Prep school admission test for reception class

[Sue9]

Hello, my DS is to have an informal assessment in November, for a reception place in 2009.

Does anyone know what sort of tests they give to 3 year olds?

Since the prep school takes the vast majority of their students at reception, and most get the independent school places they want at 11+. I am assuming their testing at age 3 is accurately predicting future performance at 11+.

I just don?t know what tests they will give him on the day. I really would like to prepare him for it if possible.

Could someone please help?

I am not against private schools and I am not against selective education at 11 years or 13 years when the DC has reached an age that you can tell whether they would benefit from a highly academic education. I am appalled by selecting them at 3 yrs and emotive or not I wouldn't like to have any part in it. The whole thing is about the parents and I agree with compo, they are on the whole selecting the parents. It would be interesting to see how they managed if the saw the child only and didn't set eyes on the parent! I don't think they would be so keen on the selection tests because they don't mean much without meeting the parent.
The parent has decided from birth that their DC is going to be highly intelligent, get A* in all exams and go to a top university. They set them on this course without waiting to see what sort of DC they have in reality. Maybe they have a very artistic, practical DC who wants to make furniture and not a top lawyer!

The school is in a win win situation, I can see why they like it!
They select the DC at 3 yrs. When they get to the next age of selection, some thousands of pounds later, they don't say "Sorry Mrs X we have failed your DC have a refund" they say "Sorry Mrs X your DC has failed to make the grade and we have some bright little sparks in the wings who want her place, she will have to leave".
Passing the test at 3 is only the start of the pressure to keep the place.

The better ptivate schools do not interview the parents. In fact it's a mark of a snobby school for children who are a bit thick if the parents are interviewed. These schools which get 99.9% A or A* at A level cannot mess with entrance and allow thick children with nice looking parents in to their hallowed portals. They are virtually parent blind and assess the school which is why they are so racially and religiously mixed (in my daughter's year at habs only 2 of the girls had 4 English born grandparents for example).

What they found was at 4 they could test as well as if they had a child at 7 sitting verbal reasoning, writing a story, times tables tests etc and I haven't seen them dropping down the league tables since they started 4+ entry rather than 7+ entry, quite the contrary. Obviously if however you believe every child is potentially an IQ of 120 - 150 child and if you took any girl at 3 you could make them into the Oxbridge bankers of the future then you would not agree with me.

I am very pleased that they are parent blind. The only thing that I question is that you can test at 3yrs or 4 yrs of age, it cuts out completely those who don't
co operate (often the independent thinkers with a mind of their own who are not people pleasers).I think any test before the age of 13 is missing potential.

Sorry-written in haste-please insert the word 'if'.

Abbey, the point about selection at 3 is that the majority of schools don't then make their students go through the entrance exams at 11. So your point about when they get to the next stage of selection is not relevant. What they do do, is if the child is not keeping up, they ease them out. They prefer not to do it of course.

And hardly any are eased out in most of these schools as the selection is good. In mmy daughter's schools they both did have to sit the exam at 11 but if they met the standard they got through rather than actively competing with others. In fact we were told the eldest might not - she is a bit dyslexic but the school gave her extra help, we sat her for some other schools at 11 and she still got in anyway and then did much better in the senior part.

It is a bit hit and miss and there is luck and chance in entrance to most schools anyway - one reason the younger girl didn't get into the school the older was at but there are at least in this bit of London plenty of other schools too so if you don't get into Habs you might get into North London or St Paul's or whatever and if you don't get into any of the better ones there are lots of second and third tier private schools too where plenty of children do very well. So it's not like failing the old 11+ and being written off.

My sister's twins - one didn't get into a very academic prep at 3+ so she sent them to another private school and they both just got into that first school at 7 as by then they were both showing their potential better plus the school they went to is designed to help children get into schools at 7+ which I am sure helped. And the one who had not seemed to good at 3 has come on really well.

Same in life - ven if a chidl is entirely idle at school as plenty are many then get themselves together in their 20s and go on to run very very profitable businesses. Same with some women who do very little until they are over 50 and then free of children and husbands and menstrual periods go forth and earn a fortune. It is never too late.

Abbbey is completely right. I've already said it on the other thread. I'll say it again.

I have just sat in at one of these things,.

Maybe this incidence was particularly badly mismanaged but I couldn't see how the teachers could have a clue about the children in the circumstances and time allotted.

Some played happily, some were terrified, some - like my dd - behaved like littlepushka's friend's ds and refused to cooperate. One teacher was talking at length to a little boy about his older brother at the school - she'd got the wrong boy! Poor kid kept saying "I haven't got a brother". That'll be him written off because the stupid woman couldn't tell the children apart ... The docile children were nodded at approvingly, the more independent ones got pursed lips. I know so many sparky children who've been "failed" at 3, undoubtedly because they saw through the whole procedure as ludicrous.

It is all about whipping the parents in a frenzy by making them think their school is terribly elitist. It is a nonsense, non-selective schools get just as good results at this age.

"It is a nonsense, non-selective schools get just as good results at this age."

Would you care to elaborate? I'd be interested in your source data for the assertion that non-selective schools get just as good results at primary age.

I can't imagine why you would want to teach young children by ability. When league tables started up the Headmaster of Stowe wrote a wonderful article in The Times because his school was 'in danger of falling off the bottom'. I kept the article because I was so impressed. He insisted that the school would come near the top of an assessment of the achievements of old boys and girls when they were 40. He believed passionately that the best and the rest could be educated together and so he would live with the poor ranking on the league tables, he was however concerned that the parents of bright children would wrongly be deterred from sending their DCs.
I can't do a link because present searches go back to 2000 and archives up to 1985 so I will quote. He was interviewed in 1998.

'Mr Nichols, formerly a master at Eton for 22 years, believes that classifying children on early exam success alone is too narrow a distinction. "Stowe now stands almost alone against a Brave New World caste culture of classifying and separating children based on early indicators of exam potential," he says.

He believes that the brightest children are not best served by being sent to a school which is exclusively for the most intelligent. Pupils are prepared better for life if they learn teamwork and rub shoulders with children of lesser academic ability.

I would love to quote the whole article but I'm not very fast at typing.
He says 'I'd love there to be a table for 40yr olds.We would ask "How well have you done with all this stuff you've learnt?"

I know nothing about Stowe school but having looked at their home page and their vision I think it is truly wonderful, particularly the bit where they say they nurture individualists rather than conformists.

Even if I had highly intelligent girls and the money I wouldn't send them to the hot house of St Pauls Girl's School but I would go and visit Stowe to see if it is a good as promised. They certainly don't test 3 yr olds!

quattro, was tying fast as my baby was destroying my office
What I meant was from what I have seen, which admittedly is not scientific just based on visiting a lot of private schools round here (we're in a hotspot), schools that don't actively select at four but use a ballot or go by first come first served have just as good a record at getting pupils into their next choice of schools as selective ones
But if you have evidence to the contrary I bow down!

One thing that is really bothering me about the 3+ assessments is this. If you were settling in a child at pre-school you would invariably be allowed to go in with them at least the first couple of times. But with some (not all) schools' assessments, children are just whisked away from their parents with someone they've never met before for an hour or so.

Surely if you're three the smarter thing to do is protest about this and NOT co-operate!?

Luckily the school ds is attending an 'informal get to know you session' for this week is happy for parents to go in with their children.

FWIW I don't particularly have any thing against the idea of some sort of interview/ assessment to check a child is suitable for that school's ethos (as much as you can tell at 3 which I agree is a little debatable). But I do feel uncomfortable about really academic selection at this stage and absolutely would never ever tutor a dc so young for something like this.

Each to their own (to a point) though.

P.s. Xenia sometimes I imagine you sitting reading the likes of the Telegraph (or if you were really stuck for nothing to do and therewas nothing else to read...the Daily Mail) too left wing!

Should read....'and finding it'

I don't see why you cannot workout who is clever at 3 or 4 as easily as at 7+ and 11+ though. And it seems to work the schools unless you think any child can be made to be bright. Many many prep schools though do not really do much academic selection - the traditional model was in effect comprehensive and then the head at age 11 and 12 has a quite work with the parents to let them know if their child is the sort that's so thick it needs to go to Aldenham, Stowe or it might make Westminster or Eton or whatever.... That system allows for not being sure at 3+ of course. Both systems exist in the private sector.

Selecting at 4 seems to work pretty well actually as the schools that do it have found. Surely any of us with a group of 3 or 4 year olds can have a fairly good idea which are the bright ones and teachers are even better at assessment.

The interesting point is whether all children can be made academcially excellent (and good at sport and music) or not. If any can then selection doesn't matter and the evironment at school means everything (and home). If not (my view) then selection is wise if you want them to fulfil themselves properly.

Yes, some children are too shy to get into some schools because they just sit and cry or kick.I thought our oldest who never settled to much and was constantly on the go and talking at 3 might find that held against her but probably because she's very outgoing it didn't and being the child of two full time working parents and used to nannies, nannies' friends, other children, nursery school etc probably helped too.

The issue of the early Autumn birthday (4 of our 5 children) is relevant too although schools try to make allowances. Massive difference in some cases between the September and August babies.

as usual this thread is just an oppertunity for those who wish to join in and bang their personal drum about private school.
My DD lovedthe whole process and was notthe slightest bit upset or disturbed by it.
The school are mahoosivley over subscribed as evidence bythe number pf parents I know personally who didn't get in.
It also happens to be a fab school where my DD is very very happy.
They may be looking for signs of SN but that is not necessarily going to exclude them - several girls have dyslexia and one girl has OCD and they were accepted.

I am no more offended by an academic school refusing children who will not cope with the education they seek to provide than I am by the notion that my DS's school would reject my DD as she has no sn and that would not be the best enviroment for her.

But at that point i too will hide so that all the happy hysterics can throw around their nonsense with impunity.

Chose the school enviroment you wish. And stop lecturing everyone who chooses differently.

Have to say I have no clue how you can tell if a child aged 3 or 4 is bright or not so I do think the whole assessment based on intelligence issue is a bit of a red herring. Surely they are only checking whether there are any key behavioural issues. How do they tell the difference between those children who have been drilled within an inch of their lives and those who haven't?

I am told my ds is 'very bright' but I really don't know what that means in reality and I probably won't until his school advises whether he should do the 11+/common entrance or not.

I think they should choose the DS who said he wouldn't pick the largest duck because he didn't like ducks! I think it shows real intelligence to refuse to jump through the hoop!

to the OP
we put our DD through the pre-prep assessment, she had just turned 3. She is a very very shy nature and never talks to strangers. The said school is oversubscribed and one of the top in the country. She went without us, wasn't too impressed but didn't cry and was away for 45 minutes. We never found out what happened - I am 100% sure she didn't say a word as she is extremely shy with strangers (although better now, but this is 1 year later now) but she got offered a place. I think they played a game and she must have interacted - it was a one on one interview, sat at a desk with some toys and books on it. That's all I know, I hope it reassures you!

I think it is much better if they see the DC on their own without the parent.

AbbeyA: in response to your comment "I don't think it has wandered off the point Dottoressa, it is saying don't put them through it!
I think it is deeply distressing that society would expect DCs to achieve at the age of 3yrs!"

Yes, of ocurse it would be distressing if we were all expecting children to "achieve" at the age of three. However, that's not what these assessments are about in my experience. To return to the OP, these so-called assessments are nothing to fear: they are on the whole merely making sure to the best of their ability that the child and school will be a good match for one another. If they aren't accepted following the assessment (not likely, on the whole), then it's not that the child has 'failed' - it's just that it's not the right school for that child!

Surely nobody, even those who detest independent schools so passionately, could argue with parents wanting their child to attend the school where they will be happiest and, by extension, be fulfilled?

But this seems to be turning into another independent-school-bashing thread, which is a pity when the OP asked a harmless question!

I find it equally strange a parent would be happy to send their chidlren to the local primay which will take all comers. Surely caring parens want their children in a school right for them rather than some general thing where you're there if your IQ if 90 or 150, whether you can sit still or can't, whether the music and sport are good or whatever. It's much better to be more bespoke about the whole thing.

The best schools that go from 4 - 18 and get 99% A - A* at GCSE are either able to make any child into a greatly academic child (which I would dispute) or children who can afford fees have clever children or they can assess properly at 4 and pick the clever children. I think the latter.

I wasn't bashing independent schools. I thought Stowe school sounded wonderful. It was the Head there who called choosing by ability a Brave New World scenario. I think it is deeply distressing to sort DCs at such a tender age. You obviously don't, so you don't need to worry about my opinion! I suppose it was the fact that people might be 'preparing' them that worried me. If I did it I would take them along and hope that the school wouldn't even speak to me but see them in complete isolation. I do think it favours articulate, sociable and chatty girls. I am not sure what they would make of a shy 3 yr old boy with his thumb in his mouth! Hopefully they would have a method of realising that he was a little gem underneath!

I love the local primary Xenia where they mix with all sorts. It makes for a well rounded pupil with great life skills. State schools can be wonderful. I choose carefully. I am very happy with our comprehensive and it has served my DCs well.

With all these circular debates about state schools producing well-rounded pupils with life skills (as opposed to all of us weirdo no-mates private school types) and private schools producing lacrosse-playing, high-earning Amazons (why didn't it have that effect on me? Humph), aren't we just back to the same old private vs state discussion?

I pity the OP for having started this off with a harmless question!