If bright children do well wherever they go, why is everyone so desperate to get their children into the highest performing grammars/private schools?

[chuckb4ss]

I don't believe that if you put a child in a poorly performing comprehensive school that requires improvement, that they would come out with the exact same A level grades that they would if they had attended one of the top private/grammar schools. (Not saying that A levels are the be all and end all, that's a separate discussion).

I hear all the time that if your child is naturally bright, they will do well wherever they go. If that is the case, then why the competition to get children into the best performing schools?

XingMing, leadership skills have fuck all to do with it. We haven’t had a stream of Old Etonians as PM because of their leadership skills (the last two being a case in point). We’ve had them because doors have been opened to them that are closed to everyone else.

The best public schools make leadership and leading their primary objective. No namby-pamby nonsense about everyone knowing the basics: You arrive knowing those. A friend of DS went to Eton. He was clever, and organised. My DS would not have coped therel, despite a similar upbringing.

@Snoopdogsbitch had this username for a while. Since my last school in fact ;) Love my current job and school.

There are a few independent schools near where I live who have failed to succeed in this climate (school fees can often be the first way to save money). They have become offices or redeveloped into housing. Perhaps one has become another private school...

@FelicisNox is correct. Desirable schools can afford to be choosy with their staff. It doesn't always mean the staff are better though, agreed.

I have also met some extremely inspiring staff from schools in deprived areas. They deal with situations I cannot imagine, on a regular basis. I have also experienced it at another school I worked in, and it honestly broke my heart how neglected some of the children were. That's great you do that, and I salute you for it. But just as 'one size doesn't fit all', I can also do a lot of good with the students I work with, and offer them pastoral support for issues I am familiar with.

The truth is that my background is fairly middle class and I am unapologetic about that. Just as I cannot relate to pupils who are collected by private helicopter at the end of term, I cannot also relate to students who were brought up by a single parent with many siblings, with different fathers, who are sent to school without breakfast or lunch and cannot read or write by the time they are in secondary school.

But then I have chosen to do what I do because I'm nobody's bitch ;)

Unless, of course, by ‘leadership skills’ you mean ‘unshakeable self belief’.

The chat among some parents I know is to send the children private but to send them to a state 6th form college so they get the benefit of the private education but tick the “lower requirement” box so can get into top universities with lower grades.

The truth is that bright children might do well at a poorly performing state school but many parents wouldn’t be willing to take the risk/gamble with their children’s education.

I think you're wrong notwaving. Leadership may have been a poor choice of word, but the confidence to choose a direction and follow it with conviction matters.

if your child is naturally bright, they will do well wherever they go

IMO this is one of the lies parents tell themselves when they’re not 100% happy with their school.

I think it’s rubbish. I have three very bright children...of the older two, one is very driven and self sufficient and the other is bordering on lazy at age 12. Capable of brilliant, top-of-the-class work but needs a lot of encouragement and input.

I’ve no doubt that with ds1 the difference between A* and C grades could well be determined by his environment/school.

Personally, I would never send my children to a grammar school and do not really agree with having them.

But... As a teacher I can see how they would benefit the brightest children. Not necessarily in terms of academic achievement, but more in terms of personality and attitude. It is not good for children to be achieving academically at a much, much higher level than their peers. It cameras them to be complacent, to have an overinflated opinion of themselves, but also to fear failure and making mistakes. For some children, being with a peer group who can compete with them would be a very good thing.

Eton, never an option intellectually or financially for us, would not have worked for our son. But, having attended several secondary schools, he's seen the range from inner city failure to small town/big school inadeqate to top performing indie and finally to a modest independent. Which was where the teachers took the time.

Leadership may have been a poor choice of word, but the confidence to choose a direction and follow it with conviction matters.

Even if it buggers up the country when they become PM.

What was it Yeats said? The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity ? Maybe he was talking about the products of top private schools.

I was a bright child. IQ in the 160’s. I didn’t get the chance to sit the grammar school test, and went to the local comp. I was bullied mercilessly for being bright, didn’t help that I was from a middle class family either. I was socially awkward, had self esteem in the toilet, and was a prime target for grooming. I ended up pregnant at 15 and dropping out of school altogether. So no, I don’t believe that a bright child will do well anywhere.

I work in a challenging Requires Improvement school. The teachers LOVE the bright kids, as there are so few of them, and they go on to do well.

You don't get 1 school with great teachers, and a mile down the road a school with rubbish teachers. It doesn't work like that.

But if you have a bright child, you'd want them to mix with similar, which is why you would want them to go to a selective school.

It's not just about academic though is it. You only get one childhood and that forms who you are for the rest of your life - your confidence, your social skills, your friendships / peers, others skills / hobbies / interests.

I think the rational reason why people choose a private school is because they think they'll do better academic8, and statistically they will, but there's a huge emotional pull as well - when you look round the right one for your child you just think, well this is really lovely and I can see my child being happy here. For me it is about giving my children the opportunities I didn't have myself.

Independence means being free to choose, more important than grades etc is the ethos of independent schools and the freedom of thought they have!

I always say any qualifications I got were in spite of my school and not because of it. It was a sink school in a sink city where mediocre was the aspiration. I can not even begin to describe the shit teaching or lack of it I endured. My parents were told I was bright and would succeed at any school. That is utter bullshit. There was no way I was going to make myself a target for the bullies by working hard and standing out.

Now I am a teacher of over 20 years experience. I have worked in state schools and seen how, despite the fact teaching is better than my school days, the social issues, behaviour issues and lack of funding really affects the results of all children - and not just the more able.

As a parent and teacher I would say pick the right school for your child. Do not settle for second (or third) best and fight to get your child in a good school.

EnthusiasmIsDisturbed, have you had him screened for ADHD? I'm serious.

If it's any help, my son was at a 'requires improvement' comp (although it seemed very good to me and I work in education, Ofsted don't always get it right) and got decent GSCEs thanks to the teachers there then went to an excellent, free, sixth form college in Manchester and got three A/A*s at A level and off to a Russell Group uni. No need to pay for private education imo.

@Cremebrule Cotham?

I don't think everyone is. Many of my DC's friends parents can afford private schools but choose not to despite having incredibly bright kids. Some are actively against them, others perfectly happy with the state option. It's a bit of a changing trend in this area and it is improving the local high school that used to suffer from the state primary to private high choice. To me it seems an obsession only in certain parts of England. Here in Scotland the people I know that do use private is primarily for the wrap around care options

Dontevenstart Ah no. I looked up my school on Bristol university’s contextual offers list. It makes for quite interesting reading as it gives you an idea of the degree of underachievement for different schools. It came as no surprise to me to see that mine was on there many years after I had left.

I chose Grammar for the least disruptive classroom experience behaviour wise. And the benefit of a teacher who doesn't need to put as much effort into ability differentiation. My daughter will get good grades wherever she goes but prefer her to be in an environment where ambition, achievement and good behaviour is the norm and not even questioned or highlighted.

There are grammar schools on that list including an Outstanding Kent one.

The other thing about the list that is quite interesting is there are some schools on there they do pretty badly for attainment but well for progression to university. In contrast, my old school wasn’t in the bottom 40% for attainment but had a worryingly low % going to university.

It’s here for anyone interested www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/study/undergraduate/documents/English-aspiring-state-schools-2020-21-cycle.pdf

I'm in Northern Ireland where all areas have Grammar and non grammar. My DS is just getting to the age where we need to make a decision over whether he sits the transfer test of not. He is very bright, high mathematical and reading ability but poor handwriting, spelling etc. Also in the process of having ASD assessment very anxious and likely to need social support. I was seriously considering him not doing the test until I looked into local schools. There are three in walking distance, two grammars both getting 100% 5 GCSEs A-C and one other which gets 37%. In that school nobody got any A* in any subjects and only a handful got A (none in English or Maths). That's what happens in an area with full selection, those who pass 11 plus get a good education, those who don't are fucked. There must be some bright children at that school who for whatever reason didn't pass the transfer test, but they certainly aren't meeting their potential. I'm therefore going to have to put an anxious child through a test I disapprove of, to avoid a lifetime of guilt.

Some children thrive in a less competitive environment, others thrive with high-achieving classmates and the need to "keep up" academically.
It's perfectly possible for bright children to do well in average schools. But if a lot of teaching time is taken up with managing behaviour and in general, the achievement expectations are low, it's a lot harder for them to excel. Straight As from that kind of school show a child with real resilience and independence of spirit who will do well in life.
There's also the social factor. Some children are happy to get their head down and work hard, letting a fulfilling social life fall by the wayside somewhat. Others need the support and encouragement of peers and are bouyed by intellectual interaction. A happy child with like-minded friends will often do better than a child who struggles for friends who will support their education journey.
High achieving schools are better poised to help their students get into the best universities. They will have sent off thousands of UCAS applications over the years and usually provide a higher level of extra curricular encouragement.
I have experience of both kinds of school. I know which I'd have chosen for my offspring if I had the option.