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.

We keep comparing homework and projects across several schools so I see what you mean.

True. The reality is that there is no truly non-selective school in the UK in areas where selective schools exist. Because selective schools are available and parents prefer to send their children there, the remaining children are essentially left behind, resulting in a form of reverse selection. True non-selectivity certainly has its merits, which is why I would fully embrace a genuine Finnish-style education system that is completely non-selective. Otherwise, my only real option is to join the rat race and strive for a place at a selective school.

@swdd I don’t see evidence of the secondary non grammar pupils being “left behind” in Bucks. We have 13 grammars but quite a few extremely good non selective where many dc go off to university and have 30% or more high achievers. Plenty of comps have nowhere near that. Quite a few of these schools have vast numbers of appeals to get in. The parents don’t see dc as “left behind”. Their top sets often achieve as well as the lower sets in the grammars! Only a mark might have separated them at age 11 so why would they fail to thrive?

The main difference between our system and Finnish is not the lack of selectivity though - that gets lots of focus. But their funding model is also very different with the intention of providing equal opportunities for all; and population density is also not comparable with SE England. Completely excluding academic selection, the UK system has a lot of social selection baked in - good schools can basically rely on people moving to the area to get in and keep high levels of funding and good teachers. Less good schools which are undersubscribed face the opposite problem. Both of these exacerbate a vicious / virtuous cycle that means 2 comprehensive schools not too far from one another can have very different vibes, (in)ability to offer wide curriculum, and peer groups.

We decided on a private school for our dc's due to the 100% support they would receive from having dyslexia. It was apparent from the state primary school they attended, they didnt have the funding to help. We had to pay to have our dc's accessed to see what level of support they needed with their education. Where we live, they have great grammer and private schools but not so in a secondary schools. Our local secondary school closed and the next school in our area was over subscribed. They would of definitely have stuggled and it was the best decision we made for them. We ended up putting the school fees on our mortgage but my oldest is at university and my middle dc's got good grades with his gcse's. Also the school has given them confidence with their learning and the class sizes are smaller. They are happy and thriving.

In a normal comprehensive, there might be two top students in set 1 maths who are similar to the super bright students of Westminster, SPGS and Tiffins but most of their peers will not be

I don't think this is true had they been given the same opportunities as the Westminster/SpGs etc students. Dd1 was at a standard primary and there were probably 6 or 7 people in her class that were as good at Maths as she was. 1 went private and she got into one of the super selective grammars, but I have no doubt that the others could also have excelled at grammar or private.

Also those talking about London and selectives/ private. London is not a grammar area. Where I am, there are a handful catering to the whole of east and north London. The vast majority of children go to comprehensives so I don't think you do have the " brain drain" that you may get in places like Kent.

@Stowickthevast With an average year group size of 200 in a secondary school. Roughly 4% would have a score of of 127+. So 8 students out of 200. Usually for timetabling purposes, a year group of 200 is divided into two halves. So you would have two top sets in a year group. There would only be four students in each top set who had a score of 127+. This is still not that high. Once you get students with 135+, you may only have 2-3 students in the top set. In schools like SPGS and Westminster, at least 50% of the students will have a score of 130+.

How did you know you were straight A before starting secondary school? Primary schools don’t grade in that way.

@fairyring25 but the people at Westminster etc generally only got into those schools after either private primaries/preps with small classes and extensive exam preparation or parents who invested in intensive tutoring. IMO most kids in a top Maths set at a comp could achieve similar results with that early hot-housing.

I thought all state 6th forms were selective to an extent, in that you must have achieved required GCSE grades to get in. Ours is a big non selective London state and for 6th form you need x number of GCSEs at 5 and above and minimum 7 in your chosen subject (subject depending). If current pupils don’t achieve the right results they can’t necessarily stay on. I thought that was standard.

@Stowickthevast I don't think you can get 130+ on the CAT test just through tutoring but I agree it helps. I think that a naturally very bright kid is better in a selective environment.
@bovrilormarmite Non-selective sixth forms near me only require 6s for maths ans science. No average grade of 5 to get in-some have less than a 4. You just need a 5 in English for gmhumanities subjects at A-level.

For those of us beyond the rarified world of 'super selectives' a 6+ is not non-selective. Nationally only about 50% of kids get 5+ (i think - working on memory not stats).

There are obviously far less of them, but very high attaining kids at comprehensives are just as 'bright' as very high attaining kids in super selective environments.
It is totally possible to get a full set of 8s and 9s at a comprehensive and also be happy and have friends. Im sure very academic kids can thrive in super selectives. However, they are simply not available to the vast majority of very high attainers. Grammars (of any level of selectivity) are only available in small pockets of the country. Score only super selectives only make up a small proportion if the grammars that exist.

Maybe I’m not understanding this but asking for a 6 (a B) is still being selective isn’t it? What’s the definition of selective?

I have a relative (not DD 🙂) who is on track for all 9s in STEM GCSEs at a comprehensive. Taking maths, further maths , physics & possibly history at A level at a local sixth form college. Happy at school, played for footie team & had a good circle of friends. Targetting selective STEM uni courses. I dont think he is less intelligent than kids at super selectives or less happy. In fact i think his journey might have been less stressful. Im not bashing super selective environments, but intelligent kids can thrive in comprehensives. Not everyone aiming high needs or wants thst type of environment. & they arent available to most anyway.

@bovrilormarmite You could say asking for a 6 in maths or science is selective but it is also just ethical. You are statistically very likely to get a U grade if you only had a 5 for maths or science subjects at A-level. All schools require those grades for those subjects to prevent students failing but many will get Ds and Es. Taking students with the lowest possible grades that just allows them to pass e.g. a 5 in English for Sociology but an overall average grade below a 4 is not really what I would call selective. Those are just the minimum grades for all comprehensives in the country. I believe that some of the state sixth forms in London have much higher grades for entry.