Private Boarding vs. Day School vs. Grammar

[Breeze67]

As a parent of a Year 5 DD, I’m struggling to justify the premium of a private day school. My primary concern is the disruption and mixed academic abilities in comprehensive state schools, which is why a selective school—be it a grammar or an independent one—seems like a solid solution. There is so much praise for independent schools, but when you look at the time factor, it gets complicated: When you look at how little time kids are actually at school—only covering half the year (private schools have much longer holidays) and only 8 out of 24 hours in a school day—it is clear that the heavy lifting, the real character building, and extra learning still happen at home. If we parents are doing the bulk of the work, what are we actually paying the big fees for?
Despite the fancy surface, much of the day-to-day experience between a grammar and an indie is not significantly different. Whether it’s museum trips, sports days, or classroom activities, the core experience cannot be vastly different. Is a class of 20-plus kids in a private day school really that much better than 30 in a top grammar? Of course, a difference exists, but likely impacts less than 1/3 of the school time. So, if we look at the maths, it’s 1/3 (the advantage) of 1/3 (the school day duration) of 1/2 (the school year), which is only about 1/18 of the year's time! Are we paying a figure roughly equivalent to the UK average salary for what essentially amounts to a 1/18 difference in yearly education? I am shocked by the number.
This leads me to wonder: is boarding the only true exception? Personally, I will not do it because I just enjoy my kid's company every day. But logically, only full boarding offers a genuine holistic education. It is a 24/7 immersion into an academic and social community that a day school, by design, simply cannot touch.
So, if day schools aren't significantly better than grammars, and I’m unwilling to consider boarding, am I left with a compromise? Are we paying for a superior education, or just a different peer group?

SPGS music is very violin/cello/piano heavy though, brass is virtually non-existent, at least at high level, but this is a problem of all girls schools.

DD loves orchestral work but really struggled in g5 level ensemble. When the gap is big, it becomes really boring and frustrating.

One of the other nice things about SPGS is that if the thing you want to do doesn't exist, you're encouraged to set it up and ask for help running it. So an amazing brass player who wanted more opportunities would absolutely be free to set up a brass band and get people to join and run it themselves or ask for help to run it. They really encourage students to pursue their own interests. DD set up something that didn't exist before she wanted it and it's still running now, a year after she left. It will continue until there is no demand and then probably someone else will set up something different for their own niche interest.

When the gap is big, it becomes really boring and frustrating.

Yes, I agree, that's why I sent my daughter to St Paul's. The gap between her and her peers at her perfectly good primary was boring and frustrating her and I didn't want it to carry on and maybe make her think education was pointless.

You cannot set up a brass band if there are no players 😂
Our brass friends are happy there as they are cherished and they're after academics anyway. We were more after music so didn't consider SPGS, even though I think it's academically a very interesting, unusual school.

No players? Who is playing in the orchestras?

Continue your insults. Not " anyone". Yours.

And no, she was neither hothoused nor a genius.
+
The gap between her and her peers at her perfectly good primary was boring and frustrating her and I didn't want it to carry on and maybe make her think education was pointless.

That logic ...

Of course she was gifted. But you play how it is convenient in argument

When the gap is big, it becomes really boring and frustrating.
Yes, I agree, that's why I sent my daughter to St Paul's. The gap between her and her peers at her perfectly good primary was boring and frustrating

I thought the gap mentioned by Ubertomusic refers to the difference between her DD's music level (JD) and that of her peers (Level 5) in the orchestra, which is understandably boring and frustrating. I am not sure if you meant this regarding a primary school orchestra (no one expects those to be particulaly good), and it seems your DD is not as advanced in music as hers. Perhaps you meant a gap in academics? Regardless, whether it is music or academics, if your primary concern is the peer group, a super-selective school can meet your needs; whether it is St Pauls' girls or a top grammar school (provided you have that choice logistically) does not matter.

From what you described about SPGS, I find the true X-factors about that school are: 1. it is very liberal, specifically regarding its light homework load; and 2. it provides a wide variety of extracurricular activities for all levels and supports students in creating their own if they wish. These two features stand out, not only as superior to state schools but also as rare among private schools. If I were in your position, that is what I would prioritize. Unfortunately, I could barely afford it, as it is very expensive even by private school standards (and there is no meaningful fee reduction via scholarship).

@BonjourCrisetteAn orchestra might have some brass players but it’s not a major choice of instruments in a girls school, even St Paul’s! At my local music centre, the brass players weren’t in the orchestra, they were in the jazz band and the dance band. Amazing musicians too! Mostly - boys!

No offense to BonjourCrisette, but I think you really hit the nail on the head. Her first statement implies that SPGS turns a girl into Oxbridge material without hothousing or exceptional talent. Her second statement shows that SPGS has an exceptional peer group. Either way, SPGS is a great school, period. TBH, I actually agree with her, despite her contradictory lines of reasoning.

Violins! 😁

Brass in middle school looked rather patchy... Some excellent players we know through other projects, but they're solitary so cannot support a really big sound. It would be impossible to play Mahler, for example. The rep is always limited by the structure of the group and their level. I think they bring in SP boys in later years?

I've heard decent saxes tbf but they're not orchestral, and saxes are popular everywhere, DD's former school has really strong jazz groups so it wasn't a factor for us.

At the spring concert, most of the brass players were not students. Some might have been teachers, some might have been brought in from the outside. These ringers didn't participate in the rehearsals throughout the term; they came in only for the concert.

IMHO, the girls are SPGS are not all geniuses. Not even close. In terms of speed of learning, their group mean is well above the population average, but closer to 90th percentile than 99.9th. Where they are seriously exceptional as a group is their discipline and work ethic. Between these, and exceptional levels of parental support, they achieve very highly.

So, in terms of how they're most exceptional, as a group:

1. discipline and work ethic
2. parental resources and support
3. "innate ability"

I have little direct experience but, I suspect I would say similar things about kids at the superselective grammars in London.

Again, just my opinion.

their group mean is well above the population average, but closer to 90th percentile than 99.9th.

Do you have any evidence for that—something beyond personal experience, perhaps in the form of exact numbers? Your numbers simply do not match our direct evidence. The mean CAT score (though not a perfect indication of learning speed but should serve as a good proxy) for my DD's private primary school group is around 125, which by definition places them around the top 5% of the population. Since only just a few top students from this private prep typically meet the entrance standards for SPGS, the SPGS's student group mean must be significantly higher than the 95th percentile, likely closer to the 99.9th than the 90th.

No objective evidence, just personal experience.

One point of clarification: in my field, it is common to measure "distance" in these percentiles in log space, so 90th percentile to 99th percentile is the same distance as 99th percentile to 99.9th percentile; in each case a factor of 10 in rarity. So my statement was to say that my guess of the average "ability" of the girls is below the 99th percentile. That said, I do actually believe 95th percentile is closer to the truth than 99th percentile.

A few comments regarding CAT4 scores:

• These scores do improve if you're more familiar with the papers. GL strongly advise that children do not do any practice papers, that the examples before each section will be sufficient familiarization, but that's bullsh*t. At my DD's prep, they started giving these papers in Year 2.
• Beyond familiarization, these scores do improve with practice. Since Covid, an increasing number of prep school kids have been doing a lot of Atom practice, which has a fair bit of overlap with CAT4.
• At DD's prep, the CAT4 score they wrote on the senior school references was the higher of their scores in Year 5 or Year 6. They didn't tell us an average for the school but I suspect they would have used the same methodology.
• I haven't seen any studies specifically about CAT4 but there's a vast body of literature showing a very strong positive correlation between IQ test scores and socioeconomic status, to the point that you can't really get much information from them without adjusting for SES, sort of like you can't get much information from raw scores on IQ tests without adjusting for age. I do know that the average SES at DD's prep was well above the population mean and I'm pretty sure that the average SES at SPGS is above that.

At DD's prep school, by Year 6, about a third of the students had CAT4 scores in the 130s or above. This is, by the way, very consistent with your DD's primary's average of 125. At DD's 4+ entry prep, these were children selected when most of them were still not yet 4 years old. I accept that 1/3 of these children had at least one CAT4 score (in either Year 5 or Year 6) which would have put them in the top 2% of the population. However, I do not believe that 1/3 of them were in the top 2% of the population for any sort of ability that I deem relevant.

it is common to measure "distance" in these percentiles in log space, so 90th percentile to 99th percentile is the same distance as 99th percentile to 99.9th percentile; in each case a factor of 10 in rarity.

Although you are technically correct, your wording is confusing and likely misleading. It would be better, as you just reworded, to simply state that you believe SPGS students are closer to the 95th percentile (1 in 20) or that they do not reach the 99th percentile (1 in 100), as that is understandable and makes sense. However, if we follow your definition of "close" in log space, one could also argue that SPGS students (assuming they are 95th percentile or 1/20) are much "closer" to mediocre ability (the 50th percentile, or 1 in 2) than to high level intelligence (the 99.9th percentile, or 1 in 1000), because 20/2=10<1000/20=50. while that is mathematically correct in log space, it is utterly pointless and misleading in communication.

I am also not a fan of the CAT4, but it is the only data I have that come close to measuring "innate ability" or "learning speed" that you speculated. At the very least, there is some positive correlation. @user149799568

The CAT4 subscores do give some information about a child's relative strengths.

Between two children from similar SES families and with similar preparation, I agree that a higher overall CAT4 score is likely indicative of higher ability, of some sort. I do not know the extent to which this is true for children from very different SES families or with very different levels of preparation. I do know that children in private schools are far from the population means in both SES and preparation, so I don't agree that you can extrapolate that an average CAT4 in the low 130s, which is what I've read for schools like SPGS and Westminster, implies that the average student there would be in the 99th percentile of the entire population.

I agree that an innate ability of 95th percentile (1/20) is a good estimate to start with. Allow me to do a back of envelope caculation: around 50,000 girls are born each year in Greater London and the number of year 7 students in the highest tier schools, private and grammar combined, is roughly 1000. Double that number to include any innately able children who somehow don’t apply (because of money. distance,preference etc) or don’t prepare well. So it is 2000. 2000/50000=1/25. Therefore 96th percentile in innate ability might be roughly the MINIMUM requirement for entering schools like SPGS.

We're in the same ballpark. My main comment would be that the fraction of families who wouldn't or couldn't pay for private schools is much larger than 50%, even in London, so there might be a difference between privates and grammars.

Anyway, my original points were these:

• I believe that the family incomes (and parental support) at SPGS are even more exceptional than the girls' abilities. 99th percentile household income in the UK is probably around £350k (99th percentile individual income was recently reported as £207k). My guess is that the median income of SPGS families is above £350k.
• I also suspect that the girls' discipline and work ethic is more exceptional than their abilities, although I have no data to back that up. I only guess that based on the number of girls who do things such as achieving Grade 8 in music, which is really more about putting in 1500-2000 focused hours than about talent.

I believe that the family incomes (and parental support) at SPGS are even more exceptional than the girls' abilities. 99th percentile household income in the UK @user149799568

Your belief regarding the 99th percentile of household income for SPGS seems to come from nowhere. While income often boosts academic performance, there is a clear point of diminishing returns. Among the top 1% of earners, this correlation largely disappears; in fact, one could argue that extreme wealth sometimes leads to a negative correlation with academic success.

I only guess that based on the number of girls who do things such as achieving Grade 8 in music

You must also take into account that music is a resource-heavy subject and susceptible to socioeconomic status.

The benchmark for the top 1% of earners with a taxable income is around £205,000. In London it’s not that unusual of course but it’s not extreme wealth. It will almost certainly be someone who is well educated, stable, have drive and determination and have dc who are similar. The very top are of course very wealthy and inherited wealth is another matter - you just need to have good advisers.

99th percentile individual income was recently reported as £207k. 99th percentile household income for households containing two adults with at least one child is rather higher than that.

I'm not clear what you're saying. OTOH, you seem to disagree that SPGS families are exceptionally well off financially. OTOH, you seem to imply that the girls achievement in music is because they are well off financially.

I am not necessarily against your conclusion, as I have no evidence of my own to contradict it. However, I am not satisfied with your reasoning. Why focus on the 99th percentile? Why not 95% or 96%? Furthermore, why do you assume the family income of these students is more exceptional than their innate academic ability? I honestly do not know, and I am unclear how you arrived at that premise.
Regarding Grade 8 music, one must be at least middle-class to afford the years of private tutoring required to progress from Grade 1 to Grade 8. Therefore, it is unfair to compare the self-discipline of students at a school like SPGS with that of students from lower-income backgrounds who may not have had access to similar musical training.

DC's music including 1-2-1 violin lesson, ensemble, choir and solfa lesson cost me no more than £100 per month a few years back. It was a solid if not too advanced training that got her to grade 8 in four years. Grade 8 does not require a lot of teaching hours, all you need is 1 hour per week with a good teacher and 1 hour of productive practice every day.

That music school probably costs £150 per month now. Yes, if a family struggles to pay the bills, they won't be able to find extra £150 for music, but I don't see this cost as something only MC can afford.

Council music centres are even cheaper.