Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Mrs Dawson - Art Misstress - she had a daughter (Fiona Dawson) who was in 2's but was a DAY GIRL!! The only one ever as far as I know at Hertford!

Mrs Dawson was a fantastic art teacher - and I have to give her credit - I now love doing ceramics - all because she let me throw appalling pots on the wheels!!! not to mention my sculpture of my guinea pig Cinnamon who was poisoned by someone fedding her bluebell leaves (that cost me over 75p to see the vet!!)

The school doctor's daughter was a day girl (attached to 8s) in late 40s/early50s

Was it the case that all non-Foundationers (e.g. Diana and Pamela Robinson, daughters of Mr. Robinson the then Steward?) were attached to 8's as 'day girls'? I am sure that Diana subsequently became a boarder (in 8's) when she got to the VI form.

kerrensimmonds wrote:Was it the case that all non-Foundationers (e.g. Diana and Pamela Robinson, daughters of Mr. Robinson the then Steward?) were attached to 8's as 'day girls'? I am sure that Diana subsequently became a boarder (in 8's) when she got to the VI form.

I don;t know - just Fiona Dawson was a Day Girl - and I think she left in the 5th form after O levels - I wouldn't be surprised if it was that being a day person she saw extremely conflicting views out of CH as well as within it! She is the only one I know of -

Must be Bob Hailey. Probably one of the few people at CH ( when I was there ) who had time to listen to us and respect us.

Jude wrote:Mrs Dawson - Art Mistress - she had a daughter (Fiona Dawson) who was in 2's but was a DAY GIRL!! The only one ever as far as I know at Hertford!

I didn't know that! The only girl I remember having a parent work at CH (Hertford) was the daughter of Nurse Chugg - she wasn't a day girl though and was in 6's. I don't think there were any day girls at Hertford in my time, although there were some at Horsham.

Mrs Dawson was the only teacher (apart from Miss Morrisson) who came with us to Horsham.

I too had Mrs Roxburgh for history - incidently, does anyone know why we took our History O Level a year early at Hertford?

Vonny wrote:

Jude wrote:Mrs Dawson - Art Mistress - she had a daughter (Fiona Dawson) who was in 2's but was a DAY GIRL!! The only one ever as far as I know at Hertford!

I didn't know that! The only girl I remember having a parent work at CH (Hertford) was the daughter of Nurse Chugg - she wasn't a day girl though and was in 6's. I don't think there were any day girls at Hertford in my time, although there were some at Horsham.

Mrs Dawson was the only teacher (apart from Miss Morrisson) who came with us to Horsham.

I too had Mrs Roxburgh for history - incidently, does anyone know why we took our History O Level a year early at Hertford?

I suspect it was because the exam boards for Hertfordshire were different for the ones in Sussex - I think we did Oxford boards mostly - maybe Horsham did Cambridge- therefore you would have to take it early as you would have had to redo 2 years at Horsham in History - some exam boards are very different, others like Maths papers are the same topics, I know when the move went from O levels to GCSE's that there were/are a huge number of exam boards, which does lead to a great deal of confusion - DD did her GCSE in RE with the WELSH board as they were the only one to do a half GCSE!!! When it came to Pure Sciences I think it was Oxbridge - brain is dying - too late at night !! But basically it would have been due to the change of area and exam boards.

Jude wrote:

Vonny wrote:

Jude wrote:Mrs Dawson - Art Mistress - she had a daughter (Fiona Dawson) who was in 2's but was a DAY GIRL!! The only one ever as far as I know at Hertford!

I didn't know that! The only girl I remember having a parent work at CH (Hertford) was the daughter of Nurse Chugg - she wasn't a day girl though and was in 6's. I don't think there were any day girls at Hertford in my time, although there were some at Horsham.

Mrs Dawson was the only teacher (apart from Miss Morrisson) who came with us to Horsham.

I too had Mrs Roxburgh for history - incidently, does anyone know why we took our History O Level a year early at Hertford?

I suspect it was because the exam boards for Hertfordshire were different for the ones in Sussex - I think we did Oxford boards mostly - maybe Horsham did Cambridge- therefore you would have to take it early as you would have had to redo 2 years at Horsham in History - some exam boards are very different, others like Maths papers are the same topics, I know when the move went from O levels to GCSE's that there were/are a huge number of exam boards, which does lead to a great deal of confusion - DD did her GCSE in RE with the WELSH board as they were the only one to do a half GCSE!!! When it came to Pure Sciences I think it was Oxbridge - brain is dying - too late at night !! But basically it would have been due to the change of area and exam boards.

In my time the Horsham exam board was Oxford and Cambridge.

Mid A 15 wrote:
In my time the Horsham exam board was Oxford and Cambridge.

Ditto.

I'm almost certain that ours was London. Anyone visiting the Hertford Museum exhibition can see for themselves... my A level papers are on display! AArrgghh.

That wouldn't be too bad......
(Unless you got an F or G in which case I would most probably be eternally asamed to have them displayed.

No, I passed them all...
But it is the London University papers, not my answers, that are on display.....

Jude wrote:I suspect it was because the exam boards for Hertfordshire were different for the ones in Sussex - I think we did Oxford boards mostly - maybe Horsham did Cambridge- therefore you would have to take it early as you would have had to redo 2 years at Horsham in History -

I had assumed (wrongly obviosuly!) that history had always been taken early at Hertford! I guess your explanation makes sense though. The history O level was a London apaper nd the Horsham ones were Oxford & Cambridge.

I suppose I must have read each of the preceding 133 posts on this subject and still I feel uneasy about it.

How do you define "favourite" and does it vary with time and experience? To give an idea,
- there could have been a teacher whoi let you get away with everything, who was warm and friendly - but from whom you learned nothing.
- another teacher insisted on good quality work and at the end of the academic year you realised that, for all the hard work she put you through, you had actually acheived a lot.
- another teacher you hated but, looking back 10 years you realised that she was doing and acheiving everything possible to ensure that you ended up a well rounded individal.

I have used the feminine only because it seems that mainly women who have had most to say on the subject.
As for my own experience, a Mr Kirby has been mentioned often enough. He was unconventional is almost every respect, he actually acheived a lot in his chosen outside interest of beekeeping, and he gave to at least many pupils a lot of responsibility. As an OB he knew the school from both sides and, with that experience, I believe he tried to make it a better place for pupils. JR recounts how, when he woke up after a nasty medical experience it was Mr Kirby who was at his bedside. What more can you say?
Favourite teacher definitely but did I learn much in his lessons - unfortunately not.

I feel uneasy about the question; I have been reading a novelette about how a senior prefect and her guardian were able to overturn a failing school by effectively concentrating on keeping those teachers who were effective as opposed to those who failed those in their charge. "Favourites" were not an issue, it being considered that those who were deservedly popular were those who were able to inspire pupils to do better. Of course it is fiction but seemed to have an element of common sense

sejintenej wrote:

I suppose I must have read each of the preceding 133 posts on this subject and still I feel uneasy about it.

How do you define "favourite" and does it vary with time and experience? To give an idea,
- there could have been a teacher whoi let you get away with everything, who was warm and friendly - but from whom you learned nothing.
- another teacher insisted on good quality work and at the end of the academic year you realised that, for all the hard work she put you through, you had actually acheived a lot.
- another teacher you hated but, looking back 10 years you realised that she was doing and acheiving everything possible to ensure that you ended up a well rounded individal.

Even as children, my contemporaries at CH and I were aware that "nice" teachers did not necessarily equal "good" teachers. I think even quite young pupils can be pretty astute, and for those who are interested in learning, as we were, we had far more respect for teachers who expected high standards. We weren't hoodwinked for a moment by "nice but ineffective" teachers.

I'm not sure I could identify any in your third category, David. If a teacher was doing that, I realised it at the time - there wasn't anyone of whom I reviewed my judgement later. Generally I would define "favourite" for myself as the second type, but principally those who made us work hard and were fun/warm/friendly/inspirational into the bargain.