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.

"Bright" children will do better than normal ones in any school, but a bright child in a private school will do better than a bright child at state school. By the same token, normal children or even slower ones will do better at private school than they would have at state school. Private schools are just more likely to maximize the individual's potential.

There are a lot of reasons why, better resources and better teachers being the main ones. But there's also the factor that private schools tend not to have the very worst pupils, the ones that really disrupt everyone else's learning. As a general rule parents who send their kids to private school have an interest in their child's education and will put pressure on their child to behave and to learn. At state school there are always children whose parents don't give a shit about them or their future, they don't care how they behave or whether they even turn up.

Private schools have more resources. Those resources are spent on the things that help. A state school has less resources and a disproportionate amount are spent on managing the least productive pupils.

@AFS1

I’ve been telling myself this for the last year or so. Daughter is in yr 9 at local state school. Academically she’s doing well. I think she’ll get good grades if she stays there. But emotionally she’s really suffering. It’s the kind of school where being bright and wanting to succeed brings negative attention so she’s getting a lot of low level bullying for putting herself out there, either in answering questions in class, or wanting to be elected as school councillor. Plus the constant disruption in her lessons is draining. We’ve reached the stage where we’re going to pull her out and send her to private school. It’ll be life-changing to find the fees, and I don’t think she’ll necessarily get markedly better grades, but we’ve seen a real deterioration in her confidence and self-esteem that could impact on her long-term if we don’t resolve it.

But I think it’s very dependant on the school.

This. I'm ok bright but was tortured through secondary for coming top in tests or doing well. Conversely though we live in area with grammar schools, there is immense pressure to be top, be the best and if your not, your chucked on the heap so to speak.
Pastoral care is everything

I don’t agree. I was a bright child who went to an utterly average comp. All the misbehaving kids got the attention and the bright ones were just left to get on with it because we did well and didn’t make a fuss. I felt totally overlooked and I think I could’ve done much, much better and reached my full potential if my teachers had given a shit.

One other massive factor is parents. I think, regardless of the school, if you have really engaged parents who can encourage and supplement learning at home, then the outcomes can be much improved.

My parents didn’t give a shit either.

I’ve ended up with a postgraduate qualification and have a successful career, but that was in spite of, rather than because of my education.

I probably could’ve been Oxbridge material if I hadn’t have gone to a school where they were just grateful if you turned up to lessons at all.

Mt dd is positively thriving in the state sector. Couldn't be doing better elsewhere. However, you might put her in the "gifted" category as opposed to "just bright".

FWIW, we could have afforded private but I didn't think it was worth it. I can see that there might be benefits for academically average children or for those who are lacking in self motivation. Also for those who are very shy or lacking in self confidence. Otherwise I wouldn't bother. We have no regrets at all.

Yes at gcse. As long as reasonable motivated, they will probably do quite well. Maybe not quite at their potential but good. enough. However at A level it is a different ball game and to get the higher grades you need to be surrounded by high achieving peers. It's not just the conversations/challenge in class but the normalisation of work ethic. Having worked in both private and state schools it is the attitude of their peers which can have a dramatic effect.

I have taught very bright students in A level classes where the majority are mediocre and as the bright students are always at the top of the class, they are not motivated to do more, they don't hear other students asking probing questions, or giving excellent answers which they can learn from.

No, it isn't true. Children with the same potential will do better in a school with excellent teaching, facilities, support, behaviour, motivation, expectations, smaller classes etc.

One of my brothers was really bright, like, top of the class bright. He went to a mega posh school (not Eton, but one like that) and bombed there. They recognised he was bright, but they just couldn't motivate him to actually do anything. He eventually left and went to do classics at a really good uni- he left after 2 years with a general degree (this is never good). He bummed around for 7 years before realising his passion was actually biology - he did an access course and now has a PhD and post doctoral things and helped develop the covd vaccine.

I don't know what his story teaches us, really, but I guess it could be that bright children do best when their motivations are realised and nurtured. Otherwise, they can go stale and coast for a bit.

YANBU. I’m way above average intelligence, IQ measured when I was a kid. I went to a private school where I was bullied and went through hell. The teachers constantly turned a blind eye because I wasn’t from one of the really rich/famous families. It led to severe mental health issues in my teens and I screwed up my a-levels. Despite going to two excellent schools. Got myself sorted and back on track in my mid 20’s. I’m now a very successful businesswoman.

“Excellent” school means nothing if they have a culture of bullying.

Definitely not, but it's very much not about state vs. private. It's all about support and the right learning environment and good friendships and feeling happy and secure at school.

I was privately educated my whole life, from pre-school on up through secondary. The primary school I went to was horribly competitive and cut-throat, very pushy parents, very hot house-y. It was awful. In that very traditional, pushy environment, I was very middle of the road, and also very unhappy. I cried on the way to school most days. I just didn't do well. I went to take entrance exams at another school eventually and I did so poorly on the maths exam that the headmaster told me (to my face) that I was so far behind that they wouldn't offer me a place as it was unlikely I'd even finish secondary school.

My mum found another (also private) school and moved me for Y7. They immediately put me in a maths class that was for the Y8s and they provided lots of one-on-one attention, and more importantly, lots of pastoral care. I made lovely friendships there, there were much smaller class sizes, and it was just such a different experience. I finished top of my year, went on to uni, now have a PhD and I'm a lecturer. No doubt I would not have done as well if I'd stayed somewhere where I wasn't supported and that wasn't a good fit for me, private school or not.

DD was "bright" at primary. However she could find trouble in an empty room and even then DH and I thought there was something a bit off about how she learned. She passed for a good london private school and it's been the best thing we could have done.
They identified an issue and worked with us and the Ed Psychologist to get a much needed ADHD diagnosis which changed her life. Properly medicated her grades improved by 3 levels. All of her teachers know the situation and work with the SEN team- she's always sat at the front of the class (on her own table) and the teachers check regularly that's she's engaging in the lessons. Every new teacher she ever has gets a full briefing about how she works best - it's 3 sides of A4 and it's amazing.

Maths is her weakest subject. She got 103 in her year 6 SATS which tracks to about a C (level 5) GCSE. Shes currently in the next to bottom set at school getting additional help. There are 6 of them, a teacher and a TA. She's just got a 7 in her most recent maths exam. She's on target for all 7/8/9.
She is working hard but there is no way the local comp (which is a good one) could have supported her like this.

Bright children with parents that laud them for their talents generally have a very strange self belief or inability to relate to more normal people. Oh wait.... is that just what private education does?

All children react to their environment, but a bright child with supportive parents who have time, money and personal resources to fill gaps in their education will be less negatively effected by a poor school than others.

@Smileyaxolotl1

Totally agree with randomsabreuse

A motivated bright child will do well anywhere.
I think a lot of it depends on friendship groups.
At a comprehensive they are more likely to get in with the wrong crowd but if they don’t they can do amazingly well.
My daughter is bright but a bit lazy and a follower and my husband and I are very aware that if she does not get a grammar space her future could go either way.

I agree. My twins are in y8 at a rough comp which is rated outstanding. DD is bright and very motivated, has a group of similar friends and is excelling. These girls are very much in the minority and called 'neeks' but luckily they have each other and don't care.

DS2 is, I would say, gifted but got lazy at primary school and is far more interested in being 'cool'. He now has some pretty dodgy friends (think addicted to vaping at 12yo). He's actually doing worse academically than DD now. So, it really is so much about friends and I think in an academic private school (NB. Not all private schools are), DS2 would be much more likely to be in with the 'right' group than he has the opportunity where he is currently. He'll probably be ok but I don't think he'll fulfill academic potential where he is. That's life! And academics aren't everything.

I think streaming works well for clever children but also interested parents are key.
The main issue in some secondaries is behaviour related and one or two poorly behaved kids can ruin a whole class (from memory of my school days).
My daughter is at a good prep and if the parents are not engaged then the kids still do very badly. They might get a little more school support but it normally doesn’t make much difference and if anything makes the situation worse because the parents have expectations and spend their time fighting with the school, rather than addressing their lack of involvement.
My understanding is that from about year 2 parents need to be really engaged these days. This simply isn’t possible for many of us so kids lose out. Same for lockdown.
My experience is that low level bullying and exclusion, often online, is now having a negative effect on kids who would otherwise do well. This is extremely difficult to manage.

I think it is true on the basis that it means "a bright child won't fail so obviously under inadequate provision, as the negative impact on them will only move them from top to middle-to-good grades rather than to low ones OR they will have the ability/motivation to learn from outside sources and thereby cover up the failure of their core provision."

I don't think it is true if it means "bright kids don't need proper tuition because they innately absorb what they need for great gcse passes through the air".

I think that avoiding bullying is more important than a "good school".
My bro and I both went to a very mediocre comprehensive. Both got good grades and degrees. Dbro has a science PhD.
Our little sister went to private primary and out of county grammar school instead. She hated her Grammar school experience (bullying), was miserable, and got similar grades to me and Dbro.
I think bullying isn't necessarily any less in a "good" school.

The desire to "close the gap" in attainment in the UK means there is little motivation for schools to stretch their most able/high attaining children.

Pupils in receipt of pupil premium attain lower on average. The governments primary aim is to close the attainment gap between these and other pupils. The only way to do that is for these pupils to make faster progress than higher attaining pupils.

It's been trendy for many years to emulate the educational results in countries like Finland. Finland gets great outcomes on average. But it lacks the top end because the focus is on equality of attainment, possibly to the detriment of it's most able achieving their potential.

I think it depends massively on the school - are they invested in their able students, do they deal well with bullying? And you can't predict that. We got very lucky with our local state secondary - it was a hellhole when DD1 was born, but by the time she was secondary age it had been well and truly turned around. It's not one of those draconian zero tolerance Michaela type schools, but it has superb pastoral care, comes down on bullying like a tonne of bricks and really invests in getting maximum outcomes for everyone - during my DDs' GCSEs they ran booster classes in multiple different streams, with a different focus for each group. Exam results are really good given how un-leafy their catchment is.

But sadly, not all schools are like that.

I think some children are more influenced by their peers than others. I was very bright but lazy, started in state, then switched to private (scholarship), My friends in the private school were very rich and not very bright - I scraped very poor a levels, despite small classes and excellent teachers. I think I would have done better at the state school where a few of my friends, who were bright and highly motivated, did extremely well.

I think what type of environment people do well in varies. Some people do better with a competitive environment, some people do better in a co-operative one.

One of the brightest people I ever met chose to do their Maths doctorate in a University where she would be the only student working at her level.

Her reasoning was that there she would get a lot of time and attention from the staff, whereas if she went to Cambridge she might get lost in a crowd.

Bright children won't necessarily do well anywhere.

Bright children with SEN who don't get the right support will struggle. Bright children whose parents aren't interested in their education have to also be incredibly highly motivated.
Bright children with MH issues or who are bullied will almost certainly suffer academically.

That's just 3 examples off the top of my head! My ASD dd is bright but very anxious and can't cope with the school environment at all, so she obviously doesn't do well anywhere.

DH and his sister both went to Oxford from a truly shit school (I worked there at one time so trust me on this!), but his parents were super-involved and paid for all the music lessons/computer equipment/scout activities etc. so there was more to it than just being bright.

I went to 6 different schools (Royal Navy family), of varying degrees of quality, and my parents weren't particularly bothered how I did but I was very self-motivated so I did well academically too. My brother (bright but probably with some degree of SEN) did not.

No it’s obviously bollocks. Look at all the people who have gone on to be a great success (I don’t just mean cash -artists etc) who were obviously bright but still struggled at school.

@AFS1 my school experience sounds similar to your daughter's. I did well academically (from a purely grades point of view) but I missed out on so much in terms of opportunities to develop my interests and understanding, and I was miserable for the majority of my time at school.

Bright, motivated children need a peer group of similarly bright, motivated children in order to fulfil their potential. That's not only available in private/grammar schools, but they are more likely to be able to offer it.

A string of A*s is only one way of measuring success, and achieving them doesn't mean someone has had a good educational experience.

I think bright children will do well in an AMBITIOUS state school, which wants to do well in league tables, send children to Oxbridge etc.
Then the child will do very well as it will stand out and be nurtured.
So the key is to find schools such as this, I think - and in London, there certainly are some like this (eg West London Free, Mary Mags in North London, Barnes Primary for primary school, etc).
My brother in law who went to a very dodgy state school (but did very well) always said that the extremes (highly performing children and very poorly performing children) got all the teachers attention - it was the ones in the middle, who didn't stand out in any way, who got forgotten about.

How can anyone really believe this is true? 28.1% of children at state comprehensives get grade 7 or above at GCSE, 62.1% at private schools do (figures here: www.politicshome.com/news/article/gcse-grade-inequality-free-school-meals-private-grammar-state-keir-starmer/).

The only way you can see those figures and still think that bright children do just as well at any school is if you think rich children are just cleverer than poor ones - does anyone really think that?