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 think academically they may well achieve the same results. But they will get more opportunities, more clubs, sports, more activities etc at private school. They may also find more likeminded children. I have one at private and one at state.

@forressttheouut

I would disagree, I was a 'bright' child not gifted by any means but I always scored highly on standardized tests and cruised through lower school years no issues. I got straight A*s at GCSE and then proceeded to scrape low passes in my A levels. I was at a low performing state school with a low performing sixth form, my class didn't have a permanent chemistry or physics teacher for the entire 2 years, instead we had a mix and match of whoever was available that term from the local authority. We where very much expected to teach ourselves some topics which had worked at GCSE for me but A level was to complicated. I scraped by on limited teaching, YouTube videos and text books. Perhaps I still would have struggled in a better school with the jump but i'd have done a hell of a lot better i'm sure. As you said theirs a world of difference between gifted and bright, the girl in my class who was clearly gifted taught herself the content and then tried to teach it to the rest of the class she got A*s the rest of us got Cs and Ds

This really resonates with me/my story which was essentially identical. Not sure I'd call myself gifted but in this scenario I was the kid who got A*s at a-levels despite lack of teachers/teaching and tried to teach what I'd learnt to others.

I think the more important thing is assessing your child rather than yourself. If my child was in this position I have no idea what would happen.. do we as parents then try to go give our child the best opportunity we can and privately educate them? I think its a really tough decision and one I don't need to make just yet. From a personal level, I did not want to privately educated and had my own views on those who I went on to meet at university etc that were... but somehow everything changes as a parent.

Being gifted is infinitely more complicated than being bright. I think a bright child is much more likely to succeed anywhere. 50% of Mensa candidates are university drop outs due to a number of factors; gifted people need a lot more nurturing and are extremely misunderstood.

[quote Fretfulmum]@Tessellation I went to a top performing indie, one that often appears on the eduction threads. And I am a WOC. The confidence an education like this gives an ethnic minority, access to networks, people in “top” corporate jobs, insights into that life and into careers that I may not have even known existed, cannot be underestimated for ethnic minorities. It also helped me to communicate well and form solid friendships with white people who are typically at the top of hierarchies in corporate circles. I was seen as “being like them” which helped me propel up the ladder quickly. There are many barriers that ethnic minorities face which you can read about on other threads. Even very bright and determined ones with strong parental support can face significant barriers. My indie removed those for me (I still faced barriers don’t get me wrong but my journey has been far easier than others I know who didn’t have my education). You are right that not all indies would offer this. That’s why you can’t compare indie and state but it’s more about the schools in question.[/quote]
Thank you for this, that's really interesting. And yes I can see that. Some schools - like some universities - will give you a head start in the sense that you don't need to prove your worth - you get your seat at the table. The fact that you attended the school / uni in question means that the other person assumes a level of intellectual competence. Similarly yes I can see that there are career paths and choices that might not even be suggested in certain schools or certain sections of society.

But yes you're right - those are only a very small handful of independent schools. Same as only a very small handful of (two) universities. For the child attending the mid-range, mid-priced independent in Surrey, only put there because their middle class parent is suffering with FOMO but has no real sense of what they hope to achieve by putting their child into that particular school, this isn't the case and often if a child doesn't fit the demographic of that school then it is even more detrimental.

You have the "not quite as rich as the others" child who comes home upset every half term and end of term because her peers are instagramming from their second home in Barbados and her parents can't afford that because they're scrimping to pay the fees. You have the boy who falls in with the rich, cool boys who can all afford drugs but even better whose parents can afford to buy them out of trouble when they inevitably get into it.

I guess my point is that private isn't necessarily better. And it isn't always a choice between the best of the independent sector and the worst of the state sector. There are lots of areas in between. And each option has it's plus and minus points. As a parent I think you have to be very clear about what you want from the particular school that you are sending your child to. The days of ensuring that your child becomes part of the old boys' network are gone. Even with the "old school" schools. It doesn't work that way unless you're very wealthy and already well connected. You're not even guaranteed a job at the end of it. And then what do you do when you've spent all your money on school fees and have nothing left over to help your child onto the property ladder, or help them out with the inevitable endless exploitative unpaid internships. So my point is - of the school choices that you have, taking everything into account, sometimes good enough is good enough. But sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it's worth the years of worry about the next term's fees. But don't do it just because FOMO. That's not a good enough reason. But I think it's the reason for many many parents in this country.

50% of Mensa candidates are university drop outs due to a number of factors

Are most of the factors the need to prove to the world they're bright after dropping out and hence joining mensa, people without the hang-ups about dropping out don't need to.

@sirfredfredgeorge

What a bizarre way to look at the world

I don't think so no.
Some bright children in low achieving schools will be bullied or will take the line of least resistance to fit in. Either will result in them not achieving their potential.

I was 'bright' and was badly bullied at school (mixed state secondary). Mid 90s. It definitely affected my academic performance.
Things may be different now but I'd say it was more accurate to say 'confident children will do well anywhere'

Where ever they go
They still need support
A happy home (could be divorced parents if that means happier homes)
Positivity
Interested parents

Brutally honest - no. Bright children do better with other bright children in an environment that supports and stretches them. Will every bright child get this at every state school? No. There's a reason more kids for private schools are in top roles. (And I say this as someone who can't afford to sent her DC to a private school) but look at Oxford/Cambridge and all the top professions. That's not to say some state schools can't do this, some absolutely can. But anywhere? No.

I haven’t the faintest idea because I as the going to risk a very bad State school for my very bright DD. She might have done as well at that school as she did at her a Private school but as we could easily afford it (and got a 25% scholarship as well) I did this feel might was good enough.
I do think that she was pushed more at her Private school though. She was on track for an 8 in History for example but her teacher had the time and energy to encourage her to a 9. Her history class was a group of 6 with no behavioural issues and I feel that Any teacher would find it easier to push that group than a mixed group of 30

@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 rings true to me, but it does depend on the culture of the school. I was much happier in the selective school I managed to get to. My friend who also got into that school didn't - she needed an environment where she could be special, whereas I found the academic focus suited me. I hated my previous school, was bullied in part for being too academic, and was so glad to leave it. What I needed to thrive was an environment where being interested in lessons was not a complete negative. Sounds like your daughter might be similar.

I think the key is that they have peers who are likeminded. My kids are in an academic comprehensive. Doing your best is the default. Teaching to a level 9 is the default. Not all children get 9’s but the vast majority get 7-8 and pretty much every child reaches their expectation. At A level the difference is more marked. Every child is ambitious and the A level results and uni destinations reflect that.

@Oneforthemoneytwo exactly - likeminded peers are so crucial. At my secondary school, in our top set French class of around 25 pupils, only five of us were entering for the higher paper - so only five pupils in the entire class could even aim to get higher than a C at GCSE. It's exactly that lack of aspiration that can make school so miserable for bright and ambitious children.

I agree that having likeminded peers is crucial - especially for shy children like my daughter who desperately want to fit in with everyone else.

It's much more to do with the culture of the school than it is to do with independent v. state.

There are some great comprehensives around that do challenge and support every child to do achieve their potential, and I'm sure there are some independents that just coast along. Certainly when we were looking there were plenty of independents I wouldn't have touched.

I found my DC naturally gravitated to like minded DC. The naughty kids became much less of an issue after options were chosen as they tended to pick different subjects and none of them stayed on for sixth form.

@CrimbleCrumble1 I agree. Actually the kids who were “naughty” in year 7 & 8 some carried on into the later years but because the general expectation was to sit down and crack on the ones who had Been easily led but were actually deep down either bright / hard working or had parental expectations on their shoulders actually got on with studying, those who weren’t interested were in the tiny minority and ended up not getting any attention for their behaviour and actually ended up getting reasonable GCSE’s, possibly because they lost interest in arsing about when nobody had any time for it.

At A level, the teachers were very clear with the kids. They said “you’re here because you’ve chosen to be, nobody is making you so if you don’t want to study then leave” and they made no bones about it

No, I don’t. School makes a big difference.

I think it depends on the child. My DS has gained lots of confidence at the local good state school by being towards to top of the class. He just missed out on grammar school. Would he have done better there? He’s quite an anxious child. Languishing in the bottoms sets at grammar and. not getting high marks in tests could have had a detrimental effect on him. Some children thrive under that sort of pressure. Other children, though bright, need a more nurturing environment.

In my experience only a proportion do. My personal experience, in the depths of time, was that I was bright but under the radar in a large year group so slid downwards. It was only the few extremely bright, socially competent, wealthier backgrounds that did well. In a year group of 400+ less than a dozen I know about. Expectations were low, particularly if you came from the local estate. I was determined my own DC wouldn't be treated in that way.

@MeMumI

No. It's a lie.

I'm a teacher and wrote my last module for my EdD looking at how bright children from low socioeconomic backgrounds are locked out of accessing top unis through the school they attend.

It's complex, there's a myriad of reasons.... teacher turnover, content taught, subjects on offer and levels taught, impact of teaching quality, impact of friends etc.... all impact on students' ability to do well.

This. If bright kids do equally well anywhere, why are there so few kids from crap comprehensives at Oxbridge/in Med school etc?

Do we assume schools where nobody gets 5 good GCSE passes just happen to have a load of dim kids attending? Or could it perhaps be that the quality of the teaching you receive affects your academic results?

I think the school absolutely does matter. I'm not sure why anyone thinks the best teachers work in private schools though?

[quote itssquidstella]@Oneforthemoneytwo exactly - likeminded peers are so crucial. At my secondary school, in our top set French class of around 25 pupils, only five of us were entering for the higher paper - so only five pupils in the entire class could even aim to get higher than a C at GCSE. It's exactly that lack of aspiration that can make school so miserable for bright and ambitious children.[/quote]
DH’s mum had to go in and argue for him to be allowed to take the top paper in English - the school hadn’t planned to put anyone in for it at all, because it’s easier to just teach everyone the easier syllabus. He had to do extra lunchtime lessons to cover the syllabus. He got an A*, and went in to get an A at A-level (this was when A was the top grade).

Somebody with a less pushy mum would have ended up with a C, and wouldn’t have been able to do it at A level. He says about 50% of the year (the ones who were put in for the lowest paper) just stopped attending in Y9, because why bother sitting the exam if the highest grade you can possibly get is an E?

Mine are bright, went to local secondary and did well. The school streamed classes and top group meant that there was little disruption and plenty of competition. I suspect the lower groups had a different experience.
I don't subscribe to the "independent school education means success" though after dn got distinctly average GCSEs and two D's at A level despite the spoonfeeding. It did quieten SIL though who was very vocal on the benefits and advantages of an independent school education.

@chillidoritto

I think the school absolutely does matter. I'm not sure why anyone thinks the best teachers work in private schools though?

You may not have meant me, but I didn’t say the best teachers were in the private sector! Just that the best teaching isn’t to be had in bad comps. Not entirely down to the teachers, the learning environment and school culture matter a lot.

I was contrasting that with well-performing state schools whose pupils do achieve good grades, not private schools.