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...

[BertrandRussell]

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

No it doesn't.

[BertrandRussell]

"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."

I refuse to accept that it is impossible to be a good school if you don't offer ancient languages at GCSE.

[howabout]

Grades alone aren't proof of a bright child doing well at a bad school. Education is about so much more than final grades. - or indeed a good school

Absolutely agree but I think a lot of "good academic" schools focus so much on the acquisition of good grades that the broader meaning of education is completely forgotten. I went to Uni with a lot of private school children who could pass an exam without even seeing the point of understanding the subject matter. Then went on to train a lot of privately educated graduates who could not get their head round the concept of following a path other than the one carefully mapped out for them or even seeing the value in anyone not just like them - not saying that is the case everywhere but my measure of "doing well" is about far more than grades.

[CruCru]

We've been looking at schools for my son so this has been on my mind quite a lot.

My primary school was horrible. Middle class, desirable etc but I was very badly bullied and little was done about it (perhaps this reflects the 1980s).

My secondary was good in many ways. We had some great teachers and bright kids could do well.

However, there's lots I would now change - Id have liked to have done triple science GCSE (would have made A Levels so much easier), quite a few teachers didn't seem to much like the very bright kids and a teacher (friend of my mum) said there was real pressure to turn Ds to Cs (so that was their main focus at GCSE). I had been thought good at French but actually I was good at learning lists of vocab. When we got to GCSE, my teacher was a bit disturbed to find that I couldn't really speak French (I got a C).

I remember kids in science rioting (we had a student teacher) - although was much easier when we were streamed. Must have been hellish if you were in the bottom set and weren't disruptive.

[disquisitiones]

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

No, this is completely wrong: many state schools do not offer double science at GCSE and top universities know this. Top universities absolutely do not insist on double science at GCSE even for heavily over-subscribed subjects such as medicine, provided the required A level sciences are being studied.

However, some selective sixth forms do not allow students to take sciences if they have only double science. (This was discussed recently on another thread.) Since many schools happily go on and teach A level sciences after double science, and students with double science catch up those with triple science within a term, sixth forms who refuse to take students with double science are the ones who are misbehaving.

(Also, not having triple science may well become a bigger issue with the loss of AS, i.e. more weight may be put onto GCSEs by top universities which aren't using pre-tests. Oxbridge will have pre-tests but so far it seems that UCL etc won't.)

By contrast not having further maths at A level will in practice exclude a small number of the very top maths, physics, computer science and engineering courses. This is why there is an online support service for pupils at schools which don't offer FM. The number of students without FM receiving offers e.g. from Oxbridge maths is absolutely tiny, as students would be expected to self-study using the available online support.

[LastTripToTulsa]

I don't think bright children do well anywhere. At school our GCSE Welsh teacher went on long term sick . The supply teacher we had for this lesson was unable to speak Welsh and only spoke Spanish so she taught us (the word taught used loosely) Spanish . She was a hopeless teacher and we spent a year talking and messing around. My GCSE Welsh taught me one Spanish phrase "coma ce comas sa".....and a Cannot even spell it .

[cressetmama]

DS began his education at a non-selective prep. He had six months travelling and being home educated at 8, then was diagnosed (at our instigation at 9yo) as having very poor visual processing. He stayed until he was 13 without doing better than average, then a year at a v high-performing academic school, where he struggled partly due to a long each way trip (50 miles each way). In Y10 he went to our local "outstanding" comprehensive where he did okay in GCSE. But he made no real progress academically after Y9 in some subjects, or Common Entrance in others, so his GCSEs reflect his attainment at the age of 13/14. He's now doing A levels in tough subjects and is reasonably "bright" but he's finding acquiring the work ethic a challenge.

[roundaboutthetown]

Yes, I think you would have to be mad to believe that a child could succeed in absolutely any school solely by virtue of being "bright." Could anyone point me to any threads where anyone has ever actually said exactly that? It seems like a bit of a straw man argument.

[findasolution]

I'm afraid the phrase is so over used (and over many years, but more recently in last few) that I was compelled to see what others thought by starting this thread.

However, I'm not going to point to the other threads as I purposely have steered clear of not biting to every idiotic comment that's been made by at least 2 users on this thread alone, but decided siting their stupid comments on other threads (some running parallel) is not fair game, no matter how hypocritical they have been. The remainder have been pretty good about sharing their anectdotal experiences...because that's what most of us have.

And I've enjoyed hearing people's view points, even if I don't agree with all of them.

[roundaboutthetown]

But I've never seen that bald statement made - it is always modified by reference to the child's personality, parental involvement and education, and normally also by limits to the level and type of actual awfulness of the school, in threads I've seen. In other words, when read carefully, often doesn't boil down to much more than saying that you can succeed in life, and school, without a grammar school or selective private school education and that the greater your self-discipline, work ethic, parental support and resources, and personal happiness/mental health/resilience, the greater your chances of succeeding even in a school that is widely believed by the local community to be fairly mediocre... Which I have normally translated as meaning it's best to ignore other peoples' prejudices and to do your own research and come to your own conclusions based on what you know about your particular family set up and your own children... As for anecdotes, there are anecdotes abounding on mumsnet of how every type of school imaginable has let someone down for one reason or another, and of parents having done the same, for one reason or another. You could, on the back of anecdotes, therefore conclude that all schools are crap for somebody, but couldn't accurately conclude much else.

[EmbroideryQueen]

I think it's more accurate to say there's a subset of very bright children who would do well at almost any school, within reason.

[BertrandRussell]

Actually, it's quite often grammar school supporters who say variations on "bright children do well anywhere" when talking about primary schools. They have to-to support their view that the 11+ is fair and equitable and does not disadvantage underprivileged children.

[roundaboutthetown]

Really?

[Mathematician]

Well, BertrandRussell said on the first page of this very thread:
"A bright well supported child will do well anywhere."

Here are the first few such statements that a crude google (not selecting for recent posts!) threw up. (Sigh, thought I used to know how to link to an individual post, but can't remember now, sorry.)

"an academic child will do OK at any school with strong support at home." Thu 06-Aug-15 13:41:22

"I think bright motivated children do well in any school" Sun 20-Apr-14 09:37:10

"It does not matter what school they go to if they are bright." Sun 26-Jun-11 10:57:51

"What I'm trying to say is that I beleive bright kids acn flourish in any school with the right input from home." Tue 28-Feb-06 11:58:07

I agree the sentiment is usually a bit more wrapped up than these examples, but you don't have to tear the wrapping much to see what's underneath.

[Iamnotloobrushphobic]

Reading this thread has made me a bit more comfortable with my choice of not selecting the local state school for my DS.
DS is bright, he passed the 11+ for a superselective place and was offered a bursary for a very good independent. I felt quite guilty about accepting the bursary offer especially after reading threads on here about how parents who choose to do this are damaging the comp system. However, I did what I felt was right for DS and would help him reach his potential.
The thing is, DS is bright but isn't as well supported at home as I would like him to be due to health and disability issues within the household. From what people here are saying the 'well supported' factor is really important.
The pastoral care at his school has been outstanding and the teaching is top notch. I feel the school we chose will help DS reach his potential despite the difficult home life.

[Mathematician]

(Perhaps by "solely" you meant you were only interested in cases where posters didn't add the fig leaf about the child having to be well-supported at home, in which case sorry. Those exist too and there's one in my list by chance, but they're rarer yet.)

[BertrandRussell]

I do actually think a bright well supported child will do well anywhere. It's unsupported children of whatever ability we should be focussing on.

[Mathematician]

x-post, yes, home support is really important, and if you think about it, it renders the whole thing rather vacuous. Compare the arguably correct "A bright child can do well in a games arcade if they are well supported at home", i.e., with sufficient support at home it doesn't matter to their results if the child learns nothing at all at school. After all, home educating takes so many fewer hours than school, typically, that you can do it all after school hours if you must and if you're prepared to do nothing else in those hours. That's hardly an argument for sending your child to a games arcade instead of to school, however, and similarly, the less extreme version is hardly an argument for not caring what school your child goes to.

[EricNorthmanSucks]

iamnot you should not feel guilty for taking a decision that is in your DCs interests.

Parents have no power over their local schools ( despite paying for them through taxes ).

What they offer, what policies they implement, what staff they can attract etc is completely beyond your control.

[Iamnotloobrushphobic]

Thanks eric. I am now at peace with my decision as I can see what the school is providing and how it is helping my DS (not just academically). It would be great if every school offered identical academic teaching and identical pastoral support but sadly they don't and I could never not choose what I feel is best for my own children due to inequalities in the education system.

I think we also have to consider how schools vary across regions as outside of London it can be a much bigger postcode lottery. Schools outside of London receive much lower levels of funding per pupil and are less likely to have as great a mix of students from a variety of backgrounds (wealth, parental education etc) as they are in London.

[senua]

What they offer, what policies they implement, what staff they can attract etc is completely beyond your control.

That's true of any school. Try telling a fee-paying school that you don't like their provision and they will simply shrug and point to their waiting list (of people that are dying to replace you if you want to vote with your feet).

[EricNorthmanSucks]

senua that's true.

Although independent schools have to consider their client base going forward, decisions that have been made on macro level won't be overturned just because you're paying.

The difference is choice. The parent will have chosen the school because they like it and consider the macro policies generally in line with their own DC's interests.

If you have a bright child and money for fees, you will ( geography depending ) be able to find a private school with policies which broadly serve the interests of an able child.

[roundaboutthetown]

Hmm. I've looked through the, "It does not matter what school they go to if they are bright" link given by Mathematician and nobody on it actually says that. They always limit the statement by reference to the child's personality, home support and by exclusion of the very worst schools from the general statement. Those getting closest to saying it (ie with the least exceptions) always do so in terms of anecdotes about their own children in a blatant showing off sort of way (as in, a truly bright, well-motivated child looks exactly like my little genius and if your child flounders, it's a personal failing on their part...). So I still get the impression that a lot of people are just sceptical that the schools being worried about are actually as awful as the worrier thinks, rather than truly believing or claiming that a bright child could succeed even in a cess pit.

[Mathematician]

Hmm. I've looked through the, "It does not matter what school they go to if they are bright" link given by Mathematician and nobody on it actually says that.

It's a direct pasted quote of an entire paragraph in the message whose time I gave...

[BoboChic]

I have to disagree quite strongly with the idea that parents cannot change schools. I'm very fond of suggesting improvements to school and am pretty pleased at my successes.

However, I'm not a moaner or a shouter. I research my case meticulously and combine making to decision makers with a well-executed lobbying and PR campaign among the parent body.

In any walk of life, bringing about significant change is hard work!