Girls’ Day School Trust GDST advertising everywhere

[Nandy2]

We’re looking at one of their secondary schools for our DD. Knew about it as it’s local to us and has a good reputation, not through any advertising. But I must admit that the fact that I’m seeing glossy GDST adverts every day in the newspaper and even in train stations on massive posters, is a bit off putting. Does anyone know why they are feeling the need to spend so much on advertising at the moment? Surely a good school, or the trust behind it, should be able to use its reputation and not need this sort of advertising. I’ve always thought that schools that advertise are those that aren’t full or aren’t really that good. From what I can gather, the school we’re looking at already has multiple applications for every place. Would be very grateful to hear your thoughts. Should they be spending the money elsewhere or is the marketing really important for them to keep attracting students. Maybe in their range of schools some are popular and some aren’t, so this is helping to bring up some of those that aren’t doing so well? Would love to hear your thoughts.

Perhaps the organisation is trying to put itself 'out there' in front of a pool of potential applicants (or rather, their parents) from groups who would not normally be in the 'word of mouth' population or be alert to the 'reputation' of the schools? Expand the gene pool a bit and all that?

I noticed this too. I would be surprised if they’re spending lots to be honest. It may be that they have a parent or someone on the board of governors in advertising that got them a sweet deal. The adverts are really attractive and look quite ‘vogueish’ they’re playing up to the feminist hype so I’m assuming they are just trying to get their name out as a trust rather than a specific school. If the trust has lots of money they can get more schools in. Lots of reasons really- I wouldn’t think it was because they’re struggling.

I'd agree it's not because they're struggling but just to widen the potential applicant pool. Certainly nothing to worry about.

They need to attract the strongest applicants if they are to maintain their places in league tables/top university entrance etc.
The likelihood that the strongest applicants are all concentrated in the small pool of locals, alumnae, those with friends and family already at the school is nil. Hence they widen the pool as much as they can. That‘s how successful organisations survive.

I have noticed this. They’re on a flyover billboard near where I work.

If you look at their financial history on the Charities Commission web site, their spending now virtually matches their income. They have underspent by around £1m in the latest set of accounts. Historically there was a much greater difference in favour of underspending.

Therefore I would say they are looking for more donors by getting their name out there. They have reasonable fees in many cases and are well known for their bursaries. If they cannot generate more income, then presumably cuts will come (to something!). It’s not anything to worry about but the trend is clearly towards spending virtually all of their income.

I agree with the above, plus they have a great opportunity with the feminist movement to pull at a few strings. Their marketing team know what their doing by the looks of it.

I have noticed this too. I don’t think it’s a negative thing. Two of the schools my daughter will sit for are GDST schools, and it hasn’t put me off!

I definitely don't think they are struggling to attract applicants. My DD is going into year 7 at one GDST school this September and I can tell you the number of applicants for 2019 entry for this one school was 'unprecedented' (their words, off the record, via a governor). I have noticed their advertising too but wondered if I notice it more as we have gone through the process?

I'm sorry to say, I don't like the Where Girls Learn Without Limits'. In this day and age I find it old fashioned. I'm certain a boys school wouldn't use the same line!

@Thesunalwaysshines I couldn't agree more. Hence why I think they have a great marketing team. 'Where Girls Learn Without Limits' is just using the feminist movement for gain and I don't like it but business is business and if i put myself in their shoes- its a great way of making more of it (business). If you have a unprecedented amount of applicants that's also a lot of registration fees etc and the ability to raise fees and attract other girls schools.

This is very similar to how academies operate- a bigger pool of money to play with.

I think there is quite a variation in the popularity of their schools. The London ones, Putney High, Wimbledon High, Blackheath and Nottinghill and Ealing are massively over subscribed. I’m not sure the same is true for the ones outside London though.

I'm sorry to say, I don't like the Where Girls Learn Without Limits'. In this day and age I find it old fashioned. I'm certain a boys school wouldn't use the same line!

Boys aren't limited in a mixed school. Girls can be limited by the presence of boys.

Very few countries in the world educate the sexes separately. The Scandanavian countries that are persistently shown to be the best countries for women are co-ed. IMO that's not a co-incidence. Single sex schools are most popular in Muslim countries which are a lot lower down the "best countries for women" list.

IME boys don't limit girls. DD is at a co-ed and is not limited in any way and nor should she be. I appreciate that GDST needs a USP but claiming in 2019 that bright girls feel limited by boys is insulting, modern girls are a lot more sensible than that.

www.businessinsider.com/the-best-countries-for-women-us-news-world-report-2018-3?r=US&IR=T#2-sweden-falling-one-position-from-its-top-spot-in-2017-swedes-have-the-most-progressive-attitudes-towards-gender-equality-according-to-a-report-from-yougov-20

I am European and in my country we don't have single sex schools. I have 2 DD and 1 DS and I have chosen single sex schools for my children. I wish i could have learnt in the same environment they are learning in ! Especially my girls who both attend a GDST school - no pressure to be "cool" in front of the boys. And the most amazing and encouraging environment to learn in, with some fantastic opportunities which I think are partly due to the fact that the 25 schools in the trust are able to share resources and experiences. I also really like the fact that they give so many bursaries and scholarships - I think I read that it was one in five at their senior schools. So I would not read too much into the advertising campaign - the chief executive of the trust has a background in advertising and I think they are trying (as a poster above has already mentioned) to attract more applicants out of London.

The stats for attainment, esp in STEM subjects, shows that girls do better in girls schools. GDST is marketing well to parents conscious of that. No biggie. Agree tho that fortunes are mixed across the trust. The London schools, Oxford, Brighton and hove still doing well. Some others are struggling and have become academies.

Sorry but I think it's all hype. I went to a school in this club and was bullied by both girls & teachers. It was hideous. I didn't do any better than my friends who went to the local state school.

With my DDs, I vowed that they would never go to a single-sex school. Both have done/are doing STEM A levels and absolutely flying. They have equal numbers of male and female friends at school and have a much healthier relationship with lads than I did. Yes, their school is great, and it doesn't cost me a penny!

So, that’s your kids. I could place against that my own fantastic experience in a GDST school, and my sister’s and now, my niece’s. But what’s surely more relevant is the fact that STEM take up is much higher in girls schools.
Girls on the whole do better in girls schools. The reasons for that are not hard to find.

GDST schools are selective of course the STEM take up is higher than the average, sciences are difficult. But triple science is compulsory in most selective schools, single sex or co-ed.
We can all come up with our personal stories of why one or the other was better for us. But the Scandinavian countries are consistently the top countries in which to be a woman. They must be doing something right and I suspect that it starts early.

Volpemum- that's interesting. My DCs have gone to single sex secondary schools ( DD to a GDST one) and reading what you said led me to think about the other parents there. There are LOADS of European parents who almost certainly went to CoEd schools themselves so they must have decided on single sex for a reason.
Having said that, in London especially, lots of kids apply to a variety of secondary schools and often the single sex/ co-Ed is not necessarily the defining factor in which one they choose in the end.

And OP - what does the advertising say? It is probably highlighting that bursaries are available etc and trying to widen access. Charitable status is still under the spotlight, especially if a Labuor govt comes in, and that is a huge group of schools so they will stay on their toes. Its nothing to worry about, even Westminster advertises!

CAkeisalwystheanswer sorry but i wholeheartedly disagree with you ! And I speak from first hand experience.

The reason the gender pay gap - or whatever measure you want to use to establish gender equality - is to do with the fact that Nordic countries have a much better welfare state and much better initiatives which support women returning to the workplace such as great childcare initiatives (subsidised childcare provisions / day care system that is earnings related) Even the article you provide in your post above mentions pretty much in every point their advanced welfare system. It has nothing (or very little !) to do with the fact that they only have co-ed schools!

Sorry just re-reading that and i missed a line
"the reason why the gender pay gap is smaller" I meant to say.

There is no evidence that Nordic countries are more equal because they do not have single sex schools. It seems far more likely that there is less demand for single sex schools because the societies are more equal I.e. parents do not need to worry about their dd’s being disadvantaged in a sexist environment. UK parents cannot be so sanguine.
Girls choose STEM at higher rates even when you look at selective schools only.

volpemum - you don't have to agree this is MN! it would be very dull if we all thought the same stuff. Each to their own. But you may want to consider why the Scandinavian countries have a more equal society.

We are churning out another 200 Boris Johnsons/David Camerons this year who will expect to be running the country in 20 years time and probably will be.