A bright child will do well anywhere

[User3542564]

I keep reading on threads that a bright child will do well anywhere. I'm just curious as to whether people honestly believe that about all schools? My DC are still in primary, but our nearest secondary has an English and Maths pass rate of 5% and a Progress 8 of -0.98. I cannot see how a bright child could do as well there as they would in a school with just average results. Am I missing something? It's been made into an academy, several changes of SLT over the last decade and just gets worse.

Or when people say a bright child will do well anywhere, do they actually mean will do well in any nice middle class school with above average results?

Id be interested to know where this school is thats only getting 5% of students a 4 in English and Maths - is this a mainstream secondary school? With typical levels of SEN?
Because that's an incredibly, incredibly low level.
The worst school in my urban area has a progress score around - 1.5 so considerably worse that you stated, and gets over 15% to a grade 5 in maths and English.

My super bright child was led well astray after experiencing an ACE and as a result got in with entirely the wrong crowd after a perfectly lovely primary experience and outstanding CAT results. From top of the class in y6 to on the brink of exclusion in half a term.

I am an advocate that able, well-supported kids will achieve the results they need for their next step regardless of the environment. This does not mean they will realise their maximum potential, but that they will be encouraged by teachers and parents alike to put in the extra work to get good grades. They will have learned the skills of self-discipline and being able to focus by blocking out distractions and they will be comfortable mixing with people from all walks of life. Whether this makes for a happy childhood/teenage, is another matter.

However, the other aspect not considered here is that most parents views of schools are around 5 years out of date. Last year's progress 8 and GCSE results are a reflection of a cohort that joined the school 6 years ago and much may well have happened since then. Visit schools, look at their year 7s and 8s and listen to what the head has to say about his vision for the school.

No, there will of course be exceptions but for the majority environment has a massive impact on kids it's the whole nature/ nurture thing

DC2 is brighter than DC1 is many ways. However, DC1 is a disciplined, self-motivated autumn born child who happened to be in a year group with a number of other bright, motivated children, all of whom spoke English as a first language and few of whom had additional needs. DC2 is a summer born child with suspected ADHD who was in a year group with a number of children who didn't speak English as a first language and a few of whom had significant additional needs.
The difference in the teaching available to DC2 was remarkable. And he would get distracted by everything and anything.

If this was true the country would be run by bright kids from crap schools. I went to school with a lot of incredibly bright kids who were bullied and completely ignored by teachers who were busy trying to handle the worst performing kids in the year.

There is a reason that private school children generally get better grades, and it isn't because there is a higher number of bright children in the classes.

It is because the children there have a higher chance of being in a duel earning, higher income household. Greater access to a warm, clean, safe environment. Higher chance of having educated parents who value education. Access to healthier food. Greater access to music lessons, languages, capital culture.

This is all before you add in the benefits of the actual private school....

More likely to have higher than 95% attendance. Smaller class sizes, more access to sports, languages, arts, public speaking. More likely to be supported if struggling. Less access to children with severe SEN so far less distractions. Less access to children who have EAL so provisions are not being used on a small number of children, but for everyone. TA's who read with every child daily as they are not having to support just one child who is throwing chairs across the room.

All of this gives an average child the chance to succeed and achieve far better results than they would have received in a school in a diverse, low income area. A truly bright one would fly.

I think the true answer is that they might do well, but statistically they are more likely to achieve their potential in a school with a good P8.

And as PP said, the impact of peers at secondary is huge. Surrounded by a cohort who don't value education can be really difficult for bright pupils.

Well, it’s for those reasons but also bc there’s a higher number of bright students to start with. My dcs school are all academically selective, if you’re choosing the brightest children at exam stage you’re obviously going to get better results.

It's utter rubbish. I hate that phrase. A bright child, like any other child, will thrive in an environment that suits and fits them. That environment could be anywhere from a state school, grammar, private day, boarding school or home ed - depends on the child.

A bright child could get mocked and bullied for being keen and give up, or feel so lonely they hate school. Even teachers can feel insecure around children who are brighter than them, and put them down for being know-alls. Mediocre academic environments often mock keen, bright pupils and knock the confidence and motivation from them.

Or they might find the work too easy and never learn sufficient self discipline to knuckle down when the work gets tougher. Or they might get disruptive out of boredom.

I teach at a really tough school and there are a handful of kids who achieve exceptional results. But on the whole, students underachieve. Even the really bright ones. Sometimes by 3 or 4 grades. The constant disruptions slow down the lessons, compounded by the lack of funding mean we have fewer resources, leading to a massive gap between where they are and where they could be. Ultimately, their homelife plays a huge role and how they view education, but also their understanding of what is expected to get top grades. I'm shocked at the number of parents who are upset their child rocks up to school, does the work but no more, and wonders why they getting grade 3.

What's the definition of a 'bright child' though? Does everyone mean the same thing when they say it?

ds is bright and did very well in a low performing school.

So while bright kids can do well, there are many risks and distractions that could change that outcome - he had many friends who didn't do as well at school as they could possibly have done.

ime a lot appeared to depend on friendship groups they made. ds shifted from group to group for a few years until he found his "tribe" as he (thankfully) couldn't be bothered with the cool groups where the priorities seemed to be to shine by excessive messing around / drinking etc.

He was still on friendly terms with the cool kids, but the friends he ended up closer too cared about their exams and has aspirations for uni etc so they were all good role models for each other.

In all honesty I’m not sure we’d manage in a school like that let alone a child

It's dependent on several factors - teachers, peers and in general how other children view bright pupils. Without the supporting environment, a bright pupil will become average.

In my experience, I went to both a mixed comprehensive and a selective grammar school - stark difference between the two.

Mixed comprehensive, the standards were low, misbehaviour and fighting throughout the school day that teachers couldn't get through the syllabus. I had to do a lot of studying at home simply because it wasn't covered in class. Mock exams/tests, I'd be deemed as "good enough" if I got an A rather than A*, and teachers were too busy trying to move the D graders to C's - so that the stats would look good. Lots of bullying because if I did homework that meant I didn't have a life/was a virgin/no friends etc etc. No ambition, everyone wanted to be footballers or hairdressers (nothing wrong with that but in a year group of 180 kids, you would expect at least some to want to go to uni). Plenty of kids taking drama/PE/food tech/media and ready to drop the more academic subjects as soon as possible.

I studied my butt off and got into a grammar school with a crazy difference.

There was a studious atmosphere, the kids studied, doing homework wasn't a 'sad' thing to do for people who had no friends, there was ambition to be doctors, bankers, business owners, architects, finance, tech. Plenty of girls studying STEM subjects. It pushed me to better myself.

@SatinHeart an academically bright child is one that score 110+ on SATs, above 115 and they'll be gifted if such terms were still used. Generally find it easy to pick up and retain information and apply it when needed. Ofcourse there are other forms of intelligence and other forms of testing.

Whether you like SATS and testing or not generally the data tracks and you can predict the flight path of a child. Exceptions exist ofcourse, EAL students who arrive with little English and pick it up along the way or children with undiagnosed or unsupported SEND who then get that support later.

But no matter how bright you are, education and studying has to be valued and supported in the home, otherwise you end up with a "Matilda and Wormwood family" situation or wasted potential as they don't know how to apply it and use it day to day.

What if your child is not a bright child? I believe an average child would benefit even more in a good school.

The majority of children can be caterrec for in the average school.

Its the outliers that are the problem... a school with extremely low results won't cater properly for those above average. An exceptionally bright child won't flourish in the average school... they need something a lot more specialised.

So your local school... no I don't think a bright child will be truly happy there.

(One school Itaught in my "top set" was children aiming for A- C With the best will in the world... the lessons were aimed at B level. Extension available for A+).. but when you are having to constantly remind some that cell starts with C not an S and that it does matter in Science)

I think a bright child will do as well in many perfectly ordinary decent comprehensives as they would in a grammar/selective school - the saying is more about reassuring parents that they don't need to go to extraordinary lengths to get a grammar/selective/independent school place.

I do not think that the "anywhere" is true though. There are some schools where a bright child will be bullied and ostracised for daring to pay attention in class.

Having poor results isn't a clear indicator of this though. If the intake is of pupils who aren't massively disruptive and want to learn but are typically of lower ability then there could still be potential for a bright child to thrive.

It is possible to drill down further into the school data - the general progress-8 measure averages progress across the whole cohort but I remember when I was looking on the government site a few years ago it was possible to click on various more info links and see a breakdown of the progress made by the higher previous attainment and lower previous attainment sections of the school intake. It would be possible to have a school with generally low average progress but significantly better progress for a particular ability cohort.

DH went to a bog standard secondary when comprehensives were new and in their enthusiasm they even got rid of setting and streaming. He was the only one in his class who got to University, and it was only in sixth form that a teacher recognised his potential and wrote a strong recommendation to Oxford, where at the start of his second year DH was granted a scholarship.

It can be argued that he "did well". But it depends what you think education is about. DH learned to be invisible. He did not learn to be confident in his own abilities. He learned very little. Virtually no science, no literature, very little MFL. He was so unhappy that his parents wanted him to leave at 16 when he was offered a job in the local bank.

(And yes in those days they probably could have afforded private, his cousins went and DH would have been a strong candidate for the assisted places scheme. However mil is a great believer in state education and indeed has criticised us strongly for taking a different approach.)

We worked hard to ensure that DC had a good education. Schools in our area are challenged. Our nearest comp does as good a job as it can but for a long time 93% were on free school dinners, and they have to prioritise the needs of some very disadvantaged children. In contract our nearest private school is one of the very best in the country. Importantly it was somewhere where it is cool to be clever. There is no doubt that DC came out of there with advantages, along with a strong work ethic, an enthusiasm for learning and a broader education, but there is nothing wrong with that. Both are likely to work in the public sector where their education will benefit others as well as themselves.

I was a bright child who did "well" at a poor secondary school. It was always going to be like that, and I excelled as expected. However, I was crippled with anxiety from the environment and that has followed me through my whole life.

My son goes to a private primary and, eventually, on to the secondary for this reason. I don't care about the academics, I just want to give him the best chance of not going through what I went through.

It was said a lot to us - it felt more like I'm alright Jack fuck you statement but suspect it was possibly meant reassuring in some cases.

MIL says it as DH did well at college and uni - but decidedly meh at the sink state school plus there was drug selling right outside gates and many of his peers got sucked into that. He very much the exception self driven and naturally talented in one area. MIL is like well he did it so could everyone else have done so.

DC secondary went into steep and sudden decline just as eldest started GCSE - it was doing okay to well before but head and staff left and results tanked. SENCO support dire and unhelpful - disruption in classes even getting into top sets doesn't get bright kids away from it worse every year staff turn over and vaccines high. They make it hard to find exam results and tend to focus on the one or two every year or so who do really well and blame rest on hard social economic area - despite doing better prior and local schools in similar or worse ares doing better.

DS did really well anyway - home support and very much despite the school - think girls would have done better with less staff turn over and higher background achievement level to compete against - but did in DD1 case or should do in DD2 well enough to get to college.

Another better school would have given them more opportunities and less negative crap to overcome. It's not getting better as every year they lose more of the few dedicated experienced teachers they have left. I'm glad our youngest will soon be done there.

I was a "bright kid" at school who went to the worst school in the borough (on special measures, closed down a couple of years after I left etc) and I did well, 8 of us in the whole year group went to uni, which speaks for itself.

I would say I survived, not thrived. I was motivated not by learning or doing well, but by a desperate desire to not end up like the people I was surrounded by.

There was no extra work or stretching of the mind, every class was disruptive and honestly I think I became a bit stupider just by being in that environment.

I did my work but received no guidance about where to go or what to pursue. We had the army come in to recruit in year 10, a careers guidance lady was pushing hairdressing etc on to everyone.

I won't even mention the bullying. It was really bad for my social development and send esteem to be in that environment.

That's a long way of saying I disagree and will not be putting my child through the same.

Nope.

I was mega bright but unfortunately went to a super rough comp where anti-intellectualism was rife

My experience was exactly the same as pickled, above