World War 2, CH Teachers, etc
Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 1:58 pm
There is much information about CH during World War 2 dispersed between wartime issues of ‘The Blue’, certain OBs’memories and elsewhere. One day I hope that it will be collated, preferably while some who lived through this period still are around. Things like exploits of the CH Home Guard, use of the underground passages (Tube) as air raid shelters, etc, deserve to be recorded and may even interest younger Blues.
Here are a few thoughts about CH Horsham teachers then, which include some ideas which I don’t think have been previously published. During the war there was a shortage of suitable young male masters. Their substitutes included a few women (eg Miss M Eller, who left to marry Mr Gerritsen a part time cello teacher, Mrs R Hurst and Mrs B Massen, who both apparently stayed on till a normal retirement age). The women teachers were addressed as, “Sir”, and they taught only the lower classes, especially the Third Form. Also some formerly retired masters came back for the duration (Mr DH Burleigh, etc). Additionally some were engaged, who probably would not have been appointed in normal times (eg Mr P Matthews). Presumably following the policy of the then head master, HLO Flecker, most replacement teachers stayed on post-war, apparently leaving CH when they wished.
Some masters returned after war service to take up posts they held earlier at CH (CF Kirby, EA Littlefield, EG Malins, A Rider and others) and new appointments were made. Up to the 1960s (and beyond?) the school’s non-wartime policy seemed to have been to engage Oxbridge graduates almost exclusively. Perhaps this was partially snobbism. Although today there are well over 100 British universities, then there were far, far fewer (about a score or so). But among the older non Oxbridge establishments a few had some excellent departments. Perhaps the teachers appointed at CH all had superior qualities and so snobbishness played no part. We shall never know. Another observation is that masters seem to have fallen into two clear categories, firstly the intellectuals who could teach Grecians and upper classes. (They were often very competent and inspiring teachers, such as, W Armistead, MT Cherniavsky, RA Dean, DS Macnutt, DS Roberts and others.) Also there were those who either could not teach senior classes, or did not because of personal preference. Examples of this second group are PC Davies, R Rae, JH Edwards and EA Littlefield. They all had important non-teaching activities and were rightly engaged to pursue them. For PCD (then an active international England rugby player) it probably was to aid rugby coaching. RR was very active in the CCF, scouts and later was second master, JHE was most likely engaged to direct gym and swimming activities and EAL to coach school cricket teams. However other such apparent non-intellectuals seemed to have had no important responsibilities (eg F Haslehust, except for his wartime and post-war senior housemanship of Thornton A. He was unusual in several respects, for he was the only CH teacher with no academic qualification at all, having left Oxford before taking his finals. Also his breath usually smelt strongly of booze in the late morning and he was very imaginative in his teaching of classics to lower forms. He never used a text book, always inventing his own English sentences for translation into Latin. During the Korean War they sometimes referred to aeroplane combat [machinae in Korea].)
Why the strong Oxbridge bias? Were those less intellectual teachers, who apparently had no useful non-academic activity, specifically engaged to provide a valuable mix among masters? Were their appointments errors? Were there similar practices at Hertford? Tom
Here are a few thoughts about CH Horsham teachers then, which include some ideas which I don’t think have been previously published. During the war there was a shortage of suitable young male masters. Their substitutes included a few women (eg Miss M Eller, who left to marry Mr Gerritsen a part time cello teacher, Mrs R Hurst and Mrs B Massen, who both apparently stayed on till a normal retirement age). The women teachers were addressed as, “Sir”, and they taught only the lower classes, especially the Third Form. Also some formerly retired masters came back for the duration (Mr DH Burleigh, etc). Additionally some were engaged, who probably would not have been appointed in normal times (eg Mr P Matthews). Presumably following the policy of the then head master, HLO Flecker, most replacement teachers stayed on post-war, apparently leaving CH when they wished.
Some masters returned after war service to take up posts they held earlier at CH (CF Kirby, EA Littlefield, EG Malins, A Rider and others) and new appointments were made. Up to the 1960s (and beyond?) the school’s non-wartime policy seemed to have been to engage Oxbridge graduates almost exclusively. Perhaps this was partially snobbism. Although today there are well over 100 British universities, then there were far, far fewer (about a score or so). But among the older non Oxbridge establishments a few had some excellent departments. Perhaps the teachers appointed at CH all had superior qualities and so snobbishness played no part. We shall never know. Another observation is that masters seem to have fallen into two clear categories, firstly the intellectuals who could teach Grecians and upper classes. (They were often very competent and inspiring teachers, such as, W Armistead, MT Cherniavsky, RA Dean, DS Macnutt, DS Roberts and others.) Also there were those who either could not teach senior classes, or did not because of personal preference. Examples of this second group are PC Davies, R Rae, JH Edwards and EA Littlefield. They all had important non-teaching activities and were rightly engaged to pursue them. For PCD (then an active international England rugby player) it probably was to aid rugby coaching. RR was very active in the CCF, scouts and later was second master, JHE was most likely engaged to direct gym and swimming activities and EAL to coach school cricket teams. However other such apparent non-intellectuals seemed to have had no important responsibilities (eg F Haslehust, except for his wartime and post-war senior housemanship of Thornton A. He was unusual in several respects, for he was the only CH teacher with no academic qualification at all, having left Oxford before taking his finals. Also his breath usually smelt strongly of booze in the late morning and he was very imaginative in his teaching of classics to lower forms. He never used a text book, always inventing his own English sentences for translation into Latin. During the Korean War they sometimes referred to aeroplane combat [machinae in Korea].)
Why the strong Oxbridge bias? Were those less intellectual teachers, who apparently had no useful non-academic activity, specifically engaged to provide a valuable mix among masters? Were their appointments errors? Were there similar practices at Hertford? Tom