Expelled students being taken by our preferred independent option - cause for concern?

[678socks]

We are weighing up Oakham versus a grammar school for various reasons but I have read on here and also heard that it does seem to take children expelled for bullying at other schools/‘naughty children’ from other schools. Is that something I should worry about? The grammar won’t do this I suspect because it is massively oversubscribed so places rarely come up (child has a definite place here due to their 11+ score). Also any thoughts about Oakham for a very bright child would be much appreciated thanks. We would like the option of flexi boarding but not full boarding or even weekly at 11 so oundle and uppingham aren’t options. Thanks

Expulsion from my memory would be any form of drugs (Class A-C), IT Hacking, Severe bullying (physical, verbal, cyber - Im sure not immediate and takes a restorative approach) . Getting caught drinking and smoking normally had a sanction/punishment system before the expulsion talk.

@678socks I know a few families at Oakham and I think they all seem pretty happy. I haven’t heard of any issues. I would see if you can ask any existing parents the specific question, and perhaps if you have a tour round, ask the pupils showing you round. It might be worth asking admissions about your concerns as well.

Re academics, the previous poster is correct that Oundle would be a more natural choice for more academic children. Whilst it’s full boarding from 13+, I’ve a feeling they do have more flexibility at 11+ and 12+. There are weekly/flexible options although I can’t remember the details. Uppingham are full boarding and have only just introduced entry at 11+.

On the academic side, whilst Oakham isn’t generally seen as being academic, I seem to remember that it outperforms the 2 nearest grammars in exams by a fair bit. I don’t know which grammar you are looking at.

a school that tried to expel you can be told they have to take you back as you have the right to a local education.

An independent school is not forced to accept any pupil. They can pick and choose who they like.

So you think that access to a decent state education should be means tested? That if parents can afford private education, they shouldn’t be allowed access to the state sector? It sounds like the sort of idea that Phillipson would come up with.

It’s perfectly reasonable to ask if a specific school has issues with bullying and disruptive children, in the private or state system. Most parents would choose to avoid a school like that if they can. There are plenty of schools where there are aren’t problems with disruption and misbehaviour.

OP, I would hesitate to send my child to a school that takes pupils excluded from elsewhere for bullying. If your child has a place at a grammar school, I’d bite their hand off - although I doubt they would be able to offer the boarding that you might need. But any school that has any sort of a reputation for bullying would be a big no-no for me.

Because we are considering both state and private would suggest I hope that we have no worries about the ‘sort’ of child at either school other than that they are kind and want to learn. Maybe I should have rephrased my question to ask why a private school would take on expelled students (from other private schools) or is it just fees?? The attraction is the co curriculars and the pastoral care supporting a bright child who has other challenges to contend with whereas I know the grammar does not historically have a good pastoral record and will have the same funding issues as all state schools in that regard I would think.

@sesquipedalian can I ask why the children were expelled?? A parent at the school where the child was expelled said it was ‘bad behaviour’ and the other example I read on mumsnet. We wouldn’t need boarding for the grammar. My worry is the pressure that the school exerts observing how things were during the 11+ when the child piled huge amounts of pressure on himself (not from us), hence thinking a less pressured environment might be better also might mean the extra curricular stuff (sport and music) wouldn’t have to be sidelined for homework as they are accommodated during the school day.

Uppingham has only just introduced 11+ by closing a senior house and opening it as 11+. I think it is only day. for that age. From 13 it is full boarding or day.

Oundle might work, I think they do offer a bit of flexibility until 12 years old but it's not to Oakham's degree. After that it is full-boarding. Oundle is also more expensive than Oakham if that is a factor.

to ask why a private school would take on expelled students (from other private schools) or is it just fees

Since the introduction of VAT, some private schools (not necessarily the ones mentioned) are struggling to keep pupils. Some schools are still oversubscribed and don’t have an issue filling places. All schools need to have as many pupils as possible to remain financially viable.

One thing I would say is that the grammar options aren’t always academically as good as perceived and aren’t immune from behaviour issues. Some of the non selective state schools outperform some of the selective grammars in exams.

I think there was talk of boarding at 11+ at Uppingham, but I’m not sure if it’s in place yet. Historically, very very few chose Uppingham as a day pupil, although there is a new day house now. It’s always been seen as very much a full boarding school from 13+.

You’re correct about Oakham having more flexibility with boarding. They also have far more day pupils than Oundle or Uppingham.

The other school in that area with more flexibility on boarding is Stamford. However, it’s predominantly a day school.

I went to Oundle not too long ago, sounds like not much has changed besides Uppingham opening a day house and extending to 11+. Not sure why it has?

Stamford is an option had forgotten about that one - check it out OP.

Is this a trick question? In my profession, almost all of us went to independent school. Do you think that is because our wealthy parents have such great DNA and that we are just naturally cleverer than others?

News flash: We're not.

Yes, if we can afford £45k per year for seven years straight for a total of over £300k for a first class education for our kids, then we should not be taking benefits from the government for a subsidised education from a state grammar school.

Social mobility was a key stated intention of the Tripartite grammar school system in the 1944 Education Act, which itself was a response to access to high quality education at that time being largely determined by wealth. And this persists today.

So stop skiving and freeloading and pay your own way.

Shame you can't really. Make their parents responsible for giving them an education if they can't bring them up to behave.

From speaking with other parents, I think it’s fair to say that the independent options will offer a lot more extra curricular opportunities than a state grammar. They usually have excellent pastoral care and on site mental health professionals, and provide extra help for those that need it. Speaking with those at the nearest grammars, there seems to be much less extra curricular/sport and more of a focus on exam results.

Thanks everyone. Grammars results are excellent but it is the whole thing we are looking at rather than just academics. We have looked at Stamford but the intake is very local it seems so I am worried that might make it harder to make friends if you live further away. Also not sure it is as academic as Oakham. I would worry more about the stamfords financial stability too but that is just my instinct not based on any facts.

I would check the grades on each website to compare Oakham and Stamford. I dont know either school to this level.

Yes, if we can afford £45k per year for seven years straight for a total of over £300k for a first class education for our kids, then we should not be taking benefits from the government for a subsidised education from a state grammar school.

You are literally saying that those with a certain amount of income should not take a state school place. That’s means testing. The state system, like the NHS, is available to everyone.

So stop skiving and freeloading and pay your own way.

Did you mean to aim this at me? My children have been wholly privately educated and have never used the state system. I can assure you that we are paying our own way.

Gosh, you sound nice.

Mortifying for you.

Yes, you've almost got it! As we have the means, we should go private and enjoy the benefits. I would apply that to both the education system and healthcare system.

I'm delighted to hear that you are paying your way, and not quite sure why you are crying about having done so.

your question about excluded pupils - is that gossip or are you certain of the circumstances? I would be asking questions from admissions on this issue and deciding whether the balance is weighted to knowing the ins and outs of Oakham vs the lack of transparency (not possible to provide) in a state grammar which will likely have its own “social issues”

If it’s between Oakham and Kings Grantham as the grammar choice then it will come down to knowing your son & how he would thrive best. (Bourne grammar & Sleaford less academically rigorous / strict so assuming it’s not there under consideration).

Kings has lots of positives and certainly better than an expected state school (though recently downgraded from outstanding to “good”) but class size, lack of physical space, lunches, lack of extras, local boys only so not as wide an outlook and the resulting connections from somewhere like Oakham would be downsides.

agree review Stamford. (The financials are easily found and I’d suggest it being slightly cheaper and a social move away from boarding means it could have more positives than Oakham)

Oundle is academically better and has all the extras expected of a fee paying school. They also have a growing day pupil population.

Oundle is, imo, a different beast to Oakham, Uppingham and Stamford.

Permanently excluding a student is very serious and does not happen on a frequent basis. I have worked for 17 years at my secondary school and no student has ever won an appeal and been allowed back. Those on managed moves often fail too. If you hate school and cannot comply with school expectations, why is moving to another school suddenly going to change everything?

I didn't say they will be told. I said they can be told. A friend left her position when a very problematic student won their appeal to be reinstated in the school.

Exactly. And if they'd like to take a student that was expelled, they can and will and do.