Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

You served your time at Housey and survived. Hopefully you came out the better for it. Now assuming you have the good fortune to have an average child, of moderate intelligence and the appropriate social skills et c, would you consider sending them to CH and why/why not?

(Yes it's all possibly rather hypothetical and it depends greatly on the individual child et c - but hopefully you get the drift)

to be honest, i really don't know.

i would keep a VERY close eye on the school if i did send them there though.

overall, i had a good time but it is rapidly changing.

dunno, good question.

As a member of staff I am faced with the same question myself. Our situation is different because Harry and Emily would have to go to the same school as their Dad, which can be a mixed blessing. I think that the school has many strengths, not least its inclusive intake. That is something that raises it above the other public schools in the country. Notwithstanding some OB concerns about the changes taking place, i believe that the school will remain true to that ethos whilst probably looking for ways to attract more parents who can contribute to the cost of running the place. We cannot ignore the fact that costs of education are rising above inflation and good intentions don't pay the elecricity bills!

I see no harm in taking children whose parents are wealthy, as long as we continue to offer all children access on a level playing field. At the moment, so far as I know, the school still operates a needs blind assessment. At no point during the selection process, that takes 8 hours and is far more exhaustive than most schools, does the issue of parental income come into the equation. Indeed, none of the selection panel, including the HM, know the income of a parent until the child is offered a place. The fact the more parents of wealthier means are applying is largely due to the fact that with the declined of assisted places and scholarships, more middle class parents are considering the school. This will inevitably lead to a more 'middle class' intake and hence mean that more students are paying higher fees. Harry Potter has also made boarding attractive, rather than old fashioned. This has also led to increase in interest across the country. Moreover, the increase in the number of working parents now, makes boarding more attractive (although most prefer weekly boarding, something that I personally see as a potential change for us in medium term)

In the end, we can only assess who applies. Families from middle class homes who are earning £25K plus tend to aspire for their children to attend a 'private' school and hence feel able to put their children in for the exam. We do try and reach out to other communities, but they are not always so keen on boarding or the concept of private education for political or others reasons.

To end this reply, I would be interested to know from OBs how the staff children were percieved. In your experience, do they suffer or benefit from the label of 'non foundationer'? As a potential parent, this is clearly an interesting thread of information.

You're not preggers are you, Debs ?!!! I probably would send any kids I had to CH - it didn't do me too much harm. Well, maybe a bit...

Jenny L-C wrote: <snip> 'I'm not trying to teach you about Romantic poetry, I'm just getting you to pass an exam'

Sadly, some of my teacher friends in other schools say that this is the norm - especially when bonuses are often paid on results achieved. I don't know whether this happens at CH or not. One friend (not CH) even tells me about how they're encouraged to get pupils off courses by a certain date so it doesn't affect their stat's. She was horrified as she likes to teach (and she's very good) - rather than to get students to simply pass their A-levels. But sadly, good results are what parents and funders look for when choosing schools. Apart from that so called "Value Added" that the government bats around, how else can you grade a school?

As to wheter I'd choose CH - well, it looks like when Smith & I get around to producing ankle biters and they're old enough for senior school (approx 15 yrs away) we'll be earning enough (hopefully) to send them to private school anyway and thus would leave CH to those less able to pay; so the question isn't entirely relevant to us. (He's a grammar school boy so we're in favour of selective education - although in a rather left wing kinda way).

However, if Smith & I are in a position to consider CH, I've felt that there was a slight "attitude" (perhaps that's not the right word) from the Foundation of "We know best and you should be jolly grateful that your child is here" which, I think, as a fee paying parent would rub me up the wrong way. Of course, things may change in fifteen years.

I could be misled of course.

I enjoyed CH. At times it was very "character building" if you get my drift. But ultimately it was right for me. I hope it is as right for others too.

My elder daughter is 6 next week so she will start at senior school in approximately 5 years time which isn't that long away really. I always thought I would like to send any children I had to CH but now it's getting nearer and nearer to decision time I'm not sure A kid free house sounds appealing though!

Well, time to answer a couple of points - I was a non-foundationer at CH and to that respect, I never really found it a problem...

It may be a bit different for me though because Dad was my headmaster at prep school...

I would love to send my kids to CH as long as its main core eothos did noit change to much - I think it may take me a while to perusade my fiancee of that...

I thoroughly enjoyed my time at CH but however I didn't like the changes that were coming into play during my last years there. I always vowed that I would send my children there and now recently just having had a son, the thought keeps returning. Hearing some of the more recent blues and pupils comments on here, makes you wonder just what it is like there now? On the whole it shouldn't be compared with my experience because the way I feel about it, could be how current pupils would feel as they don't know any different. At the end of the day the decision to send your child/ren to CH should be based on academic standards rarther than what everyday changes have taken place to the running of the school. For me I have a lot to thank CH for including Dr S because I personally think that if I hadn't of gone to CH then I wouldn't be where I am today. Compared to the 'local kids' I never hung around in wrecks late at night in the holidays so I became very independent and grown up as I got older.

As for non foundationers, there wasn't any in our house on our year, so can't really comment, but Mat - did you feel you missed out on the evening escapades as you could only hear about them the next morning??

stoice wrote:and now recently just having had a son, the thought keeps returning.

Did you have your son in St Mary's in Pompey?

stoice wrote: As for non foundationers, there wasn't any in our house on our year, so can't really comment, but Mat - did you feel you missed out on the evening escapades as you could only hear about them the next morning??

Not really Sace, but that's because by the time it got to my senoirs, I was in breakfast at 7.15 and back home about 11... so there wasn't that much to miss out!

stoice wrote:At the end of the day the decision to send your child/ren to CH should be based on academic standards rarther than what everyday changes have taken place to the running of the school

as a parent you are infinitely more qualified to say but surely academic standards isn't the only thing to worry about. surely if it was, we wouldn't be 'vowing' to send our kids to CH, rather the 131 or so 'better' schools in the country.
academic obviously fairly high on the list though!

Compared to the 'local kids' I never hung around in wrecks late at night.

wow, they get wrecks to play in? like boats and planes and stuff?
we only got 'recs' to play in.

The issue of academic standards is important, however CH will always place academic standards alongside the importance of developing a childs non academic skills. CH is becoming an increasingly academic school. The second form this year will be very able indeed. However, we still retain, post GCSE, a cohort of students who are able but whose attainment at A level will be BBC rather than AAB. This is sound but does mean that we cannot be adequately compared to the many of the 131 odd schools above us in the league tables who recruit the most able students only. That being said, to be 131 in a table of over 3,000 schools is still remarkable!

The value added to a child is more important and CH here scores very highly indeed - last year we came 2nd in the co-educational leagues based on GCSE results when this was factored in! Sevenoaks was top! (Based on Guardian Tabels published in 2004)

Far more important to me is the strngth of CH and its non-academic qualities, be they music, sport, drama, whatever.... In this, as is shown in the tables, CH is very good at and that's why I'd want to send my kids...

why is there not an "it depends" option.

as someone who came in at sixth form, id be inclined to cos the majority of state schools suck!!

Coz I decided and I wrote the poll. Ner ner ner.

"It depends" brings in too many variables e.g. government, stock market investment (affecting the school's income), changes in curricula, changes in teaching methods, personal circumstances, blah blah blah and it all ends up like an intelligent version of a Vicki Pollard reply (yeah-but-no-but-yeah-but-no).

IMNHSO at least.