A PDF copy of this article may be accessed here. A detailed review of the full 'age extension debate' may be accessed here. When former pupil, Matthew, described his experience at Ibstock Place School in the 1970s, he was keen to highlight a substantial distinction between life then and now. During his enrolment at IPS, the School was a boarding school and a day school – indeed, many pupils who attended at that time were boarding pupils. School space was not unaffected by this mode of operation. To the left of the main staircase (upon entering the School), the present-day first floor classrooms and offices were dormitories for boys. To the right (where offices and the staff room are presently found) were the girls’ dormitories (figure 1). Beginning in 1968, conversations about the discontinuation of the boarding facilities were arising. Some parents and staff were keen to extend the age of the school – which then ended at 13 years. To accommodate a larger pupil population, they admitted, would likely mean relinquishing the boarding facilities – a decision which was not attractive to all IPS stakeholders. One board member, remarking in 1968, was utterly inimical to the prospect. ‘I am loathe to get rid of boarding’ he asserted. He proceeded to suggest that a removal of boarding would leave the School bereft of a ‘home like quality’ which he believed many found valuable. In his letter he asserted, 'The family domesticity, which is the core of our present school would no longer be there. What would come in its place? (figure 2) [1] The identification of IPS as a boarding school is important to this debate. Interestingly, boarding was not part of the School’s historic provision. IPS, formerly the Froebel Demonstration School, had been a day school from its inception in 1894 until the beginning of the Second World War in 1939. Indeed, it was in this year when the School became a boarding school by necessity, as pupils evacuated to Little Gaddesden, in Hertfordshire. They took residence in a lovely house – called Dennison House - discovered by their Headmistress Barbara Priestman. The important home-like quality was on Miss Priestman’s mind when she found the house. In a letter to the School committee she noted this house – soon to be home for the School – was, characterised by its ‘warmth and light’. (read this letter here).[2] Thus, the School began its boarding school years as a safe haven during the Second World War. Central to its remit was to provide a happy and protected space for children. In 1971, two former Dennison House boarders visited the grounds with the School Headmistress. They remarked fondly upon the safe and happy memories they had acquired there.[3] Indeed, such safety and happiness was paramount. In a letter home to a parent in 1939, Barbara Priestman tried to assuage concerns about their child, remarking upon how happy and safe their son was ‘like a person at peace with himself and the world; suspecting no evil & so far I hope finding none.’[4] When the Demonstration School moved into Ibstock Place House in 1946, this provision continued, and the emphasis on a ‘separate space’ provided by boarding was perpetuated. For some children, as was reported by the committee, boarding facilities provided a safe space which was removed from difficulties at home: ‘it is undoubtedly true that there seems to be a growing number of broken homes & a growing need for schools such as ours where children can get stability & security for at least part of their lives.’[5] As discussions about extending the age of the School began in 1968 (and into the 1970s), a key factor in this debate was space, which was already in short supply. Staff and parents who supported the age-extension were happy to abolish the boarding provision to make space for extra classrooms. This would involve ‘dormitories turned into classrooms, ancillary rooms to cloakrooms…’ as noted in the plans. Ostensibly, extending the age of pupils from 13 to (minimally) 16, accompanied changes which were unpalatable to some – especially the loss of the boarding facilities. For many, these were viewed as too great a sacrifice. On the other hand, there were stakeholders who vehemently advocated for the age extension as a priority over boarding facilities. One parent, in 1970, wrote enthusiastically in support of an age extension, highlighting the positive impact it would yield for his family: ‘We would send all four of our children with the greatest of pleasure and, I might add no little relief’ he asserted in his letter. (figure 4) His family lived in the area of Roehampton and identified the benefit this would be for their ‘very closely-knit family’.[6] This point was echoed by others in the IPS community. In February 1970, a working party investigated the mood regarding age-extension. Evidently, parents who lived in the area benefited from no close progressive co-education day schools. Bereft of this option, children over 13 were being sent away from home to comparable boarding schools. If a suitable option existed closer to home, they suggested, they would happily make use of it. Which was of a greater benefit to children? Close access to their domestic life into their older years, or the preservation of a separate-from-home boarding provision? The debates over this issue were significant enough to close the matter temporarily from 1970 until 1975. Once the project reopened in 1975, the age extension was agreed within a year. The first cohort of year 10 pupils were admitted in 1977 and the boarding provision ceased. [1] Age Extension Minutes, 1968 [2] Letter from Barbara Priestman [3] Reminiscences of former School pupils, 1971 [4] Letter from B Priestman to a parent 1939 [5] Age Extension Minutes, 1968 [6] Letter from Bob (a parent) 1970
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
Archives
January 2022
Article PDFs |