Intrigued by the 'bright child will succeed in any school'

[findasolution]

This comment fascinates me. I am a long time Mumsnet user (name changed), making my first post as an OP.

I was a relatively bright child, straight As up to 3rd year of senior school (in old money), when things started to go wrong.

I got tired of being bullied for being smart and driven, lost my confidence to in being different and dumbed down/rebelled to fit in, resulting in leaving school with 4 O levels - way below my potential.

My mum sent me to a local comprehensive (West Midlands) because it used to be a 'grammar'. Such was the due diligence 30 plus years ago . Couple of years after I left, each entry year was closed to allow the school to run out before the school closed, premises bought...at least there was a reason behind the teachers (most, not all) being completely disengaged with us.

Anyway, that's my background, and I know this is not reflective of most schools today. With so many making choices where they can, by religion; location; intelligence; cost etc allowing), I am really interested in people's opinions on how children can definitely achieve their full potential in any given secondary environment, and therefore considering alternatives to their local state schools is not necessary...

[findasolution]

It's not a contest Bertrand. And somewhat disparaging to those non MC parents who seek bursary advice on MN (normally met with very supportive people who advice them to go for it), not to be held down by their families saying they must know their place, stick to their own etc.

Or those really kind teachers who go the extra mile to prep children from low aspirational families to get themselves through the 11+, knowing the secondary offering is sub standard.

Or those state school teachers who reluctantly send their children elsewhere to their local (and MN is full of those?).

For someone who posts regularly on the educational posts, is there a golden rule that we mustn't talk about the bright ones without referencing the people "who aren't clever" (your words, not mine).

If we all had access to schools where set setting stretched the able, supported the less able to meet their potential, that low level disruption was dealt with effectively, that teachers basically got the most out of the attendance:attitude:ability children through strong leadership support, then we wouldn't be having this debate.

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Bertrand
The thread is not titled "Only bright kids get bullied - truefact!" It is a discuss of the oft repeated trope that bad schools don't impact on bright kids. Somehow their academic ability will shield them from a poor school environment. In the anecdotal evidence on this thread that is clearly not the case. Bad schools have a negative impact on all (or very nearly all) the pupils within them to some extent.

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Disscussion not discuss

[bbpp]

I'm in two minds about it. I come from a deprived area and when I left school after GCSEs (to go onto a separate sixth form), only 29% of students got their 5 GCSEs and the school was in special measures.

On the one hand, there were people who left with a bunch of As, and after sixth form went to Russell Group Unis. These were obviously the bright kids, who were motivated and work hard. If you're one of these people then the school didn't matter, you were successful anyway.

However, it requires a lot of work. There was no culture of studying or doing homework (homework was very, very rarely given. Probably an hour a month, total for all subjects.) so everything had to be done of your own accord. I was someone who coasted along since primary school and most of secondary. I was probably bright, getting separated to do A-Level maths in year 8, for example. (This was before two schools joined and the school started failing). However, the teaching was poor and there definitely wasn't any encouragement to do homework or to study for the GCSE exams. So I didn't. And I ended up leaving with a couple A's but mainly B's (and a D in physics ), and I don't doubt that if I had been at a school with a 'learning culture' I'd have done much better.

I think for a 'bright child' to succeed they need to have a work ethic, and want to study. They also need to have parents who encourage homework and revision. If they have this then yes, they can achieve anywhere. If they're simply bright, they won't reach their full potential.

[BertrandRussell]

"It's not a contest Bertrand. And somewhat disparaging to those non MC parents who seek bursary advice on MN (normally met with very supportive people who advice them to go for it), not to be held down by their families saying they must know their place, stick to their own etc."

No. It's not a contest. But it seems to be a given that chever children automatically will be bullied in "ordinary" schools, so obviously they need to be in private or grammar schools where "it's cool to be a nerd".

I think you are a bloody sight more likely to be bullied if you are slower to pick things up. Or if you are poor, or have a chaotic home life or clothes that don!t fit properly. And nobody says that you need to be scooped out to a different school.......

[Kennington]

Average schools fail the average the most. The bright might just manage if they put the work in, but the B or C average will get ignored.
Low level disruption is a major issue in secondaries - I have been told.

[Canyouforgiveher]

HPFA your post explained exactly why we moved our son from our local school. he is a bright enough kid but it became clear to us by the time he was 11 that he would always move to the middle of whatever group he was in. We couldn't change this but we could change the middle - we moved him to a school which had far better academic results and he rose to the challenge (rose to the middle that is).

My younger dd is the kind of bright child who probably would do fine anywhere- she is competitive, motivated and resilient so wouldn't care if it wasn't cool to be bright. So she probably would be fine. But she is having a much better time in an environment which values her work.

[findasolution]

No. It's not a contest. But it seems to be a given that chever children automatically will be bullied in "ordinary" schools, so obviously they need to be in private or grammar schools where "it's cool to be a nerd"

Not sure where it's been said it's automatic, nor it's necessary for children to be in places where it's cool to be a nerd.

And that the poor, or those from a chaotic home life need to be scooped out. Thats the point, many of us weren't!

You're making an assumption that the alternative to a local offering is only grammar or independent, although likely for most that can provide an alternative. It could also be another state out of locality via aptitude offerings or similar. In London we don't have a real grammar offering, hence why so many find god or sell their soul somehow (because not all are filthy rich and make lifestyle changes/sacrifices) to find the fees.

I'm genuinely not disputing that those that have a challenging, poor upbringing are well catered for generically in our system, even with PP as there is clearly a growing societal issue of low parental basic skills that extend to creating a decent home environment for development and learning for the young

But the question was raised as a result of the education threads (which I believe we are all still on), which supports those looking for the best options for their child. The continuous comment that children with a spark in their eye at 10, will do well anywhere, recurs. That's it. And yet here, the feedback from some is that in spite of parental support and the good things we on here that are MC can do hasn't always come good, but often helps to improve from the baseline. I felt compelled to stick my hand up with this question even if I have overcome this period with my own child, but some are in that process now, given it is secondary offers time soon.

Yep, suck it up - I understand is the message from some. But it's as distasteful as saying to a successful grown up model who claims she/he was bullied as a child "oh shut the fuck up and stop moaning. You were at least beautiful, think of all the ugly buggers out there (the majority of us!) that did not have a pretty face".

Education is not equal in all areas, but, the model should have kept their mouth shut?

[nooka]

I went to a selective independent school and coasted. I was an intelligent but lazy child, not sure that would have been different anywhere else. I did fairly poorly at exams and missed going where I wanted to for university. My school (and parents!) obviously didn't teach me much discipline!

dh worked much harder at his (similar) school, and was the first in his family to get A levels, let alone go on to university. His sisters got a couple of CSEs each at the local comp. One has as an adult gone on to get an MA, so I'd say the school did make a big difference to their lives (ds got a scholarship).

[Blu]

Bright kids in good state schools 'fail'.
Bright kids in good private schools 'fail'.
Less then bright kids in good schools frequently succeed
Bright kids in failing schools can succeed...

So many factors.

"A bright child with supportive interested parent/s will do well anywhere" is probably a more accurate statement.

DC is a bright child in a good (state comp) school, but last year had a bad teacher for one subject. The whole year's work was self-taught from YouTube and similar. (with no help or input from me).

[bojorojo]

There needs to be a much better understanding on this thread that learning for most is all about teaching. Where I live, "closing the gap" is vital as our PP children are way behind, in general. They may be catered for, but this will take years to sort out and improve. It is not a quick fix by pumping money in. Schools have to use the money wisely and show the children can make rapid progress - many schools fail to do this. They do not have the quality of leadership or teachers to do it. If a school is not assessing the children effectively, they won't know what progress they are making either. Teachers really should be able to assess who can do more and who needs more time and it should make no difference if previous targets have been low. My child had not done any French before y7 (unlike everyone else) but no-one said she would be bottom set forever at her independent senior school. She was in the top set by y8 and did a MFL degree. A good teacher will recognise talent even if it has not been tapped before.

All children are failed by poor teaching and constant changes of teacher and teachers who are not subject specialists. The bright child will not do as well as they should have done in this scenario and it is fact! Only the ones whose parents can teach might just be ok but often poor teaching at school allows enthusiasm to wain. A child might have to be someone very special to get through that - and most are not. The low achievers are the most vulnerable.

Anecdotes are great but the research is far more compelling because it covers so many more pupils and schools. Also, individuals will never know what may have been achieved by going to a better school with excellent teaching. I firmly believe all children deserve the best. However we have a shortage of top class teachers and SLT in some areas. There is a long way to go before everyone gets the best.

[WhoTheFuckIsSimon]

It's not as simple as saying if a bright kid has parental support they will be fine.

Dd is on track to fail her german gcse. I have offered to sit down for thirty mins with her to help her revise before a controlled assessment next week. She did it in Thursday, refused to do it last night. I have no idea if she will do it this weekend. Ive bought her revision guides which she doesn't use as she says they're not relevant. Ive offered to pay for a tutor which she had a fit over and point blank refused to consider. I can't make a 15yo who has switched off revise.

[swingofthings]

Mum of two naturally academic children. I have mixed feelings about this 'bright child will do well at whatever school'. On one hand, it has so far been proven correct with my DD. She is about to do her GCSEs having gone to the local 'average' comprehensive school. My friend's son who resides an hour away attends a prestigious grammar school. Both has similar results in primary school. I did worry a bit that DD wouldn't progress as well as able, but now that we are only months away from the exam, I can say that I don't think she has lost out. She is expected all A* (which she has got at both mocks taken so far) just like my friend's DS is.

Saying that, she is set on trying to gain a place at medical school, and I know that to do, she will need not only to guarantee A* at A levels but support from the school about the application process. For that reason, we have been looking at a further away 6th forms that do achieve highly and offer this support.

DD and DS had to face the issue of fitting in with the label of being the 'clever child' and yes, it demanded some work, but both of them have managed it well and are both fully integrated in different groups. To do so, they had to show that they were not big headed, able to make fun of themselves and act 'silly', and happy to help others. They are still labelled as the clever one, but it is not a derogatory label.

What I have learnt though is that it is my parental role to keep an eye on how the school is supporting my DCs. The reality is that teachers and management are under constant pressure and at times, it is easy to take an eye off the more able pupils to provide more support to the others. However, my experience is that any concerns I have raised have been promptly and appropriately responded to. I have no regrets sending them to the local comp.

[BetOnBlack]

Omg the amount of times I've been told the same thing by certain friends/friends of friends, it drives me crazy. I don't agree that any child, bright or not will neccesarily do well in just any old school, and I think that parents who think this way are deluded.

I chose to send my kids to an out of catchment primary and secondary school as quite frankly the local schools weren't good enough, and I don't regret my decision. However I've since had friends tell me that I'm crazy for sending my kids "so far away" (around a ten minute drive) to school and that there is nothing wrong with the schools on our doorstep, but nothing could be further from the truth. They only chose to send their kids local because it was convenient for them, they admitted themselves that they couldn't be bothered to drive or walk a long distance to school even if it were a better school all round. Their decision I get that but then why pretend that the schools are amazing and that's the sole reason for sending their kids there and then get at me when what I did was put my kids needs and education before mine.

[notagiraffe]

I really don't think it's enough to have supportive parents. they are massively influential of course. But not more so than peers. The main part of the week is spent not with parents but in class. If class is disruptive, if peers have low expectations, despise hard work or intellectual rigour then a bright child will suffer. Never kid yourself they won't just because you are at home being keen and supportive.

My DC went to a mediocre (but friendly, Ofsted good with outstanding) state school and really didn't flourish. They did well enough academically (though not brilliantly as no one raised the game.) Since then they've been at an academic indie where teachers and fellow pupils care massively how well they do. The ethos of support and encouragement is outstanding. The difference it's made is immeasurable.

[EricNorthmanSucks]

Supportive parents cannot force schools to introduce setting, offer triple science, a selection if MFL, ancient languages, further maths etc

Supportive parents cannot sack poor teachers or wrong headed SLT, in fact they cannot have much meaningful day to day influence on the provision for high ability pupils.

So no. Supportive parents cannot magically ensure that their DC are receiving an appropriate education. Even if they are middle class..

[BertrandRussell]

"Supportive parents cannot force schools to introduce setting, offer triple science, a selection if MFL, ancient languages, further maths etc"

No, the can't. But that can help their child to do as well as they possibly can with what's available. No doors are closed by only doing double award science, one MFL and no further Maths. And if you're judging a school by whether it offers ancient languages, then you aren't going to find many that live up to your expectations.

[EricNorthmanSucks]

Parents can help their DC make the best of a bad job ... Is not a very catchy strap line.

[swingofthings]

I don't agree that any child, bright or not will necessarily do well in just any old school, and I think that parents who think this way are deluded.

That is very judgmental when ultimately, you'll never know how your children would have done if they'd gone to the local school.

Most of DD's friends avoided the local school by suddenly re-discovering religion to get them a place to the better standing religious schools. Are they expected better results than DD at GCSEs? No, none of them, DD is still the one with the highest expected grades just as was at end of Year 6 (at excellent primary school).

She has found that as one of the few very academic kids, she has received a lot of one to one attention from her teachers because she distinguished herself from the mass in her attitude to learning and ability.

[BertrandRussell]

Yeah- but it depends how you define "bad job".

[BertrandRussell]

Your definition suggests that something like 90% of state schools are "a bad job"......,,,,

[Mathematician]

Your definition suggests that something like 90% of state schools are "a bad job"......,,,,

Paraphrasing only slightly:

A: some state schools are doing a good job for very bright children, but most aren't
B: surely that's wrong - what's "a good job"?
A: It includes x,y,z...
B: but that's a nonsensical definition, because then most state schools wouldn't be doing a good job for very bright children.

head... desk.

[Lurkedforever1]

Grades alone aren't proof of a bright child doing well at a bad school. Education is about so much more than final grades. I'm confident dd at her ss amazing independent, with a supportive parent will get the same grades I did in the subjects I did at my awful sink school with unsupportive parents. But she'll be a hell of lot happier doing it, and won't mentally leave school with the same as me.

Nor do I parent with the aim of making the best of bad situations. My first aim is to avoid them in the first place.

[opioneers]

No doors are closed by only doing double award science, one MFL and no further Maths.

This simply isn't true. Friend's son went to unambitious school. Moved for 6th form, to discover that his GCSE choices had massively limited his university options.

Not doing triple science will preclude a lot of science degrees.

[RhodaBull]

Dd is at an "outstanding" comprehensive, but it bears little resemblance to grammar school I attended in the 70/80s, which would only employ teachers who had been to Oxford or London. I wouldn't say they were necessarily all great teachers but most of them were rather intellectual.

Looking at another local school, I saw the teachers' academic backgrounds were listed, and quite a few had been to local institutions such as Chichester University. I'm sorry to be a snob here, but if you can't get into a proper university to study English, then I don't think you are of sufficient calibre to educate my child. And then there was a list of the teachers' all-time favourite books. My eyes watered to see such gems as Gone Girl and the Twilight books. Gone Girl is a great story and a fantastic plane read, but the greatest book a head of English has ever read?