I'm rather concerned to find this post from Jo:
.And the HM says that it has been good for school morale to have pupils whose parents could have afforded to send them to more expensive schools, but who have positively chosen CH.
What does this mean? It seems to indicate a worrying bias towards wealthy parents. Was there a problem with morale among the traditional profile of CH pupils (those for whom the school was founded, precisely because they didn't enjoy the luxury of choice)? My child was privileged to go to CH on a bursary without which we could never have afforded private education, but I like to think that our choice was still a positive one!
I remember a post on this forum a few years back where a member of staff opined that opening up CH to full fee payers would attract a "better quality" of pupils. Personally I'm worried (and also somewhat offended!) by this suggested trend towards equating parental wealth with quality or positive morale. What do current parents think?