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 being in the top set is a better indicator of future success than being in the bottom set is an indicator of not doing well in life.

The “top table” from my primary school and all my DC’s schools all went on to Oxbridge or medical school. I would assume for many of them there were other factors other than just being bright that helped them to be successful eg supportive parents, cultural capital, going on to selective secondary schools. Unless life throws you an unexpected curve ball like physical or mental health issues, or personal issues, of course.

Whereas, there were also kids in the bottom set who were late bloomers or had (at primary age) undiagnosed SpLDs/spiky profiles or who had other talents that aren’t part of the primary school curriculum eg languages, music. Although, I would say, many of those who went on to be very successful already had a passion for their subject or were the hardest working DC, despite not being the highest academic achievers at primary school.

I don’t think so. I was always in top sets right through school and it puts too much emphasis on giving praise for the good exam grade, rather then the effort that gets put in to revise and study. I done really well at GCSE’s, which tapered in to okay A Levels and a mediocre university degree. The higher you go in the education system, the more self discipline is required, which is not a skill being in top set gave me.
Even to this day, if I can’t pick up a new skill immediately then I just don’t do it or don’t want to do it.

No. DS had to get support reading in primary. Another kid was on books way higher. DS got better GCSE results because smarter kid got distracted by sport, girls and going out at secondary.

They accidentally emailed all parents a list naming certain children as gifted and talented - suffice to say those children’s GCSE and A level results told a very different story.

Wow. If that actually happened, it's pretty unpleasant that you actually kept track of those kids and monitored their academic performance so many years after their data was breached.

I think my children were always on the bottom table at primary school. 1 & 2 have autism and learn differently, 2 is particularly academic if the situation is right. Child 3 has severe dyslexia and scores the lowest possible marks in his English sats but is now doing well at college.

neither myself nor dh were good at school but we met at uni and we both have good degrees, I have a masters. Dh is highly skilled in his area and much sought after job wise. I’m really good academically (love a test) but not to great at actually doing things 🤷‍♀️

I know a number of cases of gifted young adults who’ve done well at gcse and A level but had breakdowns at university. To be successful children need resilience, be willing to work hard, a good attitude and supportive parents.

I'm not sure what happened with my DD.
She started reading words at 3, and could read short chapter books by the time she started in YR at the age of just turned 4.

She stayed at the top of top sets all the way through Primary school - although didn't sit SATS due to Covid.

She's now nearly 16, and doing GCSEs. Predicted 5s and 6s, and in middle tier sets.
She does bare minimum homework, and doesn't aim high at all.

DS, just a year older, struggled to hit middle ground through Primary school. Took intervention work to get him reading and counting (despite being September born).
He put in a lot of effort, but never 'shone'.

In his GCSEs, he got seven 9s, three 8s, and a 7 - highest achieving boy in his year. He's predicted 4 A* at A-Level, and is applying to study Physics at Oxford.

Just my anecdata of 2 - but I think DS learned from an early age how to learn? Whereas, everything came so easily to DD from a young age, she never really knew how to learn when things got harder.

It actually happened - and I couldn’t help but notice the outcomes of three supposedly gifted kids I knew because two of them remained in the same school as my daughter up to age 18 and one of them lives next door. I’m also connected on Facebook with most of my kids’ primary school friends’ mothers, which I believe is allowed, so I am kept up to date about what a lot of them are up to.

IME it is the dc who are almost “top table” in primary school who do well long term. Maybe they work harder in secondary school, don’t rely on their “natural ability” to pull them through.