The house system in my time was an absolute lottery - but also a very dangerous one. This is I think one of the main proof points that shows that Poulton
et al just weren't in control:
Maine was probably the best example at the time of a stern junior house experience (Grimshaw) that turned into a seriously anarchic senior house one (Crud). Peele probably the same (Maddren --> Can't Remember). By contrast Thornton (Hempstead --> Alexander) was probably t'other way around.
Middleton seemed to be quite stable at the time. Lamb was hard to fathom - for some reason it had a rather genteel - almost posh reputation.
Leigh Hunt was the oddity. Sillett was known to be tough but indiscriminate and also myopic, so there were some really bad bullying cases in LHB that I think Dennison was able to smooth out a bit in LHA. One of my mates was bust for smoking but it was based on smell, and turned out it was Sillett's cigars that he smoked in prep!
My point is that there should have been some sort of standard but in reality there was very little commonality between houses, from the facilities up. I spent most of my time on horsehair mattresses, in long dormitories with sheets and hairy blankets, envious of people who slept with duvets in bedroom studies. To this day (petty I know) that rankles. The more serious point here is that I think this is indicative of an unwillingness to apply a fair standard and governance in Houses. They were islands and the housemaster had real latitude: Sillett could be the bully, Crud and Dobbie could groom and/or abuse.
When there were good examples of house staff this was because of the integrity of the individual (Vikki and Tim come to mind), not because the office demanded anything over and above apparent teaching skill.
This is why I feel there is weight to the following lines of thinking on this site:
- The Senior Management Team Failed. Capital F. Poulton, Sillett, Cairncross, Rae, Morrison, Hansford. Deduction: there must be an enquiry.
- Many of the staff failed. A significant number of the staff would have seen enough evidence of injury, abuse or downright strangeness, OR (to my point above and as professional teachers) have recognised the conditions under which injury, abuse or downright strangeness flourishes. Deduction: CH in the given timeframe of this abuse, from, say the early 80s to the mid-90s should be regarded and recorded as a failed school and a dark epoch. It may be flowers and ambrosia now, in which case well done Reid, but then it wasn't.
- Some of the staff are blameless. Either because they were spectacularly opaque or just had an other worldliness (Art School) or disengagement with anything other than teaching (I've always felt that the PolEcon department) fell into this category. Deduction: the binary view - AllStaffBad isn't true or helpful.
This is why the School's apparent silence on the matter won't cut it. Critical analysis of the school
then must be encouraged, without prejudice to the school
now. Frankly I'm not over-engaged with the school now; I'm not bound by the charge, and I've no inclination to return. But unless the school visibly engages with the past then I'm going to keep telling anyone who asks me about it or enquires about their children that it's toxic, hidebound and image obsessed, and unworthy of their children. I don't care if I'm wrong.