"A smart child will do well in any school" - not true?

[TBNT]

Inspired to ask this due to another thread.

But it's something that's been said to me countless times over the years when looking at the (pretty awful) schools in our local area.

I have always politely nodded while thinking in my head "I'm pretty sure my very academic, yet nerdy and socially anxious child wouldn't do very well in that school"

And until reading on here today hadn't seen that opinion expressed elsewhere and just felt like I was being unreasonable in my own head.

So just that really - I've heard of kids coming out of rough comps with loads of 9s. But I genuinely feel that a child like my eldest DD would not achieve what she's capable of in a place she felt uncomfortable.

Depends on the personality of the child. My very quiet and bright eldest DS would have hated the rowdiness and poor behaviour of the boys' only comp that I worked at for many years. I used to feel so sorry for the boys with similar personalities and ability in my old school who struggled to manage simple things like walking down the corridor or the yard at lunchtime. My DS went to a grammar instead and it suited his personality really well - lots of quiet nerds who wanted to behave, and his friend group had v similar personalities to him. He could not have done any better academically and is thriving at a top uni now. His school was the right place for him, without a doubt.

However my neice is at a similar comp to the one i worked at, where behaviour can be an issue. She's a different personality to DS. She's very bright, but she's also very confident and has always held her own, not scared to voice her opinions. Doesn't follow the crowd and isn't easily led. Rolls her eyes in class at the poorly-behaved kids, does her best to focus on lessons and ignore the poor behaviour, is a total self-starter doing lots of extra work and reading in her own time, very ambitious, got a good group of friends who are similar to her. It's early days as she's only doing GCSEs this year but the signs are that she will do brilliantly. The school doesn't have a 6th form so she'll go elsewhere to college and I'm sure will apply herself there too. I have no doubt that attending her "rough" school has not made any difference to her outcomes, and in some ways has made her less sheltered and more robust.

So it all comes down to whether an academic child's personality is robust enough to cope with the chaos that a "rough" school can bring, so that they can be tenacious enough not to develop a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" when there's poor behaviour going on around them.

I don't think it's particularly about the quality of teachers as in the rough school I worked in there were some outstanding teachers. I think it's probably easier them to teach in a school where behaviour is good though.

They are doing a lot of work at the moment looking at why pupil premium kids (basically free school meals kids) who have achieved well in the end of primary tests do so badly at GCSEs.

So bright but poor kids tend to do worse at secondary (overall in the U.K.).

So it's certainly the case that these clever kids aren't doing well.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f564f07d3bf7f4d75de7000/Researchtoounderstandsuccessfullapproachestoosupportingtheemostacademicallyyabledisadvantageddpupils.pdf

It's a balance. Schools have always had a socialising aim as well as (or as part of) an educational mission.

Some countries spend more time than the UK, especially in early years, working on soft skills like sharing, team work, speaking up, assessing risk etc.

Overwhelming schools with targets while squeezing resources isn't conducive to a good learning environment.

Doing well is subjective. I would say that in general a smart child will do well academically in any school but they could do much better in certain schools than they do in others. Will they do well mentally and socially though? There will also always be some exceptions and perhaps some children who don’t do well mentally and/socially which impacts them academically.

Hmm, I feel like it might be harder for some kids to fit in at some rougher schools. I work at a plant in a pretty rough working class area and most of the lads went to the local schools. Plenty of XL bully owners and cocaine use amongst them compared to people I know from more privileged backgrounds.

The same applies across the board

Moderate ability but easily led
Moderate ability but lazy
Moderate ability but lacking in confidence
Moderate ability but lacking social skills
Moderate ability but developing MH issues
Moderate ability but masking intelligence to fit in

• none of those will do well

No matter what the intelligence level of the child, you need to find the school which is the least worst fit to their personality.

And bright won't necessarily do better home-schooled. They'll have the attention to follow their academic pursuits but may struggle with interpersonal skills.

Only you know your child. My DS is incredibly bright but was constantly told by teachers he was underperforming. Started homeschooling and included plenty of time outdoors, physical activities, as well as the basic maths/english everyday and he started learning SO MUCH FASTER. Last week he told me e=mc^2 and quantum physics- that is university level and he is only 13!

Not true. Which is why I choose to home educate.
I've seen too many bright and curious children, failed in schools. It's the dog eat dog environment that is the problem. An unhappy child can't thrive or learn well.

I think a smart child can do well in any school academically, but how gratifying an experience school is for them is another matter.

An intelligent motivated child can probably still get good results at a school where a small number of kids who DGAF are allowed to disrupt lessons constantly, but it'll be a pretty miserable existence especially as this kind of disruption must be incredibly tedious as well.

Depends very much on the child and also the support and encouragement given by parents.
Some children can can do amazingly well in a 'bad' school, and likewise, a clever child at a really good school can do badly if the parents aren't interested at all.

A smart motivated well-supported child has a better chance of doing well. But no.

I was a very bright kid who went to a very rough comp. Really, really rough.

Yes, I passed all my GCSE's with A-C's but can't help but think I'd have had 9 A's had I gone to the grammar school down the road.

Peer pressure and your school environment contribute hugely in the teen years.

Hence why my kids will be going to private school come hell or high water.

I think it depends. My eldest son has got the highest possible grades in an OK state school so he could not have done better in a better state school or private. But I guess it may depend on things like class size, level of disruption, and obvs an OK school is still better than a bad one

I think it depends what you mean. Lots of people think that private education buys best. But it really depends on the school, your child's personality and outlook, and the culture of the other children within the school. It's a lot more complicated than a bright child will flourish at any school

They may or may not do 'well', but they're more likely to fulfil their potential in a school which suits them.

I have observed that my DD will strive to be in the top 10-15% of her class. But not necessarily push to be better than that. The better her classmates do, the better she does.

Her sister will just push herself to do the best she can, regardless what's happening around her. She's not as smart book wise as her sister, but has better work ethic and self motivation.

This is true. And it's not just about passing exams either. It's about feeling like you belong. Like you are in an environment where your enthusiasm for learning isn't sneered out, doesn't make you an outsider, a swot, a teacher's pet, but is as natural to your fellow pupils as it is to you.

I went to a state school where it was deeply uncool to like learning. Even the teachers were bitchy if you were too keen. My DC went to our 'lovely' local primary school in a leafy village and I noticed the same attitude. Staff and pupils seemed to almost disapprove of intelligence, of academic ability. So we looked at local private schools. Found one that wasn't all about status and wealth, but about learning. DC were so happy there.

YANBU.

It depends entirely on the personality of the child. If they're not confident and/or a self-starter, they absolutely won't thrive as well in a lesser environment.

Peer pressure is enormous at secondary. And especially for years 9-11 when peers can have more influence than parents.

School that manage to hold onto their reputation for academic achievement tend to attract parents who want their children to do well and I think it makes a big difference if your child's friends parents hold similar values to you. It's no surprise that schools that attract children with high parental expectations continue to get good results. And it's equally true that schools that struggle to attract middle class parents will struggle to get good results. Even if the children are brighter.

The fly in the ointment is bullying. If a school has a reputation for academic success and good behaviour but doesn't do enough to tackle bullying, they will let their children down.

Yanbu.
My DD (waiting ASD assessment, originally predicted 7-9 grades but now 1-2) hasn't been able to cope with secondary at all. Too much noise in the corridors and classrooms. She managed the extra curricular classes as it was only the children who wanted to be there and no one mucked around. She was scared of the teachers who raised their voices and the strict rules.

It should be amended to 'a smart, very motivated child in any school they are happy in will do well' My secondary was almost closed down at least twice in the time I was there due to failing inspections and the teachers spent more time on crowd control than anything else. But I had really interested teachers who recognised my commitment to my chosen career path (medicine) and gave me extra support and resources to enable me to basically teach myself the curriculum in my own time. I loved my time at school, made lifelong friends but most of what I learnt was self taught. I walked out with highest possible grades in gcse and A levels and a top uni place. My brother, equally smart but not motivated and no clear idea of what he was aiming at came out with much lower grades from a private school, he hated his time there and was bullied as the 'scholarship kid' (I also got a scholarship but decided not to go). Also had he gone to my school I think he would have done even worse from an academic perspective
A school which they are happy and receive a well rounded education is my priority for my girls. It may not be the highest rated by ofsted. There is no 'best school', only the best school for your child.

YANBU. I was thinking about this the other day. My parents believed this so I was moved from an outstanding high school to an inadequate one that was closer (so no bus fare needed) in Y9. The standards were completely different, the teaching quality wasn't great, pupils were disruptive in lessons and disrespectful to teachers, and in group work there was no one at my level to work with so I ended up carrying every group work project. There was zero stretch and challenge. And careers advice was nonexistent so I made all the wrong GCSE choices and was very limited in what I could do at A-level as I knew nothing about needing, for example, GCSE History to do the A-level.

I don't think it's true either. In my experience it's something that's trotted out as a way to either have a dig at anyone for their education choices or to avoid acknowledging that quite a lot of children don't reach their potential in the current system.

A bright child who is socially skilled, with a supportive family, especially one with the ability and willingness to top up with tutors and enrichment, will probably do well compared to their peers in most environments, but that's very different to thriving and reaching their potential.

Not the ones I picked up in FE whose education had been horribly patchy. Home education can be inadequate too.

DS1 would, I’m fairly sure, do as well as he could do anywhere. Massively self motivated, clever, hard working, resilient when it comes to peers but very motivated by praise/respect from adults. As it happens he ended up in a super selective grammar.
DS2 is only 7 but I can already see he needs someone focussing on him and will coast if allowed. He probably needs a bit more pressure than the local comp will apply.