Talk:Maharishi School, Lancashire

Potential Source
The Guardian

TM - mandatory or optional?
Article text:
 * ''According an article in the Guardian, the school does not require students or their parents to learn TM.
 * Guardian, For the Record, June 19, 2011, Retrieved June 2011
 * Guardian, For the Record, June 19, 2011, Retrieved June 2011

Source texts:
 * Each child will learn and be regularly practising transcendental meditation prior to the first day of school. Parents must also commit to learn to meditate.
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/11/michael-gove-free-schools-middle-class
 * Contrary to a panel on schools, the Maharishi School in Ormskirk, Lancashire, will not require a child to learn transcendental meditation before being made an offer of a place and parents are not expected to learn to meditate ("Gove's free schools will divide pupils by social class, warn headteachers", News).
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2011/jun/19/observer-for-the-record


 * It is acknowledged that the success of Maharishi School as reflected by the success of its pupils is dependent upon the unique Consciousness-based Education curriculum and principles embedded in our day-to-day activities. This curriculum includes the daily practice of Transcendental Meditation as taught exclusively under the auspices of the Maharishi Foundation. Although it is not expected that each child will be practising Transcendental Meditation (TM) prior to being offered a place at the School, each child will learn and be regularly practising TM prior to the 1st day of their first term at the School. The School will be happy to make arrangements for this for you once you have received an offer of a place, and there will be no charge for any pupil learning TM to attend the School. It is expected that at least one carer/parent also learn TM at the same time as the child. Experience has shown that not only does this enable a parent to understand and support the child’s experience and growth, but also results in significant benefit to the parent. Should the child’s circumstances preclude a parent or carer learning, as in the case of a child in public care, then this condition can be waived.
 * Maharishi Free School: Admission and Oversubscription Policies

While The Guardian was told that TM would be optional, the school's own website, apparently updated since the conversion to a free school, says that TM is mandatory for students and is expected but not required for parents. I suppose the right way to handle this would be to keep the Guardian assertion and add that the school's website says differently.  Will Beback   talk    23:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the word 'may' in relation to pupils practising Transcendental Meditation - the school's website clearly states that it is required. The Guardian article is out of date - practising TM is part of the admissions criteria according to the schoolYellowcrocus (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But the Guardian article is still cited in the text: According an article in the Guardian, the school does not require students or their parents to learn TM. We should either date it and add a "however" or remove it entirely.   Will Beback    talk    17:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Have removed the reference to the Guardian - it is confusing as it is incorrect. Yellowcrocus (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for straightening out this confusion.   Will Beback    talk    20:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed text
I placed but then removed this text from the last sentence in the History section (about expansion plans). I'm not sure if it adds anything distinct, and if History is the appropriate section for it: "A parent supportive of the proposal cited the school's track record, saying, “Its GCSE results are in the top 2.5%" in the nation. Octopet (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple of queries
a) Is the school in Lathom or Skelmersdale? The school says Lathom, various external sources give Skelmersdale, I'm not clear on the distinction.

b) "...in one of England's more affluent areas". This statement is sourced to Channel 4's factcheck blog, but it seems quite surprising - while there are affluent pockets in West Lancs, such as Tarleton, my understanding was that the immediate region around Skelmersdale wasn't one of them. This report suggests that Skelmersdale North, which as far as I can tell from the map is the ward the school's in, is in the bottom 20% nationally by income. I'm not sure why Channel 4 concluded the direct opposite - perhaps they classed it in Newburgh? Either way, it might be worth omitting this comment. Shimgray &#124; talk &#124; 19:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your concern, Shim. I have read through a few of the other references used in the article, and they all talk about the Maharishi School in Skelmersdale. However, the address give on the official school web site gives Lathom as the postal address. I think the school is "physically" in Skem. --BwB (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With reference to the Channel 4 source, the text in the article is supported by the source and thus conforms to Wiki policies. --BwB (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've had some trouble finding a map saying exactly what "Lathom" covers - it looks like it's a hamlet with an associated parish which may extend through a lot of the open areas outside Skelmersdale to the north and west. The school itself (per peering at aerial photos) is physically outside the Skelmersdale urban area by ~200m of fields, but definitely much closer to it than it is to Newburgh or Parbold. This sort of ambiguity seems fairly common for schools; a lot of them give themselves as located in a small village or suburb, but are then described by others as being in the associated town.
 * Regarding the affluence or otherwise... given the immediate proximity of such sharply deprived areas, saying that the school is in an affluent area without going into detail is a bit misleading, even if the statement's technically true. On the other hand, going into detail with competing sources to give context to the comment is a bit silly - we end up with two sentences that basically negate one another. I'm tempted to just remove this clause entirely. Shimgray &#124; talk &#124; 20:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Shimgray and thanks for your help on this article. I don't think that the mention of affluence is a crucial point and could be removed if it appears to be inaccurate.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought we had to reflect sources accurately and not second guess their "correctness". The text in the article is supported by a reliable source. --BwB (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct, but we still make editorial decisions about a source's reliability and also about how they should be used. That's why we have the RS noticeboard etc. Wiki articles are our editorial summaries of what the sources say. So not everything that every source reports has to be included in our Wiki articles. We often leave out minor points and since this minor point does not make any significant contribution to the article and its being disputed. Why not remove it? -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 13:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's helpful to simply say "reliable source" and assume everything it says is unarguable. It's pretty evident from other sources that the Skelmersdale area is in parts very far from "affluent" (see, eg, West Lancs Council here; Age Concern Lancashire here). As such, while the claim may be arguably correct if you look at the county as a whole, it's fairly misleading in this case without giving detailed context. We could add these counterpoints to the article, but this would seem quite silly; we'd make a claim and then immediately retract it... Shimgray &#124; talk &#124; 07:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If it was a significant part of the article, I would say yes we need to include both statements, like we do with a controversy. But in this case it seems to be a minor detail that is not important to the article either way. So why not just leave it out?-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As a compromise I've attributed and quoted the source.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just looked at this page as the summary came up on a Google search for maharishi school - some of the info is out of date, but I don't know how to change it - doesn't seem to be editable - Head Teacher is now Lisa Edwards, and the current school roll is 215 childrenYellowcrocus (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)