Head of St Pauls Girl’s School

Also, forgive me if I am wrong, but hasn't Farr been at SPGS for years. Certainly before DD started at secondary and shr is 2nd year University now. Surely she cant have been head of two schools simultaneously?!

Bubbles, what are you talking about?

What is wrong with SPGS sports facilities? They are at least the equal of other London day schools, and SPGS produces some very good sports people. We know at least three who were accepted onto Ivy sports programmes or ended in Oxbridge boats.

I have never heard of "Q" but assume it is not the same sort of school as SPGS. (Queensgate, Queens College, Queen Margaret?) Perhaps it suited a different sort of head. Equally I dont know if any of your many daughters were at Rugby, but that is not the description I recognise. Patrick Derham, from our experience, was fab, knew his pupils and happy to talk to parents. My understanding is that Rugby parents were sad to lose him.

Can I just say I experienced CF as a Head for 4 years. Obviously a different school but I do not recognise the person described by some here. I think a lot of pressure is from parents. In that I suspect she’s right. Parents could choose to go elsewhere. Very bright girls have so many options. As I said earlier, very competitive parents ensure SPGS is what it is.

Very few girls schools have big bursary funds and they will need to fund raise.

At Rugby Patrick Dereham actively avoided speaking to parents by cycling round the playing fields and not stopping to chat! Yes, cannot wait for his book.

CF came from an ultra sporty school in Q. She was very interested in sport and her former DH was a sports journalist. St Paul’s possibly doesn’t have the greatest facilities due to location. As she says, other schools have better. If you want that, you know where they are.

And as long as the school keeps achieving high Oxbridge/Ivy League acceptance then it follows it will continue to attract families who see this as the ultimate end game, hence the self perpetuating cycle.

An eye opening insight to the school appeal is not necessarily the current parents, but open day. My Dd has had to attend 3 or 4 where she has shown groups of prospective parents around with their children. Some have turned up with 5 year olds asking “ Is Latin available all through the school because she is going to be a doctor “ “ we would expect her to be able to take her Maths early as she is already doing GCSE papers” “ Do all girls have to take art as I would prefer she studies a more academic subject, art isn’t important in our family” “ why do only 50% of the girls get into Oxbridge” and the question nearly all the girls are asked “ so how long were you tutored prior to the entrance exam and what should we focus on”
In some cultures the number on the paper is seen as the only measure of success. I’m in no way racist but the intake of Chinese and Indian students over the last 4 years has increased noticeably and the benchmark internally generally is set by these girls who study relentlessly to meet parental / family expectations & pushes an already high benchmark even higher.

But according to recent press it is Clarissa Farr who complains that parents are too pushy and that independent schools are too focused on getting the top academic results.

She is not an outsider.

And as someone who went through the West London school thing, not at SPGS, it was a stereotype that fitted some.

Just the parents? Passed onto the girls? From the school? Who knows, but there is clearly a distinctiveness that sets SPHS apart from the other very good schools in the area.

DD has had some really fantastic pastoral care over the last year at St Paul's. There has been little evidence of competitiveness and in fact the minimal talk about achievement or goals has all been to do with doing your own personal best rather than comparing yourself to others, which I think very sensible and surely what we would all tell our children anyway.

I don't think pastoral care was very good when I was there, but then I don't think it was especially good anywhere (eg corporal punishment still legal when I started secondary school until not long before I left and I don't think anyone anywhere was worrying much about pupils' mental health).

I was extremely lazy and quite badly behaved during my time at St Paul's but was not asked to leave at any time, though I am sure all my teachers were heartily sick of my by the time I left. However even during the worst of the bad behaviour they were all pretty damn nice to me tbh. Not sure I'd have had as much patience with myself! Don't remember any competitiveness unless self-inflicted.

I don't personally know of anyone asked to leave as a result of poor academic performance (I do know of a few friends who got lowish grades for some of their O Levels but all continued to A Levels at the school). Maybe it is different now? I have no idea. It really doesn't seem very likely from what I've seen so far, but then DD is a fairly high flyer so it may be different for others. I can only say what I have personally witnessed.

I sent my daughter there because I received a truly outstanding education and wanted the same for my daughter. Plus I had specific curriculum-related wants that suit my daughter that were not available at local state schools (where she would have gone had she not got in to St Paul's or the single other selective school we applied for). I looked round lots of schools and this was the place I felt best suited my daughter's particular personality and interests. I did not feel any of the other very good selective schools in SW London would have suited her in quite the same way.

The levels of interest in this school just seem to be off the charts and not in a good way and I find it hard to understand why. The commentary from people with no real personal experience probably doesn't help. Two of DD's friends were stopped by a random mother with a couple of kids on the way home from school and quizzed as to what tutoring they had done to get in. They were 11 at the time. It is bonkers. DD has learnt to say 'Hammersmith' when asked where she goes to school because of weird reactions from complete strangers. However the actual education she is getting is fantastic, the pastoral care has been excellent and she is genuinely having the time of her life (so prob worth a bit of weirdness).

I came out of St Paul's with an excellent education and absolutely no mental health issues whatsoever, good university, interesting career etc etc. I expect my daughter to do the same. I know a few girls from St Paul's who did have problems in some way, but equally the maddest workaholic I know went to G&L and had an eating disorder throughout her time there (and several people I know through her were just as bonkers). No school will proof your child against problems. You have to do that yourself, don't you? All the girls I knew who had problems also had problems at home. Their problems weren't caused by the school they attended.

All I can say is that I do not recognise the picture painted by those who don't have direct experience of the school and that my experience some decades ago and my daughter's experience now have been really good. If that changes I will hold my hands up and say so. But for now, DD's experience has been wonderful. She is so happy. Very tired! But intellectually happy and fulfilled in a way that I have not seen before. And the long tradition that I experienced of teachers going above and beyond to help with personal interests is clearly still in evidence.

Polyjuice Gacoferous can you please elaborate? i know plenty who have come out of SPGS and SPS for that matter. There is such a conflict between what they achieved and what it cost them.

Honestly it is so sad and beyond any opinion you would have about the schools involved. My daughter is quite bright but honestly i will not push it to the end because I have seen what you what to pay for. Putney High or Godolphin will do just as fine for results but much better on the mental health side.

I went to a similar school to spgs, and know many who went there. From my experience, all the school wanted was good grades at any cost. There was no pastoral care to speak of. Anyone who might bring the schools results down was asked to leave.

I'm not sure why everyone clamours to get a place at these schools. They get good results by recruiting bright girls, and asking them to leave if they don't perform. Anywhere could get good results if they did that

I quite agree Glaciferous.

I never recognise the descriptions of Paulinas or of St Paul's that people who have not had direct involvement with the school either as parents or children come up with. It really is very interesting how the impressions of people with no personal knowledge of the school can be so much at odds with my actual experience of it either as a parent or as a child.

I don't think SPGS is unique in the head's fundraising dinner circuit for parents to donate large sums. The late Bernice McCabe did the same at North London Collegiate.

Such a shame when the reflections of an experienced head could really add some insight to the education debate - this one certainly doesn't look like its going to. I think I'll just wait for Patrick Dereham's which may actually be worth reading.

When I read articles like this I am so glad we made the decision to move to Ireland

Had we stayed in London its likely that we would have ended up sending our DDs to a school like this and, whereas I have no doubt they would have experienced a broader curriculum, their lives would have been so needlessly competitive at such a young age.

Getting ahead has become utterly toxic and damaging for our teens development of self

I think CF’s book is coming out too soon. If her focus is SPGS then she is just fresh out and has not got time to reflect on her [10]? years there. I would not expect the book will offer insight on what she could have done better and what she did well if she wrote it last year. She is not that kind of reflective person, she longs for some validation and is searching for a new place in life with the standing of her former role. So I believe the book will have little value as a legacy of some kind, which surely will be a bit of a regret for her because it will lack the impact that she is looking for. Maybe her second book will do it….

That is my view anyways. Her timing does speak lots though. New board position, new book and new hairdo. She was scourging parents as if they were teenagers (granted pushy and painful but still grownups). She is not the type that takes feedback too easily and expects you to look up to her like her teenagers would. I do not expect much reflection in her prose but more a well written announcement of how she sees things and her marching orders (and she is hoping we will revere and admire it).
I do agree with OP and @Girlgone that it is all a bit disingenuous. She is rushing with a book to get out there and only reinforces the image she already has.

On the lighter side, I do not think we will get much gossip either – too soon for that again!

No, but she would have known, one way or another, at least 30 who had gone to SPGS who were in her year group.

They tended to be quite distinctive. Some were very talented, some were very happy, but not all.

Dd not add 🙄

Needmoresleep- so did your add attend Spgs?

I would agree with OP and Mominatrix's early posts.

London day schools are struggling with a sky high parental aspirations, but SPGS is in a different league altogether, and from the outside there is no indication that the school are trying to change it.

Some years ago but DD was taking part in a holiday activity in North East London. At the end of the second day the instructor asked if DD was having problems with one girl who was clearly super competitive and over-bearing. I think he wanted to have a word with the parents but was seeking some evidence of the impact her behaviour was having on other children. I said that DD was OK because she was used to Paulinas, which triggered questions from the confused instructor about why such behaviours were deemed acceptable for pupils from any school. He was right.

The confidence is odd. Even women in late middle age seem to need to tell you they were at SPGS, so it is long-standing. Now coupled with super competitive London parenting, with a place at SPGS being seen as the ultimate goal, and it can become toxic. We certainly knew of some casualties.

The fundraising sounded a bit scary. I once heard a seriously affluent Kensington banker's wife boasting loudly about being invited to one of Clarissa's dinners. "They are only after your money" said another less affluent parent who had never been invited. "Yes I know. I think she must research us." Similar tales of being interviewed by other parents before you could be invited to take part in parents activities, and the poshest school fete in West London. There seemed to be a lot of us and them going on amongst the parents which appeared to extend to the girls. Plus some astonishing involvement in a child's day to day school life, and some pretty objectionable competition amongst mothers. I really did hear mothers write off their DDs friends as "not very bright". And of a girl who amassed a 100 pairs of shoes during year 7, as in her friendship group being bright was not good enough. No uniform policy and you had to be seen to be cool. (I preferred the G&L girls on the tube who were wonderfully creative about what they did with their unpromising uniform.)

One reason we turned down a place at SPS for our DS was after hearing a Colet mother describe one of DS' friends who had gone there aged 7 as not nearly as bright as her son, who apparently ranked third in the year. We did not want to be part of that. Westminster had a big advantage in that it ran like a boarding school so contact was via housemasters, and boys/parents had very little idea of how others were doing.

I would not put it all down to Clarissa. I suspect the governance structure may be partly to blame for the focus on high grades. (My observation is that Westminster, which is essentially led by representatives of the CoE rather than the City, have more leeway to recruit pupils who will add to school life.) Not least it will be responsible for the high fees, which has led more than one parent to opt for Putney High - simply because the difference did not seem worth the cost of a family holiday. (Even to attend the sixth from open day would have cost us about £150: Westminster and KCW did not charge - and we did not bother.) The change in catchment from upper-middle class journalists, doctors, MPs and academics to bankers and the international super rich will also have had an impact. There is some astonishing 11+ tutoring going on, the impact, like with Tiffin, is for some parents to decide there are other good options and that a less pressured childhood is more important.

That said, parents told me that when Clarissa started there was a distinct move towards a greater exam focus. She may claim now to be worried about this, but she almost certainly was part of the problem.

Still I am looking forward to the book. I hope it is as gossipy as John Rae's memoirs of Westminster School in the 70's, though I suspect it won't be.

Bubbles buddy- no- she would only turn up for the orchestra performances and Christmas concert, wouldn’t mingle and would disappear as quickly as possible. I recall her saying if you want sport there’s plenty of other schools you can attend to a parent who was complaining about lack of facilities. Sport really wasn’t her thing. TBH I’m sure she must have been effective behind the scenes to have stayed so long,but was she part of a school community, definitely not!

Obviously she’s around 60 not 69!

I think she changed then. She was always visible to the girls at Q. In fact she taught the y7s to get to know them. She visited the boarding houses regularly. I don’t think parents of boarding DC expect to see her that much but she was at every play, concert, sports match and event that I ever went to and I went to loads.

I do think being a Head has changed. The head who took over from CF courted monied parents. CF might have done but it was not overt. Lots of schools now make it obvious and have special events did rich parents and donors. Rugby do this but it’s widespread. I also think it comes from the governors. They often take great interest in finance with an accountant or two on board so the direction of travel isn’t down to just the head.

Sarah Fletcher is so visible and approachable and since joining appears far more invested in school life. Clarissa Farr was much more of a figurehead. The high staff turnover was always questionable under her, one imagines she put the teachers under the same pressure to turn in the grades. To write a book concerning academic pressure having ridden the crest of stellar academic results for years seems disingenuous.

Well put Girlgone. From what I saw she seemed very remote.

I didn’t say CF wasn’t intellectual Bubbles, far from it. I just think it’s poor form to run a school in a certain way then write a book running down the parents who were attracted largely because it achieved those results etc. Nor did I make any comment about country schools (I attended one myself and I did very well there even though its results are miles apart from SPGS). That wasn’t what I said at all. It was merely a remark about the impression I have of the current head, whom I like very much.

My experience of CF is that she she was so disengaged with the parents and girls that she wouldn’t have had a clue what was happening on a daily basis within the classroom, I don’t think she knew more than a handful of girls names. She gravitated solely towards the wealthy parents/ would be donors. Rate my teachers presents her in a fairly accurate manner.
Sarah Fletcher is a breath of fresh air.

I was talking to my best friend about this article yesterday ! She has a DD at SPGS. She laughed about it as she says its pretty accurate - the girls are under immense pressure from both the school and from a lot of the parents. She said the pressure is not only academic but there is also pressure to excel at something else like sport or music, and despite the volume of homework girls tend to play a multitude of sports outside school to keep up. But to be fair my friend's DD is happy. She initially struggled with the fact that she went from being the top at everything at her primary school to having to work hard to keep up = but she is ok about it. I think you just have to know what you are signing up to and be sure that you have a DD that is strong enough to deal with it all. My DD is academically strong but would definitely not cope (and nor would i to be honest !!!) But have to admit that I would also be curious to read CF's book !