Decision time - state grammar school or quasi-selective independent school

[Quattrocento]

We truly don't know what to do about DD's secondary education. She has always been in the independent sector and is in year 6 at her prep school. The independent school into which the prep school feeds is nice enough. But we entered her into the 11+ for a state grammar school, and we learned today that she'd passed the exam with a high enough mark to ensure a place. So we don't really know what to do. DD says she doesn't much mind what she does and wants to abdicate responsibility leave the decision to us.

I've made a list of the pros and cons for moving to the state grammar school

1. She gets to mix with a very broad range of backgrounds in terms of wealth BUT it's far less ethnically diverse. I like the idea of DD being able to mix across a broad social/racial spectrum.
2. The state grammar has slightly worse exam results BUT the intake is slightly brighter so the difference might be bigger than it appears.
3. The state grammar school has nothing much happening in the way of sporting stuff and DD is super-sporty.
4. The state grammar school doesn't seem to do much in terms of other out-of-school activities
5. The state grammar school seems to have lower standards of behaviour - lots of children quite badly dressed and swearing etc in a way that made little DD's eyes go round as saucers.
6. The state grammar school is going to save us around £80k on independent school fees. The fees are not an issue now but they would be if I were made redundant (looks nervously at global economic environment).

What do you think?

There is nothing wrong with wanting more disadvantaged children to apply and gain places in higher education - but the current system is not designed to give them any kind of priority.

And you shouldn't punish children for what their parents do.

Also, if someone can scrape together 2Es, they will find a univeristy place - higher education is not completely denied to them.

I am not talking about pupils who scrape 2 Es. That is ridiculous.

The whole point of paying for a child's education by everyone's admission is to give them an advantage: better grades, more sport, smaller classes, no disruption, making good connections. That is what you are paying for.

My children are advantaged by going to a grammar school. I knew enough about the system to find the tests in WHSmith, familiarise them, so that they had an equal chance against those from the private sector and those who had been tutored for two years. Lucky them.

Other people can afford to live in the catchment areas of decent comprehensives.

But I can still see that there are SOME children who may be as brainy as mine who MAY wish to apply to top universities who MAY have only got 3 Bs at A level because of the sink school they have had to attend,or other reasons, and who would prob get 3 As in the private sector.

A good education is increasingly becoming a 'game' to which only the well informed and well off are privy to the rules.

Getting 'help' with the personal statement on the UCAS form, doing interesting Gap year things (using those connections gained)are all subtle advantages that our children have.

I really don't see why a clever child from a terrible school and/or background shouldn't have a tiny bit of 'advantage' too.

I am certain the top universities are not going to squander their places on anyone who isn't able to keep up intellectually with all the others there.

/hitting head off brick wall.

They shouldn't be able to get an advantage through the UCAS system though, as if they had some kind of golf handicap.

If you want a level playing field, then you need to introduce an aptitude test. Or make state schools better.

Same here..hitting head on brick wall.

This has also gone very off topic from OP.

Think we will have to agree to differ. I know what I mean. I can't be bothered to waste my afternoon trying to explain it all on here, have better things to do.

Come to think of it Oxbridge and other top universities do have the BMAT, LNAT and all those other aptitude tests.

As to level playing fields....hmmm.

Hi, I AM an Oxbridge don in charge of admissions in a very oversubcribed subject with a success rate of 1 in 5 applicants from a very self-selected field, mostly holding 10+ As at GCSE. I can assure you all that everyone needs 3 As regardless of their school, that none of us give a monkey's about sport, gap years or being 'rounded', that you can't really be coached because not even the most expensive schools can put in what we want (poential, and you can't teach it) and that anyone from anywhere can make an appointment with a don and get advice on their application, or attend an open day ditto at a college or a faculty. I for one don't allow my admissions team to discuss schools during decision-making. I think admitting people with 3 Bs would only make for misery - the course is very difficult and the unprepared really really struggle.

It has always been a game to some extent.

on the original post you've answered it yourself - many many more advantages of the private school. The state school change would come as a shock to you all and you'd regret it.

I suppose this is where the Cambridge Special Access Scheme comes in:

"Admissions Tutors are aware that some applicants may not be predicted such high grades, but will nevertheless have the potential and the motivation to follow a course in Cambridge successfully. The Cambridge Special Access Scheme (CSAS) is a University-wide initiative that has developed out of the experiences in different Colleges. It is designed to ensure that all Colleges have the information they require in order to assess accurately applicants who have experienced particular personal, social or educational disadvantage."

They also have a scoring sytem that muliplies the no of A* passes by a score for each score, with poor ranking schools given a higher score.

Thank you Milliways - you've specified what many of us are talking about.

And thank you Abby. My own experience as a teacher (in state and private) confirms what I have always felt. I have always found that potential Oxbridge candidates have that rare 'something special', which as you say, you can't teach. They will stand out from among the crowd, be hugely intelligent, exceptionally self motivated and be, in a sense, in a different league. You come across these students in both state and private. The type of school gives them no advantage - as I say, probably they don't need a huge amount of teaching anyway - they are often self-learners. They will get into Oxbridge regardless of whether they've been in state or private. So, pay for your child's education if you want, but don't be under any illusion it will get them into Oxbridge - it won't - if they are up to it, they'd get there anyway. On the rare occasions that Oxbridge get it wrong (Royal Family apart!!) then I think it probably does the candidate a real disservice anyway. I have one colleague who by her own admission scraped into Oxbridge, she never really believed she was good enough, and then really struggled for the next three years trying to keep up, because as Abby says, it is very, very tough.

As to why a greater proportion from private schools get in... well, you'd also find that high achieving state schools, grammar and comprehensive, will have a greater proportion getting in than lower achieving ones. I think it works like this: Highly intelligent parents are more likely to have high earning careers. They tend to (broadly speaking here!) fall into one of two camps: they will either pay for private (often because they went to fee paying school themselves) or the 'liberal intelligensia' types will pay to live in good areas with good state schools. Therefore, you are more likely to get more Oxbridge candidates from either of these two sources. What it doesn't mean, is that paying for your child's education will give them a 'better' chance of Oxbridge - because as has already been explained, they will either have the potential to get in, or they won't.

P.S Thanks also Abby for confirming what many of us have tried to get across, that Oxbridge really don't care about lacrosse playing!

Actually, what she said, Violet, is that they don't look at schools - just grades.

Abby - how then do you distinguish between all the candidates who have 10As and are predicted to get 3Aas? Assuming they are all in approved subjects.

As with anything, the devil is in the detail.

The CSAS is rather full of hedge-words.

[quote]
An applicant will be eligible for consideration under the Cambridge Special Access Scheme if either
of the following circumstances apply:
? Very few people from the applicant?s school/college proceed to higher education and the
applicant?s family has little or no tradition of entry to higher education to study for a degree.
or
? The applicant?s education has been significantly disrupted or disadvantaged through health or
personal problems, disability or difficulties with schooling.

with a following wind when there is an R in the month.

It would be interesting to see what proportion of their undergraduates, and graduates, entered through the first clause of this scheme.

There are so many higher education instututions now that it is is hard to think of even the most deprived sixth form that can muster a few pupils in that general direction.

It does sound like a worthy scheme though. Somehow, I don't think it is the top end of the student spectrum that will need to fear their places though.

Personal statements, references and interviews, Kristina?

Thanks scienceteacher - I can read and I am well aware of what Abby's post said. And I'm sure we can all read the CSAS without it having to be re-written by you.

Btw - it's the weekend now, you can go off duty, you're not in a lesson now!!

Your screen must be showing something different from mine, then, Violet.

when she wrote

" none of us give a monkey's about sport, gap years or being 'rounded "

I assumed that she meant they disregarded references and personal statements.After all, you can get a good personal statement from the internet and I'm assuming that all applicants will have excellent references from their teachers. After all, its in the school's interest to get their pupils in

I agree with violethill - my experience as a teacher of nearly 25 year (gosh i'm old) is that you spot Oxbridge students a mile off. I have taught in independent and state and the ones who get in have stood out from other students and to be honest would get in from either type of school.

I think they care about passion for the subject, which I think you can really only get across in the personal statement and interview.

Other places will be looking for well-rounded candidates. Oxford and Cambridge are only two institutions. There are plenty of other great places.

I think they care about passion for the subject, which I think you can really only get across in the personal statement and interview.

Other places will be looking for well-rounded candidates. Oxford and Cambridge are only two institutions. There are plenty of other great places.

I think they care about passion for the subject, which I think you can really only get across in the personal statement and interview.

Other places will be looking for well-rounded candidates. Oxford and Cambridge are only two institutions. There are plenty of other great places.

You can see that I am passionate about my response

This is very interesting. Our DD went to an Oxbridge college. She went to a private school and got good grades but had no interest in the subject she applied for and was not at all self motivated or a self learner. She was very immature but confident, well spoken and articulate. We were exteremly worried about her going there and expressed our concerns.

She struggled - it took her fours years to scrape a 2:2

IMHO she would have done much better elsewhere

Quattro, oooh, really interesting dilemma! I was educated in both state and private schools and have taught in state, grammar and the private sector - non-selective and selective. Personally I think that the main thing that you are paying for is personal attention; while in post in my excellent grammar school I felt that my students were effectively getting a 'private school education' for free. I know that many parents viewed it this way too. Having now taught in the private sector, I feel differently. In the grammar school I taught more than 500 pupils a week. In my private schools I taught closer to 100. Inevitably I knew the pupils, their strengths, weaknesses, personal situations etc much better and had, importantly, more time to spend with them as individuals. The teaching will be excellent in either sector, but the personal attention may not be the same.

It depends on your child; some thrive in the larger grammar schools - particularly those who are confident and highly motivated. I know others who found that they withered in such a hothouse. At my latest school, I sat in the Christmas assembly and realised that I knew the names of every child in the school. I couldn't say the same after 4 years in the grammar school, much as I loved it. As my Mum says, you're a name, not a number in a smaller school. It sounds like you've pretty much made your mind up anyway, but hope this helps.

Violethill: "Highly intelligent parents are more likely to have high earning careers."

They're also more likely to have intelligent children. This might also explain why their children tend to do well academically!