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?

I was one of those bright kids who went to a crap school but ‘did well anyway’. In fact I’m often used as that example... “Well look at Knobbly, she went to Shitschool and she has done really well” blah blah blah. And, yes, I do have a degree and good job now as a Physio. But I honestly think I’d be a doctor if I’d gone to a better school. Not because my grades would have been better (I got 11 A’s at GCSE and 2A’s & 1B at A level at my shit school/college anyway) but because my expectations of myself would have been higher.

I think this is very much it.
Yes, bright children may do well anywhere-but they could have done better.
Same is true of the squeezed middle. They may do fine, but they could have done better.

If I give an example from when I was little. My dm was a teacher. We had locally a big comprehensive school, with little alternatives.95%+ of pupils from the primaries around it went there. They were good primaries.
Dm was talking to the head of maths at the school. They said: "We had a brilliant set of GCSEs in maths this year." So Dm asked to see it.
Out of a year of over 200, 2 got grade A, less than 20% got A-C.
Local private school got out of 30 entries, 20 got A, and I think a couple got C. Yes, it was selective. But it wasn't majorly selective-and children who were midrange in the primary were in those who got an A.

Now dm said it wasn't the results that she thought were so shocking-it was the saying how brilliant they were. Their aspirations for the children were too low.
And it wasn't just the top who were effected. The aspirations of the middle, and lower will have been effected to. Dm tutored a girl who'd got an E in maths. She got her up to a B in 1.5 terms, one lesson a week. She didn't not have the ability; she just hadn't had the teaching.

I also notice something else about local comprehensives v private.
Dd1 did 16 GCSEs. Not in one sitting, but she did do 12 at the end of year 11. Most did 10+. Dd2 will do 14.
The privates do 8 or 9 maximum.

Now in some ways you could say that they're keeping it broader, which may be good. However the time needed to revise 12 is roughly half as much again as 8. So that again gives the private school pupils an advantage when it comes to just time they can spend per subject.
And generally the universities say they look at the top 8 grades if they're looking back at GCSEs, so there's no advantage there in numbers.

Yes, you can get fantastic teachers at a state school. My dc are lucky in theirs. There are plenty of extra curriculum afterschool clubs if you're interested, with teachers that are thoroughly invested in doing them and giving up time, even at weekends. But often when they go to multi-school events, they're one of the few state schools.
My ds was at one a couple of weeks back, and I think they were one of 2 out of 40 state schools.

I went to a Grammar school and did one of my 4 a-level options at the local 'crap' school (only way it fit in with my other options).
I got A A A C.

Guess which grade wasn't at the Grammar?

^ Sorry wasn't finished

They didn't push us to strive for the next grade up, no options for extra credit, classes were very relaxed, often disrupted etc.

Bright kids will do well anywhere if they have the appropriate support. I was bright at school, top set in all the academic subjects, but I had the double whammy of uninterested parents and some really crap teachers. I ended up with mediocre GCSE results and my education ended there because I didn't see the point of continuing when nobody else seemed to give a shit if I did well. It's actually painful to think about what I could have achieved if literally anyone involved in my education thought I was worth a damn.

Those very bright children will do well in any school and under any conditions - that is true. However, this biggest competition is among those who are just about average and the quality of their school really impacts their life chances.

The thing that surprises me is in an area with good state schools (Surrey) there is still a high demand for private places.

Can't see the point of wasting money on private where the state sector is good.

Because it elevates the parents’ status in some cases IME.

Children are more likely do well in a school that has a good leadership team, that attracts good teachers and where parents are supportive of their kids and get behind the schools academic and behaviour policies.

A badly performing school might have staff issues, high turnover etc. which in turn impacts students learning and performance in exams. Also where behaviour is poorer there is lots of disruption in lessons.

There's one good secondary where we are - couldn't get in catchment so chose best of rest.

Speaking to a fellow parent who's niece and nephew go to the good school a lot of clubs and opportunies are on tap - groups are run. She and her DH spend a lot of time ferry kids around various places to replicate what her siblings children just have there - orchestra, music lesson, D of E., sport groups.

We found gaps in teaching at DC secondary which we can and do help with - supply, non subject teachers are a huge issue.

However till head left nearly 18 months ago and a sucession of p/t and filler in head the pastorial care was really good. I think my youngest child there been affect more by it's decline - eldest had good form and head of year who know her as she had them for subject teaching - DS doesn't have that and any issue that do arise he finds himself passed to pillar and post and then often just ignored. It really doesn't help his confidence.

I think if may not affect so much grades - I think they'll still get fairly high GCSE it's more general - and both have been really annoyed with poor behavior in class rooms.

It is a school which gets lower offers form some univerities - but eldest already wants to move on for A-levels.

I do agree with pp about low aspirations but certainly feel that's been less an issue at secondary than at their primaries.

I went to best state school where I grew up as it was our catchment school - hated it as they pretty much ignore clever working class kids like me - DH went to a worse secondary school than mine and said he had the same.

I do find most people say this to shut you up though.

Because it elevates the parents’ status in some cases IME.

I think this is not the case for the standard private school. Most of the parents I know in RL who have children at private school are very apologetic about it if they have to admit it, and will be cagy about it when possible.

I agree with witches, I'm very quiet generally about my kids school, I also work in the school in a minimum wage job so it's really not a status thing. My kids are not teased about it either whereas at state school I recall the kids of the dinner ladies being bullied.
I adore my kids school, posh/expensive/ status, however you think it appeals to people the fact is mine are happier there than state (and they were Ofsted outstanding) and the feel around the place is so friendly, warm and calm

Well I couldn't possibly have done any better academically if I had gone to a decent school because I got the maximum grades that existed at the time in everything. But I think I could have been happier and more self confident if I had been elsewhere as I was badly bullied for a whole host of reasons.
However, I don't believe you can generalise. There are good, bad and indifferent schools in both state and independent sectors. I also know many people who have been scarred by their experiences in school, ranging from those who have attended the grottiest of comprehensives to those who went to some of the most prestigious public schools in the country.
My own children attend an excellent state school which outperforms the easily accessible independents in many ways, though I might have chosen differently if we lived elsewhere. My decision was driven wanting good academic standards with lots of extra curricular opportunities and high expectations of behaviour. Fortunately where we live, the state sector can provide all that and I'm left with money to spend on other stuff. We have relatives who have nearly bankrupted themselves to privately educate their children but they have achieved less well than mine and all have some pyschological/behavioural issues. Nothing is guaranteed whatever you do.

If that is the case, then why the competition to get children into the best performing schools?

Skimming this thread and I see others have said what I would also say.

If you’re a bright child in a sink school or even a big-standard comprehensive - and my primary school was the former and my secondary school the latter - the main thing I experienced was bullying.

Bullying to the extent that I was at one point a school refuser. Bullying that still stays with me 40 years later. Bullying that permanently affected my self-esteem and has left me with the assumption that on meeting me people will not like me. And I’m still -40 years later - surprised when people like me.

Sadly, I see posts on MN everyday that suggest that these attitudes which affected so many of us are still pretty common.

I think you've answered your own question there, @Grumpyoldpersonwithcats. In areas like Surrey and Kent, there's massive excess demand for places which the state would struggle to accommodate. So some people go private to avoid the stress of trying to find a suitable house 0.5 miles from the school, or maybe their DC are the wrong gender, religion or level of intelligence for what the state provides.

I'm not denying some people probably choose private for status reasons, but not knowing which school you'll get or at primary, what wraparound it has till a few months before is a problem for dual career families.

Bright children will do OK anywhere (as long as they are not made deeply unhappy by the school situation). IMO, they will thrive and fulfill their potential (academic and otherwise) only where they are supported, staff have time and resource to focus on every child as an individual, and there is a culture of encouraging and celebrating success and it being "cool" (or at least accepted) to work hard.

None of the above is a given in any school, no matter how expensive. I have seen "top flight" (in terms of general reputation and certainly price) schools where bright children can only survive and retain popularity if they pretend that their success is effortless and unintended, and comprehensive schools in not-great catchment areas which do a fantastic job of making meeting your academic potential (whatever that may be) the thing to aspire to and work towards.

Money gives parents the option to look across all sectors. IME, it doesn't give all of them the common sense to assess whether a school is right for their child.

I was bullied at my state grammar for being too academic! I'm glad to say the culture there has changed now.

They can I learn what they are taught.
Not all private schools are great but when they are great they offer so much, expectations are high, kids are really pushed, class sizes are smaller, support and opportunities are superb. There is a huge gap between crap comps and excellent comps but an excellent private takes things to a whole new level. Having said that a bright child can do well in a poor school but it’s an uphill battle, in a good private, it’s the norm.

I’m considered a snob in Scotland because I refuse to just take the catchment school offered to us. We have moved house to ensure top performing schools and to give our kids chance of reaching their potential.

If I could I’d have gone fee-paying. Fee paying schools in Scotland offer opportunities that state schools don’t. Trips, subjects not taught at comp schools, networking for future careers,

I’m not saying quality of education is necessarily any better but it’s smaller classes, better facilities etc but mostly opportunities.

There are schools near us that my kids will never set foot in. Very few Highers achieved, facilities falling apart, very rough etc. Doesn’t inspire achievement. I feel VERY sorry for those who have no choice but to go to these schools and very respectful of those who go on to achieve - but they are the minority. Medics, vets, etc

School system across UK is a mess. We were in England for preschool and reception for our eldest.

@Dolorabelle

I could have written the exact same thing. Bullying (and teachers ignoring it) have had a lifelong effect on me too. I've had a lifetime of low self esteem and an assumption that people won't like me. Time and time again, I've been surprised when people do like me, but even then, I'm always wondering what they're after as I can't believe they like me for who I am and I'm always waiting for the sucker punch.

In answer to the OP, people may say it, but many don’t actually believe it.

Oxbridge changing its entrance policy to make sure it gets enough Students from poor backgrounds, and nonprivate nongrammar schools only further strengthens the impression that bright children do not rise to the top whatever their environment.

My DC was doing great in an outstanding state school, we then went private in a highly selective school, and now she’s even happier. One thing she shared with me was quite surprising but actually makes so much sense - she said that at her old school although she was socially very popular, she was good friends with very few children who shared similar interests. In her new school she has a lot more friends. Everyone is more academic, works hard and shares more similar interests. This makes sense. Most people thrive more in an environment where there are more like-minded, intellectually and emotionally engaging people.

Firstly, in response to the statement that 'children who are naturally bright', I believe that most of a child's intelligence comes from the context they are brought up and is a product of there environment and input from parents. i believe all children have the capacity to be bright.

Secondly, I went to a private school, that I didn't want to go to and hated it and the teacher. ididn't fit into the stereotypical private school girl mould. The teachers said that I wasn't academic andwouldn't go to university- a bit of a self fulfilling prophesy and I didn't at 18 failed Alevels miserably. Since then i got 2 degrees and various other quals. I was totally anti my daughter going to a private school. One of the biggest reasons was that it would limit her life experiences as it did mine. She went to a not well regarded state school.- did well in her GCSEs and in the end went to Oxford and got a first. I truly believe that a child who is so inclined can do well anywhere!!!

@user1497207191 I'm sorry to read that. For me, it's been a lifelong job of reminding myself that the little b* who made my life a misery were small-minded, ignorant and stupid. They really were - this was a time when you could leave school at 14, and most of them did.

And I succeeded exceedingly well, because I had a very intellectual family - upper m-class, actually (both parents went to eminent public schools) - and the schools I was sent to were a cack-handed attempt by my parents to try to live out their liberal ideals of a more equal society, as they had become sickened by the assumption of privilege they'd been brought up with (my father never actually had to work for a living - but he liked to work, and work hard). Sadly, the "little village school" I was sent to for primary was a hotbed of nastiness and reverse snobbery: if you read a book for pleasure you were beaten up, it seemed to me, and my RP accent was mocked mercilessly.

Interestingly, being accused at 7 of being a snob (I mean 7 years old - how can any child know that the way they've learnt to speak is apparently a permanent & implicit critique of every working class person - I mean really????) being accused of being a snob, actually made me more of a snob than I might ever have been - I had the class war beaten out on my body and I hold absolutely no illusions about cosy wonderful working class "community."

I vote Labour and do voluntary work in getting underprivileged kids to university, but heigh ho, I'm a snob ...

And I see the same sorts of attitudes still here on MN played out by assumptions about things that people do or like having ethical and class-war implications.

Both my son and his partner went to bog standard comprehensive schools - I was a widow on a limited income so private schools, extra tuition etc. was not even an option. His partner is from a working class family and similarly there was no spare cash.

My son had lots of jobs throughout University, even working in various factories and warehouses when he went to do additional studies in the Netherlands.

My son is now a high flying chancery lawyer and his lovely lady is a Crown Court Judge.

I tried to instil a thirst for knowledge in my son right from his baby days. We read together, we visited museums and art galleries and from time to time I’d manage to afford to take him to the theatre as well.

When he was twelve, his English teacher criticised him for reading all the Tolkien books and said he needed to read ‘other genres’. When I pointed out that a lot of twelve year olds wouldn’t even read the back of a cereal packet, she shut up.

Sometimes I think private schools are merely a substitute for parents investing time and interest in their kids.

I went to a sink comprehensive. Really sink. Parents had no money as Dad was an unemployed alcoholic. I got 9 grade A O Levels, four As at A Level, a first at uni abs a distinction for my MA - won a scholarship to pay for it. So a posh school couldn’t have improved my results. I now have a great job. Bully for me, right? Well, being good at school was my way of coping with a miserable home life as a kid. I’ve had to work my arse off and watch mediocre but posher people get on much more easily. But the way I look at it, some people are lucky to be born into money, I was lucky because I was bright and motivated. I’d definitely send kids to the best school I could afford though as I wouldn’t want to take any chances..., and some of the kids at my school were rough. But avoiding being glassed has helped hone skills that have come in handy n later life!