Any Questions?

[eucsgmrc]

My time was 1954-62, overlapping with sejintenej. This discussion about "asked to leave if you didn't get so many O levels/GCSEs" needs to be put in context. The normal school leaving age in those days was 14 or 15, and that's as much schooling as the vast bulk of the population got. The only way they would have stayed on was by being in a grammar school with a clear ability to get to a university, and I guess 3% to 5% of the population got that opportunity. For the rest, they left school, and if they were capable or ambitious they might go on to some kind of further education in a training college or polytechnic. But starting a job at 15 or 16, with few academic qualifications, was perfectly normal and acceptable, and plenty of people who started that way went on to make useful, responsible and adequately paid careers.

By the standards of those days, CH did exceptionally well by its non-academic pupils. It didn't, in general, throw them out at the earliest opportunity. It got them through O levels a year earlier than most schools, so that they could have another go if necessary.

Or so it seemed to me. I was seen as university material, and perhaps I didn't understand what was happening to others.

[Fjgrogan]

Now I am wondering who Hunturk's grandmother and great aunt are? Did I know them? I did O levels in 1961 at Hertford and do not remember any feeling of having to reach a certain standard in order to stay into the Sixth Form. In fact I was probably considered 'below par' because I took only seven when the norm was eight - I persuaded them to let me drop Physics after a poor showing at mock, but it was a battle; they tried to convince me that I could have passed if I made the extra effort! But note that it was passing that we aimed for - no suggestion that only As would be accepted! What we were very aware of was the importance of the Black Apron(BA), without which we were not allowed into the Sixth Form. It was a symbol that we had reached an acceptable level of responsibility; it was awarded at half-termly intervals during the Upper Fifth year, and could be removed as punishment for various misdemeanours. I did not get mine until half term in the summer and was threatened with its removal a number of times. Had I lost it, no number of high grade O levels would have made any difference - I would have been out. Imagine trying to explain that to a potential employer or college (yes, sir, I was effectively expelled, but only because I was at a school whose standards were higher than the average local comprehensive!)! In retrospect I can appreciate the importance of developing a mature sense of responsibility alongside academic qualifications - I was certainly immature for my age, and had a vicious temper - still have, in fact! So it seems that standards varied between Horsham and Hertford. I can't say I was particularly happy at Hertford, but I would like to have been at Horsham in my daughters' time, the early years of merger - to my generation it seemed like inexpressible freedom!

[michael scuffil]

I think a lot happened in the leaving policy during the time that sejintenej, eucsgmrc, and I were there. In the mid 50s, I don't think 75% went on to deps, but by 1963, at least that many did. This was part of the major Seaman reform, which recognized (a) that the old adage 'It doesn't matter which university you go to, my boy, they're both very old' was no longer applicable; and (b) that because of the grants system, an open award at Oxbridge was no longer necessary (or sufficient) to keep body and soul together. It was this huge expansion of the deps/grecians (i.e. sixth form) that made senior/junior houses an urgent matter -- the houses had been designed for 45 under-15s and 5 or 6 others.

One thing hasn't changed: you are still 'ringed by downs and woodlands fair'. Coming from London, I really did appreciate country life. (Even though CH probably has twice as much built-on space as it did then, you can still escape it easily.)

[Volupturaptor]

The six A's at GCSE, that's another thing they don't tell prospective parents...

[Katharine]

Now I am wondering who Hunturk's grandmother and great aunt are? Did I know them?

You're not the only one, Frances!

[ailurophile]

Well my DS achieved 10 A* and 4 A grade GCSEs; but he couldn't stay on into the sixth form because the Foundation kept increasing our assessed contribution year on year out of proportion to our income, to the point where we were effectively forced to withdraw him.

[postwarblue]

Nice summary Goatherd!

Printed on the back of one's report were the rukles about the academic hurdles that had to be jumped if one was to stay on. If there was a way of posting pix on this site I could post a scan!

[englishangel]

Nice summary Goatherd!

Printed on the back of one's report were the rukles about the academic hurdles that had to be jumped if one was to stay on. If there was a way of posting pix on this site I could post a scan!

http://chforum.info/php/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3929

[postwarblue]

Sorry if it's a bit faint.

[DavidRawlins]

The above is the same as it was in 1946.
Many seemed to have left between 15-16.
Later a rank of probationary Dep, and probationary Grecian was introduced. I occupied both of these slots; I was never a Grecian. Flecker did not consider Medicine as a very academic subject. I think that Bill Kirby probably argued my case for staying on for A Levels, but I do not know.
In my Certificate of Discharge (when were these discontinued?) the only person to make any remark was Kit Aitken (though they all did for my final report of the same date).

[ailurophile]

Hunturk wrote:

What I was getting at was the fact that when you guys were at CH, it seems like it was run more by common sense and thought rather than Health and Safety. Reading the stories on this forum has reminded me of why I often think I would rather of lived in the 70s-80s.

I am sure you have heard about the 6 A's rule. Where if I don't get 6 A's at GCSE's then I have to leave the school. Although there is the league tables, I along with lots of others believe this is mainly motivated by money. They have an incentive to bring in International Students who don't have a fee cap instead of bringing in people who need the education. This is the opinion of the majority if the students in the school.
Thoughts? I apologize if I come across as someone who doesn't like having foreign students in the school as that is not the case, it's just to me the school seems to be losing its charitable basis. Do you hear what I am saying?

I think we’re all getting a little bit hung up on the ‘6 As rule’ here, where perhaps what Hunturk’s post really highlights is the perception of current students that they are living through a sea-change in the focus of CH, and that many of them are unhappy about it! There has undoubtedly been a very rapid rate of change in recent years, and while CH’s need for increased fee income and a competitive league table position is understandable there does seem to be a very hard-nosed approach in the current regime which risks ignoring the needs of the individual pupils who should be (and I’m guessing that Hunturk believes used to be) at the heart of the school.

[Fjgrogan]

At risk of stirring up controversy, I have often wondered whether the change of attitude in recent years has anything to do with the fact that the Headmaster is no longer an Old Blue? I notice, by the way, that the rules for discharge laid down above do not specifically mention particular grades, just the need to be considered satisfactory, which is vague enough to cover all sorts of perceived inadequacies!

[Goatherd]

[quote="Fjgrogan"]At risk of stirring up controversy ...
Heaven forbid! I'm sure many people have read this before, but it's worth having another look at this interview conducted before he took over to see where the Head 'is coming from'.
http://www.chforum.info/Pages/HMInterviewDec06.htm

[hunturk]

I would like to start off by apologizing for not posting in a long time, my laziness coupled with a fairly substantial workload means I just haven't got round to it.

I saw some people asking if they might of known my gran and great aunt. Well my gran was born in 1934 so came here in 1945, unless the entrance age was different and she finished her education here. My great aunt did the exact same except she joined 2 years later. My gran is called Janet Hunter but her maiden name is Janet Faulkner. My great aunt would of been called Pam Faulkner and is now called Pam Amos.

Moving onto the 6 A's topic. I saw someone say to quote, (I know you can quote but i forgot my bad) "there does seem to be a very hard-nosed approach in the current regime which risks ignoring the needs of the individual pupils who should be (and I’m guessing that Hunturk believes used to be) at the heart of the school." This is exactly what I am getting at. This school has a charitable status, but people are being forced to leave because the school keeps raising fees till the point where they can't pay them anymore. For example, a friend of mines mother got a pay raise at work and the school just raised her fees, now that friend who happens to be one of my best friends has to leave at the end of this year. I just don't think that the 6 A's thing is holding true to the schools beliefs and the reason behind its founding. I also think that the school is overestimating the abilities of its pupils, well my year anyway. We do a harder GCSE (O level) which isn't just slightly harder but substantially harder. Our GCSE mocks really reflected this. Our year average for biology and physics was a D. That implies that at most we will get a B at GCSE. Oh well, I guess we just need to work harder lol.

[Fjgrogan]

Alleluia - someone within the school actually backing up what we old fogies have been complaining about for some time! In my day (1956-62) it was unheard of for anyone to have to leave because parental income had risen; the fees - aka parental contribution - would be raised accordingly but never to the point where a child was forced to leave. The whole point of the system was to provide stability for children deemed to be 'in need' of some kind, not necessarily just financial need. Obviously many parents were able to work once their children were at boarding school but to then raise fees further than the increase in income would be totally counter-productive. However there would have been a case for saying that refusing to work to prevent that happening would be regarded as cheating the system! It was more or less possible in those days to work out how much it was 'safe' to earn without wrecking one's child's education. Now there seems to be no accountability at all - fees seem to shoot up and up with no apparent relationship to the variation in parental income; they just keep changing the rules and leaving parents in the dark as to why their fees have increased. I seem to remember there was a case a few years ago when the new assessment arrived a week before term started, it had increased so much that the child had to be withdrawn from school immediately and then the school had the audacity to insist on a term's fees in lieu of a term's notice. In many respects CH has moved from being an educational charity to being a big business! Or am I just turning into a Grumpy Old Woman?

As for being forced to gain six As - yes, I beleive it is yet another financial ploy to make space for fee-paying VIth form entrants. It paves the way for a lack of self-esteem later in life when young adults are in danger of believing that nothing but perfection is acceptable - I know, I have been there. For years I thought that I was no good at science - by CH standards I wasn't - but compared with contemporaries from the local comprehensive I was a genius (well, cleverer than I had thought anyway!).