What is the real value of highly selective independents/grammars now?

[Bubblesbobbles]

Genuine question for parents further along in the process - what do people now see as the actual value add of highly selective Independent schools versus strong grammars/comprehensives?

I’m asking because the level of pressure around 7+/11+ entry for some schools (Bancroft’s/WCH/ICHS etc.) seems enormous now, with many children heavily tutored just to gain entry, and often still requiring significant tutoring/support afterwards.

At the same time, I know pupils from schools like Woodbridge who avoided that whole prep school/11+ treadmill, yet still ended up at places like Imperial studying Engineering and Physics with top A level results, EPQs, UKMT participation, competitions, strong extracurriculars, etc.

It also made me wonder whether mixed ability teaching environments may actually suit some children better in terms of confidence, independence and self motivation.

Another thing I noticed when visiting schools was that advertised “small class sizes” sometimes appeared to refer to form groups rather than actual teaching sets, which surprised me a bit.

I also wonder whether the gap between grammars/comprehensives and Independents is narrower than it used to be now that curriculum resources, enrichment opportunities and good teachers are more widely accessible.

For parents who chose either route — what do you genuinely think made the biggest difference for your child:
academic environment?
peer group?
confidence/networking?
teaching quality?
extracurriculars?
university outcomes?
pastoral support?

Interested in hearing balanced experiences from both sides.

My DD started at state then went private. For me it is 100% about the experience in terms of class sizes and related attention to bringing out her best, superior resources/facilities, less bureaucracy. I'm not at a point where academic outcome is measurable.

For our DS, it was being surrounded by kids from other parents who "valued" education, so they were engaged, did their homework, revised, worked well together in groups, etc, lack of disruption in the classroom, etc. Not particularly any better teaching standards but far less of a "war zone", less bullying, less disruption and the kids who were engaged seemed to all "hype" eachother up to compete against eachother for marks/grades etc, and being successful was cool rather than something to be bullied for. I don't think classes were smaller, there were 30 in his form and about that number in most lessons until the numbers thinned out for the GCSE and A level years for the less popular subjects, but English, Maths and science stayed at 30 per class, more or less.

Clever kids from both will end up at top universities. Obviously, the independents will offer lots of extra curricular, nice grounds, more and greater choice of sports, more hand holding through exams. Possibly a narrower social circle.

Depends whether you want to pay for all of the extras - the academic results and uni destinations will be similar. My dc went to a top grammar despite receiving top independent offers. It was a hard decision but we went with the grammar. They’re at a top uni with someone who went to the top independent we turned down. Most of his friends who went to independents and at the Grammar are at places like St Andrews, Durham, Bath, UCL. Quite a few of their state pals are at Oxbridge but not many of their independent friends including one very talented mathematician who didn’t even get an interview.

It’s hard to say but maybe dc might be more confident if they’d gone to an independent. In my experience, in a state school you need to be a self starter and push for opportunities that are there. If you can’t do that, you miss out a bit. At independent opportunities seems to be handed to you on a plate and perhaps there is more scaffolding? Academic state school pupils perhaps do better at uni in terms of being able to cope with less support straight away (generalising here based on the kids we know from both sectors).

It probably depends on your other options. Our other option is a comprehensive that was ofsted inadequate rated, but now mostly requires improvement. They've had to drop one of their two MFLs for some year groups as they couldn't find teachers. At one point they had no maths teachers. At GCSE they now only offer 9 subjects. I know you don't need more, but when you are often judged on your top 8 and you don't know if the school will manage to staff every subject, that seems like a bit of a gamble. Extracurriculars are sparse. Weirdly, they only thing they seem to do well is having more foreign trips than my DD's independent.

It also depends on the child. My DD is doing 3 GCSEs that our local comp didn't offer, in a direction that she is likely to pursue at university. She wouldn't have suited mixed ability teaching - it would have bored her (like primary school did) and the idea of tutoring to fill in the gaps feels like a punishment.

To be fair, she was very lightly tutored for 11+ entry, just to familiarise her with the types of assessment and she is doing fine now without external tutoring. I went to a highly selective independent too and it always looked miserable to me for the pupils in the bottom 1/3. If people are tutoring to get their DC into that position, I'd say they'd be better off choosing a less academic school.

My son started at a state comprehensive that is in a nice area. I moved him midway through year 9 for a number of reasons: disruption in lessons, endless maths cover teachers and peer group-my son was friends with the popular/wrong crowd. I moved him to a non-selective private school at the last minute. He is very academic and I probably wouldn't have considered it if there had been places at the local selective private schools. However, my son thrived at the non-selective school and he said the children were much nicer than the comprehensive he was at before. He did very well at GCSE.

Given it's an anonymous forum, throwing in something perhaps slightly niche / contested...

We were both Oxbridge and had a great time there. I think it was more about the collegiate structure than anything else, and Durham offers that too, but I don't think anywhere else gives quite the same lovely-bubble feel (although campus unis like Warwick, York, Sussex give something similar, ditto unis that are core to a smaller town like St Andrew's). Anyway, sorry, that's a digression.

But basically, reading the runes, we thought that our kids applying to Oxbridge later from strong state would serve them better than their applications coming from a top private with all the assumptions of wealth and privilege that brings. The system isn't great (may change?), as our kids tbh have plenty of both behind them. But as we move through the school and Oxbridge offers for the sixth form are steadily increasing, and every year more colleges offer the kids lower down the school places on outreach days / study weeks / mentoring etc. The whole focus at Oxbridge at the moment is on increasing offers to state school kids. Ofc there are exceptions (in individual colleges - and many more amongst individual interviewing tutors). But, looking at the way it's going, I thought this route would give us the better shot at an offer.

Now we are at the school and the top sets are stuffed with Oxbridge parents who could have gone private and...it isn't discussed, but I suspect many have made the same calculation.

May well not work for our kids of course. But I thought worth adding as it's something that lots of families w Oxbridge background + money to choose either route are quietly thinking about now.

The title of the thread and the OP are somewhat at odds. For me, the most important benefit of a highly academically selective school, whether state or private, is the peer group. Your DC, provided that they qualify for a place, will be surrounded by children who have demonstrated high academic achievement on the 11+ exams. That's almost always associated with more disciplined and hard working children, lower levels of SEN, lower numbers of disruptive children, lower levels of FSM eligible children (so higher family income), higher parental expectations for education, and higher student expectations for academic results and further education. All these things not only make it easier for students to study, but also make it easier for teachers to teach and teach advanced syllabi.

The difference between highly academically selective state schools and similarly selective private schools comes down to resources, which can manifest in differences in average classroom size; in the quantity and quality of classroom equipment, e.g., ICT or 3D printers; in music, drama, and/or sport facilities; in the number of extracurricular clubs which teachers support; and the number of options at GCSE and A Level; among other things.

The difference between highly academically selective state schools and "strong" comprehensives will depend both on how "strong" the student population is at the school and the extent to which the school can use setting in their classes. A comprehensive with 3 classes/year might set only in math whereas one with 10 classes/year will be much more able to timetable setting in other subjects such as sciences and MFL, and the students in the top sets at a comprehensive in a well-to-do neighborhood might well be in classrooms with the same types of students as at an academically selective school.

@Goleen
Your children must go to quite an unusual state school. I don't know any parents at my local comprehensive who went to Oxbridge although I live in a nice area. I also know that most comprehensives (three quarters of them) do not get even one single child into Oxbridge.
I think peer group really matters. If your child goes to the local comprehensive and say they are a sporty boy whose friends don't really care about doing well, no matter how academic they are, they are less likely to do well.

@CaptainBeefheartspal

Clever kids from both will end up at top universities.

Ahh, the old "bright kids will do well anywhere crap"!!

No they won't. Not if they get stuck in a crap comp with poor behaviour, a succession of different teachers, bullying rife, etc. Yes, "some" can still thrive in that kind of environment, but most won't.

I was a straight A pupil when I started at our local "crap comp". I left after five years without a single qualification and a hallow shadow of my former self after five years of hell, bullying including physical assaults and property damage, hiding at breaks to avoid being hit/spat or burned with fag ends, going home with a ripped coat or bag after they were slashed with a knife etc. I just became completely disengaged with learning - it's hard not to when you've just been beaten up at lunchtime!

It was only after leaving the crap comp then my education got back on track as I did it via adult education evening classes and self study, eventually after getting my A levels, then did chartered accountancy exams. By the age of 25 I was back where I could have been at 21, but only after I left formal state education!

My DH has a very similar story. Different town, different crap comp, but very similar in that he too, only really started his education after leaving state education but he went to college instead of doing it himself, and despite very poor school exams, he got distinctions and merits in his college diplomas.

Failing crap comps will damage the educations (and have social implications) of a large proportion of their pupils (victims) however bright they may be.

Er, you’ve misinterpreted my post. I’m talking about clever kids from Grammars and Independents as per the thread!

My son is at Reading, which is a super selective grammar . He knows boys at Imperial, Oxbridge etc who were at Reading but he also knows kids from “normal “ schools at these educational establishments too.

My experience is roughly the same as @Badbadbunny

I think a lot depends on the state school offer. I’m in London & there are some excellent states in & around.

I don't know any parents at my local comprehensive who went to Oxbridge although I live in a nice area.

Definitely not unusual near me & I have friends who went to my school that went to Oxbridge.

I like the extracurriculars privates offer but with more than 1dc & at 30k a year I didn’t think it added enough value.
@Goleen there is definitely a sense of that and there is a trend of private dc
transferring to state 6th form.

We are lucky to have an excellent state option nearby & the school sets from yr 7, dc is in the top set. It’s also not a massive school so they feel confident. I don’t recognise the disruptive, negative learning aspect others experience in state. DC is surrounded by dc who want to do well & with parents who expect it, same as I was

Parents who value education, no disruption, no ‘all behaviour is communication’, doing well and learning is seen as positive instead of uncool. Massive focus on sport, especially for girls. Focus on resilience. Before and after school care available as hoc as well as school transport, facilitating working parents. No kids leaving at 2:45pm to wander the high street in huge packs, dressed in black Nike sportswear.

I should say I went to catholic schools as do my dc with a fairly high 1st/2nd gen immigrant intake. I think that tends to bring a fair amount of parental focus on education

Have v bright kids. One has been through state system and did v well and is now at one of the top unis for the subject.

Other kiddo struggled. Moved to grammar school in Y9 and thrived in an environment with like minded kids.

Private has never been an option for us.

Value for highly selective independent schools:

1. Foreign families work placements can’t get grammar school or comprehensive school place before home/ flat location so easier to apply overseas for school and get home nearby.
2. US universities applications with sport scholarships. Knew UK families with track and field, swim, scholarships to US and means tested so financial aids to top.
3. Applying to top European universities as cheaper than UK.
4. MFL GCSEs choices.
5. Drama schools and external performances
6. Music conservatories and Junior music school schedules
7. SEND support for some schools.

Don’t think there is much difference in some places in UK but in certain areas there is a wider spread of attainments. Though for Oxbridge application seems to treat top grammar and private schools the same. It seems it is your school cohort grades, which they get from UCAS.

I think the main benefit, as others have said, is being surrounded by others who value education, and have parents that do too.

Independent vs state Grammar is trickier and depends on the schools.

Our local area has excellent state grammars, and the private schools are for those that don’t pass the 11+. I’m sure my DC wouldn’t have gained anything extra at an independent school.

The other plus is the pace. My understanding is that at comprehensive schools they DC are in sets for eg maths, English and languages, but nothing else. So in other classes the pace needs to be slower. That can be frustrating for the quicker pupils, having to wait for others to get it.

We sweated over this decision, but in the end DS went to state. He would have got top grades wherever he went.
I went private, and was spoon fed my education in a bubble of privilege. I didn’t want that for DS.

Absolutely this @user149799568 . DD is currently doing A levels at a large comprehensive. It's a faith school and has a city wide catchment and parents have to actively choose the school which I think makes a difference. She's been in top sets to GCSE and did well in them. She's predicted AAB in her A levels. The school is very mixed in the socio economic sense and her friends there have been bright and hard working pupils and most of them from families who really struggle financially from what I can tell - house moves forced on them by landlords putting up the rent or landlords evicting them etc. - but these kids are really expected to work hard. Lots of the friends have parents who were not born in the UK and they really want their kids to do well. I went to a grammar school and I did not want this for DD,, and that would have been an option as she'd probably have got a place over the county border. But then neither did I want the small more local comprehensive that's had a big turn over of headteachers and has poor results and pupils banned from the supermarket near to it. Peer group does count at secondary school.

Thanks @fairyring25 , I didn't know this stat and wouldn't have guessed it. Reflects my own ignorance - and I guess shows, @Bubblesbobbles, quite how unusual it is to have a 'strong comp/grammar' available (we are in London and, as @footbeds says, there are quite a few of both).

@footbeds
You are very lucky to be near a comprehensive with hardly any disruption in lessons. I think the London comprehensives do significantly better than ones in other parts of the country.
The comprehensives near me are average in the UK in terms of results. There is lots of disruption in lessons even at the better ones. The area has a growing population and most schools are struggling to recruit and keep teachers.
I agree that 1st/2nd generation immigrant parents are often very keen for their kids to well and so if your child is around these kids it helps in terms of peer group expectations of working hard.

DD was born with a physical issue where kids are at documented higher risk of bullying and poorer academic outcomes (despite the condition meaning there should be no reason for this).

For us, getting her to adult life with her self esteem and confidence intact is the priority. For her, that is easier in a school surrounded by well-behaved kids who are bright, like her. No one makes her life difficult for reading Shakespeare or getting 100 per cent on a test. With teachers who are able to spot pastoral issues developing and are empowered to deal with them.

She could get good grades anywhere, especially with tutoring we could easily afford, but I want her to be confident and happy which is far from guaranteed and then be able to maintain that into adult life.

It is absolutely the case that some children will do better being at the top of a mixed cohort than being in the middle of an academic one. The key is knowing your own child.

We went state primary, private secondary. Although the state primary was in a lovely genteel leafy area, the difference between the two schools was staggering. The pastoral care at secondary was priceless. It didn't exist at the primary. That won't be true of all selective independents but the other things we valued probably are:

They are in a class of peers who value hard work, who admire and respect good results. I was astounded when DS told me people wanted to be his friend because he came top. At my comp, you'd get bullied and isolated for being a swot. Even if the pupils aren't naturally the brightest and continue to need support, the point is that they share a work ethic - that it's worth working hard to get what you want. That if you fail, you try again, you don't give up. Both my DC learned a resilience which has really helped them.

OP, I think you are right that some pupils are better suited to mixed ability classes. They may develop more slowly or flourish under less pressure. I do know that DS2 felt like he wasn't very bright because he wasn't destined to get 10 A* GCSEs. But we reassurred him that this isn't necessary and when he got to a very good uni, he soon realised he was one of the most academic and hardworking students and easily got a First. In his case, I think he needed to be around bright pupils so the bar was automatically raised. But for some children, they will flourish better if the bar is easier to jump iyswim.

I got into a brilliant uni from a rubbish comp. I had support from my parents, my boyfriend and a private tutor in 6th form. But no support from my peer group or any teachers at my school. That was lonely and confusing. If you do pick a state school, go for one where both teachers and pupils are encouraged to take pride in academic achievement.

Our DC are very clever, grown up now. Our local selective grammars were Tiffin, we'd have had to tutor to get them through the Tiffin test, because you do. They would probably have got in had we applied. However, both DC were natural linguists and that wasn't a particular strength at Tiffin. Therefore, and because we could afford it, they went to highly selective independents and on to Oxford and Cambridge respectively. No regrets whatsoever.

In the context of value added, no disruption, high expectations across the board, excellent sport and musoc facilities, excellent curriculum which as standard included a choice of MFL and classical languages.

Depends where you live.
We live in a comprensives area. No grammars but the local schools are excellent and local 6th form college has very high Oxbridge rates. My DS and all his friends have been through the local non selective comp. They are all sitting on offers for top uni places including Oxbridge, medicine, Engineering and Russell group. It would have literally been a waste of money for the parents of these kids to have gone private.
Peer group does matter so yes middle class professional parents do help ensure expectations are high But you get that anyway around the good schools due to house prices.