THE FUTURE OF CH

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else, but that's still CH related.

Moderator: Moderators

Fitzsadou
LE (Little Erasmus)
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:06 pm
Real Name: Tom Barnes

THE FUTURE OF CH

Post by Fitzsadou »

Much though I enjoy many OBs’ reminiscences I realise that there are also much more serious CH matters deserving discussion. One is the future of CH and how its ethos could or should change. I have noted with interest the trend, enthusiastically promoted by the current Headmaster, that wealthier parents be allowed to send their children to CH. This is advanced as a way of raising further funds that are crucial to the continued wellbeing of the school. So fancier facilities are required, to compete with the very many other schools which will then become CH’s direct rivals for this new (for CH) source of pupils. If this policy is implemented then fewer children of poorer or otherwise needy families will receive a CH education. I am now aware there are many Old Blues who think that this policy of moving upmarket should not be adopted and that providing CH with certain expensive facilities to attract the rich is not essential. So this most basic change deserves a full debate in this Forum. If there are many comments, from whatever point of view, then the Headmaster and Treasurer could be requested to contribute too.

The essence of opposition to the new policy is that it will betray the raison d’etre of CH, which has so well served many in the UK (and some foreigners) since 1552. Very few other means of obtaining a comparable education (in the widest sense) are available elsewhere in the UK for those in greatest need. (For example the former LCC scholarships for a CH education brought vast benefits to many who would not have gained them otherwise. Strong efforts should be made to reinstate such scholarships. But that is another issue, perhaps deserving its own thread in this Forum.) For centuries Old Blues have been very successful in many fields, yet they worked hard and lovingly for the good of the school, knowing their own children would never be able to become pupils because their parents’ income was too great. That unselfish spirit demonstrates one of the greatest strengths of CH’s education. It will be undermined if the new policies are adopted.

Some OBs, who do not contribute to this Forum, are working against CH’s present trend to move upmarket and attract children from richer families. In the words of one such OB, “Housie … seems to be going from strength to strength. … [We] have been fighting a losing battle to keep it for the poor, but the Headmaster and Treasurer seem determined to open it up to the international rich, so it has to spend enormous amounts of money in order to compete with other leading public schools. My fear is that it will end up as ‘Charterhouse in fancy dress’, which is not what Bishop Ridley, Mayor Dobbs and Edward VI had in mind.” So many other schools were founded with similar intentions to serve the poor, yet only CH has continued to do so fully.

Is the new policy desirable? Are the objections a sort of sociological luddite reaction in the face of progress? Are they a minority opinion?
Last edited by Fitzsadou on Fri May 31, 2013 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fjgrogan
Button Grecian
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:56 pm
Real Name: Frances Grogan (nee Haley)
Location: Surbiton, Surrey

Re: THE FUTURE OF CH

Post by Fjgrogan »

Fitzadou, where have you been? Some of us have been expressing similar opinions on this forum for quite some time now, apparently without the Headmaster or powers-that-be paying any attention to our thoughts!!
Frances Grogan (Haley) 6's 1956 - 62

'A clean house is a sign of a broken computer.'
Fitzsadou
LE (Little Erasmus)
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:06 pm
Real Name: Tom Barnes

Re: THE FUTURE OF CH

Post by Fitzsadou »

Sorry Frances. I obviously don’t read the right things or mix in the right circles.

Can someone provide some useful facts? e.g. What is/was the upper limit on parental income allowing a child to attend CH? Will this limit be raised (if so to what?) or removed totally? When are the proposed changes to take place? What percentage of the future CH will consist of the wealthy?

Whatever the answers, this is likely to be the thin end of a very wide wedge.
User avatar
J.R.
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15835
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:53 pm
Real Name: John Rutley
Location: Dorking, Surrey

Re: THE FUTURE OF CH

Post by J.R. »

Fitzsadou wrote:Sorry Frances. I obviously don’t read the right things or mix in the right circles.

Can someone provide some useful facts? e.g. What is/was the upper limit on parental income allowing a child to attend CH? Will this limit be raised (if so to what?) or removed totally? When are the proposed changes to take place? What percentage of the future CH will consist of the wealthy?

Whatever the answers, this is likely to be the thin end of a very wide wedge.

They already appear to be happening, bit by bit, without any consultation and, it seems, so that people won't notice !!
John Rutley. Prep B & Coleridge B. 1958-1963.
Fjgrogan
Button Grecian
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:56 pm
Real Name: Frances Grogan (nee Haley)
Location: Surbiton, Surrey

Re: THE FUTURE OF CH

Post by Fjgrogan »

It started with local day pupils who would bring in much needed income without taking up boarding accommodation; that was the thin end of the wedge. Now it has spread to wealthy fee-paying pupils, even overseas pupils who are presumably taking up boarding places, leaving fewer places for the needy children for whom the school was originally founded - the wedge thickens! We all know from experience that the 'powers-that-be' pay no attention to the opinions expressed on here by Old Blues, and indeed why should they? Sadly they also seem to pay little attention to existing parents who find their parental contributions increasing out of proportion to any changes in their income, and without any explanation of how the figures are being calculated, sometimes to the point where children have to be taken out of school at short notice; also there is little chance of second and subsequent children being able to follow their siblings to CH - although by definition if one child in the family is deemed to be in need, then surely so are others in the same family - and that need may not necessarily be financial. Those of us who were fortunate enough to benefit from an education at CH at very little cost to our parents, are charged to do all in our power to extend that benefit to others according to our means. I would have liked to do so, even if only in my will when the time comes, but I am seriously reconsidering the idea because I am not prepared to see my hard-earned live savings spent for the benefit of children whose parents could well afford to send their children elsewhere, leaving CH places for those who really need them. And then we hear that the foundation is spending over £8 million on a new Language and Resources Centre - a wonderful idea, but only if the school can actually afford, which it apparently cannot.
Frances Grogan (Haley) 6's 1956 - 62

'A clean house is a sign of a broken computer.'
ailurophile
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Real Name: Jo

Re: THE FUTURE OF CH

Post by ailurophile »

Fitzsadou wrote:
Some OBs, who do not contribute to this Forum, are working against CH’s present trend to move upmarket and attract children from richer families.
This is encouraging news - but can I ask how? And what has been the response, if any, from the school?
ailurophile
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Real Name: Jo

Re: THE FUTURE OF CH

Post by ailurophile »

Can someone provide some useful facts? e.g. What is/was the upper limit on parental income allowing a child to attend CH? Will this limit be raised (if so to what?) or removed totally? When are the proposed changes to take place? What percentage of the future CH will consist of the wealthy?
These matters are much less transparent than they used to be! As far as I'm aware there is no "upper limit on parental income allowing a child to attend CH", and there has not been for some time. However, during recent years the previous 3% cap on the number of higher income families accepted into CH has been removed, and the most recent annual report shows that currently 9% of families pay full fees: I would guess that this figure is likely to keep on rising. However, as the school quite rightly point out, CH still offers more bursary support than any other independent school and remains accessible to many needy families.

In 2010 the level of net assessed household income at which the maximum contribution (full fees) becomes payable was raised to £60,000 and I believe that this is still the case for families whose children entered the school up to September 2011. However, a new scale was published last year which indicates that for pupils entering from 2012 onwards the assessment is rather more generous; the examples currently published online appear to indicate that a household with a net assessed income of as much as £73,000 would now qualify for a 15% bursary - no figures are shown to confirm the income level at which full fees are now payable. And infuriatingly, although two scales are now applied, no guidance figures at all are now available for parents whose children entered the school pre-2012, who are left completely in the dark as to how our contributions are calculated!!
User avatar
postwarblue
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 12:12 pm
Real Name: Robert Griffiths
Location: Havant

Re: THE FUTURE OF CH

Post by postwarblue »

I think there may be a flaw in this argument. Places taken by full fee-payers surely only displace the more needy if funds are notionally available to deliver more free or subsidised places? The closure of Hertford and the sale of that site balanced the books (I suppose) at one point, but only against reduced total numbers, and that is a trick that cannot be repeated. As it is, I would hope that the whole idea of charging full fees is that those places are NOT cross-subsidised by the endowment.
In the old LCC days I imagine the LCC paid for the children it sent - or did it? I get the feeling that the CH management must be really struggling to maintain the mission in this time of economic crisis.

Some poster was complaining about new facilities being built, implying that this was happening solely to attract the full fee-payers. That seems to miss the point that CH needs to keep up, to continue to deliver what in contemporary terms is a first class education. The alternative would seem to be to contain the education offering to a lower level, 'good enough for the likes of us'.
'Oh blest retirement, friend to life's decline'
Avon
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:39 pm
Real Name: Ed Bell

Re: THE FUTURE OF CH

Post by Avon »

What are the checks and balances that would challenge the Headmaster and his coterie on such things as the 3% cap? Such a change does seem to be a challenge to the aims and ethos of CH.
Fjgrogan
Button Grecian
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:56 pm
Real Name: Frances Grogan (nee Haley)
Location: Surbiton, Surrey

Re: THE FUTURE OF CH

Post by Fjgrogan »

That is precisely the point - are there any checks and balances? The financial system seems to have become so complicated that many parents do not understand it and seem to get no reply when they query unexpected rises in their parental contribution.

It was not my intention to complain about the provision of new resources. I was trying to put myself in the position of the parent who has had to remove his/her child on financial grounds and then hears that the school has spent £8 million on new resources. I would be highly suspicious that this was a ploy to entice in children from wealthier families, rather than an attempt to provide better facilities for the 'needy' for whom the school was originally established. Many other schools were originally founded as charitable institutions; the thing which makes CH different has been that it still retains that aim - but honestly does it, any more?
Frances Grogan (Haley) 6's 1956 - 62

'A clean house is a sign of a broken computer.'
Avon
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:39 pm
Real Name: Ed Bell

Re: THE FUTURE OF CH

Post by Avon »

I'm surprised this thread hasn't attracted more attention. Insofar as I care about CH it's the core ethos, not the fabric or some of the very dated mottoes and thinking.

That core ethos seems to be under threat if it's feasible that a child be withdrawn because the parents previously satisfied the cost model of the school, but no longer do. It seems to be quite the obverse of what CH is for. We know the cost of living has gone up I recent years and it is to be hoped that CH pays close attention to the core principle of affordability of a child's place. The fact that the process is alleged to be complex suggests that the counting house is struggling.

Whilst CH in the early 80s was almost deliberately spartan, particularly evident when visiting other schools, that's to be understood when the ethos of the school is taken into account. My only return to CH was by air when I was sent back with a Sea King to fly the cadets around and convince some of them to contemplate a Navy career. This was on the turn on the millennium and there was a shiny sports centre and other new builds that were pretty plush when contrasted with what had gone before. All very nice but if it means an upwards turn in the clientele needed then surely it's creep away from the ethos.

I hadn't questioned this at the time because I knew via a rather indiscreet former girlfriend who knew such things, that CH by virtue of holdings in the City, was very wealthy. Perhaps not very accessible income, but significant security nonetheless. Does this still exist? In which case, why does there seem to be a drift away from the deserving and towards the affluent?
User avatar
Mid A 15
Button Grecian
Posts: 3172
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 1:38 pm
Real Name: Claude Rains
Location: The Patio Of England (Kent)

Re: THE FUTURE OF CH

Post by Mid A 15 »

Avon wrote:I'm surprised this thread hasn't attracted more attention. Insofar as I care about CH it's the core ethos, not the fabric or some of the very dated mottoes and thinking.

That core ethos seems to be under threat if it's feasible that a child be withdrawn because the parents previously satisfied the cost model of the school, but no longer do. It seems to be quite the obverse of what CH is for. We know the cost of living has gone up I recent years and it is to be hoped that CH pays close attention to the core principle of affordability of a child's place. The fact that the process is alleged to be complex suggests that the counting house is struggling.

Whilst CH in the early 80s was almost deliberately spartan, particularly evident when visiting other schools, that's to be understood when the ethos of the school is taken into account. My only return to CH was by air when I was sent back with a Sea King to fly the cadets around and convince some of them to contemplate a Navy career. This was on the turn on the millennium and there was a shiny sports centre and other new builds that were pretty plush when contrasted with what had gone before. All very nice but if it means an upwards turn in the clientele needed then surely it's creep away from the ethos.

I hadn't questioned this at the time because I knew via a rather indiscreet former girlfriend who knew such things, that CH by virtue of holdings in the City, was very wealthy. Perhaps not very accessible income, but significant security nonetheless. Does this still exist? In which case, why does there seem to be a drift away from the deserving and towards the affluent?
I agree with you about the ethos and to me it is criminal if, as has previously been alleged, children are thrown out of the School for financial reasons midway through their education having been accepted previously and thus presumably jumped through the requisite financial hoops.

It is hardly the fault of the child if parental financial circumstances change for whatever reason whilst he or she is a pupil.

That said I think the Foundation, or whatever the Governing Body is called these days, has had to confront a lot of difficult circumstances over the last 25 years or so from my understanding.

For example I believe many of the spartan conditions "fondly" remembered by thee and me were outlawed under the 1989 Childrens' Act thus making the rebuilding programme you refer to essential rather than desirable.

The 2008 credit crunch has had an obvious ongoing dramatic adverse effect on returns from investments as interest rates have plummeted.

It is also my understanding that many (if not all) of the City and West End property holdings you refer to are no more.
Ma A, Mid A 65 -72
eowyn3099
LE (Little Erasmus)
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:03 am
Real Name: Lisa

Re: THE FUTURE OF CH

Post by eowyn3099 »

As a current parent at CH, we have watched the increase in full fee payers since our DS started 2 years ago. During the summer holidays last year his house was re-gigged to take 2 extra full fee paying boarders. I assume the other houses did the same.

On another note, we were told when we first applied that each house took 8 students: However when DS arrived there were only 6 2nd formers in his house, I gather most houses are the same. So what happened to the other 2 places per house? As he prepares to go into LE, lo and behold 2 new names have appeared on the house list, starting in year 9. So are these differed places from year 7, or were the places held back for full fee payers to enter after their common entrance exams??? If so that effectively means that there are 32 less boarding places for bursary students each year. Effectively almost one quarter of the intake!

While I don't disagree in principle with them taking some full fee payers to assist with the fall in revenue from their endowment, I am really concerned that instead of opening up extra places (according to the last report from the head and the treasurer, the school numbers are due to approach 900), that actually what is happening is that the full fee payers are actually taking places from bursary students. Which is a real concern.


We are in the process of applying for our DD for Sept 2014 entry and along with many others are seriously concerned about whether she will get a place or not. Academically she's the right calibre of student, but with increased pressure on places for bursary students, then the chance of her attaining a place is drastically reduced. :(

If she does get a place we will be one of the many parents who have children being financially assessed on two different systems, our DS arriving before the changes went through. If both children where in school and our income disappeared overnight, our DS would get instant full support, but our DD would only get a temporary hardship bursary, plus any bursary that she received would only be allowed a maximum of a 10% upward fluctuation, while again our DS would be reassessed according to our new income! Confusing or what!
Avon
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:39 pm
Real Name: Ed Bell

Re: THE FUTURE OF CH

Post by Avon »

Something deeply, deeply wrong here. I learn that children are also being withdrawn because of affordability. This entire process also lacks transparency.

Where is the open discussion about this happening?
User avatar
LongGone
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:17 pm
Real Name: Mike Adams
Location: New England

Re: THE FUTURE OF CHe]

Post by LongGone »

What happened to the total enrollment numbers when the girls came from Hertford? It seems that the total now is about the same as the number at Horsham prior to the merger, meaning that the total is far less. That, combined with the economy of shutting down the Hertford school, should have provided massive savings.
If a stone falls on an egg: alas for the egg
If an egg falls on a stone: alas for the egg
Post Reply