Intrigued by the 'bright child will succeed in any school'

I'm in two minds about it. I come from a deprived area and when I left school after GCSEs (to go onto a separate sixth form), only 29% of students got their 5 GCSEs and the school was in special measures.

On the one hand, there were people who left with a bunch of As, and after sixth form went to Russell Group Unis. These were obviously the bright kids, who were motivated and work hard. If you're one of these people then the school didn't matter, you were successful anyway.

However, it requires a lot of work. There was no culture of studying or doing homework (homework was very, very rarely given. Probably an hour a month, total for all subjects.) so everything had to be done of your own accord. I was someone who coasted along since primary school and most of secondary. I was probably bright, getting separated to do A-Level maths in year 8, for example. (This was before two schools joined and the school started failing). However, the teaching was poor and there definitely wasn't any encouragement to do homework or to study for the GCSE exams. So I didn't. And I ended up leaving with a couple A's but mainly B's (and a D in physics ), and I don't doubt that if I had been at a school with a 'learning culture' I'd have done much better.

I think for a 'bright child' to succeed they need to have a work ethic, and want to study. They also need to have parents who encourage homework and revision. If they have this then yes, they can achieve anywhere. If they're simply bright, they won't reach their full potential.

Disscussion not discuss

Bertrand
The thread is not titled "Only bright kids get bullied - truefact!" It is a discuss of the oft repeated trope that bad schools don't impact on bright kids. Somehow their academic ability will shield them from a poor school environment. In the anecdotal evidence on this thread that is clearly not the case. Bad schools have a negative impact on all (or very nearly all) the pupils within them to some extent.

You do realize that people who aren't clever get bullied for that too........?

At my dd's grammar school, the 7th Maths set had a horrible time. And I bet there are thousands of people who struggled in all sorts of schools who remember being mocked for not understanding things and being bullied for being thick. They just tend not to post on websites peopled largely by middle class educated people..............

I left school with a few mediocre passes, I was bullied at school all through secondary and was told that I was rubbish at most lessons, my reports all said I needed to work hard and the teachers didn't bother with sorting out issues like having to share a reading book with the person next to me who was a much slower reader, I used to read the page two or three times and then sit and do nothing because I was so bored. I'd get detention because this apparently meant that I wasn't trying. We weren't taught how to revise or taught any useful study skills, most of my revision was reading and no note taking because we were just told to read. A few years after school I enrolled with the OU and did a degree combining physics, chemistry and maths and other short science courses plus a couple of other random subjects. I got a 2:1 in the end, but I'm thick so I obviously got lucky. I think my school has a lot to answer for.

A bright kid will succeed in a school where they are happy and supported and where the ethos both at home and at school is to work hard and achieve.

Being bright isn't the issue. Its being committed to your learning that counts. I taught in inner-city comprehensives. Within the same school we had those bright children who didn't succeed and blamed the school, and those who left with a cv and qualifications looking like they'd been to one of the top local independents. Attendance, Attitude, Ability in that order. And 'Attitude' applies to the parents' as well as the children.

I was very bright (top of the year) in a terrible comp. We weren't in a grammar school area and it just never crossed my parents minds to send me to the next town, it's just not what people did in those days. And as another poster said, they probably believed the hype about the new comprehensive education.

Throughout primary school I had been a year ahead of my age group. Have met a few people my age (early 50s) who this happened to. I think it was probably an experiment they did then. The only problem was once everyone in my year left and went to secondary school aged 12, I was only 11 so had to repeat a year and it was a complete waste. I lost a whole year of my education.

Got to appalling secondary school. Some of the teachers were so dire I couldn't believe they got away with it. Even at that age we were able to recognise the teachers were crap. In our first physics lesson the very old male teacher said girls didn't understand physics. The biology teacher spent all the lesson chatting to other teachers in the prep room. Our German teacher left and the school couldn't get a replacement for nearly a year. We lost so much time none of us in that year were able to do O Level, we could only take CSE. There are many stories I could tell...

Anyway I didn't really realise how bad it was as I had no comparison. It wasn't until later at college when I met someone who was about the same intelligance level as me, but she had been able to take 12 O levels at grammar school. I took the maximum for my school and it was only 8.

In the area I live education isn't valued at all, not surprisingly there is very little achievement. I have to keep quiet that I'm a graduate or I get negative comments. My child is bright, but I'm not sure how she'll withstand this. Luckily she has one very interested and caring parent, which is more than I had, so that puts her in a better position than some. I don't think the school is the problem, the school is ok. It's the area and the people who live here. If I would afford to move I would do so in a flash.

I guess if the question is "Can a bright child succeed in any school?" the answer is clearly yes (if there is parental support etc) whereas if the question is "Will a bright child succeed in any school?" the the answer must be "it depends/not necessarily".

opioneers I think that failure by parents adequately to support their kids at primary school level is shocking.It is not exactly difficult to listen to your kids read / read to them at night/ensure they have books they enjoy and know their times table etc. Indeed in the state sector kids get very little homework and some parents can't even be bothered to assist with that. In my experience at primary level the kids at the top of the class are almost always the ones whose parents are the most involved in their education.

Not RTFT, so responding to OP's post mainly. It's bollocks, that theory. I had a similar problem to yours. Ex grammar comp. Bullied for being bright and keen. Lost motivation. No one noticed. Because I was still achieving Bs and Cs in most subjects and As in a couple. Only two teachers intervened - a maths teacher (bless him) who helped me get up to grade B and a lovely French teacher who taught me practically everything I learned in seven years at that school.

I hated it. And I left with the very deeply ingrained defensive belief that hard work is something to be scorned and will leave you friendless. That the smart thing to do is wing it. That got me into real difficulty at uni.

As some posters have said, a happy child is more likely to succeed at any school. (Not necessarily though. They may be so busy having fun with their peers that they don't bother to study. )

To this day I struggle massively with self motivation and organisation. That's partly genetic. DS2 is similar but goes to a great school where it's cool to work hard, where the popular kids are the ones who come top. He has become so much more hard working and connected and methodical than I ever was. It's a joy to see. And DS1 who is natural born hard worker and geek just scampers in joyfully, never bullied or mocked for his eagerness.

I strongly believe that bright pupils are done a massive disservice by many schools and that they need and deserve a school where the ethos is on hard work, personal best, achievement and intellectual curiosity coming as much from their peers as from the teachers. Well, all pupils deserve that, but the academic ones who don't shine on the sports field or in drama/dance/singing do especially, as they can be less socially gregarious and need an atmosphere that includes them.

I think it depends at what stage. For a child who has been supported at primary school, it might be true. But if a child is bored and switched off at primary level, it's hard to make up that ground later on.

findasolution _I wasn't necessarily talking about tiger mums in the Amy Chua sense - I was talking more about parents who supervise their children's academic studies properly (a surprising number don't even bother to look at their children's homework books) and who insist on their children making their academic studies their first priority so there is no play until homework is done etc.

There is quite an interesting recent book by a US psychologist -Leonard Sax- called "the collapse of parenting" in which he bemoans the fact that over the last few decades US/Western parents have sought to befriend their children rather than to accept that they -not the child- need to take responsibility for making decisions and be more willing to impose discipline.

This may be easier for ethnic minorities since they still have more of a culture of respect for elders and parents tend to be more willing to impose discipline on their kids like banning electronics/phones in the bedroom which in many cases have a very detrimental effect on academic performance.Indeed ultra selective state schools like Henrietta Barnet now have a disproportionate number of ethnic minorities see eg www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/education/article4269612.ece

The truth is parents need to accept responsibility for their kids education; if the school is no good and your DC can't move consider extra tutoring outside of school whether online or with a tutor or do it yourself - GCSEs and A levels are not that hard and most parents can help more than they think.Indeed if you have a bright kid your duty is to do everything you can to maximise his or her performance; too often parents simply blame the school as if they had no responsibility.

Top sets = like-minded cohort and good behaviour + the best teachers + high expectations = better outcome. Most grammar schools have high value-added scores as do private schools. You can be top 2-3 in languages or science for example but that is not tested for at age 11. If you don't make the top sets/streams in Year 7 at many comprehensive schools then you're often restricted in what language you can study and you definitely won't be offered Latin if it's available. With many schools starting to choose GCSE options in Year 8 now it's going to be even more important to be in a good set from Year 7.

You can't use tracking progress to pick up on a child being dismally failed if they are still achieving those high grades. Nor does tracking progress pick up on the kids that for whatever reason arrived with artificially low targets.

Not if that bright child is going home to a chaotic environment with nowhere quiet to study or if they're a carer for siblings or parents.

'A bright child will succeed in any school' reminds me of Tebbits 'get on your bike' response to unemployment. Thatcher liked to place all responsibility with the individual, which possibly works unless you're a child. Or ill. Or disabled. Or live below the poverty line etc.
Not groups that a right wing government are overly concerned with.

If all schools pick up children who are not getting the grades they should, then how come some schools have below 1000 value added? This is clearly not happening in lots of schools because the teachers and management are not good enough. it assumes all schools have robust assessment and tracking of progress - they do not! If children prepare for CATs (mine didn't but that was a few years ago) then it makes a high value added even more difficult for the school to achieve because the base line is inflated. Also, if a child is in the top 2-3 of the set then is there any need for all of this revision and tutoring? He would have got there anyway.

30 years in children are targeted and monitored - your "failing" would now be picked up.

Expected A* student would be pulled up and dealt with.

Kids are now on an expected grade as a comparison ....

DS1 spent a few weeks going over verbal/non-verbal reasoning test questions as preparation for the 11+ and his CAT test results miraculously rose from 129/130 to 140 plus so they must be very similar in style - it's just a question of knowing what to look for - no one showed him what to do as he looked through the books himself. He's now very comfortable in the top sets of his selective independent. Smart parents we know also prepped their dcs for SATs in 6 to guarantee a place in top sets at the comps - they're not the level playing fields you might think.

Borojo I can assure you that there is no issue with being in the top sets, he sits v comfortably well above the middle of the sets and in several subjects in the top 2 or 3. Everyone prepared for CAT's here, exactly the same as they do for grammar school tests, verbal, non verbal and numerical reasoning. CAT's are used for setting from day 1 and they have the children into school during year 6 to spend the day taking them