Are we wasting our money?

[angelnumber9]

It appears that every year the results gap between state and independent schools narrows and this seems even more defined with 2017 figures. Combined with the incentives that top universities give to state school students I am struggling to find good reasons to carry on paying our hard earned dosh for DC's education.
To give this some perspective I have checked out local independent school results and compared them with some of the state school alternatives and it makes interesting reading. I have said before that we are very lucky to have such a good collection of schools in Shropshire. It has to be said that we can only just afford the less expensive ones such as Wrekin or Shrewsbury High School and I appreciate that like all things you get what you pay for but if you care to cost it out purely on a results v price basis there seems very little point in spending your money.....or am I missing something really important?
Having watched selective schools like the gdst's Shrewsbury High school continue to plummet down the A level league tables for the last 5 years (from 63rd with 61% A/A in 2014 to 255th and 26% this year) I know that many parents are again asking what their money is being spent on. Especially when non selective schools such as Moreton Hall and Adcote are roaring ahead (Moreton is an all round school monumentally up 118 places to 91st place with 53%, more that twice that of its High School rival. State grammar schools like Newport Girls High, Adams and Thomas Telford score consistently above 50% A/A and at least four Shrewsbury Sixth form students have achieved Oxbridge places. The Marches sixth form has 22% and William Brooke's 24%. Shrewsbury School and Concord (like the High School selective but far more expensive) have broken their own records. Concord unbelievably managing 84% A/A with 45% at A. Shrewsbury School continue to publish detailed exam results and leavers destinations on their very informative website.
Perhaps I'm too caught up in figures but when Shrewsbury High School recently held an Oxbridge conference in an attempt to win an award (sadly I'm told none of their girls have secured offers there since 2015) I can understand why parents are livid. But they now have a new dance school so perhaps girls will be able to waltz their way into Oxbridge??? (sorry, couldn't resist!).
So I am very frustrated about it all and seriously considering cutting my losses. I hate to see our school fees being spent on ridiculous projects when the focus should be on raising standards. With what I would save in fees I could probably buy a small house which may be a far better investment for my children in the long term.........anyone?

I think that if they are doing a 4th it should be Spanish. Or politics or RE or some other humanities subject. We make kids narrow their focus so early, and it's not good-particularly for scientists.

Bert
I totally agree with dropping subjects too early.
Mine dropped all humanities at the end of Y8, her own decision, but I can't help feeling sorry that she won't learn anymore unless she does it herself some day. I think that all subject groups should be compulsory to GCSE standard, just one choice from each group would give a rounded education.
In our case I'm not complaining as such, just noticing.

I think the 4th A level can help students to keep their options open for longer.

My DD is studying Maths, FM, Physics & Chemistry. Academically Maths is her strongest subject, Chem is her passion but least strong. Having the extra Maths A level means that her results come next August will be a perm of 3 out of 4. If she does well in Chem then she will go down the Chem Phys route, if she does less well then she will go down the Maths insurance route.

Not all schools are able/willing to offer enrichment. For students at my DD's failing comp the 4th A level is the enrichment.

We make kids narrow their focus so early, and it's not good-particularly for scientists.

Not having Maths at A level is also not particularly good for scientists!

"Not having Maths at A level is also not particularly good for scientists!"

Lots don't. It depends what sort of scientist. Two sciences, maths and a humanity?

My dd is doing English Lit, History, Maths and Further Maths because she doesn't know what she wants to do at university - I am not sure whether she'll drop one for year 13, but they're not doing ASs any more.

But I feel as though Carl you've said before that state schools make their pupils enter for too many different subjects, rather than too few - is that just GCSEs?

Also I was never sure that dd1 was wise in keeping all 4 into year 13 - she did one subject at another school, and three at the one she'd been at from year 7: the 'home' school were very pro keeping all 4, but the other school had a policy of encouraging students to drop one in year 13. The encourage-to-drop school do have a better Oxbridge entry rate, but then there are other factors there too.

seek I'm not a fan of DC taking too many GCSEs. I've always felt that 9/10 were probably enough if there's a good cross section of subjects and proper choice for a pupil.

Similarly I'm not a huge fan of pupils taking five/six A levels as it all ends up a bit of an arms race ( which is what Cambridge were getting at - not discouraging 4 in L6).

But several posters did explain that their schools would only support certain things if there was a proper exam at the end of it. So I can see how that came about.

But that is a completely different from students being prevented from doing more than 3 A levels in L6.

I've said why I believe that it is a disadvantage, both in terms of a broad education ( which is surely what we want for our DC) and in terms of outcome. The evidence this year is there for all to see.

But there seems little point in rehashing it ad infinitum. If parents are happy and the government gets to continue with their budget cuts then that's that. Job done.

I had promised myself that I would give the widening access scheme a swerve this year - I'm just too busy with my creative projects, and the current backwards trend is not exactly an attractive proposition . Threads like this coupled with the government's intransigence on the issue make me realise it's the right thing.

Thank you!

Ideally I suppose it would be very much dependent on the child, his/her ambitions, and how the subjects were going - and to be fair that has largely been my experience so far (but youngest is only just starting year 12, so we'll see).

Having had one child start secondary in 2008 and one in 2012 has been very interesting in terms of seeing how cuts are making themselves felt, for sure - but also how different state schools are responding, and how those responses often tend to fall in with the priorities they already had, in my experience.