Are we alone?

[YadaYada]

I don't agree with everything LJG had to say. ailurophile is clearly worried about having to withdraw children from CH due to finances and therefore her worries are valid and aren't whinging. If people dont want to get involved with a thread then they don't need to but I think it is harsh to tell someone to stop moaning when they clearly have a valid worry.

Unless LJG is in on the application process then I dont see how s/he can make statements about other students 'needs'.

LJG also states that "many of the so called 'single parents' have in fact got live in partners". Is this assumption or based on fact? Obvioiusly if there are single parents that aren't declaring live-in partners so they can benefit from reduced fees then this is very wrong and will clearly not be helping CH's financial situation and I think is probably fraud. But I'd like to think that the vast majority of those who declare themselves as single parents are honest about their situations. I think from the sharing on this forum that people here are being honest.

Just wanted to voice some supprt really for ailurophile....

[lonelymom]

I think most people on this thread will have sympathy with ailurophile (and others) who are facing the heart-wrenching decision of removing their children from CH. It is not a decision that any parent would take lightly, certainly not before exploring all other possibilities.

[dinahcat]

I too think the word 'whinging' is more than bit strong. ailurophile has presented some really lucid and cogent arguments which I thoght were informative and interesting. I presume other people agree or the thread would have indeed 'died'.

[ailurophile]

Thanks for your kind words of support all! I'm uncomfortably aware that I am guilty of moaning - but I hope not without some justification. My intention has never been to 'do down' CH which I have always believed to be a wonderful school; and I've never doubted that it has been the best choice for my children, which is why I'm so desperate to keep them there. But sadly for some families there does come a tipping point at which that 'choice' is no longer an option; I've said before that even when you do feel that the school is worth every penny, if you simply haven't got enough pennies and have exhausted every economy you can make, you may have to throw in the towel.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and the value of a forum like this is that we all have the chance to voice our own. But I must admit that I find some of the arguments in LJG's post slightly odd. First, he seems to suggest that the very 'raison d'etre' of CH is no longer valid; "There are few children at CH I would argue have a genuine 'need to board' ...Thats not to say the children don't have 'issues', but not such they need to be at a subsidised boarding school ." Then he goes on to suggest that there is widespread abuse of the assessment process; "many of the so called 'single parents' have in fact got live in partners. " But what I find most bizarre is criticism of the "continued moaning and whinging from what appears to be 'middle income' families, aka middleclass families, who appear somewhat annoyed they can no longer get their child educated at a first class school for a song, and whose little darlings , heaven forbid, may have to go to the local state school! ". I could understand this comment better if it came from a parent who had chosen to send their child to the local state school, but it does seem more than a little odd coming from someone who has themselves enjoyed six years of subsidised education at CH for their own little darling. I wonder what LJG's unique motivation for choosing CH was?

For myself, I make no apologies for being "middle income AKA middle class" (which in CH terms seems to mean being married and/or gainfully employed!). But I can only reiterate that we never anticipated getting our children educated at a first class school for 'a song'; CH has always been a financial struggle for us, but we chose the school believing not only that it would offer our children the best education available to us, but that this education would continue to be within our means. With apologies for whinging, only half of our expectation has been met.

[dinahcat]

It also occurs to me regarding LJG's comments, that all the children at the school have 'a need to board ' according to the admissions board. Other wise they wouldn't be there.Anyone can apply regardless of income and if they meet the academic and social requirements then everyone will be considered . When I was at Hertford I was in the minority for sure. Almost everyone was 'middle class' and that was 40 years ago.The school has long long since moved away from picking up destitute children from ther streets and I don't begin to understand either the financial problems of the school or how it chooses which children it admits.I do think that there is a point to be made that the promotional literature of the school is at odds with the financial reality and a bit more clarity there would be beneficial.It's a personal choice how far you will go to afford the fees but in one regard it LJG is right . There are many ways of disguising your income and some parents undoubtedly do this which is something that needs addressing with bit more rigour.

[Mrs C.]

I have known of children who pay no or very low fees, yet have a wardrobe full of expensive designer clothes, trainers etc, who regularly take 2 or more holidays abroad (in peak seaon I may add) yet they still receive extra funding from CH for trips, uni visits etc, and EMA.

We have been fortunate enough to get staff "discount" on our girls` education at CH, but even though we both work, their clothes are, more often than, not from Primark (and mine!) , our holiday (if we have one) usually consists of a short visit to relatives somewhere and their applications for financial help with curriculum-based school trips have been more or less met with howls of laughter.
"You pay fees, You don`t get EMA - what makes you think you`ll get anything from us?" would seem to be the stock reply.

It really sickens me when I see so-called "poor" children sporting the latest iPod, mobile phone... whatever it may be - it`s almost like they`re sticking 2 fingers up at the system and CH..
My children, and those of other financially honest families who are having to scrimp and save to get their offspring to, and through CH, have to go without many things .

Yes ok it may be grandparents or whoever paying for these things, but it just goes to show that there IS undisclosed money in a lot of cases

it`s very hard, for example, to have to tell your child that they can`t go on such and such a trip because the money just isn`t there and that school will not help them when they see the school giving others whatever money they need.

I`ll shut up now!

[Barnes Mum]

No Janet, don't shut up. You're only saying what a lot of us are wondering!

[huggermugger]

I'm going to take a really deep breath here; I don't want to upset anyone but...

Imho CH wasn't designed for fairly well-off middle class people. At the risk of stating the obvious: It is unique and very, very, different from "other fee paying schools". As we all know there is a strict restriction on the number of full fee-paying pupils. I know there are all sorts of rumours flying around about future intentions but we have no evidence that there are any plans to change this. It's becoming a bit like that hoary old chestnut "they're going to abandon the uniform".

I cannot comment on other people's financial position. I have an enomous amount of respect for you Mrs C (and you're a lovely lady but you can't judge a book by it's cover or parents' income by what their children wear/carry around. My DS will be flashing a PSP around soon (trust me, I know he'll be flashing it around). He has never owned such a thing before. He washed cars, cut lawns, swept drives, saved pocket money, ran errands and forswore birthday presents to get the money for it. I think I gave him £10 towards it. Ditto with his mobile phone.

Some members of my family and most of my friends have more money than me and as a way of helping out they will buy things for my DS that they know I can't afford. (It's not big stuff but it all helps). It's a far cry from that to contributing to his education. Saying "no" to my children is a way of life and tbh I don't think it's done them any harm.

We will be having a long weekend in the Dolomites and Venice this year, a return visit to someone I met through our Twin Town scheme. The return flights cost £75 (thanks to spending a month on the Ryan Air website ). My DS will provide his own spending money (same method) and I will take £150. He is also going on an activity holiday courtesy of the YHA, total cost £25. We also plan to spend a week sailing with some friends. I know that sounds ludicrously posh - it isn't. They have a little boat and we'll potter up and down the East Anglian coast, having barbecues and drinking cheap wine (can't wait, actually!) But from the outside, all that can look fairly affluent.

I can understand that it is frustrating when the system doesn't work to your advantage. I miss out on the new rule by about £100; you know, the housing expenses being under £4k one. That could have meant an extra £1500 plus a year to me which would have made an enormous (I do not exaggerate - enormous) difference to our lives at the moment. But it didn't. Tant pis. I have no pension, I have no life insurance, I managed to get contents insurance half-price this year so for the first time in a few years I do have that(Martin Lewis - my hero). I'm not complaining - I have made my life choices, even if a lot of them were choices between a rock and another equally uncomfortable place and I stand by them. Actually - sending my DS to CH was one of the hardest I've ever made and some of you will know we've been through the mill a bit on that one. Equally, it was one of the best ones - the hardest choices often turn out to be that.

I have no evidence of anyone who is dishonest in declaring income etc to CH. If anyone has, as I have said before, it should be reported to the Counting House. It is indeed fraud - we sign that form every year acknowledging that our child's place will be withdrawn if we are untruthful. I too will shut up now.

Except to say that single parents are entitled to companionship & a sex life too. It doesn't mean they're getting a financial contribution. (Altho that's one way of paying the fees, I suppose... )

[dinahcat]

Too right Mrs C.Last year a member of staff asked me to contact my daughter by mobile phone to give her a message. He was quite agog when I said I could not do this as she didn't have one even though she was 15.She has one now - a free one from friend who had an upgrade and didn't want the old one . She has the same £10 cedit on it that she had when I gave it to her because she is frightened to use it in case it runs out and she might need it in an emergency.she was certainly the last girl in the house, year? school? to have a phone and iphones and so on are certainly common place .
I get that grandparents do give presents . My mother buys most of the childrens clothes and shoes and so on and I don't see why she should declare her income as part of mine simply because she is there.
I do object to those parents who are deliberately disguising business accounts, not declaring second homes and those who claim to live alone when they have a partner whose income is part of the household income but who do not declare it. There must be some way to make these kinds of frauds more difficult to achieve as at the moement it appears to me that many of us can cite examples of peolple who appear to be or are definitely playing the system.

[huggermugger]

I do object to those parents who are deliberately disguising business accounts, not declaring second homes and those who claim to live alone when they have a partner whose income is part of the household income but who do not declare it. There must be some way to make these kinds of frauds more difficult to achieve as at the moement it appears to me that many of us can cite examples of peolple who appear to be or are definitely playing the system.

Do you actually know there are people doing this? If so, why aren't you reporting them to the school? That is the easiest way to make "these kind of frauds more difficult" - make them completely unacceptable!

[ailurophile]

dinahcat wrote:
I do object to those parents who are deliberately disguising business accounts, not declaring second homes and those who claim to live alone when they have a partner whose income is part of the household income but who do not declare it. There must be some way to make these kinds of frauds more difficult to achieve as at the moement it appears to me that many of us can cite examples of peolple who appear to be or are definitely playing the system.

Do you actually know there are people doing this? If so, why aren't you reporting them to the school? That is the easiest way to make "these kind of frauds more difficult" - make them completely unacceptable!

Huggermugger, this is a really tricky subject! As it happens, I am friendly with a CH 'single parent' with a live-in partner whose income I know is not declared on her financial assessment. As a result, she benefits from very low fees for her two children while enjoying the trappings of a comparatively affluent lifestyle (certainly compared to ours!!). But I simply would not dream of 'shopping' her to the school. Why? Well, in her shoes I would probably do exactly the same thing. I can fully understand that if her partner's income was to be included in her assessment (and one could ask why he should be expected to contribute towards her childrens' education?), her contribution would probably quadruple overnight. She would be placed in exactly the same boat as us and would probably no longer be able to afford to keep her children at the school - and I wouldn't wish that on anyone!!

I think the problem is that for many parents, 'playing the system' is the only way to afford the fees. My husband and I have calculated that we would be financially better off in real terms if we were to separate, and that seems simply crazy. The current is system virtually encouraging families to dissemble - I'd argue that this is what needs looking at!

[huggermugger]

I do not see that this is a tricky subject. I would refer you to one of my favourite quotes: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Why aren't you furious with your friend rather than CH? Maybe if people like her weren't defrauding the Foundation, they wouldn't have to keep putting up the fees. Sorry, but if you know full well that someone is doing that and not reporting them, I have little sympathy for you. And I would still say that she is the exception rather than the rule. Anecdotal evidence of one person who is lying in order to reduce her liability for fees does not constitute widespread fraud. And if indeed it is widespread then all the more reason to report her.

I will reiterate that every means testing system has serious flaws and therefore some people fall through the holes and others defraud the system. Look at our benefits system and Working Families Tax Credits. If changes are made, some will benefit, others will fall foul. If different changes are made, different people will benefit or be disadvantaged. It is harsh but it is the reality.

I still do not see what you hope to achieve by repeating how unfair it all is. I agree, based on the information that you have posted here, that it does seem unfair. But you know what - I bet anyone can look at each other's situations and claim that someone else is better off under any system you care to name.

And I am not quite in the same shoes as your friend - I am a single parent with no partner, live-in or otherwise and I categorically would not do what she is doing. But I have a conscience and I like to sleep at night.

[huggermugger]

The fact is that for me, CH wasn't one among a number of options, it was the only option. If my son was not at CH he would be in a school where bullying is rife, coming home on a school bus where beatings up are regular and setting fire to the bus is not unusual and which no longer goes onto part of the route as buses were regularly stopped by stones and things being placed in the road so that the driver could be abused and spat at. He would live on an estate which scores extremely highly on the European deprivation scales and where many families live daily with violence. We have personal circumstances which make it desirable for my DS to be away from here as well, which obviously I will not discuss on this forum. I know that I am not alone in this. I will never be able to repay what CH gives my son. Fraud of the Foundation and disregard of that fraud makes me very, very angry.

I need to go away and calm down.

[lonelymom]

I miss out on the new rule by about £100; you know, the housing expenses being under £4k one. That could have meant an extra £1500 plus a year to me

Can you tell me how you managed to work that figure out?

[ReallyMissingHer]

Have people forgotten they make a declaration that has to be countersigned by a solicitor to say they are being truthful on their declarations? Why should someone being fraudulant get cheap fees at the expense of everyone else, do you also agree with people living on benefits/claim incapacity benefit fraudulantly? It's the same thing.