Tonbridge School goes co-ed - when tradition meets financial reality

[Runningupthathill1980]

Tonbridge School announced this week it is introducing a co-educational Sixth Form from September 2028, with boarding girls following from 2030. Quite a bombshell for a school with that history and tradition. Keen to hear what people think.

What strikes me is the pattern when you look at which schools have gone co-educational and which haven't. The ones holding the single-sex line, Eton, Radley and Harrow, all have substantial endowments and investments, in some cases owning significant land holdings outside the main school campus. Tonbridge by contrast is much more dependent on fee income with modest investment reserves by comparison. The co-educational move brings roughly 100 additional pupils, though it is worth remembering that the additional net income from that alone, once you factor in the infrastructure, staffing and facility costs of accommodating girls, is unlikely to be transformative.

The irreversibility of it is what strikes me most. The announcement frames it in the language of vision, evolution and exciting opportunities. But is this a genuine long term shift in educational philosophy or a financial decision dressed up in aspirational language?

Worth noting too that Tonbridge has always had a significant day boy contingent and is largely weekly boarding, so perhaps this was coming.

Particularly given that the VAT imposition on school fees may not be permanent - its possible that a future government could remove it. If that happens Tonbridge will have made a permanent generational change in response to what, perhaps turned out to be a relatively short term financial pressure.

Once girls are introduced into the Sixth Form is that really where it ends? The logic of full co-education from Year 9 inevitably follows, perhaps within a generation. The school announcing co-ed Sixth Form today is almost certainly announcing full co-education tomorrow.

Ironically every school that makes this move only strengthens the position of Eton, Radley and Harrow as the last great all-boys institutions, making places there even more sought after and oversubscribed than they already are.

Spare a thought too for the families already affected. Boys currently at the school, or with accepted places, chose Tonbridge partly on the basis of an all-boys education. In some cases families may withdraw as a result, which rather undermines the financial logic of the decision in the first place.

Keen to hear all views, including from those who think co-education is genuinely the right direction for the school.

I can only hope you are right, (though just bad luck that that would have meant VAT applied over precisely the years when it would hit us! 😩 I don't suppose any of those parties are committing to a refund? 😂)

@Araminta1003: Just look at what Farage has to say.

Words that fill me with horror............

Yes I agree @tachetastic - Farage is generally full of horrors as far as I am concerned. But this particular VAT policy was straight out of the loony left book, there is no precedent anywhere in the world where it worked. And everything that was predicted would go wrong is going wrong. Which leads me to conclude that direct harm and deterrent of private education was always the intention of those who put it forward.

They are businesses that want to make money.
With boys, there is more demand for mixed sex than there is for single sex (as boys do better in a mixed sex environment).
With girls, there is more demand for single sex (as girls do better in single sex).
VAT is neither here nor there. It’s all about falling birth rates and the demand for mixed sex to improve outcomes for boys.

“They are businesses that want to make money.”
Nobody takes money out of this type of school. All funds raised are spent on the school and future investment and other schools in the group potentially under the Skinner group. Which includes some state academies which may be resource sharing.
A business run for profit means somenbody cashes in on the profit. At most in a private school with charitable status it will be some more PE teachers, instrumental teachers and a biggish salary for the head. That is it. Nobody is cashing in millions like in a standard business.

Thank goodness for a balanced, modern viewpoint on this thread. Some of the comments are more suited to the century before last, both politically and educationally.

I think this is one of those "facts" that everyone knows but isn't really supported by the data. There is fairly limited actual research on this and it is quite mixed; often it is something like a small study saying the girls do really well out of SS and boys also do slightly better with SS but not as much as the girls.

Personally I think it's sad that all-boys education is becoming so rare to find. I think the aggregate learning style differences and the different puberty/transition-to-adulthood journeys are large enough to justify single-sex learning environments. I have young sons I'd like to send to all-boys senior school one day but it's hard to predict what will be options down the line - especially as someone who is unlikely to be able to afford Eton!

OP - what do you think is so desirable about educating boys only in the supremely priviliged world of boarding schools like Tonbridge? What is it that you want for the boys who go there?

I am interested as my son and daughter went to single sex schools.

I have seen research from the Institute of Physics which found that girls are more likely to opt for male dominated subjects in single sex environments. In my experience teaching a male dominated subject, that's true.

So it might not be about "doing better" so much as having a freer choice.

Oh - I do agree with this, as someone who went to all-girls myself and opted for mainly STEM subjects!

The part I think is less supported is the idea that boys DON'T do well in single-sex, which I think is often repeated uncritically based on quite a flimsy evidence base.

@OneAmberFinch Move to Bucks and be bright enough to get into one of the 4 boys grammar schools! 2 in High Wycombe, 1 in Amersham and 1 in Aylesbury. I suspect they won’t change their characters!

Even if VAT is reversed I don’t think the effect will be as huge as some might think. VAT didn’t do this single-handedly; it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Birth rates have dropped dramatically and the cost of living and fees have outstripped wage growth for some time. Add in the lower popularity of boarding, and only the top few will survive unscathed.

Businesses that want to make money? What nonsense which shows a complete lack of understanding about how independent schools work. They're registered charities. No shareholders, no dividends, nobody pocketing profits. Every penny goes back into the school. That's just how it works.
Boys doing better in mixed environments is really not what the evidence says, certainly not in selective schools. UK research specifically found single-sex education benefits boys most in selective settings. A meta-analysis of 184 studies and 1.6 million students across 21 countries found consistent advantages for boys in single-sex schools across maths, educational aspirations and academic confidence. Multiple studies find boys in all-boys schools outperform their co-educated peers.
The exam results argument, though, misses the real point. Boys in all-boys schools (at ages 13 to 18) are often more likely to commit more seriously to drama, music, art, things they'd quietly sidestep in a mixed environment. The confidence that builds when that social pressure is removed during those years is genuinely formative. You just can't measure it in a league table.
Ultimately though this isn't a debate with a right answer. Single-sex or co-ed is a personal choice and there are perfectly good arguments on both sides. What parents who specifically chose Tonbridge as an all-boys school are reasonably questioning is whether that choice has been made for them without any say in the matter.

Be bright enough for a Bucks grammar? With respect, the academic bar and wider assessment at highly selective independent schools of this calibre is more demanding than state grammar schools. The ISEB Common Pre-Test (11+) is a rigorous test, the pre cursor to a half or full day of subsequent assessment, covering academic and co-curricular exercises, and an interview.

A detailed school (Head) reference covering past and current academic attainment, exam results and a full behavioural record forms a central part of the process too. These schools build a comprehensive picture of the whole child, not just test them on a single day. Many children from families who could absolutely afford the fees don't receive offers or are waitlisted.
The idea that getting into schools like this is purely a matter of writing a cheque is one of the most persistent misconceptions in this debate.

My Year 7 is also in a state grammar. Educated coed at primary, will be single sex boys until GCSEs and then the Sixth Form will be co-ed again (although slightly male heavy). He also has two sisters and this is a good balance for us.
Having had two girls, the difference in maturity between most girls and boys due to biology between ages 10-15 can be quite astounding. My DS is still small and young looking, clever, musical, likes to do sports as well and drama. In a coed right now he may well not be cool or tall enough. Boys get body shamed as much as girls do.
Equally, both my girls were happy in single sex environments until 16 and found boys very immature from about year 5 onwards. Both my girls reached puberty 2.5 years before both my boys. Also both girls were socially and emotionally far more mature, but I would say both my boys were intellectually maturer at an earlier age.
Now this might just be my DCs. But typically, all boys grammar schools and all boys selective independent schools (of the most competitive kind) set a high bar academically. They can then also push their boys and be unashamedly competitive, as this often works for boys. That does not mean they do not also teach them to be kind. However, competition is less encouraged in that direct way in girls’ schools and the focus is often more on pastoral and confidence building in a different way.
Why society has such a problem with boys and men allowed to be competitive? I think healthy competition can be good for personal growth. Teaching them how to do it in an inclusive way is really key to the long term happiness of boys and men.

I think single sex education at secondary is good for removing barriers like girls do art, boys fo physics. I went to an all girls state secondary, and we did have more chosing sciences (not me, though I have since gained an MSc and work in STEM.) But it does also allow entrenched views like sexism, because there's little to counter it.

I grew up in a small town, and we had close links with the boys school - there were some shared drama events, school exchanges and so on. I think that worked well. A-levels were run jointly for certain subjects to allow enough numbers. (The schools merged not long after I left, though, so it changed anyway.)

But I can't help feeling with Winchester and Tonbridge and the like, they're not actually that bothered about the girls. They're happy to take them in for the money, and they're happy to help them civilised the boys, but they don't care about the girls for themselves. I might be misjudging their motives, though.

Also, much as I did half my a-level lessons at the boys school, all the pastoral stuff was at the girls. I don't know how I'd have felt if I was entirely at the boys school with only other girls in the 6th form. I wonder how it might have affected my career choices, where I have mostly been in a very male-dominated area of IT, often the only woman in the department. Would I have felt differently had I had a different school experience?

I hate to counter you, because I do agree with much of what you’re saying, but in most cases if you’re happy to board, writing a cheque for these schools is actually sufficient… a boarding child will be accepted on a, sometimes much, lower level of achievement than a day boy. Obviously there still has to be some level of accomplishment but on the whole, schools do not often turn down boarding place applicants unless there are significant behavioural issues.

That might be true of some independent schools but it really depends what type we're talking about, and there's an important distinction here.
Day schools and weekly boarding schools with a big day contingent, Tonbridge being a good example, tend to weight entry much more heavily towards academics. With a large local day cohort feeding in, there's less need to flex the bar for boarders specifically, so the bar tends to be fairly consistent across the board.
Full boarding only schools are a different proposition entirely. Eton, Radley, Harrow and similar are amongst the most oversubscribed schools in the country, with multiple applicants for every place. The idea any of them would take a boy who doesn't meet their academic and co-curricular profile just because his parents are happy to pay full boarding fees doesn't really hold up. Even with the demand pressures VAT has created, they simply don't need to lower the bar. In these schools there's always another family waiting with a DS that meets it and the family can pay the fees.
Where I think your point has more truth to it is further down the selectivity scale, at boarding schools that are neither fully oversubscribed nor predominantly day, where places genuinely are harder to fill and the bar probably does flex a bit more to secure them. But that's a fairly different category of school to the ones we're talking about here.

@Runningupthathill1980 I don’t really care about the academic bar at Tonbridge. My point was that very good single sex grammars still exist. My DDs boarded so I do understand the differences but for people not quite so stuck up about academics, the grammars are fine. Plenty of top grades and top universities accessed. It isn’t necessary to pay for schools to get single sex.

Then I'm not sure that this thread or indeed the board (Boarding) is for you. The thread is about Tonbridge (and actually boys single sex boarding schools generally given this announcement). I'm well aware of the grammars - Judd for example is excellent. No one is 'stuck up' about academics. In fact, other than parents seeking the academic London day schools, academics are not the sole focus. For those that choose independent (particularly boarding) schools for their DC, the academics are a given, and can be extremely high, but quite often, parent's are seeking more than just academics alone - broad co curricular provision and an immersive boarding environment and character education. Not that I'm particularly suggesting that Tonbridge itself necessarily provides the latter.

@Runningupthathill1980 I think you are totally stuck up about academics - it what divides the school from the also rans. I do have experience of single sex schools though and I don’t value every child being an academic clone.

Absolutely agree with you about the less selective schools in your final para, however I also know that for Tonbridge the academic bar is definitely set lower for boarders willing to pay the extra £££, than it is for day boys. For the first time in years, perhaps ever, Tonbridge isn’t over subscribed, which could account for this.

(Off topic slightly but Cranbrook is another example of this. Obviously it’s state, and obviously not nearly as selective as Tonbridge, but boarders (and therefore fee paying) are given a much easier route in than day children. In fact I believe they are still even now advertising for boarders for Sep 26 entry Yr9…)

Personally I understand parents with daughters in single sex schools being upset when they become co-ed as girls do better without boys and some are there because boys have made their lives miserable in past schools, which ultimately has a huge impact on the school, grades and atmosphere. Boys however don't do as well in single sex environments and for a dropping roll school having bright girls coming in for the final 2 years can pull them all up at a time where many boys are going off the rails. FWIW I also know several boys schools who have indeed stuck to just having co-ed 6th form, which works well and has boosted both reputation and their results.

Across the UK there are 14 free all boys schools and only 8 free all girls. In a wider sense with state schools there are 220 schools all boys and 225 all girls. Not particularly "hard to find".

Thats your opinion - which I believe is largely nonsense. There's no credible evidence for boys not doing as well in single sex environment and the reality is far more nuanced than that. For many parents the decision between single-sex and co-ed is deeply personal, shaped by their child, their values and what they genuinely believe will help them thrive.
If anything, removing that social distraction during the most academically critical years is a feature, not a flaw. Most of these schools have strong partnerships with nearby girls' schools for drama, music, socials so boys are hardly living in a bubble. Plenty have sisters at home too. The social development argument falls apart pretty quickly.
Opinions on single-sex versus co-ed go both ways and always will. But if you chose a school specifically because of what it was, and committed on that basis, you are perfectly entitled to feel aggrieved when it changes. Both sides of this debate have a legitimate view. The difference is that one group is being asked to accept something they never agreed to, as far as Tonbridge is concerned.