Re-applying for Deps - A Vicious Rumour???

[midget]

Repeating a year was fairly common in the 40s and early 50s at Hertford.One girl in 3s repeated several years and left in the LV at 15. I don't know what she did when she left, but she was a real case of "nice but dim", very good-natured and helpful in the house.
I think I've mentioned before that about 6 of us in the top half of LVA were kept down because we were all very young, and it was thought would not have the maturity and staying power to do School Certificate the following year.

[blondie95]

well i quite agree with Mrs C's comment. I understood it that exsisting puils had to get 5GCSE's A-C and new deps 6 grade B's!
I dont think that people have an inherent right to continue to 6th form-the school leaving age is 16 therefore the school are fully responsible for getting them to this level. After that the school should be in a position to let those who want to do their a levels and can commit to the school and course do so. echoing mrs c's comment on the deps/grecians behaviour to the school.

[sejintenej]

well i quite agree with Mrs C's comment. I understood it that exsisting puils had to get 5GCSE's A-C and new deps 6 grade B's!
I dont think that people have an inherent right to continue to 6th form-the school leaving age is 16 therefore the school are fully responsible for getting them to this level. After that the school should be in a position to let those who want to do their a levels and can commit to the school and course do so. echoing mrs c's comment on the deps/grecians behaviour to the school.

Certainly no defined right to continued education. Things have changed so much in the past 40 odd years; in those days the school seemed determined to help pupils escape from home privations that if it felt that a pupil could get an A level then they would be kept.

At the same time if they thought the pupil couldn't do so then the school would keep them on a year in the 5th form if necessary so that they could get 5 "O" levels (they didn't have grades then). In those days 5 O levels would get you jobs which now require a degree - with those passes you were well away.

If you leave now without decent GCSEs it seems you can still get somewhere and in any case the home environment is normally more acceptable.

[onewestguncopse]

A new Head Master, together with a new Senior Management Team, always bring with them a new broom. I have no idea if the new Head will expect students to reach a higher standard of academic ability to 'move' into the 6th form. Neither has anyone else (on record) as the matter has not been revealed outside of the current SMT. That being said, I would be very surprised if a few things did not change in the coming months.

However, from a personal point of view I do share the view that the GE should be obliged to apply for membership of the 6th form. This would be a simple matter and for the vast majority a mere formality. It simply reminds the student that membership of the 6th form is earned by good conduct and good exam performance. Frankly getting 5 C's at GCSE is a breeze for 99.9% of the student body. This year well over 60% of Grecians were predicted all A's at A level. I know this because I entered them on the UCAS forms! They may not get them but they are capable of getting them!

In the final analysis, most of the pupils here enjoy a 'scholarship' (for want of a better word) and this money is spent on them, having been taken from someone else. If this money is squnadered by a pupil who is poorly behaved (persistantly), has little regard for the school teachers and support staff and his/her peers OR is clearly academically not suited to an increasingly academic environment, then why should we let them continue to take the money?

So far as the latter is concerned, I can think of a number of students who were 'good kids' but not traditionally academic who really struggled with AS and left the school with a bad taste in their mouths. CH is not the be all and end all. There a hundreds of other very good schools, academies and even private schools with good bursaries who offer a less traditional mix of A levels, including the vocational A levels and GNVQ's. There is NO shame in doing these qualifications. You can get into Cambridge with them after all! The shame is not having the courage to take the plunge and do them in the first place.

As I say, the vast majority would get in on 'the nod'. The only students who need fear are those who feel uncomfortable about being asked in the first place!

Once again, this is my opinion (although it is shared by many on the staff) and is NOT school policy - yet!

[DavebytheSea]

Hmmm...... staying on was NOT a certainty in my day. In fact it had been only a fairly recent innovation to allow those applying for universities other than Oxford and Cambridge to progress into the Deps and Grecians. The new "redbrick universities" were still frowned upon and anyone thinking of applying to one, was transferred immediately to the sciences!

Meanwhile, under Flecker and Macnutt, Classics reigned supreme with History under the Hon D.S. Roberts (also known as DSR) a close second and, someway behind that, the rising star of Arthur Rider's French department.

[Angela Woodford]

However, from a personal point of view I do share the view that the GE should be obliged to apply for membership of the 6th form. This would be a simple matter and for the vast majority a mere formality. It simply reminds the student that membership of the 6th form is earned by good conduct and good exam performance. Frankly getting 5 C's at GCSE is a breeze for 99.9% of the student body. This year well over 60% of Grecians were predicted all A's at A level. I know this because I entered them on the UCAS forms! They may not get them but they are capable of getting them!

In the final analysis, most of the pupils here enjoy a 'scholarship' (for want of a better word) and this money is spent on them, having been taken from someone else. If this money is squnadered by a pupil who is poorly behaved (persistantly), has little regard for the school teachers and support staff and his/her peers OR is clearly academically not suited to an increasingly academic environment, then why should we let them continue to take the money?

Oh no!!! Years later, this makes me feel terribly guilty. I did stay on and "took the money"! I barely scraped four 'O' levels, yet, strangely, it was never suggested that I'd be better off somewhere else. My home circumstances were in no way deprived. I wonder why? I suppose I was a bit of an oddity.I was so eccentrically steeped in the CH routine and ethos that I don't think I could have survived in the outside world at age 15 - it was difficult enough at age 18! Perhaps that was why I was allowed to stay on in the V1 Form.

[MKM]

In those far-off days at Hertford, staying on into the sixth form wasn't just a question of doing A-levels. DR saw it as a more general continuation of our education, and service to the school.

Remember how we continued to have lessons in our O-level subjects, after our O-levels were finished. (Although I don't remember this happening after A-levels). And I remember a head girl having to give priority to preparing her speech, rather than revising for A levels. The message I took from this was that we weren't to imagine O and A levels to be more important than school routine or events.

All IMHO of course. Perhaps it was just another of DR's little ways of making us feel unimportant.

(no reason for the bear except that he's so sweet. Is he new?).

[icomefromalanddownunder]

In those far-off days at Hertford, staying on into the sixth form wasn't just a question of doing A-levels. DR saw it as a more general continuation of our education, and service to the school.

All IMHO of course. Perhaps it was just another of DR's little ways of making us feel unimportant.

(no reason for the bear except that he's so sweet. Is he new?).

Hi Mary

I've posted earlier of DR's parting words to me, but still feel miffed whenever I think of them, so here I go again ................

Despite the fact that she must surely have been glad to see the back of me, she couldn't resist asking if I realised that I wouldn't get anywhere once people saw (from my cv) that I didn't complete my education at CH.

Sadly, I think that she truly believed that CH was held by all in higher esteem than any other girls' school. It has been my experience that more people recognise the name of St Martin's than they do CH - even if they do persist in getting the name wrong. It's St Martin-in-the Fields people (no apostrophe s).

Time for bed.

xx

[J.R.]

After not returning to CH after the end of the summer term 1963, (my 'O' Level year), I went back for a private interview with C.M.E. Seaman to collect my leavers Bible etc.

He gave me the same sort of lecture as received by 'downunder' as above.

I was pleased to point out that as I had already been accepted by the Surrey Police this was somewhat academic !

[Katharine]

Sadly, I think that she truly believed that CH was held by all in higher esteem than any other girls' school. It has been my experience that more people recognise the name of St Martin's than they do CH - even if they do persist in getting the name wrong. It's St Martin-in-the Fields people (no apostrophe s).

I went for a job interview in London in the 80s which started somewhat disconcertingly, 'Well your education was exemplary ....Since then however, ...' I had very little UK teaching experience but at the time had spent four years teaching at an academic girls' shool in Ghana, some time at the International School in Islamabad, and my previous job had been at Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Datuk Peter Mojuntin in Malaysia (I don't think she could get her head around that one!) I did get the job!! (Thanks CH!)

[Jo]

I've posted earlier of DR's parting words to me, but still feel miffed whenever I think of them, so here I go again ................

Despite the fact that she must surely have been glad to see the back of me, she couldn't resist asking if I realised that I wouldn't get anywhere once people saw (from my cv) that I didn't complete my education at CH.

Sadly, I think that she truly believed that CH was held by all in higher esteem than any other girls' school. It has been my experience that more people recognise the name of St Martin's than they do CH - even if they do persist in getting the name wrong. It's St Martin-in-the Fields people (no apostrophe s).

Although DR had left by the time I came to leave, I think the whole ethos of the school was still about making you think you'd had an exceptional education that would be recognised everywhere. It went beyond pride in the school, to something a bit jingoistic and obsessive. Not through arrogance, but sheer naivety, therefore, I blithely assumed that, armed with a CH education, a good set of A levels, and an honours degree, people would be fighting to employ me. How wrong I was. No-one had prepared me (and if I hadn't been so naive I suppose I should have prepared myself) for the fact that you really have to market yourself for a job.

Maybe I read the message wrongly, but I think CH should have done more to prepare pupils for life in the real world afterwards. Thankfully, it does seem to be a much healthier, more down to earth environment these days, which is good to know.

[englishangel]

I have thought a lot in the past along the lines of what Jo said, and I think the dis-service CH did was to let us think we were the equal of a man. I certainly did. Went to an engineering university, got a degree (not a spectacular one but a degree nonetheless) and then watched all my male contemporaries walk into jobs while I sat on the sidelines. Interviewed to make up the numbers but never offered a job.

On application forms in those days it said single/engaged/married. I was engaged and as soon as interviewers saw that you could see them thinking, "uh-oh" she'll be off having babies in no time. In fact it was another 10 years before I had any and a contemporary of mine (we even share a wedding anniversary) said at the time she wasn't going to have any, and hasn't, but the curse of the diamond befell her too, at first anyway.

[Eruresto]

To throw my twopennethworth in on this matter:

I have heard this rumour floating about, muttered by people in corridors and all that. Whilst I think it should be taken with a pinch of salt, I would not be surprised, or aggrieved had it happened on my year, to see a more stringent procedure for going into Deps and Grecians. Currently, the situation as reported in roll call is "If you do not intend to stay on to Deps, you must let (somebody, I forget who) know by half term." (or whenever)

At present, the attitude towards the end of year scything is that those who do not stay on are "leaving", as opposed to what I feel should be the case: that those who do stay on are "staying". I realise that this is actually gobbeldeegook but I hope you'll understand what I'm on about; that those who leave are those who don't apply, or don't apply successfully, as opposed to those people who decide to "leave". Conversely, those who stay should have made a conscious decision to stay and thus reapplied.

Whilst perhaps an assessment might be going too far with regards to the same hoop twice (though I believe New Deps sit a test - any NDs want to clarify that procedure?), I would certainly agree with Mrs. C regarding behaviour and discipline. Whilst I have seen Dephood make men of people, this has been the minority of cases all too often those people continue in the Foundations (pun intended) of bad behaviour they have lain beforehand in the UF and GE. Perhaps the SMT should, with help from relevant parties, judge each person on their merits and their record to decide what the best course of action should be?

[Jo]

Whilst perhaps an assessment might be going too far with regards to the same hoop twice (though I believe New Deps sit a test - any NDs want to clarify that procedure?), I would certainly agree with Mrs. C regarding behaviour and discipline. Whilst I have seen Dephood make men of people, this has been the minority of cases all too often those people continue in the Foundations (pun intended) of bad behaviour they have lain beforehand in the UF and GE. Perhaps the SMT should, with help from relevant parties, judge each person on their merits and their record to decide what the best course of action should be?

Eeeek. Check your chins for stubble, girls.

[englishangel]

Why do NDs have to sit a test? Has there been no assessment in the previous 5 years?

Also surely going into sixth Form should be the norm, even at my offspring's school (an upper school as we have grammar schools) the students are expected to be educated until 18, even if they are going to sixth forn college. And these are not the most academically able kids.

There must be some who the staff despair of behaviour wise, but those last two years are often the making of them. My daughter was a pain in the neck all the way up to year 11 (hardly went to school at all in year but she got reasonable GCSEs and when she went into sixth formdoing subjects she was REALLY interested in, and being treated as an adult, she blossomed.