Welcome to the unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum - for discussing everything CH/Old Blue related. All pupils, parents, families, staff, Old Blues and anyone else related to CH are welcome to browse the boards, register and contribute.
Fjgrogan wrote:Alleluia - someone within the school actually backing up what we old fogies have been complaining about for some time! In my day (1956-62) it was unheard of for anyone to have to leave because parental income had risen; the fees - aka parental contribution - would be raised accordingly but never to the point where a child was forced to leave. The whole point of the system was to provide stability for children deemed to be 'in need' of some kind, not necessarily just financial need. Obviously many parents were able to work once their children were at boarding school but to then raise fees further than the increase in income would be totally counter-productive. However there would have been a case for saying that refusing to work to prevent that happening would be regarded as cheating the system! It was more or less possible in those days to work out how much it was 'safe' to earn without wrecking one's child's education. Now there seems to be no accountability at all - fees seem to shoot up and up with no apparent relationship to the variation in parental income; they just keep changing the rules and leaving parents in the dark as to why their fees have increased. I seem to remember there was a case a few years ago when the new assessment arrived a week before term started, it had increased so much that the child had to be withdrawn from school immediately and then the school had the audacity to insist on a term's fees in lieu of a term's notice. In many respects CH has moved from being an educational charity to being a big business! Or am I just turning into a Grumpy Old Woman?
As for being forced to gain six As - yes, I beleive it is yet another financial ploy to make space for fee-paying VIth form entrants. It paves the way for a lack of self-esteem later in life when young adults are in danger of believing that nothing but perfection is acceptable - I know, I have been there. For years I thought that I was no good at science - by CH standards I wasn't - but compared with contemporaries from the local comprehensive I was a genius (well, cleverer than I had thought anyway!).
I totally agree, Frances.
In my day at Horsham, all came from a deprived back-ground in one way shape or form, as it should have been.
And less of the 'old fogies', please I may be pushing 66, but my Grand-kids still enjoy an evening out with Jan and myself.
Fjgrogan wrote:Precisely, John. At almost 68 I am both looking and feeling old!!
About five years ago we were given a copy of a letter written about my wife by her specialist asking another doctor to carry out specific tests. It started "This elderly lady .........". She is about Frances' age (almost 68 now) so draw your own conclusions. Do I read the words "Liverpool Pathway"?
What happens if a politician drowns in a river? That is pollution.
What happens if all of them drown? That is solution!!!
Frances, the Liverpool Care Pathway is a system used for patients (usually elderly) approaching death. I believe it involves withdrawal of food and fluids under specified conditions, with medical supervision. It has been reported that in some cases it was used inappropriately. Some allege it hastened death in the wrong cases. There was talk of "bed-blockers" and financial incentives to maximise usage of beds. All very nasty.
I have to say that in all my dealings with Heartlands hospital, not even one doctor has referred to me in writing as "elderly", though I'm older than David's wife and you.
Yes I have just had a similar explanation by PM from David. I am familiar with the idea; just never heard the expression before. Personally I try hard to avoid any interaction with medical professionals; hopefully by the time it becomes impossible to avoid them it will be too late anyway! I have no problem with anyone choosing to end their own life, provided only that it is an informed decision; to deliberately withhold nourishment is a very different matter, unless it is certain that that is what the patient wants. My own mother kept trying to starve herself, but my father wouldn't let her. She believed that her breast cancer had spread to her spine and brain, which was not actually true. In fact she had a series of strokes, a known side-effect of the drug she was being treated with. When I realised just hours before her death that the only 'nourishment' she was getting was a discreetly hidden morphine pump, I quietly went along with it; she was getting her wish without my father being caused any further distress. To this day he believes that she died of cancer, when in reality it was the strokes. After 58 years of marriage I think he would have been devastated to discover that the hospice was actually fulfilling my mother's wishes!
Fjgrogan wrote:Alleluia - someone within the school actually backing up what we old fogies have been complaining about for some time! In my day (1956-62) it was unheard of for anyone to have to leave because parental income had risen; the fees - aka parental contribution - would be raised accordingly but never to the point where a child was forced to leave. The whole point of the system was to provide stability for children deemed to be 'in need' of some kind, not necessarily just financial need. Obviously many parents were able to work once their children were at boarding school but to then raise fees further than the increase in income would be totally counter-productive. However there would have been a case for saying that refusing to work to prevent that happening would be regarded as cheating the system! It was more or less possible in those days to work out how much it was 'safe' to earn without wrecking one's child's education. Now there seems to be no accountability at all - fees seem to shoot up and up with no apparent relationship to the variation in parental income; they just keep changing the rules and leaving parents in the dark as to why their fees have increased. I seem to remember there was a case a few years ago when the new assessment arrived a week before term started, it had increased so much that the child had to be withdrawn from school immediately and then the school had the audacity to insist on a term's fees in lieu of a term's notice. In many respects CH has moved from being an educational charity to being a big business! Or am I just turning into a Grumpy Old Woman?
As for being forced to gain six As - yes, I beleive it is yet another financial ploy to make space for fee-paying VIth form entrants. It paves the way for a lack of self-esteem later in life when young adults are in danger of believing that nothing but perfection is acceptable - I know, I have been there. For years I thought that I was no good at science - by CH standards I wasn't - but compared with contemporaries from the local comprehensive I was a genius (well, cleverer than I had thought anyway!).
Good to see that someone agrees! Oh and please call me by my first name which is Ben. Your post confirms what i thought, that while the school may of been not as nice a place as it is now, it held to its values more in the 50s/60s/70s/80s. I like grumpy old women, I have lived with one since the age of 1 anyway
Fjgrogan wrote:Alleluia - someone within the school actually backing up what we old fogies have been complaining about for some time! In my day (1956-62) it was unheard of for anyone to have to leave because parental income had risen; the fees - aka parental contribution - would be raised accordingly but never to the point where a child was forced to leave. The whole point of the system was to provide stability for children deemed to be 'in need' of some kind, not necessarily just financial need. Obviously many parents were able to work once their children were at boarding school but to then raise fees further than the increase in income would be totally counter-productive. However there would have been a case for saying that refusing to work to prevent that happening would be regarded as cheating the system! It was more or less possible in those days to work out how much it was 'safe' to earn without wrecking one's child's education. Now there seems to be no accountability at all - fees seem to shoot up and up with no apparent relationship to the variation in parental income; they just keep changing the rules and leaving parents in the dark as to why their fees have increased. I seem to remember there was a case a few years ago when the new assessment arrived a week before term started, it had increased so much that the child had to be withdrawn from school immediately and then the school had the audacity to insist on a term's fees in lieu of a term's notice. In many respects CH has moved from being an educational charity to being a big business! Or am I just turning into a Grumpy Old Woman?
As for being forced to gain six As - yes, I beleive it is yet another financial ploy to make space for fee-paying VIth form entrants. It paves the way for a lack of self-esteem later in life when young adults are in danger of believing that nothing but perfection is acceptable - I know, I have been there. For years I thought that I was no good at science - by CH standards I wasn't - but compared with contemporaries from the local comprehensive I was a genius (well, cleverer than I had thought anyway!).
Good to see that someone agrees! Oh and please call me by my first name which is Ben. Your post confirms what i thought, that while the school may of been not as nice a place as it is now, it held to its values more in the 50s/60s/70s/80s. I like grumpy old women, I have lived with one since the age of 1 anyway
Ben, I just hope 'Mum' hasn't got access to this site, for your sake !
I have very strong feelings about 'The Liverpool Pathway'. It appears to be used by medical authorities who want to clear beds as quickly as possible, and possibly without the relatives full knowledge.
This in my book, is nothing short of muder !
However, euthanasia, for want of a better term, when the patient is terminal and is in full control of their mental facultiesis their right as far as I'm concerned.
Fjgrogan wrote:Alleluia - someone within the school actually backing up what we old fogies have been complaining about for some time! In my day (1956-62) it was unheard of for anyone to have to leave because parental income had risen; the fees - aka parental contribution - would be raised accordingly but never to the point where a child was forced to leave. The whole point of the system was to provide stability for children deemed to be 'in need' of some kind, not necessarily just financial need. Obviously many parents were able to work once their children were at boarding school but to then raise fees further than the increase in income would be totally counter-productive. However there would have been a case for saying that refusing to work to prevent that happening would be regarded as cheating the system! It was more or less possible in those days to work out how much it was 'safe' to earn without wrecking one's child's education. Now there seems to be no accountability at all - fees seem to shoot up and up with no apparent relationship to the variation in parental income; they just keep changing the rules and leaving parents in the dark as to why their fees have increased. I seem to remember there was a case a few years ago when the new assessment arrived a week before term started, it had increased so much that the child had to be withdrawn from school immediately and then the school had the audacity to insist on a term's fees in lieu of a term's notice. In many respects CH has moved from being an educational charity to being a big business! Or am I just turning into a Grumpy Old Woman?
As for being forced to gain six As - yes, I beleive it is yet another financial ploy to make space for fee-paying VIth form entrants. It paves the way for a lack of self-esteem later in life when young adults are in danger of believing that nothing but perfection is acceptable - I know, I have been there. For years I thought that I was no good at science - by CH standards I wasn't - but compared with contemporaries from the local comprehensive I was a genius (well, cleverer than I had thought anyway!).
Good to see that someone agrees! Oh and please call me by my first name which is Ben. Your post confirms what i thought, that while the school may of been not as nice a place as it is now, it held to its values more in the 50s/60s/70s/80s. I like grumpy old women, I have lived with one since the age of 1 anyway
Ben, I just hope 'Mum' hasn't got access to this site, for your sake !
I have very strong feelings about 'The Liverpool Pathway'. It appears to be used by medical authorities who want to clear beds as quickly as possible, and possibly without the relatives full knowledge.
This in my book, is nothing short of muder !
However, euthanasia, for want of a better term, when the patient is terminal and is in full control of their mental facultiesis their right as far as I'm concerned.
Nah I live with my gran and I don't think she would mind
I am sure you have heard about the 6 A's rule. Where if I don't get 6 A's at GCSE's then I have to leave the school.
Well, not so very long before my time, the school seemed to recognise only two universities. Becoming a Grecian or Dep was a privilege reserved purely for those who were likely to make the grade. Fortunately, by the time I left, Flecker had come round to the view that London (and possibly Durham) were acceptable alternatives for those seeking to stay on after 15. Certainly, most still got the shove or were sidelined into the "Fifth Form".
