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...

Just thinking about the OP, to say that the quality of the education doesn't really matter for bright children, is very close to saying that educating bright children at all doesn't really matter.

Take it that one step further, and one can see how silly it is.

Fact is though, many (most?) of us don't really have a choice. We live in London, and have a Good (as in Ofsted Good) secondary just down the road. I like the school, have visited it often and think the teaching is good, the after school activities, music etc are good, (sports not so much). The only other reasonable options are another normal state school, but DCs would have to go on public transport (two busses, underground) and frankly they are not much better in terms of results than the one down the road. Otherwise, we would have to make significant sacrifices to send our children to private school, where we live that would be about £15,000 a year for each child. This is money that we don't have, we would have to re-mortgagee or downsize (I know people do make that kind of sacrifice).

I personally think that when people say 'your kids are bright and have good family support they will do well anywhere' is just an expression and a way of saying, well it's not the absolute best school but it's good enough for your kids to succeed. And I do think that it's true but I know deep down that my children would get better results if they went to a selective private school.

I personally think that when people say 'your kids are bright and have good family support they will do well anywhere' is just an expression and a way of saying, well it's not the absolute best school but it's good enough for your kids to succeed. And I do think that it's true but I know deep down that my children would get better results if they went to a selective private school.

You've hit the nail on the head, Iwantakitchen.

And if you look at the last paragraph of that post, it says, "If they have it in them, they will succe d wherever they go." The "if they have it in them" clearly not, to me, implying mere intelligence...

Post addressed to Mathematician - the person quoted was precisely one of the people I identified as the sort of person who just likes an excuse to boast about their own children... as the whole thread was predicated on their own two children and their personal view of the quality of their children's schools...

It's pointless taking any argument to extremes and isn't even logical to do so, it's just being deliberately obtuse. It is just as ludicrous to say that your child will only succeed in life if you spend £250,000 on sending them to Eton, or Wycombe Abbey, or St Paul's, as it is to say your child will inevitably succeed even if you send them to a failing school where they are bullied and scared for their lives and teachers frequently absent and you do nothing to rectify the situation.

And when it comes to the idea of what "success" or "doing well" means, nobody has the same notion of what that means for their children, either. So one person's success could be another person's failure. Some people seem to be quite intent on feeling resentful about something. Other people are relentlessly positive... What harms one person makes another person stronger, better and more compassionate.

A bright child with determination to do well will succeed no matter what school he goes. However, a better school will make his journey more joyable, less hard and go further.

I know a student, he went to a secondary school which he couldn't learn from the teacher due to the disruption. He learn all by himself, and he had good GCSE and A level score and went to a good University. However, he nearly failed his first year in University, as he didn't have experience of how to learn from the lecturer, how to interact with the lecturer and classmates. It was so hard for him to pick up all these. I believe he will do well in his life, as he has the ability and the determination. But it would be much easier for him if he had gone to a better school.

"And I do think that it's true but I know deep down that my children would get better results if they went to a selective private school."

Really? I certainly think that my children would get much more invisible "stuff" from a selective private school. But it would never cross my mind that they would get better results.

A bright child with determination to do well will succeed no matter what school he goes.

No he won't. I had determination and I was bright - straight A pupil at the start of first year. But the school was crap, I was mercilessly bullied, verbally and physically, and my grades just went down and down, year after year, until I failed all but one of my O Levels. Teachers couldn't give a toss (when they bothered to turn up as the throughput was crazy) and ignored my complaints of bullying, so I just gave up and zoned out. I concentrated on getting through each school day without too much abuse - that was my only aim! When I finally escaped that hell hole, I dragged myself up again, got A levels, and eventually qualified as an accountant through evening classes and self study. Those five years were the worst of my life. Schools and teachers like that shouldn't be allowed. There was absolutely no way that I could have succeeded under those conditions!

"Schools and teachers like that shouldn't be allowed. There was absolutely no way that I could have succeeded under those conditions!"

What were your parents doing?

Probably same as my parent. Oblivious to the fact that the school was failing its children, but not equipped or engaged enough to know the school system to do anything about it. Didn't make all our parents any less loving Bertrand, just different to parents of today.

Even though some of us had educated parents (mine were too, from another country), didn't always equate to them being the type of supportive parents needed today to ensure our children don't slip through the cracks of bad schools. And not all of us were lucky enough to live in the right areas for their local "good' states, which thankfully still do exist today, but not everywhere, hence the question should you put up or consider other options, whether that's by means of pay, pray, move, selection etc etc.

At my dd's grammar school, the 7th Maths set had a horrible time. And I bet there are thousands of people who struggled in all sorts of schools who remember being mocked for not understanding things and being bullied for being thick. They just tend not to post on websites peopled largely by middle class educated people.............. quote Bertrand.

Bertrand, am I missing something here (as I am clearly not very bright), that even with you being in a grammar selective region, who continuously claims that they have one child successful at 11+, one that failed (your words, horrid as I think that is), that even you you resent selective selection because it's at the expense of less supported children, that you are a beneficiary of being in an area that at least, has a choice?

If I have this wrong, then my misunderstanding....

And btw, I am saddened to hear about bullying in any school environment, for any reason. It can happen in any, it's how the school deals with it that's important. That includes hearing your daughter experienced it in a grammar school.

What were your parents doing?

They fell for the lies of the ruling elite. The school was an ex-grammar that converted to a comp two years before I joined. Until then, I was on target to pass the 11+ and go to it as a grammar. The school and local education authority promised a grammar education for all children as the grounds for closing down the secondary and enlarging the grammar on conversion. My parents fell for it hook, line and sinker!! The secondary closed and the "grammar" suddenly had an influx of secondary school kids across all years. Ex grammar teachers were having nervous breakdowns and leaving all the time. Discipline fell apart, the new blocks were vandalised almost as soon as they were finished. All teachers could do was attempt crowd control rather than teach. It's still a failing school now, 35 years later despite it being a very successful and high achieving grammar. By the time my parents saw what was happening it was too late - if they'd have known, they'd have sat me for the 11+ for the grammar that remained in the next town. Our town was left with one comp, so no choice - I was too late for the grammar in the next town and the "comp" in the next town was just as bad and had a poor reputation too - out of the frying pan into the fire! My parents were old-school and respected the teachers (what a joke!) so just kept sitting and listening to the teachers' lies at parent's evenings rather than challenging them.

So your parents were not supportive then. I won't comment on the rest of your post- your characterization of "non- grammar" children is outrageous.

I don't think Badbadbunny has given a characterisation of non-grammar pupils, though, Bertrand. It reads more as a description of the appalling mismanagement of a difficult enlargement and transition.

Really? Grammar lets the chavs in- everything falls apart.

"Bertrand, am I missing something here (as I am clearly not very bright), that even with you being in a grammar selective region, who continuously claims that they have one child successful at 11+, one that failed (your words, horrid as I think that is), that even you you resent selective selection because it's at the expense of less supported children, that you are a beneficiary of being in an area that at least, has a choice? "

I'm really sorry- I don't understand what you're asking me. Not being difficult, honestly- just don't understand.

And just for the record, I don't think a bright kid will do well anywhere. I'm one of the "a bright well supported kid will do well anywhere" As dome people on here have outlined, "supported" and "well supported" are not necessarily the same thing.

I won't comment on the rest of your post- your characterization of "non- grammar" children is outrageous.

All I have done is pass on my personal experiences. I lived through it and got kicked, punched, burned with cigarettes, had stuff stolen, got spit in my hair, verbally abused daily. I hope that you agree that such behaviour is indeed outrageous, even morseo that the teachers knew it was happening and chose to ignore it! The culprits were older children who were transferred in from the secondary school that had just closed and thought that the younger children were fair game.

Have read all this with interest. I'm left curious about what exactly "well supported" looks like. What kind of interactions with the school who are maybe not teaching as effectively as they could? Or not handling disruption in class? What approach to extra curriculars, completion of homework and extra work if homework is very light? I don't know what this looks like in practice (having grown up with loving but somewhat removed parents myself).

Bertrand, my point in raising this thread, is that shouldn't parents be chastised for looking elsewhere, should their local state offering be poor.

Some will reside in areas where choice is plentiful, to include, other state, faith (state), grammar (state), independent (non selective), independent (selective), home school. I could go on. The motives for moving are of course, subjective. It can be based on academics alone, the social mix of area, the extra curricular range, the specialism subjects beyond core...again, I could go on. (bloody thread makes you want to wrap every comment to cover one's arse!)

Those who have decent provision on their doorstep, and here I give my own personal definition of decent: a school that provides a good range of the above, has a decent SLT that recognises and addresses the needs of students that need stretch, and meets the needs of lesser academic students to reach their full potential (whether that's a C to an A), in a good pastoral environment, then that's my utopia. An environment which has an enriched learning ethos via great teaching, vs delivering the numbers for a league table. I am less bothered by the Oxbridge intake, but that's me, as I believe it's a very outdated metric, but I am interested that the leavers destination list (if HE is an aspiration for those attending) truly represents a mix. The social mix of the school is quite often representative of the catchment (and house prices etc). As a crude analogy for those who know London, a Holland Park school is not the same as a state school in another part of London (or country), it is the exception. Therefore all state schools are not equal*. My local community is not a put off, loved it for 15 years and have therefore not considered the 'move' as an option. Just because my daughter schools elsewhere does not remove her from her community altogether, and all its diversity/socio mix etc.

I did not intend to solicit feedback only from those that have chosen grammar/indies over local. I have seen MN parents criticised for 'busing' their children out of catchment to another state, removing themselves from the failing sink school, accused of compounding the failure cycle of the local school.

You reside in a grammar region (I have no experience of one of these), and whilst I cannot comment on the quality of your local offering (which is, by your definition on other threads, selective), others don't have access to these types of school. Yet you seem to think that those that want what's best for their children, is purely at the expense of those less fortunate, or to be removed from 'chavs' etc. You are putting words in mouths that are just not there. Mainly people just want their children to be in an environment where they thrive...what is so wrong in this concept? A grammar school does not automatically give this guarantee, but for some, it's a better option than their local one. A local option you already have.

And nobody says that you need to be scooped out to a different school........

Of course nobody is saying this. But given the options to, knowing what we do, we may. Children will fail for a host of reasons in their given circumstances, not just whether they are MC or from poor, unsupported backgrounds. Of course the latter is a major issue, but not one solely created by MC parents, though our 'can't make its mind up' education system doesn't help.

Long arse about face response..sorry.

I always say to my daughter on music, success can be down to these factors:

1. Natural ability
2. Fantastic teacher/s
3. Strong work ethic (practise etc)

Musicians can really succeed with just any one of these, but you can really fly if you had a mix of all 3. There, my definition of utopia without getting caught up education PC knots

To those about to make senior school choices - good luck!

i think the problem with thinking of the grammar school system as providing "choice" is that in wholly selective areas, it only provides around 25% of children with a choice. If you're part of the other 75% you don't have any choice at all. It's secondary modern or nothing.

Incidentally, I talk about "failing" the 11+ because that's what happens. Kids don't buy the "finding the best school for you" bullshit. And supporters of selective schools don't like using it because they don't like spending too long thinking about the logistics of the system. Well, the nice ones don't.

I understand. Once in a while Bertrand, it would be great for people like you with experience on this type of selection, to enlighten the pros/cons, and how involved, supportive parents like you (and BoboChic et al) that have experience of change ground up, do this.

Seriously, I think it would be help, and maybe those not experienced/first hand experience wouldn't see grammar selection (as an example) as the panacea to their schooling issues?

Another thread...I know :)