Headmistress attacks parents in national press

that would not be an appropriate 16-18 path for anyone
Why not?

SPGS is quite right not to allow all language A-levels - that would not be an appropriate 16-18 path for anyone (and I did Latin + 3 MFL at 18 and took up a new MFL at university).

I'd be willing to pay for what Opopanix describes, if I had the money. I don't, but, if I did, I couldn't think of anything more worthwhile. It's the real nut. The rest is fluff.

Do schools like SGPS and NLCS actually allow the girls to be individual?
for example one of the girls at DDs college who came from a highly selective boarding school chose the college because she wanted to do all language A levels.
THe school could / would not cater.

NLCS gels all appear to do 10 GCSEs :
Eng, Eng, Maths, Phys, Chem, Bio, Geoh, His, MFL, Latin
where do art, music, drama, other MFL
and the pleasures in life fit in?

Some parents think that getting their DC into a high-performing high-status school is an end in itself and the school will then do all the work while the parent writes a hefty cheque and claps at shows and matches and collects a DC with 5A* and a great destination university place. It might work for some...

Isn't all the elitist 3hours of homework, failing- is-not-an -option 5A* Oxbridge-guaranteed experience what these parents are paying for?

You just sort of put them in one end and the finished article comes out the other end. You feel you have git what you paid for.

Actually, and interestingly, because it's something that state schools might not have to spend tons of money to replicate, the thing that made the most difference to me when I was at SPGS wasn't the facilities (they were nice, obviously, though I can't say I made much use of the tennis courts or swimming pool or the athletics field). The thing that made me really love it there was how much encouragement I got to just pursue my own interests and have people to ask about it who actually knew about whatever it was and wanted to encourage me and help me.

I suppose that bit does cost money, thinking about it. If teachers are going to have time to discuss an eleven year old's science fiction novel then they are going to have to be pretty well paid to give up time to read it and bother to give a proper critique of what could be improved, I suppose, unless very dedicated. And they're going to have to not be massively overworked with paperwork and demands from the Dept of Education about what they should be doing and they're going to have to actually have time to read the (crappy) novel. So, sorry, I'm wrong. Yes, it costs money. But the genuine non-judgemental concentrated attention of a knowledgeable, interested and helpful adult who isn't your parent and doesn't have to like your novel but still wants to help you improve it is the thing that money can't buy. Only it can, in this case.

Anyway, that's the thing you are buying, I think. Not fields and theatres.

Isn't there an arms race amongst all these schools, day or boarding, on facilities, most have got the theatres, Wycombe Abbeys comes with a lake....... And the sixth formers must get a terrible shock when they leave their carpets, cafes and sofas and find themselves in even the most corporate of the Nottinghams and Exeters and Leeds , or maybe not given some of the Halls

Having highlighted the new pastoral breed of Head, don't forget the Business minded predecessors that made sure they had the facilities so that they can focus on competing on the soft and fluffy stuff. One Head retiring just over ten years ago actually said that having focused on the education she was moving over to make way for someone to do the glossy marketing........

NeedMoreSleep - Paris schools don't really have facilities (with two or three exceptions) and they don't cost much either.

I am talking about London and SE England schools, of which I have recently visited many.

Ha rabbit! Maybe more teachers / specialisms.

Ah, you see, MarshaBrady - it's a charity. Oh no, that doesn't explain it.

I assume it must be the payroll. Presumably all these schools own the facilities outright. Of course there will be maintenance costs on the physical plant, but the big variable must be teacher salaries. In these expensive London schools the teachers have to be able to afford to live in London.

Why is the price going up faster than the rate of inflation? Anyone know if it's a certain cost.

Or just demand is higher.

One can hardly do drama productions without a Theatre and Audio Visual department and a few visiting LAMDA teachers. Still, apparently St Paul's Girls School does not need to sell itself on the quality of its facilities, despite all this.

On the outskirts in places like Teddington and Kingston. Tiffin girls for example. Or Nonsuch.

It may be in Paris that the private schools Bonsoir is talking about sell themselves on the quality of their facilities. However a lot of private schools in London are on really cramped sites and make a lot of use of public leisure centres and parks. Schools like Frances Holland are worse.

But hey, they couldn't possibly be cheaper than they are.

Then there are the staff. I'm sure parents at these schools want to ensure absolutely no expense is spared in getting the very best, supremely over-qualified to teach their children: specialists in every academic subject and extra-curricular activity...

Still, once you've spent hundreds of thousands on making your green fields useable for sport, they just look like reasonably maintained green fields, so it's probably hard to notice how much money is spent on them.

And does a bit of green space that is waterlogged for most of the year count as being better than a huge, multi-purpose sports hall?

Ah, no lawns, just a theatre and tennis courts. I'm impressed there are state schools IN LONDON with larger playing fields than Westminster. Where are these lucky London schools? And what constitutes a "gym"? Would that be a hall for running around in and having assemblies in, or something else? I think some people have got so used to taking their facilities for granted, they barely even notice them.

There was a small scrubby lawn when I was at SPGS, but shortly after I arrived they built a theatre on it. So then there were no lawns at all (apart from tennis courts etc).

In fairness Westminster's facilities have improved since they boasted the oldest, and worst, school gym in Britain, but a lot was paid for by Winnie the Pooh.

I don't get your argument. These schools are not competing for pupils. Pupils are competing for places. Whatever the facilities SPGS could fill their school 10 times over.

Bonsoir, I would not describe SPGS as having manicured lawns. Nor G&L, Putney or LU. Westminster may have Vincent Sq, but I have seen plenty of state secondaries with far larger playing fields.

Westminster though, has a nice Abbey attached!

No, because I don't equate good schools with chains. I'm a boutique hotel sort of girl - but I like 3 and 4 a lot.

Competition has driven luxury facilities which has put up prices. Much of what good schools deliver doesn't require manicured lawns and deluxe music and sports facilities and I think plenty of parents would be happy to pay lower fees for great academics alone.

Bonsoir. You are saying there is gap in the market for a "travel lodge" type of private schools then! .