New houseparents' accommodation on the back avenue

[blondie95]

I agree with Plum, i only left 5 1/2 years ago and my family have lived at the school since i was 13 and are still there. I agree the school has to evolve and that the qaulity of staff the school attracts and to maintain a low turnover rate of staff is to provide for them as best they can. All i wanted to say was that for those staff thinking about becoming houseparents surely they dont expect to get everything and weigh up the loss of prvicacy and garden that many houses across the rest of the site get against the benefits etc of becoming houseparents. That was my point and that if the take back ash away they have to provide something similar somewhere!

[Mrs C.]

Exactly Matt ! So its only because it`s there that they use it - if it`s not there, whats the problem???
They might have to walk a few yards further to play ball? oh dear, perish the thought!!

The vast majority don`t use the back ash anyway!!

[Great Plum]

This whole saga reminds me of what happened (and still hapens in certain areas) in the state sector in the 80's and 90's when vast tracts of school playing fields were sold off for housing leaving the school with precious little 'amenity' space. (You can tell I work in a planning department can't you!) I know that CH has a large amount of land, but it surprises me that this is happening now with the changing shift and emphasis in education nationally towards better physical exercise...

Mrs C's post has just come in so I'll try to answer that...

My first post referred to the fact that grass gets boggy or its being used on to play games etc - that's why a hard surface area is preferable - I can't think off the top of my head where any other areas would be suitable... the two obvious places (the old running track and behind the back of the sports centre) are now car parks. Maybe the school should build a football wall onto Little side - perhaps that should become the area for 'informal' games etc...

[J.R.]

I'm sure I would have done but then my arguement would be - is the school designed for the teachers or the pupils?

Surely, the answer must be B O T H, Matt ??

[michael scuffil]

I`m beginning to think that some of you should come and do a housemaster`s job for a week or 2 - you might just change your ideas!!

With respect, I was a monitor for seven terms (about 15% of my life to that date), during which time I also took A Level, Scholarship level, and Oxbridge scholarships. My "accommodation" for four of these terms was a bed in a dormitory and a table in a dayroom (oh, and a locker). For the other three terms, it is true, I had a cubicle in a dormitory and (bliss) a study with a real coal fire -- but very public access. And as a monitor I had the inestimable privilege of using the bath in the lav-end after games, and was thus spared the mudbath of the trough in the changing-room.

[JackD]

I believe that the contrast between the 10 houses that had good accommodation for houseparents and the 8 that just had the flats was giving the then headmaster, Peter Southern, difficulty in attracting the best candidates to the 8 and also causing others to want to move from the 8 to the 10 which he thought caused unwanted turnover. I went through the Middleton flats 2-3 years ago and they were far from the 10 houses in attractiveness especially for those with young children. This is certainly what Peter told me and John Franklin has since emphasized.

As to the back asphalt in my fairly frequent visits over the last decade or so I have observed little use of it but that observation is subject to large sample errors. While I was in school the side asphalt was in much more use for asphalt cricket and hockey.

[Great Plum]

As a follow up to my previous posts, I don't object at all to improving housemasters' accommodation - I only object to them encroaching onto Back ave IF there is no subsequent construction of areas for the pupils to 'let off steam' close to their boarding houses...

[blondie95]

As a follow up to my previous posts, I don't object at all to improving housemasters' accommodation - I only object to them encroaching onto Back ave IF there is no subsequent construction of areas for the pupils to 'let off steam' close to their boarding houses...

Exactly!

[michael scuffil]

I mentioned somewhere above that I thought there ought to be a staff estate beyond Big Side or somewhere. Of course a houseparent has to have a place to be on duty day and night in the house, but that doesn't mean his/her family have to live there. I suppose a house has more than one houseparent, so surely being away from family three nights a week for 36 weeks a year is not such a great hardship?

It is a curious point: if you look at the 1962/63 development plan (which I have in front of me), none of all this was envisaged. But what WAS envisaged "for the more distant future" has never been built, namely a "West Quadrangle" to reflect so to speak the New Quad, behind the Headmaster's Garden. And Seaman once complained that Barnes Wallis was "always wanting to build things in my garden". The Headmaster's Garden, though, has also remained sacrosanct.
Looking at Google Earth, I'm somewhat taken aback by the number of cars. Everywhere. But there are no people. The pic was clearly taken early on a summer morning, but THAT early?

[Mrs C.]

I mentioned somewhere above that I thought there ought to be a staff estate beyond Big Side or somewhere. Of course a houseparent has to have a place to be on duty day and night in the house, but that doesn't mean his/her family have to live there. I suppose a house has more than one houseparent, so surely being away from family three nights a week for 36 weeks a year is not such a great hardship?

I think you misunderstand the current system.
Each house has a House master/mistress, an assistant Hsm, and a team of tutors. Each tutor is "on duty" on one day of the week and one or 2 Sundays per term. The assistant Hsm does that in addition to a weekend once every half term. The Hsm also does daily duties, normally a day during the week, most Saturdays, and his/her share of Sundays. ( Sunday duty involves being in house all day until lock up , although some houses prefer to split the day`s duties.)
The Hsm is on call when there is no tutor on duty - i.e. all night , lesson-free afternoons etc.
It would be impossible for the scenario you describe to work under the circumstances, unless each tutor spent 24 hours in house.

(I`m sure someone will correct me if any of that is incorrect!!)

[nastymum]

This all sounds very complicated and if you don't work at the school it is quite hard to comment on it. It also detracts from the original point that the area behind the houses is occupied in a random but necessary way by the pupils. You seem completely fixated on the staff accommodation which again I say is because you are staff. I notice also that comments made about how the children are supervised have been ignored. The nearer they are to the buildings when they just hang out together, the more likely it is that you will know what they are doing. It is well known that pupils still disappear into the notorious and almost legendary bushes to smoke at break time because it is out of sight of the staff and staff can't be bothered to go and get them. According to other OBs on this forum this has been going on for as long as anyone can remember. If I know they are they are there ,then so must the staff so why are they still doing it? You are giving the impression that you are not prepared to consider any other options than building at the back of the houses regardless of how it affects the pupils.

[Mid A 15]

I think there is a danger occasionally as an Old Blue of being like an old egg and bacon tie wearing MCC Member in the Long Room at Lords bemoaning the evils of one day cricket or even worse twenty twenty.

Us Older Old Blues have fond memories of informal games of asphalt football and cricket which appealed even to the "non sporty" as they were played for fun. It is only natural that we feel a sense of loss at an enjoyable part of our childhoods disappearing forever.

That said the School has changed beyond all recognition in the 40 plus years since I started. I'm sure others can put me right if I've missed anybody but I can only recall 3 non- foundationers (if that is the correct terminology for teachers' children) in my time at the School. "Beaky" Eagle's son, Fryer and McConnell. One doesn't have to delve too deeply into the pages of The Blue to realise that there are many more non-foundationers now.

There is therefore a need for staff accommodation to reflect those changes.

I'm slightly confused by Mrs C's reply to Michael which is almost certainly down to my stupidity!

Michael suggests ..." a staff estate beyond Big Side or somewhere"... which Mrs C says is impractical given the present house tutor system. The implication I've perhaps wrongly drawn from her post is that no adult "sleeps in" house. In our day there was always a housemaster "sleeping in" for emergencies which did arise once or twice a term probably.

It would concern me as a parent if I had a child at the School that no adult "sleeps in." Have I understood this correctly?

If an adult DOES sleep in then what is wrong with Michael's suggestion as only the duty tutor needs to be "in house?"

[Wuppertal]

The implication I've perhaps wrongly drawn from her post is that no adult "sleeps in" house. In our day there was always a housemaster "sleeping in" for emergencies which did arise once or twice a term probably.

It would concern me as a parent if I had a child at the School that no adult "sleeps in." Have I understood this correctly?

If an adult DOES sleep in then what is wrong with Michael's suggestion as only the duty tutor needs to be "in house?"

The housemaster/mistress, as well as the two matrons, one of whom is always on call, always sleep "in house" - the matrons usually in a flat somewhere at the back, and the housemaster/mistress either in the attached house or, in one of the houses without one, in a flat in the same building.

As far as I know, the only excepton to this has been when a house has been using the prep block - when I was there, the housemaster of the A side was in the large detached house on Front Ave opposite Maine, by Leigh Hunt Pitches, and the housemaster of the B side was in a house along the back road near the infirmary. The matrons lived in some temporary buildings right next door to the prep block, within a few footsteps of the building and the pupils.

Getting back to the topic - I agree that the needs of the pupils should come first. However, the staff are also vital for the running of the school and, as Mid A 15 said, parents would be worried if there were no staff sleeping in the building - that shows their obvious need for accommodation at the boarding houses themselves - and after all, with no staff, there is no school.

When you choose to become a teacher at CH, I guess you certainly make some sacrifices in your own life, such as permanently living there for your job, sharing every public space with 800 schoolchildren, etc. But I think it is unfair to imply that you should completely give up your life as you know it. The staff are still humans and they have the same basic needs as anyone else - including a roof and four walls. As I said, in my opinion the pupils should come first at a school, but those who work there deserve an acceptable quality of life as well.

On the subject of Back Ash, I concur that if it is taken over by buildings, there should be somewhere else for the pupils to go. Me being in Peele we always used Peele Pitches, they were much nicer, quieter, seemed like our own private bit of land to use and none of the other houses ever came there...I have lots of good memories of playing football there on eternally long summer evenings after prep.

I'm not against any expansion if it is necessary, but if it IS necessary, it is also necessary that what gets taken away from the pupils should be given back to them somewhere else somehow.

[blondie95]

[quote="nastymum"] It is well known that pupils still disappear into the notorious and almost legendary bushes to smoke at break time because it is out of sight of the staff and staff can't be bothered to go and get them. quote]

its not that they cant be bothered-do you know how many such somking dens there are across the site and how sneaky the kids are who use them to avoid being caught? I hardly think its a case of teachers not bothering.

[Mrs C.]

The notion of staff patrolling the school grounds at all times outside lesson times is the about the same as suggesting that there should be a policeman every hundred yards along every street to check for illegal use of mobile phones whilst driving. We know, and the police know that that happens too, and is far more dangerous.

If the minority choose to ignore all advice and information against smoking, and aren`t worried about the risk of being caught and being punished , then why should staff be expected to go hunting for them when they have far more important things to do - like teach and prepare lessons, and actually have a life??

As Amy rightly says, those who want to smoke will do so , however far afield they need to go to escape the eyes of staff.
Isn`t it better to know that at least they`re close to hand , rather than , say, by the railway line?

Some staff turn a blind eye to smokers, many don`t. School policy is changing though.