Children who are bright/clever

[HeartofAss]

I see this sort of thing quite often: in parenting groups, parents will say something like: "My child is not achieving academically at school, but he is very clever" or "My daughter is struggling at school. She's really bright but she's behind in all her subjects"

I always wonder, what does the parent mean by 'bright'? Or, if the child is not achieving at school, how does the parent know that they are 'clever'? What is it that the child does (at home) to indicate that they are a particularly clever or bright child?

Just curious really, about how we use language and what people mean when they use these descriptions. And what people think indicates being bright/clever if it isn't traditional things like being good at maths/writing etc

I wonder this as well.

Some children are clever but don’t apply themselves. Some children are good at things that aren’t a main focus in school.
But I think the word ‘bright’ is pretty meaningless and just gets banded about without thought.

Well I'd say school has quite a narrow definition of "clever". Im pretty clever but whether that reflected in my schoolwork depended on my teacher as I coasted & was lazy.

This really makes me laugh. Every parent I have ever know, every one, has described their child as ‘bright’.

Actually, I just remembered one that didn’t. The mother of one of the boys in my class at school (1981) described him, in a light hearted way, as ‘thick as two short planks’. She was not wrong. Perhaps many parents are in denial.

Some of those people will just be in denial.

Other people will have children who are quick to learn new concepts, have a good memory, good problem solving skills but for one reason or another are not excelling at school/academically.

Sometimes a child can be dyslexic and struggle at school whilst having a high IQ and being very articulate and inventive.

I’ve taught loads of incredibly intelligent kids who were nothing special academically. Some failed my subject altogether. Sometimes their intelligence was evident from their wit or creativity. Sometimes they’d be quick to grasp concepts or strikingly perceptive for a kid.

On the other hand I was an A-grade student throughout and went to an RG uni but consider myself of very average intelligence. I don’t think I’d do well in an IQ test. I’m just good at exams and patient enough to revise/listen carefully. I could easily outperform cleverer kids because my personality suits a school environment.

Children who are bright or clever are able easy to retain facts and are curious.

There are plenty of students with dyslexia, dyscalculia, dysgraphia, ADHD etc who really struggle to read, write, use numbers or to sit still and stay focused on one task. However that doesn't mean those children aren't clever or don't understand what they are meant to do, verbally these children often give brilliant answers they just struggle to show it in the way the schools needs them to for assessments and will therefore be labelled as under performing.

Ugh, I half edited my first sentence and now it's goobeldy gook.

Basically there are lots of ways to be bright or clever, but only a few that are recognized by our assessment system.

Children who are bright or clever are able easy to retain facts and are curious

I agree. "Bright" children ask lots of probing, complex questions - and not just about what they're having for tea :).

I work as a part time teacher, my job share partner and I were writing reports (we do half each and then read each other’s to make sure we agree on things) and I asked her to take the word ‘bright’ out of one of them. There was a child in our Y5 at the time who was very able but didn’t apply himself to any tasks and was massively under achieving for his abilities because he couldn’t be arsed with his school work - but he did love the sound of his own voice and taking part during class input. She argued that he was ‘bright’ and I argued that he was not, if he was bright he would by this age actually make use of his knowledge and understand why he needed to apply himself to his school work. I suggested the word ‘knowledgable’ instead.

Well my dad for example, was not "able" at school and achieved little but he can:

Fix absolutely anything, find a fault and work out a solution using whatever he can find lying around the house.

Talk to and make friends with anybody, anywhere. His social skills are fantastic as he's genuinely interested in others and a great listener.

invent and tell an amazing story that makes everybody listen.

So yes I'd say he's "clever" in that way but not academically.

I teach children with learning difficulties and have to be careful about the language I use to parents because I'd often use "bright" to mean they're curious, interested, willing to learn, capable of engaging, able to solve problems etc but some parents take the "bright" comment to mean that they don't have learning difficulties, it's tricky!!

One of mine is bright and shows it academically - the other is bright but struggles with school - dyspraxia makes writing difficult and she can appear to have no focus on a task... but by heck, NOTHING gets past her and she thinks about things incredibly deeply - but not in a way that ticks academic boxes.

There are lots of different ways to be clever and just as many ways to be stupid.

Could you perhaps say that they are curious, inquisitive and keen to learn?

This. DS has tested in the top 2% for his IQ but before he got medication and 121 support would often fail to write even one line of writing. He was inquisitive, knowledgeable, well read, made great intellectual leaps, very mathematically able, wide vocal etc etc but produced no work the school could actually assess him on. It was immensely frustrating.

So happy he's doing better these days, but still feel he's falling short of his full potential. Mostly I just want him to be happy, though.

My DD has dyslexia coupled with speech delay and selective mutism when younger. So when first meeting her, it was easy to presume she was 'slow' and not that bright.

However when you got to know her enough that she would talk with you, its clear that she is very analytical and quite intelligent. She just has illegible handwriting, can't spell and doesn't get phonics.

Not saying she's a genius, but her written work and knowledge are not on par with each other. She got extra time and a scribe in SATs and her marks were quite decent for example.

Could you perhaps say that they are curious, inquisitive and keen to learn?

Yes exactly, I've learnt to be careful with the words I choose now but I imagine this is why many parents of non-academic children use words like bright or clever.

I have dyslexia and definitely was bright but struggling in primary school.
I ended up with good grades, degrees etc so have all the traditional markers of a bright child now.
My ds has ADHD and also has struggled to match his intellect to school scores. Currently he still hasn't got English above B grade but everything else is now going very well.
By the time he leaves school I would hope his grades match his intellect and I think they will.

Bright to me has always been a curious mind - asking questions and getting into things - not necessarily in line with school curriculum (e.g. being taught about the Tudors and learning a lot about the dress styles or ships of that era but not necessarily retain dates and names). Clever could be shown in problem solving skills and being able to apply these things to real life.
IMO academics is vastly overrated and while I was academic at school I do look back and wonder how much of it is helpful in real life - why are dates more important than understanding strategies for example.

A very bright child struggling at school may have an undiagnosed SEN. Any parent in that situation would do well to seek a decent ed psych assessment, because a learning need isn't the same as a learning inability, and if that need is met the child could not just catch up, but overtake, if genuinely able.

My kids top out IQ tests. One broke an assessment tool, as it works on exponentials and a child that able at reading at 6 sends the system into a glitch, claiming their reading age is 22, when it clearly isn't. That doesn't mean there aren't any significant academic deficits - they are hidden in KS1 as the expectations are fairly low, but they rocketed in for my son at KS2 and I fully expect them to do the same for my daughter. Maths, and my son does A level algebra for fun at 13. Reading, and he's read at an adult level since he was 8 or 9. But he's never written an essay. He can't - he now has fancy software to mind map and scribe his thoughts.

Most of their deficits are social and emotional, but those areas also impact their capacity in planning, processing speed, formulating a coherent narrative, and so on. Which increasingly impact attainment as kids grow up, and can be supported and countered, if there is understanding that the issue exists.

A parent whose child is bright - which can be objectively demonstrated, using ed psych testing - but is very behind in learning terms is textbook for SEN. In fact, that's a diagnostic criteria for it.

I have a nephew who is super bright but very ADHD. He’s had IQ tests (very high) and psychological testing to assess his ADHD. He easily comes top in most subjects if he gets his shit together; but if doesn’t manage to, he completely bombs. It’s very hit and miss.

He finds executive function very hard - just turning up in the right classroom with the right books at the right time is difficult for him.

My eldest daughter, 10, is "bright" and "intelligent" but she is a year and a bit behind on maths, about 2 years on reading and 2 on spelling. This is purely because the classroom distracts her and she can't focus, as well as not having a "maths brain" for the way maths is taught in school. Her teachers describe her as bright, inquisitive, clever, full of ideas, creative, polite. She is on the pathway for potential autism/ adhd and the school recognise that she has problems with focus and concentration but when she's in small groups outside of the main classroom, she thrives. She is good at putting concepts together and has a vivid imagination and wide verbal vocabulary, but that doesn't translate to formal school work. So while she's not acheiving academically, she very clearly is capable in other areas.

Also ds had lots of testing to have his ADHD diagnosis and intellectual capacity was tested so we have an objective back to him being bright.

For my dyslexia they tested my overall intellectual capacity and rated it against my ability to do certain basic tasks. The gaps between these help show the dyslexia.

I always did well at school and never had to "apply myself" until I got to university but my grades definitely didn't reflect my ability.

I was great with exams (because I could just read a textbook a few days before) but didn't have the patience for coursework. I got a C (my lowest GCSE grade) in IT for example because it was coursework heavy and I spent the allotted time in class playing games that I had installed on my school's shared drive. I actually code for a living now.

That said, I think the academic model works. Anyone can develop a good work ethic/an ability to do things that aren't immediately interesting and doing it early will serve you pretty much everywhere else.

I'm still sort of coasting at 32. I get paid well but I know I'd be further on in my career and life in general if I were better at making myself do things I find "boring" but are necessary.