Queen Ethelburga's Harrogate anyone?

[TessTing]

We just had another prospectus brought home from DD's state primary for QE. The idea is quite appealing but not within our budget. It seems very expensive but mentions possibility of discounts through various bursary's and scholarships. Does anyone have any experience of this? Is the school to be recommended? (middle and high school age)

WTF happened to this thread?

What on earth would a prospective parent think if they came across a thread full of holes like this?

Usually the threads are deleted pretty quickly.

Watch it Faverolles - just saying that is defamation, doncha know?

I feel quite strongly about not accepting being bullied here, but I wish it was over a subject I felt was worth standing up for my rights for.
Then we could get all freedom fightery and Take A Stand and be the Musnet 5 0.

Hang on, is saying it's defamation actually defamation too?

@Talkinpeace

Perhaps that's why they spend more than £2.4 million a year on advertising (see The Martin Foundation Annual Report and Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 August 2012).

I'm confused, is it a for profit organisation or a charitable one (independent schools can be either)? Who is the ultimate controlling party?

That one's a fact, now for an opinion: I believe that the Schools make misleading statements in their prospectus.

For instance on p.113 the following statement (my emphasis):

"To achieve this The Martin Family Charitable Foundation and Thorpe Underwood Estate is investing £35 million over the next five years. Jointly they have already invested £65 million during the last fifteen years in new facilities. This money comes from outside our Schools and is not funded, in whole or in part, by School Fees or the like."

However the schools pay over £5.5 million a year in rent to The Martin Family Charitable Foundation, making up substantially the whole of the Foundation's income. In turn the Foundation pays £2.5 million a year in rent to the Thorpe Underwood Estate, (plus more than a million pounds in other payments to companies of which members of the Martin family are directors). In my opinion it is not feasible that no part of these rental streams now or in the future will relate to the investments made by the Foundation or the Estate.

I too object to being bullied. I'm labouring under the impression that we live in a free society and therefore are entitled to our own opinions and entitled to voice them. I have brought my children up to believe in the principle of "I don't agree with what you have to say but will defend to the death your right to say it." You are right Betty it's a shame that the subject is not worth standing up for but the principle of free speech is.
If we are not allowed to comment and voice genuinely held beliefs and opinions on forums like this about schools, holidays, cars, or supermarkets etc then they become meaningless. Surely this is not what MN head quarters wants and I'm sure it's not what the thousands who post on their many threads wants.
I have received over the last few years much helpful advise, if those who post on MN are no longer able to express their real opinions for fear of deformation/libel action then their advise no longer has any value. I have also disagreed with many posters over a variety of issues, I have seen comments about my DS's school that I genuinely don't agree with believing them to be totally inaccurate but I still stand by my deeply held conviction that we are all entitled to our own views and should be able to express them.

My DM went to QE, the support for old girls is quite good in terms of keeping in touch etc.

< sneeky place marking really, I'm done in after arguing against the newish rules about taking DC out of school in term time - a matter of principle to me >

I'm also a bit confused about the link to the Virgin Islands that seems to come up when I google.

The arrangements also look strangely circular when looking at scholarships provided by the Martin Family Charitable Foundation if the Foundation is funded by the rent paid by the school.

@JugglingFromHereToThere

The nature of the school changed in 1991 when it left the ownership of the charitable Woodard Coroporation and moved to its current site on the privately owned Thorpe Underwood Estate.

Hi reddidi - I'm not surprised if it's changed since my DM was there, about 60 years ago! And a change of ownership must bring big changes too. But she was recently in touch with them and they were very kind and helpful. Though I'm sure most schools would be pleased to hear from old girls with some interesting news to share

We get marketing bumpf from QE. It's not on my list of potential secondaries, but I love getting their stuff. My favourite is the bit where it says they have facilities for you to bring your horse to school with you

breatheslowly it is a for-profit organisation owned by a chap who lives on the school site and keeps wild, zoo animals in his garden.

Honestly, you couldn't make it up.

Is The Martin Family Charitable Trust an actual charity?

There is no way that DD would be going to a school with Zoo animals.

I have heard such stories about that place you really wouldn't believe them. But I should probably keep my mouth shut or risk being sued

undecided I did actually say that they had amazing equestrian facilities in one of the posts they considered defamatory and that in my honest opinion the Head looked more like Alistair Sim than Rupert Everett. You see why I wasn't going to fall on my sword over it all. In my honest opinion as a person who has been involved in managing the brand image for some very well known brands belonging to some major UK companies they have done far more damage to their brand / reputation by their actions and the deletions than by anything said.

With most threads on mumsnet what is said about schools is only what is already out there. No school can be out there wielding libel lawyers every time parents meet and discuss schools IRL. Far better to focus on building up the positive aspects of their reputation/ brand (doesn't matter if it is a charity, public organisation or business it still has a set of consumer perceptions that amount to a brand) by delivering a product that meets the needs of it's customers, and in particular by generating positive word of mouth recommendations. Hopefully then the positive will drown out the inevitable differences of opinion of parents with different needs from a school, see the Westminster thread.......

To be honest maybe QE are frustrated. Maybe as I actually said in one post they do meet the needs of their particular group of customers well. They are missing that their product isn't and never is going to be, for everyone. The sort of parents who will have Grammar School at Leeds, Harrogate Grammar School, St Aidens and St John Fisher and Ripon Grammar in their sights are probably looking for something different in a school. And no amount of blanket mailing of every home in the area with poorly executed marketing material is going to change that, in fact it is another turn off.

And no amount of blanket mailing of every home in the area with poorly executed marketing material is going to change that, in fact it is another turn off. Oh, amen to this Shooting! I am heartily fed up of the mailshots / inserts in the local paper / full page ads they bombard us with, all with densely packed pages of text and tables of fees in comparison to other schools - I did take a look at their promo DVD once; lots of mention of the fantastic facilities, but very little about the ethos and pastoral support.

Just my opinion MNHQ; I've never visited and am past the stage when I am looking at schools (DD in yr 12 at a local state school) - wonder if this will be my first deleted post???

Perhaps the head master or who ever is in charge should come in here and openly defend his school.

sounds like he's planning to publicly defend the school in court never mind on here

I have been reading up on the legislation ....

There is a requirement (under Section 1) to show "significant harm".
What I cannot yet work out is whether Section 1 must be complied with before sections 2 to 5 are even invoked.

If that were to be the case, then MNHQ might be entitled to force complainants to demonstrate "significant harm" before jumping through all the hoops they had to on Friday
( and I have to say I found MNHQ to be utterly clear, professional and helpful about warning me that I might find myself in court )

talking agree very much about the principle, however wimpisly am very concerned that my employers would take a dim view of any court action, hence my retraction of my statements. All of which were true, bar one which was rather blanket like in it's comment - this was to avoid identifying a couple of the many QE teachers that i know and getting them into trouble at work

What I cannot yet work out is whether Section 1 must be complied with before sections 2 to 5 are even invoked.

"Complied with" and "invoked" are not really the right terms, but if Section 1 cannot be proven (i.e. the claimant cannot prove that publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant, and in the case of a profit making body serious financial loss) then the claim is defeated and the other sections of the Act are not relevant.

If that were to be the case, then MNHQ might be entitled to force complainants to demonstrate "significant harm" before jumping through all the hoops they had to on Friday

No, it is not for Mumsnet to judge whether there is significant harm, it is for a court to decide. Mumsnet do not want to have to spend money on lawyers defending a claim in court just because someone has posted something which may or may not be defensible.