Accept scholarship or simple offer at more academic school?

I am interested in the discussion too. I do think the quality of teaching helps massively given the same cohort. An example is the top private and top grammar might have the same cohort at year 7 however top private are always overperformed the top grammar. It could only because better teaching. Given the same quality of teaching then yes the cohort plays an extremely important role, being mixed with the top cohort definitely is the most important factor in the child’s education life if he/she is an academic and thrives in a competitive environment. We have almost made our decision opting for the scholarship as it is substantial, no condition attached to it, the school has always on either top 10 or 20 with regard to A level result.

Thank you expat 96

I've had a quick scan. The first three i can't see much relevance to our discussion. We're not talking about a "cut-off" student and we don't live within a Chinese, Kenyan or Icelandic education system. As you say the NY one comes closest.....but not to op's query (she has a DC either right at the top or very near the top).

At the end of all this I agree with chocolatewombat, either opinion is valid and you can't live the other life. I was merely pointing out that the what's believed to be "the best" isn't always better. Put that needle in the haystack.....

misshalfglass here are three which indicate that there is a significant positive peer effect on outcomes. There are many others but I chose these three because they all used regression discontinuity approaches to examine effects on students who just made or just missed a cutoff to be assigned to a classroom or school with a high achieving peer group. That's as close as you can get to a randomized experiment, with only very few exceptions.

Otoh this study uses the same methodology and finds no significant effect from attending schools with a higher achieving peer group. This paper might actually be more relevant to our specific discussion, though, because the students who just missed the cutoff for a very, very highly achieving peer group mostly went to the next best schools, which had "merely high" achieving peer groups. However, you should note that the schools in this study are much larger than most UK schools (certainly any that achieve 95% A/A at GCSE) and do* practice setting in most subjects. Please also note that this study addresses the situation of bottom qualifiers at the top school vs top qualifiers at the next school. It does not explicitly address the effects on students who would have been comfortably inside the top school and therefore more of an outlier (out of place) at the next school.

Again, I am not calling any school ‘lesser’ or saying anyone has made poor choices in their children’s school. I fully acknowledged several times that there will be good reasons for choosing the slightly less academic school if one has a choice. I really can’t see that there is scope for offence here. And I have suggested what I said is one way of looking at it, that Op might consider, and after all she did ask for thoughts.

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. In all the schools we are talking about, there isn’t the full range of ability but the more selective has a narrower range. And yes, good teaching can deliver to all of that range well - of course. However the fact remains that a wider range probably alters the pace of some lessons and may also act the curriculum offered in some ways. These things are not problems, just realities to bear in mind when selecting schools for individual children. This will matter to some parents and not others.

It’s impossible to say that in 2 good schools, children would achieve the same grades in either. No child goes through education on 2 schools so it’s impossible to say this. We know that in studies of good comprehensives comparing outcomes of similar cohorts (based on starting point) to those in state grammars and selective, there is little uplift. There is some uplift but it’s less than a grade per subject. Many conclude a good comp will do as well for a clever child as an independent or a state grammar.

However people still choose the more selective seeing value in both grades but also learning with a narrower range of ability. It’s one view that many have and continue with, feeling there is more certainty of the very top grades from such a school. Again, for individual children we will never know.

No-one is criticising schools which get 70% A-A* and which provide all kinds of other benefits. In lots of areas these will be the top academic schools. In other areas they won’t and parents like those on this thread will choose them (sometimes over the more academic and sometimes over a less academic option) for all kinds of good reasons. No problem with that. No criticism of that.

Perhaps views on this become rather influenced by school playground chatter and pecking order perceptions. In some areas X school is seen as THE top school. I’m thpse areas where people have a choice of X and Y, Y is rarely picked. That doesn’t mean Y isn’t great school or the best option for some children, but parents at Y can feel sensitive about their choice and as if they are being criticised and feel the need to defend their choice. They don’t. And doing so probably fuels any ideas people have that X is better. It might be more academic and it might be better for some children and Y for others.

But people often have to choose between x and y. That’s what ops doing. Some say go for the scholarship school and bring a big fish in a small pond. That’s right for some children. All saying is being a little fish on a big pond can be right too for some and unless there were factors pulling me to the small pond, I’d go for the more academic. It doesn’t mean I think the other is rubbish or want to insult parents who’ve chosen the alternative.

I think there’s some sensitivity displayed here about being at an academic school which isn’t the very most academic. I don’t think there’s any need for it. Your child did well st their school and you chose it for good reasons. It’s not the right choice for all. Some may wish for the narrower range of ability. Equally valid.

My experience (which is mostly higher education based, so may not be relevant here) is that typically teaching standards are not that great in very very prestigious institutions . These institutions do well because they have an intake that is guaranteed to do well. Given that the intake is guaranteed to do well, whether your teaching is OKish or stellar - why bother putting the extra hours in to be better than OKish ? Whereas if there are more students for whom good teaching can make a big difference, there's more incentive to make a big effort on teaching.

Now, of course the peer group of very very bright students is a very important factor - either for good or bad, depending on the temperament of the child. But basedd on my experience, I would not expect better teaching at the more prestigious institution.

expat 96, I'd be very interested to read this research. If you have time would you mind putting the links on here. I'm sure iamapixie would be interested too.
Remember we are comparing a very high achieving school with a very, very high achieving school.

The pupils will be put in sets with similar ability students.

This is not always true. Four of the top girls schools in London (which had 95%+ A*/A/9/8/7 at GSCE last year) set only in math.

THESE SAME STUDENTS WILL HAVE ACHIEVED THE SAME SCORES AT ANY GOOD SCHOOL.

Saying it louder won't make your opinion any more true. There is a considerable body of research that disputes this.

I agree sollyfromsurrey!

I take offence to chocolatewombat's ....."However being with other and more vv bright kids might push some from a L7 to L8 whereas more being L7 standard might mean it is more acceptable and there is less push from peers or staff to stretch to L8/9"

If they are v,v bright then they probably won't be aiming for 7's ....if they are that bright then a 9 is expected and an 8 a fall back...that's how it is at my DD's so called "lesser" school!!

Don't know how much this is helping iamapixie!! At least seeing different views....you are splitting hairs basically and your DC will do best wherever they are happiest and you can't plan for that!

People are completely misunderstanding how learning happens. Learning is successful when a pupil has good teaching, the right level of challenge and is happy. There is a massive difference in individual outcomes between a top school and a sink school. This is due to a difficult learning environment where there are disruptive students, where resources are stretched, where learning is not viewed as cool, where social dynamics make it difficult. We are NOT talking about sink schools here. We are talking about very very high score schools vs very high score schools. The difference is not in teaching, home environments, attitudes or resources. The difference is the top top scoring schools have selected top top performing student. THESE SAME STUDENTS WILL HAVE ACHIEVED THE SAME SCORES AT ANY GOOD SCHOOL. The reason the school has those scores is because of the students selected. Not the other way around. The students did not achieve those scores because they went to that school. Pupil A will achieve the same whether they went to tippy top scoring school X or very good scoring school Y. The difference is that tippy top scoring school selected more students like Pupil A whilst good school Y took a broader cohort.

The pupils will be put in sets with similar ability students. The brights students in good school Y will be just as successful as the bright students in tippy top school X. There will just be more if them at tippy top school X. It is irrelevant if there are a slightly larger number of more average students in one school or the other as pupils will be put in sets with similar ability pupils.

Tutoring like crazy to get an average student into tippy top school X will not make them get all top grades. They will be the small % at the bottom. Silk purse/sows ear. And the journey will be miserable. The concern of one school teaching better or having better resources only comes in when you compare a good school with a poor school with major differences not a tippy too school and a very good school.

I don’t think you’re paying for a lesser education. That environment may have suited your DD and I’m sure you had good reasons for your choice.

I don’t think it’s absolutey true that a child will get exactly the same grades in either school. You’d expect as both are good schools that a good student will leave with good grades from either. Does it matter if it’s L7 or L9? For lots of courses it won’t, but for the very top courses, people are weeded out based on numbers of A* or L8/9.

I agree that the more academic school prob does better academically as it’s more selective on intake. However being with other and more vv bright kids might push some from a L7 to L8 whereas more being L7 standard might mean it is more acceptable and there is less push from peers or staff to stretch to L8/9. Its impossible to say for individual children.

So, fair enough if the less academic school is a better fit for any reason. I emphasised that several times. But if there is no strong leaning towards either (as Op suggests) then I’d say a general principle is to go for most academic for an academic child. Of course not all wil have that choice or be academic at all.

I’m not criticising anyone’s choices and fully recognise lots of factors are relevant in choosing. Op is struggling and isn’t strongly leaning in any direction and asked for advice - so I just suggested one way to look at it when there aren’t strong factors to lean in one direction.

I suppose everyone on here is coming at it from their own angle. My DD's school achieves 80+% A*/A and so i'm sure, chocolatewombat, you are right that there may be a higher % of 7's or As than the school with a higher %. What difference does an overall % make for an individual child? I find an overall % meaningless. The university doesn't look at the 7/8/9 split at the school they came from. If there are more high ability students there will be more top end marks, as simple as that. At my DD's school there are plenty of girls achieving all 8s and 9s, even some with all 9s where possible. Why would iamapixie's daughter do any better in the environment where there are just more of them... depends on the child. A very bright, hard working child can do well at both...my daughter did! We chose the slightly less selective and am pleased we did.
I strongly disagree with chocolatewombat that we are paying for a lesser education.!!
Our DD doesn't feel singled out in any way and is just having a great time at school, coming near the top in most things and looking at a medical career, as plenty have done before her....
There are loads of very academic girls, just a slightly wider base.

Totally agree with ChocWombat which is why we chose the more academic non scholarship route for DS. Look at school websites - ours does split out the A*s (8/9) from the As(7) so you could see the split. They do have bearing on uni applications

I disagree that it is irrelevant how many get A/A once above 70%. I think that a 20% difference can make a HUGE difference to the cohort, style of teaching and pace. It also is probably the case that the more academic has many more in the A category and the other school more in the A category - look at the split there, and between L7-9 too.

70%+ is good without a doubt. But lots of independent achieve this with a fairly mixed intake. Amongst such cohorts there will be quite a lot of students who need to drop a language, can't manage 3 sciences and get the lower pass grades. And all of that is fine and can be a fantastic achievement for the school and some students. It does however create a very different school to ine which gets 95% and where most of those are A* or L8/9 not L7. To achieve those results, the students are generally more able on intake and therefore the pace of learning is faster, the expectations higher and the range of teaching needed in terms of ability is less.

Of course an able student will do well in either place. If they need a gentler environment perhaps the scholarship place is a better option. If they are lacking in academic self confidence, perhaps it can be positive.I really think though that scholarships make little real impact. Staff will be aware of who are scholars but often it's little more than that. They need to push and provide for all students.

If however, the child is confident and up for a rigorous environment, then believe they are capable of doing well because they have been offered a place. Really academic schools often offer fewer scholarships as they don't need to attract people so much, so not having one is not a sign of being at the bottom of the ability range.

As a general principle, I'd say,gofor the most academic school you can get UNLESS there are specific factors pushing you towards the other - these might be the need for a gentler environment, financial factors, a huge preference for the other place. But if those other factors aren't present (and you say the schools are equal in your mind) then go for the most academic.

It's not about kudos and showing off as a parent. You're paying fees for a choice and you want the best. For an academic child, unless there are special factors which mean a less academic school is more appropriate m the best usually is the most academic, and if you have the choice of both and are looking for an academic education, if both schools have equal merits in your eyes, go for most academic.

"one with a slightly better "name" just for the value of reputation?"

"Go for the more Prestigious school."

Better name/more prestigious in what sense? For parents to feel proud of and talk about at dinner parties? At the end of the day it is down to A level grades and what the child has been doing in addition to this- does one of your schools offer more of this than the other? All schools with 75% A*/A will have most students going to RG universities and some to Oxbridge (mind you this is certainly down across the board in the indies near us - none of the schools seem to be boasting about it on their websites this year!).

We were in this position and chose the non-scholarship at the more academic school but we knew ahead it was probably our preferred school as the other was a nightmare commute. We now have a small fish in a big pond.

Probably if the commute had been easier we'd have been better with the bigger fish in a smaller pond scenario as less pressure in the overall school atmosphere and a bit of extra attention from teachers.

Where are her friends going? I'd probably try to help her decide

My daughter is same age. My friend is in the same position. Go for the more
Prestigious school. Every time. Unless there is really nothing in it.

whether just being called a "scholar" will be a way of helping DC

I think this a very interesting question. From a social standpoint, my DCs seem to prefer to be "normal"; they don't like being singled out either direction. Otoh, I think they do try harder if the teachers praise them.

The implied higher expectations from being a scholar can cut both ways. I suspect DC1 would rebel and ask, "why do I have to do more than the others". I suspect DC2 would be much more eager to please the teachers. Of course, this could be because DC1 is approaching the teenage years.

Personally, I would take the scholarship place. The A*/A % is not relevant. Your DD will be in the upper part of this at both schools. At the school with the scholarship she will feel more special, may win more prizes (always good) and will therefore probably have better self esteem. There's so much ahead going into the teenage years and it's the self esteem which needs nurturing. One thing you obviously can't pick is the cohort!!

I am a bit cynical about “scholarships” with no fee remission. It seems to me that kids instead get drawn into a lot of peripheral time-wasting that actually distracts from their studies. If there is genuine super-curricular work to extend them that is great, but otherwise watch out. Schools sometimes also have Oxbridge Applications Groups later when almost nobody gets in but parents are made to feel better along the way. I attach a lot more value to peer effect!

I think 'scholarship programmes' are increasingly a 'thing'. Theyvar especially used when scholarship fee remission is low and not going to swing it for many people choosing between 2 schools - so the schools try to look like theyvar offering something special and a real seeking point.

Schemes I've know have included an academic scholar programme - usually some enrichment sessions offered in Depts at lunchtimes, or special invitations to outside speaker events,nor sometimes an academic mentor further up the school who meets for a quick chat and suggests further reading etc. Much of the things offered are also available to other students too but scholars might be pushed towards them more.

I've known music and sports and drama programmes too. Again they can be encouragement to attend plays and concerts or requirements to join plays and concerts, possibly with more liklihood of bigger parts. Sports adepts sometimes offer extra sessions about diet for sportspeople or similar. To be honest much if it isn't that impressive or different to what is on offer to all, and in scone places schools actively make sure there isn't anything only exclusively available to scholars as it can provoke parental annoyance and complaint, from the fee paying parents.

So I do think these special 'offerings' are more common these days, but the reality probably isn't loads more available than that on offer to any keen and enthusiastic student who is willing to take up the opportunities available. It's all part of claiming to offer individualised learning and opportunities to make it feel like independent schools really are offering something extra for their fees, when standards in lots of state schools have risen and often parents consider if going independent is really worth it. The cynical me says this is really another way to sell the product and to try to win students from other independents or state schools, when there is still kudos attached to being a 'scholar' by lots of Preps and parents.

What is the scholarship for? that might help with advice.

I'd say that many scholarship programmes are a bit of marketing tool, as are the scholarships,nwhicwhich are often not much in terms of fee remission these days. Often less academic schools offer lots, hoping the kudos will attract students who will get offers from more academic schools and be unlikely to choose them without the scholarship.

It's iftennthe case that although schools make a big thing about the scholarship programme, the activities in offer are actually available to others if they want to get involved too. Good schools challenge and provide for all their students and not just the scholarship ones.

And I'd say that it's not just splitting hairs to distinguish between a 70% A*/A school and a 90/95% one. There are loads and loads of schools in the former category (Good schools- don't get me wrong) and far fewer if the latter type.

Think too about which you would choose without the scholarship offer. I'd try to see the scholarship as a red herring (unless it makes a real financial difference) and consider if you'd have been seriously considering the scholarship school as an offer holder for the other school, if there was no scholarship.

Of course,mig you really loved he scholarship school more or thought it was the perfect fit and had things you didn't like about the more academic school,not hen fair enough, but as you don't and it doesn't seem the money is a vital factor, personally I'd go for the better school. The cohort could be really quite different. The scholarship school does get good results but will have a much wider range of abilities and that can have an impact on the curriculum and general ethos and speed of learning. If the more academic school is very hard to get into, I'd see getting a standard offer as the equivalent (or probably better) than the scholarship offer to the other school.

Good luck in choosing.

Queenswood have a development programme for their scholars, whether academic, sports, art or music. However I think there is little or no monetary value and the fees are steep! It is a lovely school. I know happy girls there.