I am requesting feedback from parents of girls who already attend the school. If your daughter is amongst the brightest in the year, how has the school managed this throughout the school, are the girls streamed and how effective is the teaching for these abilities. Also how big are the class sizes for the top stream girls. I really want to know if the girls continue to be motivated, inspired and challenged to achieve their best throughout their time at the school or is the mixture in the class so varied that more abled girls are left to their own devises to learn with more help given to their colleagues.

Please provide any other useful insight that you may have, I am very grateful for all your advice.

SHS is a selective school, and then if you further select for the top set then that group are all going to be bright girls by definition. As such the mixture in the class is never going to be “so varied”. To my knowledge the top sets are fairly small, but considering the school is a relatively small one anyway (Year 7 intake about 70 ish) the class sizes are never going to be huge anyway.

If you are after a after a super academic school then SHS may not be the one for you, you may be better off looking at Wimbledon High, or LEH, or Nonsuch, but plenty of girls at SHS achieve very well indeed there. Considering 66% of GCSEs sat last year were returned at A* or A, this would suggest that (considering it won’t be a completely even spread) the “top set” girls achieve more than 66% of their GCSEs at A* or A. In fact a statement on the school website regarding the GCSE results in 2017 says:



and


To me this suggests that the “top set” girls will achieve very high exam results, and this can probably only happen if they continue to be motivated and challenged.

Hmmmm.....being facetious, only if you make the assumption that all those scores were attached to the “top set” girls, which of course, you can’t. They might actually have been achieved by the other sets, working harder....the top set might have got complacent....!!

I don't understand the question. I taught in a GS for many years and no child excels in everything.

What do you mean by 'advanced ability'?

Not stalking you, alwaysadad , but your previous posts have been on the decision between Sutton High School and Nonsuch. By now, you must surely have had to make that decision? Did you reject Nonsuch and are now wondering whether you have made the right choice for your DD?

_________________
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.Groucho Marx

Current year 9 has just over 50.
I don’t think they have had a group of 70 for some time.
The Junior school has two classes of around 20 with maths and English streaming.
Of the 20 or so girls in the top set in the Junior school around half go to Nonsuch or Wallington and a handful to Wimbledon/LEH or now Epsom as it has year 7 entry.
About 5 or 6 of the top set Junior school girls will continue into the senior school.
Some of those will have tried for Nonsuch and Wallington but not ended up with a place.
They are streamed for lots of subjects in the senior school with the bottom sets being very small ( sometimes 8 or so girls).
The higher sets are larger.
The current upper sixth has 20 or so girls.
Sport is strong as is drama.
I don’t think the pace is comparable to Nonsuch or Wallington but Wimbledon High probably is.

This is clearly not true. Some kids do excel academically at everything and end up getting 12 A* at GCSE, 4 A* at A-Level etc. One of my mates at my (highly academically achieving) school was top of the class in every subject, and it was the same few other suspects filling up the top marks just behind him in pretty much everything. I don't suspect things have changed too much over the years, and my own children's experience at school tells me that often it is the same few kids that excel in every subject.

You can get all A* at GCSE without being the best in every subject - and then choose 4 or 3 A levels where you might get A* but, the subjects you reject are ones you probably would not excel at....

You may be very good at every subject but are very very unlikely to be the best at every one. This is what Guest is saying.

You may “excel” academically but be a social numpty with few friends. Or you may be terrible at sport/art/music.

No child excels at everything. The title of the thread makes me shudder like when I hear fingers down a chalkboard. It has an air of presumed superiority which I hope is not how it was intended. No child excels at everything but every child is good at something - a decent school/upbringing will help tease out that strength....and it may not be academic, but does not make it any less worthy.

I agree with Kenyacowgirl, and I also think it is important to remember that kids all develop at very different times and speeds. A child who appears to be average at primary school may end up being one of the highest achievers as they get older and vice versa. I am sure that my kids are very different to the OPs but they all found secondary school very different to primary with many more able kids combined with so many new subjects. I also understand that the OP wants their child to be stretched academically. I think good teachers do this, whereas some teachers don't even in high ability groups irrespective of the school the child attends.

Yes KCG summarises what I meant.

Getting 12 A*s does not mean they excel in everything - we get a number that get those sort of results. What about PE? Technology? Drama? Music? Art? I've never met anyone that was a complete all-rounder.

Again 4 A*s at A level is not uncommon and that is only 4 subjects ...