PLS educate me, what's the BUZZ about going to INDIE schools?

[worriedbub]

Hello all

Pls just go be clear ,I'm not asking for difference between state schools and indie schools. This question is really about choosing between TWO INDIE schools

This is really a genuine question as I’m finding myself in the middle of it all as well

Pls what exactly is the real motive of going to the top indie schools, even when having an option of going to two top ones. For example choosing between St. Paul’s girls and JAGS for example , they are both academically up there,

What exactly is the main reason for parents willing to relocate and even change jobs just to be near a top indie school. For example they live near a GDST school which is also a good indie school and they have an offer but then they are really pushing for ALLEYNS/st Pauls girls and are willing to relocate near these schools?

Aside from the culture of the school, isn’t it the same GCSE and A level results they are going to sit with every other secondary school?

Do unis like Oxford and Cambridge choose from top indie schools first before going to other schools?

Is having an indie school on their CV going to help them later in life ?

I’m genuinely baffled as to what the craze is behind going for a school like St Paul’s Girls Rather than Dulwich college/GDST schools for example ?

Sorry if my post isn’t clear . Hope you get the gist😊

In our small city only one state achool out of 4 gets contextual offers

What an interesting thread. It’s a dilemma we’ve spent a lot of time on recently. We’ve picked a top 5 school over a fantastic midrange local private school. It’ll involve some upheaval to our lives, but worth it. The top school is single sex, we like that. We really want DC to be surrounded with academic kids. I’m especially worried about them going into the teenage years, so I want them to be somewhere where it’s cool to work hard and do well. I don’t want to be pushing them academically or arranging tutors. I want school to push them so that we can relax at home.

Gosh, I wish people would stop equating “academic” with “STEM” and “success” with “medicine” or “Oxbridge”. The arts and humanities are of value and it’s just as difficult to be good at them, and medicine is neither at the top of the list of most highly paid careers nor a comfortable life. And other universities exist.

(I say this as an Oxbridge STEM graduate, btw)

And “Uni”. Eurgh.

Going back to the contextualisation discussion, Oxbridge contextualise every applicant. As well as looking at things ucas can flag such as postcode and type of school etc, every applicant’s GCSEs are contextualised against the school average and scored. So yes, as a previous poster says, someone with 8x9 and two 8sin a very top where the average is better, will be given a lower contextual GCSE score than the person with weaker GCSEs from a lower performing school - regardless of type. It’s about whether you’ve outperformed your cohort or just done very well amongst everyone else who does v well.

Some parents agonise over choice as they are hyper-competitive and trying to see which of the good schools might deliver a slight extra academic edge. Of course it’s hard to know because exactly where your child will sit within any individual school performance is very hard to predict. But as recent posts show, some are extremely focused on squeezing the last drops of performance and advantage out of the school.

Others are less competitive or know their kids won’t be the very top performers and are looking for other stuff - sport, drama, pastoral care, balance, etc etc.

I suppose every person shelling out £20-30k per year for day fees wants to feel they’ve targeted their money and child to the right place as it’s a big investment.

Couldn't agree more! It gets a bit irritating when people look at you in pity when you say your DCs are doing humanity A levels rather than bloody Maths, Physics and Chemistry!

I definitely agree with this last part - from my own personal experience, I sent my low-confidence dc to a non-selective indie and I can absolutely confirm that they would have been better positioned, ability-wise, in the local state school.

As it was, the pastoral care was very good and their confidence soared, and we moved to a highly selective school and it has been a huge success. But academically they were badly positioned at the first school.

If selecting a lower ranked indie, be careful that the GCSE outcomes (there’s always a lot of movement at 6th form so don’t worry about that yet) are meaningfully better than the available state schools because they really might not be. Their added value might be pastoral care, music, SEN or sport, and that might be what you want to pay for, but be clear about that from the start, know what you are paying for, and be open minded about state if academic outcome is your goal.

My understanding about Oxford contextual offers is that a candidate who fits into certain categories that indicate disadvantage will be called for interview if they are predicted the standard entry grades. The grades aren't adjusted-they'll just be given the chance to have an interview. Happy to be proved wrong, of course, but I think that's how it works.

I’m intrigued at how postcodes can be a nuanced enough tool for contextualisation. My Victorian terraced street has a number which are modernised, extended and house very affluent families like mine. In between these are properties which are divided into flats and are run by the local housing association. The people who live in them are not remotely privileged or well off. We all have exactly the same postcode. This setup is replicated all over London and probably in most cities.

@Heather37231 I think postcodes are only one factor.

But if they are a factor at all, they may be a very misleading one. Isn’t it dangerous to include a criterion that could give completely the wrong impression?

@QuiteAJourney Some parents who live in the Wimbledon area would love to send their children to a local school, but they don’t agree with the school’s focus and standard. Not heresay, I know this because I live locally and know more than 10 parents in the area who have this view and have chosen to send their DDs to other schools. WHS requires students to take an average of 9 GCSEs, while many other schools in the range of result required on average 10 or more. This may be part of the school’s intention to lower the girls’ pressure and provide a broader education beyond the curriculum, but it also makes its league table ranking look better.

WHS also has a stronger emphasis on humanities subjects than STEM, more so than some other GDST or girls’ schools. The number of Oxbridge offers is not the be-all and end-all, but it is often used as a public measure to compare how well the school challenges its top students. Parents would love to see other comparable metrics if there are any. It is encouraging that WHS has 14 offers this year and I hope those girls can meet the conditions and secure their places in the end. However, it is also true that WHS has had low single-digit Oxbridge destinations in the past few years. In relation to the OP’s question, this is a typical example of local parents who think the direction of the local school is not aligned and opt for other schools with better fit.

No different to parents in Putney not sending their daughters to PHS or parents in Hammersmith not choosing SPGS /G&L/LU or not choosing KCS for a boy if living in Wimbledon.
All these schools have differentiating factors and different families have different priorities.
For some 9 GCSEs is a positive, others not so. Others will choose depending on sport, drama, happiness of children. Others will choose purely on league tables and Oxbridge places.

@witscreek @fieldsearl , agree and why school culture and curriculum fit with DC and parents are very important.

@fieldsearl , given that @witscreek has already well made a point I was going to mention (quite a few girls in my DD's year at WHS live very close to PHS or LEH for instance and chose WHS, probably not dissimilar to some girls that chose those schools but live in Wimbledon), I thought best to focus on some of the 'facts' in your post

• you refer to an 'average' of 9 GCSEs. I think that may be confused between 'average' and 'minimum'. It is actually a minimum of 9 GCSEs. DDs at WHS do a minimum of 9 GCSEs plus PPE. Some opt out of PPE and do 10 GCSEs. Others do 11 GCSEs if, like in other schools, they do an additional MFL (usually one or 2 years early, which the school supports).
• not sure where the statement/belief about more focus on humanities than science comes from. Completely agree with the point (eloquently made by @trickleg) that it is rather interesting (some would say concerning) that people think that some subjects as superior to others or Oxbridge as be-all-and-end-all (I wonder where in the pecking order that some people operating with that value framework comes a Neuroscience degree from Imperial vs a Classics one from Cambridge! Does Oxbridge trump science? Or the other way round?). Some parents may indeed find focus on humanities (or MFL) an attractive factor in a school. But beyond that, it is worth nothing that Biology, Chemistry and Physics are the most popular GCSEs at WHS (apart, obviously from the compulsory Maths and English ones) and that some 50% of the results are a 9. Incidentally all results are available online.

I am sure that WHS is not to the liking of all... no school is... and depend very much on preferences and personal experience (which is why I find interesting when people make generic assertions)

@Heather37231 "But if they are a factor at all, they may be a very misleading one. Isn’t it dangerous to include a criterion that could give completely the wrong impression?"

Could-but in the vast majority of cases, doesn't. I can't think of a better way of identifying kids from disadvantaged areas.

"Going back to the contextualisation discussion, Oxbridge contextualise every applicant. As well as looking at things ucas can flag such as postcode and type of school etc, every applicant’s GCSEs are contextualised against the school average and scored. So yes, as a previous poster says, someone with 8x9 and two 8sin a very top where the average is better, will be given a lower contextual GCSE score than the person with weaker GCSEs from a lower performing school - regardless of type. It’s about whether you’ve outperformed your cohort or just done very well amongst everyone else who does v well. "

Thznkyou @WombatChocolate. That was what I meant and I was talking specifically about how Oxbridge contextualise and score GCSEs against the average cohort of the individual's school (regardless of whether it's independent or state).

Every school has a UCAS profile page which states the school type, ethos, curriculum (inc number of GCSEs students take due to timetabling; number of A-levels - 3 or 4), class sizes, GCSE and A level results over the last five years etc.

So, for instance, my DC who went to LU (where 3 A-levels plus EPQ are standard, alongside the 'Latymer Diploma') was not negatively contextualised by Oxford for not having 4 A-levels because this is not the practice in that school (unless the 4th A-level is FM or a language they are very competent in anyway). If they had been at G&L, where 4 A-levels are normal (because about half of students do IB, so they offer 4 A-levels to prevent A-level students having more free periods than IB), they might have been negatively contextualised if they had dropped the 4th A-level in the second year. If 4 are offered, they are expected to do that, Oxbridge are looking for students who outperform their cohorts and the advantages available to them in their school. Hope that makes sense.

I acknowledge that PHS or LEH may have similar issues, but I focus on WHS because I know the DDs who live near the school and walk past it every day to commute to other schools.

WHS's average GCSE subjects per student is 9. We know how averages work: if there are many students who take 10 or more subjects, that means there are also many students who take 8 or less. The data can be verified on the school website.

Regarding the university destinations, I agree that Oxbridge is not the only goal. Certainly, some other subjects at some other universities can be more appealing or suitable. It is not about the ranking of university subjects. However, it is worth noting that other schools have similar or higher numbers of popular STEM subjects at other London universities compared to WHS, in addition to their better Oxbridge results.

As has been noted on other threads, it's interesting how much negative posting goes on about particular schools right around the week of 11+ results. Some people might come to the conclusion that it's sour grapes (their DD didn't get in) or tactical (their DD is WL and wants to put off other parents). Whatever the reason, I would be very wary of posters suddenly criticising particular schools just as parents are in the decision-making process.

(I have no axe to grind re WHS. I don't live in Wimbledon and although my DD did get an offer there on Friday we won't be taking it up in favour of a school closer to home).

Minimum of 9 GCSEs at WHS - a student would only take less if they'd been ill etc.

Not everyone can be top 5% academically. Lots applying to really selective schools hope their child will be. Even in the very top schools all have a ‘tail’ and some who won’t do as well as many in a not so selective, or som in a non-selective school.

In the do-called mid-tier schools a sizeable number will get all 9s at GCSE. A v bright student won’t find themselves alone.

And this idea that 10 GCSEs must be better than 9 - no. Most schools offer flexibility and know 9 8/9s is better than doing 10 and having a lower grade in there. Universities will not favour those with 10 over 9 excellent grades. Many highly selective schools are moving towards less as the usual - because there is no merit in more beyond a strong, rounded range.

Going back to contextual stuff. Contextualisation is the process of looking at individual applicants’ ucas application and seeing it in context. Lots of the measures are blunt instruments but the level of nuance some might like isn’t possible in such a large scale operation. It’s not done to disadvantage the privileged but to acknowledge achievement achieved in less privileged circumstances. Postcode, schools attended in areas which typically send less to uni, free school meals, being a young carer or having been in care can be considered. Schools can also identify other mitigating circumstances.
Some universities such as Oxford use this data to partly inform shortlisting for interview. If your stats are strong and v strong for your school or context, you might get an interview when someone with those stats from a more advantaged background won’t. You’ll still have to perform in the interview. If you then meet their minimum performance criteria (which will be high) you might get an offer instead of someone who does a bit better, but the offer itself is unlikely to be different to anyone else’s. They give it as they think the candidate can achieve it. There is no contextual (Lower) offer. Occasionally there can be a requirement alongside the offer to attend an extra course.

Other unis which for most courses don’t interview might give a lower or contextual offer 1 or2 grades below the standard offer. It’s to widen participation.

Lots in indie schools‘ parents feel annoyed about contextualisation and contextual offers and see it all as taking the places their Kids deserve. But the efforts people take to secure independent places, as shown on this thread and others indicate the advantage such schools can and do give. At the end, people often think their child’s top achievements are all down to their ability and hard work and as top achievers they deserve places more than someone with slightly achievement. At that point they often forget the advantages rather have bought which are shown in both grades and other outcomes of a privileged education. They think contextualisation and contextual offers work against a meritocracy but forget their child’s grades were not achieved in an equal education system and many who have achieved far less in more challenging circumstances are probably cleverer or have more potential. Those students will do as well or better in their degrees and careers. But people like to feel their big spend has bought them an advantage that can’t be eroded. Of course other more subtle advantages do remain and remain through life and it’s difficult for anyone to give a really well-argues explanation for why contextualisation shouldn’t happen or happen more. But it still makes people cross.

@fieldsearl It is very generous of you to provide such detailed and stark views on WHS in a general thread about which factors are taken into consideration when choosing schools, especially on the strength of living locally and seeing the girls that commute to other areas.

There is lots of public information on choices, number of GCSEs (and people can generally work out minimum vs average), destinations, etc. Speaking with parents with direct experience is also a good idea, especially one assessing quality of teaching, ethos, inclusiveness, etc. Which takes us back to the topic under consideration - I think it is strongly recommended to speak with parents with DC in the school (including higher up, when the 'honeymoon' period might have disappeared), attend offer holder events (not one to speak with teachers but also with fellow parents), etc. Above all, it is about what might work. best for your DC.

@QuiteAJourney - I agree. This was originally quite an interesting thread about why people might prioritise certain schools over others! Not sure why the poster seems to single out WHS on the basis of 10 of her friends not sending their daughters there. Presumably they didn't apply there and don't have other children there so they don't have any first hand experience anyway.
Having had a child go through GCSEs fairly recently, whether they took 9,10, 11 etc would be one of the least important factors in choosing a school for me.

I was curious about the same things as OP and I inquired my friends about their decision logic. The reason they gave was quite common among them. I have no DD and have no bias against this school personally, I would love to see them joining WHS too. Some friends got offer from WHS through 11+ from local prep school, but they declined it eventually - they may not have firsthand experience, but I don't know anyone who didn't apply at all. One or two DD came from junior and switched out, and some are going to other sixth form schools.

A rather interesting post, not sure if you may want to edit or if indeed you 'don't know anyone that didn't apply at all" (that is quite remarkable, especially if people had the concerns you highlight) and also that you 'have no DD and no bias against this school personally, I would love to see them joining WHS". Do you mean no DD at WHS currently - and, given your views, I am quite surprised that you would love to see them joining WHS.
On the points about some people rejecting and some switching I think that previous posters have made the point very clearly.
Best of luck with whichever educational journey your DC (if you have any) take.