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.

Bright kids definitely do not do well anywhere or in life. Its not guaranteed even if you have a 1st class degree. Check out that bbc2 documentary breaking into the elite. Its very very true.

The main flaw I can see is that it’s based on KS2 results (it doesn’t say which) many children - especially in bucks and Kent go to grammar schools from independent schools who don’t sit SATs. In DS’s class half the year is from independent schools.

And OP if you look at your own scatter plot, if over 60% of school is high achievers they perform better.

And since the cut off in grammar schools is usually the top third, that means that grammar schools do perform better.

@underneaththeash, re some of your points.

And since the cut off in grammar schools is usually the top third, that means that grammar schools do perform better.
If you mean better as in attainment, then that's not what the thread is about, it's about progress. For selective schools I posted links to conclude (if that is your choice) that pupils do progress more at them, but that they could progress similarly at (half) decent non-selective schools.

As mentioned previously, the graph does not contain selective schools, so there is not a flaw there. Also said that a (large) proportion of the schools on the far right of the graph are non-selective (as classified by the Gov) but the admissions are partly academically selective.

However, I will look into two things.
What proportion of pupils make up the P8 score at selective schools.
Comparison of HPA P8 at similar (if that is possible) selective (as defined by the Gov) vs non-selective, but there may be a small sample set for that.

From a personal point of view....

DS was of very similar ability to two of his friends at primary. DS passed the 11+ and his two friends didn’t. They all got broadly similar SATs results in Y6.

The friends went to separate non-selective schools-comps or secondary moderns depending on how you look at it. DS got 13 x 9/8/7 equivalents (some A*/As), the friends got 7 or 8 GCSEs of 3/4/5s. Neither got the 6s they needed to study the A levels they wanted at the nearest sixth form.

I would say for much of their secondary years, the friends were probably having more fun and were happier than my DS. They hardly got any homework (one used to show us what he had-laughing at how little there was compared to Y6) and they both really liked school-lots of quizzes, the teachers were very chummy and nice to them, fewer assessments and tests-school was a very social thing, whereas for my Ds it was pretty formal-head down, work hard etc. DS’s results are very different to theirs though and I would have said at y6, they were very similar ability wise.

Nobody in the local schools these friends went to, got results like DS (and his were pretty ordinary at his school) so I think I can say hand on heart, he would not have got those results had he not gone where he did.

Anecdotal evidence, I know, but I do strongly believe this.

From a personal perspective whose had experience of a comprehensive and a top independent boarding I’d say there were huge advantages to both but that those advantages were very different.

Certainly parental involvement in education is the single most important factor.

Certainly life in the independent was much easier and allowed for lifelong networking and opened many doors. There was an element of it being easier to fit in the independent rather than a narrower (but significant ) band of high achievers in the comprehensive.

The comprehensive education allowed for the development of a stronger self-drive. It allowed greater understanding of the struggles of others and a more realistic view of the world.
The comprehensive also created the ‘golden child’ problem for us with the child being put on a very high pedestal which when they got to medical school, they fell off and got hurt. Suddenly it was “Six As at A level? Grade 8 Violin? Gold DofE? Sailing instructor? What makes you special then?” We, perhaps, should have allowed or even caused her to struggle earlier.

In areas where there are grammars larger numbers of children do less well. It’s not about the success of grammars (which is unproven) but the opportunities available to those who are rejected and the impact on their futures.

Redlocks, appreciate it’s just 3 children, but that’s a worrying difference between them.

@Bookworm4 wrote :
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.

But Scotland's educational outcomes are lower than England's on average, and have been falling consistently for years. Eg www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38207729

I don’t believe parental support trumps good teaching. Few parents can make up for poor teaching in 10 or so curriculum areas. Parents cannot get rid of disruptive children that prevent others learning and parents cannot actually run the school. They might complain, get tutors and ensure homework is completed but if, as so often quoted by Ofsted, gifted children are not given suitable work or challenged to do their very best, what good will completing low level homework do? This is why DC from the best schools have such an advantage. They are set work and challenges that enhance their knowledge and get the high grades. Others don’t get that!

Bubbles
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.

I do mean identifying the schools where higher achievers do poorly, yes. I think your cultural capital means you think everyone knows. I know (from experience of talking to other parents, often relatively recently arrived in the UK) that they don’t. And I think that information should be easily available. The whole going to the right website, comparing the right schools on the right measure thing is fine if you’re someone who posts on this board - it’s by no means obvious to the average parent, especially someone for whom English isn’t their first language.

Also, apologies for not responding sooner - I don’t seem to be getting an MN notifications, so I only just spotted your post.

No problem. Yes I take your point about parents from abroad but I have to say in all my years of talking to parents, most can identify schools they don’t want DC to attend. It’s more difficult for incomers though. However many parents have No Choice. They are allocated housing. They cannot move. They inevitably get the worst school because the worst schools are often serving the most deprived areas. They might complain about the school but not in any effective way. They are unlikely to
become a governor or avoid their DC going to these school. It’s their local school and they suffer if it’s crap. But what can they do? Information and stats proving its a crap school doesn’t help them move to a better catchment area.

The progress 8 info and value added (is that still reported) gives the clearest indication of progress made in a school but its historic. Schools can improve. Ofsted failing schools names and shames. That could be a starting point. Publish those.

Re me looking into
What proportion of pupils make up the P8 score at selective schools.

Selective schools - 91.5% average
Non-Selective - 96% average

So, not much of a difference.

Re me looking into
Comparison of HPA P8 at similar (if that is possible) selective (as defined by the Gov) vs non-selective, but there may be a small sample set for that.

As thought, there are only a handful of non-selectives which have a similar KS2 APS to that of the selective schools, i.e. they have a similar starting cohort. So, we can't compare like-for-like as the sample is too small.

I then took the same number (around 160) of non-selectives (as selectives) with the highest KS2 APS, to compare.
Graph of that attached.

For context, and probably not surprisingly:
Average HPA P8: Sel 0.54, Non-Sel 0.31.
Average A8 (school): Sel 72.1, Non-Sel 65.3.
Average KS2 APS: Sel 33, Non-Sel 30.3.
Average number of GCSEs: Sel 9.87, Non-Sel 8.79

The last one means that at Selectives, on average, they have more scores that they can use (the better ones) in the A8/P8 slots, so the A8/P8 will be higher (like for like).

The are plenty of non-selectives on the graph equal to some of the selectives.
There are roughly twice as many non-selectives (than selectives) with HPA P8 < 0.

The school at the bottom left, Flume, is one which you might class as failing the pupils (Its school P8 and LPA P8 are low as well, but HPA P8 more so). As mentioned previously, there may be a host of reasons for that.

I’d say being bright and well-supported are key elements for success, but that internal motivation and a desire to achieve probably trump that.
I’ve known a lot of bright kids whose parents are hugely supportive but if the kid can’t be bothered or is a bit aimless then they often won’t do as well as a child who is less able or whose parents are less supportive but who has a burning desire to do well.

Ofsted always look at quality of teaching. No child will do as well as they could with poor teaching. Until teaching is good everywhere some children will not fulfill their potential. Parents might be supportive but they, for the most part, do not teach. A child with a burning desire to do well is unlikely to be able to teach themselves. All children need first class teaching! It doesn’t matter whether they are bright or not!

Selective schools don’t have a monopoly on good teachers. Therefore you would expect to see good progress across a range of schools. In fact it might be more difficult to get good progress where DC achieved very highly at primary. Super selectives can have this problem. County wide Grammars can have great progress figures but of course other schools can too.

What is more interesting is why the schools that have poor progress 8 do so. What are their specific issues? This is what parents need to know.

However, even if they know the data, they still cannot avoid the school! As I said above, choice is a luxury many do not have.

I know of 2 once failing schools with very low enrollment and high percentage of non English speaking students that have been transformed into Ofsted excellent schools through incredible management and leadership. Middle class parents are still reluctant to enroll which is actually fabulous news for the children and teachers there as it keeps class sizes small. I don't believe in selective schooling and think all schools should reflect the society and community we live in. Parents have way too many prejudices and we shouldn't be focused on creating the next middle managers.

I was a high achiever at an all girls grammar school and went on to graduate with a PhD. It's taken me years however to come to terms with the resulting low confidence and self esteem from being a working class girl, bullied and tormented, by my peers throughout school. I've learned the hard way that results don't correlate with happiness and now endeavor to support my children, and others that I teach, to focus on creating a life filled with learning new skills and developing interests outside the classroom.

An unsupported, unmotivated but bright child that is put in a very good school would have more of a chance of doing better, I think, than if they were placed in a school with more challenges. A bright child that is motivated and supported by parents and placed in a good school that is the right fit for the child will do well. If that same child is placed in a school that has challenges of discipline which may result in lost teaching hours, poor teaching etc then it will make it so much harder to get good results. If the parents have the means, time and determination perhaps they can fill the gap as long as the bright child remains driven, focused and not distracted.

The key is that pupils of similar intelligence perform similar at grammar and top 25% good/outstanding comprehensives
My local comp is in bottom 25% and has a real problem to retain and hire teachers
When my friend's very intelligent ds did his a levels, their physics and maths teachers quit halfway into the second term and the school could not replace them. Pupils were taught 2 sessions by the chemistry teacher who had never taught physics and only had maths GCSE, not even maths a levels, for 1 session a week they were bussed to a neighbouring school, and the 4th session was often turned into self-study or supervised by changing supply teachers. Straight A GCSE kids gained Cs, Ds and Es at A level. I am pretty sure they would have done better at 'better' schools.

That’s my point exactly, Nelly. These DC had poor teaching and it really affected them. They might have been motivated, bright, prepared to work and have supportive parents but what good did any of that do? They were failed on teaching and the fact the parents didn’t live in a better catchment area!

Thanks stubiff, thats really interesting.
I appreciate you taking the time to look out the statistics and analyse them for us.
Its certainly very reassuring to those of us that reckon we have a "bright" child. One third of a grade doesn't seem much in the context of someones whole life.

I'd be curious to know what sort of difference school type makes to disadvantaged kids.
The reason I ask is that the school on my estate was closed down (in the the face of fierce local opposition) a few years ago. Theres now a plan to build a new school, a short distance away, which will have a more socially mixed demographic. Theres quite a strong feeling from some parents that this isn't an adequate replacement for a school of "our own"

So I'm wondering: Are these Mums correct? Do disadvantaged kids do better in schools with a disadvantaged intake. Or by being educated alongside better off children?

1/3 of a grade can be scraping an A or s secure B. Or a scraping a C when 1/3 lower would be a D. That can make a big difference in some subjects.

There is some evidence that disadvantaged DC do better in great schools regardless of who they are educated with. On the whole, the worst schools are in disadvantaged areas. So quality of management and teaching means everything. It’s the school that matters, not the other DC!

I think my local school disproves this idea.
It is allegedly doing ok now and ofsted is no longer 3 or 4, following a period of 4 awful ofsteds, four different headteachers and the sacking of the governing body.
However yesterday’s exam results give the lie to this.
One kid got AAA, no other students got more than one A or A*. Yet again no student to oxbridge, vet sci, med, dentistry, law.

I do not believe intrinsically that the local kids are less bright than those that attend my state comp ( numerous kids with 3 or 4 all at A, A* or mix thereof)

I was a highly able child and went to a crap school. Got straight A*s. But - and here’s the crucial bit - I didn’t go on to university because no-one really did that in my school so it just didn’t feel like an option for me. So, I would assert that while bright kids can do well at any school, without an enabling, aspirational environment, they are less likely to reach their full academic potential.