How much should league tables matter when choosing a private school?

[pinkmud80]

Currently looking at options for DS2 for either 7+ or 11+ and got a bit fixated on league tables. How much do these reflect how well your child will do?

For context, DS2 is a very bright child (more so than DS1 I would say) but sensitive. One school may be 10% points above another in league table, but does this mean he would have a better chance of doing well academically at that school, and conversely would he fare less well in a school lower down the league tables, or will a bright child with good parental support do just as well anywhere?

Does pastoral care/mental wellbeing drop off as these schools are pushier?

It's easy to try to make choices based on stats but I have a feeling I am being very black and white about this, and people may have opinions / comments that could open this up a bit more for me. Thanks for any thoughts!

Grand daughter is at one of the top private schools in the country and the pastoral care is first class. Not all private schools are even in the league tables. You need to look at the ethos of the school; the extra curricula provision. Do you know any boys at any of the schools you are thinking of? We were swayed in our choice of school for our DS by the young men we knew who had been through the school. Our DS thrived on the competition at his school and that was one of the reasons we opted for private.

I would consider your reasons for choosing a private school. If it’s primarily academic then league tables are more important, although the actual differences are quite small between a school ranked, say, 7th and one 15th. If it’s for a rounded education where academics are important but only one part of it, along with facilities, extracurricular, pastoral etc then league tables only give a one dimensional perspective.

You say your DC is sensitive so consider if they would thrive in a competitive environment. Would they cope being middle to bottom among a super smart cohort or are you confident they’d be nearer the top?

Some top flight schools have reputations for being hothouses and others not, some children excel in highly academic schools, others struggle, so it’s about finding the right vibe for your DC.

I’d also consider progress scores - schools that are highly academically selective at entry are by nature likely to have better results. DD is at a school that’s around 100 in the league tables and we are very happy with her progress. They push the more academic and support the less. I think she’d have struggled in a really competitive environment where she was nearer the bottom. For other children, it would be motivational.

So guess what I’m trying to say is by all means check out the league tables but don’t fixate. Pick the school that feels right, where they can show academic progress from the starting point, and you can see your DC being happy.

I think it depends on your child - some children will thrive in a high pressure environment and others (most?) will feel it and may struggle. An anxious or overly pressured child will not do as well. I don't think a 10% difference in league table equates to a 10% difference in grade/outcome for an individual child, I think it is probably a lot more nuanced than that.

will a bright child with good parental support do just as well anywhere?

I think that "a bright child will do well anywhere" is one of the biggest fictions on mumsnet. Your extension, "with good parental support", is a lot closer to reality but a child's peer group still has effects; pushing a child far beyond their classmates' achievements and expectations can be very wearying and the extra work required if the desired achievement is much above the level the class is taught at can come at a high cost in both the child's time and either the parent's time, if they provide the supplemental instruction themselves, or their money, if they pay someone else to do it.

However, if you're talking about 90% of GCSEs at 7 or higher vs 99%, or 50% vs 60%, I'd guess that two schools with that difference in results are probably close enough so a child with good parental support is likely to do just as well at either.

I think pretty much the only thing you can ascertain from league table stats is likely peer group characteristics. Higher % top grades are not a guarantee of better teaching at all - and progress scores at independent schools basically don't seem to exist as far as I can work out (due to IGCSEs not being included in metrics). But if you think your child is the sort to be very swayed (either positively or negatively) by peer group in terms of motivation then a very academically selective environment could make quite a big difference. However, some kids also find very academic environments too much pressure. I think it's quite hard to know on league table alone and I think much better to visit and just see which ones enthuse your child and feel right.

@user149799568 is exactly right. ‘A bright child will do well anywhere’ simply isn’t true.

If your DS is very bright but sensitive, don’t send him to a substandard private school thinking that might be an easier option. Poor teaching will have an effect - and there are a number of private schools out there that aren’t worth paying for!

The important thing is to do your research and see what feels right for your child. Yes there are some schools that might feel too high pressure (though in London I’d say this tends to be the ‘uber’ state grammars - think Henrietta Barnett or QE Boys, rather than the privates) - but excellent private schools will do a lot to offer a well-rounded and supportive education, as well as getting brilliant results. Plenty of ‘very bright but sensitive’ kids at my DC’s very high performing school!

Equally, when you are talking about a couple of percentage points in the league tables - it doesn’t matter. Any school in the top 20 will be good, so don’t fixate on that.

I don’t think this is quite right. Of course if you’re getting 90 percent 8/9s at GCSE you’d assume the teaching IS better than somewhere that gets 50 percent.

I think the reason that private schools don’t give progress scores is they are not obliged to by the state? In the majority of cases these privates are academically selective anyway, so it would be meaningless.

Yes, you could argue that a bunch of ‘selected at 11’ kids would do better than average (as they are above average academically to begin with) - but they still have to be taught…

I have two kids at the private school that is academically the worst performer of the private schools in our city. It doesn’t worry me at all.

This school suits them better than the others for lots of reasons.

For the most part the schools that have better results are the more academically selective ones with the pushier parents, so most of the grades are down to the type of pupils they get and how much the parents care about grades.

The kids would probably get the same grades at any decent school, it’s just that those kids are concentrated in the super academic schools.

For us I’m not sure we ever looked at the league tables when choosing schools, we paid much more attention to the atmosphere/vibe and how friendly and happy it seemed.

@Lingostar You cannot make that assumption at all because of the nature of selection. The high achieving schools are selecting the very brightest and these dc can be easier to teach. That’s not the same as teaching being brilliant. They might get concepts more quickly and in fact their progress can be very level as they are high achieving in the first place.

DC who achieve less might have been incredibly well taught to get that level of attainment. However what’s usually the case is that you don’t have to be with a 100% cohort of high achievers to get the high grades. Dc need to be with enough high achievers so they are not an outlier.

Therefore exam subjects taken, extra curricular activities, ethos, pastoral support, guidance and wellbeing all matter. Definitely consider if a very academic school will bring about anxiety or dc relishing it. A happy child at a less academic school is often a child who has a balanced life and reaches their potential.

@MeetMeOnTheCorner - of course there are variables, but in the case of the ‘very bright but sensitive’ OP’s child, it would make sense to go for a school with a better reputation academically I think. (I’m talking a significant difference in results, not a few points difference in league tables btw). I don’t think you can necessarily say ‘but these are academic kids so the teaching would be easy and the results reflect that’ - however smart they are, a bunch of 15 year olds can’t really teach themselves to excel at GCSE etc - the quality of teaching is a huge factor.

If you’re super bright then it’s best to be in a cohort of other bright kids…

Thanks all for responses. I can absolutely see both sides of this - on the one hand the feel and "fit" of the school is key and my overall aim is that DS is happy. I guess the fact he is a sensitive child makes me think that the very high scoring schools (we're in North London) eg Highgate, Habs may not be right if they are pushy to get those high scores. In comparison, a school like UCS which is extremely highly regarded but scores approx 9% less in the league tables than the other 2 mentioned, may be better for my sensitive DS as has reputation for greater pastoral care. But at this level, would there likely be any difference in outcome? And I do realise we may not have the luxury of choice anyway!

For a sensitive child, a very competitive environment could have a negative impact both on his mental health and his grades. I once taught at one of the highest achieving schools in the country and I left because I could see how some pupils thrived but others were really suffering - tests results were posted on the wall in rank order, there was vast amounts of homework, and those at the bottom (although well above the national average) were made to feel thick until they left. My son is at a much broader-range independent school where the most able get the same grades as this other school, but everyone feels encouraged. He is bright enough to be in top set Maths at his school but is in the second set and thriving there. He’s a sensitive boy who will give up and feel miserable if he thinks he can’t compete.
For us, we’ve realised that my son does best when he is in the middle of the ability range. He would be lazy if he was at the top and stressed at the bottom, so his current school is just perfect. Your son may be the same or he may be different which is why it’s so great that there are so many schools out there!

@pinkmud80 I don’t necessarily see the schools as pushy. Parents most certainly are and dc are required to perform. In some cultures this is very strong. It can leave other dc feeling they are not good enough. So the type of parent matters more in my view! It’s impossible for schools to stop the competitiveness and of course they like the results that reflect well on them. Other schools have a bigger number of “laid back” parents who aren’t overly competitive but their dc still do well. I’d say both sets of dc are happy but home expectations are key.

I can only really speak from my own experience but I didn't feel that I fitted in until I was at grammar school. Strangely I never felt pressure after that because it was right for me. I think the pressure I felt before that was just feeling out of place and was really social pressure not academic. I think if kids are happy - especially socially, which is kind of everything in teen years, they can thrive. So a really top academic school could absolutely suit a sensitive child if it's the right social group for them.

@Lingostar

if you’re getting 90 percent 8/9s at GCSE you’d assume the teaching IS better than somewhere that gets 50 percent.

I think you need to be clear what you mean by "better teaching".

A school getting 90 percent 8/9s at GSCE is almost certainly (very) academically selective at 11+. Leaving aside the points that such a cohort is likely to have very few disruptive children and very many highly supportive parents, the mere fact that the group is so academically homogeneous makes it much easier to teach than a more diverse, mainstream group. Also, teachers generally teach towards the second quartile of their classroom and then offer extra support to the bottom quartile and, hopefully, extensions to the top quartile. At a school that gets 90 percent 8/9s, a teacher's basic lesson plan will suit someone on the 8/9 boundary. At a school that gets 50 percent 8/9s (which is already well above the national average), their basic lesson plan will suit students on the 7/8 boundary.

So what is taught will be different with one school probably covering the syllabus more quickly and with more lessons at greater depth. But that's not the same as the school with 90 percent 8/9s having "better" teachers.

But even this assertion is valid only when comparing schools which don't do setting. The top set at a school with six forms/year that gets 50 percent 8/9s might very well be taught the same things as at a school that gets 90 percent 8/9s without setting.

@anotherfinemess1

I once taught at one of the highest achieving schools in the country and I left because I could see how some pupils thrived but others were really suffering - tests results were posted on the wall in rank order, there was vast amounts of homework, and those at the bottom (although well above the national average) were made to feel thick until they left.

Was this a state school or an independent? And roughly how long ago was this? I'm under the impression that, while this was common enough in private schools in the past, there are very few, if any, that still make test results or ranks public.

@user149799568 - fair point. Maybe equating impressive results to 'the teaching is better' is sweeping. But I would argue for the OP, that if their child is very academic - you would want probably want to go to the school where (to use your example) the lesson plan is aimed at those on the 8/9 boundary rather than the 7/8 boundary? Because, while extension work for the most academic kids should happen, it's not always a given - teachers will teach to the majority.

Results aren't everything and only one part of a whole wider school life - but it would be a shame to have a kid who would be more than capable of getting 9s end up with 7s because that was the aim of the majority in that class and they were taught accordingly (yes, I know 7s are still very good grades - but I'm just using this as an example).

Also, I would argue that lot of teachers who are very passionate about their subject probably do prefer to teach to a higher/extended level. There are many qualities that make someone an incredible teacher, and I've also seen the flipside where a teacher is so highly immersed in their subject that they actually aren't that great at teaching 😆 but very broadly - it might follow that excellent teachers are drawn to teaching at highly academic schools, so that's where the 'better teaching' comes in?

We used to live in N London so I know those schools well.
The difference between them is definitely not in the league tables so I wouldn't overthink that.

League tables are only a starting point in any case, but especially in the context of N London super selectives, they are all within the same tier (the top tier being Westminster, SP, Kings).

Another thing to consider is extra curriculars - Habs is far from transport links so you are likely to do everything at school. If you want something they don't provide eg high level football, you will have to do lots of driving after school.

Demographics are also different, this affects cultural expectations, but each school has its own culture too, I mean not defined by parents. I would try to visit as many times as possible and get a gut feeling for each school.

What do you think makes the culture in each school? I always wonder what ultimately does this with such a wide range of kids coming from a wide range of schools.

I can only guess it's a combination of history, ethos (though it's evolving ofc), endowments (affects the attitude to parents as customers vs subscribers to the ethos, also affects the number of bursaries hence diversity), the structure of governance and the type of personalities the trustees are likely to appoint as HT and SLT, which then transpires as management style and culture, and many other factors.

Sometimes the culture is so distinct you can feel
it instantly. I was scared of one school in top 5 and my ex who worked for Big 5 in his 20s instantly disliked another school saying it was "Arthur Andersen training centre".

Another very important question is the range of subjects offered in exam years and what they are allowed to choose. You would be surprised at how much difference there is once you look at what they are offered.

Also having been out of the other side of this it is obvious that statistics can be massaged or artificial. Some schools don’t let you take a subject unless you are going to get a high result and some just conveniently forget about results they don’t like. Also important to understand what happens to children who are slipping in the high performance schools. Some schools will support some will make you drop the subject. Some will just not deal with it. we all want to imagine are kids will succeed but how they treat the ones that are struggling tells you a lot about the school’s ethos.

@Ubertomusic - agree with this on ethos. Also, all competitive schools will want to publicise their successful exam results, but what else do they make noise about? If it's the environmental policy and charitable outreach work, for example, then that will play a part in the messaging that filters down to the kids.

I also think when it comes to co-curricular, good schools will usually be good in most areas - but it's likely that there will be some areas they are 'better' at than others. A number of parents at my DC's school complain the sporting provision isn't all that - and yes, there are much sportier schools. But on the other hand, the music department is incredible. So these strengths/weaknesses will also affect ethos.

We have chosen a school for our son which doesn't get stellar results across the board although 70% go to Russell Group unis. It does have a great pastoral side though and celebrates each child whatever their achievements. My son is a bight kid and we very much encourage and support him at home. He would have done well academically at the local comp but we want him to enjoy his school life not endure it and this for us is worth paying for.

Also, there are many statistics that the main league tables ignore. E.g. the grammar school I went to isn't as high on the league tables for % GCSEs grade 7+ as you might expect from a grammar school, but then if you look at # GCSEs per pupil (not factored into the league tables at all) they are in the top 5 with over 11 on average. Obviously that could be seen positively or negatively but it's certainly something to be aware of, and also likely contributes to a lower % of GCSEs grade 7+. Most of the independent schools that appear at the top of the league tables strongly discourage most children from taking more than 9 GCSEs in order to protect their league table position.

So many league tables are skewed by the amount of tutoring that goes on so always take them with a pinch of salt.