This article was written for the last issue ever of the Belmont Magazine 1994 by Fr. Christopher
Jenkins, Headmaster.
THE CLOSURE OF THE SCHOOL
On 21st February 1994, the Belmont Community, meeting in Chapter, voted to close the school.
On 28th February the Abbot, Fr Mark, informed the lay staff. On 1st March the press, other
Headmasters, parents, old-boys, and boys were informed. The school is due to close at the end of
this summer term 1994.
On my own personal level, I am very sorry about the closure of the school. The school has been
the main work of my life: I joined the staff at the age of 28 and I am now 62, so, except for seven
years chaplaincy work at Cambridge, most of my adult life and most of my priestly life has been
spent working in the school.
But, of course, I'm not the only one: Fr Antony and Fr Nicholas, the two other senior Housemasters,
Br Peter, Br Bernard and Fr Timothy have all given love and devoted care to the school. Meanwhile
there are many other monks, some not known to current boys and parents, who have served the
school for long periods and are very fond of it: Abbot Mark, Fr Hugh and Fr Simon, former
Headmasters, Abbot Alan, Fr Denis, Fr Dermot, Fr Aelred, Fr Dominic, Fr Stephen, Fr Illtud, Fr
Paul, Fr Dyfiig and Fr Francis, all former Housemasters, and Fr David, for years unofficial school
chaplain. And the dead, of course: Abbot Anselm, Abbot Alphege, Abbot Robert, Fr Christopher
McNulty, Fr Brendan, Fr Hilary, Fr Raymund, Fr Martin, Fr Fabian and Fr Wilfrid. And two who
left the Community some years ago: Fr Roger and Fr Cyprian.
And there are the lay staff: all genuinely devoted to the school, and all, in their different ways, very
hardworking: Chris Spencer, Michael Bamsley, Hugh Davis, Sandy Elliott, Graham Simpson,
Mike Caswell, Jenny Hancock, Barrie Dayment, Wallace Knowles, Jean Russell, Val Williams,
Bill and Gill Anderson, Gerard Boylan, Mike Elkin, lan White and John Roberts. And others, now
retired from Belmont: Jan Abbey, Jo Baly, John Bennallack-Hart, Paddy Camden-Smith, Bev
Davies, Mike Dunn, Peter Fletcher, Terry Fallon, John Heath, Pauline King, Mike Maybury, Dave
Myers, Clive and Marie Prout, Tony Rees, Peter Walsh and Christine Williams. And the dead:
Frank Crease, Jock Finan, Derek Mobbs, Major Sempill, Tess Taylor, Clive Thomas and Norman
Walsh.
They served you well.
Quite simply, we haven't got the fees-income to keep the school going. What has defeated us has
been the steady decline in boarders. The school Houses were built in the early 1960s with
accommodation for 248 boarders. In 1976, by squeezing boys into every odd comer (linen
cupboards, fire escape doors) we peaked at 268 boarders. That was 18 years ago. In nearly every
one of the 18 years since boy boarders have fallen - 267, 264, 259, 245, 247, 233, 224, 214, 190,
204, 180. In the 6 years of my Headmastership the decline has continued: 1988 173, 1989 156,
1990 144,1991 119,1992 108,and now, 1993 84. Meanwhile in the last ten years. Day Boys have
remained constant at about 60 - good, but not enough to make up for the decline in boarders, and
financially, of course, you need nearly two day-boy fees to equal one boarding fee.
Now, this decline is not, as I once thought, due to some defect in Belmont which could be put right
by a determined Headmaster. Nor is it simply the recession - it pre-dates the recession, and continues
now after the recession is coming to an end.
No - what we've been up against is this: nationally, boarding education has stopped being the norm
for those parents who can afford it. Nationally, the number of boarders goes down by 4%, 5% or
6% every year. In 1992/3 it went down 6.2%, in 1993/4 5.2%. In the 1970s (before Thatcher,
before the recession) there began one of those great subconscious shifts in public opinion: parents
continue to want the superior education which independent schools can give, but they do not want
to send their children away from home, away to school. Boarding is no longer the norm - it has
become emergency treatment for a child with 'special needs'.
All boarding schools are suffering from this; and I'm afraid more and more boarding schools will
have to face the sadness of closure. Obviously a school which starts with a small complement of
250, like Belmont, is harder hit than one starting with a base-line of 400 or 500. But the downward
trend is, I'm afraid, the same.
And the paradox, which really hurts, is that this numerical decline has occurred for us at Belmont
side by side with a steady improvement in academic standards, and some first class achievements
(for such a tiny school) in Rugby, Rowing, Drama, Cricket, Fencing and Basketball.
Throughout my Headmastership I am sorry but I have been wrong. I thought cultivating Prep
Schools and Primary Schools and their Headmasters would help - it hasn't. I thought extensive
and re-vamped advertising would help - it hasn't. I thought appealing to Old Boys as potential
fathers would help - it hasn't. I thought accepting Spanish boys and then, as I got desperate. Hong
Kong boys, would help - it hasn't. I thought encouraging dyslexic boys to apply and arranging for
their tuition here would help - it hasn't. I thought preaching about the school in Catholic parishes
would help - it hasn't. I thought attending Schools Recruitment Exhibitions would help - it hasn't.
I thought improving the calibre of the lay staff would help - it hasn't. I thought a Scholarship Fund
Campaign would help - it hasn't. I thought recruiting in Europe would help - it hasn't. I thought
cultivating the St Mary's Lugwardine connection would help - it hasn't. I thought making
economies and redundancies would help - it hasn't. I thought increasing fees and cutting depart-
mental budgets would help - it hasn't. I thought reducing the academic standard required for
entrance would help - it hasn't. I thought getting the monastery to subsidise the school out of its
own surplus would help, but there isn't a surplus - and it hasn't. Above all, the bitterest blow, I
thought improving the school's academic results and reputation would help - it hasn't. I am sorry,
I have been wrong.
I have two final points. Firstly, not many boys could put this into words, but it was a perceptive
parent who pointed it out to me. The great strength of Belmont has been its unusual combination
of old-fashioned customs and rules and regulations - what angry teenagers in the 60s called 'the
system' - with flexibility and humanity and sensitivity towards exceptions and oddities and needs.
A combination of law in general and adaptation to individuals, of order and idiosyncrasy. Very
humane.
And secondly, I think for the last 68 years, boys have taken away from Belmont something of
un-measureable value. Something non-quantitative. Something qualitative. I think you can call
it relationships. A boy takes away from Belmont five, six, seven years lived in a community where
everyone more or less knows more or less everyone else. Lived in a community where, incredibly,
more or less everyone is liked by more or less everyone else. Lived in a community where there
are wrinkles - because it is human and humanity means wrinkles. Where there is at times bullying,
where there is at times stealing, where there is at times laziness. But a community where these
things are noticed and worried about and painfully confronted in a way unimaginable in some of
the schools and some of the streets which surround us. Above all, lived in a community where
there are relationships - where boys relate to each other across the age groups and the racial groups
and the class groups - where boys relate to masters across the generation gap and the intellectual
chasm, where masters relate to boys with a comradeship which goes surprisingly deep.
Actually, the first thing I noticed about Belmont when I came here thirty-four years ago, what I fell
for, was the rapport between staff and boys, between boys and boys, between staff and staff. This
is fairly unusual in schools. What I fell for was the naturalness and the normalcy, the honesty and
the directness, the genuineness with which every monk, master and boy related to and was related
to by every other.
I have been Headmaster for only six years, and during that time I have been inspected four times.
And two of the inspections came last year, 1993, in March and in May. And what the Inspectors
asked me about and what I told them about was numbers and curriculum and exam results - all the
great corporate activities, all the great codified statistics. But just once in each inspection, there
actually came a moment of personal and individual truth. The Inspectors in March said, I quote:
"Relationships between pupils and between staff and pupils are first rate. This makes for a happy
atmosphere in the school... The boys are open, friendly and articulate, perceptive and secure."
And the Inspectors in May said, I quote:
"The boys have a close intimate life. They set great store by their friends. They have good
relationships with the adults on the staff, but if they were troubled or worried, they would go in the
first instance to their friends, rather than parents or Housemasters."
You see, that doesn't often get noticed. Deep down, buried underneath the curriculum and the exam
results, deep down is the umbilical cord which attaches boys to Belmont. Deep down each particular
boy in Upper 4B or in 6/1 Science had a good time at Belmont, because they had friends. And deep
down what they will most miss when they leave Belmont, is friends. Ask them and see.
It has all been very worth while.
D. Christopher
