"Housey" - November 2008.

[J.R.]

I too, received 'Housey' this morning.

I thought the front page made very interesting reading.

When I had finished the front page, the expression, "Thin Edge Of The Wedge" sprang to my mind !!

[Great Plum]

I found it interesting that they will recruit one extra member of teaching staff every year for the next 5 years... I believe since I have left, the number of acadmemic staff has shrunk quite considerably so this will not actually be an increase...

[Katharine]

I was interested that it suggested that the fee paying places in Deps would be an opportunity for OB parents to have their children educated at the school. I had thought that myself, not that I have any of the right age!

[michael scuffil]

I suppose that in a sense CH might be said to have failed if it becomes hereditary. Same could be said of the Papacy.

[michael scuffil]

I too, received 'Housey' this morning.

I thought the front page made very interesting reading.

When I had finished the front page, the expression, "Thin Edge Of The Wedge" sprang to my mind !!

My sentiments entirely. The argument that CH could top up its coffers by taking a few rich kids was successfully resisted for 420 years, then 3% were allowed, now that's to be doubled. It's insidious.

I calculate that the extra income would be about 300,000 p.a. Enough to make a Treasurer's mouth water, but Mark 8:36 comes to mind.

[Katharine]

I suppose that in a sense CH might be said to have failed if it becomes hereditary. Same could be said of the Papacy.

Michael, I think you remember my brother Peter Hills in Thorn B, he was the middle of three generations his father (and mine!) and his daughter both went to CH. It has been hereditary for some time. My father was a parson, never had two pennies to rub together but a man happy in his vocation. Peter was in the RAF and Joanna was an RAF Foundationer.

The people I remember from my Hertford days whose fathers had been at Horsham all had clergy dads. I am sure there were others around but I don't remember any. Funnily enough I don't remember anyone whose mother had been at Hertford, my aunt had been but not my mother!

[michael scuffil]

Katharine

I didn't mean to imply that clergymen are failures. They are the classic case of well-educated and low paid. That's why I said "in a sense". However most well-educated people probably earn enough to take them over the CH limit, and CH presumably wants its alumni/alumnae to be well-educated.
Certainly in our day, OB parents were very much the exception. Offhand I can only think of one, besides your father, and that was Dr Scott, but his sons were non-foundationers, so that doesn't really count.

(Incidentally, if you're going to Cologne Christmas market this year, get in touch.)

[cstegerlewis]

I am certainly well over the limit to send my children to CH, and that is a lot to do with the education I received their, I also wouldn't be able to persuade my other half that boarding has it's benefits anyway......

[LJG]

Interesting and a bit behind the times as of the 7 admitted at the same time as my child, 3 were the children of OB. A further 3 had older siblings/cousins etc at the school. My child was the only one with no previous connection. A not unusual occurance I am led to believe.

[Mid A 15]

I am certainly well over the limit to send my children to CH, and that is a lot to do with the education I received their, I also wouldn't be able to persuade my other half that boarding has it's benefits anyway......

Not the best advert Craig!

[NEILL THE NOTORIOUS]

OH Dear ! ---again, Oh Dear! What is happening to the CH to I know (?) and Love ?
I return to what I have said, in previous Posts -- I always believed that CH, as a CHARITABLE Foundation had the "Glass Ceiling" on Parent's Income -- and I know that, recently, this has been abandoned. I dont distinguish between 3 % 10 % or 100 %. In my view the whole principle is WRONG ! --- and I might have spelled that PRINCIPAL !
The point of the previous "Selection" was that you were "Bright " enough. A good Friend of mine at CH, came from a poor East End family, and got over 90 % in the LCC "11 Plus " --- He was instantly offered a place at CH --- that's how the system worked at its best. I realise that there were all sorts of devious means to get your child to take the Entrance Examination,
but the last hurdle was still to be cleared.
In my case, the Parish of St Sepulchres, in the City, held a competitive Exam to present 3 Pupils------- I came FOURTH !
However, one child ( 1 2 or 3 ?) was killed in the first "Blitz" and so I slid in under the door !
Although I am a rescued Failure, I shall be, forever, grateful to CH for what the y did for me.
My Father was a City of London Police Constable, at Snow Hill, -- Hence St Sepulchres Parish. He was very proud of what I eventually,became, but it was, in my view, entirely due to my time at Housey
I know I have gone on a bit , --- but I believe that the Traditions and Ethos of CH are partly the responsibility of Old Blues.
Who else is to make their voices heard ?
I am a Geriatric Old Blue , but what about those who have recently been Sanctified ??
And what about those who have attained High Office and Renown ? ---- EXCELSIOR !

[Mid A 15]

When I was at CH there were very few children of staff or non-foundationers. I can only remember two or three.

Forty plus years on from when I started there appear to be a LOT more than that these days from what I read in The Blue, largely because they seem to often be the children doing things. I don't want to pry into the personal affairs of anybody but IF I am correct in surmising that the education of non-foundationers is a "perk of the job" (in other words free although I appreciate that there may be a benefit in kind for tax purposes) then presumably the Foundation has to make up the "non-fees" received somehow. Hence the desire even necessity to increase the number of pupils paying full fees.

Am I barking completely up the wrong tree or is this theory reasonable?

[michael scuffil]

I am certainly well over the limit to send my children to CH, and that is a lot to do with the education I received their, I also wouldn't be able to persuade my other half that boarding has it's benefits anyway......

Not the best advert Craig!

Nor that!

[michael scuffil]

When I was at CH there were very few children of staff or non-foundationers. I can only remember two or three.

Forty plus years on from when I started there appear to be a LOT more than that these days from what I read in The Blue, largely because they seem to often be the children doing things. I don't want to pry into the personal affairs of anybody but IF I am correct in surmising that the education of non-foundationers is a "perk of the job" (in other words free although I appreciate that there may be a benefit in kind for tax purposes) then presumably the Foundation has to make up the "non-fees" received somehow. Hence the desire even necessity to increase the number of pupils paying full fees.

Am I barking completely up the wrong tree or is this theory reasonable?

One reason why there are far more is that there are far more married teachers at Horsham, and now places for girls there. The only candidates in the past were the male issue of the relatively few married teachers. I can remember about ten over the time that I was there. I don't know whether the income limit applied. George Seaman's son was at Rugby, but the doctor's sons were at the school (and I would have thought he was over it).

[Mrs C.]

When I was at CH there were very few children of staff or non-foundationers. I can only remember two or three.

Forty plus years on from when I started there appear to be a LOT more than that these days from what I read in The Blue, largely because they seem to often be the children doing things. I don't want to pry into the personal affairs of anybody but IF I am correct in surmising that the education of non-foundationers is a "perk of the job" (in other words free although I appreciate that there may be a benefit in kind for tax purposes) then presumably the Foundation has to make up the "non-fees" received somehow. Hence the desire even necessity to increase the number of pupils paying full fees.

Am I barking completely up the wrong tree or is this theory reasonable?

IF ONLY!!!!!

Staff get a slight discount on the fees - I think I`m right in saying a bigger discount for 2nd ,3rd child etcwhile elder sibling is in school, but it`s certainly NOT free!!