Love, charity and reading

2026 marks the National Year of Reading, sponsored by the National Literacy Trust and the DfE. There is a somewhat odd logo of ’GO ALL IN’ for the year that I am afraid leaves me cold. This is despite the fact that as an author, blog writer and general supporter of words, in visual as well as spoken form, I fully support the aim of the Year, to see more people reading for pleasure; especially young people.

Of course, reading can be for purposes other than pleasure, although, for many, reading for research can itself be a great pleasure. This was brought home to me earlier today when I was listening to the BBC4 radio programme at 0815 that used to be a service of Sunday worship. These days, the format is more catholic in nature.

Today’s programme celebrated the 500th anniversary in 2026 of the publication of William Tyndale’s New Testament. This was the first part of the bible to be published, by the still relatively new printing process, in the vernacular English, rather than the Vulgate Latin, used in the Mass by the churches of the day.

What sent me off on research of the printed word was the extract from 1 Corinthians Chapter 13 used in the programme, where the reader used the word ‘love’.

As someone brought up before the publication in the 1960s of the New English Bible, this well-known passage has always been associated with the words of the Authorised or King Jame’s version of the bible. In that version, the word ‘charity’ not ‘love’ is used to describe the Greek ‘agape’.

Was this a Trump moment for the BBC Religious Affairs department, where the modern word ‘love’ was substituted in the reading for ‘charity’, or did Tyndale use the word ‘love’?

As the radio programme suggested that 80% of the Authorised Version used the text of Tyndale’s translation, this was a point worth clarification. Reading the text seemed to be the best way to allay my concerns, as the programme didn’t mention this change of wording between the two versions.

Happily, these days we can both read a version of Tyndale’s Testament and the King James version on-line. We can even ask AI – in my case, copilot – to do the heavy lifting of finding websites online with the text of both versions, and why the words were changed.

Here is what copilot told me

Why “charity” in the KJV instead of Tyndale’s “love”?

The decision was deliberate, not accidental. The KJV translators knew Tyndale had used “love,” but they chose “charity” because they believed it captured a more specific, more theological, and more communal nuance of the Greek word ἀγάπη (agapē).

And here are the links to sites I used before asking copilot why the change was made

1 Corinthians 13 – TYN – Bible Study Tools | Bible Study Tools

1 CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 13 KJV

This simple exercise remined me why I value reading so much, and helped me see the BBC used the correct words in their programme, even though a bit of explanation for this key difference might have saved my research, but also prevented this blog from being written. Thanks to the producer of the programme for stimulating my interest.

Finally, a somewhat tenuous link between Tyndale’s testament and this blog’s early days. In October 2013, in the post No time for God | John Howson I wrote of the fact that Michael Gove, as Secretary of State for Education,  has ordered a copy of the King James Bible to be sent to every school.

The BBC programme remined me that nearly 500 years ago, Thomas Cromwell had ordered a copy of Tyndale’s New Testament to be sent to every parish church in England. I wonder whether Michael Gove had that act in mind when he made his decision to send the King James Version to every school.

Certainly, for those of us schooled before the 1960s, the language of the Tyndale and King James testaments is both archaic in places, but is also wonderful, especially when read aloud.

Verily, verily, I say unto you’, may be as archaic as much of Shakespeare, but it rolls of the tongue.

So, whether it is reading for purpose, reading for meaning or just reading for enjoyment, let us all support 2026 and the National Year of Reading.

Few successful appeals for infant class places in 2025.

One consequence in the fall in the birth rate seems to have been a downward trend in appeals over admissions to infant classes.  Key Stage 1 classes have been capped at 30 pupils for nearly 30 years now, so it might be expected that parents would be keen to ensure their offspring gained a place at the primary school of their choice. After all, parental choice has been a cornerstone of admissions policy since 1979, regardless of the government in power. The data for 2025 admissions ahs now been added to the tie series by the DfE. Admission appeals in England, Reporting year 2025 – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK

2025
Primary (infant classes)Other primary classesPrimary
Admissions617,802137,153754,955
Admission appeals lodged by parents8,2506,33414,584
Admission appeals lodged by parents (percentage)1.34.61.9
Appeals heard by an appeals panel5,1283,8718,999
Appeals heard by an appeals panel (percentage)0.82.81.2
Successful appeals4991,0961,595
Successful appeals (percentage)9.728.317.7

Of the 617,802 requests for places in infant classes, only 8,250 resulted in an appeal, presumably as the child was not placed in the school of the parent’s choosing at offer day. Some parents either accept another school or a place became available, so 3,122 of these appeals were not proceeded with, leaving just 5,128 appeals heard across the whole of England. Of these appeals, only 499, or 9.7% of the appeals heard were successful, presumably because of the class size limit.

Across the rest of the primary age range, there were only 14,584 appeals, or 1.9% of those either moving children during the Key Stage 2 phase or joining for the first time, perhaps because of the imposition of VAT on private school fees in January 2025. Again, a number of these appeals were not heard, presumably again because a place could be found after the appeal had been lodged. Interestingly, the success rate was much higher for these appeals than for the appeals for admission to infant classes, presumably because there is no mandated maximum class size for Key Stage 2 classes.

In the secondary sector, appeals in 2025 were 4.9% of admissions, around the middle of the 4.5 to 5.5 range of the period between 2016 and 2025. Interestingly, the success rate of these appeals has been falling. In 2025, it was only 19.9%, compared with 26.3% of appeals heard in 2016.

As entry numbers are likely to fall in Year 7 over the next few years, it will be interesting to see whether the percentage of successful appeals rises over the next few years. However, it may well be that popular schools remain attractive to parents, and will still have no spare places creating the need to appeal, especially if siblings are not all granted the place at the same school.

The present Bill before parliament should return in-year admissions for all schools to local authority control. At present academies can opt out of a local system and manage their own in-year admissions. As I have not before (Jacob’s Law) this was especially challenging for children in care needing to find a new school place. Hopefully, their needs will be better appreciated in the future.