What is your definition of a 'bright' child?

[roadkillbunny]

As always reading through the threads in primary eduction I am struck by the fact everybody seems to describe their child as 'bright' and I am left wondering what peoples definition of 'bright' really is!

For me a 'bright' child is one who is exited by learning, enthusiastic and inquisitive. I believe that being 'bright' has no relation to any specific academic level for example the 'bottom' group in a class may well have 'bright' children who are achieving to the best of their own personal ability and the 'top' table may have children who are achieving beyond the national average for their age group but may not be naturally enthused and exited about learning but simply have natural academic ability so are able to achieve higher academic levels without having a natural enthusiasm and excitement for learning. (hoping that makes sense outside my head)

What is your definition of a 'bright' child?

Joyn, agree with your post totally.

I would think both my kids were bright whether they were top or bottom table because I'd look for their particular talents.
Definition in adults: someone who picks up concepts quickly.

I try not to use bright to describe DD2 for just these kind of reasons. She's a very academic literate child. Diligent and hard working when she can see the reward.
But she is not bright in the enthusiastic learn everything there is to learn, ask questions, just be interested in the world way DD1 is.
Sadly DD1 is dyslexic and fights to remain in the second set where learning is possible (rather than set 3 where soap operas and boys rule) and DD1 will sail into set 1 because her written work is just so good.
This sounds like I don't appreciate DD2s talents, I do. I just wish that people would look beyond what a child can write on a page before deciding they aren't " bright".

I'm a teacher and I think of a bright child as being enthusiastic, keen to learn, natural curiosity, generally quick to pick up new skills, fairly sociable, academically average at least.

I think it is more to do with personality and attitude than academic ability, although if they are very low ability it takes a long time to acquire new skills.

Agree it's not the same as 'gifted'. If we are going to label children, I'd rather mine were bright than gifted.

Looking through this thread it seems to me that there is a common understanding of 'bright', but that is it is about something fairly indefinable (that 'spark'). I think that it often something that goes alongside intelligence (social/emotional as well as the learning kind), but not necessarily academic achievement. I would describe both my children as bright because they are inquisitive and independent thinkers. dd is the extrovert but she is much more conformist than ds (which has hugely helped her through school so far). ds is clever but dyslexic and his independent thinking streak is at times not helpful at all. dd is on the honour roll (probably the equivalent of the top set here) ds gets Cs. He is probably more intelligent, but she works harder.

I certianly know academically successful people I woudln't describe as bright because frankly they are somewhat boring.

Yes, it's clear there is no common understanding, and there rarely is of any term which requires subjective interpretation.

For example, I think my definition as euphemism for clever has been unfairly criticised as I used subjective terms as well - and it is clear I needed to write at greater length and with considerably more precision to pass muster here. In particular I should have expanded on what I think it covered by "inquisitive".

But this is why - even in this thread which is not centred on posters talking about their own children - people quickly become sensitive and/or resort to weird circumlocution or excessive explanation.

It makes it harder to discuss, in any terms, relative attributes and abilities of children.

I wonder if "bright" is more a primary school word than a secondary school word.
Thinking about it I have never heard DD described as "bright" by her secondary school teachers, yet her primary school teachers did. They still talk about her intelligence etc but just don't use the word bright anymore.

I agree bruffin it seems to apply more to the really young, probably from toddler stage onwards. I think people relate it to 'learning' when they can literally see the learning going on, such as mastering new skills quickly.

At secondary and in adults it seems to be used in reverse, as a derogatory or sarcastic comment such 'that wasn't very bright was it?' or 'who's bright idea was that?'.

In common use though, I do think it's just another word for 'clever' as in academic, social and emotional intelligence together.

What JOYN said.

When you have a DC so far beyond the norm academically that it's causing serious problems at school, you learn to shut up about it very quickly, other parents do not want to know about the (genuine) problems your DC is having fitting in. While is is ok for a DC to be gifted in sport of art, and indeed this type of giftedness is encouraged, it is not acceptable in this country for a DC to be academically gifted. "Bright" is often used as a more acceptable word than "gifted", but even that seems to be sneered at.

My DS1 had a hellish time in Primary school (at 5 he was assessed at the schools request, we were told his mental ability was then 13yr and 5months, and "Exceptionally Gifted"). School then refused to act on any of the recommendations for work enrichment - long and boring story but basically they felt Gifted children needed no help and it was sufficient for them to give him more work of the same level. Him crying daily on the way to and from school as "school is the most boring place on earth" was no concern of theirs (we removed him from that school at age 8 and regret we left it that long).

DS was not really in tune with school until about the age of 14, it was so boring and limited and repetitive to him. In the last 3 years of school he got on a lot better, was able to get his teeth into things and do his own, self motivated extension work, and of course academic achievement in the form of Highers/Advanced Highers became the goal.

Many clever and gifted DC are so put off learning because of a lack of provision for their needs, that they actually end up failing and dropping out of education. What a waste! For the individual and for the country. Why is it not acceptable in the uk to be highly intelligent?

And all the MN posters with "bright" DC - maybe this is the only place they feel able to say "actually, my DC is really quite clever at Maths/science/whatever!"

Puts on Asbestos flame-proof suit

I'm not going to flame you. We lost a lovely girl to a much bigger primary where she didn't stand out as the only gifted pupil.
She had a horrid time, school were not prepared to let her go up a class, she was board witless and got teased.

Yes startail I think the boredom really gets to these DC, school becomes so pointless and stressful. My DS was already amongs the youngest 2 or 3 in the class, so moving him up a year probably would have added to the problems by taking him too far out of his social comfort zone (his social development was bang-on average). I think for many, moving up a year would be good, with the right support.

It will get easier leQueen. The biggest problem is making sure she stays engaged with education - and I don't mean school. With DS1, TV channels such as the History channel were fantastic - all those documentaries/wildlife shows, he just sucked them up from age 4 or 5. Don't be afraid to use the TV/google as a resource, this can encourage depth and width of learning, self directed learning is a valuable thing to get to grips with for when DC is older, it will help her cope in school where she can read around and beyond class topics to keep engaged. You may be able to negotiate with teachers that DC is able to quietly go and do self directed learning related to the topic on class computer or with a book, once she has completed the lesson task. This worked quite well with DS1 as he moved up the school, but not all teachers are willing to accommodate such things.
DS1 started Uni in Oct, and is blown away with the fact that everybody wants to learn, that every one is just like him...... he has found his niche and is so happy and has made masses of friends (for the first time he is in a peer group where his level of ability is "normal"). Shame it's taken 17 years for him to feel normal!

When your DD gets to High school, year groups will be bigger, it's likely that she will find a couple of other girls with similar ability, they will gravitate towards each other.

It's tough though, I know. Yes, plenty of thorns on them roses!

It does seems sad that being clever isn't something that the UK generally celebrates in children. But it doesn't sounds like 'bright' would be an accurate description of your dd at all LeQueen. Very (very) clever would seem much more appropriate. I think that bright works quite well at primary because you don't really know how clever your child is because the pool is relatively small. Both dh and I were amongst the cleverest at primary school, but when we went to selective secondary we were about middle of the pack. When I did my masters I studied with someone who was exceptionally clever, just head and shoulders higher order of brainpower. Seems a bit pointless not to acknowledge it.

Thanks for the support, I was worried I might get flamed as a stealth boaster.

Le queen your dd2 is exactly the type of child I'd class as gifted, (she sounds lovely btw, & like old mum says it may take some time but I'm sure she will find her niche). So if I were to call my own dcs gifted, compared to yours, I'd feel a bit of a charlatan. Ds was a strong independent reader at 5, learns fast, asked incessant (why is the sky blue kinda,) questions from about age 2 & is also very musical. Dd1 is on the highest reading level in her class, is the best in maths (only yr1 to be invited to inter school 'g&t' maths class,) but doesnt seem so far ahead as ds was at that age (ie she's stage 9 reader, 2 others level 7,) but she has other skills like an appreciation of art & architecture & a fondness to actually get things down on paper. But they've never been tested, so can't really say just how 'bright' they are. Think I'll take your advice & describe them & simply describe them as very intelligent.

A bright child IMO is one that you look at and know has a good chance of high achieving regardless of their reading level etc.

Probably emotionally literate, possibly manipulative, certainly able to engineer for themselves.

much as i love my dd to pieces i would much prefer her to be bright rather than gifted.
Being gifted brings with it a whole host of problems,dd suffers with many overexciteabilities which i feel have a real impact on how she deals with school life.

Bright in primary school - is sparky and shows promise - should become clever - is sparky, acheiving promise - in secondary school (to sort of summarise what some posters have said ) - I like that sort of definition.

I agree we don't celebrate clever enough so most are careful not to say so for fear of appearing boastful and of course the danger of 'labelling' a child - is it really so wrong to call a child clever. Bright is somehow acceptable so if you are discussing an aspect of education one is more likely to say DS/DD is bright so....rather than DD/DS is clever so......

What is more clear is the opposite - not very bright, and we all know what that means!! So if we go from that opposite definition I'd say that the majority of Dcs are therefore bright or perhaps quite bright or even very bright, the remaining few (most of whom I'm always drawn to as are inevitably terribly sweet and so dear in their own way (not meant to sound as patronising as that just did!)), would therefore be not so bright.
I definitely fall into the latter category as it has taken me 20 mins to figure out how to do the italics on this post, a bright child wouldhave done it in half the time

I think gifted children thrive in the private sector. If you can get scholarships for your kids, go for it! Being gifted should be classed as 'SEN' as these children really need to be catered for in a particular way.

I don't think intelligence is about being sociable - my father is a gifted person and has the arrogance to say that he doesn't need to heat other peoples' opinions or ideas as he's working it all out himself!

magdalene I SO agree SEN means special educational needs and gifted children have special educational needs - it is supposed to work both ways. OFSTED are beginnig to pick up on this now though and there is likely to become more focus on how the needs of the 'AGAT' pupils are being met -just sticking them on a G and T list and sending parents information about weekend courses you have to pay to go on soon won't be enough.

That's great news, clutteredup - part of the problem in the state sector is its very conformist attitude! I would say that gifted children are very vulnerable and if their needs are not met they could get themselves into all sorts of trouble!