Covid 19 Hardship Fund

[Pe.A]

So you think Drama is a waste of time at school level? What about Art etc...?

the first one I remember was sh*t.

You're a tough critic...

[Pe.A]

The Theatre is an example of money well spent.
Maybe too well, but at least the seating has now been upgraded.
The red brick is still modern and being based on The Globe will never date.
Compare that to the South Bank and Royal Festival Hall which look very tired and definitely 50s.
It serves many purposes, not just educational and has helped raise the profile of the school and extra cash.
Mastermind etc
Remember going to a regional version of Question Time during the '87 election and observing a chain smoking Ken Clarke and Charles Kennedy backstage.
Food and accomodation on the other hand has probably gone too far the other way.. Have heard that some staff limit themselves to one dining hall appearance per week for fear of becoming (too) overweight.

I'd be fascinated to see a menu nowadays - if that is the case...

It may even stretch to Hash Browns and Angel Delight.

Doubt it. Too 90s...

[AMP]

I also like the fact that it is targeted support and I agree with all your comments Ioringa, but thank you button has disappeared


Roy Hattersley - "Christ's Hospital perpetuates privilege"

Remember him?

And all the other champagne socialists who send their children to private schools, would have squandered the finances years and years ago if given the chance

It's ironic that the Founding Charter of 1552 is still as relevant today, it's the current model which has evolved since the 1970s which is outdated.

The school should live within its means, reduce staff and the curriculum and if necessary, reduce pupil numbers rather than expanding.

And get the Marketing Department to focus on a targeted nationwide communication campaign aimed at deprived areas.

I am pretty sure that with their fixed assets, CH could still remain sustainably financially independent

I don't necessarily agree with the champagne socialist bit with regards to private education - if one has the money, why not? Same concept as private healthcare, and similar to expensive holidays and private tutoring for the kids.

But i am fascinated by your comment "It's ironic that the Founding Charter of 1552 is still as relevant today, it's the current model which has evolved since the 1970s which is outdated"

Might need a different thread, but could you clarify your views, pls?

Nothing wrong with being a socialist who condemns the private system, just don't privately educate your own children.

In this day and age, do affluent families really need to send their children away to give them a good start?

Unless of course you are worried they might turn into criminals, in which case it is an excellent preparation for prison life.

[scrub]

Food and accomodation on the other hand has probably gone too far the other way.. Have heard that some staff limit themselves to one dining hall appearance per week for fear of becoming (too) overweight.

Both those things had a very low starting point, at least when I was there, so even a mattress with some padding in a room with less than 30 other people would have seemed like a luxury. Moving into study bedrooms in Deps, then a whole room to yourself as a Grecian was great. If kids these days have a butler, then yeah, that's too far, but I'm not going to begrudge them a comfy bed in a warm and dry room with space to study.

As for the ever present debate about arts, it's probably worth remembering Churchill's actual quote about them:
"The arts are essential to any complete national life. The State owes it to itself to sus­tain and encour­age them….Ill fares the race which fails to salute the arts with the rev­er­ence and delight which are their due."

Given the reverence with which he's still held in the UK it's a pity that this isn't more widely embraced.

[sejintenej]

So you think Drama is a waste of time at school level? What about Art etc...?

the first one I remember was sh*t.

You're a tough critic...

I don't know if it was my screen but I got dates on the right of the screen. Your quote is about the first of two Col A house plays. The one I called sh*t included a lot of crockery being smashed off stage - I remember it for that and Kit's detestable attitude.
Macbeth in Big School was probably reasonably good but only involved a handful and a half of people out of 850 boys. One solitary performance in the year does not make for a lifelong theatre lover.

Tough critic; perhaps but it is simply a question of whether I like to stay or to walk out (which I did to some of the fillums (and got beaten for it - Kit is no longer alive to beat me now for my opinions).

[J.R.]

the first one I remember was sh*t.

You're a tough critic...

I don't know if it was my screen but I got dates on the right of the screen. Your quote is about the first of two Col A house plays. The one I called sh*t included a lot of crockery being smashed off stage - I remember it for that and Kit's detestable attitude.
Macbeth in Big School was probably reasonably good but only involved a handful and a half of people out of 850 boys. One solitary performance in the year does not make for a lifelong theatre lover.

Tough critic; perhaps but it is simply a question of whether I like to stay or to walk out (which I did to some of the fillums (and got beaten for it - Kit is no longer alive to beat me now for my opinions).

Was that the "Macbeth" of January 1958 David ?

[sejintenej]

Nothing wrong with being a socialist who condemns the private system, just don't privately educate your own children.

Tony Blair etc

In this day and age, do affluent families really need to send their children away to give them a good start?

Of course; it keeps companies in the family . About 90% of new employs are of people that are already known and of course people from your old school ...... .CH seems to be an exception to that commonality - I don't know.
Going back to the 1600s B set up a firm and also formed a partnership with B and T. So the partnership bought out another company owned by the BO family. In the 1900s the Bs and BOs were still intermarrying and their son became a director of the original firm and chairman of the successor to the partnership. Relevant? a) it is Eton all the way and b) if you don't like it don't get the covid vaccine from the firm.

Unless of course you are worried they might turn into criminals, in which case it is an excellent preparation for prison life.

very true, and also for trench warfare (don't forget CH has a living VC and his cousin is also a VC)

[sejintenej]

You're a tough critic...

I don't know if it was my screen but I got dates on the right of the screen. Your quote is about the first of two Col A house plays. The one I called sh*t included a lot of crockery being smashed off stage - I remember it for that and Kit's detestable attitude.
Macbeth in Big School was probably reasonably good but only involved a handful and a half of people out of 850 boys. One solitary performance in the year does not make for a lifelong theatre lover.

Tough critic; perhaps but it is simply a question of whether I like to stay or to walk out (which I did to some of the fillums (and got beaten for it - Kit is no longer alive to beat me now for my opinions).

Was that the "Macbeth" of January 1958 David ?

Give or take a month , yes. I failed Eng Lit that summer but passed it at Christmas

[Pe.A]

I also like the fact that it is targeted support and I agree with all your comments Ioringa, but thank you button has disappeared


Roy Hattersley - "Christ's Hospital perpetuates privilege"

Remember him?

And all the other champagne socialists who send their children to private schools, would have squandered the finances years and years ago if given the chance

It's ironic that the Founding Charter of 1552 is still as relevant today, it's the current model which has evolved since the 1970s which is outdated.

The school should live within its means, reduce staff and the curriculum and if necessary, reduce pupil numbers rather than expanding.

And get the Marketing Department to focus on a targeted nationwide communication campaign aimed at deprived areas.

I am pretty sure that with their fixed assets, CH could still remain sustainably financially independent

I don't necessarily agree with the champagne socialist bit with regards to private education - if one has the money, why not? Same concept as private healthcare, and similar to expensive holidays and private tutoring for the kids.

But i am fascinated by your comment "It's ironic that the Founding Charter of 1552 is still as relevant today, it's the current model which has evolved since the 1970s which is outdated"

Might need a different thread, but could you clarify your views, pls?

Nothing wrong with being a socialist who condemns the private system, just don't privately educate your own children.

In this day and age, do affluent families really need to send their children away to give them a good start?

Unless of course you are worried they might turn into criminals, in which case it is an excellent preparation for prison life.

Fair enough if you think a socialist should not privately educate their children, but should they use private healthcare, or private tutoring? What is the difference there, in essence? Should a socialist use public healthcare if they can afford private healthcare? I ask this as this particular question reminds me of the slogan popularised by Marx " From each according to his ability, **to each according to his needs**"

Then, of course, there is the issue of affluent families being able to buy into the catchment area of a high ranking state school, usually full of pupils from affluent and educationally savvy families - usually in very affluent areas with eye watering house prices. I sometimes found the pride in which some Labour politicians take in making people aware that their children go to state schools somewhat nauseating. Similarly, i always find it odd that the former leader of the RMT, Bob Crow, even though his salary package was worth around £130,000, lived in a Housing Association home - "...to each according to his needs..."? Yeah, right. Who would he have been depriving...?

With regards to your second point, not all private/independent schools are boarding schools. But then again, what does it matter if some do want to send their children away?

My point in my previous post about clarification was actually more aimed to your point "And get the Marketing Department to focus on a targeted nationwide communication campaign aimed at deprived areas."

That seemed a very interesting idea. Now i know that there are certain areas in the country that benefit from being in certain catchment areas with regards to CH eligibility, London, Reading etc - but how far north, west and east do they run?

[sejintenej]

My point in my previous post about clarification was actually more aimed to your point "And get the Marketing Department to focus on a targeted nationwide communication campaign aimed at deprived areas."

That seemed a very interesting idea. Now i know that there are certain areas in the country that benefit from being in certain catchment areas with regards to CH eligibility, London, Reading etc - but how far north, west and east do they run?

I suspect that fares could be a deciding factor even in this relatively affluent day and age. Back in 1952 my return fare to CH was over £5.50. That came out of an allowance (unchanged in 1960) of £25 to cover fares, non-school clothing (but including required sports kit etc), required pocket money £4.50, X mas presents, and everything else. That was about all my mother could afford. By contrast fares for London and reading were tiny.
I have heard talk of teachers subsidising pupils in those days.

Even if CH did target poorer areas (probably the north and Wales) there is the question of whether families there could afford even the non=school costs of required bits and bobs

[AMP]

My point in my previous post about clarification was actually more aimed to your point "And get the Marketing Department to focus on a targeted nationwide communication campaign aimed at deprived areas."

That seemed a very interesting idea. Now i know that there are certain areas in the country that benefit from being in certain catchment areas with regards to CH eligibility, London, Reading etc - but how far north, west and east do they run?

I suspect that fares could be a deciding factor even in this relatively affluent day and age. Back in 1952 my return fare to CH was over £5.50. That came out of an allowance (unchanged in 1960) of £25 to cover fares, non-school clothing (but including required sports kit etc), required pocket money £4.50, X mas presents, and everything else. That was about all my mother could afford. By contrast fares for London and reading were tiny.
I have heard talk of teachers subsidising pupils in those days.

Even if CH did target poorer areas (probably the north and Wales) there is the question of whether families there could afford even the non=school costs of required bits and bobs

Does The Thrift Shop still exist?
Was at the end of the Prep Block
And do such things as rail warrants still exist and any state subsidies or was that paid for by CH or the Armed Forces? Remember being given one for a CCF course in Weymouth.

Well, for a start, they will have to go back to the old term schedules which were very straight forward.
Two Leave Days a term, a long weekend in Lent and two half terms.
None of this shooting off home every 10 days or so for long weekends.
Either it's a boarding school or a day school, not this halfway house.
And those who were poor or lived in the North etc probably didn't always see their Mum or whoever on Leave Days.
And don't forget the orphans, children from dysfunctional families.
Sad, but the holidays were long
And the school has become increasingly local. Even 40 years ago there were many locals from Southwater, Horsham, Barnes Green etc But important they were fully integrated and not day pupils.
The lad from Tower Hill was able to run home whenever he became homesick.
In fact the term "homesickness" is a benign and misleading definition for what is actually short term grief.

[loringa]

Fair enough if you think a socialist should not privately educate their children, but should they use private healthcare, or private tutoring? What is the difference there, in essence? Should a socialist use public healthcare if they can afford private healthcare? I ask this as this particular question reminds me of the slogan popularised by Marx " From each according to his ability, **to each according to his needs**"

Then, of course, there is the issue of affluent families being able to buy into the catchment area of a high ranking state school, usually full of pupils from affluent and educationally savvy families - usually in very affluent areas with eye watering house prices. I sometimes found the pride in which some Labour politicians take in making people aware that their children go to state schools somewhat nauseating. Similarly, i always find it odd that the former leader of the RMT, Bob Crow, even though his salary package was worth around £130,000, lived in a Housing Association home - "...to each according to his needs..."? Yeah, right. Who would he have been depriving...?

With regards to your second point, not all private/independent schools are boarding schools. But then again, what does it matter if some do want to send their children away?

I think the issue here is that in a liberal democracy we have the ability to make choices about whate we do, where we work and how we spend our money. I don't really think that private health care is worth it and when things go really wrong, everyone reverts to the NHS anyway: Covid-19 treatment, going to A&E after an RTA, long-term cancer care or whatever, but it is entirely up to the individual if he or she wishes to spend their money on this. At the very least, it relieves a bit of pressure from the NHS. Ditto private tutoring - if one's kid is struggling in mathematics or whatever, I would suggets that whatever you politics a private tutor might prove a good long-term investment. It might even have benefits in the classroom for the rest of the class as the teacher will have a little bit more time for other struggling pupils.

As for your second point. Why wouldn't you try and live in an area with good schools? A private day school costs between £12k and £20k a year to educate a single child. For a family with two kids over the seven years of secondary schooling that's over £200k so moving to an area with good schools is probably a sound investment. The problem here I think is twofold: only the affluent and educationally savvy can afford to do this, but they are often also the ones that care the most about their children's education. The biggest problem in some of the schools I worked in, both inner city and rural, was that many of the parents simply didn't really seem to care about whether their kids received a decent education. It's a generalisation of course, but when you come from a family that is second or third generation unemployed, getting and education and thus a job simply does feature an the radar, either the children's or the parent's. Equally, if the parents owns a business: hairdressers, carpenter or plumber (all specific real-life examples) then frequently the incentive just didn't seem to be there. The most persuasive argument I could offer to one Year 9 kid (dad was the carpenter) was that if he didn't get his GCSE in maths he would have to keep going in to college at least once a week until he either passed it or reached age 18, and Dad wouldn't be best pleased that he wasn't in work. I have no doubt whatsoever that the biggest challenge in educating the least advantaged was not the kids themselves but the parents (often the parent) who just didn't care that much. Good schools are self-perpetuating; the ones in the more affluent areas will tend to be the better ones because the parents care about how their children perform in school and the results will reflect this. The more challenging schools are often those where the parents don't care enough. I've said this before but most teachers are actually okay in most schools; the problem is that for whatever reason lots of kids don't seem to wish to avail themsleves of the opportunities available to them. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

And lastly, I couldn't agree more with your final point. Not all independent schools are boarding schools (and not all boarding schools are independent schools). There are often excellent reasons for a child to go to boarding school; equally there are often excellent reasons for the child to go to an independent school. Of course, not all parents can afford this choice but, for those that can, I would suggest it is a much better investment, for example, than expensive holidays or new cars. What is most important of course and a point with which I suspect even Mr Redshaw would agree is that the provision of education and healthcare by the state should be adequate for everyone, rich or poor, to get what they need out of it provided, of course, they are willing to apply themselves in order to achieve their potential.

[AMP]

Ultimately it has to be the child's choice, without any influence, but I personally wouldn't encourage anybody if similar opportunities were available locally and were affordable.
Sending a child off to boarding school because it is cheaper and means we can still go on holiday and dad doesn't have to cash in his golf club membership, is the wrong reason.
It shouldn't be about cost.
CH has been the cheap option for 50 years and that's why I say it has lost sight of the mission.

[loringa]

Ultimately it has to be the child's choice, without any influence, but I personally wouldn't encourage anybody if similar opportunities were available locally and were affordable.
Sending a child off to boarding school because it is cheaper and means we can still go on holiday and dad doesn't have to cash in his golf club membership, is the wrong reason.
It shouldn't be about cost.
CH has been the cheap option for 50 years and that's why I say it has lost sight of the mission.

Here I think we may not entirely be in agreement. The child's views are undoubtedly one of the considerations, though she is unlikely to be in a position to see the bigger picture at age 11 or whatever. The parents may have a much better feel for the range of educational opportunities available locally, but they are also have a better understanding of what other changes may occur in the future, such as a change of job and where they are going to live. When the decision was made for me to go to Christ's Hospital it was this above all else that drove the choice; Christ's Hospital would provide continuity of education for me after what had been a very disrupted period of Primary education. Children should have their views taken into account but I am not sure that they should be the final arbiters. At the very least, they will be subject to a great deal of 'influence'.

I don't think sending a child to boarding school, Christ's Hospital or elsewhere, would ever be the cheap option. A boarding education is extremely expensive and a significant drain on the family finances, even for those that can afford it. Whilst Christ's Hospital would be one of the exceptions to this rule; parents whose children qualify for for a significant reduction in fees, ie those for whom the school was opened in the first place, are unlikely to be the sort of people who go on expensive holidays and are members of golf clubs.

[AMP]

Ultimately it has to be the child's choice, without any influence, but I personally wouldn't encourage anybody if similar opportunities were available locally and were affordable.
Sending a child off to boarding school because it is cheaper and means we can still go on holiday and dad doesn't have to cash in his golf club membership, is the wrong reason.
It shouldn't be about cost.
CH has been the cheap option for 50 years and that's why I say it has lost sight of the mission.

Here I think we may not entirely be in agreement. The child's views are undoubtedly one of the considerations, though she is unlikely to be in a position to see the bigger picture at age 11 or whatever. The parents may have a much better feel for the range of educational opportunities available locally, but they are also have a better understanding of what other changes may occur in the future, such as a change of job and where they are going to live. When the decision was made for me to go to Christ's Hospital it was this above all else that drove the choice; Christ's Hospital would provide continuity of education for me after what had been a very disrupted period of Primary education. Children should have their views taken into account but I am not sure that they should be the final arbiters. At the very least, they will be subject to a great deal of 'influence'.

I don't think sending a child to boarding school, Christ's Hospital or elsewhere, would ever be the cheap option. A boarding education is extremely expensive and a significant drain on the family finances, even for those that can afford it. Whilst Christ's Hospital would be one of the exceptions to this rule; parents whose children qualify for for a significant reduction in fees, ie those for whom the school was opened in the first place, are unlikely to be the sort of people who go on expensive holidays and are members of golf clubs.

I take your points and it's a big subject with lots of nuances and I accept that parents have to make decisions on a wide range of matters involving their children.

My mum had nothing and was on her own with children.

I actually wanted to go to the local independent day school (my mother had had the foresight to enter me for several private school entrance examinations as practice before the big one in March for CH at the Royal College of Surgeons, with Bomber Nick distributing the papers and an interview with Baker, himself an OB, so who better?)

Obviously that wasn't possible and at some point I changed my mind and told my mum that I would like to accept the offer. At that point I had not even visited the school - how reckless!

It was that or the local comp, which with the best will in the world did not compare. So I was very lucky.

Wolverstone Hall was another option, but not for me, so turned it down, although I have read good reports:
https://www.eadt.co.uk/things-to-do/aut ... as-2285424

But my mother left the choice entirely to me. Didn't even try and persuade me.

And CH was definitely the cheaper option for her!