Would a bright child do well at any school?

Thank you whotheeff
Good luck to your dc also

@Beesandtrees this is wonderful to hear! I'm thrilled for you! Your dc has had a rounded experience with a school reflecting society. They'll be ready for anything! Good for you! And yes we send our children to the school other parents warned us about. You have to shut out the noise and prejudices sometimes.

Coming back to this after results day! I asked this question originally in the midst of worrying over dc’s impending results and wondering if I’d done enough to support them at home through secondary. I was also questioning if I was mad to have sent them to the school in the first place and that maybe I should have done what others had done at primary and found some way to move house to avoid school etc.

So, our own anecdotal evidence is that yes -an able child can do well in a poorly performing state school.
Dc got seven 9s. Other grades: 887. Could there have been a few more 9s if they were in a better performing school ? I suspect yes because dc is a grafter and would have taken every opportunity given them at a better school. But maybe they are a grafter because they’ve had to be, to get where they are.
Who knows?
Anyway.. this is for redsheep and others on this thread who also had little or no choice at secondary level. Stick in there! It can be done!

My brother went to grammar. His GCSE results were much better than mine but not as good as most of his peers. He did go on to get a good degree and has done v well for himself. He still maintains my parents were wrong to send him, but I don't think my school would have been that great for him.

Although we live in Essex so have grammars, a distance cut off was brought in so the children living around here are considered out of catchment for all grammars. The local secondary used to be pretty awful but it has improved a lot.

Bubbles, no selection at all for either local school or my own. As I said local school supposed to be on the up after a poor past, I think the cohort leaving having only had a couple of head teachers, but the OPs question was will a bright child do well anywhere. I was merely showing that poor schools with with poorer than expected attainment still exist.

Cookie:, the academics shouldn’t be downplayed. Everything else you say should be upped. They are not mutually exclusive. DC can do both!

RosiePosy4: if those DC have had crap leadership and teaching for most of their 7 years in the school, is it any wonder they probably under achieved? Good teaching is measured over time by Ofsted and these DC clearly didn’t get that. Of course it’s not an Oxbridge destination school if only one DC got AAA and Medicine and vet med and lots of competitive courses would be off the agenda too. Did anyone really believe it would be after such an awful past?

Also how many high achievers does the school have in this cohort? It sounds like a comp that is much closer to a secondary modern in attainment. Are all the brightest DC in your school? How many of the DC should have got AAA at A level based on prior attainment?

I think academics should be downplayed as the goal or at at least be equalised to level the playing field as an employer and who sits on the decision making team of graduate recruitment we need to concentrate a whole lot more on softskills and the ability to develop acceptable social manners, team work, confidence, articulation and debate skills. disadvantaged bright kids at poor performing schools or even average 'good' schools don't achieve the soft skills needed to be successful. It's proven time and again, that disadvantaged kids with straight As won't do as well as wealthy kids with less A grades in the world of work where it matters. I think we are missing a huge angle in schools, miss the point of what employers are crucially after.

I bloody well hope they can as we have had zero choice over where ours go!

I was a highly able child and went to a crap school. Got straight A*s. But - and here’s the crucial bit - I didn’t go on to university because no-one really did that in my school so it just didn’t feel like an option for me. So, I would assert that while bright kids can do well at any school, without an enabling, aspirational environment, they are less likely to reach their full academic potential.

I think my local school disproves this idea.
It is allegedly doing ok now and ofsted is no longer 3 or 4, following a period of 4 awful ofsteds, four different headteachers and the sacking of the governing body.
However yesterday’s exam results give the lie to this.
One kid got AAA, no other students got more than one A or A*. Yet again no student to oxbridge, vet sci, med, dentistry, law.

I do not believe intrinsically that the local kids are less bright than those that attend my state comp ( numerous kids with 3 or 4 all at A, A* or mix thereof)

1/3 of a grade can be scraping an A or s secure B. Or a scraping a C when 1/3 lower would be a D. That can make a big difference in some subjects.

There is some evidence that disadvantaged DC do better in great schools regardless of who they are educated with. On the whole, the worst schools are in disadvantaged areas. So quality of management and teaching means everything. It’s the school that matters, not the other DC!

Thanks stubiff, thats really interesting.
I appreciate you taking the time to look out the statistics and analyse them for us.
Its certainly very reassuring to those of us that reckon we have a "bright" child. One third of a grade doesn't seem much in the context of someones whole life.

I'd be curious to know what sort of difference school type makes to disadvantaged kids.
The reason I ask is that the school on my estate was closed down (in the the face of fierce local opposition) a few years ago. Theres now a plan to build a new school, a short distance away, which will have a more socially mixed demographic. Theres quite a strong feeling from some parents that this isn't an adequate replacement for a school of "our own"

So I'm wondering: Are these Mums correct? Do disadvantaged kids do better in schools with a disadvantaged intake. Or by being educated alongside better off children?

That’s my point exactly, Nelly. These DC had poor teaching and it really affected them. They might have been motivated, bright, prepared to work and have supportive parents but what good did any of that do? They were failed on teaching and the fact the parents didn’t live in a better catchment area!

The key is that pupils of similar intelligence perform similar at grammar and top 25% good/outstanding comprehensives
My local comp is in bottom 25% and has a real problem to retain and hire teachers
When my friend's very intelligent ds did his a levels, their physics and maths teachers quit halfway into the second term and the school could not replace them. Pupils were taught 2 sessions by the chemistry teacher who had never taught physics and only had maths GCSE, not even maths a levels, for 1 session a week they were bussed to a neighbouring school, and the 4th session was often turned into self-study or supervised by changing supply teachers. Straight A GCSE kids gained Cs, Ds and Es at A level. I am pretty sure they would have done better at 'better' schools.

An unsupported, unmotivated but bright child that is put in a very good school would have more of a chance of doing better, I think, than if they were placed in a school with more challenges. A bright child that is motivated and supported by parents and placed in a good school that is the right fit for the child will do well. If that same child is placed in a school that has challenges of discipline which may result in lost teaching hours, poor teaching etc then it will make it so much harder to get good results. If the parents have the means, time and determination perhaps they can fill the gap as long as the bright child remains driven, focused and not distracted.

I know of 2 once failing schools with very low enrollment and high percentage of non English speaking students that have been transformed into Ofsted excellent schools through incredible management and leadership. Middle class parents are still reluctant to enroll which is actually fabulous news for the children and teachers there as it keeps class sizes small. I don't believe in selective schooling and think all schools should reflect the society and community we live in. Parents have way too many prejudices and we shouldn't be focused on creating the next middle managers.

I was a high achiever at an all girls grammar school and went on to graduate with a PhD. It's taken me years however to come to terms with the resulting low confidence and self esteem from being a working class girl, bullied and tormented, by my peers throughout school. I've learned the hard way that results don't correlate with happiness and now endeavor to support my children, and others that I teach, to focus on creating a life filled with learning new skills and developing interests outside the classroom.

However, even if they know the data, they still cannot avoid the school! As I said above, choice is a luxury many do not have.

Ofsted always look at quality of teaching. No child will do as well as they could with poor teaching. Until teaching is good everywhere some children will not fulfill their potential. Parents might be supportive but they, for the most part, do not teach. A child with a burning desire to do well is unlikely to be able to teach themselves. All children need first class teaching! It doesn’t matter whether they are bright or not!

Selective schools don’t have a monopoly on good teachers. Therefore you would expect to see good progress across a range of schools. In fact it might be more difficult to get good progress where DC achieved very highly at primary. Super selectives can have this problem. County wide Grammars can have great progress figures but of course other schools can too.

What is more interesting is why the schools that have poor progress 8 do so. What are their specific issues? This is what parents need to know.

I’d say being bright and well-supported are key elements for success, but that internal motivation and a desire to achieve probably trump that.
I’ve known a lot of bright kids whose parents are hugely supportive but if the kid can’t be bothered or is a bit aimless then they often won’t do as well as a child who is less able or whose parents are less supportive but who has a burning desire to do well.

No problem. Yes I take your point about parents from abroad but I have to say in all my years of talking to parents, most can identify schools they don’t want DC to attend. It’s more difficult for incomers though. However many parents have No Choice. They are allocated housing. They cannot move. They inevitably get the worst school because the worst schools are often serving the most deprived areas. They might complain about the school but not in any effective way. They are unlikely to
become a governor or avoid their DC going to these school. It’s their local school and they suffer if it’s crap. But what can they do? Information and stats proving its a crap school doesn’t help them move to a better catchment area.

The progress 8 info and value added (is that still reported) gives the clearest indication of progress made in a school but its historic. Schools can improve. Ofsted failing schools names and shames. That could be a starting point. Publish those.

Bubbles
You mean name and shame on past results? That could be very unfair. They are “sink” schools are they not (?) and locally most parents know which ones they are. It is also a stat that must vary year on year for a whole number of reasons. Ofsted has also done a lot of research on clusters of poor schools. They have named areas where they are concerned.

I do mean identifying the schools where higher achievers do poorly, yes. I think your cultural capital means you think everyone knows. I know (from experience of talking to other parents, often relatively recently arrived in the UK) that they don’t. And I think that information should be easily available. The whole going to the right website, comparing the right schools on the right measure thing is fine if you’re someone who posts on this board - it’s by no means obvious to the average parent, especially someone for whom English isn’t their first language.

Also, apologies for not responding sooner - I don’t seem to be getting an MN notifications, so I only just spotted your post.

I don’t believe parental support trumps good teaching. Few parents can make up for poor teaching in 10 or so curriculum areas. Parents cannot get rid of disruptive children that prevent others learning and parents cannot actually run the school. They might complain, get tutors and ensure homework is completed but if, as so often quoted by Ofsted, gifted children are not given suitable work or challenged to do their very best, what good will completing low level homework do? This is why DC from the best schools have such an advantage. They are set work and challenges that enhance their knowledge and get the high grades. Others don’t get that!