St Paul's Girls' School spgs

Hhmmm - I think this discussion has veered off track a little.

Re: fake humility - I DO want my DD to do well and achieve whatever her potential is, and I AM willing to spend whatever money I earn to enable her to do this, and I am not pretending that this is a world of equality or that I am not incredibly lucky and privileged to give my child an excellent education.

However, I DON'T want her to grow up with a sense of entitlement or superiority, just because she's lucky enough to have all this support. Arrogant people (boys and girls) are not well liked and in most social environments don't get far. A school can only do so much in steering pupils' attitudes, the real risk I think is peer pressure - and, by extrapolation, the attitudes of the other parents. Also, I fear this easily becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: once a school has acquired a reputation for being "arrogant", parents worried about arrogance won't send their children there, while those who are not will.

As for SPGS, I just hope DD, if she gets an offer and chooses to go there, will find non-arrogant friends and contribute to improve the image of the school.

By extension of your point minifinger we all feel superior to people in developing countries? In these sort of schools as in gramma schools 'academic superiority' is more prevailing than social superiority.

If I was a schoolgirl who had an education which cost twice that of the vast majority of children received, and was part of an elite group which excluded anyone other than the very able, and (mostly) well off, I'd feel 'superior'. Because they ARE 'superior' and intended for 'superior' things in life - the best jobs, the best universities (and coincidentally the best housing and health).

Call a spade a spade why don't you....

Faux humility is pretty unattractive.

I agree with summerends, and if you read my earlier post you will see that I refer to the sense of entitlement or arrogance at both SPS and SPGS. I believe it has been part of the culture at both schools, and may well be changing. I love to see confident young women, but confidence is NOT the same as arrogance, which is all about differentiation and superiority. Many of the London girls I see are clever, loud,fun and confident, but are quick to mix with others and not obsessed by their alma mater.

Working not sure how you define arrogance but for me it is when people feel superior to others. That is different to confidence (or indeed overconfidence). A girl who is loud articulate and feels her school is best is n't necessarily superior although would have to be careful to not equate advantages with superiority. Selfworth is great as is assertiveness in either a girl or a boy. Some of the most arrogant people I have met have had impeccable manners but that just camouflages their strong sense of superiority from social background and / or intelligence.

I have been thinking about this thread today...not because of the SPGS issue specifically but about the comments on the girls being arrogant. Don't we need to be careful not to fall into the trap of viewing confidence in women as a negative attribute? It's on the same lines as an assertive man is a good thing at work and an assertive woman is a bossy schoolmarm.

So I would like to posit that if the girls at SPGS - or any other school - are described as arrogant we perhaps just pause and reframe it as confident?

Obviously there may be come behaviour which tips over into unkind or inconsiderate, which we should fairly criticise, but I think I will be pleased to see young women being confident in their own abilities in a world where so many women are still oppressed.

I could only find 1 study from The Royal Free (1990) . A more techie person than I could probably figure out how to post the link. The abstract is very clear that socio-economic class was not a factor nor was periodic dieting but history of obesity in the family was.Sorry MN164, it will all be anecdotal.
Any school can have a duff year, Poisonwood. My DD2's year has some real doozies! Oddly, the mum who whips up hysteria like Henny Penny fretting that they will ALL be starving themselves and slicing off bits unless the school does SOMETHING! is the one whose daughter claims that her own mum put her on a diet. All parents should be keeping an eye on their DCs behaviour. I don't think the schools can do it all.
DDs' school is in a less yummy mummy part of London. Very ethnically mixed and lots of parents working very hard to be able to prioritise education. Keeping a lid on academic pressure from home-not school!- is the tough task our school faces. They can't select girls by giving the parents psychiatric tests but I bet they wish they could.

Name changed for this post - anyone considering Spgs our experience so far MIV (Y7) joining from a local school outside of London I can sincerely say the school is nothing like the caricature image portrayed. It's baffling as to where these rumours stem from.
The teaching experienced so far is very liberal with less homework than dds previous Y6. Teaching staff are very professional but the lesson delivery method creative.
My personal observation being girls from Dds teaching group are diverse ethnically balanced and whilst a handful have very wealthy parents ( we are not) it doesn't seem to make any difference to friendship groups which tend to form directly from sports/music/science clubs etc.

I have encountered 1 scary parent and 1 scary child to date, % wise it would be no different anywhere else.
My DD read comments prior to starting and had almost decided she wouldn't fit in ( not sporty, competitive or rich) but she herself now says she cant imagine being at any other school, she absolutely loves it.

horsemadmom it is all a matter of perspective though isn't it? I had two DDs who went to a school almost as selective as SPGS, one chose it over SPGS. Perhaps if I was going on one DDs experience alone without being influenced by other parent's experiences , I would say that the couple of girls known to be treated for eating disorders and some low level exclusive behaviour didn't amount to an issue. But then in my other DDs year it was an entirely different ballgame and there were enough troubled characters to manipulate the mores and make exclusion and intolerance of difference especially in relation to body image the norm with many girls influenced into the extremes of West London teenage culture, as well as mental health problems including Eating disorders. They kept the Priory busy. I did not read this in a broadsheet, this was my DDs experience. Of course the school recognised and jumped to it, right from Year 7 when it became apparent, there was both compassion and intolerance of disruption and bad behaviour, lots of imaginative responses such as drafting in sixth formers to talk to the Year 8s after they became aware a house party to which the whole year had been invited had resulted in girls not just drinking too much but mdma being handed around, mdma that originated from sisters at SPGS. However the school experience was still badly enough affected for there to be an exodus at 16 and I wish my DD had left earlier because she found a very different culture elsewhere at a less selective school. Of course this happens /can happen at all schools to some extent because it is a shared pool of teenagers, and no school can control the mix of a cohort, but it would be naive and complacent to deny that there isn't a set of factors in place, competitive environment, ambitious parents, very clever girls, affluence, that means that it is more likely to affect these West London "names". There are similar years down the school and I know from other parents it happens at other schools including SPGS, some of these troubled characters had sisters at SPGS.

It is something that I, as a parent, would with hindsight be taking into account when facilitating my DDs to make that decision at 11. Some girls like one of my DDs are confidant enough of their identities to resist, others like my other DD are either less confidant or so quirky that they are always going to be a target, or easily influenced. It is another factors along with gut feel, distance facilities etc. you need to take into account in that decision.

Horse mad mum.

I'm interested in the eating disorder stats. I'd like to be able to compare the national and average to incidence rates at schools to see if the hothouse + single sex = mental health issue has any bearing with reality. I suspect it does not but anecdotes don't prove anything.

Been reading this with a smirk.
DDs are at a school with the same academic profile as SPGS. So, handy guide for translating the rumour mill follows:

That school is a hothouse!= Your child didn't get a place or was strongly advised that is wasn't suitable. Or, you look at the results and assume that only uber-managed DCs can achieve those grades.
Reality= Very able DCs love being stretched and challenged and benefit from being with similar peers. Schools like SPGS select girls who won't struggle and will fit in well with the ethos. They can sometimes get it wrong and some parents push and over-tutor and any year group can have a bad dynamic but, by in large, DDs love the stimulation.Some will be asked to leave if GCSE's are really low but better to move to a place with more support than struggle miserably through 6th form and have their confidence destroyed. DD's school doesn't cull but one or two a year decide that they'd be happier at the top of the heap.

The girls are so arrogant= You met a girl at that school or saw a group of them being loud or rude on public transport. Or, they just seem far too proud of their school.
Reality= All teenagers are loud/rude.Confident girls scare adults. If you remember your teenage self as an insecure mess, a girl who looks at the world and sees boundless possibility is frightening who you were. These girls have their opinions and assumptions challenged every day in lessons and part of the core of their education is teaching them to debate. This is a good thing.The teachers treat them as potential intellectual peers who are there to be engaged. You might just have met a 'mean girl' and every school has a few of those. And, how wonderful to love one's school and feel a bond with classmates!

The girls are so entitled= Wow! Those fees are steep! Only rich girls from socially blood-sucking parents can go there (Bankers, oligarchs).
Reality= Many of those girls are on scholarship and bursaries or have grandparents paying. Don't assume you know their circumstances because you might be very surprised. If a school really wants a girl, they find a way of giving her a place. I agree that SPGS fees are excessive but Central London schools pay a huge amount in rates and pay their teachers very well so they get and keep the best.

The girls all have eating disorders/self-harm/ abuse drugs and alcohol/engage in risky sexual behaviour= I read something in one of the broadsheets a while back about this.
Reality= Really good pastoral care means that those girls are diagnosed and helped.The fact that it isn't swept under the carpet by the school says a great deal about how openly they discuss such things and create an atmosphere where girls feel they can ask for help. If you hear about a school where such issues 'don't exist', run away! It means that they don't notice or care or are lying. In any cohort of teenagers, there will be a few who have problems or fall off the rails. State or indie, selective or not, they are just teenagers. In your day, it was just hushed up or ignored. If you are hearing rumours that X from Y school did some horrible thing at a party, it's usually the same rubbish that got said to humiliate and shame girls from time imemorial. Instead of anonymous notes and graphitti on toilet stalls, it gets spread via social media.
My DD only knows one girl in her year who has an eating disorder and it was the PE staff who clocked it.

Any other question?

15 girls joined SPGS this year for 6th form. A few girls sat Westminster, were offered places and decided to stay, others chose to accept their places. Some girls left for other schools as they wanted a change - just like at any other school.

Poison thank you for the update on 2012, I hadn't heard about it, I'll ask my dd if she knew when I see her later.

Luckily dcs only have to go to one school at a time, good job they are offered such a range & if catholic have an even wider choice.

I live in North East London, so SPGS is completely out of the question for my daughters. I am aware that it has marvellous results and very clever students. I am also aware that it is rather expensive, and uniform-free. The only alumna I know of is Thomasina Myers, and that gal makes a darned good taco!

I would have naturally assumed that adults making snide comments about children or a school had a certain element of "sour grapes." I do see discussions where parents decide it isn't the best fit for their DD and that seems fine to me. No school will be best for all children and these discussions do help other parents considering schools.

I think your OP was a little counter productive though. The post itself is emotive, combative and attention seeking. You are adding fuel to the fire so to speak. I am sure in normal life you are a nice person and the school thing just has everyone a little overwrought this time of year. Somebody must have really got their hooks into you. SPGS is a great school and a perfect choice for many bright, high achieving girls. You have nothing to prove, the school is turning away hundreds of hopeful girls every year. Like mums always say: just rise above it.

OP I also hugely welcome the comments as though I have heard wonderful things from parents there I get negativity from all other corners. I will in all likelihood be applying for DD2 but the negativity about it was starting to put me off. DD2 is yr 5 at an excellent state primary and has just started with an 11+ tutor. She is very bright and is so hungry for knowledge that frankly would educate herself when it comes down to it. She is quirky though and won't necessarily jump through the hoops that adults expect her to- rather she does something different, equally good but certainly with her own stamp on it. Most teachers love her, a few think she is being difficult when she is genuinely just interested. I am desperate to find a school which will foster her creativity and independence, her tutor who has first hand knowledge of SPGS wants her to aim for it. I am really grateful for your post and will push the snide comments aside!

basildonbond

Very sensible and I agree with all your points but no 4 is a big open question (co-ed vs single sex).

I had a neutral stance to positive on co-ed (it is "natural" after all) until I did some research (see other threads) and now find it a much more risky decision to go co-ed which will depend very much on my particular daughter's predicted personality in adolesence .... a thing that frankly can't be predicted with any accuracy at all!!

Needmoresleep

You are right of course. In the context of "Education UK" it is a trivial comparison amongst the top 100 (or whatever league table).

The iGCSE league table story recently throws light on the question "What are these tables for?"

(Indie head complained that exclusion of iGCSE means many top schools appear in the bottom half of the table which is not useful for parents. Minister responds by saying the tables are designed for private schools.)

I understood that St Pauls (boys and girls) deliberately exclude their data from the surveys and league tables (Times etc) that come out just after exam results and give the bare minimum required by law to the DoE because they aren't interested in that.

On the other hand, St Pauls (boys) states that its function is to get boys to the university of their choice. They see themselves as a stepping stone. If the universities want grades - that's what they will deliver. I'm not convinced they actually care about league tables as such.

We considered SPGS for dd but discounted it for several reasons, but not because of any negative comments on here ...

1. The journey while not far as the crow flies is awkward via public transport
2. Most of her friends would be the other side of the Thames so socialising later on would be trickier
3. She's very bright but very hard on herself so we thought she'd do better being at the top of a slightly less selective school
4. Partly because of 3 we were more keen on co-ed
5. The lack of uniform - I know the vast majority of the girls end up wearing their own 'uniform' there would be girls there with all the latest labels
6. The eye-watering fees - I really can't see that SPGS offers so much more than the other London day schools to justify being so much more expensive

One of dd's best friends is there and is very happy but it wasn't for us with not a sour grape in sight ...

All high-profile schools come in for regular kickings on MN and elsewhere. There's one very sought-after comp that's always being knocked on here, most of the grammars, Eton etc (as already mentioned). It comes with the territory. No school is perfect, most schools will suit a certain type of pupil very well. OP is lucky that her dd is a great fit, good luck to her and her dd.

MN164

Note though that LU, COLGS, G&L and LEH come 13th, 16th, 23rd and 28th respectively - in the whole country.

(And I assume the fact that half the G&L cohort take IB may have had an impact.)

All rather a small world problem, and suggests that parents who choose one of the obvious alternatives, two within a short walk of SPGS, because they feel it would suit their child better, are probably not suffering from sour grapes. Nor that the content of the homework received elsewhere is significantly less challenging than that set at SPGS. (FWIW SPGS seemed to do an iGCSE MFL syllabus that was signficantly less challenging than the one used by other schools.)

For me the phrase that rankles most in the OP is "They know that they all got into the school for a reason and there is no need to prove their superiority to anyone." There is this sense in West London that at least a minority of Pauline and Paulina parents see sucess at 11+ as evidence of some form of superior intellect clearly inherited from the parents. It is a test taken at aged 10, and based on selection criteria chosen by the school. Yes SPGS will pick clever kids but will filter out late developers, DC with an uneven profile who will come into their own once they can pick their subjects at A level, and those with talents and abilities that are not tested. I can't see how it can be healthy for students feel that either they are the "best" school in the country, or that this implies they are are better and brighter than their peers elsewhere.

I understand that unusually few left SPGS for Westminster this year. DDs friends told her that several withdrew their applications late, when realising that Westminster had fallen behind SPGS in the league tables. If so I think it is sad. League tables are one thing, education is another.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth.......

Oh and tables like this one aren't going to help turn off the spotlight ....

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31023681

Summerends

That's a good point. Publicity is not always negative.

I think that privilege and the injustice of it is one angle, but I also think there is envy and competition to add fuel to the fire. When all of that is there and the head dares to speak out about how parents should be parenting their daughters .....

I think that the group of schools that have that media profile is small and the ones that have taken the opportunity to create sympathy somehow even smaller. SPGS isn't one of those.

MN164 there are quite a few schools or indeed heads that have a high profile in the media. However that media association does n't in itself create a negative reputation or 'albatross' (except the obvious one of privilege) for the pupils including that of the one of arrogance discussed here. Indeed for some schools like KCS or Westminster or indeed Harrow after their TV series the coverage is generally quite positive.

The difference with SPGS is that like Rodean, Eton, Westminster and a handful of others is gets press attention. The heads get quotes in the news papers over the years. And yes, that makes a lot of people wear "judging pants" when it shouldn't. The other "local contenders" are not examined, held up to the light and shredded in the same way. Girls at SPGS have that albatross that others won't. There is something to "defend" which G&L or LU alumni might not ever need to.

That said, there are bigger issues in life to worry about than those of the very privileged of west London!

Free speech and all - in both directions.