Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

sejintenej wrote:
Later, and I thought it was after the 60's there was a change to allow entrance of children from more affluent backgrounds who could pay up to the entire economic cost.

I'd be surprised if this were the case. It certainly wasn't up until I left Hertford in 1975 and I would have thought it was completely against the spirit of the foundation to accept children from affluent families. On the scale of fees, obviously some people paid "full" fees, but I always believed this was still way below the actual cost.

I have seen the expression non-Foundationer and have assumed this meant somebody for whom full fees were paid. If it does not mean this, what does it mean?

Taken from the July 2006 CH Financial Report

During the year 148 pupils (18%) attended the School at no cost to their families; full cost was payable by
18 pupils’ parents (2%); the remaining 644 (80%) contributed smaller amounts ranging upwards from £150.
The cost of providing a boarding education (based on a notional 800 pupils) was £18,478 per child (2004/05,
£17,770). Total grants during the year amounted to £12.4 million, representing 84% of the School’s costs for
the year, including 71% delivered by the investment portfolio.

So it appears that some do pay full fees.

Taken from 2007Annual Review

The Council of Almoners has placed a limit of 6% on the number of pupils whose parents pay full contribution - the current proportion is 2.4%.

Yes, but is "full fees" just the maximum amount payable on the scale of fees, or is it actually the true cost of the child's place at CH?

And aren't parents means-tested anyway and the very affluent turned down, so even those who pay full fees aren't necessarily rolling in money?

I was rather amused that I can now recognise Horsham-speak and chortled away at the mention of "nursemaid", "squits" etc.

I enjoyed the programme very much, and look forward to reading the review!

Jo wrote:Yes, but is "full fees" just the maximum amount payable on the scale of fees, or is it actually the true cost of the child's place at CH?

And aren't parents means-tested anyway and the very affluent turned down, so even those who pay full fees aren't necessarily rolling in money?

It says "full cost was payable by 18 pupils’ parents (2%)"

and then goes on to say

"The cost of providing a boarding education (based on a notional 800 pupils) was £18,478 per child"

Giving the impression that full cost is £18,478 and that is what is paid.

I assume that despite paying "full cost", the child also has to be able to take advantage of what CH has to offer.

I believe it may be used as a way to reduce the cost to other parents without changing the type of pupil who goes to CH.

Having said that I have no evidence to that effect and am merely speculating from the words in the reports.

As far as I remember, I knew no-one who was paying full fees, but then, I never bothered about people's backgrounds. It never occurred to me to ask whether people were orphans, came from one parent families, rich poor or whatever.
We were all in the same boat, wore the same uniform so backgrounds really didn't matter.

Here, here, I have found out more about the people I was at school with on here than I ever did at school.

I think a non-Foundationer is someone who is neither presented nor a nominee etc. I think Great Plum and possibly blondie as their parents are working at the school.
I am sure Matthew has posted "as a non-Foundationer" more than once.

Thanks Mary for an explanation of non-Foundationer you could well be right.

Angela Woodford wrote:I was rather amused that I can now recognise Horsham-speak and chortled away at the mention of "nursemaid", "squits" etc.

Agreed, Munch!! I have learnt far more about life at Horsham here on this forum than I ever did from either my father or my brother, both of whom could speak from first hand experience.

I remember one girl boasting that her father used to lie on his income tax form, and he sure as hell wasn't going to tell the truth about his income to CH.

I was surprised to hear one of the OBs on the programme sating that CH was a boys only school, and he was astonished to find girls there when he visited recently. Did most of the boys not know that we, the FORGOTTEN BLUEs existed?
Those lads seem to have been told as little as I was about the school before they arrived there.

Maggie

midget wrote: I was surprised to hear one of the OBs on the programme sating that CH was a boys only school, and he was astonished to find girls there when he visited recently. Did most of the boys not know that we, the FORGOTTEN BLUEs existed?
Those lads seem to have been told as little as I was about the school before they arrived there.
Maggie

I did know that a CH girls school existed in Hertford in the same was as there was a school with a similar uniform in Newbury (?) So what? - we never ever had any contact with them, we didn't klnow if there was any close relationship so, out of sight, out of mind.

As for the discussion about parents paying full fees, we should recall that once in, pupils were not asked to leave if family circumstances changed. Such a change could be an inheritance or a divorce followed by the custodial parent's marriage to an affluent new partner.

In an early drive for equality (like anti-sexism, anti-racism etc. there was a big movement against the exclusiveness of public schools which forced Eton, Harrow etc. to accept pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds and to pay at least part of their fees. CH was equally affected - the other way!

I have only just found this thread.I didn't hear the programme but will use the "listen again" facility.

I distincly remember reading in the (I think) late eighties that the entrance rules would be changed so that Old Blues who were too rich to send their children to CH would now be able to.It was mentioned (in the CHOGA magazine as far as I remember) that Old Blues who had been successful due to their education shouldn't be penalised, and that the school needed the extra funding. That was probably the thin end of the wedge.

Katharine wrote:I have seen the expression non-Foundationer and have assumed this meant somebody for whom full fees were paid. If it does not mean this, what does it mean?

Non-foundationers are pupils whose parents work at the school either as teaching staff or other paid members of the 'works'. I don't know though how the phrase came about. Plum or Blondie might know.

sejintenej wrote:
I did know that a CH girls school existed in Hertford in the same was as there was a school with a similar uniform in Newbury (?) So what? - we never ever had any contact with them, we didn't klnow if there was any close relationship so, out of sight, out of mind.

Really, really not?

Who were those girls on St Matthew's Day, then?

I can remember when the Jabberwocky Jazz Band visited us. Of course, we regretted that Horsham had a splendid uniform, band, etc. Didn't any of your friends have Hertford sisters, David?

Angela

Angela Woodford wrote:I can remember when the Jabberwocky Jazz Band visited us. Of course, we regretted that Horsham had a splendid uniform, band, etc. Didn't any of your friends have Hertford sisters, David?

Michael Scuffil on this forum was same house and I think the same year as my brother but says he never knew that I existed - yet Michael does remember other things about our family, so perhaps the boys did not talk about their sisters - especially their annoying little sisters 4 years younger! My brother did send me greetings from London on my first St Matthew's Day during my first week at CH. As the greetings were passed on publicly in the dayroom the whole house (who bothered to listen) learnt I had a brother at Horsham