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?

Fwiw, dds comp offers epq, enrichment, sport and work experience. It's a good school but probably not up to mumsnet standards

Scabbers - entry requirements are NOT the same as what academics regard as good quality sixth form education.

From an educational viewpoint the A level system we have in the UK (well E, W and NI) makes kids specialise far too early. However it is what we have and therefore universties have to make offers on that basis. That doesn't mean most academics think a broader sixth form education is better.

Also A levels are linear with no AS Levels now. Not sure if you realise this.

entry requirements are NOT the same as what academics regard as good quality sixth form education

Well, with respect, I'm sorry about that but entry requirements seem to be what most kids from dds school have gone by and they've got in to uni and done well.

Not sure if you realise this.

Yes I think pretty much everyone in academia realises this...

Really? So why are you still talking about 4 levels and ASs? Most schools switched to 3 because of the new linear exam system, not because there's some odd conspiracy where unis want 4 but can only ask for three

Yes of course they go by entry requirements, why wouldn't they. And they've done well, again why wouldn't they?

It's just a general observation that unlike most of the rest of the world we ask our 15/16 year olds to basically pick their university subject which is very very early.

We're not debating good vs poor advice, and what is best to get to university, just saying that not so much specialism so early is regarded by the rest of the world as better.

It's not a general observation when GetCarl is suggesting that state schools are deliberately disadvantaging their students because of budget cuts. That's simply not true.

Dd2 is at independent school and will have the option of the PreU, but is keen to concentrate on her three favourite subjects.

scabs they switched their three because of budget constraints.

Why would linear exams make any difference to the number of A levels begun in L6th? Practically why would that matter?

It comes down to money. But obviously parents don't care. They're happy for their DC to have less money spent on their education because the bare minimum of what universities need is enough.

I suppose you think it's a cool mpleye councidence that the changes to sixth form curriculum resulted in fewer state schooled applicants gaining places on the most selective courses this year?
No wonder the government is laughing up its sleeve.

And taking 3 A levels from the get go is a disadvantage.

These young people are not being given the same opportunities as other young people.

They're receiving less teaching time, less access to staff, less feedback.

Their education is not as broad.

Plus, it has had an impact on what happened next in terms of university places gained.

I really cannot see why this is being defended.

The 4/3 debate is because, until a couple of years ago when AS levels were decoupled from A levels, it was the norm for all A level students to start their post-16 studies with 4 subjects, take AS levels in all of them at the end of the L6, drop one with an AS level bagged and continue on to A2 with 3. Universities were still only asking for 3 A level grades, but students had an additional qualification in another subject at AS level.

Many (private) schools are continuing this format with students starting with 4 subjects and dropping one at the end of L6, so that the students achieve the same breadth of education as in the AS level days and have the same opportunity to defer final A level choices until they've studied 4 subjects for a year. However they don't get a grade in the subject.

Carl I disagree - look at these, straight from two universities websites. I couldn't find anything on Durham.

Cambridge say:

You should choose a combination of AS and/or A Level subjects which gives a good preparation for your selected course at university.

Most Cambridge applicants are studying three or four A Level subjects in Years 12 and 13, and this is usually sufficient to show breadth of interests and ability to manage a range of differing academic tasks. We’d rather applicants develop broader and deeper knowledge of the subjects most relevant/closest to their chosen course than accumulate additional A Levels. Applicants taking four subjects won't normally be at an advantage compared with those taking three, although competitive applicants for STEM subjects often have Further Mathematics as a fourth subject.

Manchester say:

Applicants taking A Levels are normally expected to offer three full A Levels. The majority of courses at the University require grades in the region of AAA-ABB at A Level.

If you are taking more than three A-levels, please be aware that any additional A-levels will not be included within their offer. We only make offers consisting of three A-level grades.

That seems pretty clear?

Actually no, you're wrong Carl.You only need 3 A levels for Medicine/Vet. medicine,Dentistry etc.Many schools are swopping the 4th A level for a Epq as this shows independent study.There is absolutely no advantage in doing 4.I think there is an advantage in doing 4 when doing Oxbridge.Dd's private school recommended 3 in most cases though Dd could have done 4 as she was bright.
The argument that this is a very narrow view of education is a totally different one. Yes, if you have very bright individuals in a very good school , there should be the opportunity to do more.

How is it narrow?? Dds friend is doing history French and biology - not narrow at all? Do you think someone doing physics chemistry biology should also be doing Spanish?

fairy there is a difference between the end of upper sixth and the beginning of lower. What that says is that you don't need four A levels to get in ( though a sizeable proportion will have 4 at Oxbridge and Durham) i.e. You don't need to do four sets of exams at the end of upper sixth.

No university has ever stated that they think offering only 3 in L6 is a good idea. Quite the opposite. They always support as broad an education as possible.

No university has ever stated that they think offering only 3 in L6 is a good idea

I think Cambridge saying that they'd rather students develop in depth knowledge rather than accumulate extra a levels is quite a big clue that they do not need 4 levels to ever be studied, Carl.

teta I didn't say you needed 4 to access any particular course.
However, I disagree that there is no disadvantage in only doing 3 in L6. Both disadvantage in the larger sense of an education and what that means. And disadvantage in the results this year if we're going to be Gradgrindian about it.

In our experience, top universities are happy with students who aren't offering 4 A levels - my eldest was offered below the published entry requirements by a top RG university with 3 A levels and then exceeded those grades and got the published entry requirements and so got a place on a masters rather than a bachelors degree, the only one of the current batch of first years on her course to have been offered that. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that the university are happy with it. Two peers went to Oxford with 3 A levels and another went to Cambridge.

It rather depends on the subject re undergrad masters. Language ones are easy to get into due to less competition. MEng offered everywhere if you get the grades. Oxbridge base offers on three A levels but loads of students have done 4. There is no need to do this but some thrive on work. The advice is that you do not need to!

It's a bit like GCSEs done over three years. A broad education is being lost in secondary schools. If some students need three years and others need two, who are the brighter students?

I know a few people who have been interviewers at Oxbridge colleges. Generally what they are look for is intellectual curiosity, the ability to think about their proposed subject in-depth, and independent learning / thought - indicators that a student that could blossom into a potentially great undergraduate (as opposed to being "only" a diligent and bright A-level student). I'm sure that other top unis that interview are looking for similar. It doesn't matter if they are doing 3 or 4 A-levels if a student displays this type of potential.

Where some state school students are arguably at a disadvantage is being able to express their thoughts confidently in this kind of scenario. This is often not down to ability in their areas of study, but not being in a school environment that has the resources to be able to prepare them for these kind of discussions. The state schools that do well in getting a relatively high number of pupils to Oxford and Cambridge have usually addressed this issue, setting up specialist groups to help the brightest students to prepare (similar to what many independents have done for years). But obviously this comes down to funding, and cuts directly impact these kinds of initiatives.

bubbles it's a science masters rather than arts.

I think there are much better things to do with your time than a 4th A level. I do think that not all schools step up to make sure that the better things are done, though!

Scab - why shouldn't the science student do another year of languages? You can be good at both languages and sciences, so why not further study in both.

Do you think someone doing physics chemistry biology should also be doing Spanish?

No, but I think they should be doing Maths. All 3 sciences without Maths isn't a good mix as Maths is almost certainly needed if they go onto a scientific degree.