Are ‘top tables’ in primary school indicative of future success?

[magpiemagical]

I’m not sure if I’ve worded the title in the best way possible!

Both my DC (8&6) are in the top ‘sets’ in their class; in both, there’s three tables which are bottom, middle and top (but in colours). I just wondered if this is in any way indicative of their future school success? Fully understand it may not be, I can’t remember what set I was in in primary school.

I think it's impossible to predict...it depends how their attitude to learning and life experiences (trauma/mental health/physical health) etc plays out.

But true success is mostly inner contentment surely....not something a table has much bearing on.

Absolutely not. I was in top set and failed my GCSE'S. Now I teach GCSE'S. Sets don't mean a thing. I've worked in a school and been a tutor for some time now, I've had some 'top set' students that were not doing great and some 'bottom set' students who were doing incredible

I was in bottom set all through primary including a special needs group. I aced my GCSEs. And a levels and degree.
My middle was much the same he’s top in everything in high school.

I was on the top table in primary, top sets in secondary, settled for straight Bs in gcses and went downhill further in A levels and dropped out of Uni just before my final year. So a strong start but a not particularly fantastic finish.

It shows they're doing well academically and will likely continue to throughout their education.

Success is measured in different ways though and it depends on what they want to do when they get older.

Most top set people I know went to Russell Group universities and have good degree related jobs, earning a good salary.

I know a number of people who weren't in top sets and are doing pretty well careerwise, mostly through owning their own businesses.

No, I don't think so.

Some on the "top table" will go on to do incredibly well. Some will have peaked early and won't carry on on the same trajectory.

Some on the "bottom table" may carry on struggling throughout their lives. Some will be late bloomers who go on to do brilliantly.

There is no way of forecasting the future, and I'm not really sure that there is much point. The important thing is to support your dc's learning wherever they are right now; to cultivate a love of learning and a strong work ethic; and to ensure that they know, beyond any doubt, that their academic success and other external achievements are in no way a reflection of their value as people.

Of course not, they’re just little kids

What sets were you in at school, OP and how successful are you?

I’ve had 2 top tablers and a mid-tabler.
Child 1) top table. Bright, chatty, brilliant at technology, maths & science & didn’t need to revise much for those exams due to good memory. Did poorly in English & essay subjects due to disorganisation and lack of interest. Did well in primary, but struggled in secondary due to executive function and was diagnosed with ADHD as an adult. Now in a good job but has had challenges due to ADHD.

Child 2) mid table, classic B grade child with average IQ but importantly high EQ. Did everything from birth exactly as per the text-book. Works hard and got 2:1 degree, has good job and is moving into leadership positions.

Child 3) Top table, doing exams currently, predicted good grades and likely to pursue degree at RG uni, but unsure about career path.

I would say that being bright is helpful, but that emotional intelligence is often a better predictor of success.

I was thinking about this last night. At dd’s primary there were lots of changes in the first couple of years, but it settled at 6 children on the top table. They are now all at the same sixth form. And all in the “oxbridge pathway” group.

My DD was the one who could barely read CVCwords in Yr1, didn't sit Yr2 SATs as too far below level, struggled all the way through Primary...

And is now top Set for Stem& MFL, and second set for English and Humanities in Yr9. Was definitely a marathon not a sprint for her.

However many bright children do well throughout school. And there's bright children in Primary, who continue to do very well, they just get over taken by the slower starters.

Don't worry about it now.

From my recollection of our year 6 top table, two went to oxbridge, two went to jail (from a life of crime that started well before school leaving age, and with no GCSEs).

I think that too many things play into academic success at secondary. The child themselves, the parents, the teachers, the school ethos and culture and sadly their friends which are hopefully a positive influence. Top table at primary though is great foundation for secondary.

Ds1 was average and Ds2 excelled at primary and they both came out within the top 5 children in their secondary and that did mean achieving mainly 9s with some 8s but I sent them to a high achieving, incredible progress 8 school with amazing pastoral care.

Their friendship groups were also high achievers who cared about doing well. They kept the same group from year 7 to year 11. Ds2's group were bullied a lot because they were academically able, called names that confirmed this. The school stopped it every time it started (different children each time) and they had the resilience to still do well.

School start right from year 7 with parents in school on an evening with the children showing them how to research for homework, what sites to trust, how many things they should be looking at and what they expect so as parents you know what level your child should be aiming for. After all you are signing their homework diary to say they have done it which should mean you are checking it.

The school report has the usual attitude to learning but also a how well prepared your child is, do they contribute in class, go above and beyond reading around the topic to fully grasp it? That can be as simple as watching films like Elizabeth or Pride and Prejudice to see what society was like because context is relevant for GCSE English Literature.

School also had amazing teachers and would have those personal growth days where they made the children look ahead at different jobs and what they paid, what housing you could get locally if you had those jobs because minimum wage to a 12 year old is a shit load of money whilst you live with your parents but can you only afford to share a house or do you earn enough to have one all to yourself? What car could you buy, how much is a car? What holidays you could have, they all loved researching that in school. They were given pretend jobs and had to search Rightmove for rentals and Tui for holidays, they were given budgets, listed things like council tax and house insurance so they fully grasp all the things that eat your money every month.

This was all to emphasise choices, you do well in your exams from GCSE to A level then every door is open to you, you do poorly then lots of things are no longer available. School wouldn't just give a detention for not doing homework, they would support them doing the homework and ask why it wasn't done, what could they do to help? There was also a homework club every day after school. As I said, an incredible school and the low ability children do really well on Progress 8 too so it isn't all about high ability children.

Both Dh and I went to uni so our children have visited our old unis with us when they were in lower secondary years and we talked about it.

My children went to Warwick and Durham unis.

Based purely on my children’s experience of primary school the teachers were completely clueless about who was clever and who was not.

Or maybe they weren't trying to assess who was clever and who was not, but merely grouping children according to the needs and abilities that they were presenting with at that time?

Thinking back to primary school, there were kids in the top set in primary who now do normal jobs like hospital porter, retail etc. One girl who was consistently in the bottom and next to bottom set went to do well in secondary school then on to uni to do a biology degree, then went on to do medicine and is now a doctor. She wasn't overly smart but was always a very hard worker and disciplined throughout secondary school.

Thinking back to primary school, there were kids in the top set in primary who now do normal jobs like hospital porter, retail etc. One girl who was consistently in the bottom and next to bottom set went to do well in secondary school then on to uni to do a biology degree, then went on to do medicine and is now a doctor. She wasn't overly smart but was always a very hard worker and disciplined throughout secondary school.

School smart doesn’t necessarily indicate emotional intelligence, future entrepreneurship or warmth and charm. That’s my reading from how my DC’s contemporaries have done (my DC were also top table).

This thread will be full of stories of children who were top table and did badly academically and those who couldn’t read at 8 but ended up going to Oxford, but honestly on the whole I suspect that those who are on the top table at age 5 will still be doing well academically at age 16. Whether or not that will translate in to job success or indeed happiness with life is a different matter, but on pure academics I think the statistical correlation will be strong.

I used to teach in a prep school. I could predict from y3 data who would pass the 11+ in y6. Probably from y1 data to be honest but I wasn’t there long enough to test that theory! As I say, there will be exceptions but as a general rule, those who are academically strong when young will continue to be so as they get older.

Maybe, maybe not. It could be that the child is intelligent, it could be that the child is well behaved and biddable. Quite different qualities might lead to a child being on the top table.

My DS was always shoved onto the bottom table and treated as though he was lesser in every way.

He got 9 grade 9s at GCSE.

DD was top of her year in primary and gained entry with ease to a highly competitive grammar. By the time that GCSEs/A levels rolled around she was fairly average in most subjects and many kids who had struggled in the earlier years (& as a consequence put more effort in) were way ahead of her. DD had to learn the hard way that coasting along on natural ability alone doesn’t work forever..! She didn’t get bad grades by any means and they got her where she wanted to be (currently a physio student) but she could’ve achieved far more if she actually put the work in.

Are they top-table because they are self-motivated hard-workers? I think that will likely (but not necessarily) continue. Are they really bright, managing to coast along and not actually working hard atm? They might run into difficulties when they start to find things more difficult.

I think in the earlier stages of primary there will be a slight correlation with age and sex as to which 'table' they are sat on. But I don't know it's common to have tables that are consistent. Like it might change for maths and English, and everything else is a jumble..

I don't think the correlation would start that early because when they're in their first year of school success is probably more likely to do with how well their parents prepared them for school. For instance DS started preschool this year (live abroad, preschool is the year they turn 6) and I had taught him to read before starting school, and basic maths, so he's ahead of most of the class, many will not have been able to read at all when starting and others will be at the syllable stage. But this headstart doesn't say anything about his base intelligence, and it's very possible the rest will catch up and take over (honestly quite likely considering his memory is like a sieve which is not good for exam success).
I think it's more possible to draw a correlation from late primary level to later success but still so many other factors in play.

What a brilliant school! The school you go to can make such a difference. I moved in year 8 from a good school where it was alright to be smart and do well to a struggling school where the culture was very different and that's where my downhill turn started.