Do you think it’s true that ‘bright children do well anywhere’?

[Angelsandchanges]

I’m not sure it is. I read this a lot on here.

I think bright children may do ‘OK’, in the sense they may pass their GCSEs but I don’t think they necessarily have the optimum school experience and I don’t think they always reach their potential.

I think gifted children do, but there’s a world of difference between gifted and bright. What do others think? I’m asking because I’m wondering whether to opt for private or state.

I've known exceptionally bright people who powered through the syllabus and then, because they lacked support or had extraordinarily challenging backgrounds or had various crises, crashed and burned. And never recuperated.

The idea that "bright kids do well anywhere" is ableist and classist.

The separated adopted twin studies are interesting. They suggest that in the absence of trauma, with normal parenting (no neglect or abuse), and in communities with okay infrastructure (developed nation, no extreme poverty or other stressors), outcomes are almost entirely determined by genetics. Twins separated at birth and raised by entirely different families with completely different educational approaches end up with bizarrely similar outcomes.

This is a very nuanced one, OP. NC to reply to you.

I am autistic. My IQ is 162, apparently. Not gifted but bright.

I had a terrible upbringing, very abusive. Went to one of the worst state schools in the country.

I got very high results, at GCSE and A-level. I was however relentlessly bullied at school as well as at home, so I was suicidal for all of that time. After I escaped my parents I barely attended school - in tje final stages of GCSE and for most of A-levels.

So yes, I got high marks. But was it a good environment? No. They didn't even notice that I was an abused child. It was the worst time of my life and more than two decades later my mental health still hasn't recovered.

I went to a very sought after University, got a very sought after graduate job and am now currently in the highest 1% of earners apparently. But life is still very hard for me now.

Would it have been better at a private school? There is no way to know. I expect the work wouldn't have been so boring and it wouldn't have been considered "elitist" to stretch intelligent pupils. But most of the people in my social circle now went to private schools and many of them were miserable and have long-term mental health problems as a result, too. Private schools are not a panacea: many are also rife with bullying.

So it depends what you mean by "success"? Getting good qualifications and a job? Mental wellbeing? From personal experience it appears school choice can go either way on both of those.

My primary concern for my children would be choosing a school that appropriately sets/ streams and really stretches a bright child so they aren't bored out of their mind. And even more importantly one that I was confident actually enforce an absolutely zero tolerance policy on bullying (many say they do but do not) so that any bully is removed to isolation at first offence and then if they continue, permanently excluded. As parents we should all be pushing for that above all else.

There is absolutely no excuse for it and I think far too often, still, "allowances" are made for bullies and the victims just suffer. It reminds me a lot of the debate in recent years about VAWAG and we really need to ensure all children have that same kind of protection where this is absolutely unacceptable. I think the ethos of a school - public or state - will be the most important thing to your child's wellbeing.

Despite my good results etc no I haven't achieved my potential, because these things have a huge impact that doesn't go away. I am not at all convinced that it would have been better at a private school though, I have to say. I have heard horror stories from those as well.

[quote itssquidstella]**@3649bb* without wanting to blow my own trumpet, I was one of those phenomenally bright kids (it's been downhill all the way since!) and I did do really well academically at my very shit comprehensive where there was no real academic peer group. But I maintain that I'd have enjoyed school more, and got a better all-round education, in a different environment. School isn't just about grades, and I think a lot of bright pupils, even if they do get their string of As, have their education compromised by unsupportive or unambitious environments.[/quote]
Also for someone bright the bar of an A* at GCSE or A-Level is fairly low.

So someone may come out from either state or private school with a string of the same grades as you say, but that doesn't mean they have learned the same amount. So much time in state education is spent just treading water if you are intelligent. It's also demoralising and very boring.

But the environment in private schools can be equally toxic and unwelcoming. I think the specific school and the environment, the way it is managed, their approach to managing the dynamics between pupils, is far more of a determining factor than the funding mechanism, in terms of whether it is an environment a child will thrive in.

No, it definitely isn't true. I'm a teacher and I've taught in a range of schools including private and state schools. In a school where a lot of the pupils have behaviour problems, the teachers won't have the time to spend with the few bright kids. They'll be constantly interrupted and distracted. The teachers will be run ragged and burnt out, so even if they are caring and creative, they won't have the time or energy to make their best lessons.

Behaviour in schools is a lot worse these days than it was when we were children.

My kids will be going to private school.

No, I was bright but was badly bullied & ended up virtually dropping out at 16. Ds is extremely bright & like me was bullied, he has suffered with severe MH & has dropped out of Y13 due to this & having ME/CFS. We are both autistic.

DD is bright and at a selective private secondary, she is looking to get 8s snd 9s at GCSE as much as this can be predicted in year 9. She may well have done this at our local (dire) state school, or she may not. But she is so happy and confident and just herself and to me this is the difference between private and state, she has been encouraged and nurtured and I believe she would be a very different person if she had gone to our local state school.

DS is completely average academically and hated every minute of primary school. He’s a bit of a class clown bordering on disruptive at times and I was aware this could have got worse in secondary with encouragement from his peers. The state school he would have gone to has a lot of behaviour issues. He goes to a different private school to DD with more of a sports focus and he is absolutely thriving. Academically he is still very average but for the first time in his life he loves school and has thrown himself into all of the extra curricular activities including art and music and new sports.

So to me the private state debate is not just about academic achievement, it’s about the whole secondary school experience. We have made huge sacrifices to afford the fees, we aren’t rich but it’s something we have chosen to prioritise and I don’t regret our decision.

Both my dses are bright and have well in local schools. Primary was satisfactory, became exceptional as ds2 left, secondary and sixth form were requires improvement for most of the time they were there.

Both got 9’s and one 8 in their GCSE’s (a school year between them). Ds1 got in to Oxford University and Ds2 is waiting for the outcome following his interview. If he doesn’t get in to Oxford he is looking at Durham or Exeter. So yes, mine have done very well thankfully. We couldn’t afford to move and there is essentially no choice round here as schools are full with catchment children.

I think as well as being bright, both mine were self motivated and focused so we’re able to learn and do self directed stuff.

I think there's a world of difference between gifted and bright, in terms of the ability to do well wherever they go.

I'd say I was academically gifted and despite going to a very average state school, achieved 12 A*s at GCSE without much effort. DH is what I'd consider bright, but went to a private school and despite doing slightly less well than me in terms of results, still came out with really good GCSEs, which he's convinced he wouldn't have without all the additional support, small class sizes etc at his school.

I also think it makes a bigger difference than people realise in terms of the connections that people make through private schooling and how much this can later propel their professional careers, whether fairly or unfairly. Despite being objectively more academically intelligent than DH, he earns almost double what I do for example 🤷🏼‍♀️

It depends on the child and it depends on the schools (both the private and state school). It also depends on your definition of ‘achieving their potential’.

The reality is that private schools exist to provide a service to parents that they want and, by and large, despite what they may say, most parents will look to the school that gets the best results or, if a bit more sophisticated, added value. So, private schools are really good at optimising exam results.

In addition, parents want long school days (but also long holidays, so they can fit in foreign breaks) and plenty of extra curricular a”opportunities. So, if your child is musical, sporty or thespy, and you want a one-stop-shop for everything, the private route is by far the best.

Finally, private schools have the wonderful advantage that they can get rid of trouble makers without caring what happens next, so most classes are less disrupted.

On the other hand, state schools are heavily constrained by budget, and getting ever more squeezed and, despite their best efforts, cannot provide the same experience.

The advantage of state schools is that they end up being less crammer-like and do not feel the need to provide endless support for those who fail to complete prep, revise for tests etc. So, the pupils who do succeed are far more prepared for uni (despite what private schools say they do on paper). They are better independent learners. This is shown by data that state school pupils entering uni with the same grade as private school pupils end up with (on average) better degrees.

In addition, if you are a motivated parent and want great extra curricular, the £20k saved per annum will buy you a lot of club memberships and private music/sports lessons. And the child will typically be free an hour earlier with less homework.

In sum, you need to look at the individual schools with an open mind and thinking about whether you want a one-stop-shop or are prepared to take a more active role in your child’s education.

I find this hard to answer. I went to a high performing grammar school which was great for my exam results. I loved school. My kids go to private school so I obviously compare their experience to mine. Academically it's similar, although the teachers are perhaps more engaged than some of mine.

The single biggest difference is the extracurricular stuff. The sports facilities are incomparable to my school, as are the number of fixtures and training sessions. The question asked was about bright children so sports provision is arguably tangential but it makes my children love school and, by extension, work hard.

The kids also have more self-confidence than me, particularly in public speaking. Their school careers service is in a different league, particularly for tapping contacts for work experience. That said, I arranged my own which makes you be proactive. I agree that parental support and being surrounded by kids with similar aspirations play a big part, and these aren't limited to private schools.

@TheCatsKilledTheGonks I totally agree - I got my A*s without working hard and had to learn how to actually apply myself at university. I still don't think I’m as self-disciplined as many of the children I teach now!

They do well, they don't necessarily fulfil their potential however there's more to life than just school so a happy bright child reaching 90% of potential is better than a stressed anxious child at one of these super selectives who drive the kids to mental health issues

No I don't think they do equally well regardless of school.

My closest comp secondary has a lot of disruption in class from bad behaviour. The grades they get are below what they should. I dont want to send my 'bright' child there. The 'average' local private school gets much better results.

Discipline in school needs to be looked at, so all children can thrive.

I don’t think bright children do well anywhere. They need a pleasant environment without too much disruption or bullying. The quality of teaching is less important as long as the child is happy and safe.

This is the mantra wheeled out all the time on here but it is not true. Bright children in a rubbish school will underperform. They will get by but their potential will be wasted.

I have taught in state secondary schools and now teach in a state sixth form. I value state education but really wish it was better than it is. Constant scrutiny means that schools are obsessed with results and teaching to the test. From what I have observed of students coming from private schools is that a more holistic, self motivated approach seems to be encouraged which seems to result in mature, confident learners. The state school students I teach tend to be more dependent on teachers, have less confidence in their own abilities and opinions. I think it is at A Level that perhaps the difference really shows. I wish this was not the case (and it is a generalisation) but this is what I've observed. That said, my own children go to state school for various reasons.

@Alayalaya

I don’t think bright children do well anywhere. They need a pleasant environment without too much disruption or bullying. The quality of teaching is less important as long as the child is happy and safe.

Fully agree. It's an absolute travesty that bullying and disruption isn't properly tackled by so many schools/teachers.

They need a pleasant environment without too much disruption or bullying.

I agree with this!

My Dd failed her 11+ (By one mark) due to being ill on the day - not just saying this as an excuse - she always did better on primary school tests than those who passed for instance, all the primary school teachers were amazed etc

Everyone said this to us re bright children do well anyway

I do think it’s broadly true. However what I came on to say is that she really hates all the testing, pressure at the outstanding comp she ended up going to - so probably wouldn’t have liked the grammar anyway! (I don’t think she likes tests tbh!)

Gifted children absolutely DO NOT do well anywhere (in my experience).
DD2, distinction violin Grade 8 at 8 (having picked it up at 6) at a state primary with v brilliant local authority peri' teacher. All good so far? Nope - school 100% refused outright to assess for dyslexia "because she's so bright" ffs. Went off to a specialist music school and immediately assessed and subsequently diagnosed and help put in place. I believe that once her particular specialism no longer made her stand out because she was amongst peers of similar musical ability they could see she was struggling terribly academically.
Not to mention some of the nastiness directed at her from adults - I'm afraid to say - at her first primary school.... the other kids were fine.

Going off my own experience, I was a bright/gifted child who did very well in a crap state school in the 90s. I did well because I was a perfectionist, motivated to do well and found my identity in being 'the clever one'. Was I happy? No, because like lots of PPs I was bullied for being 'the clever one'. This left me very anxious and socially awkward and it has taken years to overcome this. I did fine at school but there wasn't much ambition for the students. Pastoral support was terrible. There were so many behaviour issues. I am hoping to send my DCs private as DC1 is bright but probably on the spectrum and has a lot of social struggles. He's also very easily distracted by the disruptive kids and I cannot imagine him doing well in our (terrible) catchment state school.

I should add, he is bright but I don't want to push top grades and university if that's not what works for him. I want him to reach his potential and thrive, whatever that looks like.

Finally, private schools have the wonderful advantage that they can get rid of trouble makers without caring what happens next, so most classes are less disrupted.

I think this is a critical point. State schools need to start taking a similar approach and focusing on the children who want to learn, rather than ruining their education to try to "support" those who can't be bothered.

State schools aren't allowed to exclude too many kids, though. Get ofsted to change the criteria. Or better, get the gov to pump money in to schools so that kids can get better support. Can't cope in mainstream? Here you go: a school better suited to you. But let it be quicker- not years and years until it reaches crisis point.

Get parents to teach their children to respect other people.

I'm a long time teacher in various state schools, with a bright but weird kid who's in a pretty awful state school. Don't know what the teaching is like there; it's more the area we live in. But he's yr7 and is already used to disruption, mainly from older kids banging on doors or barging in when they pass.