Would a bright child do well at any school?

@Bookworm4 wrote :
Can I point out that here in Scotland, you go to your catchment school, no grammars, 11+,choosing schools and kids do fine, great exam results, university graduates.

But Scotland's educational outcomes are lower than England's on average, and have been falling consistently for years. Eg www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38207729

From a personal perspective whose had experience of a comprehensive and a top independent boarding I’d say there were huge advantages to both but that those advantages were very different.

Certainly parental involvement in education is the single most important factor.

Certainly life in the independent was much easier and allowed for lifelong networking and opened many doors. There was an element of it being easier to fit in the independent rather than a narrower (but significant ) band of high achievers in the comprehensive.

The comprehensive education allowed for the development of a stronger self-drive. It allowed greater understanding of the struggles of others and a more realistic view of the world.
The comprehensive also created the ‘golden child’ problem for us with the child being put on a very high pedestal which when they got to medical school, they fell off and got hurt. Suddenly it was “Six As at A level? Grade 8 Violin? Gold DofE? Sailing instructor? What makes you special then?” We, perhaps, should have allowed or even caused her to struggle earlier.

In areas where there are grammars larger numbers of children do less well. It’s not about the success of grammars (which is unproven) but the opportunities available to those who are rejected and the impact on their futures.

From a personal point of view....

DS was of very similar ability to two of his friends at primary. DS passed the 11+ and his two friends didn’t. They all got broadly similar SATs results in Y6.

The friends went to separate non-selective schools-comps or secondary moderns depending on how you look at it. DS got 13 x 9/8/7 equivalents (some A*/As), the friends got 7 or 8 GCSEs of 3/4/5s. Neither got the 6s they needed to study the A levels they wanted at the nearest sixth form.

I would say for much of their secondary years, the friends were probably having more fun and were happier than my DS. They hardly got any homework (one used to show us what he had-laughing at how little there was compared to Y6) and they both really liked school-lots of quizzes, the teachers were very chummy and nice to them, fewer assessments and tests-school was a very social thing, whereas for my Ds it was pretty formal-head down, work hard etc. DS’s results are very different to theirs though and I would have said at y6, they were very similar ability wise.

Nobody in the local schools these friends went to, got results like DS (and his were pretty ordinary at his school) so I think I can say hand on heart, he would not have got those results had he not gone where he did.

Anecdotal evidence, I know, but I do strongly believe this.

And since the cut off in grammar schools is usually the top third, that means that grammar schools do perform better.

And OP if you look at your own scatter plot, if over 60% of school is high achievers they perform better.

The main flaw I can see is that it’s based on KS2 results (it doesn’t say which) many children - especially in bucks and Kent go to grammar schools from independent schools who don’t sit SATs. In DS’s class half the year is from independent schools.

Bright kids definitely do not do well anywhere or in life. Its not guaranteed even if you have a 1st class degree. Check out that bbc2 documentary breaking into the elite. Its very very true.

Yep Bees.... - I did say "might" on the extra-curricular side, but fully recognise that is a dimension that might be the decoration on the icing for many. No argument from me on that.

why that list of extra curricular choices deciding your choice of school is a luxury around here and not available if you are in state schools and live in certain areas. You get the school you are given or you move house or go religious route to get a different one.
The teachers at dc’s school do their best to give up time to provide clubs etc but in all honesty they look and sound utterly exhausted. There is no time, no money and no energy left.

There are important other dimensions to this which is the nature of the GCSE and A level options available and the extra curricular provision. If you have got a bright kid you should check the subject list to see if it is actually a good selection of choices for academically able kids. Is there a decent range of modern languages? Any classics provision at all? What about computer science, astronomy, electronics? That’s a material difference between many selectives and comps which applies in both the state and independent sectors. You might also want to know about orchestras, drama groups and the nature of the sports on offer to see if they make an effort to support bright individuals.

Of course not. How could they?

Teaching competence, the other pupils, the learning (or not) culture; list goes on.

"I hope that support at home is the key to whether a child will do well at a school with such a challenging intake"

As someone who got some of the top results in the country in their A-levels from a very poor comprehensive, I really think it is!

I also think that looking at exam results is only one measure. I am often quite staggered at how naive, spoiled, and sheltered many people are who have only ever been at school/work with other middle class people.

I asked this question on original thread. Thanks stubiff for info
It’s a statement that’s often banded about on mumsnet . - that a bright kid will do well anywhere. I particularly wondered if this statement is really true for most high ks2 prior attainers who are in the most poorly performing state schools.
It was something I really hoped was true when dc started at local secondary (p8 well below average and less than 40% achieved grade 5 in English and maths) . Dc did well at KS2 sats ( level 6s in English and maths)
In truth it’s been hard work supporting as dc has moved up the school. I hope that support at home is the key to whether a child will do well at a school with such a challenging intake. I don’t know if I’ve supported enough but who does?
I think dc will get good results but suspect that perhaps would have got a grade or 2 higher here and there at a school which isn’t struggling and has a less challenging intake to teach. But again who knows?- anything can go wrong can’t it?
The school has low level disruption in almost every lesson (which is the biggest problem imo). Kids kicking off regularly. Teaching in some subjects is heavily geared to gcse grades 4/5 and not much of the higher stuff which is understandable given that school is desperate to get kids a pass.

Having said all that, there were some pretty amazing and inspiring teachers too who have really encouraged dc to go for it and made themselves available if needed.
As an aside people do all sorts to avoid this school but when dc started it was definitely not struggling as much.
Dc has generally been happy there and has learnt so much there in terms of life skills and also become ultra self sufficient (maybe because of the type of school it is?).
I’m going to take your conclusion stubiff - (that a pupil can ) and change it to to probably will in my head .

Can I point out that here in Scotland, you go to your catchment school, no grammars, 11+,choosing schools and kids do fine, great exam results, university graduates.
There will always be good/bad schools as long as this ridiculous system in England exists; if people actively avoid a school how does it improve?
If a child is smart and applies them self they will succeed in any school.

Please could someone post a link to the “Doesn’t everyone have Grammar schools thread?”

Also many parents cannot actually avoid the schools that don’t fulfil potential. They may well know it’s a crap school but cannot get DC into another one so how will this info make anyone feel any better? Or provide the chance to move to a better catchment? Most people really do have an idea which schools are not good!

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.

Bert The reason this question came up is because quite a lot of people (you included, from memory) argue that ‘a bright kid will do well anywhere’ as a argument against selection by academic ability. So it’s a hypothesis worth exploring.

I haven’t seen threads where people say ‘a child of low / middling / any ability will do well anywhere’. The nearest I’ve seen to that is ‘a child with good home support will do well anywhere’, which would also be an interesting hypothesis to test.

I’m very grateful for the OP for her number crunching. Though it is, necessarily, incomplete given that most parents’ definition of ‘do well’ is not purely academic, but is about mental health, general wellbeing, having a social life, fulfilling activities / hobbies etc.

OP - is there a way of cutting the data to show schools that clearly knock a statistically significant percentage of their prior high attainers off their expected trajectory? I think that parents would find that really interesting.

No i just dont think you can define bright with high prior attainment. Or at least an adjustment would need to be made for age. (And that might make the data make more sense).

Schools where there is little disruption are best for all students.
Bright kids are still easily distracted.
How amazing if kids could do as well anywhere.It is truly rubbish to know your kid wont get in the better school because theyve build a load of new homes

stu You thread is so great everyone wants to post on it instead of the correct ones.

(So what is happening with Ed & Tim and the toxic waste?)

Progress makes no sense though when considering the ks1 and ks2 are completely incorrect re intelligence vs age in year group. So people you are calling bright are not necessarily and vice versa.
You just cannot say a child getting almost full marks on reading at 7 should get A* in English at GCSE it makes no sense and it is completely different.

I suspect that perhaps Bert may have thought they were on the 'Doesn't everyone have Grammar schools' thread, where the comment would be relevant.