"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.

My child is quite nerdy, she goes to a “rough” school. She’s been happy and has done well, her (school) friend has an offer for Cambridge.

If the school struggles to retain staff, so there’s a constant roster of cover staff who don’t know what they are supposed to be teaching, plus disruptive children who the cover teachers don’t discipline, then it’s much more difficult for that smart kid to excel (albeit not impossible I guess)

I think that good schools tend to enable the average child to do better. The super smart tend to do well in most average schools. Just my personal observation.

Also if you send a bright kid to a school where it's frowned upon to do well or be inquisitive, they will not have any friends and will likely be bullied.

I think it only works if the parents have enough money (not below the poverty line, for sure), the right outlook on life and the understanding of the right things to be able to support the child to do better in spite of a shit school, and live somewhere/do activities where the child gets a social life beyond the shit school. Those kind of kids will do well anywhere, because most of their learning isn't taking place in school anyway.

IMO, the ability of the child isn't as important as the ability of the parents to facilitate that (e.g. sign them up to the library so they can borrow books, give them internet access these days, etc)

I actually feel like comprehensives can be more balanced and relaxed socially than some ‘academic’ schools.

I had experience of both, and while the comprehensive had stuff like playground fights (which was unheard of at the v middle class – although free – grammar), at the comp people had wider and more varied groups of friends. The single-sex grammar school I also went to was by comparison v cliquey and more socially uptight, with little friendship sets that no one ever deviated from – everyone had a small, rigid group. It was weird! And bullying happened but was more likely to be from ’friends’ isolating others in the group rather than the hard kid in the year being mouthy.

I think it’s a mistake to generalise that one type of place will be gentle and nice and another type rough.

It's not just a question of knowing and applying the material sadly.well at least it isn't on STEM subjects. You often need to know the exam board and how they like answers wording- certain buzz words and phrases you need to hit.you really need a teacher experienced on the idiosyncrasies of the exam board

I went to one of the worst schools in the country at the time I was sitting my GCSEs.
I scraped straight C’s in everything . If I remember correctly, the percentage of pupils getting grade C English and maths was well below 20% at the time. It still hasn’t managed 20% decades later. As soon as I escaped to a half decent sixth form outside the area, I obtained straight A grades at A level and was offered places at Oxford and Cambridge based on my tutor’s recommendation.

I was laughed at in college and university as I couldn’t pronounce many words correctly, as I’d only seen them written in books I borrowed from the local library. My spelling and grammar is still appalling today, as I have no foundation in the basics, it took until my late 20’s to learn how to spell words like biscuit and field reliably.

No matter how bright and motivated the child, if you go to a school like my old one and have no family support, you’ll scrape through at best.

I remember this with English as well – there was kind of a formula and a few specific linguistic terms that were drummed into us as being point scorers.

This is a grotesque oversimplification and I agree with a PP that sometimes parents tell themselves this to salve their own conscience about not having prioritised their own child's learning (or sometimes when they have put political considerations ahead of meeting their child's needs as in the case of people who disagree with private school... but this is a whole other thread).

There are so many variables which influence a child's progress at school. Simply being "smart" is by no means enough. So many ways a "smart" child (and how do we define smart anyway?) can be failed by school:

• Being picked on at a rough school for being academic and wanting to do well
• Failing to be supported emotionally by the wider school environment because they don't fit in socially (as was the case for me at my "good" (but very snobbish) private school)
• Being insufficiently challenged by the school academically and not achieving to their potential
• Coming from a home environment where education is not prioritised and the school having insufficient skills at identification or resources to work with this (as was the case for my partner who was seriously good at maths but whose parents didn't want him to go to university so he stopped education after going to a grammar)
• Going to a school where lack of resource and a high concentration of children from deprived backgrounds or with SEN means the teachers are basically acting like social workers and are unable to teach
• Being unmotivated to learn and not having sufficient encouragement

I could go on. Nor is the solution as simple as just making sure they go to an independent or grammar school: sometimes that is a life-saver, sometimes it's a worse solution than the local state school. Sometimes home ed is the solution but it's clearly only available to a small minority and won't suit all children. And some children actually thrive on doing well in a challenging environment. The equation of calculating a child's odds at getting the best out of school is so difficult that it's basically unique.

The truth is you have to know your own child and strive to help them find their path but simply relying on their "smartness" and coasting on this is more or less asking for trouble.

So basically. Children who have rich parents have choices that children from poorer or just average backgrounds don't have, so will never do as well. Great world we live in.

I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. It's certainly true that children who have rich parents have a safety net which isn't available to children from poorer backgrounds, they can afford not to do as well at school and their parents can pay for them to avoid the schools where learning is hardest (and obviously pay to support with extra coaching etc where needed).

But private school isn't a panacea: not all private schools are good (some are worse than many state schools), they don't suit all children from a cultural/social perspective and they are not immune from the problems that affect state schools. Some private schools have terrible bullying problems.

And some kids, from a range of backgrounds, do brilliantly in terrible schools. Children whose parents prioritise education can do surprisingly well in very poor economic circumstances. Its at least as much about the parents' attitude as it is the amount of money spent on the child's education.

But I'd agree with your premise that it's a lottery and its profoundly unfair

Load of old crap.

i was bright but liked to fart about and did the minimum expected.
i still like to “be the best” but also to coast. 😬

in a bog standard school I’d have hung out with the naughty girls and got a few As with Bs and maybe some Cs instead of close to what I was actually capable of.
I did SOME revision and got mix of As and A which was considered quite middling / unremarkable vs my straight A peers but was enough to set me up for a decent degree course

I don't think you can generalise, as it depends on the personality of the child, how resilient they are and their work ethic as some factors off the top of my head.

dh went to a school that was so bad that it was knocked down a few years after he uad left, but he still managed to get all A/A*s at GCSE and 5As at A Level, where he taught himself further maths as he was the only one taking it, and got a top 1st at Cambridge in Natural Sciences. He now works in an academic job at the local university.

dd is at a local comprehensive, and although we think she would probably love the opportunities at the private school in town, she is heading for grade 9s. That is because she is determined, self motivated and generally interested in the subjects she studies. She has a strong work ethic and is one of those students who would finished their homework before they get home.

ds on the other hand, although bright is a lazy so and so, and paid the price for thinking he could coast through the exams with last minute revision. In his mind, school work remains at school, and he is the type of person who wanted to get quick results with minimal effort. He is a little bit older and wiser hopefully, and although he didn't get in to the uni course he wanted, he does seem to be working harder than he did.

It certainly can feel that way.

I'm thanking my lucky stars that DD got a scholarship and bursary and is able to be in an environment with children who want to learn and behave well and has staff who have the time to treat her as an individual.

We don't live near grammar schools and couldn't afford private school on our income.

It's horrendously unfair that so many children like DD1 can't escape the life she was stuck in at her state primary school.

I've heard that expression, too. My husband even spouted it once years ago, but soon realised it had no basis in reality for most children. All our bright children were moved from a particular school because there was no way they would do well without better school leadership and higher expectations for them.

My child achieved all 9’s at GCSE & 4 A*’s at A level at the local comp. It can be done with the right focus and home support.

I hate this expression. It’s partly true but it’s mainly bandied around by tory voters and governments who fail children in state education to remove the blame from themselves when kids fail in crap schools. After all, if they were bright they’d have done well. Easy for you to say, toffy mctofferson when you pay for your kids’ education.

bright children will tend to do well but you’re not telling me the quality of their education and the type of friends they make at school don’t influence it.

i do not believe private schools or grammar schools have better teachers, but I do believe that teachers in those schools have easier jobs.

At university level- yes.
but not at school level, absolutely no way.

I don't think it's true. My school failed me in so many ways and despite being very bright I came aways with B's, C's a D and an E in my GCSEs. I only got those grades because I was bright. I should have been all A's and A*'s.
DS didn't go to his feeder secondary. I don't think he would be predicted 7-9's if he had gone to that school. The one we got him into encourages him to his potential. That's not to say that he isn't surrounded by kids who either aren't academic, or have no interest in being there, that's no different to any other comp, but how the pupils are treated is very different. Those who would happily muddle through in the middle are given extra lessons and pushed a bit further to maximise their capabilities.

It can be done but social injustice often carries on well beyond exam results.

from a horrific comp I managed all as and a at gcse and 4 as at a level (back in the olden days before a levels had as)went to a top uni and completed my course with a close friend who had been through eton. Despite our equal qualifications, our lifestyles remain a world apart.

Edit to say I’ve accidentally made this bold by typing asterisks!

A smart and motivated child will probably do well in any school.

Unfortunately, I've got a smart, idle dickhead who pissed about through his entire school career (in excellent schools, with excellent teaching) and has achieved very little academically.

This. I teach primary, but I’ve very much noticed the same; no one learnt as much as they could have done last year, when we were all constantly interrupted by disruptive children in that class.

I was a bright child in primary, went to a rough secondary school and pissed around for 3 years getting kicked out of classes, detention, etc. I was honestly such a shit.
Moved schools and area's in Y9 and became the geeky kid that didn’t fit in, so concentrated more on my studies and got some As/Bs. I know if I would have stayed in my old school it wouldn’t have gone as well, I was far too influenced by my peers and fitting in with the cool crowd.
The move affected my MH but I genuinely don’t believe a bright child will do well at any school. Disagree completely.

I went to an all girls' selective grammar. If I'd been in a mixed comp I wouldn't have done any work at all, because I was a bit of a wild child who just wanted to socialise and make people laugh.

But there’s well and ‘well’. They might do well at the comp (and there is a MASSIVE range of quality when it comes to comps, so no assuming they’re like the ones in a leafy area of Surrey/Bath/York please!), as in they might pass an acceptable number of exams and go on to a good career, but those sorts of children could’ve really shone had they gone to a grammar or private (or one of the top comprehensives).

It isn’t rocket science or controversial to realise small class sizes, invested parents and excellent facilities will usually push average students to good, and good to excellent.