I went to a funeral yesterday.  Perhaps it was because the deceased was someone I did not know very well (the mother of an old friend), but I found the occasion inspiring and thought-provoking.  It was very much the celebration of a life well lived.  The vicar, who gave a lengthy yet engaging eulogy, use the word “plentiful” as his theme.  Not plentiful in a gluttonous way but more about the way the deceased made the most out of her life.  The venue for the funeral was grand, there were lots of people there (always a sign of a life well lived in my opinion) and the music was varied and eclectic.

The vicar talked about seeing the death of a loved one as an opportunity for us to look at how we are living our own lives and I was reminded of a quote from an unknown tibetan monk that I had heard two months previously “If only death is certain and the manner and time of your death is uncertain, what will you do know?”

The vicar encouraged us not only to live our lives more plentifully but also, predictably, to turn to Jesus as part of that.  Without getting into a theological debate (the subject of a future blog I am sure!) the point is that I found his message about the way we live our lives to be inspiring.  It triggered me off into a daydream about seeing life as a gift.  Whether it is a gift provided by god, by parents, by science or by nature is irrelevant to my point.

 So if I see life as a gift, the question I have for myself is how much I can make of it?  It is possible to drift through life, to sleepwalk from cradle to grave.  But to me that seems like a waste of a gift.  The life we were celebrating at the funeral felt worthy of celebration, not just because of the things she did but also the way in which she did them (to quote Fun Boy Three and Bananarama). So the recipe for life coming out of this funeral was simple: live life fully both in what I do and how I do it

I find that often at funerals the congregation is asked to celebrate the life of the deceased but cannot.  They are encouraged to be grateful for the life lived rather than mourn the loss but cannot.  Is it because on those occasions the deceased has not left a legacy to celebrate and be grateful about?

Finally, the funeral included a reading of the following poem:

You can shed tears that he is gone,
or you can smile because he has lived.
You can close your eyes and pray that he’ll come back,
or you can open your eyes and see all he’s left.
Your heart can be empty because you can’t see him,
or you can be full of the love you have shared.
You can turn your back on tomorrow and live yesterday,
or you can be happy for tomorrow because of yesterday.
You can remember him and only that he’s gone,
or you can cherish his memory and let it live on.
You can cry and close your mind, be empty and turn your back,
or you can do what he’d want: smile, open your eyes, love and go on.

I have heard this poem a few times at funerals (obviously ’she’ replaces ‘he’ when required) and it is hard for a mourning congregation to commit to thinking in the way being proposed in the words.  However, in my opinion, if we know that the deceased has treated their life as a gift and has lived it plentifully, then we are much more likely to be able, at their passing, to smile, open our eyes, love and go on.

Here endeth the lesson!

As someone who was not around at the time, I have often wondered how my country could show their gratitude to Winston Churchill for leading us to victory in WWII by voting him out of office only 2 months after VE Day.  On the face of it, and with only the Falklands and Gulf Wars to use as in comparison, it has always seemed to me bizarre that Clement Attlee should be elected in such circumstances, particularly in a landslide victory.

I watched Into the Storm on TV last night and what an excellent BBC/HBO drama it was.  The 90 minute film managed to chart the key moments of the war, from a UK perspective, without seeming rushed and the acting was first class.  Brendan Gleeson’s portrayal of Churchill was mesmerising, confirming what an amazing actor he is. 

The one weakness of the drama was it seemed to suggest that Churchill lost the 1945 election for the simple reason that he used the word “Gestapo” when describing a potential Labour Party victory.    If the drama’s thesis is to be believed then the UK voting public must have been the most fickle bunch ever.

As a Conservative, Churchill opposed the creation of the welfare state but this was not explored.  Clement Attlee was only given a peripheral role in the drama and yet history suggests he was a much more central figure in the hearts and minds of the people.

I guess the point I am making is that the 1945 election is probably the ultimate example of a concept much used in management theory; Situational Leadership. Churchill was the right man to lead Britatin during the war and exactly the wrong man to lead the re-building of peacetime society.  Attlee successfully lead Britain through massive changes, arguably equivalent in impact to the War, including a nationalisation programme, expended social services and, of course, the creation of the National Health Service. 

Situational leadership theory suggests Attlee may well have lost us the war whilst Churchill would probably not have been able to put in place the building bolcks on which many of are lives today are based.    I still don’t fully understand how the voting public worked this out, but I guess I am happy that they did.

If you are a parent you will know that it is around this time of year that you are required to take part in an important, painful and mostly futile exercise in consumerism.  I am talking about choosing a secondary school for your child (some of this also applies to primary education but I am trying to stay focued).

If you are looking at private or grammar schools you may have already invested quite a bit of time, money and energy coaching your child to pass the entrance exams.  These seem to me designed totally to weed out those kids who have a nasty habit of ruining a schools position in the oh-so important league tables by not going on to get 10 A* GCSEs. The higher the “status” of the school the more weeding the school needs to do because, surprise surprise, these schools attract a lot of applicants.

My own experience is in the state system.  It starts with a form where you have to choose your top 3 preferences.  So far so simple.  I wanted to insert the catchment school and leave the other 2 fields blank but the voice in my head was saying “your grandparents fought in the war to give you the right to choose your child’s school - you will be an ungrateful grandson and a terrible parent if you do not insert 3 names.” 

Resisting the temptation to pick two other names out of a hat the next step is to request a brochure.  This is a bit like picking a holiday “ooh that looks nice” with the addition of the chance to read an OFSTED report.  Both these documents (multiplied by about 6 in our case - one for each school) take a lot of reading and generate as many answers as questions.    But help is at hand because schools have an open day when, rather than learn pythagoras, pupils of said school escort parents round the premises showing other children in various learning environments.  If you don’t know what this is like imagine being shown around a zoo by one of the animals.

The open day seals it and we were able to make our 1,2,3 choice without adding to our 42 hours of effort.  The form completed it is time to spend 4 months anxiously thinking about our choice, wondering if we made the right one, whether we should have done more research and if life wouldn’t be so bad after all in a communist state.

March arrives and on the designated day (the whole process is designed with military precision) my child is offered a place at her catchment school because…….you guessed it, the other two schools were over subscribed.  As we get over the amazing insight that, given a choice, virtually all parents opt for the best school available, we realise we are back to we started.  only now we don’t want to go to the catchment school because it no longer seems good enough.

Helpfully at this point there are forms to go on two waiting lists and forms to invoke 2 appeals procedures.  I want to throw them away along with the 6 brochures, 6 OFSTED reports and various other detritus but that voice in my head is back “Margaret Thatcher didn’t risk our safety winning back the Falklands just so that you can squander the choices you now have as a result of her sacrifice” 

I won’t dwell on this, save to say the appeals procedure is excrutiating and the waiting list largely stationary.  By now it is June, 9 months after the whole pantimime started, parents are stressed, children disappointed and schools are struggling to cope with the buruearatic chaos when they should be educating our children….and all in the name of choice.

In case you are interested my child got into their first choice in the end (waiting list not appeal) but it has left me more convinced than ever that the system is not working.  In our area people travel to Winchester schools, Andover children travel to our area and Basingstoke children choose Andover.  And, as far as I know, Basingstoke schools, and some Andover, struggle to fill places.  Wouldn’t it be better for all concerned, not least the environment, if a children went to their local school and we all invested all our time, energy and money in making sure every school is seen as a desireable place to learn?

Finally a tale from the private sector.  Firends of ours chose a private primary/secondary school for their son.  after 7 years of taking their hard-earned cash he was asked to leave because he failed the seondary entrance exam.  In my opinion this is exclusion on the grounds of ability and is immoral.

Rant over