St Paul for Girls vs Westminster

allowing students to spend 7 years finding out what interests them, building resilience and being supported not just academically, but also with their physical and mental health

This is how DD experienced her school.

If there is one thing I've learnt from MN it is that different children clearly experience exactly the same school in completely different ways.

I don't recognise any of what you are describing - not the tutoring, not the focus on elite universities, not the inability to use the pool, not the poor teaching, literally none of it! It seems bizarre that things could have changed so much in a couple of years. I hear the thing about tutoring from other people too, and am very interested since none of DD's friends were being tutored and I think she'd have known if they were. Perhaps other friendship groups in her year were different and she just didn't know?

I remember water polo being offered as an option and lifesaving, too. DD definitely did cricket at one point and I can guarantee you she would not have chosen it if there was pretty much anything else available! Maybe there wasn't much take up when those things were offered? One thing I would say is that the cohort size in LU is much larger than SPGS so perhaps it's easier to offer more options knowing that there will be enough children doing each one to make it viable. You can't play a meaningful game of underwater hockey with three people presumably. But your description doesn't sound actually different as an approach, it's just offering a choice of more options. Probably nice to have if you are sporty, makes zero real difference if you are not particularly interested in the first place.

It's a real shame to hear about the Maths and Physics teaching. DD who isn't that way inclined had a truly inspirational teacher for Physics and very good Maths teachers.

I do agree it's worth raising concerns with the school. We had a problem one year in a particular subject and it was dealt with pretty well once we had been in and talked to the appropriate people.

@stringseleven I did ask earlier - have you raised any of these concerns with the school?

What we've found (both at primary and secondary) is that there is a lot of parental complaining - often completely justified - but few parents are willing to put their head above the parapet and raise legitimate concerns. I don't know if they're worried it'll somehow blot their daughter's copybook, but it seems odd that so few parents will voice issues despite paying hefty fees.

I'm aware there's a particular Physics teacher who is deemed very much under par, but to my knowledge, only one parent has raised this with the school (though there is plenty of private chatter about it). Would the school be aware that a teacher is underperforming if parents don't tell them and everyone is supplementing school teaching with external tutoring, so the standard / results hold up?

Re maths teaching, my DD has had superb maths teaching throughout with numerous different teachers, though she does tell me that the new maths teachers they've recruited over the past couple of years (whom she's never had) are deemed to be quite weak, which is definitely a concern. But if she had one of those teachers, and she told me they weren't great, I'd speak to the school about it.

I suppose what I mean by other schools managing things differently, is that they are not just focused on the end statistic of how many girls will go to Oxbridge or elite Universities in Year 13!

They are instead allowing students to spend 7 years finding out what interests them, building resilience and being supported not just academically, but also with their physical and mental health. Sport, whatever level of involvement is a useful tool for that in my opinion. Latymer Upper allow the students to use the swimming pool their fees pay for. Sports like rowing, water polo, swimming, athletics, cricket and football are open to all from the time they join the school, not just those that have already reached a certain standard. The staff are specialised and enthusiastic and understand their role is to encourage young people to commit, see progression, take feedback, sometimes not make the team and therefore develop resilience, as well as to develop an awareness of that they feel better and can support their physical health for life by moving regularly. I can't see any defence for a school charging parents fees, and referring to a swimming pool in their marketing material, then not even using the swimming pool to host NPLQ courses, let alone explore them to any of the other water sports e.g water polo or a new sport gaining a lot of interest, underwater hockey. This is what I mean about sticking to the old formula rather than encouraging the girls to take part in new things. It seemed for example, a real pity that a high profile girls' school would choose to sit out the growing wave of interest and investment in women's cricket and football.

In the classroom, there are many subjects for which the teaching is exceptional of course and the offering for the performing arts is super charged and wide ranging. However, there is no denying that Maths and Physics teaching is a current concern for many parents at the school, so much so that the girls who are taking those subjects are signing up for a well-located tutoring business on Hammersmith Road. All the girls know this and it does impact the vibe in the classroom, as so many of them don't engage with classroom learning in the knowledge that they will be covering the syllabus in a different way with a tutor outside of school later that day. So, as long as you are not interested in Maths and Physics, all is well, but I'm afraid the concern about those is well-founded and needs to be addressed very quickly. Again - for a girls' school not to ensure excellent teaching in STEM is unforgivable at any time, but especially when we hear at a national level that girls' need encouragement to study these subjects.

I have no idea, it's very interesting though! I have no skin in the game - my daughter has left and I have no other children to send there or to any other school. With respect to the original question, though, I don't think that a girl in what has traditionally been a boys school is going to get the best sports opportunities either.

I don't really know what you would do in a school to encourage brass players. I know SPGS and probably all other schools of this kind offer taster lessons for shortage instruments, but not sure how you get kids to give it a go if they are not interested. One of my best friends at SPGS played the french horn to a very decent standard and the orchestra had at least sufficient brass players from the school population which I think you said was no longer the case so not sure what has changed there. I do wonder if it's a societal thing in that gender roles and expectations seem to have become more entrenched rather than less since the 80s and 90s. Maybe brass is seen as a boy thing? I don't know.

With regard to career opportunities in sport, I'd have thought that either a private school which prioritises this (Millfield or somewhere) or a good state so that you have the time to devote to whatever sport you love might be much better options if you are someone who finds this a realistic prospect rather than somewhere where you'll be doing more subjects at GCSE than most people and you're going to be expected to be doing very well in pretty much all of them. I don't think sport as a career really features in most SPGS parents' thinking though I know when my daughter was at the school, there were a number of children doing pretty well in various things including being in national and county teams. Don't think any of them opted for Ivy League, they've all gone to Oxbridge or similar as far as I'm aware where sport will be of little relevance in the vast majority of applications though I'm sure they will continue to pursue their own interests.

Parents are certainly hoping for top universities for their children at all of these schools. But nobody who is applying in the UK will care about sports - Oxbridge explicitly states that it doesn't care about extracurriculars. It's all about grades, personal statement and super curriculars.

I remember someone complaining about SPGS maths too, which really surprised me as they tend to have a lot more girls taking maths and science than any other school of a similar type. I think more than half of the year take maths generally. But it's very common that people have a sort of need to criticise the school, often because they are a bit scared of the reputation and don't really understand the ethos or how it actually works.

I do think that SPGS encourages girls to find their own academic passions. And I was very supportive of this as a parent because I don't think people should be pushed into studying stuff or doing particular sports because their parents think it's a good idea. Children should absolutely follow their own passions and interests.

It's a very interesting area. Wish @stringseleven would explain what other schools are doing differently because I am genuinely interested to know. As I said before, it's all in the past for me and we have finished with school. I just find it interesting.

Sorry! V long.

I guess schools like this rarely do things randomly 😁 Parents pay to maximise chances for Oxbridge and the Ivies so the question is always "which sport/subject/project/activity will the top colleges want for their teams/see as standing out of the crowd etc".

Football is interesting in this context as offering it at school at a competitive level is part of the wider feminist developments. Male players' advertising contracts are astronomical and women should have these earning opportunities too, so it's not about health and fitness only, it's about widening career prospects for girls. I would have thought that SPGS, being the top girls school, would champion feminist agenda, including in sports. The same btw goes with music, I think we touched it briefly on this or another thread before. Brass music world is still male dominated, RCM is doing Brass Day for Girls soon to encourage participation . SPGS has hardly any brass players and is not doing much about it (one of the reasons we never applied).

All this may come from parents of course who want standard piano/violin/cello and swimming/tennis/rowing or whatever works for top US unis now. I'm just observing that strangely enough SPGS does not necessarily look like the school for a girl with interests and achievements in traditionally male dominated domains. I remember someone complained about SPGS maths too, which really surprised me at the time, but may be it comes from the same root...

Just guessing after a long day.

Yes, it's clearly good that women's football is on the rise and that more women and girls are getting the opportunity to try it. I'm just not convinced, and I am honestly not trying to sound snippy, that having football on offer makes the PE offering totally different in schools that do it. DD did a term each of football and touch rugby at her primary and has no desire to do either thing ever again in her life. If anything, the sports offering was much worse there than at SPGS and a lot less fun. The other poster said that 'other girls schools in the area do a much better job' and I would be really interested to know what that statement is based on, and what it looks like in practice.

Lacrosse, netball, tennis, swimming and athletics seemed like plenty in terms of sports for DD in the first few years, and as they got older there were opportunities for more of the other standard sorts of games like rounders, cricket, volleyball, badminton or whatever. Plus lots of other things that aren't ball games, which seems sensible since not everyone is into those. I would have loved the gym or yoga or pilates at school and hated the trad things we did, personally. I can't imagine football would have been any more inspiring to me than netball was and I am absolutely sure I'd have had no greater aptitude for it! DD was definitely relieved to be able to do Boomcycle or Dance Cardio instead of netball, lacrosse or tennis (which she was bad at and actively disliked). It was probably also better for her in health terms since she was actively participating rather than trying to do as little as possible.

So if other schools are doing sport better and more inclusively I'm just curious to know how that actually happens and what they are actually doing that is so different since it seems to me that actually sports at most schools are exactly the same in terms of the fact that they just make you do it a few times a week and you do whatever sport is on offer and if you are lucky enough to be able to choose something you like rather than something you hate, that's great.

Having said all that, I doubt many people are sending their kid to St Paul's or any of the other similar schools nearby primarily in order to take advantage of the sports offering.

I am interested to know what other schools do differently, though.

DD's former school has a selective football squad, they're not high up in the rankings yet but improving.
Current school has mandatory football for a term and a club for girls, no competitive team though.

Women's football is on the rise but I guess it wouldn't get you a scholarship to US uni 😁

Personally, I don't mind if people want to donate vast sums of money to fund improvements to the school (though we do always chuckle that they have to have their name on it. I mean, they could just donate the money without needing the public glory. 😂)

I don't disagree with you at all re the Bollywood event and ticket prices but that was a fundraising event run by the Guild (I think?), and I see that as almost entirely separate to the broader running of the school. I wouldn't expect there to be subsidised events for parents, and as I say, I think it's a small minority who get involved in all that anyway.

Re your broader concerns, have you raised these with the school? It's difficult for an institution to reflect parental concerns if people aren't voicing what those concerns are.

So like the Warburg library?

I remember there being quite a lot of fundraising stuff going on when my daughter was there, too. I didn't mind. It tends to fund good things like bursaries.

LOL - I'm well aware of who Rosalind Franklin is. I work in science research.

There is a new area within that building (agreed, using the word "wing" was misleading) unveiled last term, ask your daughter about it. I found the Bollywood event unsettling because it was hosted by an individual family and cost over £100 a ticket. I've seen families do this at state school, but not an independent school charging very high fees. I spoke to quite a few parents who felt the same, but perhaps we aren't tapped in to what is going on at other schools.

In any case, it's personal experience, and the point I was trying to make is that each school has its merits and style of governance that suits different families. I prefer when a school reflects and makes improvements after considering the impact on the whole community carefully.

I was wondering if they had created yet another building!

The new wing at the school is named after Rosalind Franklin - ex student and world renowned scientist who helped uncover the structure of DNA. Definitely not a parent!

Maybe there's another new wing that's fallen below my radar...

The Bollywood event you're referring to is no different to any other fundraising event organised by the PTA at any school. Not sure how that's courting favour. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of families have almost no involvement with the parents' guild, and I can't imagine that those who do receive any advantages for their daughter. But perhaps you know something I don't!

DD had swimming available as an option every year once she got to pick. There was also an opportunity to swim at lunchtime.

In-school sport is limited to lacrosse, netball, tennis (again payment for outside provider here).

It really isn't, at least not in the recent past. Things may have changed recently, I guess. It is only private or small group tennis lessons that are paid for as far as I am aware. DD certainly did tennis without payment at school.

I don't understand what is distasteful about going to outside providers for specialist sports activities that require particular equipment. It would be wasteful to have things like this unused most of the time.

Having said all that, DD was not in the least interested in sports so it didn't matter too much to her - and I guess if she had been we might have picked a different setting for her. I am interested to know what other schools do differently, though.

Yes, you are absolutely right that there are those options (not swimming though - not since year 9). But again, it just seems distasteful to me that the girls are going to outside providers for these - climbing wall in Parsons Green, Cycle studio and Frame Studio in Hammersmith. In-school sport is limited to lacrosse, netball, tennis (again payment for outside provider here). Even s&c in the school gym isn't invigorating - they stick on a video! An enthusiastic and inclusive sports department is crucial in encouraging a healthy lifestyle - and I just think they are missing the opportunity there. Other girls schools in the area do a much better job.

I don't know about football but my daughter did a whole load of different sports in her time, definitely not the traditional ones either and definitely not the sports that were available back in the day. Off the top of my head, I can remember rock climbing, Boomcycle, yoga, badminton and there must have been lots she didn't do as well. She also used the swimming pool regularly until she left. As I remember it, that was one of the sports options once they got a choice.

She did some volunteering most years, mainly in primary schools but also other things as well.

She also started more than one club while at the school (they're explicitly encouraged to start anything they are interested in if it doesn't already exist), and these were pretty successful so maybe there just wasn't any interest in football?

Sorry - was just referring to the new wing at the school named after current parents, and the parent event with the Bollywood theme organised by another family. Just found both slightly off-putting, but that's personal taste. Attempts to court favour should be managed better I feel. Perhaps this happens at all schools and I'm not aware of it.

I can see why you think that on the surface - but I am referring to the day-to-day offerings at each school. The school is rolling out the same sports, societies, assemblies and volunteering opportunities, year after year. It has a swimming pool that the girls are not encouraged to use after year 9. Attempts to start a football team fell flat at a school where it could be encouraged. Westminster on the other hand, is very much in touch with reflecting changing times within a traditional environment. The sports sampling is excellent and wide-ranging. Volunteering opportunities are widespread too.

I agree!

Also “SPGS bows heavily to parent-steering” isn’t a description I recognise whatsoever.
quite the opposite!

@Alonenotalone You absolutely do not have to be a genius! Being bright, curious and enthusiastic about learning are the key factors.

The second round is definitely challenging but they're not looking for people who can get every question right. They're looking for evidence of how the girls think (especially on the English and General Comprehension papers).

Does she have CAT scores at school? They're a good indicator (much better than Atom which is no indication of anything!)

Pretty much everyone tutors for 11+ tests across all schools - independent and grammar - whether that's paid tutors or parents etc. I do think you'd want to spend some time looking at those SPGS specimen maths papers with your DD (which are more like JMO questions) and seeing how she does, and take a view from there. But if you think she's bright and the school would suit her, it's definitely worth giving it a shot. We didn't start SPGS prep until around this time when my DD sat it and it worked out fine.

"SPGS is struggling to be progressive as it is deep-rooted in tradition."

Genuinely LOL'd at this. SPGS is known for its liberal ethos. It's the definition of a school that aims to be progressive. WUS is steeped in tradition (and that's what many parents love about it). That cultural difference is probably the biggest distinction between the two (academically, they're obviously both outstanding).

I think it depends on the cohort wherever you go. Only you know your child's strengths and interests and each school is different. SPGS is struggling to be progressive as it is deep-rooted in tradition and heavily bows to parent-steering. Westminster is very reflective in all that it does and seems to have the consensus to make bold moves like going co-ed, but only after serious reflection. I think it is always important to look at the business model underlying the school as this does have an impact on the day-to-day experience for those pupils there and at various important stages in their education. Each school has its own challenges and governance. None of these schools teach to the test, and rightly so, but there are other schools that do - and their results in public exams therefore look better.

I was at a single sex girls’ school and then went to Westminster for the sixth form. It’s fair to say that I hated it! The boys were lovely but the girls were hateful to each other! So much bullying. These girls were all used to being the top of everything and they came in determined to fight each other to retain that. This was obviously a long time ago though so I really hope it has changed.

I heard similar things about girls at Westminster a couple of years ago, and a parent with DS at W said his main reason to go there was girls in dorms - half jokingly of course but I remember I thought it's not what girls' parents would be very happy about. It'll probably change fairly soon though.

My girls went to SPGS and loved the school. You cannot find sisters more different from each other yet they thrived there. The extra curriculum clubs and access to diverse learning opportunities was the best I have seen. Some of their friends went to Westminster for 6th form but we thought that introducing the variable of boys into the teenager equation was just a distraction. According to their friends that moved to Westminster, the school (as in Westminster) didn’t really get what the girls needed at that time of their lives and there was a lot of “banter” from the boys…too much for many.