St Paul's Girls' School spgs

[Oceanicflight815]

I'm getting really tired of reading the negative comments about SPGS on here. I have a dd there and we think the school is fantastic. When we were faced with making choices after the 11+, I was so worried about all the hearsay that I seriously considered not accepting the offer. How was my normal, sporty dd going to cope with robotic, hot-housed, ultra-competitive, over-tutored, super-indulged, bitchy girls who wear obscenely short shorts? I'm so happy now that we gave it a chance.

"Well I never wanted my dd to go there", is a comment that offer holders will hear many times from people whose dd has missed the cut, even though you know that prior to the 11+, they would have sold their soul for a place. Naive people like me eventually work out that the negative comments are just the bitter taste of sour grapes.

My dd went to a school that prepared the children for the 11+ but there was no tutoring except for some who were struggling. As a poster has recently written, the school watches your child from the first day they walk in the door. They have test scores stretching for years. They know exactly what is going on and there is no way the Head will jeapordise their relationship with any of the secondary schools by recommending a child they feel is not right for that school. If it helps you to believe that my child spent all her young years being tutored, fine, but you are wrong with her and also for the huge majority of SPGS girls. They are genuinely clever girls. I understand the need to tutor if you are not coming from a private school. However, if you are at a prep school and are tutoring in the hope getting a place, you are making a serious mistake. Your dd will be happier at a different school. There are girls who make it through thanks to a tutor and they do struggle. Equally, you can dismiss the idea that prep schools over prepare the kids. If that was the case, they'd all be at spgs but they are not.

We live in West London and so we know classmates and friends' children at virtually every school here. There is absolutely no difference in the amount of homework my dd brings home compared to any of them. Content yes, amount no. Hot-housing clearly not. You need to let go of that myth too. There is plenty of time for clubs, after school activities, meeting friends, or just lying around watching television.

I find it insulting that my lovely dd is branded as robotic. She is a wonderful girl and I can't see anything in her personality that you would describe as robotic. I know all the girls in her tutor group and they are all really lovely girls that you be very proud to call your own. There was a bitchy super competive girl at her prep and that girl was not offered a place at spgs even though academically she would have been fine. I suspect that these sort of girls are being weeded out at interview. The girls at spgs seem to be confident in their own abilities. They are content within themselves. They know that they all got into the school for a reason and there is no need to prove their superiority to anyone. They are just friends.

Pushy parents, sure. No doubt I'm one. Unfortunately, you have to be in a West London. I do want what is best for my children. I want them to reach their potential. And I know the parents at my prep were the same as me and their children went to a whole range of schools so you've got the same parents at every school.

As for short shorts, that's just an additional ridiculous argument against the school. yes, there are a few. I see the girls are nearby schools rolling their skirts up. They are all teenagers. A poster suggested you stand outside the school gates and see the skimpy outfits worn by spgs girl. instead, you will see jeans, hoodies, and leggings. Half of them are in their sports kit. And they do have a really nice (but expensive) sports kit.

Yes of course there will be issues but they are the same issues as all schools around here face. If you are stressed and over anxious, it would not have mattered if you went to spgs, g&l, Lu, leh, fh, nh, clsh, nlc etc. All these schools and many more are great schools who are aiming at good results. Sex, drugs, fingers crossed yet to go there, but any story told to you third hand about spgs will apply to any school. I've got a ds elsewhere and all I can say about pastoral care is that it is far superior at spgs, as is their communication with parents and opportunities for parental involvement.

So good luck to you with your upcoming offers. Accept spgs if you feel it is right for your dd. Accept leh if that is, especially if you live near it. Keep the commute in mind, it is really important. They are all great schools around here. Ignore all the sour grapes, not just about spgs but about whichever school you choose. And if you were desperate for an offer from school but miss out, be happy for those that got in. It's ok to be disappointed. Feel sad and then make the best of what is offered. Congratulate your child, they did a great job in a very tough and stressful situation. I wish them nothing but the very best.

MN164

I agree there are other good schools to choose from. I just think it's a pity that the financial pre-selection that now operates at SPGS and at a few other independent day schools in London is such that many hard working middle class families are compelled to exclude these particular schools when making their choices. Posts on this thread have confirmed this is happening. Your figures from SPGS's accounts demonstrate how the school has got here: it has substantially increased costs and fees at a time when professional salaries have been stagnating.

My understanding is that the CC's overriding test (whatever the current guidance for schools might be) is "public benefit" and that it is the "public in general" that is supposed to benefit: www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-benefit-the-public-benefit-requirement-pb1/public-benefit-the-public-benefit-requirement

While it was possible to claim that only those families who came below the bursary threshold were excluded from attending a school and that the school's bursaries were there to catch those families, "public benefit" could be made out. Now that swathes of the middle class (including influential people and opinion formers like MPs on their £67k pa) are being excluded by these luxury schools, it will be far more difficult for them to persuade the CC that the "public in general" is benefitting from the polarisation that is taking place behind their doors.

I don't think it's hypocritical to complain about financial pre-selection of the kind that is now being operated by SPGS and which is creating an odd community there. Rather, it is hypocritical of the school to pretend that it is selecting on academic ability and that it is not "selecting out" on financial grounds, as you put it.

I think you have to compare SPGS fees with its rival West London schools not with eg JAGS which is not really an option for us West Londoners. If you look eg at 2014 Bute House leavers/ offers received you will see that it is clear that G&L in particular and then Latymer Upper are the favoured destinations after SPGS with 26 girls going to SPGS in 2014, 10 to G&L, 6 to Latymer and none to JAGS.

Granola

I suspect that a huge majority of the population are excluded from SPGS by a) not being able to pass the 11+ and b) not being in the top 5% (?) of wealth of the country.

This was true 10 years ago and remains today. All that has changed is a couple of % fewer people can afford it.

Complaining that I might now be excluded as I'm not in the top, say 3% of wealth only means I can join the other 95% of the country in feeling excluded. Deeply hypocritical I maintain. I see people complaining about "clubs" they can't be a member of all the time - it's simple self interest and has nothing to do with wider social interest or welfare.

Lyn

I think you are right in a West London context. However, in a Charity Commission context is location important?

What's important is how effective the charity is at it's goals. In that context it is very valid to compare all educational charities - including private schools.

I'd like to see a table of metrics comparing the London private schools much like the analysis I've done.

I think it would be clear which charities are more "charitable" than others.

Perhaps the overall conclusion would be that none of them are charitable enough given their status?

Lynharvey

G&L and Latymer Upper are certainly expensive as well. I hope there isn't a cartel in the making in West London!

The point of my comparison with JAGS (having found it difficult to find relevant accounts for CLSG and Putney High) was to see if another "leading" London girls' school managed things differently. It certainly does.

Financial pre-selection of the kind inflicted on West London parents by SPGS, and by a few other nearby schools hot on its heels, is not inexorable: it's a choice made by the management of those schools. Parents are entitled to protest.

MN 164

I think you are being a bit harsh on the "couple of % fewer" people who can afford these expensive schools.

The way the schools arrange their bursary schemes, the 95% of the population you refer to should, in theory, be entitled to have a shot: if their DC pass the 11+, they should, in theory, be entitled to receive financial assistance. It's only the admittedly small percentage of families who find themselves above the bursary threshold but who, in reality, can't afford the fees, who suffer from the financial pre-selection.

If a system excludes people, and pretends it doesn't, and even if the number is relatively small in real terms, I don't think it's hypocritical to protest on behalf of that small number who are being treated detrimentally.

We'll never have "needs blind" private schools, I guess. Meanwhile the table of metrics you suggest would be interesting to see. My own feeling is that schools which are careful about keeping their costs and fees down are more likely to attract a diverse community of the kind most of us would hope a school would contain.

Granola

It's both economically AND academically selective:

(a) How much of the 95% can pass the 11+? Let's say 10% (adjust up or down as you see fit).

(b) Of that 10% from (a), how many will qualify for a bursary? Let's say 10% (adjust up or down as you see fit), so that means about 1% has a shot at a bursary.

(NB: completely ignoring postcode constraint here, but add than in as a step if you like).

The number of people excluded is huge. Contrast to the marginal number of people excluded by higher fees, a number which is tiny by comparison.

I have much more empathy with the overall group excluded than a few who, no doubt, will be able to find excellent private schooling elsewhere in West London (or elsewhere).

Sorry if you think I'm being harsh on those that can afford (by whatever mean) £15k+ per annum per child but find £20k too much. I just can't shed a single tear for them.... and, yes, I'm exactly one of those people I can't shed a tear for.

(Warning: heavy sarcasm mode switched on).

Poor me - I'll have to choose from a long list of excellent other private schools, grammar schools, faith schools in London that we have access to that millions of others across the UK don't. I feel terrible for my darling child as she might be deprived in some way of something. I want "the absolute best" but I just can't have it. Boo hoo. Will anyone feel sorry for me please?

I don't think I've stopped being harsh there have I?

All that aside, I still think SPGS is an awesome school for the right student.

MN164

"I suspect that a huge majority of the population are excluded from SPGS by a) not being able to pass the 11+ and b) not being in the top 5% (?) of wealth of the country.

This was true 10 years ago and remains today. All that has changed is a couple of % fewer people can afford it."

The other big change over the past 10 years has been an influx of very rich people, particularly to West London, often highly educated and with high ambitions for their children. As is pretty obvious from these threads, competition for private school places is rising, and tutoring is becoming more common. A laid back approach which has "she will go if she passes, but we wont do any special preparation" is less likely to get you a place now than it would have a decade ago. Similarly anyone on a more ordinary income, and paying a mortgage, who previously might have been on the lower end of the income scale, may well be more price conscious, if only because they were not the lucky group who managed to buy "cheap" family houses in Shepherds Bush/Acton/Barnes before prices really took off.

In many ways the character of the City has changed in the past decade, the character of West London has changed and, presumably, so has the character of SPGS. These schools, charitable status or not, operate within a commercial market place, and each will have decided where they fit within that. SPGS may well have decided that their USP is to educate the best and the brightest, regardless of background. Fair enough. From the outside, and depending on which group you come across, it is possible to pick up a bit of a "Masters of the Universe" type feel from the wider SPGS community. However this might be more the Central London element of the community, and may be more the parents than pupils. Does this matter? Possibly not. Is this sort of feel becoming more prevalent? Demographics and pricing suggest it might. We turned down a place at SPS a while back because we were not sure we woud fit, and we know others that chose KCS for similar reasons. But then isn't that the point of a market place. The market offers choice and the customer chooses.

I'm not asking anyone to shed tears, MN164.

This thread started with OP confirming that SPGS is indeed an awesome school for the right student. The figures we have been looking at, and other recent posts, confirm that large numbers of middle class London parents are being excluded from considering the school for their DD because, for them, a difference of £5k (or indeed £7k) is actually a big difference.

It's no tragedy for anyone but it's worth getting the facts and figures across, as you have helpfully done, and it's worth exposing the school's hypocrisy and noting what a polarised community it is now creating behind its doors.

It's SPGS I feel sorry for. But not that much. As you say, there are more important things to worry about.

Needmoresleep

I think you and I agree.

I think I am intentionally taking this out of context, but it did catch my eye and make me smirk - "SPGS may well have decided that their USP is to educate the best and the brightest, regardless of background."

Actually, I think you mean completely the opposite. There will be many "best and brightest" that will never have a snowflakes chance of getting into SPGS or equivalent. The fee situation only serves to make it even less likely.

I also think there is a significant chunk of the "middle class" minority group (whatever that means) that would deliberately not choose such a private school for the "social apartheid" reasons you describe. I think that "inverted snobbery" is just as foolish as the "snobbery/elitism" that surrounds the school.

It's a school. The real effects of money, elitism and exclusion will come post school in the "real world".

Granola

Soz. I'm quite grumpy at the mo ....

Thanks, MN 164, understood.

Needmoresleep I don't know what SPGS management think their USP is any more but they have certainly restricted their customer base still further in these last few years and, as MN 164 says, it excludes many of the "best and brightest*.

It's not just a matter of demographics. Deliberate choices have been made by the High Mistress and the Mercers, choices which other schools have eschewed. The morality of these choices, and also what the Charity Commission's response might eventually be, could be discussed endlessly but the impact is there for us to see, including on this thread.

Nomoresleep, I agree with much of what you say.The massive influx of wealthy foreigners into West London (starting really with Big Bang in the eighties rather than just 10 years ago) means the top West London private schools are more difficult to get into than ever. In addition there is ever increasing pressure on schools to maintain or improve their position in the league tables which means extra money for better facilities and pupil/staff ratios etc. The West London schools know that an extra couple of grand will not alienate the vast majority of prospective parents and it is noticeable that G&L and LU are steadily moving up the league tables with G&L having caught up the likes of CLGS in the last year or two. Given its very selective intake, SPGS absolutely needs to be the top London girls school in terms of results/league tables and has always been pretty ruthless in seeking to achieve this. (Those with long memories will remember the SPGS High Mistress being sacked in the early nineties for trying to reduce the number of GCSEs taken by the girls). There is a correlation between fees and performance and I'm afraid SPGS has simply decided that increased fees are necessary to keep its number one spot. If DD had got in and I could have afforded the fees I would have regarded the SPGS "premium" as worthwhile given the fact that the SPGS Oxbridge hit rate is more or less double that of its main rivals and the teaching is as good as it gets. The problem is of course the (IMO incorrect) charitable status afforded to private schools which makes us all feel the schools have some duty to keep fees down. Frankly unless you qualify for a bursary, you need to accept that private schools operate like any other businesses .Indeed I know people in financial trouble who have been pursued more ruthlessly for outstanding fees by these so called "charities" than by any of their other creditors. Its simply a market place and normally in a marketplace if you want the best you have to pay the most.

What a bleak vision of education! We know what Dean Colet, founder of SPS, would have thought of your talk of performance, results, hit rate, keeping the number one spot, and paying the most to get the best, Lyn.

He said this about covetousness in his Convocation Sermon in 1512: "This abominable pestilence... hath so blinded the eyes of the mind, that we are blinded to all things, but unto those which seem to bring unto us some gain."

It's a pestilence which afflicts West London 500 years on but which Dean Colet's successors have apparently decided to exploit, rather than combat.

I'm not in favour of removing charitable status from schools but it is perhaps time for the Church of England to wrest the St Paul's schools back from the Worshipful Company of Mercers.

Granola I suspect the West London schools with the best results in terms of Oxbridge (eg SPGS, SPBS, Westminster) will always be more expensive than the others. I just can't see this changing in the near future. (It doesn't stop there eg the universities whose students have the richest parents are Oxford and Cambridge etc) . Furthermore the pressure on schools like SPGS to award more bursaries seems to me almost certain to have the effect that fees will simply be higher for the rest of the girls. I think some radical change such as a sliding scale which links all girls' fees to parental income/assets (with some sort of cap at say £50,000) is necessary for schools like SPGS really to be open to all equally as befits a charity but my guess is that this won't happen anytime soon.

I'm afraid you're probably right, Lyn, but I think it would be better if a sliding scale of the kind you describe could be avoided. The idea that the Mercers' Company should investigate every applicant's family wealth and income and then pronounce on what they can afford is a deeply unattractive one.

If fees and fee rises could be kept within more reasonable bounds, more parents could consider SPGS and similar schools for their DC. It is only in the last few years that SPGS's fees have taken off for a different planet and have thereby turned away so many local hard working professional families, who were once the school's natural constituency . It was always a bit more expensive than other schools but it's become quite ridiculous now. The academic education which made its name does not require luxury on the scale it now espouses.

Previous High Mistresses would be startled by the direction the school has taken under its current leadership and by its social impact. For Dean Colet, this indulgence of the super rich would be the very opposite of his vision.

Granola I believe the top US universities like Harvard that admit all students on a need-blind basis already investigate the family wealth of all their (thousands of) new students so I don't see why SPGS cant manage a hundred or so girls. Indeed I suspect that many of the richer parents would simply elect to pay the new top fee rate rather than disclose all their assets.

Lyn

"I think some radical change such as a sliding scale which links all girls' fees to parental income/assets (with some sort of cap at say £50,000) is necessary for schools like SPGS really to be open to all equally as befits a charity but my guess is that this won't happen anytime soon."

What a great idea!

The only thing I'd add is the "asset" test will kill many asset rich/cash poor professionals (think doctors that bought 10 years or more ago and now accidentally own an overpriced house).

Lyn, let's hope we don't go down the Harvard road. The average income of parents of undergrads at that uni is $450k pa, which is roughly the average income of the richest 2% of US households. Yes, Harvard claims to be needs blind but it doesn't walk the talk.

Furthermore, the investigation process is opaque.

No, it would be fairer, simpler, and closer to the founders' principles if these "leading" (and desirable) schools would moderate their costs and fees (put class sizes back up, make do with the nice old buildings etc). Other schools manage to do that.

MN 164 is right about the asset test. A doctor in Barnes won't like to be told by a Mercer (with his estate in the West country) that his 3 bed semi will just have to go.

Bringing the fees back to more reasonable levels is the answer. It's not difficult.

mN164 l
Just looking through the 2014 foundation report and can let you know
82 girls receiving bursaries
43% income spent on full time staff
19% on non teaching staff
7% on grants and award

Thanks. The bursaries numbers in the Aug 2014 Charities Commission accounts were lower. Do you think they gave out a few more this September 2014? (Some will leave each year so it will be a net increase after leavers).

82 on bursaries would certainly be an improvement. It would take the numbers above 10% of the school roll.

Has the threshold for eligibility increased in line with the fees hike, I wonder?

The report covers 1 sept 2013 to -Aug 31 2014
What is very interesting ( for me anyway) is the long list of donors at the back which during this period includes parents of girls who were not yet admitted to the school . Call me cynical but it does tend suggest selection is not merely academically based.

1.365million donated during that period