Would a bright child do well at any school?

[stubiff]

Following on from my offer here

Question: Would a bright child do well at any school?

To provide information for you to make your own conclusions I wanted to look at:
Do similar pupils do better at Grammar/Selective schools.
Would similar pupils have the opportunity to do as well at an 'average' school.
Do similar pupils do worse at schools in disadvantaged areas.

Your gut reaction could be along the lines of - should do better at Grammars, could do as well at middling schools and would probably do worse at schools in deprived areas.

Data Source EPI
"Pupils attending a grammar school achieve, on average, one third of a grade higher in each of 8 GSCEs, compared with similar pupils in comprehensive schools"
"Pupils who attend grammar schools do no better than similar pupils in high performing comprehensives (those in the top 25% for value added)"

Data Source ffteducationdatalab page 26
"The child scoring highest at KS2 who goes onto a non-selective school outperforms their peer who ‘just’ passes their 11+"

Conclusion: pupils do better at Grammar but could do equally as well at decent non-selectives.

Data Source Ofsted
"Students eligible for free school meals, boys and White British students are not doing as well as other groups and make less progress from their starting points at the end of KS2."

Data Source Sutton Trust
"While high attainers overall make an average level of progress between KS2 and KS4, those from disadvantaged backgrounds fall substantially behind, with a Progress 8 score of -0.32."

Conclusion: disadvantage can have a big impact on attainment/progress.

Data Source Government
See attached graph where I created a subset of data from the Gov data. Data is school based rather than pupil based.
The plot is a bit of a splodge, rather than obviously bottom left to top right.

Conclusion: a pupil CAN attain the same progress regardless of the percentage of high prior attainers at the school.

Caspar, yes I did look at that measure as well.
It produced a similar graph to the other one. And, agreed, a lot of schools have low figures, as you evidence.

The national average (HPA getting 9-5 in English & Maths) is around 77%, which my gut reaction to was 'that seems low' - but's that a different story.

Thanks for clarifying you examined this data too.

It’s the outliers that are the problem; they prove the assertion that bright children won’t do well anywhere. Some children are being denied life chances they deserve and are very capable of achieving.

I think a bright child will probably ‘do well’ at most schools, but will they teach their full potential? No, sadly not.

Reach not teach (fat fingers)!

'Doing well' = making the same (or very similar) progress at GCSE, regardless of school.

What you've posted is probably true for the top 20-30%, but it's the top end of this where it unwravels.

The kids who are disadvantaged are the very able ones; those who could take GCSE maths at age 12. They won't do as well, and are often in danger of turning off due to boredom/not being challenged.

Look at the quality of the teaching, and the quality of the curriculum and extra curricular options. Look at the results. I think bright children fare better in aspirational schools

“The kids who are disadvantaged are the very able ones;”
Yes. Not the ones who struggle to learn, or for whom grade 5s in English and maths would be a real struggle. Who will always be at the bottom of the pile in the employment market. No, sod them.
What’s really important is getting little Johnny GCSE further maths at aged 12. He’s the telly disadvantaged one.

That's a factual statement not a value judgement. The children who are disadvantaged by this system are the able ones.

Society then needs to decide where they place the resources, which is a different matter altogether - for example in the massive amount of resources going into London schools as opposed to the deprived rural ones where I live (average London comprehensive gets twice the funding per head).

FWIW the OP was also asking directly about bright children, so I was pointing out that some bright children will do well and some won't. You're moving the goalposts somewhat.

@BertrandRussell

The point of this thread was a direct question asked of me - re bright pupils (whatever one's definition of that is).
People are answering on that basis. We're not saying it's more important than other pupils.

If you'd like me to, as you seem more interested in that, I will attempt to do the same for lower prior attainment pupils, i.e. would they perform the same regardless of the school attended.

I suspect that perhaps Bert may have thought they were on the 'Doesn't everyone have Grammar schools' thread, where the comment would be relevant.

Progress makes no sense though when considering the ks1 and ks2 are completely incorrect re intelligence vs age in year group. So people you are calling bright are not necessarily and vice versa.
You just cannot say a child getting almost full marks on reading at 7 should get A* in English at GCSE it makes no sense and it is completely different.

Helix, was that post supposed to be on the birth month thread?

stu You thread is so great everyone wants to post on it instead of the correct ones.

(So what is happening with Ed & Tim and the toxic waste?)

No i just dont think you can define bright with high prior attainment. Or at least an adjustment would need to be made for age. (And that might make the data make more sense).

Schools where there is little disruption are best for all students.
Bright kids are still easily distracted.
How amazing if kids could do as well anywhere.It is truly rubbish to know your kid wont get in the better school because theyve build a load of new homes

Bert The reason this question came up is because quite a lot of people (you included, from memory) argue that ‘a bright kid will do well anywhere’ as a argument against selection by academic ability. So it’s a hypothesis worth exploring.

I haven’t seen threads where people say ‘a child of low / middling / any ability will do well anywhere’. The nearest I’ve seen to that is ‘a child with good home support will do well anywhere’, which would also be an interesting hypothesis to test.

I’m very grateful for the OP for her number crunching. Though it is, necessarily, incomplete given that most parents’ definition of ‘do well’ is not purely academic, but is about mental health, general wellbeing, having a social life, fulfilling activities / hobbies etc.

OP - is there a way of cutting the data to show schools that clearly knock a statistically significant percentage of their prior high attainers off their expected trajectory? I think that parents would find that really interesting.

You mean name and shame on past results? That could be very unfair. They are “sink” schools are they not (?) and locally most parents know which ones they are. It is also a stat that must vary year on year for a whole number of reasons. Ofsted has also
done a lot of research on clusters of poor schools. They have named areas where they are concerned.

Also many parents cannot actually avoid the schools that don’t fulfil potential. They may well know it’s a crap school but cannot get DC into another one so how will this info make anyone feel any better? Or provide the chance to move to a better catchment? Most people really do have an idea which schools are not good!

Please could someone post a link to the “Doesn’t everyone have Grammar schools thread?”

Can I point out that here in Scotland, you go to your catchment school, no grammars, 11+,choosing schools and kids do fine, great exam results, university graduates.
There will always be good/bad schools as long as this ridiculous system in England exists; if people actively avoid a school how does it improve?
If a child is smart and applies them self they will succeed in any school.

I asked this question on original thread. Thanks stubiff for info
It’s a statement that’s often banded about on mumsnet . - that a bright kid will do well anywhere. I particularly wondered if this statement is really true for most high ks2 prior attainers who are in the most poorly performing state schools.
It was something I really hoped was true when dc started at local secondary (p8 well below average and less than 40% achieved grade 5 in English and maths) . Dc did well at KS2 sats ( level 6s in English and maths)
In truth it’s been hard work supporting as dc has moved up the school. I hope that support at home is the key to whether a child will do well at a school with such a challenging intake. I don’t know if I’ve supported enough but who does?
I think dc will get good results but suspect that perhaps would have got a grade or 2 higher here and there at a school which isn’t struggling and has a less challenging intake to teach. But again who knows?- anything can go wrong can’t it?
The school has low level disruption in almost every lesson (which is the biggest problem imo). Kids kicking off regularly. Teaching in some subjects is heavily geared to gcse grades 4/5 and not much of the higher stuff which is understandable given that school is desperate to get kids a pass.

Having said all that, there were some pretty amazing and inspiring teachers too who have really encouraged dc to go for it and made themselves available if needed.
As an aside people do all sorts to avoid this school but when dc started it was definitely not struggling as much.
Dc has generally been happy there and has learnt so much there in terms of life skills and also become ultra self sufficient (maybe because of the type of school it is?).
I’m going to take your conclusion stubiff - (that a pupil can ) and change it to to probably will in my head .

"I hope that support at home is the key to whether a child will do well at a school with such a challenging intake"

As someone who got some of the top results in the country in their A-levels from a very poor comprehensive, I really think it is!

I also think that looking at exam results is only one measure. I am often quite staggered at how naive, spoiled, and sheltered many people are who have only ever been at school/work with other middle class people.

Of course not. How could they?

Teaching competence, the other pupils, the learning (or not) culture; list goes on.

There are important other dimensions to this which is the nature of the GCSE and A level options available and the extra curricular provision. If you have got a bright kid you should check the subject list to see if it is actually a good selection of choices for academically able kids. Is there a decent range of modern languages? Any classics provision at all? What about computer science, astronomy, electronics? That’s a material difference between many selectives and comps which applies in both the state and independent sectors. You might also want to know about orchestras, drama groups and the nature of the sports on offer to see if they make an effort to support bright individuals.

why that list of extra curricular choices deciding your choice of school is a luxury around here and not available if you are in state schools and live in certain areas. You get the school you are given or you move house or go religious route to get a different one.
The teachers at dc’s school do their best to give up time to provide clubs etc but in all honesty they look and sound utterly exhausted. There is no time, no money and no energy left.

Yep Bees.... - I did say "might" on the extra-curricular side, but fully recognise that is a dimension that might be the decoration on the icing for many. No argument from me on that.