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!

I could read really well at 3. By the time I was 7 I was in a class with 9 year olds because I was crazily intelligent for my age. But in secondary school, I levelled out and although I didn’t find school too hard, got normal grades in my GCSEs and A Levels. Not all As. I was just an early developer, not a genius. Even though I seemed like one when I was little. So not sure how useful this kind of selection process would be either.

There a few things here.
Firstly the parents who put their toddlers aged 3 into such a process are A types and will want to keep them there (tutoring, home support, etc.). They’re also likely to be high achievers themselves. So the schools are picking parents as much as kids.
Secondly the schools weed out those with SEN through the journey so it’s not a golden ticket for life. I remember a child with dyslexia leaving one I know after the school started the “is this the right school blah blah”. Others would have got extra help and tutoring to keep them there regardless.
Finally the incidence of mental health disorders - particularly among girls - is very high and the expectations from such an early age must be a large part of the reason.
So no you can’t tell with certainty aged 3 but you can turn on the pressure cooker and see what happens.

DD is bright and doing well at school, but when her teacher came to visit just before she started, she hid behind me (DD, not the teacher!), and refused to acknowledge, let alone interact with her teacher for the duration of her visit. A friend who's a teacher tells me this is relatively normal. I guess she wouldn't have got a place at somewhere selective...

They do tend to have a higher proportion of winter borns.

A lot of the assessment at 4+ is about behaviour- can they sit, listen and follow instructions in an age appropriate way?

They also look at the parents and how supportive they are, their academic backgrounds. We were asked this at interviews.

FWIW DS is at a selective school and he has SEN and couldn’t do the writing or cutting tasks. He is good at listening and following instructions and the school know that We are willing to support him at home.

Some children you definitely can tell they are bright at that age - early development, awareness, speech, the way they problem solve and interact with adults, curiousity about the world around them. Take a child with those early indicators and give them a highly challenging and engaging environment, with no lower ability children slowing down the pace in the classroom, and I suppose they will thrive?

(I don’t agree with it as an idea by the way, and support state education for all)

My son, now a teen, is “gifted” at school. I remember the HV doing his little 2 and a half assessment and being really amazed, had never seen such a toddler etc. (He wasn’t that weird btw, just good speech and was quiet mature and enjoyed the little tasks)

Hmm, I live in an area of London where selection at age 3 happens in some selective independent schools. (off the top of my head, I can think of Putney High, Wimbledon High and possibly there are a couple more). Interestingly, these are all girls schools. I can’t think of any boys schools or co-ed schools that have a formal selection process at 3/4. Perhaps this is because boys are perceived as less likely to focus at that age, or their fine motor skills develop less quickly? I’m not sure?

At age 3/4, they are not really looking at who can read such-and-such words, or who can write their name neatly etc etc. There is a vital difference between ‘learned ability’ and ‘underlying ability.’ Parents can drum into children the former, but not so much the latter.

Having said this, any selection at such a young age is likely to be a very blunt instrument indeed. The ones who are selected are the ones more willing to engage with the assessment process. I guess they are looking for ‘teachability’ as it makes the teachers’ lives easier if they can hit the ground running in reception and don’t have children who are unfocused or ‘not ready.’ But, as we all know, children develop at very different rates. Some of the brightest children will almost certainly be missed at age 3 - for all manner of reasons eg. many exceptionally bright children may appear a bit ‘preoccupied’ at that age or their train of thought may not be what the test assesses. Others may lack confidence or not have the best social / communication skills. The two do not go hand in hand!

Boys schools tend to assess at age 6/7 and even then, it’s a very blunt instrument. That’s not to say, the ones who are selected don’t deserve the places, but just that many more equally able children will be missed.

For instance, my son had some dyspraxia at age 6 and could barely hold a pen or co-ordinate himself. He could read pretty fluently, but how could he sit and write a timed story in 30 mins when he couldn’t hold a pen properly? He didn’t get into any of the selective schools at 7+, but by 11+, when his motor skills issues had resolved themselves, he got into them all.

So to summarise, a few girls’ schools select pre-reception, but these schools will also have selective entry at 7+ and 11+. The older a child is, the more certainty there is about their particular ability and learning styles. Some of the children selected at 3 will inevitably drop out as it turns out not to be the right environment for them after all (eg. you can’t really diagnose dyslexia or other SLDs until at least age 7). Basically, there is such a hoo haa about selective schools in London and it’s a minefield, frankly! They can get away with it because the demand for limited places is so high. No idea what it’s like in other parts of the U.K?

Aged 3, one of my sons, was still seeing a speech therapist for delayed speech. He was behind his peers re communication and milestones. You might find him walking round with a pair of pants on his head!

Now, he's just beeezed through his mocks with all 9s and is very naturally bright (he's at a state grammar).

He did, however, start to show signs of talent in Maths at a young age, after that initial nursery period. I'd find him completing puzzles very quickly. This isn't me just bigging him up. He has a twin, who is also good academically, but not in the same way.

So while I think you obviously can spot signs early, there will inevitably be some children missed off as they are later bloomers.

@Stellaroses we had the same with my DS at the two and half year check. The health visitor assessed him as at the level of an average 5 year old. What was funny is that she told me not to expect him to be seen as particularly special when he gets to school as "they are all like him at that school*

That school being the local state primary that has approx 40% of kids in each year pass the 11plus. It has been as high as 50% in some years.

She was right to a degree - the school did recognise his early ability but by Y5 things had evened out and some of the other kids started to overtake him.

@Flammkuchen

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.

This is interesting. I am told in elite sport this is called ‘coachability’. A gifted sport person with the ability to listen, reflect and assimilate will experience more success than a gifted sports person who just continues to rely on their natural talents. The 10,000 hours thing is definitely the key.

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

DS1 was like this, could only draw scribbles/lines at 3 but could chat confidently about all sorts of things (mainly different types of trains) and was beginning to do simple sums.

I can't tell what DS2 (nearly 2) will be like yet, he can't talk nearly as much as DS1 did but loves mark making which DS1 never did.

I could read a novel aged 5, another person I met that could read that well at that age has not succeeded in life at all. He was the child of someone I knew.

Remember to assist your children’s social skills by encouragement and example. People can get a bit wrapped up about the academic side. DH was also advanced in a non regular way. Fortunately I have four sisters who taught me social skills.

@ana1s
I can’t think of any boys schools or co-ed schools that have a formal selection process at 3/4.

It's not just for girls' schools, although many of the super selective boys' schools only take ages 7-18, so the selection takes place at 7+.

Co-ed schools - Highgate, Alleyn's, Devonshire House, Newton Prep, St Paul's Cathedral School select at 4+.
Boys - Falkner House, Garden House, The Hall, Hereward House, UCS select at 4+.

My DH failed his 11 plus. He’s now a successful academic highly regarded in his field!

I think if they are selecting at 3, they are really selecting for dc who live in families with time, resources and intention to support their dc strongly in their education.

With my DS yes it was obvious before he was three that he is exceptionally bright. He had picked up a pencil and written his name at age two, taught himself to read by four. He loved puzzles and maths and had an exceptional memory. With DD it wasn’t quite as obvious because she had a speech delay. However once she got grommets and could hear, her receptive language was very good and she could follow very complex instructions. Both of my kids have always been very teachable because they love to learn. Will any of this guarantee them success in life? Of course not! In fact one of the reasons we have put them into selective state high schools is so that success doesn’t come easily for them, we want them to be challenged and learn how to work hard. Parents seem to think that breezing through school with little effort is some kind of badge of honour but in my experience it actually sets you up for problems later on. A bit of stretch and struggle is helpful in life no matter how intelligent you are.

My children went to a school like this. I don’t think it’s possible to make a meaningful selection at that age.

Two points often overlooked-

• many of the schools that do this began as senior schools only and are required in their charter to be selective. The school therefore had little option in the matter.
• the schools that do this are generally hugely oversubscribed. The school needs some way to select and they all come with disadvantages.

But yes, it’s pot luck, frankly. I was pleased my kids got in at 3 because the process was entirely stress free (for them) which it would not have been at 7+ or 11+. I imagine I’d feel differently if they hadn’t got in, but who knows?

I think the best way to tell is to look at schools that are all through 4-18 with a significant 11+ intake. You can then compare the cohort that came from the junior school and the ones that came in at 11. Perhaps the only issue is that the pool of candidates isn't going to he the same at the two points.

@Justajot

I think the best way to tell is to look at schools that are all through 4-18 with a significant 11+ intake. You can then compare the cohort that came from the junior school and the ones that came in at 11. Perhaps the only issue is that the pool of candidates isn't going to he the same at the two points.

I think you can make this comparison at 18. It doesn’t work at 11 as the new joiners will all have been tutored like mad.

I imagine a lot of it is confidence and family involvement. You can tell a lot about how a child will do academically by how involved their parents are in their education either themselves or through facilitating tutoring, extra curricular activities etc.

I've only taught in state secondaries but even at 11 I don't think it was entirely possible to predict how they would do in their year 11 exams, some made huge unexpected leaps and others plateaued.

I have one of "those" children - at four she's fully bilingual, reading and writing in both languages with different alphabet systems, sociable, confident with adults, knows the name of every plant in the garden etc.

She clearly has some innate ability but her main benefit has been two parents with a lot of time and resources to devote to her. The private school system, at primary at least, seems a bit of a racket to me - lo and behold, you take a group of children who are above average, tested on entry to be academically able and come from (broadly) wealthy and secure homes where learning is valued, and you get...children who are above average and academically able. Shocker. And yes, some of the N London girls' schools could be renamed Eating Disorder High.

My son goes to one of the most selective private schools in the country. At 11+ they were drilled, the tests were super hard (as far as I heard).

Now he is in his gcse year and there is a huge divide between those coming at 11+ or even 9+ and the ones who got in below that. The ones with tests are genuinely super bright. The others - their parents are loaded.
It creates friction as in they are supposed to be gallopping through and beyond the curriculum, but the "legacy boys" are actually holding them back massively.
On any other front it is not obvious thankfully.

You can tell if a 3 year old is bright, but that doesn’t mean another child less able at that age isn’t able to compete later in life.
My 2.5yo dc1 was playing when a health visitor visited his newborn sister. She watched him and said how bright he was, and he’d get a place at the local selective secondary.
We laughed.

He got a scholarship to a fabulous independent and has just got into Oxford.
She knew her stuff.

One of the reasons we left London and stuck with state. Agree with covid woes there’s something depressing about assessing and judging such young kids.

@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!

Success is about far more than intelligence or the ability to write or even parental engagement at 3. What happens during Primary, their social engagement, and how well parents and teachers instill values such as hard work, resilience etc are a far better predictor for success. Otherwise every clever child that gets great GCSE results would become so successful across every part of their academic and work career. But they don’t. The kids who go from great grades to great careers are also the ones who have great social skills.