Day Pupils

[jhopgood]

My understanding is that the value of CH's income earning assets has reduced by about a third, meaning that the annual shortfall on running costs has increased by about £2 million.

[kerrensimmonds]

Scary

[J.R.]

Scary

... but a sign of the times, Kerren, BUT I still don't like the way things are going.

A previous poster mentioned the HM and his former post at Ardingly, however, I'm sure this thread will have been pointed out to him by various staff members who definitely keep 'up-to-date' on this forum !

[ailurophile]

It’s the speed of the recent changes which alarms me most. My son entered CH in 2005, and as a parent I am uncomfortable that many aspects of the school which appealed to us at that time have since altered almost beyond recognition.

We have been told that the rapid increase in full fee paying pupils is planned as a temporary measure, and that affluent parents choosing the school are expected to be sympathetic to its traditional charitable ethos; but like Richard Ruck I find it difficult to envisage a way back, and I worry that the charitable ethos is seriously under threat.

I have said elsewhere on this Forum that while I can understand the need for CH to safeguard their own financial security, it sometimes seems that in order to achieve this the interests of the children at the heart of the school are being disregarded. Longer term, I wonder how future generations of Old Blues will feel towards their alma mater?

[kerrensimmonds]

Well said!

[jhopgood]

It’s the speed of the recent changes which alarms me most. My son entered CH in 2005, and as a parent I am uncomfortable that many aspects of the school which appealed to us at that time have since altered almost beyond recognition.

We have been told that the rapid increase in full fee paying pupils is planned as a temporary measure, and that affluent parents choosing the school are expected to be sympathetic to its traditional charitable ethos; but like Richard Ruck I find it difficult to envisage a way back, and I worry that the charitable ethos is seriously under threat.

I have said elsewhere on this Forum that while I can understand the need for CH to safeguard their own financial security, it sometimes seems that in order to achieve this the interests of the children at the heart of the school are being disregarded. Longer term, I wonder how future generations of Old Blues will feel towards their alma mater?

The CHOBA Board meets twice a year at CH and the HM always gives us an update. I am therefore privy to details that may not be in the public domain, and until they are, I cannot reveal them. (Precise numbers etc).
However, in all our contacts with the HM, we have made clear our concern about the OB's relationship with CH, and that CH seems to be drifting from it's original purpose. (Don't forget that originally it was for the poor of London).
The main benefactors of CH tend to be OB's so it behoves the school to keep us on board.
He has told us that (a), all changes must be approved by Council, (b) neither the Clerk nor the HM have any intention of changing the original purpose of CH and (c) the financial situation is such that unless something is done very quickly, the charitable status of CH could be endangered. (Too much eating away of the underlying assets).
In synthesis it seems a relatively easy problem, not enough money, let's go out and get some more. However, fund raising is not like turning on a tap, and meanwhile, the school must be kept running as well as keeping abreast of the increasingly restrictive education legislation, which inevitably means additional costs.
I am sure there are a myriad of possible solutions, from reducing numbers of pupils, cutting staff salaries, selling off the property and setting up a smaller school elsewhere, etc, all of which would make CH unrecognisable to most OB's and those on this forum.
My understanding of what has been approved and is being implemented, is that it is the least intrusive of the possible solutions, and one that is more easily reversible.
Given the shortfall, I doubt that we will see much improvement in the short term. Indeed, we were sceptical about taking on Day pupils etc, as going backwards and forwards to CH eats into homework time, when the rest of your peers are enjoying life and sitting down to prep. There are easier and probably, cheaper ways, of getting an education.
Another of our criticism's has been the poor communication of changes, which inevitably leads to inaccurate rumours. (I am only responsible for communications about OB's for OB's)

However, what we think is dwarfed by the needs of the pupils, and so I am interested if you would clarify your following remarks:

"as a parent I am uncomfortable that many aspects of the school which appealed to us at that time have since altered almost beyond recognition. "

and

"it sometimes seems that in order to achieve this the interests of the children at the heart of the school are being disregarded".

As an occasional visitor to CH and having sat in on a class, I feel that CH has changed and mainly for the better, certainly in the staff/pupil relationship area, which seems much more relaxed than I remember it. It is certainly not the CH I knew, but I do recognise it.

BTW, this is not an official reply and we will continue to encourage the school to improve their communications.

[Fjgrogan]

Perhaps I am being particularly 'thick' but would it not be the case that the larger the percentage of fee-paying pupils the school accepts the less claim it would have to qualify for charitable status. That must surely put the whole basis of the school in jeopardy?

[jhopgood]

Perhaps I am being particularly 'thick' but would it not be the case that the larger the percentage of fee-paying pupils the school accepts the less claim it would have to qualify for charitable status. That must surely put the whole basis of the school in jeopardy?

I am not that clear on this but my understanding was that it is related to dwindling assets against contracted outgoings. I am sure an accountant could put us straight.

Eton has charitable status and that certainly is not related to fee paying students.

[MW224]

I am sorry to read that many of you feel the ethos of CH has gone. My DS only started last year so we are ofcourse new, but we love the school's ethos! We felt it is very much there. We would have been unable to pay for our DS to have this wonderful chance, the experience, the high level education that he is thriving on. We are very very grateful to have been given this opportunity and I am sure we are not the only family that feel priviliged. Whilst I can see how it must have changed over the years,it's very tough at the moment, so if it is a case of sink or swim then I suppose the day pupil / full fees agreement makes sense for now.

[CHDad]

It is worth reading the annual review and financial accounts for 2010-2011 on he C.H website (under the Foundation section). These give a lot more information and detail.

We have only been at CH for a year and a half but I believe the "ethos" of CH still exists. Yes, times change and the school needs to constanty evolve and adapt (particularly in the current financial climate). However as the annual review states, it is still "a school like no other".

[YadaYada]

In the last edition of Housey! which came with the end of term report just before Christmas, the front page us given over to an article about the funding crisis. It lists 3 methods of increasing income: increasing income from fundraising, holiday lettings and parental contributions. They are looking to grow pupil numbers from 790 last year to 870. They admit needing to increase a greater proportion of full fee payers, including 10% from the EU or further afield and up to 70 day pupils. The plan is to phase these changes in over the next 6 years.

On the issue of the currrent ethos at CH, I agree with the previous 2 posters who have children at the school. My DS is now in his third year. In my opinion, on the ground at least, the ethos is alive and well and the diversity of backgrounds of my DS's friends is across the whole spectrum.

[J.R.]

Thank you John, (JH), for your honest and open response above.

The one thing that MUST be bought home to the 'School', is communication, communication, communication.

As in the football world, if things are done on a hush-hush, secret-squirrell basis, it doesn't take long for the rumour-mill to start grinding.

In addition to my three consecutive words above, I would add, consultation, consultation, concultation !!

[Mid A 15]

Perhaps I am being particularly 'thick' but would it not be the case that the larger the percentage of fee-paying pupils the school accepts the less claim it would have to qualify for charitable status. That must surely put the whole basis of the school in jeopardy?

I think it would depend on the Governing Instrument of the Charity ( Trust Deed, Constitution or whatever) and what express or implied terms and restrictions may or may not be in it.

Bear in mind though that "Education" is a legitimate charitable purpose and these things tend to be interpreted pretty broadly hence the Eton situation John mentions. I believe the previous government was looking at ways of undermining "Eton type" charitable status. Not sure if the Cleggerons have spoken on it with Dave being an Old Etonian.....

[Mid A 15]

My understanding is that the value of CH's income earning assets has reduced by about a third, meaning that the annual shortfall on running costs has increased by about £2 million.

Put like that perhaps it really is the "least worst" option!

[ailurophile]

JHopgood wrote:

However, what we think is dwarfed by the needs of the pupils, and so I am interested if you would clarify your following remarks:

"as a parent I am uncomfortable that many aspects of the school which appealed to us at that time have since altered almost beyond recognition."

and

"it sometimes seems that in order to achieve this the interests of the children at the heart of the school are being disregarded".

I am happy to clarify my remarks, although so much has changed about the school over the last seven years that I will have to concentrate on the main issues.

I still have the prospectus sent to us in 2003, when we first enquired about entry to CH. I quote from this; ‘Currently, over 85 per cent of costs are funded by the Foundation, and parents contribute according to their level of income; in about 40 per cent of current pupils no contribution is received from pupils – the less you earn the more we can assist.’ When we visited the school, the then Headmaster put great emphasis on the fact that unlike almost every other independent school, CH was funded almost entirely independently of fee income and could afford, for example, to invest in the extensive and expensive plans to upgrade the boarding houses without needing to increase parental contribution.

I have also kept the scale of contributions originally supplied to us; at that time, more detail was published in order to allow prospective parents to calculate whether they might be able to afford the assessed contribution. As no equivalent scale is now available it is of course difficult to compare, but as an indication parents paid no fees on an assessed income of <£6000 (this represented 40% of families, remember!) and the full fees were £13856, payable by only a tiny and limited percentage of families with a household income of >£43500. I can certainly vouch personally for the fact that CH was more affordable to an average family in real terms seven years ago than it is now, and I know that I am not the only parent who has struggled, and failed, to keep their child at the school as a consequence.

CH appealed to us as a wonderful school with a ‘needs blind’ policy which could offer a great opportunity to a family with able children, a poor local state comprehensive, and an income which would not otherwise allow for the option of an independent education. We were particularly attracted by the feeling that our children would ‘fit in’ at CH, and that they would be with other children from less affluent backgrounds. We were reassured that at CH they were unlikely to be judged by their peers for not wearing the ‘right’ clothes or being able to afford expensive holidays. I remember that the school actually advertised itself until relatively recently as offering ‘the best education money can’t buy’. Sadly this is no longer the case, they are out there touting to the highest bidder, and while I can understand the necessity for this I still regret the change.

These are the major reasons why I say that the school has changed beyond recognition. I appreciate the positive comments of the ‘younger’ parents who have posted here defending the ethos and continuing egalitarian mission of CH, and I acknowledge that very many children are still offered a fantastic opportunity by the school that would not be available elsewhere. But there’s no denying that the percentage of families like ours is dwindling, and the changes are happening fast. As I recall, when my sons joined CH there was a cap on full fee payers of 3% of the total school population; this was doubled to a target of 6% about three years ago. Now, as YadaYada has pointed out ‘They admit needing to increase a greater proportion of full fee payers, including 10% from the EU or further afield and up to 70 day pupils. The plan is to phase these changes in over the next 6 years.’ Maybe I’m being cynical, but from recent experience I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see these numbers increase just as fast as the school can grow them! (Indeed, if what DS says they have been told by the HM is accurate, that 90 new overseas pupils have been recruited for the next academic year, it would suggest that the 10% target has been exceeded already!). I really don’t see how such radical changes can fail to impact on the ethos of the school.

To clarify my second comment about the interests of the children in the school being disregarded, I would say that the very fact that CH indicates the current measures to be ‘temporary’ or ‘reversible’ might suggest that they have their own concerns about the path they are being forced to take. I was anxious when the School and Foundation separated into distinct bodies (another significant change since my children joined!) that they might develop separate and conflicting agendas, and I would point again to the apparently overriding concern of the Foundation to safeguard its own financial security. The recently revised bursaries policy provides worrying evidence of this. Previously, families have enjoyed the reassurance of knowing that their children would be supported to remain in the school even if their circumstances altered; now, in order that the Foundation can more reliably predict their costs, the means tested bursary will no longer respond in the same way to changes in circumstance. From 2012 entry the initial bursary awarded to a child can increase by no more than 10%, which would mean that a child whose family income is affected by redundancy, divorce or other unforeseen devastation during their time at CH is likely also to have to leave the school. I’m sorry, but it would take a lot to convince me that policy changes like this are being made with the interests of these pupils at heart!!

I hope this goes some way towards explaining my earlier comments. I should add that despite any misgivings about recent developments I will always remain hugely grateful to CH for all the support it has offered to my family; I truly hope that through all the current difficulties it can continue to be ‘a school like no other’.