PLS educate me, what's the BUZZ about going to INDIE schools?

But if they are a factor at all, they may be a very misleading one. Isn’t it dangerous to include a criterion that could give completely the wrong impression?

@Heather37231 I think postcodes are only one factor.

I’m intrigued at how postcodes can be a nuanced enough tool for contextualisation. My Victorian terraced street has a number which are modernised, extended and house very affluent families like mine. In between these are properties which are divided into flats and are run by the local housing association. The people who live in them are not remotely privileged or well off. We all have exactly the same postcode. This setup is replicated all over London and probably in most cities.

My understanding about Oxford contextual offers is that a candidate who fits into certain categories that indicate disadvantage will be called for interview if they are predicted the standard entry grades. The grades aren't adjusted-they'll just be given the chance to have an interview. Happy to be proved wrong, of course, but I think that's how it works.

I definitely agree with this last part - from my own personal experience, I sent my low-confidence dc to a non-selective indie and I can absolutely confirm that they would have been better positioned, ability-wise, in the local state school.

As it was, the pastoral care was very good and their confidence soared, and we moved to a highly selective school and it has been a huge success. But academically they were badly positioned at the first school.

If selecting a lower ranked indie, be careful that the GCSE outcomes (there’s always a lot of movement at 6th form so don’t worry about that yet) are meaningfully better than the available state schools because they really might not be. Their added value might be pastoral care, music, SEN or sport, and that might be what you want to pay for, but be clear about that from the start, know what you are paying for, and be open minded about state if academic outcome is your goal.

Couldn't agree more! It gets a bit irritating when people look at you in pity when you say your DCs are doing humanity A levels rather than bloody Maths, Physics and Chemistry!

Going back to the contextualisation discussion, Oxbridge contextualise every applicant. As well as looking at things ucas can flag such as postcode and type of school etc, every applicant’s GCSEs are contextualised against the school average and scored. So yes, as a previous poster says, someone with 8x9 and two 8sin a very top where the average is better, will be given a lower contextual GCSE score than the person with weaker GCSEs from a lower performing school - regardless of type. It’s about whether you’ve outperformed your cohort or just done very well amongst everyone else who does v well.

Some parents agonise over choice as they are hyper-competitive and trying to see which of the good schools might deliver a slight extra academic edge. Of course it’s hard to know because exactly where your child will sit within any individual school performance is very hard to predict. But as recent posts show, some are extremely focused on squeezing the last drops of performance and advantage out of the school.

Others are less competitive or know their kids won’t be the very top performers and are looking for other stuff - sport, drama, pastoral care, balance, etc etc.

I suppose every person shelling out £20-30k per year for day fees wants to feel they’ve targeted their money and child to the right place as it’s a big investment.

And “Uni”. Eurgh.

Gosh, I wish people would stop equating “academic” with “STEM” and “success” with “medicine” or “Oxbridge”. The arts and humanities are of value and it’s just as difficult to be good at them, and medicine is neither at the top of the list of most highly paid careers nor a comfortable life. And other universities exist.

(I say this as an Oxbridge STEM graduate, btw)

What an interesting thread. It’s a dilemma we’ve spent a lot of time on recently. We’ve picked a top 5 school over a fantastic midrange local private school. It’ll involve some upheaval to our lives, but worth it. The top school is single sex, we like that. We really want DC to be surrounded with academic kids. I’m especially worried about them going into the teenage years, so I want them to be somewhere where it’s cool to work hard and do well. I don’t want to be pushing them academically or arranging tutors. I want school to push them so that we can relax at home.

In our small city only one state achool out of 4 gets contextual offers

Regarding deprived area; my granddaughter lives in a well known deprived area HOWEVER her home isn’t and it’s clearly not included as such when you check the postal code.

"Contextualisation is a huge part of selection these days"

It's a part. Not a "huge part". And if you go to a "very good state school" your offer will be the same as if you go to a private school unless you live in a significantly deprived area.

Sorry but please can people not used the dreadful cutesy “indie” word I can’t bear it. It’s on a par with hubby. Just awful.

@fieldsearl Although not the primary point of the threat, given the focus of your message on WHS (interesting in itself), I though worth posting something based in first hand experience (rather than hearsay) and recent data.

The movements to other schools in sixth form has always happened, especially in single-sex where some of the DC have been there since age 4. Surely the fact that the DDs are gaining entry in those schools is a sign of their academic formation (most of the movement is to rather academic co-eds, like KCS and Westminster).

As for the so-called lack of rigour of 9 GCSEs, many parents find attractive that the education is more than just an exam machine. The PPE addition and the more holistic education is seen as a plus rather than a minus. Same applies to the 3-4 A levels.

On Oxbridge, and in addition to making the obvious point that it is not the be-all-and-end-all but a rather (increasingly imperfect) proxy - WHS has received 14 Oxbridge offers this year which stands nicely compared with the 11 received by Surbiton (another school that you mention, although you may want to note that it is larger and, incidentally, not a GDST).

More generally, and going back to the topic of the thread, different parents seeks different things - the academic dimension is one, there are many other things to consider (as mentioned in previous posts, much more eloquently than me by others). Even when referring to 'academics', there is not a 'one-size-fits-all' for what is more desirable. Some people may put more value in more GCSEs, or in science over arts; others may think that subjects that are studied but not associated with a GCSE are as valuable (LU move would be an interesting test of that) or that languages or humanities are as valuable as science subjects. Some people might be very focused on Oxbridge destinations, others might look differently and consider whether the career advice provided suits the individual. Unsurprisingly, given a choice people choose schools that are aligned with their preferences, where they tend to find people with similar preferences. That is at least what we did and would not think for a moment that our preferences are 'better', just the ones that work for us at this stage (whilst very aware that DC change over time, and we might move at sixth form too!!).

Contextual offers are only made to DC coming from schools/ colleges which have historically sent low numbers of pupils to university. The pupil's home postcode is also taken into account if it includes deprived and disadvantaged areas. Attending a top performing comprehensive in a well to do area will get you no advantage over private school pupils.

Can’t comment on other GDST schools, but some local parents in Wimbledon are concerned about the academic rigour of WHS. I know some parents live in SW19 who prefer to send their DDs to G&L/CLSG/SPGS/LU/JAGS or KCS for sixth form in recent years.

Some may be influenced by the league table rankings vibe, but others have genuine concerns that Wimbledon is not challenging enough for the academically motivated girls. The headline league table results seem respectable, but they conceal the problems that lead to complacency among the teaching - such as girls taking fewer than 10 GCSEs, 3 A-levels, and not enough emphasis on STEM subjects. One indicator of this is the Oxbridge applicants, which have fallen to less than 5 Oxbridge offers in recent years, compared to some other GDST schools such as SHHS or even PHS/SHS. I am not sure if this is the direction that the school is intentionally taking, but it has lost some of its appeal to the local parents. The other local GDST schools are doing a better job at stretching the high achievers, not just making the league table look good.

Coed or single sex.
Differences: music and sport. Not all have the bandwidth to be inclusive allowing only top players to be showcased. Type of sports, some lists looks the same but if you do into details it would be different ie. Hockey vs lacrosse. Netball teams only for those doing netball camps…extra payment. Swim team, for those already in external swimming squads. Football for girls and fixtures or just football in PE options? Jazz ensemble or just orchestra, number of choirs or rock bands?

Types of school trips yearly , some are lottery, others are first come first serve and costs. If it is hundreds to UK camping trip vs French trip, which would DC prefer?

The school culture is very different in each school and it can change with new head teachers so worth checking since lots of London secondary girls seem to have new ones recently.

Curriculum, do they do science separately or is it combined sciences until at later stage. Does all pupils do triple science or just top set? Number of GCSEs, A levels and or IB, US university options or European ones ( careful since some sing about this but all are down to parents input and not much from school). Language options. STEM subjects, schools may said they do a lot but if you have 3 pupils doing further maths and 10 pupils doing physics vs 30 pupils in another school will give clue to actual picture and not just marketing.

From my observation, there are a few factors.

First, the top schools have only high-achieving kids so create an atmosphere where excellent grades are expected and the norm. It can sometimes be too ‘alpha’ and ‘Darwinian’ where the kids believe they are the elite even if their own grades are not straight 9s.

Second, there is a lot of status among parents for having a child at one of the ‘right’ schools. It gives kudos to the parents in elite professional jobs, like they are the right type of person.

Third, as London indies have a hierarchy, mid-ranking schools can lack the very academic kids after 11. So if your child is very academic, they may lack peers. Ironically, they would often have more peers in a good comp, than in a mid-tier indie.

I agree with @CoffeeBeforeEight about going beyond the curriculum, academic enrichment etc. And the same principle on the extra curricular side. It's not about results, it's about the educational experience. I think a lot of people have a very transactional view of education - they can't see why, if a child comes out with an identical set of grades, university degree and job, there could be any other reason for choosing one school over another. But kids spend seven very formative years of their lives at secondary school - and I think those who opt for the 'elite' schools are looking for much more than a set of grades. They're looking at the journey as well as the destination, and deciding that the school offers enough differential to make it worthwhile.

There are also sometimes specialist reasons for choosing a particular school, for example specific sport or music at a high level.

"I’m genuinely baffled as to what the craze is behind going for a school like St Paul’s Girls Rather than Dulwich college/GDST schools for example"

Let’s consider a scenario based on OP’s question: same kid receives offers from both a top-ranking private school A and a good local private school B. Using a narrow definition of academic success, school A has 99% A-level/GCSE results with 40+ Oxbridge admissions every year, while school B has 80-90% A-level/GCSE results with 10+ Oxbridge admissions. There are no significant differences in facilities and teachers between the two schools. Why are some parents still willing to endure a long commute or uproot to relocate for school A? What is the benefit of doing so?

I'm not sure this is the majority but pretty certain a good portion of the applicants to school A does. The frenzy to pursue the top league table secondary school in London also perplexed me two years ago, not just private school but grammar as well, I can try to understand it by the following aspects.

1. A common argument (also mentioned by some PP) is that a driven/high-ability kids concentrated environment can create a magical peer effect that makes the students inspired and motivated, allowing the teacher to stretch the students to learn beyond their limits. I’m not sure this argument is applicable for the case of school A vs school B, where there is a good portion of overlap on the high academic range at the top end. On the other hand, the counter argument can typically be that school B typically has a wider range of abilities beyond academic, so the kids in such an environment can benefit more socially and culturally.

1. It is less about the kids’ education experience, but more about the competitive parents’ culture where perfect education is taken to extremes, and only the very top matters. They are influenced by social norms and peer pressure, and want to fit in with other parents who appears to have similar narrow definition of academic excellence and prestige. It is like buying a luxury product, it cannot be explained by the utility of the education alone, but also status and identity.

This is definitely further fueled by the growing prep and tutoring industry who are incentivised to create champion private schools that symbolise academic success and exclusivity status. For example, some tutors themselves "push/drive" their kids to these schools to brand the “success” story and attract more parents to join the vicious circle. This is the recent popular phenomenon for school A.

What do you think about it? Do you have a preference between school A and school B?

I think that a child sent to an good independent school such as Putney High or Ibstock is likely to come out with roughly the same exam results as if the same child went somewhere like SPGS or Westminster. They are going to be taught properly in smallish groups at all these schools.

Practical differences are that the latter are far more likely to go beyond the curriculum in lesson time pursuing a range of topics beyond or outside the examined curriculum because the teachers are confident the students will still get top marks in the examined content. They are more likely to attract teachers that are real experts in their field as they will actually enjoy teaching all the super bright children (rather than being terrified) and answering their difficult questions. There will be many interesting academic societies set up and competitions. Much of the above may help with entrance to top universities and oxbridge interviews.

There are downsides however. Your child may end up feeling stupid even though they are far from it. They may avoid choosing subjects because they think they are bad at them even if they aren't. If they are near the bottom of the cohort topics may be rushed through and leave them confused even if they would have understood the topic if more time had been spent on it. For university admissions (I think this is stupid btw) they may be judged for being below the rest of the cohort even though the school is super selective.

I'd say be really honest with yourself. Is my child either all round extremelly academic or do they have an area (languages / maths / coding / writing etc) where they are exceptionally talented and could do with extra stretch. If so super selective could be good. Though still don't think it would be worth a hellish commute.

To be fair the school admissions processes themselves are usually quite good at picking out the above.

OP, I think that when people are paying, they like to have a strong sense of choice. So they like to agonise about the little differences and feel they are choosing something that is tailored to THEIR child in lots of little ways. Given they will spend multiple £k on it, they want it to be exactly what they want…that gives a feeling of money well spent.

To a point, independent schools are the same. Yes, the exams sat are the same. But people don’t believe the results will be the same from all. They believe that their DC might get higher results from one place than another. Of course, you never know as they only sit exams in one school, and whilst their ability means they will probably achieve similarly in any good school, a really top one might lead to slightly better results. People think about the cohort and expectations - a really top school will have less of a ‘tail’ and the kids will be learning with a cohort of similar really top students (if they can get a place) and people like the sound of that.

Unis don’t select by school. However uni places are competitive and for some courses, have an extra couple of 9s at GCSE can be a decider in who gets places. When things are extremely competitive it’s all about fine margins when there are far too many strong applicants. Parents are choosing to optimise every little aspect.

And there is undoubtedly kudos from certain schools in certain circles. Parents like to say their Dc is at X school, and even later on in life, some schools are more known in circles that are into this kind of thing. So it has an influence.

I suppose there’s a pecking order. People have to consider things like travel and practicalities and want to tailor their choice to their child, but in the end if they are paying often want the most aspirational school for their child, so are looking at that pecking order. I say most. Some are asking about 2 schools to dig into features that are important to them, such as the sport or pastoral support in the 2 schools to help them choose. Many if these things are difficult to ascertain - Open Days and marketing splurge will tell one thing but parents on the ground might tell a different story..but then each parent feeding back is just one example and not necessarily representative. Results are a more concrete measure - if you can get full and unadulterated results!

Most people seem happy with where their child goes in the end. But when people are paying they expect a process of choice and don’t see all options as equal or the closest as best. I think it flumouxes lots of people with kids in state schools where often there is no choice but the local school in reality. The delving into seemingly small things does seem odd. But Insuposoe we are talking about people with time to soend thinking about this stuff and also who are about to spend mega bucks and partly like to justify to themselves i their heads that they did due diligence in assessing the options and choosing wisely.