independent or grammar which to choose

[tiffinboys]

How about SPGS/NLCS (indies) vs HBS (State)?

Which one will you prefer?

HBS; as did my friend and her DD. They declined SPGS/CLSG/few others and have never ever regretted the decision.

[lefol]

Some people tend to get very worked up about this topic ? It is difficult, pehaps impossible to say a parent should choose Indie over GS or vice versa. It clearly depends on the indie in question, the academic results and what it offers. If you have a highly perfoming GS local to you and are fortunate to get your dc in, you may wish to take it and pay for the extras out of school such as music, drama, sports etc. If you are stuck between a choice of a top performing indie and a top performing gs , then it comes down to finances, if you have the spare cash and are not worried about the net invoice from the school, then go for the indie. Some parents feel that getting your son into an indie, means you drop them off at the gate, pick them up in 7 years time and they will have 4 A*s , an admission to Oxford and have performed at the Barbican with a group of Eton lads, No! You still have to work with them and all the extras at the indie come at a price. If you ds or dd is going to perform across America in Lord of the Rings, you pay for it, nothing is free and you pay for the school fees in addition and you may have to pay for a Tutor on top when they approach GCSEs. I have ds1 and ds2 , one in gs and the other in indie. Both have thrived quite well, but overall , I rate the teachers in the gs as they give rigorous and individual attention to the pupils and parents at no cost to me. Ds2 is very rounded, he does as much as ds1 in terms of music, rugby etc and some of which are free in the gs. With ds1, we did not have the option of a gs, if we did, i would have taken it. He is at a very good indie and not one I would swap for the local comp.

It is naive to generalise and compare indies with gs in general. You have to pick out two schools and compare. GS have more of a social mix as they take children from a variety of backgrounds, whilsy indies take those who can afford it and a very small proportion from bright kids on a bursary.

[menagerie]

For us it came down to a couple of things which were key.
The local grammar (which is super-selective - one of the most sought after in the country) had a feel to it that none of us liked. Very hard to pinpoint it, but we all felt it strongly. I could be wrong, but it seemed to be a school that suited boys who have an exceptional ability to absorb complex information rather than create it and think for themselves. The work on display was all about rote learning and regurgitation of facts. I mentioned this to a friend when chatting about schools and she said, 'Oh that's interesting. My sister is a maths lecturer (at an Oxbridge College) and says boys from that school tend to get great grades but don't understand how to use maths, how to think around the subject. ' That echoed how we felt about the school.
The other grammars all had excellent qualities, but the one I loved best had a really weak music dept and DS is passionate about his music. The one DS loved best was miles away in a rather bleak inner city area and would have required us to move nearby which DH refused point blank to do.
The independents we looked at were consistently strong in all the areas we cared about but notably seemed to be far more about nurturing independent thinking and manipulation/extension of ideas.
That's just one view of one set of indies and grammars. I know if the grammar near us had felt right we'd have sweated blood to get DS into it. But it really didn't. It could be any number of reasons: indies don't have to follow the NC; grammars do. Indies have smaller class sizes, grammars are state sized. Indies may (guessing) attract more eccentric teachers who are passionate about their subject. Some of these less orthodox teachers seem to be so disenchanted by the tickbox culture of state ed that they get out.

[Amber]

Some choose inde for the pastoral care. This was our choice for DD at eleven as we felt she would not thrive in a super high-achieving school full of bright thrusting young sparks...not because she wasn't intellectually up to it but she lacked confidence and found the social side of girl culture hard to take. The caring atmosphere of the inde allowed her to fly academically. She then chose and was fortunate enough to get into a super high-achieving school full of bright slightly older thrusting sparks for sixth form and absolutely loves it.

Not sure what this illustrates! The only thing I would say is that the stereotypes which some parents seem to latch onto are really not accurate and I think as a parent and teacher I can confidently knock all of the following on the head:

1. Children at grammar school are nice, well-mannered and keen to do nothing but study, play chess or sport and use their hankies properly. They come from Nice Homes and their parents are upstanding members of the community;

2. Children at inde ditto, just richer. (I actually read someone on here opining that children at inde always want to do their work with no fuss. Er...) They come from nice big homes and their parents are upstanding and wealthy members of the community;

3. Children with the misfortune to attend any other kind of school are loutish, tattooed, promiscuous and drunk all the time. Their parents are usually in prison or camps for failed asylum seekers. Any 'normal' child who attends one of these schools will soon be either assaulted or ostracised by all the ne'er do wells there.

In short - a school is a school. I am older and wiser than I was when we started this lark and I would say (deep breath) don't pay for it unless there are really good personal reasons why a child needs a particular approach, be it pastoral as in our case (and we do feel it was worth it) or because a special need, interest or talent really can't be met elsewhere. Sports, music, drama etc can all be done outside school, usually cheaper and you meet a wider range of people doing them.

I would like to copy and paste Belinda' s caveat here too - just a view , no intention to offend.

[twelveminus]

Hmm, you say 'don't pay for it'. And then you say you are very glad you paid for it.....

[KS10]

don't pay for it unless there are really good personal reasons why a child needs a particular approach, be it pastoral as in our case (and we do feel it was worth it) or because a special need, interest or talent really can't be met elsewhere

What's wrong with the above explanation?

[Amber]

Hmm, you say 'don't pay for it'. And then you say you are very glad you paid for it.....

No I didn't. I said 'don't pay for it unless...' And then gave several reasons why you might.

Cross posts KS10: I thought it was pretty clear too.

[lefol]

"don't pay for it unless there are really good personal reasons why a child needs a particular approach, be it pastoral as in our case (and we do feel it was worth it) or because a special need, interest or talent really can't be met elsewhere. Sports, music, drama etc can all be done outside school, usually cheaper and you meet a wider range of people doing them"

Amber's point above really does sum it up well and I agree entirely.

[twelveminus]

I think private is good for a first child, because you can get a much better feel with the second child what (if anything) they are missing out on and you should fill in the gaps, if you choose not to send them private.

Things like Oxbridge prep (which I didn't get at state school), clubs, drama, music, etc.

[Looking for help]

I would not go down the independent route if I could not provide the same for all my children.