New houseparents' accommodation on the back avenue

[michael scuffil]

CH is not a museum and will evolve slowly but surely - after all if the work on the boarding house had not been done then the school would have failed its Social Services inspections and been forced to close! Now all Old Blues who left pre 2000 would not recognise the place. On the whole the refurb has gone down well - not perfect but a damn site better than when I first arrived in the 1990's when pupils had horse hair mattresses, windows that never closed, precious little central heating in the dorms and fixtures and fittings that were well past their sell by date. Whether right or wrong, things move on and we need to let them particularly when we do not live there any more!!

When I think back to my time at CH, I agree that many things were a disgrace, in particular the washing/sanitary facilities. And I suspect the wiring was a death-trap (I nearly burnt a house down). But the beds (with their horsehair mattresses) were healthy, and once you were used to them, comfortable. I don't know what they've changed them for, but it's unlikely to be an improvement. (An upmarket mail-order firm has just sent me a catalogue -- unsolicited -- offering "good old-fashioned horsehair mattresses", unfortunately at a remarkable price, otherwise I would feel tempted.)

[blondie95]

in response to onewestguncorpse point about teachers right to privacy and garden...i personally think and i said it in my earlier post that its something staff consideirng becoming houseparents should consider that they will loose the prviacy aspect. Being a houseparent means you are on call for that house throughout term time so even having a house on the back of the boarding house rather than flat still doesnt really let you get away. This loss of privacy/garden should be weighed up against their desire to be a houseparent.
There are plenty of houses across the CH site and on the two king edward roads/close that would provided the teachers who want it the privacy and gardens.

[Foureyes]

michael scuffil says:

When I think back to my time at CH, I agree that many things were a disgrace, in particular the washing/sanitary facilities. And I suspect the wiring was a death-trap (I nearly burnt a house down).

When it was built in 1898-1902 the CH site was real state-of-the-art in all its features: hygiene, sanitation, etc, etc. One of the features was its own power-supply which as I remember it was 220 volts DC (repeat DC). The power-station/boiler house was located on the far side of the swimming-pool/gymnasium/armoury building, as I recall. I think that the price of replacing it with AC and rewiring the entire school always seemed just too expensive, until eventually they just ran out of alternative options. I seem to remember masters saying that they had to buy special radios or AC/DC converters - not that many people had electric domestic appliances in those days. However, lets not be unfair to them - DC must have seemed "just the thing" in 1902.

[Foureyes]

michael scuffil says:

When I think back to my time at CH, I agree that many things were a disgrace, in particular the washing/sanitary facilities. And I suspect the wiring was a death-trap (I nearly burnt a house down).

When it was built in 1898-1902 the CH site was real state-of-the-art in all its features: hygiene, sanitation, etc, etc. One of the features was its own power-supply which as I remember it was 220 volts DC (repeat DC). The power-station/boiler house was located on the far side of the swimming-pool/gymnasium/armoury building, as I recall. I think that the price of replacing it with AC and rewiring the entire school always seemed just too expensive, until eventually they just ran out of alternative options. I seem to remember masters saying that they had to buy special radios or AC/DC converters - not that many people had electric domestic appliances in those days. However, lets not be unfair to them - DC must have seemed "just the thing" in 1902.

[michael scuffil]

michael scuffil says:

When I think back to my time at CH, I agree that many things were a disgrace, in particular the washing/sanitary facilities. And I suspect the wiring was a death-trap (I nearly burnt a house down).

When it was built in 1898-1902 the CH site was real state-of-the-art in all its features: hygiene, sanitation, etc, etc. One of the features was its own power-supply which as I remember it was 220 volts DC (repeat DC). The power-station/boiler house was located on the far side of the swimming-pool/gymnasium/armoury building, as I recall. I think that the price of replacing it with AC and rewiring the entire school always seemed just too expensive, until eventually they just ran out of alternative options. I seem to remember masters saying that they had to buy special radios or AC/DC converters - not that many people had electric domestic appliances in those days. However, lets not be unfair to them - DC must have seemed "just the thing" in 1902.

The DC/AC thing changed while I was there. Until it was changed, there was a rectifier behind the tuck-shop which emitted fearsome blue-green flashes.
DC/AC was the subject of a famous controversy between Edison (pro DC) and Tesla (pro AC). Tesla was right. DC cannot be economically transported over any distance, and so is useless for a grid. By 1902 I think DC was already a mistake.

Things may have been state-of-the-art in 1902, but HM inspectors were already complaining about them in the early 50s. However at home, we didn't have running hot water, so school was better in that respect. And I could go from my bed to a washing facility without going out of doors, which was not true of all the rooms in my Cambridge college.

[Foureyes]

I was going to add some remarks on earth privies, which I well remember from the late 1940s, but decided to do a quick check on Wikipedia first. May I unreservedly recommend a visit to "Outhouse" (if you'll forgive the pun)? It is a wonderful essay on the subject. The fact that "outhouses" were only removed from some Australian cities in the 1970s came as a surprise as did information on the US Park Service's problems in this area, and did you know that Europe's highest privy is on Mount Erberus (apparently). Great fun. I don't think that it has much to do with houseparent's accommodation, but do read it!

[Wuppertal]

While I agree that outside/garden privacy may not be particularly good, all the staff houses I went in (some in King Edward's Road/Close, Pe B and LHB attached houses, flats at the back of the houses, and one of the huge new houses on backash), are excellent quality inside, I might even say luxurious in some of them. The quality of the interior of the houses seemed especially unfairly good compared to the bad state that the pre-renovated boarding houses were in. What I mean to say is that the excellent size and quality of the staff houses is a pretty good compromise for a lack of garden privacy or kids walking past all day.

Concerning other comments saying that the school is for the children (which I agree with of course), I never liked the rule that staff could walk on the grass in the quad and on front avenue and pupils couldn't. I remember one member of staff who refused to walk on the grass because he said that that is unfair to the pupils because after all, it is their school. I think his attitude is commendable.

[michael scuffil]

I never liked the rule that staff could walk on the grass in the quad and on front avenue and pupils couldn't. I remember one member of staff who refused to walk on the grass because he said that that is unfair to the pupils because after all, it is their school. I think his attitude is commendable.

House captains (or was it First Partings? Same thing, in my case) could walk on the grass in front of the houses. One of those petty privileges that seemed so important at the time. (Like coming to breakfast 10 minutes late.)
So if some boys could, I suppose it would have been odd if staff couldn't.

[Ajarn Philip]

michael, a momentary departure from your usual good sense - wupp was saying that if the boys couldn't walk on it, the masters shouldn't. I don't think he was implying that Grecians/House Captains/First Partings, etc. should be able to, while 'ordinary' boys and masters couldn't...

[Wuppertal]

I wasn't aware that house captains could walk on the grass - I don't think this is the case any more (it wasn't allowed when I was there anyway). I was writing that in the assumption that no pupils at all are allowed to walk on the grass.

[michael scuffil]

I don't think that boys minded much about the grass, but it was irksome that they weren't allowed to smoke, and a great thing was made about it, while masters openly smoked in front of boys. I suppose teachers aren't allowed to do that now. (Even as a non-smoker myself, then as now, I found this pretty gross.)

phil: walking on the grass was a question of privilege, and CH social organization was based on privilege at the time. When you got to a certain stage, you were allowed to do XYZ, and masters were assumed to have reached that stage automatically. Although actually as Grecians we tended to have a condescending attitude to new masters: we had spent literally half our lives at the place, after all. (I remember a house captains' meeting to which the newly appointed Neil Simms had been summoned to outline the new PE regime. We sat, as usual, in the armchairs and sofas, and he pulled up an ordinary wooden chair, delivered his piece, anawered a question or two, and Seaman then said: Thank you, Mr Simms. It took him a second or two to realize that this meant: You may go now.)

[gemmygemmerson]

The grass infront of houses!. It seems that the rule is still that nobody is allowed to walk on it, but that rule always goes out of the window around marching time. It think it's more a rule of 'If we see you on the grass, bad news, if nobody is around, go ahead'. Indeed I know a few people to cycle across the grass and even to cycle across quad when it is pitch black.

Are we all breaking rules?.

[michael scuffil]

The funny thing was, while most of us weren't allowed to walk on the grass in front of houses, we were allowed to play croquet on it. (And summer morning-break PT took place there too.)

[Mrs C.]

I just wrote a long reply to all this and lost it so you`re getting a rather shorter version - probably just as well!

There is no parity of accommodation for Houseparents at CH . Anomalies such as already mentioned - childless couple in big house with garden, couple with children cramped into small flat shouldn`t occur. Thats what the new building is supposed to put an end to.
You can hardly say yes I`d like to be a houseparent, but only if I get an attached house and garden. Why shouldn`t someone who works ultra-hard all term, being on call 24/7 , be " rewarded with a nice place to live?

We were in the flat in ThB for a few years - I enjoyed it there, but the constant noise from the house and back ash, the constant breaking of windows by "stray" balls, the litter in the courtyard (why do people find it easier to throw rubbish from an open window rather than put it in a bin which is right by their side?) etc etc is all very wearing. There`s no escape .

Matt - courtyards as an ideal private space? I don`t think so, unless your idea of privacy is having however many sets of eyes looking through windows at you! Not exactly private!!
At least the attached houses are a bit further removed from the noise and have a little outside space, which whilst not necessarily being totally private, is at least REAL grass!!

As for the " if you can`t stand the heat" comments - in my opinion, many staff at CH are among the most dedicated people I`ve met
They believe in the whole ethos of the school
They give up free time regularly, despite the already long hours they`re required to work.
They live and breathe CH, its hopes, its aspirations.
They tolerate a lot, simply because they want to help to make CH what it is.
They give their all.

Should they not be allowed a little space in time and place for their own lives?

[J.R.]

Well said, Janet !