology experiences.

Margaret Neal (previously Hodkin) told me that she had helped start Greenfields with (I think) Veronica Tupholme.

The way the cult treated the boy you mentioned, is truly disgusted. And to think that they are the first ones to complain of religious discrimination!

Greenfields is the default school for Scientologists to send their kids to and it has been shamelessly used as a recruiting pool for the Sea Org. The fact that the school has lost a significant number of pupils over the past few years is a reflection of the dwindling spiral that the cult is in.

I know of several parents who have taken their children out of Greenfields because they want to distance themselves from the cult.

Axiom142