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 it's true to an extent. But if you are in a class with tonnes of behavioural problems and not a lot of teaching is getting done because the teacher is just constantly fire fighting, then no, I don't think any child would fulfil their potential.

Bright kids with supportive parents do well.

Everyone is talking abut the school but not the family which is equally as important

Bright children who want to learn will do well anywhere. My son went to a 'failing' secondary school, but him and his whole group of friends were very motivated and determined. Many (including my son) are now at Russell Group universities.
There were other kids though who were equally bright, but used to being able to coast through school, very much struggled there and may well have done far better at a different school.
And for some children, because the school was regarded as failing, they just didn't expect to do well and rather have up putting any effort in

I've got a bright one and I deliberately didn't apply to the selective schools because I knew the pressure would break her. It's not just about grades - now she's aware she's doing well she's really confident and that's how I want her to leave school - above reaching her grade potential

I don't think it is true. Bright children can be self motivated and driven enough to teach themselves. However a bright child in a school where is not cool to do well can be encouraged not to reach their potential. In my experience with 2 teenage DS they thrive on competition at a similar level. DS2 is particularly driven to compete with his 2 best friends at the top of his class in a selective school. I do believe that they are pushing each other upwards in a healthy way.

I think 'some' bright children will do well anywhere but not all of them.

@ScarlettSunset

Bright children who want to learn will do well anywhere. My son went to a 'failing' secondary school, but him and his whole group of friends were very motivated and determined. Many (including my son) are now at Russell Group universities. There were other kids though who were equally bright, but used to being able to coast through school, very much struggled there and may well have done far better at a different school. And for some children, because the school was regarded as failing, they just didn't expect to do well and rather have up putting any effort in

Not if they’re bullied on a daily basis

@AFingerofFudge

I think it could be the difference between "doing well" and "fulfilling their potential" that will change depending on where you go to school.

Exactly. If the school is ill run, if it offers no protection, if it has no mechanism for dealing with bright kids your child could be Einstein and yet never show any sign of brilliance.

I think supportive parents that are able to ne supportive parents are a luxury most kids probably don't have tbh

A Few will have actively unsupportive parents.

Some will have parents who educationally are not at a level to support their child(ren)

The rest well, they are supportive in the sense they provide solve, supplies and do their best to instil a work ethic, but life just gets in the way..work,.other children, disabled children maybe, caring duties for elderly grand parents or kids having to split their time between 2 parebts living apart, and grandparents or childcare of some kind.

Its very simplistic to say that kidd with supportive parents will do well when most kids with supportive parents still don't get the support they need becuase it's impossible.

I think schooling has changed alot too. Homework at times seems.so much u wonder what on earth they have actually done all day if there's this much left undone.

Having to cram.in effectively another school day in the 3 or 4 hours left between returning from work, having dinner and a shower is support few have actual time to provide.

[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]
We're you lacking in confidence before you attended this "high performing indie"?
I don't like the lumping of nom white people into categories based on your singular experience.
I'm a back woman (can't stand the terms POC/WOC) who was state educated throughout. Never had any issues interacting with people from diverse (white, wealthy, landed gentry) backgrounds when I attended my Russell group university.

Private schools may give confidence but for most people confidence is gained at home.

As an aside I find it laughable that people presume bullying doesn't exist in interdependent schools. When I speak to friends and my husband about experiences in their indie (some boarding) schools I'm shocked by some of their experiences. More so that their parents felt it was worth their children's MH to ensure they go these so called "good grades" which ultimately put them in the same university and workplaces as state educated me.

@user1497207191
My son was bullied horrifically at primary school. It was the main reason he went to the secondary school that he did, as it was the only option for him to get away from the bullies.
It is a really difficult thing to deal with, particularly if the school are not interested in helping.

Some children need more support than they get in school. I sorted my son with English & English Literature and his dad supported him Maths and Science. We covered the subjects, time management in exams, how to plan answers quickly (English/English Lit) and set past papers for him.

Passing examinations is about more than just knowing the subject.

It’s also important to recognise that opening children up to opportunities they never knew existed works both ways. Children with aspirational professional parents are likely to push their children in a similar direction for a multitude of reasons. Therefore, consciously or not consciously avenues which May suit or motivate the child.

As my children near the end of school I see too many children pushed in the direction of A level and university that they have little interest in and don’t do particularly well in. Their parents are actively discouraging other routes because university is the expected route. My child and their friends have no idea so many careers are an option for them as they simply don’t see them within their experience. Not one of them would consider trades, nursing, police fire service etc etc because they don’t think they’re for people like them and that comes from their parents, school and lack of exposure.

Ll

Definitely not.
For many years odsted was concerned that top % dc leaving primary were then leaving secondary with low results. Comps find it hard to be all things to all people.

This is exactly why we have the bizzare progress 8 now to track this.

My bright dd who would do well anywhere was rolling along at secondary but not thriving. I've moved her and she seems much happier.

I prefer to look at the child as well, their needs and personality, some will hate smaller classes some really need it.

No. I am bright (not a genius but definitely bright enough) and went to a terrible state school. I scraped some GCSEs, achieved slightly better A Levels and then thrived in my degree. A good school (state or indie) would have ensured I achieve much more. My school had a very anti-success ethos and you were bullied if you were bright. Teachers did not care (too many examples of not actually being taught) and it really was just a holding pen.

I think all schools are better than this today but even so, bright kids will not achieve their potential at a school where there is indifference, bullying and a lack of drive.

It’s hard to succeed when you don’t have a specialist teacher eg pe teacher covers maths, or any teacher just a stream of cover supervisors or constant disruption in class.
Yes there’s a lot online, you can buy books but it takes a very bright motivated child usually with supportive parents (who will help teach or at least buy the books) to teach yourself when you are 13/14/15.
My DD has a disability. Before starting school there were meetings and they kept telling me she’d manage but I didn’t want her to manage I wanted her to thrive.
Same with secondary schools a bright child will probably manage anywhere but do you want them to just manage.

Really bright - yes.
Just above average - not so much. Disruption, lack of discipline, poor work ethic don't leave much chance for success.

I think peer groups are crucial in this. DD2 went to a very average secondary modern (not even a comprehensive) where only a few students even stayed on for A levels. But her friendship group were all kids who wanted to go on to further education – and did. DD2 herself went to a mid-rank university for her first degree but recently got a first-class Masters from a university rated higher than Cambridge and every Russell Group university for her particular field of study.

She would say she isn't naturally 'bright', but she is determined, hard- working and totally focused on what she wants to do. Still, all of that would have been unlikely to happen had she not had friends with the same ambitions.

I wonder whether it depends on the level of intelligence and type of environment v personality. Kids who a phenomenally intelligent will do well anywhere - I went to Oxford and am now an academic so have seen a few in my time.

The biggest difference is for kids who are smart but also pretty average i.e. say top 10% - for them, if they are in a rubbish school, it must be harder to do well. But if they are not competitive, they might also not fare all that well in a London public school - all of those are now highly competitive to get in and very competitive in general. If you are not competitive by nature, you wont fare very well in that environment. Those kids might actually do just as well in a 'naice' middle class state comprehensive in one of the leafy suburbs (I am not suggesting that everyone has access to those).

So it's not simply a question of state v private or intelligence - but personality, intelligence, motivation and what we understand by a private school v state school

@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 A*s, have their education compromised by unsupportive or unambitious environments.

I think a lot also depends on the child personality. A bright and engaged child may well do well anywhere (with in reason), my dd1 is like this and did very well at her very bog standard state school.

A bright but impulsive, easily distracted, hyperactive child (me) or a bright but chronically lazy child (my brother) not so much. We both massively under achieved.

The thing is at 4 when they start school it can be quite hard to tell what they will be like in later years. I’d probably go for state primary and then see how they go. By y6 you’ll know whether they’re the sort of kids who will do well anywhere, or whether it’s worth investing in private for secondary.

@itssquidstella Agreed, a lot of phenomenally bright kids might have been bullied for being smart in a generally rubbish school. However, fiercely competitive private schools ca are also rife in bullying and just because you're smart - if you're not good at games etc, it might have been hard as well. But I am seeing this from a London centric perspective - a place that is full of the best and the worst - but often lacking in just generally ok schools

@3649bb oh I’m not naive - I now work in one of those hyper-competitive London private schools and I know it's not a utopia! But by and large, there is a large enough cohort of 'nerdy' (studious, academic, however you think of them) children that they are able to find their tribe, even if they're not part of the in group.

Nah. Definitely not.

Really bright people come in all sorts of packages. Some have spiky profiles. They won't always be recognised as being bright for whatever reason. Highly skilled teaching staff might be able to deal with a child who has dyslexia, ADHD, autism. Staff might also not be able to look beyond their own biases either, in terms of gender, background, ethnicity etc.