CH, Degrees and PPE (not the Coronavirus sort)

[sejintenej]

A Hertford OG, former teacher, asks whether female teachers were thought to be second rate, or was WW2 the first time Horsham had employed any? (my bold in the quote)

Katharine. When you have 850 young healthy males cooped up, with very limited contact with the real world I suggest that any attractive female would be a major distraction. There is one member of this forum whose inward letters from a female had to be examined by his housemaster in advance of his reading them in the housemaster's office because of the restrictions - the was not his mother1.

As for my own experience of female teachers there were only two. Miss Welch, my primary school teacher, loved rapping knuckles with a ruler and I got it hard because I started off left-handed which was totally unacceptable.
The second was a CH Horsham teacher. A large sheet of paper in front of each of us and told "paint". I for one, had never even seen a painting, I didn't even know what a painting was and she gave d**n all instruction. Stupid cow. Years later when doing A levels I suffered her again; I found that I could do very good drawings of human body parts (those NOT normally clothed). I could probably do hands blindfold, I did so many it was a waste of time. I now have the opportunity but she has so terrified me that I simply cannot bring myself to get the stuff out of the drawer beside me.

So, Katharine, I have little doubt that there are good female teachers - possibly better than the male teachers I see around here but I would not use that descriptor about my grandson's teachers.

[J.R.]

A Hertford OG, former teacher, asks whether female teachers were thought to be second rate, or was WW2 the first time Horsham had employed any? (my bold in the quote)

Katharine. When you have 850 young healthy males cooped up, with very limited contact with the real world I suggest that any attractive female would be a major distraction. There is one member of this forum whose inward letters from a female had to be examined by his housemaster in advance of his reading them in the housemaster's office because of the restrictions - the was not his mother1.

The second was a CH Horsham teacher. A large sheet of paper in front of each of us and told "paint".

I for one, had never even seen a painting, I didn't even know what a painting was and she gave d**n all instruction. Stupid cow. Years later when doing A levels I suffered her again; I found that I could do very good drawings of human body parts (those NOT normally clothed). I could probably do hands blindfold, I did so many it was a waste of time. I now have the opportunity but she has so terrified me that I simply cannot bring myself to get the stuff out of the drawer beside me.

NT by any chance, David ?

[sejintenej]

The second was a CH Horsham teacher. A large sheet of paper in front of each of us and told "paint".

I for one, had never even seen a painting, I didn't even know what a painting was and she gave d**n all instruction. Stupid cow. Years later when doing A levels I suffered her again; I found that I could do very good drawings of human body parts (those NOT normally clothed). I could probably do hands blindfold, I did so many it was a waste of time. I now have the opportunity but she has so terrified me that I simply cannot bring myself to get the stuff out of the drawer beside me.

NT by any chance, David ?

John; despite the hair style Bob Ross might be a teacher but is not female. As for speaking ill of the dead ......

[loringa]

If phallic Matthews was a terrible example, then another (taken on during the Second World War) was a worse example, from today’s point of view. This was Francis Haslehust, who taught classics to lower forms. He was a reasonable chap and taught imaginatively, never using a textbook and always inventing his own sentences for translation. The Vietnam conflict was underway when he taught me and his sentences sometimes included aeroplanes (with their translation provided by him as “machinae”). He had no degree. Nothing wrong with all that you may say. True. But he was an alcoholic, who admittedly controlled himself well and was never seen rolling drunk. Every day his breath stunk of booze after the morning break.

Of course, it is only recently that teaching has become almost exclusively a graduate profession. Until relatively recently (1960s possibly, 1950s definitely) teacher training colleges did not award degrees but Certificates in Education (Cert Ed) and relatively few primary or prep school teachers would have had degrees. I am not sure this is necessarily a bad thing; what is needed from the teacher at the more junior levels (so your man Haslehurst teaching the lower forms would have been in this position (when sober)), is enough teaching expertise to be credible and enough knowledge to know what one is teaching. Additionally, some subjects were simply not taught in universities. People like Mr Perry in the manual school were excellent teachers but they didn't have degrees, which they didn't need because they had learned their trade in industry or elsewhere. Thinking about it, Mr Gregory (BSG) didn't have a degree either but he was, in my experience, a pretty poor teacher; whether going to university would have made him a better one I don't know, but I suspect not. The flip side of this argument is, I suppose, that those who taught at higher levels, particularly in the Grammar Schools and in the independent sector, not only had degrees but 'good' degrees in academic subjects from well-regarded institutions.

[Foureyes]

Concerning masters in the Manual School, I remember the arrival of Mr Ingledew in about 1951-53. He was also the Junior Housemaster in Lamb B, which was my house, and why I remember him. The reason for mentioning him is that I recall very clearly being told that he was the first master in the Manual School to hold a degree, and he used to attend chapel wearing a hood, which, like Joseph's had many colours. He was a very nice man and used to read to us in the dormitory, a thrilling pre-TV activity.

The staff in those days were very choosy. I loved working in the forge, where the instructor was a Mr Clarke and I remember, without realising the significance at the time, that he and the Cadet Force RSM (Carter?) sat at a separate small table on the dais at lunchtime, because they were 'not one of us'!

David

[rockfreak]

Mr Ingledew must have been something of an athlete because he used to take those who were considered good enough out on training runs when the school steeplechase was looming. This seems to relate to a previous post of mine when I questioned the state-of-the-art facilities that CH is currently bankrupting itself with, and asked why the school these days has to employ what seem to be dedicated staff in sports, arts, drama, etc. In my day Beaky Davies taught maths and science along with rugby, several masters were able to coach sports at a reasonable level and some English masters pitched in to help with drama productions. Indeed you always knew what the annual Shakespeare production was going to be because several weeks beforehand the scenery would appear in a half-finished state in the manual school.

[Foureyes]

"why the school these days has to employ what seem to be dedicated staff in sports, arts, drama, etc"

You are correct that many academic masters took on secondary roles, especially in sport, but, even so, I think that you are being a little unfair, or, perhaps, you memory is playing you false (as happens to all of us!). In the early 50s there were quite a few non-academic members of staff: numerous music teachers; bandmaster (Stagg?); two art teachers (man, whose name I forget) and Nell Todd; and Edwards, who ran the gymn, supervised PT; and so on. Plus, the two sergeants-at-arms: Fielder (who also ran the Post Office) and Usher (who took the parades and also the punishment drills).

Nevertheless, your point about the ever more sophisticated amenities is a good one. Perhaps, the process of recovering from Covid will bring them to their senses?

David

[scrub]

why the school these days has to employ what seem to be dedicated staff in sports, arts, drama, etc.

There are multiple reasons why and I think that one of the biggest drivers is to keep up with parental expectations these days. This isn't just a CH-specific thing, but a UK-wide issue. A belief that unless you have a specialist teaching your children, they're getting a sub-standard education. Also, art, sport, and music, aren't just seen as extracurricular add-ons, but an integral part of the whole educational experience, one which you pay handsomely for. All of these subjects (and more) are available at GSCE and A-level, so having dedicated teachers is not unreasonable.

For specialist non-teachers, there's also a bit of "keeping up with the Joneses" going on. CH sees itself in a certain educational (and societal) echelon, so if Eaton/Harrow/Durham/Cranleigh/Charterhouse/etc etc etc, have a dedicated whatever, then they all have to have one. Or two. Or better yet, one they poached from one of the other places. That's just human nature for people of a certain disposition.

When I was there they had dedicated art teachers, but seeing as art was compulsory for at least 1 or two years, and was quite a popular choice at GCSE, having them made sense. IIRC, they also taught History or Art as well, so it wasn't like they had artists on the payroll just to watch kids do finger painting. Besides the band master, most of the music teachers were casuals and again, IIRC, unless you played in the band, shared your lessons with another kid, or were above a certain grade on the ABRSM scale, your parents had to pay for lessons. Sport was taught by masters, and some of them were much better athletes and coaches than teachers.

[Ajarn Philip]

why the school these days has to employ what seem to be dedicated staff in sports, arts, drama, etc.

There are multiple reasons why and I think that one of the biggest drivers is to keep up with parental expectations these days. This isn't just a CH-specific thing, but a UK-wide issue. A belief that unless you have a specialist teaching your children, they're getting a sub-standard education. Also, art, sport, and music, aren't just seen as extracurricular add-ons, but an integral part of the whole educational experience, one which you pay handsomely for. All of these subjects (and more) are available at GSCE and A-level, so having dedicated teachers is not unreasonable.

[...]
Sport was taught by masters, and some of them were much better athletes and coaches than teachers.

Interesting. Drama was my main outlet in a tricky couple of years during the end of my time at CH, and I've always seen the theatre and DNP as one (or rather two) of the best things to happen to CH while I was there. It seems quite a natural development to me for CH to move from the annual Shakespeare in Big School, with boys playing the female parts and English teachers with no acting experience directing, to a dedicated drama department.

There may have been no specialist sports teachers, but I'm quite sure there were a number of teachers (many teaching English) who were hired for their sporting ability.

[rockfreak]

I do agree with Scrub that CH has perhaps got locked into an unwinnable race with the posh schools. I would like to think that all schools could have a shot at the non-core subjects (if only in order to enrich their lives) but Michael Gradgrind Gove and his successors have decreed that the state schools should not have the kind of facilities that the private sector enjoys. Why? Because he and his friends in high places send their kids to the fee-paying public schools so why should they give up their advantages to the plebs?
A few years ago the figure was that two-and-a-half times the money followed a child through the private sector than through the state school sector. I doubt that this has changed - probably got worse. The extra-curricular achievements you have on your CV can of course go down well with Uni admissions people and indeed in job applications. This is the unspoken bit of the class system. So where does CH stand in all this? To chase the posh schools and gradually dilute the original ethos even further? Or to scale down their ambitions to somewhere like what it was when I was there? Which would still be magnificent facilities by the standards of many of today's comprehensives.

[AMP]

why the school these days has to employ what seem to be dedicated staff in sports, arts, drama, etc.

There are multiple reasons why and I think that one of the biggest drivers is to keep up with parental expectations these days. This isn't just a CH-specific thing, but a UK-wide issue. A belief that unless you have a specialist teaching your children, they're getting a sub-standard education. Also, art, sport, and music, aren't just seen as extracurricular add-ons, but an integral part of the whole educational experience, one which you pay handsomely for. All of these subjects (and more) are available at GSCE and A-level, so having dedicated teachers is not unreasonable.

[...]
Sport was taught by masters, and some of them were much better athletes and coaches than teachers.

Interesting. Drama was my main outlet in a tricky couple of years during the end of my time at CH, and I've always seen the theatre and DNP as one (or rather two) of the best things to happen to CH while I was there. It seems quite a natural development to me for CH to move from the annual Shakespeare in Big School, with boys playing the female parts and English teachers with no acting experience directing, to a dedicated drama department.

There may have been no specialist sports teachers, but I'm quite sure there were a number of teachers (many teaching English) who were hired for their sporting ability.

And DNP is a historian!
He came to CH having been Head of History at Cranleigh.

[AMP]

I do agree with Scrub that CH has perhaps got locked into an unwinnable race with the posh schools. I would like to think that all schools could have a shot at the non-core subjects (if only in order to enrich their lives) but Michael Gradgrind Gove and his successors have decreed that the state schools should not have the kind of facilities that the private sector enjoys. Why? Because he and his friends in high places send their kids to the fee-paying public schools so why should they give up their advantages to the plebs?
A few years ago the figure was that two-and-a-half times the money followed a child through the private sector than through the state school sector. I doubt that this has changed - probably got worse. The extra-curricular achievements you have on your CV can of course go down well with Uni admissions people and indeed in job applications. This is the unspoken bit of the class system. So where does CH stand in all this? To chase the posh schools and gradually dilute the original ethos even further? Or to scale down their ambitions to somewhere like what it was when I was there? Which would still be magnificent facilities by the standards of many of today's comprehensives.

I agree and with other similar remarks made in this thread.
I left almost 35 years ago and thought the drama, music and sports facilities were excellent. In fact the music were second to none.
All the facilities were good, so not surprising there were a number of full fee paying pupils.
I understand the need for new revenue streams and therefore the creation of the Bluecoat Sports company and the modernisation of the sports facilities.
But I do worry that the focus is moving away from the poorest and their families.
They do not expect to go on tours to Barbados or Australia. Nor will they feel they had a disadvantageous start in life if they don't.
Furthermore, such fundraising puts more pressure on poorer families.
The uniform is a social leveller and was worn 24/7 except on Leave Days. I think there are now dress down periods in the week when civvies may be worn? Bad idea if so.

[Pe.A]

I do agree with Scrub that CH has perhaps got locked into an unwinnable race with the posh schools. I would like to think that all schools could have a shot at the non-core subjects (if only in order to enrich their lives) but Michael Gradgrind Gove and his successors have decreed that the state schools should not have the kind of facilities that the private sector enjoys. Why? Because he and his friends in high places send their kids to the fee-paying public schools so why should they give up their advantages to the plebs?
A few years ago the figure was that two-and-a-half times the money followed a child through the private sector than through the state school sector. I doubt that this has changed - probably got worse. The extra-curricular achievements you have on your CV can of course go down well with Uni admissions people and indeed in job applications. This is the unspoken bit of the class system. So where does CH stand in all this? To chase the posh schools and gradually dilute the original ethos even further? Or to scale down their ambitions to somewhere like what it was when I was there? Which would still be magnificent facilities by the standards of many of today's comprehensives.

What makes you think Gove sent his children to a fee-paying public school? He didn't need to - he can afford to live in Westminster.

[sejintenej]

With little hard evidence to back it up, I suggest that in the case of Eton there is a religious background to at least some pupils. Separately there are the links between families whose sons go there; the place has proven good at steering pupils into the companies controlled by families and also at intermarriage. By contrast CH does not have members of the elite families and the families of pupils do not have the facilities nor urge to intermix outside school.

For example, there were a lot of members of the Gurney, Bevan, Bosanguet, Barclay and a few other Hugenot and later Quaker families, families which have been and almost still are intermarrying since the 1700s and merging / supporting their companies. Their sons go to Eton (with a sole exception that I know of - he went to CH and left the fold to go to Shanghai) and since the families know each other outside the school links are created in each new generation. There are two facets I have noticed - service to the nation and the people and also quietitude; they go about their business without it being publicised. The only exceptions I have seen in recent years are a knighthood and the opening to the public of Trent House in (I think) Barnet.Those families I mention are big in brewing, finance, the arts, the Diplomatic Corps, sports that I know of

This is just one group of families - I have heard of several others. S T Coleridge went on to grow one such fount of Eton pupils.

[scrub]

Interesting. Drama was my main outlet in a tricky couple of years during the end of my time at CH, and I've always seen the theatre and DNP as one (or rather two) of the best things to happen to CH while I was there.

Ah yes, I forgot about DNP, an oversight on my part.

I do agree with Scrub that CH has perhaps got locked into an unwinnable race with the posh schools.

Without wishing to sidetrack things further, you do realise that to most of the UK, CH is one of the posh schools?
Regardless of how people who went there saw it (and themselves), to the majority of the UK, a boarding school with an odd uniform that had compulsory Latin classes, sleeping accommodation you wouldn't kennel a dog you hated in, and a marching band that played you into lunch every day, is essentially a toff factory .