Any early signs that a child will be capable of passing 11+?

[NumptyNu]

Potentially a question for teachers really, but feel free to chip in mums and dads with any useful info and experiences. My question is, does it follow that if your child is doing well in year one or two, that you can extrapolate out a few years and assume they will be 11+ candidate? Or vice versa, would a slow reader at age 5 result in a lower potential for passing the 11+?

Is this a classic case of primary schooling being a marathon rather than a sprint? Or is there a clear correlation between bright kids at age 6 going on to 11+ success?

In key stage one the "top" group is often over influenced by age, and you often see the younger children catching up in ks2.

Also, some 11+ exams test for things that don't necessarily make you stand out at school- nonverbal reasoning for instance.

I would say in general, you start to get a feel in year 3, but there are always some quiet ones who surprise other parents, and some apparently able children who don't get in.

To Amouse,

Our LEA specifically tells schools not to prepare for 11+. Then tries to discourage tutoring! It is the most illogical situation ever.

Both my DDs are at a superselective. With DD1 her teacher in Y1 took us aside within a few weeks of the start of the year and asked if we were thinking in terms of the 7+ for the local posh schools or the 11+ for the grammar. Her assumption was that it would be one or the other, and this was based on the levels at which DD1 was working. We hadn't thought about it up to that point, because it seemed ridiculously early. But it became increasingly obvious that the 11+ was a natural route for her to take. With DD2 (who is 5 years younger, we have a DS in between) it was obvious from even earlier really - she had all the advantages of being the third child, she didn't have to wait for us to realise she was ready for more challenging books etc she just fetched them from her siblings' rooms. Thinking about the other kids who went on to the grammar in the girls' years - I think it was probably 'on the cards' quite early on for all of them. Certainly the kids in DD2's year. None of the kids who passed were surprise successes.

Our LEA specifically tells schools not to prepare for 11+. Then tries to discourage tutoring! It is the most illogical situation ever

and yet they attack parents for tutoring and wondering why private schools have more pupils passing.

I would be tackling this head on. Petitions, lobbying MP, challanging schools etc.

In key stage one the "top" group is often over influenced by age, and you often see the younger children catching up in ks2

Yes agree.

Doesn't always follow - both DDs are summer born and DD2 was the youngest in her year at primary (and now at secondary). Maybe summer borns being on the top tables in KS1 is an 11+ potential indicator? My natural tendency would be to pooh pooh the idea that summer borns are somehow disadvantaged, because I'm summer born as are my girls and none of us has ever experienced this but it's clear from the empirical evidence that some summer borns do take time to find their feet...

Well I passed the 11+ some fifty years ago, because I was scared shitless of failing, the only alternative to grammar school that I was aware of was a school that was completely underfunded, underresourced and very, very rough. So I studied like mad that year. No tutor though

DS and his year group have just been through the 11+.

Of the children that passed, I probably could have guessed all bar one. One didn't pass and that was unexpected. So all the children bar one that have been in top sets since Y2.

One passed with a very high score, but has only been in top groups since halfway through Y5 when if tales are to be believed he had four tutors.

Re the summer born thing. It depends on the child. DD is an August baby, and so am I. I was always ahead from a very early age, she isn't.

She will come into her own about age 14-15 I think. She had always done things on her timescales. Too late for 11+.

I think you can tell a child capabilities really early, in fact as early as reception.
I don't think it goes to follow they will naturally reach your prediction as there are obviously several other factors that influence the outcome.
In terms of capabilities though you can tell if a child is naturally academic, if they find certain subjects easy.
Some children only need to be shown something once others may need more than this.
I also think you can help if they are naturally bright by encouraging them with toys that support learning from word searches to Sudoku, jigsaws, wooden puzzles and maths games.
None of my children have had the potential even if we had spent thousands on tutors, there talents were/are in different areas.
My dh passed 11+ but many years ago, and went to a state grammar school.

I think that a lot can change in those early years. Dd1 really struggled to read and do maths. It was only towards the end of yr2 that it clicked into place but since then she has progressed 3 sublevels each year. I am still not sure if she will pass 11+ but she is overtaking children in reading who were free readers sooner as she has good comprehension skills and reads a wide variety of challenging books. Also she has learnt to persevere with something.

In the early days there are slow starters and also kids that start well but then flag.

However if a child is working 2 years ahead at the end of year 2, he will probably be two years ahead in year 6 and therefor grammar material

All the year 2 gaining a level 3 in sats got Grammar school places in year 6

I taught a group of 4-5 exceptionally bright children in a yr 1 class. It was no surprise that all of them passed the 11+ and went to the local grammar schools. But there were another 2 in the same class who weren't in that group at that point who just grew into their potential later and also passed.

So I would say some children you can tell by 5-6 but there will always be others who are slower at getting going sometimes due to their age and sometimes others who've had a lot of early input stall and slow down.

Don't believe anyone who says you don't need tutoring.Read,read and then do some more reading.

It would be interesting to look at the statistics of how many children who pass 11+ attained level 3 by the end of KS1.

My guess is there would be a strong correlation, but without the figures it is only a guess. Have the been any data published on this?

There is bound to be a correlation because lvl 3 at KS1 isn't that unusual. 50 -60% of children get it here. It doesn't really differentiate between those with GS potential from those who don't - some of the LVL 3 wouldn't make it surely? If we had GSs round here they couldn't have taken all of them.

I think the poster very early on who said " well educated parents" probably speaks a lot of sense.

Educated parents support education, model good language and study skills to their offspring etc and I'm sure that makes a difference . I'm sure there is an inheritable element as well. They also probably have a few spare £ for tutoring.

Round here as BBB says level 3 at KS1 isn't rare at all- 50%? grammars take 10% here so that doesn't help.

Did I know my kids were grammar material- not initially as I didn't know where the goal posts lay etc with the eldest. Later on yes, of course I did ( I remember asking in year 3 to get a tentative hushed " well she should try " from one teacher- LA policy was not o promote grammars.... and am older teacher almost took me behind the bike sheds to tell me of course she should and it would be ideal for her!)

My Mum teaches reception and she says that early on it's very hard to tell a naturally bright child from a well prepared one. Perhaps preparedness is, in itself, a sign that the child will do well at 11+ though as it probably means they come from a household that encourages their learning.

Just as I said I have very different non identical twins.1 level 3 across the board and 1 not.Both rocked the 11+.

It made diddly squat difference.

There are 4 years between the exams,schools differ as do teachers.Kids mature at different rates.The 11+ tests on different things.Schools aren't interested in their verbal reasoning skills,vocabulary or even their ability to write a quality timed essay let alone the content.Even the 11+ reading comp differs hugely different to the comps done in school.

At 7 twin 1 was more interested in the sandpit than writing.

Both twins were very able readers early on (free readers in rec/year 1). I wonder if that helped.They are also very good alrounders.

There is bound to be a correlation because lvl 3 at KS1 isn't that unusual. 50 -60% of children get it here
That is much higher than national levels. Eg, 2013 stats:
Reading 29%
Writing 15%
Maths 23%
Even if there is a clear correlation between this and passing the 11+, it does not mean there will not be anecdotal anomalies.
Also it will not indicate whether the children achieved either result by innate intelligence or parental input to their education.

Agree the best thing to do is read read read

Interesting question... in my opinion, children who are not doing at home any reading, writing or maths practise to reinforce what is taught in the classroom or to address misconceptions wouldn't have a chance succeeding in the 11+. Sharp and quick answers in test papers will not come naturally for some children, so that's where tips from tutors are useful. Reading daily helps the children expand their knowledge and vocabulary, however, reading is not enough... time tables, and general knowledge is also important, Writing and punctuation too. Therefore, starting slowly and making small steps from an early stage is best rather than over stretching an average or below average child whose spellings, punctuation, grammar and maths skills are weak in year 5. I will say that a child is considered above average if His/her reading, writing and maths are a level 2a/3c at the end of Year 2. Passing an 11+ test is another matter. Verbal and Non-verbal reasoning are not part of the National curriculum so will cost you money to hire a tutor or pay for various books and resources. I hate test who require filling in the gaps or ticking boring shapes! I find it very irritating and dull way of proof of ability.

The super elite grammars will be taking kids with CATS scores of about 140

Superselective requirements vary from county to county
Exams vary from county to county eg some place heavy emphasis on VR, some on Maths

Lots of comments on this thread are very sweeping generalisations.