Early Lent Half Term

[Antinous1]

I don't know if I am the only one, who found aspects of onewestguncopse's comments about weekly boarding profoundly depressing. Usually I find that that OWGC adds a breath of common sense and reason to discussions, but on this occasion I actually found his comments about boarding so upsetting that they have been bothering me all week . Now that I have an opportunity I feel compelled to say something regarding them. I do not know whether we would count in OWGC's eyes as having 'Major Family issues', I know that I did not actually tell the school all of the reasons why boarding would be of benefit to my child and equally they did not tell me what their reason was for feeling that boarding was indeed right for my child. I had, naively, believed that the staff at CH would be there because they were supportive of boarding but I am now left with the uncomfortable thought that, friendly and helpful as my child's Houseparent appears to be, they may very well be highly judgemental of me as a parent for having chosen to send my child to CH and perhaps even doubtful about whether the child should be there. Fortunate the Christ's Hospital teacher who, with access to this wonderful educational experience for their own child, can sidestep making the truly awful decision that a beloved child's best interests are met by their living away from the family for so much of the year. It is a truly miserable moment as a parent when you realise that you have either created, or become part of a situation where your child will genuinely be better off away from home for part of the year.

The overall picture painted by OWGC in his vision of a school where weekly boarding is offered to attract a better 'quality' of monied parent, seems to me to be one of a divided school - a school of haves and have-nots - and I suspect that by offering the options that will attract such parents the school will be failing to support the very pupils that its stated intention is to help. I can see that many parents, especially local ones, might well think that it is lovely to have their children home for weekends, but what about families where a good part of the reason they turned to CH for help was precisely to get a child away from family or neighbourhood problems, what about families where the parent or parents regularly have to work long hours at weekends so neither child nor parent gains much from them being home, what about families where the added cost of travel to and fro is an unnecessary extra burden? What about the child who has so much more in the way of activities and amenities on offer at school than can be managed at home that they prefer to be there for the weekend? Or the child who, having been separated from local friends and activities in order to attend CH, has no real social life at home and depends on the relaxed routine at school on Saturday and Sunday in order to hang out with their mates there? What about older children, who might well want to use some of their weekend time for extra study or music practice, or to continue with art projects, but whose home circumstances aren't conducive to that?

In fact many of these points may well be applicable to OWGC's 'better quality' families too: on another forum discussing 11+ and independent school applications I remember a poster pointing out (to someone who had suggested wealthy parents did not choose CH because it was full of 'problem' families) that plenty of better-off families with children at top public schools have exactly the same problems (messy divorce, drink, drugs etc), they are just better disguised. So perhaps those kids too would be better off without the option to go home at every opportunity. I see that OWGC makes it clear that full boarding would still be an option, but surely this would just help to take away the glorious sense of equality that CH used to impart to children of all backgrounds, and point out the increasing differences between them. I suspect that people like myself are already increasingly aware of this divide as our children come home and tell us that 'everyone else' has an iPod/ Nintendo DS/mobile phone/wonderful-expensive-consumer-gadget, or that their untrendy, much-mended, civvies have been commented on.

One of the things which makes CH so especially valuable to the disadvantaged child is precisely the 'out of hours' opportunities, support and activities, which means that it gives so much more than just an excellent education, including importantly a network of friends to take into adult life with them. In fact I am sure that one of the pieces of literature sent out by the school actually states that weekdays are dominated by hard work, and that it is at weekends that the children get to form and enjoy the friendships which will last a lifetime. How can they do this if they are forever going home, or if only a handful of them stay at school for weekends? The sense of equality and belonging which CH imparts to its young people and which is perhaps the greatest gift it can give to some of them, is surely at risk here.

I am more grateful than I can ever express for my child's place at CH, I go to bed at night thanking all the good people who have made it possible, and I had thought that children like mine were precisely who the school was there for, but I have to say that OWGC comes close to making me feel uncomfortably like an unwanted burden. Perhaps CH needs to decide whether in its future incarnation it will be aiming to cater for a comfortable majority (for whom home can offer a better life than school at the weekends), or whether its priority is to ensure that things are arranged in the best interests of the most needy pupils. Of course I guess the simple option is just to phase out the places offered to pupils with a particular need to be away from home: after all, as was evident from the 11+ forum messages, their very presence in the school may be a major discouragement to those 'better quality' parents OWGC is so keen to attract.

None of this I'm afraid is of any help with CH's financial problems, just a plea not to throw the baby out with the bath water as everyone searches for solutions to them.

Antinous

[lonelymom]

You expressed that so well, and you have said everything that I have been thinking. I was shocked when I read OWGC's views on the future of CH, but I hadn't commented on this thread because I was hoping that either he would come back and comment further, or another staff member that uses this forum would come and reassure us that this isn't going to happen. Neither has happened unfortunately.

[Eruresto]

I too was peturbed by OWGC's post. What he says about making ends meet may well be true, but when it goes so far as to describe higher-fee paying parents/pupils as "better quality" this is going too far. In my book, it is this kind of thinking, rather than any talk of 6% or whatever, that I feel threatens CH - and in response to his comment on OBs returning their debt, I have to say that I would feel far less inclined to repay such a debt if I knew that the school to which I was donating thought in such ways.

I had, naively, believed that the staff at CH would be there because they were supportive of boarding but I am now left with the uncomfortable thought that, friendly and helpful as my child's Houseparent appears to be, they may very well be highly judgemental of me as a parent for having chosen to send my child to CH and perhaps even doubtful about whether the child should be there.

I have to say that in my experience this is not the case, at least not in the majority. I have discussed this at length with various teachers and almost all of them say that the job satisfaction they get is as high as it is because CH is not just another boarding school - hence, I believe, why such a high number of Old Blues have returned to work at the school, not just now but pretty much always since the school started in 1553.

What about the child who has so much more in the way of activities and amenities on offer at school than can be managed at home that they prefer to be there for the weekend? Or the child who, having been separated from local friends and activities in order to attend CH, has no real social life at home and depends on the relaxed routine at school on Saturday and Sunday in order to hang out with their mates there? What about older children, who might well want to use some of their weekend time for extra study or music practice, or to continue with art projects, but whose home circumstances aren't conducive to that?

This was my situation exactly. When at the end of year six I left primary school for CH I had no real friends here, and due to not going to school locally (I'm about 40 miles away) I never made any. I used to miss my friends at CH in the holidays - especially as until my Grecians I never had anyone local from CH. As a result, I dove deeply into the social areas at school, in particularly the scouts. Sometimes my house wouldn't see me from 2pm Saturday to 4pm Sunday because of the trips and camps. These weekenders, especially the overnight activities, were among the best memories I have of CH.

I suspect that people like myself are already increasingly aware of this divide as our children come home and tell us that 'everyone else' has an iPod/ Nintendo DS/mobile phone/wonderful-expensive-consumer-gadget, or that their untrendy, much-mended, civvies have been commented on.

Here I must disagree. I was anything but the most affluent member of my year/house, but found in the majority of cases that those who had shared with those who didn't (for instance, I have a fond memory of the three other boys in my room and myself all playing on one of them's GameBoy), and certainly it was never rubbed in their noses that "I've got an XYZ, you haven't, neh". I found that in fact CH taught you to be happy and content with what you had, because no matter what you had or didn't have, there would always be someone worse off.

[J.R.]

A lovely, honest and well composed response, Josh.

[anniexf]

A lovely, honest and well composed response, Josh.

HEAR, HEAR

Josh represents the kind of young man CH should feel proud to have assisted. It would be ghastly if CH were to become just another Indie seeking to hang on to its charitable status by offering a few "gesture" scholarships. I hope OWGC's views on "better-quality parents" are in a minority. Either he has expressed himself poorly or he's demonstrating the kind of attitude CH exists in part to eradicate.

[Mid A 15]

The is a Leave Weekend every third weekend that starts on Friday and ends on Sunday night. So it goes Sunday night arrive at start of term, Sunday at School, Sunday at School, Leave Weekend, Sunday at School, Sunday at School Half Term (one week - except for Mich term which is two weeks) ...... Easter is a week longer than most State Schools - Christmas about the same and Summer 2/3 weeks longer.

When I first came to CH in 1995 there were only leave days (Sat?). That was abolished for a Sat/Sun and then Fri/Sat/Sun.

Why - essentially because that is what parents today want. Parents live closer to CH and sociey has changed. Parents want to see their children! Shock Horror

They also demand higher standards of care (as do the Social Services and OFSTED). What I saw when I first arrived at CH (Open Dorms, Metal Beds, Lav Ends etc) would now be illegal now. Hence all boarding schools have had to spend millions on refurbishment - even down to the number of toilets per person or bedspace per person.

The biggest problem is full boarding IMHO. This is not popular with many potential parents ( who may have worthy, needy children). I (as a teacher at CH) would not send my children to boarding school at age 11 (13 possibly - 16 happily) unless it were imperative (i.e. Army/Major Family issues etc). That is my opinion by the way and clearly not shared by the parents who do! Interestingly today I had a chat with a House Master who agreed with me and three of his children came to CH as Day Boarders.

Weekly boarding is different. Hard working parents can send their child to a school Sunday to Sat knowing that they will see them on Sat night/Sunday. Why some OBs think this is odd or potential disastrous to CH and its ethos is a mystery to me. Full Boarding would remain an OPTION for those who wanted it but most would not IMHO.

This would make CH more attractive to parents, improve the quality of our intake and encourage more parents with money to apply. I know that is a dirty word to some, but truly, the CH model of the past is not sustainable anymore. We can die a slow death or adapt. Protect the majority of foundation places but stop pretending that we can carry on regardless. We are losing money hand over fist at the moment - scary amounts - mind boggling. Most schools would have closed by now!

Enjoy the memories but stop pretending - OR - all the Old Blues can pitch up the £75m we need to sustain ourselves! We need MAJOR investment.

I think OWGC has been taken out of context and misconstrued by some although by stating that I am not saying I necessarily agree with him totally.

I don't think he means that parents with money are "better" than those that have none but that the option of weekly boarding would enable more needy, academically able children to attend hence improving the "quality" of intake whilst presumably reducing overheads as staff (or rather as many staff) would not need paying at the weekend which in turn would contribute towards protection of "the majority of foundation places."

There is a difficult balancing act between maintaining the "ethos" of the School and addressing the inescapable economic realities confronting it. I suggest OWGC is putting forward one possible solution.

As a (now armchair) sportsman I see pitfalls with his suggestion. What will become of Plum Senior's cricket 1st X1 for example? Academic changes over the last few years have already severely impacted on sports participation from my reading of The Blue without the introduction of weekly only boarding. The same logic can be applied to music, scouts and any other extra curricular activity you care to name.

I am a dusty old relic these days and probably out of touch but for me a large part of the "ethos" of the School is allowing children whom may not otherwise get the chance the opportunity of pursuing extra curricular activities with good facilities.

I think Josh's excellent response supports that.

[NEILL THE NOTORIOUS]

After all this discussion ---- the bit I liked best was "What will the Old Blues be saying in 2015 ?"

I shall be delighted to make comments --- as I shall be 87 !!!

Even at a Seance --

[Mid A 15]

This is a most fascinating discussion.

I am greatly intrigued by the views expounded.

I wonder which model parents and Old Blues feel will be in place in 2015.

Evolution v revolution?

How do you see it Howard?

I suspect you are uniquely placed to comment from a number of perspectives.

[YadaYada]

Not much to add except to thank Antinous1 for what they wrote as it summed up completely how I feel about the comments made. I couldnt sustain weekly boarding from Lincolnshire. We also didnt take the decision lightly to apply to CH. There are a number of reasons why CH was right for my son and full boarding was included in that. I am sorry that there is even one member of staff who feels like onewestguncopse.

[Foureyes]

Could someone please satisfy my curiosity? With these leave weekends every third (or is it fourth?) week-end, what happens if the parents either live too far away (perhaps even abroad) or simply cannot afford the expense of such frequent travel? Are there any arrangements for such children to stay at the school or are they simply kicked-out willy-nilly? I know that harking back to the past is frowned on, but my brother and I were at Housie from 1948 to 1955 and lived in Devon. The cost of two return journeys three times a year was a very significant additional cost and at today's prices would be horrendous, let alone every third/fourth week-end. There is also the question of travelling time. Thus, it seems to me that the more breaks the school gives the less likely it is that it will attract children from outside the London/Home Counties/Sussex area - or, perhaps, that is what they are trying to achieve?

[Mrs C.]

2 houses are "open" at leave weekend and meals provided, but all pupils are encouragd to go home or to a friend`s house .
(CH parents are usually most hospitable )It is rare that anyone has nowhere to go and on the odd weekend where only one or 2 pupils have been unableto get away, I know Houseparents or other staff who have welcomed them into their own homes so they have some company over the weekend.

[NEILL THE NOTORIOUS]

Sorry !---- in advance-- but----
I return to my original stance on this question.
Surely a BOARDING School is meant to be just that.
All these Weelkly Boarders and encouragement to go home, or to friends, must be a PolicyDecision by the School.

Forgive my ignorance, but do Weeklies pay less than full Boarders ?
I, again, point out that the original Ethos of CH was to provide Education, including Clothing and Food, to those children who, although deserving (And Bright !) had parents or a parent who could not afford such an Education.
Hence the "Sliding scale" of Fees -- when such were introduced -- and the "Glass Ceiling" of maximum Income, which prevented rich parents from enjoying such privileges for their children.

Lately the Governing Board have been claiming Poverty, and have introduced many schemes to make money.

I have not seen the Accounts -- but I find this plea to be dubious.
If it is true -- then what has happened to the School's Property Holdings in the City of London and other investments which have been donated by Old Blues ?
I, personally know of one Old Blue (Nameless) who has put in over £60,000 over the last few years.

Rant over !! but I believe that the Schhol, which we love, is losing some of our respect.

[anniexf]

I'm still confused about OWGC's remark "improve the quality of our intake". What particular improvement(s)? As far as I can tell, the rigorous selection procedure is already getting top-quality intake - motivated, hard-working and ambitious children. Judging by the comments of current parents on this forum, the decision to apply to CH is made after much soul-searching, careful comparisons and with truly the very best interests of their much-loved children as central to these considerations. So these are top-quality parents. How can you improve on that?

[sejintenej]

I'm still confused about OWGC's remark "improve the quality of our intake". What particular improvement(s)? As far as I can tell, the rigorous selection procedure is already getting top-quality intake - motivated, hard-working and ambitious children. Judging by the comments of current parents on this forum, the decision to apply to CH is made after much soul-searching, careful comparisons and with truly the very best interests of their much-loved children as central to these considerations. So these are top-quality parents. How can you improve on that?

I find this question of "quality" a problem.
The way it is written comes across as "the best academically" whereas the concept used to be "need". Lets suppose there are three contestants for one place:
a) is from a broken home, on social security and in a school infamous for poor standards, drug taking, violence but he/she has a clean sheet so far but it is probably a matter of time. He has been in hospital from injuries caused effectively by the neighbourhood/family. He is literate and numerate but has not been in any class which is actually taught anything useful
b) is from a better class home, very good local school, enough (just) money coming into the house, has tried drugs (or alcohol) and he/she is academically good
c) as b) but also a good musician
In the old days I would have expected a) to get the place but from what I read now it would be c).
Is this what the school was originally founded for?

[Mid A 15]

I'm still confused about OWGC's remark "improve the quality of our intake". What particular improvement(s)? As far as I can tell, the rigorous selection procedure is already getting top-quality intake - motivated, hard-working and ambitious children. Judging by the comments of current parents on this forum, the decision to apply to CH is made after much soul-searching, careful comparisons and with truly the very best interests of their much-loved children as central to these considerations. So these are top-quality parents. How can you improve on that?

I find this question of "quality" a problem.
The way it is written comes across as "the best academically" whereas the concept used to be "need". Lets suppose there are three contestants for one place:
a) is from a broken home, on social security and in a school infamous for poor standards, drug taking, violence but he/she has a clean sheet so far but it is probably a matter of time. He has been in hospital from injuries caused effectively by the neighbourhood/family. He is literate and numerate but has not been in any class which is actually taught anything useful
b) is from a better class home, very good local school, enough (just) money coming into the house, has tried drugs (or alcohol) and he/she is academically good
c) as b) but also a good musician
In the old days I would have expected a) to get the place but from what I read now it would be c).
Is this what the school was originally founded for?

From page 121 of "Christ's Hospital" by G.A.T. Allan Revised by J.E. Morpurgo:

...."For presented children the academic qualifications were formerly minimal and even now they are by no means severe but no child is accepted who, in the opinion of the Head Master or Head Mistress, is not likely to achieve eventually a satisfactory performance at O level."......

That extract suggests that there has been a minimum academic standard of sorts for some time...