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 don't think it's always possible. Ds1 could barely speak at 3, he was massively behind in terms of language/motor skills/ experiences having been born at 26 weeks and spending pretty much the first 18 months of his life in hospital.
He's now 14, has completed all his GCSE's and attends some uni classes at Cambridge....turns out his IQ is somewhere in the stratosphere. He was home educated as by 5 it was suddenly very clear that a reception class wouldn't be suitable for him.
...but if you'd seen him at 3 - you'd never have imagined.

As a former STEM lecturer in what I would characterise as an upper RG university, I will note that undergraduates often lack an accurate sense of their own abilities and that this cuts both ways. Our students all had top A Levels but within that cohort relatively few had a reasonable sense of their ranking within class or even small, specialist degree programme after one or two years.

I often wondered how much of this could be traced back to their experiences at state vs independent schools (or selective schools) and parental support beginning, as PP’s say, very early. Little evidence except that my best ever personal tutee, a young woman, was a commuter student from a modest background and was truly convinced she had failed her first semester. She was amongst the top handful of students.

I suppose one of the things I didn't specify in my OP is how do they accurately assess at age 3? I don't doubt at all that you can spot clever children at 3. But can you spot that in a half day (or shorter) assessment? Surely a lot of 3 year olds are far too shy to show off their true abilities! My daughter would probably go mute, despite bring very articulate. As has been pointed out though, that probably doesn't really matter as long as the school can fill its places with appropriately able children.

@Umbella - yes, I meant the final outcome at 18.

I went to a very selective school and it was about 50/50 junior school intake and 11+. Oxbridge offers were definitely not split 50/50 between those two groups.

No idea OP but during DS’s 2 year check / review the health visitor said he was probably gifted and talented and that we might need support when he’s older.

I laughed so much! He was 2!

Anyway, now aged 8 and we’ve just been told he’s gifted and talented and that the school will support us with resources at home if needed. And Senco will help with his anxiety.

he is constantly stressed and worried about making mistakes in his school work (to the point where he’s utterly obsessed and quite miserable, my poor boy!)

Anyway, hope that helps

He’s also behind with coordination, balance and physical skills. (So we encourage trampolining and lots of fun bike rides)

I suppose one of the things I didn't specify in my OP is how do they accurately assess at age 3? I don't doubt at all that you can spot clever children at 3. But can you spot that in a half day (or shorter) assessment?

Yes you can. I'm confident I would, and I'm not in any way an expert.

Ability needs to be combined with certain character traits to result in long term success.

I suspect the very best private schools know that with small class sizes and an intake with good potential you can get great results, and are good at spotting potential. Bear in mind they also then manage out kids who don't measure as you get higher up the school.

My DS is very able academically. But if he isnt interested, he won't always try unless effectively bribed to, he doesnt have that desire to please adults that some children do.

He has a lazy side and doesnt really persevere the way some people do. I recognise this trait in myself, I think its partly because as a child things mostly came easily and I never really had to persevere.

Someone I know was flagged up as developmentally struggling at 5 and ended up at Oxbridge after a state school education.

Oh and you definitely quite often tell early. You will miss some quieter kids but you can tell.

My nephew was reading fluently at 3. Properly, knew phonics etc. He was already better at that age with numbers than most children are in reception.

DS (Just been offered STEM subject @ Oxford predicted 4A*) at 3 spoke grammatically correct English never confused his pronouns, he could recite his favourite books and recognise a few words. Knew his digits to 20 and could count to 100, do simple addition and subtraction. He had his colours and days of the week by 18m you have never been able to mislead or trick him, he remembers everything and always has done.

An example from my own childhood my mother taught me all the garden birds before my second birthday and famously aged 2 worked out 6 cakes between 4 people was one and a half each.

Meh. A lot of the time, bright kids become bright teens. Sometimes they don't.

Less obviously bright toddlers go on to become bright teens too - for example, Einstein couldn't talk until age 5 or so, same with my (genius) DH.

I'd never rely on a judgement aged 3 to predict a child's ability, it's bonkers. As others have said, often these schools are looking for extensively prepared kids, as they will have motivated, engaged parents which is a HUGE advantage for young children - it's why the Duchess of Cambridge is so invested in improving children's early years experiences.

@Dixiechickonhols

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.

Sorry, I did think OP must be talking about prep schools. When she said primary schools it confused me 😕

The GP told me I’d got a very bright baby at the 6 week check (now predicted 8s and 9s at gcse) but yes obv you can’t tell at 3 and some talk/walk/read early then their peers catch up, some are clearly sporty and crawl and walk early but are average at other milestones or talk at 12 months but don’t move for a year etc. they’re all individuals. But having bright, interested parents who choose to give you lots of life experiences, talk to you, play with you etc obv helps.

It's all about parental input really. A super selective school won't take kids from families who can't be arsed to pick up a book.

We have one of those super selective independent schools in our area and I heard from another parent whose 3 yo did the assessment that they looked at ‘the three Cs’ - curiosity, communication and compliance.

But I agree with you, it seems like a nonsense to me, but they get so many applicants per place that they have to select somehow.

I wonder to what extent they're looking for "most potential to be a high-achiever" rather than just weeding out any that look like they might not be quite ready for the amount of concentration they expect, or whose parents look like they might not be 100% supportive of the school.

It’s just a very basic filter, they take account of birth month etc. They are looking for engaged but not psychotic parents - an awful lot of it is clocking the parents, especially the mothers - and then a kid that’s happy, can make eye contact, has a bit of zip. It’s more filtering out than filtering in at this basic level. Plus spotting the parents who can get the new library built

Gosh reading this, my two year olds feel so inadequate

A lot of it is weeding out any SEN or behavioural issues, and then selecting for being easy to teach (confidence, good social skills, interested in the activities, good language and attention).
You don't need to pick out the geniuses at age 3, you can teach them to do well academically.

At 3 in areas where private schools have many more applications than places, they’re basically looking for kids who are pleasant, compliant, not too bolshy and not too timid.