@Everh0peful
My son is in the 6th form at Hampton. He did v well in GCSEs, mostly 9s and a couple of 8s. He will no doubt do very well in his A’levels and is hoping to go to Oxford and read Physics. But if I had my time again I wouldn’t send him to Hampton. I’d read very closely the comments made by VLCC, because she is right. Plus sides of Hampton, surrounded by lots of v brights boys who all want to do well. Down sides of Hampton, surrounded by lots of v bright boys who all want to do well, it is a pressure cooker. Hampton School is a business, they don’t want much interaction with parents, at Parents Evenings, there are no sports teachers there. The Pastoral Evening was online last week, it automatically timed out after exactly 5 mins. I am paying over £20,000 a year, you think I could talk to a teacher for 10 minutes once a year! The talk by Head of year for Lower Sixth started with ‘I’ve told the boys it isn’t automatic they go through to Upper Sixth’ which was news to me! I must have missed that in the small print. My son did rowing last year - fantastic facilities there - but his school dinners (£6 a meal) were insufficient to feed him and they provide no other means of getting extra food during the day. I work full time and so was make extra pack lunches to supplement the over priced meals. In the 6th form the boys have no choice but to study an AS level, this is on top of the 4 A’levels my son is studying. AS A’levels have been dropped by most schools, but if you are already taking 4 A’levels (you have to if you want to take Further Maths), it’s too much. They are exhausted. So in conclusion, think carefully, they will definitely get the results, but my daughter who is at Oxford now, with just 3 A’levels, had so much more fun in 6th form. Hampton, with its current Head and Deputy Head of Academic, is a tough school and I wish I’d picked a more nurturing school.
I worked with a guy who went to St Pauls. I had my eldest boy down for Collet Court at the time, and he talked me out of sending him there.
Apparently St Pauls is also a hot house. The teachers took the view (at least when my friend was there) that they provide excellent teaching, and if a kid has a problem engaging with that, for whatever reason, then that isn't their problem. The teachers don't see it as their job to persuade or cajole their pupils into engaging, and indeed the staff room had a queue of kids outside it each break and lunchtime trying to get their teacher's attention. (It certainly wasn't like that at my school!). So the picture I was given of St Pauls is of a school where the kids are in a perpetual race with each other, even for their teachers attention. Those who fail to engage are basically ignored. Some kids might prosper in that environment, but many do not, certainly my eldest would not have.
The other thought that occurs to me is why is the maths exam at Hampton so incredibly above and beyond the level of Key Stage 2? If they were doing A level maths in 3 years time, then I could understand it, but they aren't. They wont be doing GCSE maths for 5 years after they join. So what the hell are they going to be doing for the first 5 years? Take a look at a GCSE maths paper - it really isn't that exacting. So what are they going to do with these massively tuned up kids for 5 years? There is only so much enrichment you can do.
Add into the mix that Oxbridge could, if they wished, entirely fill their intake each year from a handful of private schools in the UK. Obviously they can't do that, so schools like Westminster, Eton, St Pauls Boys, St Pauls Girls, Hampton, LEH, Winchester etc.. effectively operate a system of internal rationing - limiting the number of their own students who they support in applying to Oxbridge. So if your kid is extremely bright, but perhaps not in the top 20 in their year, then the SCHOOL THEMSELVES will act to prevent your kid applying. That same child, were they to apply from a local comprehensive, would almost certainly walk in.
So what actually are you getting for your £20k to £40k a year if you go to such a school?
To get into the school your kid has to be almost at GCSE level in maths - at 10! Your kid is going to spend the next 8 years in some mad arms race to get noticed by his teachers, they are going to have to absolutely work their butts off (despite only sitting external exams that are a walk in the park), and then at the end of it, if you aren't one of the school's chosen ones, the school itself will try to discourage you from applying to Oxbridge, and certainly wont support your kid's application.
Surely it makes sense to at least consider whether it isn't actually a much smarter decision to send your kid to a good comprehensive, and then spend a fraction of the fees you would have spent on external tuition, especially given that so much incredible and inspiring teaching is now either free or very cheap online.
This whole process has been a real eye opener for me, and the whole educational rat race we throw our children into seems to be driven by a combination of parental insecurity and a naive and blind faith in educational achievement. Of course we all want our kids to do well at school and to have wonderful and enriched educational experiences. I am just beginning to wonder if sending your kid to an exam factory is the best way to achieve that.