History
The school was founded in the autumn of 1985 by parents who felt that the secular education found in the local schools did not fit with their beliefs. The school had been planned for several years by the parents, many of whom were members of charismatic churches in and around Worcester. Oakfield House where the school is sited was purchased by the Worcester Christian Education Trust, who oversee the running of the school to this day, for use as the main school.
Oakfield House was constructed in the early 19th century as a private house and has since been used as military billets, a residential girls' school and Agricultural Training Collage under the control of Worcester LEA. In 1987, the Trust purchased another building close to central Worcester for use as the Brook Nursery School, pupils aged 2–7.
The school continued to expand aided by a low-fee philosophy and generous discounts for less well off students. However, the River School like many a small enterprise has suffered setbacks over the years due to lack of funds. For this reason it was decided in 2006 to sell off the Brook School and use the money to service the trust's debt and improve the school's resources base. Since then the Brook Nursery School has been reopened on the site of the River School, which has since been greatly expanded, with further expansions planned.
Read more about this topic: River School
Famous quotes containing the word history:
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
—Karl Marx (1818–1883)
“In nature, all is useful, all is beautiful. It is therefore beautiful, because it is alive, moving, reproductive; it is therefore useful, because it is symmetrical and fair. Beauty will not come at the call of a legislature, nor will it repeat in England or America its history in Greece. It will come, as always, unannounced, and spring up between the feet of brave and earnest men.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“To summarize the contentions of this paper then. Firstly, the phrase ‘the meaning of a word’ is a spurious phrase. Secondly and consequently, a re-examination is needed of phrases like the two which I discuss, ‘being a part of the meaning of’ and ‘having the same meaning.’ On these matters, dogmatists require prodding: although history indeed suggests that it may sometimes be better to let sleeping dogmatists lie.”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)