Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

This is somewhat late, and I don't think it's been posted elsewhere, but just found the Sunday Times Magazine from 18th Feb 2006, which features a five page article on CH.

(Click on each image for larger readable versions)

What a well writen and researched article that was...

I have to say, whatever people thought of Big Pete, he certainly had 'got' the ethos of the school...

One thing I picked up on reading it was the fact there is still little discussion of home circumstances. We certainly did not know, correction I did not know, who came from the poorest homes, who had their pocket money paid by school etc. As far as I knew we were all equal in our school uniforms and with NO home clothes in those days they did not give anything away.

We were allowed to wear trousers on Saturday afternoons from about 1969 onwards and although (thinking back) I must have been one of the poorest of the poor as my parents paid no fees for me all through, I worked every holiday and went back the proud possessor of pair of maroon cord Levi's.

as my parents paid no fees for me all through

Me neither, I do remember after my parents got divorced (my deep dark secret from 1972) that I lost my tennis racquet and my watch the same term and my poor Mum's face was a picture, she did replace it tho' god knows what it cost her in terms of what she didn't spend that money on; I found the watch in the lost property held by the gym mistress. (Was Miss G the blonde hairsprayed helmet headed one or the dark haired axe-murderer-in-a-previous-life? Someone will tell me I'm sure). I was so shocked at my Mum's horrified face after the tennis racquet episode that when we could wear our own clothes I had maroon loons for my birthday so I could wear them at school and shoes for xmas so I could totter around in the most hideous pair of platforms (no wonder I've got arthritis now!!) although I'm positive I thought they were spectacularly beautiful then!

Miss Gravett was the blonde, Miss Norman was the dark-haired one

Katharine wrote:One thing I picked up on reading it was the fact there is still little discussion of home circumstances. We certainly did not know, correction I did not know, who came from the poorest homes, who had their pocket money paid by school etc. As far as I knew we were all equal in our school uniforms and with NO home clothes in those days they did not give anything away.

Hi Katharine

Have you followed up carong's post about the Peaceful Housey Revolution Facebook site?

One post commented that CH is a charity school for people with nowhere else to go. I never, ever saw it that way, as we were led to believe that we were accepted on our academic merit (GLC place), and I certainly had the choice of plenty of London high schools, but my parents, and I guess Miss Morley (Munch's, my, Sarah T's, Mervion Hunt's, can't think of anyone else) headmistress, believed that CH offered a higher standard of education than our local day schools.

I recently found out, via the forum, that I achieved higher A level grades than many of my contemporaries who stayed on at CH, but I won't post, yet again, about my farewell from DR .........................

xx

icomefromalanddownunder wrote: Hi Katharine

Have you followed up carong's post about the Peaceful Housey Revolution Facebook site?

One post commented that CH is a charity school for people with nowhere else to go. I never, ever saw it that way, as we were led to believe that we were accepted on our academic merit (GLC place), and I certainly had the choice of plenty of London high schools, but my parents, and I guess Miss Morley (Munch's, my, Sarah T's, Mervion Hunt's, can't think of anyone else) headmistress, believed that CH offered a higher standard of education than our local day schools.

Yes Caroline I have and I find the whole thing very worrying. Obviously I know nothing of the circumstances but I don't like it. Like you, I thought I got my place, Almoner's Nominee, on academic merit (certainly didn't get it on music!) My parents wanted me to go, my Dad and his sister were both Old Blues, so I was brought up to hope to go to an excellent school. I have no idea how I would have fared elsewhere.

Well I got a place at the local grammar school (maximum marks in the 11 plus) but I was deemed 'in need' because I had to share a bedroom with my 8 years younger sister. I didn't get fantastic a levels either. I have met one contemporary who left in much the same circumstances as Caroline and went to a Sixth Form College where she got very good A Levels

Well, for all sorts of reasons I ended up only taking 2 A levels, and only one of those had a good result. It was enough for a couple of decent offers, which I didn't take. Got my degree aged 42. Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that, as far as I'm concerned (and this is far from an original thought), a CH education is about so much more than A-level results.

I thought the article was very interesting, though I also thought it over-stressed the 'underprivileged' aspect. My father used to joke that he made a profit by sending me to CH, and there's no way I could have had an equivalent education in the conventional private system, but I'd never have considered myself 'in need'.

I've looked at the facebook link and at kimchi's (very vague) posts. Nobody seems to have actually specified what the problem is at the moment. If I were a parent, I'd give it at least another year before I got my knickers in twist.

I agree that we are being asked to condemn something vague and mostly unspecified. I suspect the real complaint is that "Fings ain't wot they used to be".