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?

@Mummyoflittledragon

Ergo I couldn’t even get the education at home - or in a library. I didn’t know I was allowed in one by myself and didn’t know how to use one either. I know that sounds totally bizarre to admit as an adult.

Didn’t you live with parents who encouraged an interest in the world, and in educating yourself,

Oh and grammar school didn't make me any less lazy. I still revised for everything the night before because I knew I could. Beating the arseholes I studied with to get a slightly better set of A*s wasn't really enough motivation to work harder.

Once you get into your first job, no-one cares what uni you went to or how many A*s you got. The best person at my last job, who got promoted the quickest of all, went to Man Met.

Where we live all the secondary schools are rated 'requires improvement', though one last year just managed a 'good'. So my kids are at the only private one. My son blew his GCSEs, but is still doing what he wants. But I think for him he benefitted from other non academic advantages you get from private school.
My daughter is bright, but rather shy. I think in a state school she would get a bit lost in the crowd. She would still do well, but perhaps get 6s and 7s. But the private school has a more competitive atmosphere and as there are many bright kids, along with smaller classes and more individual attention, she is challenged to do more and is on track to get 7 and 8s and possibly a few 9s. Worth it to me in both cases.

I’m in Scotland and you just go to the school that is in your catchment area, luckily mine are in a great Academy but a few miles along the road it’s a pretty bad school, some parents apply for out of zone places sometimes they get if it’s a small year. How does it work in England? Is grammar a better school if so surely that's not fair?

So no, bright children don't always reach their potential, or not till they leave that peer group behind.

Grammar and independent also means you can actually choose where your child goes (to an extent), rather than leaving it up to the local authority to wedge them in wherever they'll fit. There are practical considerations like how they will get there, where the adults work, size of school, SEN support, that I want to be able to take into consideration.

Probably opportunities so they rub shoulders with the ‘right kind’ of people
Or maybe to use their children as a status symbol?
Or perhaps, just maybe, the parents chose a school which is the right fit for the child?

'I hear all the time that if your child is naturally bright, they will do well wherever they go.'

You don't have to believe it though.

FWIW - I think bright children who are self motivated and smart enough to learn the exam syllabus inside out, or who have tutoring and have a supportive home environment and no major problems at school will do equally well.

I like the Michaela school example.

I think it's one of those things that people say to themselves or others when they don't have a choice of school and have to send their dc to a not so good school. It's a bit like when people say formula milk is as good as breastfeeding. We all know it isn't true but sometimes people don't have a choice.

One of my best friends was very bright and ended up getting straight As at A-Level (back in the 90s). This wasn’t a surprise to anyone. He was/is extremely bright. But he went to look round Oxford university prior to the exams and idn’t think he’d fit in. So he didn’t apply. I don’t think there was ever any talk about Oxbridge or how to perform well in their entrance interviews at our school. He lacked confidence. His academic brilliance was never celebrated at our school. He was self motivated but sometimes even had to hide it. Many state schools don’t push the brightest children hard enough or have an expectation of excellence IMO. The claim they do, but the gap with public schools in terms of expectations of behavior and academic achievement is still immense. Of course this isn’t all down to the schools, as so much of your average state schools resources are taken up trying to help some severely disadvantaged pupils. The student intake of your average state school and average public school is vastly different.

A million years ago, at four I went to a private pre-prep for four terms, the first term morning only. By the time my parents moved for work, I was six, and there was no comparable option so I went to the local county primary where my reading age was beyond that class's book library, and "my" book was in the next class up, for the 8 and 9 year olds (small school so two year age-banded classes). I knew how to do joined up writing.

MY DS has had a very chequered educational story, having attended a really good prep school and entered a very high achieving day school at 13, which was too far away to be manageable long term. Then he had two years at a RI comprehensive, where he took GCSEs. By their standards, he did okay. Then a year at a UTC, which turned into an undeclared PRU, and finally did academic A levels at a decidedly ordinary independent, where he became friends with kids who were achieving and ambitious. His A levels were acceptable, but not close to AAA. Not knowing what he wanted as a career, he worked f*ing hard for two years as a chef, and now he has applied and been accepted, aty 20, into a very selective art school, without any serious qualifications, to do television production. But it has not been smooth sailing. Dyslexia did not help!

I would add that fear of drugs and bullying shouldn't make you less wary of private or selective schools - peers and the merciless culture that can prevail. Certain London schools are actively targeted by dealers and their acolytes because they know the kids there have money and are no exception to the adolescent desire to rebel against parents, take risks and fit in. I know of schools where eating disorders, self-harm and anxiety are enormous issues, sometimes compounded by a perceived academic pressure.

Interesting topic. My 6 year old is very bright. She’s also very sensitive/highly strung. She’s at state school and doing well, but really struggles with the bad behaviour of some of the other children (she’s in a class with some particularly badly behaved children). I can’t help feeling that she would be happier at private school, although of course it’s impossible to know.
My 4 year old on the other hand is much more resilient and I think she’ll be absolutely fine where she is!

@millymoo1202 I can only speak for my little bit of SE London fringes, but here the number of school places has lagged behind population growth plus London and Kent have different systems so it is very complex. Most of the schools are pretty good round here but if you don't live within about 1.5 miles, have religion, cash or DC that will tolerate a lot of extra exams, it's complicated.

If you believe that a bright child will do well wherever they go, you also believe that there is no academic advantage conferred by grammar / private schools. If that were the case there would be no need for contextual offers. I don't believe this.

My kids are probably pretty average, not sure yet as only young. Eldest is in reception at private school.

I guess they might have done well at state schools, they might not do well at private, but as their parents we just want to give them the best chance possible. We've both ended up with good careers but have both been a bit borderline at points in our education (wild, lazy, etc).

If that were the case there would be no need for contextual offers

I don't think there is much of a need if I'm honest. If an A*AA offer is reduced to AAB (for example) it's not going to really help the students who get lower grades because of their sixth form, if you take a comprehensive which has a split catchment area from leafy suburbs to large areas of social housing with a lot of relative deprivation then it's the children from the leafy suburbs who will be the ones benefitting from it on the whole. Contextual offers, by and large, would have to be lower to be truly useful.

DD is predicted 4 x A* in her 'bog standard' comp. She is very happy. Some (Russel Group) universities have given her lower offers due to the fact that she is at a school which doesn't get great A Level results.

Every parent thinks their child is super bright
Most are very average

Schools are not equal, and never have been. In a naice area call it Winchester most schools are reasonable, because the parents have to earn enough to be able to live there. Try a rural/coastal area, with huge catchments, and discover the chasm of expectation.

I did qualify as a teacher (at 55) but even my offers to volunteer to support student through university applications were ignored. I concluded that the school didn't want to encourage aspiration, and looking at a couple of UCAS personal statements I've seen recently from that school, the trajectory of destination universities is completely explained.

More opportunities/ less distraction.

Grammar schools are overrated. I work in one. The kids still drop litter/stick gum to the undersides of desks/swear at staff/ try to smoke where they think they are out of sight etc etc.

Ds is at a superselective grammar. I think he is definately doing better than he would in a less academically rigorous enviroment. But the opportunities and the atmosphere in the school are fantastic. For example he plays sport for the school every saturday they provide transport to and from away matches. There are wonderful school trips availible (he has been to Italy, Germany, France and Belgium with the school). He is hoping to be selected for a rugby tour to New Zealand between years 12&13. Most of all they are trusted, the school isn't locked in the evenings he can stay behind and use the libary, sports hall or gym. There is an aura of fun and hard work which pervades everything. Very few behaviour problems.

My DD ticks virtually all the boxes for being disadvantaged: we are poor & survive on Universal Credits, she is on Free School Meals, she is adopted and so qualifies for Pupil Premium + and, finally, she is registered blind. She is also, despite all the odds (born addicted to heroin and spent the first week of her life in SCBU withdrawing from heroin) incredibly clever and passed, without any (unaffordable to us) intensive tuition, the 11+. She has just had her first monitoring report after her first term at her Grammar school and she is excelling in virtually every subject. Would anyone begrudge my DD her place at the school which suits her so well?

I find it odd that people treat academic ability so differently from sport, ballet, music.

Let’s try the same statement with sport: if you want to be a professional footballer/ballet dancer/musician, it doesn’t matter where you train... because talented kids will always succeed.

Specialist schools or club programs provide a lot more support, than after-school clubs or local sports/dance groups. Why is school that different - there are widely different class sizes, opportunities and emphasis? Just a bit odd

Have skimmed the thread so apologies if the point has already been made, but one very good reason for preferring a selective or private school for girls is if it is single-sex.