To think you can't know how successful a child will be at age 3?

[UpDownRound]

I admit I know nothing about the world of super selective primary (or 4-18) schools in London and I am genuinely curious to learn. I don't live anywhere near London, nor do I have any concerns about the state schools near me so this is just about wanting to know more and not derail other threads on the subject.

Can they really pick out the best children at age 3? I'm thinking of my own child here. They are summer born but love sitting doing 'writing' more than any child they know (although my friends are more of the belief that small children should be outside so don't know how telling that is). Despite this, they definitely can't write their own name yet. They can only write the numbers 0 and 1. They can recognise about half the letters of the alphabet by their phonics sound. They're polite and enjoy circle time/stories/singing at nursery but not great at talking to new people. So overall I very much doubt they'd be selected for one of these schools.

The thing is, I was the same and then incredibly academic at school. All As and a first class degree with little effort. Learnt instruments and played sports to a high level. My husband was very similar. I think it's very likely therefore that our daughter will be fortunate enough to be pretty academic. I'm now a teacher and have no doubt she'll thrive in Reception. But an outsider wouldn't know all that or see all that. Genuinely, how on earth do they go about selecting children at 3 who they really think have the best chance of succeeding? And do these schools take a high proportion of winter borns?

I know parental engagement is basically the biggest indicator of future success but I guess that all children applying would have invested parents!

To be fair I don't know exactly how they work but my mum went to a similar school, she remembers going for an interview at 3/4, she was asked questions and gave her some tasks to see her problem solving skills and how interested she was in the wider world around her and that she wanted to learn. I assume it be similar than knowing how to write your name, count etc.

If a parent works with their child reading and writing it makes a huge difference.
I was a mum helper at my kids primary and the children whose parents read with
them daily were so far ahead of those who didn’t.
My DS1 wasn’t much of a reader but he’s a whiz at maths. It’s nothing I’ve done, he’s just that way. At 3 yrs old you couldn’t tell.

It's just a self fulfilling prophecy really, if a child starts falling too far behind there'll be a gentle chat with the parents that although Tristan was a known genius at Duplo aged three, now they "strongly recommend" he'd "benefit from a different environment"....

Schools looking at children for 3+ and 4+ do look at the child (eye contact, behaviour towards other children, teachability etc). But they are also mindful of the parents. They notice postcode, parents profession, parents manner on the phone/email/in person at open days.

I agree, you can’t possibly know at 3 if a child will be academically successful. Hopefully, having a great education will help any child to fulfil their potential though.

There will always be some children who get in age 3/4 who are quietly asked to leave within the first year or two because the fit isn’t right.

I have been the patent of the golden child who shone from age 3 and continues to shine. And I’m also the parent of the child who was asked to leave age 4! Harsh as that sounds, I didn’t take it badly - the same school wasn’t right for both of my children. The one who was chucked out is not doing great somewhere else. All is good. No less able than their sibling but a very different personality.

People on MN are always horrified by assessments at 3 or 4. The truth is some schools (in London especially) have 10 applicants per place. They have to select somehow.

Three seems incredibly young. Both my boys are reasonably smart. State school educated. One great A level grades now at a RG uni and the other almost all 9's at GCSE now doing A levels.
I had separate comments years apart from their nursery staff about both their abilities aged around two or three. DS2 (May birthday) was even moved up a room around two years old to interact with older peers because he seemed more 'capable?'
Interestingly he was also part of a group of six selected to join the year 1 class at primary (too many DC in reception), and those very same six have recently made up part of the group of highest achievers leaving secondary years later. Not one of their original 30 peers placed in the reception class aged 4 were.

My elder DD started school recognising no letters, let alone writing them and could only count to ten as I spent the summer before hand doing it constantly. She left reception on Pink band (level 1 books)... (and we did the two books the school sent home every night!)

It wasn't until halfway through Primary that it started to become clear that despite her dyslexia and writing issues, she has a mathematical brain. She understands and gets things quickly. But she needs time to do basic calculations.

One of those superselective places would be living hell for her. But she is smart in her own way. She works hard.

Her sister would thrive in one of those schools... except she's too free spirited and doesn't do well in strict environments.

And as @Joinedforthis22 says, they look at interest in the world but also parents who can support their child.

I remember my assessment age 3/4 better than my university interviews!

Selection at that age massively favours the older ones but I think you probably can pick out a chunk of children at that age who will become academically successful.whether by nature or nurture.

My nephew was naturally amazing at puzzles/maths things as a toddler. He got an academic scholarship to a top private school. While nothing is guaranteed, I’ve always thought he’d go and do maths at oxbridge. He’s got a few more years of school left so will be interesting to see but he stood out from a very early age.

I’ve got a 5yo. By 3 it was obvious she was bright and she did very well in reception last year but also scored really highly on some sort of iq test they did on them. As long as she works hard she’s got the building blocks to do well. Whether she’d have got through a 3 plus as a summer baby though is debatable.

I think it is similar to be honest as selection at a later stage. You can select out some children who are less likely to succeed but you can't reliably identify all those who are going to succeed. For example in a grammar school area around here they aim to select the 'top 25%' but the tests are fairly blunt as far as IQ tests go and very rarely have appropriate adaptations for any SEN. Essentially they probably reliably select the top 10% most of the time and select out the bottom 60% (maybe). Much of the rest of the variation is accounted for by variety in parental support through tutoring, performance on the day and SEN.

For the selecting school though it probably doesn't matter too much, they have their high fliers reliably selected. It doesn't matter to the school too much that they have Amelia who is naturally around the 70th centile but whose parents got a tutor in and made her practice 3hrs a day through the summer and they don't have Courtney who would naturally be around the 80th centile but whose parents believed that tutoring wouldn't make a difference, who didn't want her to go to a grammar school if she wouldn't cope there and besides she had to go to holiday club every day because they were working full time. As far as the school are concerned a child working at 70% is not different enough to a child working at 80% to impact on how they teach. Especially if the parents of Amelia are also willing to get a tutor for her for some GCSE subjects.

Obviously for the child themselves it can make a substantial difference. So no, they can't reliably pick out the best but they can pick out 30 children who are more interested in learning at this stage, who have engaged and highly motivated parents and who are unlikely to have SEN. If they make a mistake then later on they can put pressure on the parents to move because they no longer feel that the school would be suitable for their needs.

Am I missing something; since when did primary schools select on academic ability? As I understand it, all state schools admit according to their admissions policy.

Teaching and learning should be play-based till 6.

They can probably spot children who are ready to learn and match their environment at that moment in time.
I dont think they would spot late bloomers, of which there are many, for instance.

Skoda Op is talking about super selective private schools I’ve only heard of schools in London and New York assessing 3 year olds this way.
Although my experience was those who were top of ‘top group’ in reception were also ones to pass state grammar 11 plus at age 10.

@skodadoda

Am I missing something; since when did primary schools select on academic ability? As I understand it, all state schools admit according to their admissions policy.

State schools admit as per your post. My question was about super selective independent schools.

Some very interesting points - thank you.

The schools don't have to spot the 'brightest' just those who are easy to teach. If a child is taught from an early age, they will do well.

It's the 10,000 hours thing. It is less about spotting the 'natural genius', then who is receptive. With hard work their talents will develop.

As a teacher, I'd say yes.
Obviously some children surprise you, but generally the higher attaining pupils in Nursery/ Reception remain so.

It's more common that a child that was excelling in Early Years, doesn't achieve as highly as predicted, than a LA child suddenly being top of the class.

I work at a selective, academic school. My daughter tried out aged 4 (January birthday). They had a few tasks including writing their name, cutting something out, the next round included interviewing the parent. All the other kids were tutored!!!! Which I didn’t want to do with my daughter. I got told she was too quiet…

I'm pretty sure they "miss" some who go on to do very well. DS is winter born and has a very accurate memory, which will hopefully help him with school. DH and I met at a good university doing totally different subjects so I'm hoping he will be a good all-rounder. But right now he would probably come across as a polite, funny, average 3 year old (nursery sends videos and you'd not really single him out from the others).

I'm a primary school teacher (state mainstream primary) and mum of a 3 year old who will be starting school in September. We could never afford private school, but I actually find it quite heartbreaking that schools can be so selective age 3. I honestly can't imagine putting my own daughter forward to be 'selected' or not. Each to their own, but it doesn't sit right with me.

We knew my DS was bright from an early age so I think it is possible to tell but I'm pretty sure schools are just looking at how compliant , focused and teachable kids are going to be. My sister's DD went through one of these assessments and was accepted at the school but is struggling with reading and maths in Y2.

We adopted our DS at 10 months old and his social worker told us she could tell he was bright. His foster carer said that in 20 years of fostering babies she had never had a child that was so forward in his development. He was walking at 9 months.

He was already using lots of words when we met him and was speaking in short sentences by 18 months old.

By the time he was two we knew we had to move to a grammar school area to give him the best chance at a good education. Sounds bonkers to make that decision based on how he was at 2 years old but we just knew from personal experience that the local primary schools wouldn't cut the mustard.

His reception teacher also commented on how bright he was and also how knowledgeable he was about the world/nature etc and that he had an usually extensive vocabulary for his age.

He is16 now, at grammar school and predicted to get 8s and 9s in his GCSEs. He's not one of the super bright ones , has a tendency to be very lazy but he is definitely as bright as we could tell he was as baby.

We also knew by 2 that my DD was going to struggle academically. She was a very late talker , struggled to learn to read and will be lucky to leave school with a couple of level 4 GCSEs despite a lot of additional support.

attainment at that sort of age is certainly correlated with future attainment, as a prediction tool it's a lot better than nothing, but it's highly flawed with lots of errors in both directions.

Even at 3 you can tell a child that's inquisitive and learns quickly, even if they haven't yet developed eg manual dexterity.

At one of her checkups when she was small the HV asked me how many words my DD knew. I can't remember how many it was but whatever it was was way, way above the average - I remember the HV commenting on it.

She could also follow complex instructions very young eg "could you get mummy's book from the kitchen and take it to daddy in the living room, then go and find granny and give her this shoe"

I had a "friend" who reckoned you could tell who the successful kids of the future would be at one, never mind 3!

My son was always the late side of average until he started school and then he accelerated beyond a lot of the other kids who'd been ahead. however, success is more to do with personality than academic ability so it would be interesting to see if you can tell early on who the captains of industry will be.

Selection at 3 is bonkers though.

My extremely academic summer born dd was obviously advanced for her age at 3, but I don't think you can make a reliable judgement. Some kids will simply be precocious and it will level out later on. Others will be late bloomers.

Personally, I would not have contemplated sending dd to a school that thought it was reasonable to judge and select children at such a young age.