Accept scholarship or simple offer at more academic school?

Hi iamapixie. Well done to your dc for securing another scholarship offer. I hope you are somewhat relieved to have thinned out the deck a little, even if you still have the decision to make. Hopefully the offer holders days will provide more clarity.

This thread / all the responses I have been really interesting. My dd is now showing a preference for the scholarship at the slightly less selective school, as she felt more of a welcoming vibe there. It's also slightly easier logistically. I'm still finding it hard to reject a place at the more academic school. That said, I feel confident that as dd is very capable and hardworking, she will still aim for the highest grades.

I understand what you’re trying to say and respect that.

Excellent schools, funded through an independent fee-paying structure should be able to serve a broad ability of children and as parents I don’t know why we don’t value this ambition over such a one dimensional measure such as league table results? Is inclusion only for ‘other children’ and not our DCs?

We know the league tables game is ridiculous and talent for A-levels is imported as soon as the prior cohort starts showing wobbles. Why do we continue to sustain the values that uphold this farcical practise? It’s a national, mental block!

Of course there’s lots of anecdotes about children like your own who experience positive peer effect...but where’s the evidence that an academic child loses their academic trajectory in a more inclusive environment that doesn’t have funding issues that the best comprehensives struggle with?

Also we’re assuming peer effect only matters for academic elevation. I’d say peer effect for social and emotional skills is prettty important. Just look at our depressing youth mental health stats.

Education and learning is a long game. And our kids are more than A* stats on a rickety, National curriculum and qualification framework.

Absolutely not, this school in particular is great for kids who wouldn’t thrive in the more academic environment. There is a different ‘best’ school for every child, there isn’t just a ‘best’ school per se.

Good point Croy23 - do you think schools should just off-roll/dump kids in Y7 who are at risk of tarnishing their GCSE league table scores in case they fall a notch or two behind on number of A*/As and popularity ratings?

We rejected our state offer (grammar) because I consider this lazy ‘teaching’ practise at 16; and unconscionable at 11.

In my area there is a less academic school which has a junior school feeding into it where the junior school pupils are not examined for entry. I would be very wary of the academic standards and the difference in ability of those coming in at yr 7 compared to those coming up from the junior school.
If the more academic school has just as good sporting/creative Id always go for academic regardless.
My son chose to leave the above school and went to a more academic school without a scholarship and with the excellent teaching and stretch he is performing above many of the scholars - sometimes 1 exam doesn’t always reflect what you can achieve!
Best of luck with your decision, exciting times.

Just to put this in perspective, my local girls grammar school got 60% of girls achieving 8 subjects at grade 7 and above. 76% got 5 x grade 7s and above. No one would think for a moment that going there was dumbing down for the brightest children. Parents fall over themselves to get girls into the school and tutor for years. Clearly some are not the brightest and it’s widely known that the 11 plus here is not super selective but the less good selective school the OP mentions is roughly similar to this. Why would you worry? It’s not a bad thing to be at school with a slightly less competitive environment.

Therefore the ethos of the school. What extra curricular looks like and how broad the education is should also be important. I agree that all the attributes mentioned by NotARegularPoster in her final paragraph are true but they would apply to the OP whatever school is chosen.

sollyfromsurrey and marlenagru I hear you both. I don’t think this forum, well meaning though it is, particularly serves our perspective though.

It astonishes me that some people come on year after year, surely after their own children have moved far beyond the miserable 11+/13+ process, to share wisdom on Selective Vs Uber selective as if nothing else influences the child’s ability to learn, attain and be happy (not in any order) than the school A with 70% A*/A or school B with something more or less. Or whether there are 3 or 6 sets in maths.

I understand peer effect and why some feel it’s a deal breaker for fee paying education...but the whole point of education is that young people go forth into the world to make meaningful livings in workplaces which tend to be mixed ability environments e.g our own houses of parliament is a prime example.

OP if your child is scholarship level, they won’t be ‘dumbed down’ in a school of fewer A*/As than they will be ‘elevated significantly above’ their natural ability in an Uber selective school. What makes a significant difference is stable home life, engaged parents and positive mental health.

Which did you go for OP? We are in the same position.

I have worked in a number of high achieving academic schools and known families with children in many others. Very limited setting is indeed a feature of those schools. When 95% of students get A/A* the need for 6 sets is clearly not usually there. The range of ability in such a school just doesn't warrant 6 different ability sets.

Perhaps you could tell us which subjects these schools you mention set in and which have 6 different ability groups.

Maths does tend to be the subject where there is some setting. There might be 6 groups but that doesn't necessarily mean 6 different ability sets - usually 2 or 3 groups will be working at the same level.

A cursory glance at the curriculum pages of school websites indicates a lack of setting, apart from in Maths across most schools and most of the curriculum. Funnily enough, there is some evidence of it happening in PE lessons, but I don't think that is what we are talking about here.

Wombatchocolate
Academic schools tend to set very little. Often there is zero setting to start with and later just in Maths. This often takes the form of 2 or 3 sets or bands. So most teaching is done in ‘mixed abolity’ Groups.

Please Wombat, without being rude, I ask that if you are going to spout facts, please at least check your sources. I suspect your sources are from your own head.

Tiffin School for girls
Winchester College
Charterhouse School
Guildford High School

all what I assume even you would have to admit at tippy top schools academically - ALL set in maths from the start and then in English and sciences. In up to 6 sets. You are just wrong.

Yes, the world of scholarships is opaque. There are kinds of things which influence who gets one and who doesn't - one key thing is the Senior schools 'keeping in' with the Preps who love to use the number of scholarships gained by their pupils as part of their marketing - so Senior schools have an eye on making sure 'enough' from certain Preps (usually their bigger feeders) get scholarships. There's also an eye on the balance of boys and girls in mixed schools, or sometimes scholarships as a way to top up bursaries so that fees are more affordable. And then there can be a strong sense that another school might be preferred, but a candidate is really wanted and that can result in a scholarship too. It isn't always as simple as they are given based on rank order for academic or the order the scholarship assessor spaced them in.

Lovely to get one, without a doubt, but important for parents and schools to not let it become too much of an issue for the children, or unless there is a good chunk of fee remission, the key deciding factor.

Sometimes Prep parents can speak in awed terms of the hallowed scholarships or there can be an implicit assumption that those with scholarships are guaranteed success and those without not, but this is all to over-play the whole thing. Many of the academic scholars will go onto be high flyers, but in all cohorts there's usually one or two who turn out to be in the bottom third of performers and staff are surprised to know they are scholars. And some who were nowhere near scholarship standard in the entrance exam shine throughout school and in GCSES or A Levels. Likewise there are always one or two music or art or drama scholars who quickly show no interest in their area. And the thing about all of these good schools is that there are lots of opportunities for anyone willing to take them up - you don't have to be a scholar. It's what people are paying their fees for. Later on, many parents laugh about the whole scholarship issue and see it as pretty much a non-event in the wider scheme of things, although back in the day when scholarships had substantial monetary value, they often did make a difference for those who wouldn't qualify for an assisted place, but couldn't have afforded fees without a scholarship.

At some of the girls schools especially with junior schools where they are trying to keep the junior school girls from going to Tiffin they hand out a lot of scholarships. It was a few years ago but in my dd's year there were 18 academic scholars (8 percent of the intake) and 7 in the same class! It was a shock to the parents who thought their dd's would stand out. This doesn't refer to the OP but to those waiting for SW London girls schools offers or have scholarship offers already do be aware you may be 1 of many. (Also if you have a scholarship offer & pressure to accept from the school ring the Registrar of schools you are waiting to hear from & let them know). If you think the whole area of private school offers is murky the scholarship issue is even more opaque.

I would pick the school with the best pastoral care always. Academics mean nothing if the child is so stressed out they can't do anything with it.

The way people seem to think an academic 11 year old means they will be A* A level pupils automatically is very sad. Two of the best pupils in my school went on to pass away young as they couldn't take the pressure. From someone who was good enough, but never pushed, I have managed well, but even I felt the pressure. There is so much more to life than A levels!

I agree that scholars don't stand out. It's all very low key and often a far bigger deal in the minds of parents before and during, than in the kids.

I think that ultimately they are a marketing tool - aiming to pull in the best of their applicants and make their school more attractive than others. This is achieved via small fee remission (usually) plus offering a scholars programme these days, plus the perceived kudos, which is probably felt most amongst parents and Prep school marketing.

If the money makes a big difference, fair enough, but otherwise, choose based on what you would have chosen without the scholarship - and that could be either school for all kinds of reasons. But I'd say that unless the scholarship does make a financial difference of note, don't be swayed by the scholarship or lack thereof.

Just took a look at DD schools results. >90% got A/A for maths, 50% bottom set got A/A. This is school in top 80 league table position. The one we turned down was in top 20. If school is in top 100 or so (probably even higher) a bright child won’t stick out at all. Unless they’re a true genius but they stick out anywhere. even then there will be enough to find their small gang.

You don’t stick out. At DDs school there are scholars for academic and music achievements. It’s all very low key, probably most kids don’t even know who has one. It’s not like they’re in a different uniform or tutor group! It’s more of an honour than anything else. At some schools they’re purely honorary and carry no monetary value. There are also kids without scholarships doing as well as the scholars. Hence they make awards at different time points, at ours this is year 7, 9 and 12. It’s not like there is a layer of scholars and everyone else is thick. There’s not much in it. Even bottom set maths kids get Bs and up. Quite a high % bottom set maths got A* for example.

We may be lucky enough to be in this position in a few weeks (dd has a scholarship from one school, waiting list for another, waiting to hear about a third). So we have talked to her about it. She would prefer not to stick out, and to be average for that school. Have you talked to your ds? What does he think?

I would hardly call a school with 75% A/A less* academic. I would say that sounds like a very able intake and excellent results. Some schools get higher positions on league tables because their entrance criteria are higher. They have a higher percentage of ‘more able’ students.

Whether you would prefer the prestige of attending a school higher in the league tables over a scholarship with percentage off fees is up to you, and how well off you are. I would say that unless the higher league school is Eton or one of those ‘names’ most people won’t have heard of it.

If money isn’t a concern then I would decide based on which school gave you the better feeling. Which would they be happiest at? An able child who is happy will do their best.

We picked the lower school in league tables over a much higher option. Without a scholarship. DD then got awarded an academic scholarship in year 8. I’ve never regretted it. Decision was made as DD didn’t like the higher league school, it has local reputation as hothouse, all the kids there want to do medicine, it has less ethnic mix, the offer holders day placed too much emphasis on its league table position. It just didn’t feel right. But plenty do well there and she would have been ok at either.

But your DD does sound like a different personality to me and may prefer more attention etc. As you mention above.

Depends on the cohort. I got a scholarship and there was pressure (more a feeling within myself than imposed) to maintain high standards. A little bit of bullying at 12/13 age but fizzled out.

Liked school but was relieved to go to a uni where there were lots of smart people who worked hard too. Felt kinda nice to be normal with no pressure. The peer effect was there too - so I knew how good the top people were and it made me want to work harder.

My son was an academic scholar at a school similar to school B (rather than calling it the lesser one). However he was very much a lazy/do as little as I can get away with type of boy. If he had stayed at school B people who were at the same level as him (other kids with academic scholarships) when he left that school got a mixture of grades from 9 down to 6s and 5s even at gcses. The school would have been ok with him getting 6s and 7s as long as the majority of his marks were 9/8s. He would have coasted along at the top of that cohort assuming he was "great"/doing well/absolutely fine.

Howver, he left after year 8 and went to a school like school A and got eight 9s, two 8s and a 7 (MFL and have since discovered dyslexic!) even though at school A he was not in the top 2 sets.

He was happier feeling more normal/average/not singled out as the boff and worked at the level the other (very clever) kids worked at which was a higher level than school B. Now as we have moved on to A levels it would appear after discussion with school B parents as many are still friends of ours it would appear that school A kids are finding the step up to much less of a problem than school B kids.

So whereas I agree some kids will do well wherever they go some very clever kids will adapt to the norm and not fulfil their potential.

It comes down to what school do you think is best fit? There won't ever be a wrong decision because if you chose one route you will never know what would have happened had you taken the other route.

misshalfglass I was merely pointing out that the belief that good students will get the same results at any good school is not necessarily true. There is definitely a positive peer effect when there is a large difference in peer groups. Given that, the question becomes: How small does the difference have to be before the effect disappears?

I agree with wombat that a classroom that achieves 95% A/A is substantially different from one that achieves 70% A/A. I believe the 95% A*/A class will be substantially easier to teach, both because the abilities and/or effort of the class is more homogeneous, but also because the average ability and/or effort will be higher. Because of this, a teacher should be able to cover the material in greater depth for the entire class. But this is only my belief. Perhaps the teachers on the board disagree.

I totally see that a scholarship with substantial value will swing it in the direction of that school for lots of people. Most of even those paying fees would look twice at a substantial fee reduction. Absolutely. Different factors swing it for different people - having the best results, being nurturing, geographical location, extra curricular focus, siblings, schools that suit a certain personality type, SEN provision etc etc.