Are we alone?

[lonelymom]

I believe (and I am quite happy to be proved wrong!) that a rather small number of Old Blues actually contribute to the school. I remember hearing a percentage that was lower than 10%.

That REALLY surprises me! I thought the percentage would have been much, much higher than that! I have already instilled in my children that when they are older, if ever they are in a position to offer support to CH, it is something they should do. And I hope they do!!

[englishangel]

I believe (and I am quite happy to be proved wrong!) that a rather small number of Old Blues actually contribute to the school. I remember hearing a percentage that was lower than 10%.

That REALLY surprises me! I thought the percentage would have been much, much higher than that! I have already instilled in my children that when they are older, if ever they are in a position to offer support to CH, it is something they should do. And I hope they do!!

There are some, but I for one have had to support my family through a bout of unemployment, and now have to support my own offspring through University (and probably beyond).

[kerrensimmonds]

It depends if Ian means that under 10% of Old Blues contribute to the School - or whether less than 10% of the School's (considerable) income comes from Old Blues.
From my personal knowledge, I would dispute the former......almost every Old Blue I know supports the School in one way or another - maybe not huge sums (I for one donate £10 a month spread between two separate schemes but have done so for the last 10-12 years and its giftaided) but at least something.
And a lot of Old Blues are Governors - either individually, or corporately.
And many Old Blues leave bequests (sometimes huge ones...) when they go to glory. The '1552 Club' - Old Blues who are known to have mentioned CH in their wills - is not small, and does not include Old Blues who have mentioned CH in their wills but haven't publicised the fact.
So on balance I'd probably dispute the second 10% definition, as well.
After all, most Old Blues took 'The Charge' seriously.
I guess the Development Office would have the facts and figures, if anyone is really interested!

[Mid A 15]

Expanding on Kerren's point what is the definition of "contribute to the School?"

For example a lot of Old Blues are Benevolent Society of Blues (BSB) members which in turn presents deserving pupils to the School. There are also House funds which have donation governorships or donate in other ways.

Neither of the examples I have given are "direct" donations to the School or Foundation but indirectly both financially assist deserving pupils.

[ailurophile]

On another thread (General chat/ CH stuff/ Are Blackberrys allowed in Christ's Hospital?) onewestguncopse wrote:

Many students have iphones, blackberries etc. Remember that EMA is paid to 45% of all 6th formers - this is up to £120 a month, tax free. The children with low income families are ironically the wealthiest children in terms of 'pocket money' in the school! ... EMA is the source of much debate and frustration in the school. Particularly when children who get £120 a month ALSO qualify for other handouts because of their parental income, when others whose parents earn £37,000 gross (not a huge wage these days, particularly if you are on a joint income) get absolutely nothing from the Government or the CH foundation in terms of extra handouts etc.

IMHO this is madness - but that is a whole different discussion!!

I agree, so I've moved it to here!

I have two problems with the issues raised here. First, why is EMA allowed as 'pocket money' rather than being assessed as part of the family income (in the same way in which, for example, child benefit is)? Maybe I'm being naive, but isn't the child's education what Education Maintenance Allowance is intended for?

Second, I am interested to see here some apparent recognition of the fact that two-parent families are discriminated against by the current assessment system ("£37,000 gross (not a huge wage these days, particularly if you are on a joint income"). If this is a "source of much debate and frustration in the school", perhaps they would be good enough to raise the issue with the Foundation; we have tried repeatedly to do so, but have met with no response! It is certainly a source of huge frustration to us that while every penny of our income as a working couple is counted, the necessary expenses of day-to-day living are not! There is a step in the right direction in the new assessment rules, where a token (but ludicrously inadequate) £500 will be allowed against income for each child living at home; why can a similar, but hopefully more realistic, allowance not also be made for each adult whose income is being assessed? Believe me, every little would help!

[kerrensimmonds]

I agree.. that Christ's Hospital's approach to children drawing the EMA should be reviewed. EMA is for children (not the parents), as an incentive to keep them in education post 16 and to pay for things like school meals, books, extras etc. My guess is that not many of these requirements actually apply at CH.
Therefore the vision of EMA-eligible children at CH from 'poorer' backgrounds suddenly able to flash money around (and sometimes maybe waste it) in front of their ostensibly better off but more restrained peers leaves me cold though I am sure that this probably applies to only a small percentage of such children.
So I wonder why the school does not develop a policy to 'freeze' the EMA allowances to those children who are eligible, leaving them on a level playing field with their school life-peers (whether better off or not), and then release the money to them when they leave so that the lump sum can be used as a cushion or an incentive to support their higher education? They will almost all build up horrendous student loans...which will take years to repay.
The parallel could be drawn from Cathedral choir schools.. where children in the Choir draw an imolument for each 'performance' over a number of years. The sums mount up, and when they leave the Cathedral choir the money is released into a sum which supports them as they progress into their secondary education.

[onewestguncopse]

By law, EMA is paid direct to the student (into their bank account) rather than the parent. Presumably this is to ensure that the money does not end up in the parents pocket as unearned, untaxed income! The school assess the parental income and therefore cannot add in the EMA without asking the pupils for an assessment of their income too. We also cannot freeze the amount until they leave as it goes direct to them. It is spent by most of the students I speak to on a variety on 'non educational' products (including the iphones etc mentioned elsewhere). This means that they are considerably more weathly than the peers whose parents earn (or declare more!) than others. This is most definately a bone of contention. The only way that the school can address this is to give money to students whose income exceeds the EMA threshold - about 40-45% at the moment (this i know through a very unscientfic hands-up straw poll conducted recently). Not easy as it would mean helping those whose income on paper exceeds £36,000 pa. However, it does stike me as wrong that we pay the transport costs to a university visit to a child who receives EMA but not one that does not. Particularly when the EMA is NOT used for buying books, transport to school everyday etc..

Interestingly, my very unscientific straw poll (44 students picked at random in three classroom sets)indicates that currently about 45% of our 6th form have parents who earn more than £36,000 pa. Old Blues who think the school is full of poor (in real terms) children are wrong - plain and simple. It is full of 'middle class' parents (many divorced, hence the lower income) who want a great education but cannot afford full fees.

In the last decade the school has changed (all staff I speak to acknowledge this) and anyone from the Foundation who claims on literature otherwise is living in cloud cuckoo land. We do have a good number of really poor and needy children, but nowhere near the number we had when I arrived in the mid 1990s. I have no problem with change - but lets stop pretending for crying out loud.

[lonelymom]

It is full of 'middle class' parents (many divorced, hence the lower income)

I'm not disputing the above, but I would like to state that we are neither middle class, nor divorced, but we are on a low income

[onewestguncopse]

I ought to temper this with the comment that this was a reflection of the 6th form. I am sure that the average income of the 6th formers is higher BUT that still does not undermine my comment about the lower income being (often) the result of divorce rather than great 'need'. Do divorced children need to board? Some do, but most don't.

[onewestguncopse]

It is full of 'middle class' parents (many divorced, hence the lower income)

I'm not disputing the above, but I would like to state that we are neither middle class, nor divorced, but we are on a low income

I have no idea who your children are but I am delighted that they are here and hope that they take full advantage of the outstanding opportunity they have. CH is still a fantastic school and I will defend it to all who claim otherwise. It matters not one jot to me how much a parent earns, as long as they pay their way fairly and that their children do their best to reward their parents sacrifice. Many do and this is why we are so successful.

[onewestguncopse]

It depends if Ian means that under 10% of Old Blues contribute to the School - or whether less than 10% of the School's (considerable) income comes from Old Blues.
From my personal knowledge, I would dispute the former......almost every Old Blue I know supports the School in one way or another - maybe not huge sums (I for one donate £10 a month spread between two separate schemes but have done so for the last 10-12 years and its giftaided) but at least something.
And a lot of Old Blues are Governors - either individually, or corporately.
And many Old Blues leave bequests (sometimes huge ones...) when they go to glory. The '1552 Club' - Old Blues who are known to have mentioned CH in their wills - is not small, and does not include Old Blues who have mentioned CH in their wills but haven't publicised the fact.
So on balance I'd probably dispute the second 10% definition, as well.
After all, most Old Blues took 'The Charge' seriously.
I guess the Development Office would have the facts and figures, if anyone is really interested!

I will find out the definitive answer and report back!

[onewestguncopse]

Once we have a development director again

[lonelymom]

CH is still a fantastic school and I will defend it to all who claim otherwise.

So will I!

[ailurophile]

onewestguncopse wrote:

Interestingly, my very unscientific straw poll (44 students picked at random in three classroom sets)indicates that currently about 45% of our 6th form have parents who earn more than £36,000 pa. Old Blues who think the school is full of poor (in real terms) children are wrong - plain and simple. It is full of 'middle class' parents (many divorced, hence the lower income) who want a great education but cannot afford full fees.

In the last decade the school has changed (all staff I speak to acknowledge this) and anyone from the Foundation who claims on literature otherwise is living in cloud cuckoo land. We do have a good number of really poor and needy children, but nowhere near the number we had when I arrived in the mid 1990s. I have no problem with change - but lets stop pretending for crying out loud.

It is certainly my experience that my children's peers at CH come overwhelmingly from middle class families. Those who seem to be 'better off' in terms of disposable cash (as evidenced by ownership of expensive hardware, holidays etc.) are usually from single parent homes; some receive generous gifts from the 'absent' (and non-assessed) parent. And without wishing to suggest deceit, I personally know more than one single parent who - while presumably paying low fees to CH - also benefits from the non-assessed income of a new partner, which must make life's little luxuries more affordable.

I put my hands up to being a 'middle class parent who wants a great education but can't afford full fees'. Most middle class families would struggle to pay for an independent education, and in our own case there happen to be no independent schools less than 45 minutes journey from our home even if we had been able to afford this, and no choice of 'good' state schools either! We count ourselves enormously fortunate that CH is able to provide a fantastic education for our children. But it does seem inequitable that, largely because we are married, our assessed fees are now such that we face having to withdraw our children from the school while their 'poorer' peers continue to benefit. I would like to see some evidence that the Foundation are willing to recognise this problem and consider some resolution, rather than to see instead the sad evidence that increasing numbers of children - selected initially as being 'in need' of the education which CH can provide - are being forced to leave the school mid-stream.

[ailurophile]

onewestguncopse wrote

By law, EMA is paid direct to the student (into their bank account) rather than the parent. Presumably this is to ensure that the money does not end up in the parents pocket as unearned, untaxed income! The school assess the parental income and therefore cannot add in the EMA without asking the pupils for an assessment of their income too. We also cannot freeze the amount until they leave as it goes direct to them. It is spent by most of the students I speak to on a variety on 'non educational' products (including the iphones etc mentioned elsewhere). This means that they are considerably more weathly than the peers whose parents earn (or declare more!) than others. This is most definately a bone of contention. The only way that the school can address this is to give money to students whose income exceeds the EMA threshold - about 40-45% at the moment (this i know through a very unscientfic hands-up straw poll conducted recently). Not easy as it would mean helping those whose income on paper exceeds £36,000 pa. However, it does stike me as wrong that we pay the transport costs to a university visit to a child who receives EMA but not one that does not. Particularly when the EMA is NOT used for buying books, transport to school everyday etc..

Does this indicate that a self-employed parent could potentially (following the example of many of our respected MPs, and breaking no rules!) pay their sixth form child a chunk of their own income for 'research' and thus avoid both income tax and assessment for CH purposes? I'm simply playing the devil's advocate here...

In terms of helping students more fairly, would it not be possible for the school to look at a family's net income once CH fees have been deducted, rather than at the 'income on paper'? I've already illustrated that once a 'wealthy' working couple have paid the costs associated with work, the average mortgage outgoings and the assessed fees to CH, they could easily be left with less actual disposable income than a single parent living on benefits! I quite agree with onewestguncopse that the current system is wrong, so why isn't anything being done to put it right?